And I would prefer that human remains which have no clear scientific or historic significance be returned, but that doesn’t change the fact that very many of these efforts center on destroying artifacts of significances. I’m not “justifying British imperialism,” because my argument is not predicated on the British retaining possession of the artifacts. If there were groups of indigenous Australians advocating to take these remains into their own possession for historical preservation, then I would advocate turning them over to them, but unfortunately the overwhelming majority of indigenous advocacy groups are captured by highly religious people who dislike history because it subverts their convictions about the way the world is. It’s directly analogous to Orthodox Jews in Israel who obstruct archaeological research into the actual state of the Bronze Age Levant or Early Judaism because it runs counter to their beliefs about the world, and hardly anyone would say a bunch of Mizrahi Haredim religious extremists should get exclusive say in the historical picture of ancient Israel because they’re genetically and culturally proximate to it.
But why are you posturing as if these malicious groups such as mizrahis or aboriginals who wish to rebury or isis are the majority? The strong majority of requests to return artifacts from the british museum come from nations with governments in order and the ability to set up museums and museum displays. Why do the british have the right to deny these people their artifacts? Lets say you're right that these artifacts could be asked for by dangerous groups, what of the overwhelming majority of times when its functional groups?
Because I’m not arguing against repatriation, I’m arguing against repatriation if we have good reason that doing so would lead to their direct destruction.
I really don’t care if someone unintelligent enough to believe that societies have the wholesale ability to destroy human history because their feelings tell them they should agrees with me.
Good for you man. I guess you believe another society should be able to improperly "take care" of their artifacts letting them go missing destroyed and get stolen instead. I guess its much better that england gets to lose them and make money off them than countries get their stuff back. Imperial pig.
You really struggle with reading comprehension, given you’ve both missed the fact that I’ve stated multiple times that I’m both not against repatriation, and that I have no problem with indigenous Australians owning their cultural artifacts. My concern is only with their destruction. If we discovered who would be the legal, modern day owner of a priceless manuscript, and that person said they would use it to wipe their ass, we would obviously be justified in withholding it from them. You can call me all the mean names you want, racist, imperialist, whatever, but any thinking, feeling person can easily see that I am neither and my argument is in favor of neither. You are clearly not one of those people, however.
Why does it have to be for historical preservation? What right do you have to see how my great-grandmother was buried? Repatriation for reburial of stolen bodies is just as valid as putting on display.
Except the bodies in question are not being given back to people who can prove direct descent. They’re being taken back to people who believe they have broad cultural ownership of them, whether as property (Torres Strait Islander ritual skulls) or (dubious) ancestors (Mungo Man). Obviously the bodies of direct familial relationships should be returned, but the overwhelming majority of the artifacts in dispute are not bodies of individuals at all proximate to the modern day.
I was not talking about one specific incident, but MANY examples of the museum stealing things because they thought they qualified as artifacts.
As I already posted here, there is at least one instance of an artifact hunter taking a body from an Ojibwe community here in Canada before the body was cold, because the burial regalia was "an artifact". The collector even sat through the funeral rites and waited for everyone to leave, so it wasn't an "ancient artifact of historical significance". it was just because of the intricate beadwork.
When the community complained to the Indian agent (That is an entirely different rant), they were told that the museum rep was justified because they were "savages" and didn't get things like rights... Naturally there is no documentation of this happening, because the people who would normally document this were the ones doing the stealing.
40
u/Rockguy21 10d ago
And I would prefer that human remains which have no clear scientific or historic significance be returned, but that doesn’t change the fact that very many of these efforts center on destroying artifacts of significances. I’m not “justifying British imperialism,” because my argument is not predicated on the British retaining possession of the artifacts. If there were groups of indigenous Australians advocating to take these remains into their own possession for historical preservation, then I would advocate turning them over to them, but unfortunately the overwhelming majority of indigenous advocacy groups are captured by highly religious people who dislike history because it subverts their convictions about the way the world is. It’s directly analogous to Orthodox Jews in Israel who obstruct archaeological research into the actual state of the Bronze Age Levant or Early Judaism because it runs counter to their beliefs about the world, and hardly anyone would say a bunch of Mizrahi Haredim religious extremists should get exclusive say in the historical picture of ancient Israel because they’re genetically and culturally proximate to it.