The British museum (and other museums) preserve what would have otherwise been destroyed had it remained wherever they took it from. The nations they recovered artifacts from probably don't even exist anymore. The artifacts only survive because the museum discovered them.
Wales, Chile, Greece, China and Egypt aren't countries? That's news to me. Its even more surprising since all of those imaginary countries have museums that hold ancient artifacts that did survive the British museum's "preservation".
Even if you accept the argument that the British Museum "saved" these artifacts, what argument is there now to keep them? Greece has gone so far as to build an entire world class museum in anticipation of the return of the artifacts they claim.
Sarcastically: If there is real concern about these artifacts wouldn't it make sense to remove them from an insular island monarchy with unstable governance and a declining economy?
China, destroyed whole of things during "Cultural Revolution". "Cool and traditional" you see there is just there as a tourist attraction.
Countless ancient sites and artifacts were destroyed during the Syrian civil war.
Egypt...they literally created art destruction before Christianity and then Christianity really speed things up. Look up "Pharaonic Iconoclasm". Then there was take two in 13-14th centuries. Many monuments were destroyed to reuse materials.
Nearly every country that was under communism rule long enough had their heritage destroyed.
Too lazy to lookup Chile and Greece, but I bet Greece would be a pretty different relationship with its past if KKE won.
While Brits did steal a lot, can't argue that they did preserve plenty.
If China wants to destroy their cultural heritage, that's their right. Same with Syria, Egypt, India, Africa, wherever. No one owes colonizers the gift of their heritage, culture or artifacts.
Sure, the British preserved plenty, but that isn't relevant when none of it was theirs to preserve.
In the case of Syria, it wasn't a conscious choice, it was their civil war. Specifically, it was ISIS doesn't care about any of that cultural heritage, but many other people still do. Why should the most destructive attitude overrule all others?
In many other cases, it was a dictatorship trying to amp up their perceived legitimacy by destroying traces of the past. Again, not exactly a conscious choice of the people living there.
I'm not defending British cultural robbery, but your argument isn't any better.
I'm not arguing that the most destructive attitude should overrule all others - that would be an implicit argument in favor of the colonizers who did far more damage than ISIS ever did. I'm arguing that that cultural transactions should be voluntary and mutually beneficial. It wasn't the conscious choice of anyone to be colonized and exploited by the British, any more than by ISIS or any other dictator.
What ISIS is doing is wrong and a crime against humanity, but the "enlightened West" still has no right to step in unannounced and ransack the place just to ensure a marketable trade in Syrian artifacts. Because that's what imperialism and colonization are really about - not preserving history or archaeology, because that can be done ethically - but capitalism. The British Empire wasn't interested in preserving the cultural heritage of the world for its own sake, they robbed Egyptian tombs, ground up mummies and ate them.
Yeah, and that's wrong. But you were arguing that if some Egyptians did that themselves. Or Syrians (which means mostly ISIS). And that's the part I disagree with.
This shouldn't be a choice between stealing and destroying.
