What’s the opinion on certain high risk countries where there’s a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed? If I remember correctly ISIS and other similar organizations have burned or bombed several historical sites before.
Museums should participate in cultural exchange, if a museum feels under threat then they have channels they can trust to protect their artifacts until they can be returned
If you run a museum in Afghanistan and are afraid that the Taliban is going to execute you unless you destroy some blasphemous statue, are you going to risk your life to send the artifact to the British Museum, or are you just going to destroy it? Yeah, some heroes will definitely risk their lives, but most won’t.
The alternative isn’t “nothing”, it’s getting precious cultural artifacts out of high risk countries where there’s a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed.
The only opinion that should matter is that of the people the artifacts belong to.
Which people? The government? So in Afghanistan it’s up to the Taliban? If you don’t trust that the government of a country represents the will of the people, then how do you determine what the people want?
And, again, which people? Is a totem pole in a museum in Canada the property of the Canadian people? Or is it something that belongs to the Haida people, and it doesn’t matter what other Canadians want? If it is up to the Haida, it is up to the Council of the Haida Nation, or is it up to the band the original artist belonged to?
What about a Tatar artifact found in Donetsk? Who gets control over that? Is it the Russians since they occupy Donetsk? The Ukrainians because they used to occupy it? Do you have to study the blood of various Ukrainian people to figure out who has the most surviving Tatar DNA?
What if some of the locals want it taken away for protection, but the government wants it destroyed?
There’s no clear ‘owner’ in many cases. I think it places where it’s uncertain, then we should prioritize saving the artifacts over the ones that seek to destroy them.
You will never be able to get everyone to agree on anything and you can’t hold a referendum for every artifact.
So as far as responsibility goes, barring edge cases, it should be left upto the government to decide, as they represent the people.
And tbh, this feels like an argument made in bad faith, because this is such a rare case. No government is going to ask for an artifact back and then destroy it. What happened in afganistan and Syria was a tragedy (they didn’t ask for those artifacts back, they were already there) But that only happened because the previous governments had been destabilized by Russian and American influences. (Iraq war - Isis, Afganistan war - alqaeda)
There’s no clear ‘owner’ in many cases.
Just return it to the country where it was taken from. And I don’t think there are many cases where ownership is vague, most are pretty plain and clear.
then we should prioritize saving the artifacts over the ones that seek to destroy them.
That’s not on you, that’s on their original keepers. Otherwise you are propagating colonial era crimes and justifying them by arguing in bad faith.
P.s.
Museums have a notorious record when it comes to maintaining artifacts (they aren’t shining beacons of humanity), especially the British museum.
They also do less than what’s needed to discourage artifact smuggling.
We have to be extremely wary of people who cite that because it’s so easily used as a justification for artifact theft and can have deep roots in racism.
What’s the opinion on certain high risk countries where there’s a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed? If I remember correctly ISIS and other similar organizations have burned or bombed several historical sites before.
Museums should participate in cultural exchange, if a museum feels under threat then they have channels they can trust to protect their artifacts until they can be returned
If you run a museum in Afghanistan and are afraid that the Taliban is going to execute you unless you destroy some blasphemous statue, are you going to risk your life to send the artifact to the British Museum, or are you just going to destroy it? Yeah, some heroes will definitely risk their lives, but most won’t.
Better than nothing
The alternative isn’t “nothing”, it’s getting precious cultural artifacts out of high risk countries where there’s a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed.
How do you think consent works?
If they are consenting then that’s just my suggestion already
Who’s consenting?
https://lemmy.ca/post/46606223/17326690
The only opinion that should matter is that of the people the artifacts belong to.
“It’s safer with us” is an excuse that’s been abused by colonizers and raiders for too long.
Which people? The government? So in Afghanistan it’s up to the Taliban? If you don’t trust that the government of a country represents the will of the people, then how do you determine what the people want?
And, again, which people? Is a totem pole in a museum in Canada the property of the Canadian people? Or is it something that belongs to the Haida people, and it doesn’t matter what other Canadians want? If it is up to the Haida, it is up to the Council of the Haida Nation, or is it up to the band the original artist belonged to?
What about a Tatar artifact found in Donetsk? Who gets control over that? Is it the Russians since they occupy Donetsk? The Ukrainians because they used to occupy it? Do you have to study the blood of various Ukrainian people to figure out who has the most surviving Tatar DNA?
You mean most governments?
What if some of the locals want it taken away for protection, but the government wants it destroyed?
There’s no clear ‘owner’ in many cases. I think it places where it’s uncertain, then we should prioritize saving the artifacts over the ones that seek to destroy them.
You will never be able to get everyone to agree on anything and you can’t hold a referendum for every artifact.
So as far as responsibility goes, barring edge cases, it should be left upto the government to decide, as they represent the people.
And tbh, this feels like an argument made in bad faith, because this is such a rare case. No government is going to ask for an artifact back and then destroy it. What happened in afganistan and Syria was a tragedy (they didn’t ask for those artifacts back, they were already there) But that only happened because the previous governments had been destabilized by Russian and American influences. (Iraq war - Isis, Afganistan war - alqaeda)
Just return it to the country where it was taken from. And I don’t think there are many cases where ownership is vague, most are pretty plain and clear.
That’s not on you, that’s on their original keepers. Otherwise you are propagating colonial era crimes and justifying them by arguing in bad faith.
P.s.
In many cases there is no owner, they’re from a completely separate culture that happened to occupy the same region in the past.
deleted by creator
If you’re suggesting a daring heist at the Smithsonian, I’m in!
We have to be extremely wary of people who cite that because it’s so easily used as a justification for artifact theft and can have deep roots in racism.
That’s the question. Where is the line between racism and artifact protection?
Presumably somewhere between racism and artifact protection.