We won't give piece of Auschwitz back, say USA

[Broomstick]

So why don't you give those items back now that the Egyptians are spending resources to safeguard their heritage?

You mean, like plundering museums during their recent uprising?

If you want to make "those people are too irresponsible to protect these items" part of your argument I'm fine with that. I'm not convinced [insert nationality of your choice here] would behave any better in warfare, uprising, or revolution but then you could argue such events are less likely in Europe than in country in X, Y, or Z.

However, saying "they used to use mummies for firewood" isn't much of an argument when for centuries various Europeans would import ground-up mummy for use in medicines (done at least until the 1500's). Whether you burn them or eat them it destroys the archeological and historical value of mummies. True, the Europeans stopped destroying them and started valuing them sooner than the Egyptians did, but it's not like they've always been valued.

Oh, and ground up mummy was used in some artist's paints that were used up to the 1800's. England used to grind up animal mummies in Egypt and use the results for fertilizer. It wasn't that long ago everyone was destroying mummies for various purposes.

Nice of you to preserve them, thank you, but we all know that many of those items were acquired under shady circumstances. Since when is theft excused by "but I treated the items better than the original owner"?

How about you actually show which artifacts were acquired illegally? Maybe then there would be some merit to your anti-european tangent here.

You mistake my dislike of thieves in general for a dislike of European thieves. That would apply to any museum acquisitions that aren't legal. There has been a bit of a hue and cry in US museums about Natives demanding the return of objects, especially bodies, that weren't properly acquired. The museums are being forced to make the returns even if leaves bare spots and displays. Tough shit, it's wrong to steal. Put up a card discussing the moral and ethical problems of past practices and create a replica to look at. I'm totally behind that.

However, we are discussing a matter that involves a European nation.

Even if I think it was foolish of Poland to loan a building (or part of one) for a short term to a museum on another continent, if the agreement was for only 5 years, or 20, and that time is up then Poland is completely in their rights to demand their property back. I think it's encouraging that the two museums are discussing how to resolve the problem rather than simply refusing to speak with each other. The US Holocaust museum apparently has been in full compliance with returning more portable objects, so their concerns about the fragility of the building likely has some basis in truth rather than a greed to keep a valuable object. I don't think Poland wants a pile of splinters back, they want an intact building. I don't doubt that either Poland or the US are fully capable of arranging reasonably safe transport for the item, but any time an object of that sort travels you risk it being damaged or destroyed because accidents happen: planes crash, boats sink, land transport has accidents that are purely that. While a two week time period to return a painting or collection of looted clothing is ample in today's world moving a building may well take longer just for a safe means of transiting the Atlantic and most of the European land mass even if the planning is done well in advance.

MY solution would be to arrange for return of the authentic barracks to Poland and have them stay there because that would seem to be in accordance with the original intent of the original agreement, and it solves arguing about it in the future. Then I'd built an authentic-as-possible replica for the US museum. But that's me trying to be sensible.

Or, if discussing the past abuses of other peoples' artifacts by Germany touches a sore spot with you,

Bitch queen of passive-aggressive much?

Oh, please - if I have to endure criticism of my nation's past and present sins you can cope with your nation's baggage. Germany has been one of the worst offenders in recent memory, although I applaud the post-war generations work to fix what they can of that.

why are so many Greek marbles still sitting in British museums? Again, acquired under shady circumstances at best. Sure, if they had been left in Greece they might have been quarried for building material.

Or blown up during exercises, used as feeding throughs in stables, used as inscriptions etc. The latter two are still ongoing in Greece btw. Not to mention the recent theft of artifacts from what was allegedly one of the most modern and safest museums. Suddenly going "well, we care now" after treating things like crap for over 1500 years does not hold a lot of weight with me, especially with continued incompetence in a lot of those countries when it comes to safeguarding them and national interest fluctuating wildly according to whoever despot is in charge.

So you're arguing they're too stupid and irresponsible to take care of their own stuff. We'll just ignore shit like Napoleon's army shooting the nose off the Sphinx and what Europe used to do to mummies as long ago. Yes, Europe is stable now but WWII did mean we lost some valuable artifacts and buildings in Europe, and that was only around 70 years ago. Neither side gave much of a fuck what they bombed.

Maybe we should distribute some types of cultural artifacts as widely as possible so war or natural disaster won't wipe them all out - but by that I mean distributed to every continent, not just one that is currently stable but has had past periods as chaotic and destructive as anywhere else.

Egypt for example planned to flood a large part of their national history a few decades ago (you should be old enough to remember, but maybe you were just to poor to afford TV back then) and only massive international pressure and donations saved the temples.

Which were saved by moving them, not saving them in situ. Yes, I remember. The Egyptians valued the perceived benefits of the Aswan dam over the monuments because they thought improved Nile navigation, improved agricultural results, and electrical power for a couple million living people was more important than some rocks carved thousands of years ago by long dead people. I can sort of see their viewpoint, as someone sitting on the roof of a flooded house in the dark (because your village was never electrified) likely is more concerned with having just lost all their possessions how the fuck are they going to eat this year what with the fields being washed away because the Nile got happy this year than they are with old monuments that can't feed or house their hungry children.

Being able to give a fuck about antiquity is a luxury. It's a First World problem. Even people who value, says, books are likely to burn them for warmth if the alternative is death by freezing. Much of Europe has been fortunate enough to be wealthy enough to be able to worry about preserving the past, but those same people have sharply criticized people in other places who are so busy trying to survive that "preserving monuments" isn't even on the list of stuff to do in a lifetime. People will very seldom put a pile of rocks ahead of feeding their kids or building shelter for their families.

With Abu Simbel the West did the right thing - those who were so concerned about the monuments put up the money and effort to relocate them. Funny, though - they didn't relocate them to Europe or the US, they relocated them to higher ground nearby so they remained in their nation of origin. Seemed a very reasonable solution to me under the circumstances.

You couldn't resist putting in a dig about my current poverty, but maybe you should try it some time. It might give you a different perspective on matters. It might make it more understandable why poor people would use an abandoned ancient temple for building materials rather than go through the more considerable effort and expense of quarrying fresh stone when they have little and their existence is precarious.

The best way for the West/First World/whatever to preserve old monuments is to demonstrate that keeping them intact is more valuable than other potential uses. Egypt started valuing their old ruins when people started paying to see them and their value as tourist attractions exceeded their value as building materials.

Which is getting a bit off track in this case - the US and Poland both value the past and this is really an argument over whether it's better to move a building or leave it in place, and the legalities involved. Is it better to adhere to the letter of the law and risk potential damage/loss, or to put safety first and either ignore or modify the laws involved? Add in some politics and emotions and we get the current mess.

On the other hand, they might have been obliterated during the Blitz while staying in England. There's risks no matter where you park a cultural artifact.

Sure, but the risks are vastly minimized in an area where local farmers do not use the artifacts for firewood or disposable pieces, or where the government does not plan to flood the artifacts.

That's because those safer areas are wealthier and have the luxury of worrying about such things.

I'd say that 500 years ago the Egyptians who used mummies to keep warm or cook food were on higher moral grounds than Europeans eating them in medicines or making paint out of them, as keeping warm and cooking food are much more immediate and universal needs. Bravo the Europeans stopped doing that, but meanwhile Egyptian peasants still needed to keep warm and cook their food. Oddly enough, Egypt seems to have more dead bodies available for burning than trees. I suspect that when other fuels became cheaper than mummies Egyptians switched, because I don't think they got their jollies out of burning their dead ancestors, I think they were making decisions based on needs and economics.

More consistent agricultural yields, improved river trade, and electricity, not to mention tourism to see the old stuff lying around, has given modern Egyptians more leeway to give a damn about antiquities than they had 100 years ago. Easy for you to bitch about their choices, you weren't the one sitting in the dark wondering if the Nile would be too high or too low this year and how you'd eat if things went wrong.

How the heck has WWII anything to do with this? Is this merely an angry response due to *gasp* a German daring to criticize the mighty USA? Like all the other Europeans are bastards BS thread tangent you pulled in this thread?

You feel free to throw mud at my country any time you want, and criticize anyone who tries to defend the US for any reason. You even started a thread about getting your daily dose of anti-Yankeeism. But you can't handle someone pointing out that yes, Germany fucking looted all manner of objects from the rest of Europe during their WWII rampage? Yes, you come off like an American criticizing race-based slavery and race-based discrimination somewhere else in the world.

Instead of getting your panties in a bunch try something like "Yeah, we sure fucked up but we've tried to learn from that. Don't be like us in 1940, do the right thing. Be better than we were." It's not being anti-German or anti-European to point out the fact that European nations have taken shit from others in the past, and the irony of them making that accusation towards others. Of course, even ironic things may be entirely factual and true.

[mr friendly guy]

How about you actually show which artifacts were acquired illegally? Maybe then there would be some merit to your anti-european tangent here.

Not that I think the US should keep things (I believe it should give it back to Poland as per the agreement they signed), but if you want to go down the route, how about Chinese artefacts acquired by British and French troops during the second opium war. I hear China is keen to have them back.

Of course Broomstick said that artefacts were acquired through shady methods, rather than illegal per se. Since the reason China can't get these looted artefacts back was that a law requiring return of them only applied to artefacts which were taken after IIRC the 1980s, and certainly not something taken in the 19th century. But I am sure you don't think looting artefacts as part of a war, where you try to force the other side to buy narcotics, which the government don't want, is anything but shady, even if it may be legal under British law for all I know.

[Metahive]

How about you actually show which artifacts were acquired illegally? Maybe then there would be some merit to your anti-european tangent here.

Not that I think the US should keep things (I believe it should give it back to Poland as per the agreement they signed), but if you want to go down the route, how about Chinese artefacts acquired by British and French troops during the second opium war. I hear China is keen to have them back.

Of course Broomstick said that artefacts were acquired through shady methods, rather than illegal per se. Since the reason China can't get these looted artefacts back was that a law requiring return of them only applied to artefacts which were taken after IIRC the 1980s, and certainly not something taken in the 19th century. But I am sure you don't think looting artefacts as part of a war where you try to force the other side to buy narcotics which they don't want is anything but shady, even if it may be legal under British law for all I know.

I'm sure that'll happen as soon as China gives Tibet back to the Tibetans.

[mr friendly guy]

While we are at it, lets have Whites move out of Australia, NZ, and the US and back to Europe, er I mean give the land back to the indigenous people. Or maybe the UK give Northern Ireland back to Ireland, considering Tibet was annexed by the Qing only a few years after Ireland was incorporated with the British.

This Tibet tangent really has nothing to do with Thanas point about which items Europeans stole from others.

[Metahive]

While we are at it, lets have Whites move out of Australia, NZ, and the US and back to Europe, er I mean give the land back to the indigenous people. Or maybe the UK give Northern Ireland back to Ireland, considering Tibet was annexed by the Qing only a few years after Ireland was incorporated with the British.

This Tibet tangent really has nothing to do with Thanas point about which items Europeans stole from others.

It has everything to do with it when you appeal to The Sins of the Fathers (TM). Either you apply it consistently or not at all. If Britain and Germany need to shut and pay up because they were imperialists in the past well, then so has China and most other greater nations. If China wants its artifacts back, it should lead by example and return its illegally or violently obtained goods first.

Of course, this whole tangent came about because Broomstick decided to treat Europe as just one big homogeneous block in which Poland now apparently inherited France's, Germany's and Britain's past sins despite the fact that it's one of those nations that were in history regularly shat upon by their neighbours making the comment completely inappropriate. At least she acknowledged that and that should have ended the tangent. Instead we got more Euro-bashing.

[Grumman]

We'll just ignore shit like Napoleon's army shooting the nose off the Sphinx and what Europe used to do to mummies as long ago.

That's good, because someone was writing about the loss of the nose back in the 15th century, and there were drawings of the noseless Sphinx published before Napoleon was even born.

[Simon_Jester]

It has everything to do with it when you appeal to The Sins of the Fathers (TM). Either you apply it consistently or not at all. If Britain and Germany need to shut and pay up because they were imperialists in the past well, then so has China and most other greater nations. If China wants its artifacts back, it should lead by example and return its illegally or violently obtained goods first.

I think we can safely break down the argument and separate territory from cultural artifacts. One "sins of the fathers" argument being valid wouldn't have to make all possible arguments like that valid.

[Ziggy Stardust]

This entire side-argument of countries like Egypt not having the right to historical artifacts because they "aren't going to treat them right" is way too close to White Man's Burden. "These poor brown people can't possibly be trusted to do this themselves! Well, us white people will help them out by doing it for them." It's a slippery slope.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I'm going to take some flak for this, but fuck it.

From the article, it sounds to me like the ones being unreasonable here are the Poles.

This is how I'm seeing it

POLAND: The loan on the barracks is up, give it back.

HOLOCAUST MUSEUM: Umm, we're not sure we can move it without destroying it. Do you have any ideas how we could do that?

POLAND: GIVE IT BACK NOW!!!111! Hey everybody! Look how mean America is, they won't give back a historic artifact! TIME'S UP, YANKS, GIVE IT BAAAACCK!!


And of course, if we just ripped it down like a random barn and gave it back to the Poles completly trashed, the headline would be "U.S. DESTROYS HOLOCAUST MONUMENT." After reading this thread, I'd be tempted to do just that, like "You want it back? Here you go. Sorry its now a couple of shipping containers full of broken peices, but we did tell you we didn't think we could move it without trashing it, you didn't seem to care. We're no longer in violation now, right?" Would that be a better course of action than what the Holocaust museum is currently doing, Thanas, Irbis?

[DPDarkPrimus]

I'm curious as to why the US doesn't invite the Poles to come and inspect the barracks here?

[Ziggy Stardust]

POLAND: GIVE IT BACK NOW!!!111! Hey everybody! Look how mean America is, they won't give back a historic artifact! TIME'S UP, YANKS, GIVE IT BAAAACCK!!

Honestly, I don't think the Poles are that upset about it. Obviously, they want it back and everything, but so far this seems to be a case of the media just trying to spin a story out of what's probably a pretty routine legal wrangle. It's obvious that the loan is expired, but also that it was renewable, and that neither side is just thumbing their nose at the other.

[El Moose Monstero]

I'm going to take some flak for this, but fuck it.

From the article, it sounds to me like the ones being unreasonable here are the Poles.

This is how I'm seeing it

POLAND: The loan on the barracks is up, give it back.

HOLOCAUST MUSEUM: Umm, we're not sure we can move it without destroying it. Do you have any ideas how we could do that?

POLAND: GIVE IT BACK NOW!!!111! Hey everybody! Look how mean America is, they won't give back a historic artifact! TIME'S UP, YANKS, GIVE IT BAAAACCK!!


And of course, if we just ripped it down like a random barn and gave it back to the Poles completly trashed, the headline would be "U.S. DESTROYS HOLOCAUST MONUMENT." After reading this thread, I'd be tempted to do just that, like "You want it back? Here you go. Sorry its now a couple of shipping containers full of broken peices, but we did tell you we didn't think we could move it without trashing it, you didn't seem to care. We're no longer in violation now, right?" Would that be a better course of action than what the Holocaust museum is currently doing, Thanas, Irbis?

Juvenility and America-Fuck-Yeh aside, how about if I come and borrow your lawn mower for 6 months, maybe I pay you for renting it or we come to some general agreement about it, but then I hang on to it for for a year and then turn around and say 'oh, it's pretty broken now, I might as well keep it' when you ask for it back. Regardless of whether it might be true, it does demonstrate pretty bad faith. Why didn't they return it when they realised that it's condition was getting bad enough that it wouldn't survive the journey?

That and what Ziggy said about what's probably a minor spat between museums and a government office being turned into some sort of international incident by bored medias on either side.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I'm going to take some flak for this, but fuck it.

From the article, it sounds to me like the ones being unreasonable here are the Poles.

This is how I'm seeing it

POLAND: The loan on the barracks is up, give it back.

HOLOCAUST MUSEUM: Umm, we're not sure we can move it without destroying it. Do you have any ideas how we could do that?

POLAND: GIVE IT BACK NOW!!!111! Hey everybody! Look how mean America is, they won't give back a historic artifact! TIME'S UP, YANKS, GIVE IT BAAAACCK!!


And of course, if we just ripped it down like a random barn and gave it back to the Poles completly trashed, the headline would be "U.S. DESTROYS HOLOCAUST MONUMENT." After reading this thread, I'd be tempted to do just that, like "You want it back? Here you go. Sorry its now a couple of shipping containers full of broken peices, but we did tell you we didn't think we could move it without trashing it, you didn't seem to care. We're no longer in violation now, right?" Would that be a better course of action than what the Holocaust museum is currently doing, Thanas, Irbis?

Juvenility and America-Fuck-Yeh aside, how about if I come and borrow your lawn mower for 6 months, maybe I pay you for renting it or we come to some general agreement about it, but then I hang on to it for for a year and then turn around and say 'oh, it's pretty broken now, I might as well keep it' when you ask for it back. Regardless of whether it might be true, it does demonstrate pretty bad faith. Why didn't they return it when they realised that it's condition was getting bad enough that it wouldn't survive the journey?

Except its not like you borrowed my lawnmower for six months and kept for a year, its like you borrowed if for six months then kept it for an extra week, because your kid lost the keys to your shed or something, and they're not saying, "Welp, its busted, we might as well keep it, kthxbai," They're saying "We can't move it without breaking it, we assume you don't want it back broken, what should we do?"

As for why they didn't give it back when it started getting too bad to move? That was probably years ago, before the loan was up, before the law changed so it would have to go back, when they could just get the loan renewed so it wouldn't have to be moved in the first place.

[El Moose Monstero]

Yeh, I suppose I responded to your overblown statement with one of my own. Still, I feel like the key statement "Both the Museum and our Polish partners have been actively discussing various proposals, and we remain committed to continue working with them to resolve this matter" quoted from the OP kinda flies in the face of your one-sided portrayals (and mine).

[mr friendly guy]

It has everything to do with it when you appeal to The Sins of the Fathers (TM). Either you apply it consistently or not at all. If Britain and Germany need to shut and pay up because they were imperialists in the past well, then so has China and most other greater nations. If China wants its artifacts back, it should lead by example and return its illegally or violently obtained goods first.

I am pretty sure Germany paid reparations for both world wars, is still paying holocaust survivors and cultural items it looted is being returned as they are discovered. All without the victors (US, Britain etc) having to give up their "violently or illegally obtained goods". It all comes back to applying the same standards. If some nations gets that benefit (of having looted artefacts return without giving up territory), other nations could be forgiven for asking, why not me?

We both know if the shoe was on the other foot, and say large sums of money / goods was somehow stolen from say, the EU or US tomorrow, and the thief took refuge in <insert country here>, you would not be telling Europe or the US to give up its "violently or illegally obtained goods" first and lead by example if it wanted the stolen items back. I highly doubt you would also consider territory in the same vein as money. Either you apply it consistently or not at all.

Of course, this whole tangent came about because Broomstick decided to treat Europe as just one big homogeneous block in which Poland now apparently inherited France's, Germany's and Britain's past sins despite the fact that it's one of those nations that were in history regularly shat upon by their neighbours making the comment completely inappropriate. At least she acknowledged that and that should have ended the tangent. Instead we got more Euro-bashing.

Except when Thanas asked which artefacts Europe acquired, which I suppose opened up the tangent further.

[Metahive]

I am pretty sure Germany paid reparations for both world wars, is still paying holocaust survivors and cultural items it looted is being returned as they are discovered. All without the victors (US, Britain etc) having to give up their "violently or illegally obtained goods". It all comes back to applying the same standards. If some nations gets that benefit (of having looted artefacts return without giving up territory), other nations could be forgiven for asking, why not me?

O my god, compare a map of 1890 with a map of 1990, you',ll notice that Britain used to have quite a lot more territory under its knuckle which it all had to give up. As did France, Spain and so and so forth. That was a bad move.

We both know if the shoe was on the other foot, and say large sums of money / goods was somehow stolen from say, the EU or US tomorrow, and the thief took refuge in <insert country here>, you would not be telling Europe or the US to give up its "violently or illegally obtained goods" first and lead by example if it wanted the stolen items back. I highly doubt you would also consider territory in the same vein as money. Either you apply it consistently or not at all.

If somebody stole the British crown jewels, what territory should Britain give up to be "justified" in your opinion to demand them back? Refer to the above, the British colonial empire is no more.

Wales maybe?

Of course, this whole tangent came about because Broomstick decided to treat Europe as just one big homogeneous block in which Poland now apparently inherited France's, Germany's and Britain's past sins despite the fact that it's one of those nations that were in history regularly shat upon by their neighbours making the comment completely inappropriate. At least she acknowledged that and that should have ended the tangent. Instead we got more Euro-bashing.

Except when Thanas asked which artefacts Europe acquired, which I suppose opened up the tangent further.[/quote]
You chose a bad example. China has been taking protection money (which included works of art) for its racket for centuries from the nations surrounding it when it didn't absorb their territories outright while it had the upper hand. Why do you think China's filled with 50+ minorities? China vs. European Imperialists has neither on the moral high ground in my opinion.

[Broomstick]

It has everything to do with it when you appeal to The Sins of the Fathers (TM). Either you apply it consistently or not at all. If Britain and Germany need to shut and pay up because they were imperialists in the past well, then so has China and most other greater nations. If China wants its artifacts back, it should lead by example and return its illegally or violently obtained goods first.

I am pretty sure Germany paid reparations for both world wars, is still paying holocaust survivors and cultural items it looted is being returned as they are discovered.

Last I heard, everything openly looted by the German government in power in WWII was returned long ago. The issue now is what's in the hands of private citizens. A lot has been given back, but some is believed to still be held illegally - the problem is knowing who has it as no one these days is publicly advertising they own Nazi-looted stuff. And some of what is believed to be stolen might well have been destroyed, either during the war or afterward.

Giving back territory can be more complicated than giving up objects. For example, let's say we give North America back to the Natives. Where do you put the displaced people?. That would be over a third of a billion people. Perhaps the Natives will allow those who can prove descent, or those married to same, to stay but that would still leave hundreds of millions displaced. Where do they go? Do we forcibly distribute them across the rest of the world? Execute them? What?

Some things can't really be amended.

However, when Native groups go to a museum and say "Hey, you've got our stuff, it was stolen from us." it should at least be given a fair hearing. As I said, in the US in recent years the courts have sided with the Natives and museums have had to give stuff back, even if they legally bought the objects if it turns out the goods actually were stolen in the first place the Natives get it back. So, while in the past there were some pretty bad abuses the law is not only reversing that trend but it is actually being enforced around here. If the Poles did bring the US Holocaust museum into American courts to sue to get their building back, bringing their original agreement with them, I can't image the courts doing anything other than siding with Poland over this. Which gets back to the media spin and distortion machine - when we dug a little further it really did seem that there was delay in return out of concern of damaging the item as much as anything else and the two entities in the dispute were actually already discussing how to resolve the problem(s).

Yes, there probably are some people who want it to stay in the US. Too bad. I don't see the courts/law being on their side.

All without the victors (US, Britain etc) having to give up their "violently or illegally obtained goods". It all comes back to applying the same standards. If some nations gets that benefit (of having looted artefacts return without giving up territory), other nations could be forgiven for asking, why not me?

The problem is that not all acquisitions were blatantly illegal.

For example, in Chicago we have the U-505 submarine. It is very definitely a German boat, made in Germany by Germans and for Germans. We captured it in WWII. OK... it is a spoil of war, is that a legal acquisition? Or should it be returned to Germany? Does Germany even want it? (I'm sure it has significant historical value to them) If we dragged it from the ocean to Chicago we certainly could send it back if necessary. Have we even asked Germany about this? Have they asked us?

Rinse and repeat for every war any time and anywhere.

Even outside of items acquired during warfare, determining legality or even who to return it to can be problematic. When I was doing stuff at the Field Museum in Chicago during college I was sketching human skeletons out of their anthropological collection. I asked the curator of the human skeletons about where the one in front of me had come from? Who was this person? He looked a little uncomfortable about the question, looked up the item number and said he the only information was that the specimen was collected from flood victims in India. Um... did someone raid a mass grave? Was he "donated" or "sold" by relatives? If he was, was there coercion of some sort involved or not? Was he ever identified, were his relatives even asked, or was his entire family wiped out and the locals were happy to have the white guys cart off one or three of the too many bodies lying around the local area? None of this was recorded, it happened many decades ago. What records were made in the first place - damn few - were sketchy at best and many have been lost since. Rinse and repeat for the majority of all human specimens in museums around the world. Even if we wanted to document that this one skeleton was legally acquired we can't - there is simply not enough to go on. Neither can anyone prove it wasn't legally acquired. The curator did comment that modern acquisition of specimens had slowed down greatly because laws were now enforced and you had to follow the rules. The downside is, of course, fewer specimens. He did point out that the upside was that what was acquired typically had much better information accompanying it which often made it more useful.

That's what I meant by "shady circumstances". For a lot of stuff you can't prove actual theft one way or the other. Certainly going forward we should all behave ourselves better than in the past. We're always going to have circumstances where more than one party wants the same item, and times where more than one party feels they have a claim - see Otzi the Ice Man. Ideally, we will settle these matters by calm discussion, negotiation, and if necessary rulings in courts of law. Of course, some of the losers in those situations will be severely butt-hurt over it, but that's a price we'll have to pay for better behavior.

[mr friendly guy]

O my god, compare a map of 1890 with a map of 1990, you',ll notice that Britain used to have quite a lot more territory under its knuckle which it all had to give up. As did France, Spain and so and so forth. That was a bad move.

Don't be dishonest, it doesn't become you.

You know very well we are talking about physical items being return, all without countries having to give up territory which was stolen. I don't think Britain gave us its territory in return for stolen items, if it did, which ones as I will be interested to know. If that was the case, all the IRA had to do was steal some items of cultural significance and demand independence, and Britain would fold.

If you are going to argue that because Europe has given up its colonial possessions, it is thus entitled for its stolen goods to come back, you should realise Britain haven't given everything back, and Europe even today still have border disputes with each other. Of course border disputes aren't confine to Europe, but you get the point.

If somebody stole the British crown jewels, what territory should Britain give up to be "justified" in your opinion to demand them back?

This is a strange path to take considering it was YOU, not I who said that stolen physical items eg cultural items should be given back in return for stolen territory. Why you asking me to justify a claim you made, while at the same avoiding my question?

My point is, I suspect you aren't applying your logic that "stolen items should be returned if stolen land is too" consistently. The fact you answer my question by asking me to justify a claim you made is already suspicious.

So I will ask you again. Since we are on the Crown Jewels, lets use that as an example. If they were stolen, should Britain give up its "stolen territory", say Northern Ireland in return for a chance to have it. If the answer is no, the question becomes why is China expected to.

Refer to the above, the British colonial empire is no more.

If I was flippant I could point out the larger* Tang and Qing dynasties are no more either. But this won't matter to you, because its clear to refer to these stronger dynasties further down in your post.

* larger refers to bigger than the modern PRC, and not larger to the British Empire.

You chose a bad example. China has been taking protection money (which included works of art) for its racket for centuries from the nations surrounding it when it didn't absorb their territories outright while it had the upper hand. Why do you think China's filled with 50+ minorities? China vs. European Imperialists has neither on the moral high ground in my opinion.

I don't think they have the moral high ground versus each other. Which is why I ask the same standard to be applied. So if something if stolen from Europe should be returned without giving up stolen territories for it, then fuck yeah any country including China is entitled to ask for the same treatment.

[mr friendly guy]

Last I heard, everything openly looted by the German government in power in WWII was returned long ago. The issue now is what's in the hands of private citizens. A lot has been given back, but some is believed to still be held illegally - the problem is knowing who has it as no one these days is publicly advertising they own Nazi-looted stuff. And some of what is believed to be stolen might well have been destroyed, either during the war or afterward.

I am glad that some items have been returned. Which of course feeds in to my other point. If its considered "right" for looted Nazi items to be returned, then arguably the same reason applies equally for other nations asking for cultural items to be returned which were taken by force.

Giving back territory can be more complicated than giving up objects. For example, let's say we give North America back to the Natives. Where do you put the displaced people?. That would be over a third of a billion people. Perhaps the Natives will allow those who can prove descent, or those married to same, to stay but that would still leave hundreds of millions displaced. Where do they go? Do we forcibly distribute them across the rest of the world? Execute them? What?

Some things can't really be amended.


However, when Native groups go to a museum and say "Hey, you've got our stuff, it was stolen from us." it should at least be given a fair hearing. As I said, in the US in recent years the courts have sided with the Natives and museums have had to give stuff back, even if they legally bought the objects if it turns out the goods actually were stolen in the first place the Natives get it back. So, while in the past there were some pretty bad abuses the law is not only reversing that trend but it is actually being enforced around here. If the Poles did bring the US Holocaust museum into American courts to sue to get their building back, bringing their original agreement with them, I can't image the courts doing anything other than siding with Poland over this. Which gets back to the media spin and distortion machine - when we dug a little further it really did seem that there was delay in return out of concern of damaging the item as much as anything else and the two entities in the dispute were actually already discussing how to resolve the problem(s).

These are all good reasons why I don't think we should view giving back cultural items in the same vein as giving back stolen territory. In fact only Metahive seems to hold this position, and I suspect he only applies it selectively.

The problem is that not all acquisitions were blatantly illegal.

Thats a good point. However I was careful to mention artefacts which were blatantly looted.

[Thanas]

Last I heard, everything openly looted by the German government in power in WWII was returned long ago. The issue now is what's in the hands of private citizens. A lot has been given back, but some is believed to still be held illegally - the problem is knowing who has it as no one these days is publicly advertising they own Nazi-looted stuff. And some of what is believed to be stolen might well have been destroyed, either during the war or afterward.

I am glad that some items have been returned. Which of course feeds in to my other point. If its considered "right" for looted Nazi items to be returned, then arguably the same reason applies equally for other nations asking for cultural items to be returned which were taken by force.

I don't think we can really claim a protection of cultural artifacts/treasures from looting until it was universally agreed in law that it was not okay to loot them during a time of war because during those times it was pretty much customary. That does not excuse it due to dubious morality but until the law of war changed I really cannot see much legal grounds here.

Who said he was lying you idiot? That was your strawman. What I said, and what it states in the original article is that the Polish authorities said that they're perfectly willing to re-loan the barracks out once it comes back to Poland. My point was that this is stupid and that they should amend the law so that they can send inspectors over instead of moving the structure.

So when you said:

Yes, because I'm sure being from Poland makes him the authority on all things Polish. Just like I know every single deal and comment that every museum director in the US has made. If the article says that Poland, or its representitives have said that they're willing to make a deal for its return to where it is after it's brought home for this inspection, I tend to believe the article.

You actually meant he was talking out of his ass about things he did not know about, which is totally not lying? Explain that one.

[Block]

You actually meant he was talking out of his ass about things he did not know about, which is totally not lying? Explain that one.

Yes he was talking out his ass because the article posted, that he was quoting, said the opposite of what he was saying, so he didn't read it properly.

[Thanas]

So why don't you give those items back now that the Egyptians are spending resources to safeguard their heritage?

You mean, like plundering museums during their recent uprising?

If you want to make "those people are too irresponsible to protect these items" part of your argument I'm fine with that. I'm not convinced [insert nationality of your choice here] would behave any better in warfare, uprising, or revolution but then you could argue such events are less likely in Europe than in country in X, Y, or Z.

Thank you for conceding.

However, saying "they used to use mummies for firewood" isn't much of an argument when for centuries various Europeans would import ground-up mummy for use in medicines (done at least until the 1500's). Whether you burn them or eat them it destroys the archeological and historical value of mummies. True, the Europeans stopped destroying them and started valuing them sooner than the Egyptians did, but it's not like they've always been valued.

That is a perfectly valid argument for why the Europeans until the 1500s should not have been trusted with the mummies either. It is not a valid argument as to why the Egpytians of 1900 should be trusted with the mummies more than the British/French archeologists.

You mistake my dislike of thieves in general for a dislike of European thieves.

So when you went on a wild tangent of how Poland is in the wrong here due to past European acts or Zhe evil Germans you were just bloviating on and on because you could? Well, thanks for wasting my time then.

However, we are discussing a matter that involves a European nation.

Which did not even exist during the colonialism period, a fact you were too ignorant to know but apparently googling it was too much of a hindrance. Gotta post. Gotta post.

Or, if discussing the past abuses of other peoples' artifacts by Germany touches a sore spot with you,

Bitch queen of passive-aggressive much?

Oh, please - if I have to endure criticism of my nation's past and present sins you can cope with your nation's baggage. Germany has been one of the worst offenders in recent memory, although I applaud the post-war generations work to fix what they can of that.

I see the point went over your head again. Your tangent about German abuses is completely unnecessary and your attempt to imply that I am "sore" when it comes to past German abuses is insulting. But given that it is you I am not surprised you are still continuing on this tangent.

So you're arguing they're too stupid and irresponsible to take care of their own stuff.

The expected reaction: Missing the point and also strawmanning. Never change, because you are special, Bwaamie.

No, what I am saying is that they have a very poor track record when it comes to safeguarding their cultural heritage and that they might be better off actually starting to do so with what they have before demanding returns and focusing much needed resources on one or two highlight pieces only. What is more important, saving eight temples who are not cared for right now or a single fresco which is already cared for?

We'll just ignore shit like Napoleon's army shooting the nose off the Sphinx

You better as that never happened, but I should have expected such ignorance from you.

Maybe we should distribute some types of cultural artifacts as widely as possible so war or natural disaster won't wipe them all out - but by that I mean distributed to every continent, not just one that is currently stable but has had past periods as chaotic and destructive as anywhere else.

Maybe we should, if you can show how this is even feasible.

Being able to give a fuck about antiquity is a luxury. It's a First World problem. Even people who value, says, books are likely to burn them for warmth if the alternative is death by freezing. Much of Europe has been fortunate enough to be wealthy enough to be able to worry about preserving the past, but those same people have sharply criticized people in other places who are so busy trying to survive that "preserving monuments" isn't even on the list of stuff to do in a lifetime. People will very seldom put a pile of rocks ahead of feeding their kids or building shelter for their families.

Of course it is a luxury. All of history is a luxury.

With Abu Simbel the West did the right thing - those who were so concerned about the monuments put up the money and effort to relocate them. Funny, though - they didn't relocate them to Europe or the US, they relocated them to higher ground nearby so they remained in their nation of origin.

You might want to educate yourself before you speak.

You couldn't resist putting in a dig about my current poverty, but maybe you should try it some time. It might give you a different perspective on matters.

I tried poverty. Trailor park property in the USA, even. Don't assume that just because I do not feel the need to remind everybody about it everytime that I never went to school hungry or do not know what food stamps are.

It might make it more understandable why poor people would use an abandoned ancient temple for building materials rather than go through the more considerable effort and expense of quarrying fresh stone when they have little and their existence is precarious.

I am sure your poverty has been giving you very insightful insight into how Egyptians lived for over 2000 years (or heck, Europeans for over 900 years. Or maybe you might recognize for once that I very well know the reasons for it and that I am not going all "we should immediately kill/forcibly relocate all Egyptians because those damned people cannot appreciate art". What I am arguing against is shipping back additional stuff if they cannot protect the stuff they still have.

The best way for the West/First World/whatever to preserve old monuments is to demonstrate that keeping them intact is more valuable than other potential uses. Egypt started valuing their old ruins when people started paying to see them and their value as tourist attractions exceeded their value as building materials.

No, actually they started to value the old ruins even further back, but thank you for this false history, no doubt the source of it being a gut feeling. They started valuing them at the end of the 19th century. They just couldn't do much due to a multitude of reasons.

Sure, but the risks are vastly minimized in an area where local farmers do not use the artifacts for firewood or disposable pieces, or where the government does not plan to flood the artifacts.

That's because those safer areas are wealthier and have the luxury of worrying about such things.

Yes. Your point being, from a safety perspective? Or were you just explaining things everybody already knows?

I suspect that when other fuels became cheaper than mummies Egyptians switched, because I don't think they got their jollies out of burning their dead ancestors, I think they were making decisions based on needs and economics.

Sure they were. Your point being, from a safety perspective? Or were you just explaining things everybody already knows?

More consistent agricultural yields, improved river trade, and electricity, not to mention tourism to see the old stuff lying around, has given modern Egyptians more leeway to give a damn about antiquities than they had 100 years ago. Easy for you to bitch about their choices, you weren't the one sitting in the dark wondering if the Nile would be too high or too low this year and how you'd eat if things went wrong.

What is this, some kind of "you heartless bastard. Think of the poor Egyptians" spiel? Missing the point again, dearie.

How the heck has WWII anything to do with this? Is this merely an angry response due to *gasp* a German daring to criticize the mighty USA? Like all the other Europeans are bastards BS thread tangent you pulled in this thread?

You feel free to throw mud at my country any time you want, and criticize anyone who tries to defend the US for any reason. You even started a thread about getting your daily dose of anti-Yankeeism. But you can't handle someone pointing out that yes, Germany fucking looted all manner of objects from the rest of Europe during their WWII rampage? Yes, you come off like an American criticizing race-based slavery and race-based discrimination somewhere else in the world.

So I was right - this is all you not being able to stomach me critizising your country for not following an agreement and accusing me of being anti-american. I also see that you are unable to distinguish between a joke title in testing (posting a link to a comic that makes regularly fun of Germany to boot) and real posts.

You got me. I admit it. I get jollies from criticizing the USA. Nothing makes me happier than posting stories about all the stuff your country does wrong. I spent my free time throwing darts at pictures of US presidents and wish all Americans would just die in a fire.
Spoiler

Sarcasm.

GTFO.

Instead of getting your panties in a bunch try something like "Yeah, we sure fucked up but we've tried to learn from that. Don't be like us in 1940, do the right thing. Be better than we were." It's not being anti-German or anti-European to point out the fact that European nations have taken shit from others in the past, and the irony of them making that accusation towards others. Of course, even ironic things may be entirely factual and true.

See, when you make a post in a thread about a dispute between two nations only to go "THOSE OTHER TWO NATIONS WHO ARE NOT EVEN PART OF THE DISCUSSION DID SUPER EVIL THINGS" it is a worthless thread tangent. What makes it even worse is that you then tried to paint Poland as hypocrites by association, which is doubly hilarious considering you were too ignorant to even know the basic European history of said country not existing at that time.

[Thanas]

You actually meant he was talking out of his ass about things he did not know about, which is totally not lying? Explain that one.

Yes he was talking out his ass because the article posted, that he was quoting, said the opposite of what he was saying, so he didn't read it properly.

No, it is you who did not properly read Irbis post, which clearly stated at the end of it:

Some details missing from here: from here US museum claims that returning of the barracks will damage their exposition, making it "less authentic", does not intend to return it despite lease period ending in 2009, and threatens to sue/withdraw payments promised earlier (15 mln $) if the Auschwitz Museum in Poland doesn't back off.

Which in fact did exactly state what he was saying.

[mr friendly guy]

I don't think we can really claim a protection of cultural artifacts/treasures from looting until it was universally agreed in law that it was not okay to loot them during a time of war because during those times it was pretty much customary. That does not excuse it due to dubious morality but until the law of war changed I really cannot see much legal grounds here.

Thats what I suspected. The morality is dubious and weak, but those who wish to keep their gains will argue on legal grounds.

[Thanas]

I don't think we can really claim a protection of cultural artifacts/treasures from looting until it was universally agreed in law that it was not okay to loot them during a time of war because during those times it was pretty much customary. That does not excuse it due to dubious morality but until the law of war changed I really cannot see much legal grounds here.

Thats what I suspected. The morality is dubious and weak, but those who wish to keep their gains will argue on legal grounds.

Well, sure. Looting in war time is pretty much evil but for a large part of human history it was how all states paid their troops. So I don't really see any moral party in the right/wrong here until we get to the Hague laws. I mean, to bring up the specific examples of china you cited, how far back are we going here? Do we allow claims by the Koreans as well due to chinese expansion/tribute system? Does Mongolia owe the Chinese for the loot their ancestors took? If the evil act was considered legal by all participants and even customary/expected then why condemn one side for doing it when the other side would happily do the same had they but the means? We can consider any state doing so evil now because we showed with the Hague conventions that we have evolved from those times, but what is the reason for going beyond it?

Or, going back to Europe, how much does Italy owe the rest of "Old" Europe considering they looted/enslaved most parts of it? There has to be a limit simply due to sheer practicality and I consider the Hague Conventions a perfect starting point.

Have you got a better solution?