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

[Broomstick]

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.

It was not, however, a valid argument for the Egyptians of 2000 (debatable again, of course, with recent uprising/unrest in Egypt). Which might have something to do with why Egypt currently wants to keep strict control of who digs what and where, what does and does not leave their country, and why they'd even like some of the stuff back.

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.

Wild tanget? Historically, Europe nations haven't been much better than other places, and at times they were worse. Why should people in other nations automatically trust a particular European nation in such matters? Because you say so?

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.

And you miss my point that no one's hands are clean in these matters and going "hur, hur, Americans won't give stuff back!" is hypocritical.

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?

Ah, White Man's Burden again. Or Imperial Man's Burden. Something of the sort. No one else is capable of safe-guarding artifacts outside of the Highly Educated Elite.

So, how many years of good behavior is required from a nation before said nation can be trusted with its own cultural heritage? And who decides that requirement?

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.

As an American I am no doubt much too stupid and irresponsible to put such a plan into action. Clearly it will need to be directed and guided by someone much more civilized educated cultured capable. Maybe the Chinese, they've had a long history and lots of culture... oh, wait, they lost their cred mid-20th Century, right? I'm so easily confused...

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

Yes you criticize nations much less wealthy than yours that put the survival of their currently living citizens ahead of ancient monuments. You don't see a contradiction there?

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.

I was referring specifically the the Abu Simbel bas reliefs that were relocated to a nearby location, hence I used the term Abu Simbel rather than, say "Temple of Taffeh" or "The Chapel of Ellesija". I will also point out that Temple of Dendur was given as gift by Egypt and thus would not fall under "looting". The Temple of Taffeh was given as gift by Egypt to the Netherlands and thus would not fall under "looting". The Temple of Debod was given as gift by Egypt to Spain and thus would not fall under "looting", and your own cite specifically says that this was in return for relocating Abu Simbel. And, finally, The Chapel of Ellesija was given as gift by Egypt to Italy and thus would not fall under "looting". All of those monuments were given openly by the Egyptian government, as far as I can tell there was no coercion involved, and thus would not apply as disputed artifacts. Those monuments left Egypt with the consent of Egypt, not because someone snuck them out, looted them in wartime, bought them on the black market, or violated a valid contract to acquire them.

But hey, just admit you don't know the difference between "giving" and "stealing". Or just admit you used poor examples for your argument this time.

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.

And some of those reasons had to do with European imperialism and Europeans feeling they could come in and take stuff because, you know, those Egyptians are so incapable. In other words, people who were causing some of the problems then turned around and used the existence of those problems to justify taking stuff.

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

Well, it's not like I, personally, have seen any sign of you having a heart. More like "you heartless bastard, try having some empathy for people different than you."

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.

And yet, it seems that both the US Holocaust Museum - which is NOT "my country" but a single museum, hey, feel free to smear 300,000,000 people for the actions of, at most, 400, most of whom are menials like security guards and thus have zero say in what happens - and the Poles have sat down to discuss concerns on safely moving this object rather than, say, dragging it into court. In other words, it turns out this isn't OMIGOD AMURICUNS CAN'T BE TRUSTED!!! but the media looking to sell cornflakes, as usual, by "spinning" this into much more conflict than it actually is.

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.

Didn't it occur to you that the title might offend someone? Yes, it's funny, har-har-har. One man's humor is another man's slur.

Why do you assume I didn't look? Why do you assume I wasn't offended? Saying "makes fun of Germany, too" is not that far off from "... and some of my best friends are black." I saw enough of it to make up my mind. I didn't like it. I didn't say anything at the time because it's a free message board and you are free to say what you want. However, saying "it's a joke" doesn't excuse it. So... have your fun, laugh it up with your buddies, but don't expect the object of your humor to always find it as funny as you do.

[Broomstick]

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?

If everyone considers the act legal then as a general rule no, we shouldn't condemn it.

However, the tide was turning before the Hague conventions. If it wasn't, there wouldn't have been a Hague convention. (Let's ignore that pretty much everybody who agreed to the convention in 1899 was violating most if not all of it by 1915, at least the parts referring to what was and wasn't OK to use in warfare.)

By WWII the US official policy was against war time looting, especially of cultural artifacts (there were, of course, violations of that policy by some individuals. That no more invalidates the policy than the violations of laws by some individuals invalidate particular laws). The Axis powers seemed to regard looting as OK. They lost. If the Axis had won the majority of nations still in existence in such a world might all lean towards looting being OK, as winners tend to set the tone going forward (at least until the next big reset). The Allies winning had a lot to do with present attitudes.

Or, going back to Europe, how much does Italy owe the rest of "Old" Europe considering they looted/enslaved most parts of it?

At the time these events occurred did the nations involved regard such practices as usual, customary, and ethical on the part of an invading army? There have been times and places where the expectation was that a conquering army would loot everything valuable, kill the men, rape the women, and enslave whoever was still alive the next morning, and it was "legal" in that sense.

Is the present nation/government comprising Italy the same as when these events occurred? While some people would hold a group responsible unto the nth generation the world seems to be staggering away from that sort of thing.

So... I would say that the Italy of today is not in any way responsible for looting conducted by Ancient Rome. At the time, the wartime convention was, as you pointed out, looting as a form of payment for the troops and the practice was pretty universal, and the government of then is completely different than the government of now. Present day Italy isn't responsible for something that occurred in a different form of Italy, at a time the act wasn't considered illegal or even particularly icky.

Pretty much anything a couple hundred or a thousand years or more in the past isn't something that can be redressed. Stuff that happened in the last few centuries, though, might be where it applies. The closer to the present the stronger the argument that looting was wrong and stuff should be given back. Take an antiquity from a location today without the proper permission and permits today it's clearly illegal. It's everything in between "last Tuesday" and "thousands of years ago" where things can get sticky.

The looting that went on in WWII was reversed to a large extent because the victors insisted on it (well, mostly the US and UK did - I haven't researched it but it wouldn't surprise me if Stalin kept whatever he could). I guess that most of the "you have our stuff, give it back."/"no we don't, it's our and we're keeping it." items exchanged hands before 1939 because after the 1940's international agreements and attitudes had swung more towards legal acquisition as we understand it rather than looting, and frowning on looting in wartime. (Wikipedia say 90 countries have ratified the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, which was first signed in 1954 and was a response to the looting that went on in WWII)

There has to be a limit simply due to sheer practicality and I consider the Hague Conventions a perfect starting point.

I don't know if it's "perfect" but it would seem to be a good starting point.

[mr friendly guy]

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?

I am not sure if this is doable, but I would like your input. Presumably when you talk about compensating back loot all those years ago, you are talking about the equivalent monetary value in today's currencies, correct? This is very hard to do practically since a lot of the loot is presumably destroyed (ie gold that was spent, cultural items that were destroyed etc), making it very difficult to place a monetary value on it.

For artefacts which have not been destroyed it shouldn't be a problem by virtue that they still exist. For these things to be returned, we a) don't need to calculate a monetary value (even if its $1000 or $1 million, they other side wants it back irregardless) so its not a problem b) if its not being used to generate much income, arguably the cost of the present owner isn't so great, especially if say its a museum.

So in terms of practicalities, returning of artefacts which still exist (no matter how far back) seems much easier to do than working out a monetary value for loot taken, which may have been destroyed etc.

[Thanas]

It was not, however, a valid argument for the Egyptians of 2000 (debatable again, of course, with recent uprising/unrest in Egypt).

It is more than debatable, they are clearly not able to do so in their current political climate.

Which might have something to do with why Egypt currently wants to keep strict control of who digs what and where, what does and does not leave their country, and why they'd even like some of the stuff back.

Again your ignorance about this topic is showing. They did that even while they were a British "protectorate".

Wild tanget? Historically, Europe nations haven't been much better than other places, and at times they were worse. Why should people in other nations automatically trust a particular European nation in such matters? Because you say so?

Because if said nation does not have a history of plundering art in the time period we are discussing here due to them not existing and/or being oppressed then the history of other European nations is completely immaterial. Which is why using the German past to generate distrust against the Polish is not only stupid but also completely besides the point. Last I checked, the number of colonies held by Poland was 0.

And you miss my point that no one's hands are clean in these matters and going "hur, hur, Americans won't give stuff back!" is hypocritical.

Actually, the Polish hand is completely clean when it comes to these matters due to them not being a nation, a nation state or anything else during the time period discussed. How the heck can they be oppressors if they were the one being oppressed and the ones having their art stolen over two centuries and during two world wars? Your continued yadda about Poland being just like any other European nation (and picking the German Reich of all things as a "valid" comparison) just reveals your ignorance.

Ah, White Man's Burden again. Or Imperial Man's Burden. Something of the sort. No one else is capable of safe-guarding artifacts outside of the Highly Educated Elite.

If you are too stupid to recognize that proper safeguarding of artifacts and architectural treasures requires a lot of resources and knowledge how to do so then that is not my problem. Yes, dearie, preserving millennia-old buildings is harder than just building a fence around it (though amazingly, not even that is done in most cases).

So, how many years of good behavior is required from a nation before said nation can be trusted with its own cultural heritage? And who decides that requirement?

Ah, the good old attempt to redefine the attempt of arguing against pointless and dangerous restoration in a political crisis zone as "trying to take away the cultural heritage". Man, you sure know a lot about straws.

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.

As an American I am no doubt much too stupid and irresponsible to put such a plan into action. Clearly it will need to be directed and guided by someone much more civilized educated cultured capable. Maybe the Chinese, they've had a long history and lots of culture... oh, wait, they lost their cred mid-20th Century, right? I'm so easily confused...

So instead of showing a feasibility for your own plan you resort to showmanship. Stay classy....oh wait.

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

Yes you criticize nations much less wealthy than yours that put the survival of their currently living citizens ahead of ancient monuments. You don't see a contradiction there?

No, I criticize them for demanding stuff back that would serve no purpose other than to take away resources from stuff that needs protecting/feeding their citizenry. How is putting additional strain on resources going to go be of any help there?

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.

I was referring specifically the the Abu Simbel bas reliefs that were relocated to a nearby location, hence I used the term Abu Simbel rather than, say "Temple of Taffeh" or "The Chapel of Ellesija". I will also point out that Temple of Dendur was given as gift by Egypt and thus would not fall under "looting". The Temple of Taffeh was given as gift by Egypt to the Netherlands and thus would not fall under "looting". The Temple of Debod was given as gift by Egypt to Spain and thus would not fall under "looting", and your own cite specifically says that this was in return for relocating Abu Simbel. And, finally, The Chapel of Ellesija was given as gift by Egypt to Italy and thus would not fall under "looting". All of those monuments were given openly by the Egyptian government, as far as I can tell there was no coercion involved, and thus would not apply as disputed artifacts.

The point is that if you are focusing only on Abu Simbel you are cherrypicking one example out of a very large and very important program, as well that your point about the artifacts staying in Egypt was inaccurate. Nice attempt to backpedal.

Also, none of the pieces from Egypt we are talking about here were looted. You really do not know how things worked back then, do you? Back then, specific contracts were signed, stating that the European expeditions had to bear the costs of excavations in return for getting to keep half of the artifacts. The Egyptian authorities got the right to pick which half they wanted to keep. Pray tell me what of that is looting, especially since the authorities back then could (and did) refuse dig permits. It is a very complex issue and the involvement of foreign experts in the department of antiquities was quite extensive and protective as well, so you can go take your ridiculous oversimplification of looting and smoke it.

But hey, just admit you don't know the difference between "giving" and "stealing". Or just admit you used poor examples for your argument this time.

See above, amusingly you are the one who does not know the difference here.

Well, it's not like I, personally, have seen any sign of you having a heart. More like "you heartless bastard, try having some empathy for people different than you."

Well, better having no heart and a working mind than the opposite, hmm dearie?

And yet, it seems that both the US Holocaust Museum - which is NOT "my country" but a single museum, hey, feel free to smear 300,000,000 people for the actions of, at most, 400, most of whom are menials like security guards and thus have zero say in what happens

Amazing how you have no problem slandering an entire nation for things it never did (Poland) but get offended when a much lower measure is taken, eh dearie?

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.

Didn't it occur to you that the title might offend someone? Yes, it's funny, har-har-har. One man's humor is another man's slur.

If the sarcastic use of "anti-yankeeism" (a made up term to boot) is offensive to you then I apologize that I wasn't able to express myself more clearly so that you would be able to understand the sarcasm. I understand that my word choice and use of my wit might sometimes be confusing and hard to understand for you. In the future, however, please do not be afraid to speak up and say "I did not understand what you meant by this. Could you please elaborate more so that I can follow you?"

Why do you assume I didn't look? Why do you assume I wasn't offended?

This is offensive to you? Yet you don't feel you comparing Poland trying to get it's things back and legitimate exploration contracts to looting as offensive? Maybe you should start to learn how to receive before you start to dish out?

[Thanas]

I am not sure if this is doable, but I would like your input. Presumably when you talk about compensating back loot all those years ago, you are talking about the equivalent monetary value in today's currencies, correct? This is very hard to do practically since a lot of the loot is presumably destroyed (ie gold that was spent, cultural items that were destroyed etc), making it very difficult to place a monetary value on it.

Well, it should be trivially easy if we know what it was spent on. Under this argument, China should probably return a good chunk of the Wall or the Forbidden City to Korea since at least part of the chinese state income was due to the tributary system...Britain should dismantle its industries and give a large part of it to the Indians considering we know full well what profit they gained from india (thanks to record keeping even down to the last penny) etc. Just because the original gold does not exist anymore does not mean the gain from that has evaporated.

There also exist tables for Today's equivalent of ancient/medieval payments of gold and silver, so we could use those to calculate how much wealth was pulled from those countries back then....

For artefacts which have not been destroyed it shouldn't be a problem by virtue that they still exist. For these things to be returned, we a) don't need to calculate a monetary value (even if its $1000 or $1 million, they other side wants it back irregardless) so its not a problem b) if its not being used to generate much income, arguably the cost of the present owner isn't so great, especially if say its a museum.

There is a problem in that of course you need to calculate a monetary value if you are arguing on a moral basis of "if you took something, you got to give it back". Otherwise things that were taken that had an enormous value and impact back then (say, silk) would be pretty much inconsequential in being returned. In other words, the moral wrong would not be righted.

So in terms of practicalities, returning of artefacts which still exist (no matter how far back) seems much easier to do than working out a monetary value for loot taken, which may have been destroyed etc.

If we go back the path of restitution then one should be forced to give back all that was ever taken and the impact should be the same as it was back then. Of course that is impractical which is why no state actor goes far in demanding it.


I myself am of the opinion that if it was legal to take things back then and if such a right was recognized by all participants back then, it should not be made retroactively illegal now. Only when you have the majority of nations condemning a practice should it be considered illegal and result in damages paid in case of it still existing. None of that makes a practice moral or immoral, but morality should not have an effect on legality per se (see for example rightwing christian principles of the US which I think we all agree should not allow to dictate legality).