This is an absurd argument. It reads as a self serving rationalization of cultural appropriation. They didn’t value what they had and can’t be trusted with it today. As if the only option is to give objects back to poor or corrupt governments. Even if true that doesn’t mean people are undeserving of their past. How about strengthening local non-governmental institutions to care for these objects?
>As if the only option is to give objects back to poor or corrupt governments. Even if true that doesn’t mean people are undeserving of their past. How about strengthening local non-governmental institutions to care for these objects?
Right, and if that doesn't work, or until that works, is it morally objectionable to hold on to those objects? Is it truly the right thing to return items to governments that can't guarantee their safety or don't hold those items to the same values? What's the better choice here? Preserving anthropological history of mankind or respecting the wishes of hereditary descendants? What if they don't give a shit about their past? Does the rest of the world need to be deprived of the history of humanity because the current, local, inhabitants don't care for their own? Your solution is to teach them to care, which is hilariously just as colonialist and culturally "appropriatiative" as the person you're replying to.
>Your solution is to teach them to care, which is hilariously just as colonialist and culturally "appropriatiative" as the person you're replying to.
Don’t put words in my mouth. There is an obvious difference between imposing one’s views and capacity building.
EDIT: As in financial support, advising governance structures, conservation training. Supporting institutions who already deeply care.
>What if they don't give a shit about their past?
Is that really the case?
Last time I checked Greece was keenly interested it’s past and wanted their antiquities back.
While Rishi was saying they were a “huge asset” to the UK. Please :eyeroll:
>As in financial support, advising governance structures, conservation training. Supporting institutions who already deeply care.
IS literally teaching them how to care. But whatever
>Is that really the case?
Yeah. Consider any country in the ME that sees artifacts prior to the Prophet Muhammad's existence heresy. Destruction of artifacts in Iraq. Destruction of artifacts in Syria. Afghanistan famously rid itself of Buddhist statues and artifacts in the not-too-distant past.
Even in the Western world, countries regularly deface and destroy statues and historical sites because prior political beliefs and mores run contrary to today's moral standards. Here's a fairly recent example:
>"After years of controversy, the society will remove all human names for bird species, including those linked to people with racist histories.
>Their goal is to create a more inclusive environment for bird-watching fans.
>Seventy to 80 birds will be renamed.
>"Exclusionary naming conventions developed in the 1800s, clouded by racism and misogyny, don't work for us today, and the time has come for us to transform this process and redirect the focus to the birds, where it belongs,"
Is literally erasing the history of people who studied and catalogued these bird species because their moral standards don't fit with our current worldviews today.
Does it belong to specific groups of people alive today, or does it belong to humanity as a whole?
If I’m interested in Chinese history should I be forced to go to communist China? If I’m interested in Assyrian history should I be forced to risk my life and head to Iraq?
The custodians of historical objects have a moral obligation to ensure that they are displayed for the benefit of as many humans as possible, and that is certainly something that could be improved.
The enforcement of inter-civilization property rights across time is in my opinion a not a moral obligation.
This is the ultimate question. Who owns an object that is so old that the chain of ownership can't be easily reconstructed? Is it the country that controls the land where it was created? Is it the country that owns the land where it was last legally held? Do we apply modern laws or the laws of the time when determining this?
Or is it the descendants of the culture that created it? Is this the cultural descendants? Is it the literal descendants of the people living in the area where it was created, at the time it was created?
There are almost certainly more people of British descent living in the United States today than there are living in Great Britain. Should the United States demand a larger share of our cultural history from Great Britain?
At some point we have to realize that any method we pick is going to, in large part, be arbitrary.
>BIO-CAT, Inc. -- a Virginia-based biotech company specializing in breakthrough enzyme product development -- has announced a global partnership with Kerry, the Taste & Nutrition company and their BIO-CAT Microbials, LLC probiotic products division. Effective June 2021, Kerry will lead the sales, marketing, and distribution of BIO-CAT's proprietary probiotic strain, OPTI-BIOME MB40®.
>OPTI-BIOME MB40® (Bacillus subtilis ATCC122264) is a non-GMO, highly-stable probiotic strain that the company says is an ideal ingredient for a wide array of dietary supplements and other related uses.
… non-GMO? How do you manage that? Is a culture considered non-GMO as long as you’re just pipetting colonies around and hoping for the them to be stressed the right way to evolve something useful?
Yeah right. Because smart people can always control the circumstances of their life like an illness, elder care, affordable housing, change in market conditions, etc.
That’s not the point. Dignity and respect. Going in a different direction? Fine. Make cuts. But, no one deserves to be treated as disposable playthings. Zero communication and unreasonable demands create anxiety. Contrast this to stripe. I fail to see how one’s income determines the respect they should receive.
