• @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      115 hours ago

      It was already thousands of years old. The British destroyed more artifacts than they “saved”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      except that not actually an other hand sorta thing at all, almost exclusively it was colonizers and their wars that destroyed so many of artifacts the artifacts that werent stolen, if they weren’t delivery destroyed by colonizers to erase history and beyond even that the colonizers carelessness, greed, and racism which they brought to archeology led to much more than just artifacts being destroyed. There are so many historical sites whose histories we will never know at all because these clown excavated them to take “relics” and took little if any records where their precious artifacts were found and how, and that is if sites were not destroyed in their entirety out of sheer idiocy in the search of something else like how troy was. 18th, 19th, and even some 20th century so called archeology is a history of the destruction of history.

      • @50_centavos
        link
        67 hours ago

        Holy run-on sentences. I agree with you, but it was done, it’s already in the museums. Signing petitions and raising awareness of agencies/museums that are trying to get the stuff back is probably a better way to funnel your frustrations.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6611 hours ago

      Sure, I’m gonna steal your TV because I’ll take better care of it than you would.

      You’re welcome

        • lad
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 hours ago

          This is a conundrum I can’t wrap my head around. One (country, usually) can have something of cultural significance, and decide what to do with that. They can make it a museum, make it generally available, forbid access at all, and even destroy it completely (e.g. see Palmyra under ISIS).

          If the object in question is not protected by UNESCO (and really, even if it is) no one has a say in that. The only remotely correct argument that can be made is that destroying historical artifacts makes it hard or impossible to study history, but one can argue that we don’t need to study history, it’s not like this is an imperative. Another argument may be that things do not belong to those who have it, but instead to their people as inheritors of people who lived long ago, but I don’t think that also helps.

          And so, on one hand, I am for preserving artifacts and not destroying those, on the other hand, I don’t quite see what moral ground is there for it.

    • @Z3k3
      link
      English
      111 hours ago

      That’s an interesting point. While I agree it’s kinda shitty the UK nicked everyone’s cool stuff and shoved it in 1 building. I’m willing to bet if we hadn’t the number of pieces that would be lost to time would not be zero

      • @Madison420
        link
        3711 hours ago

        This is just weird revisionist history. They moved in stole shit, colonized and murdered. The after the fact excuse of “we took it to preserve it” doesn’t play mostly because their colonizer bullshit is largely the reason areas they stole shit from are destabilized.

        • @Z3k3
          link
          English
          24 hours ago

          I’m not revising anything its a shitty thing to do and it should all be returned. It was just a thought with a beer given how volatile some of the areas where the stuff comes and yes I know most of them ended up volatile because of colonialism.

      • Jilanico
        link
        English
        1811 hours ago

        Yeah I’m totally sure the Brits didn’t break a single thing shipping artifacts to their big fancy museum. Let’s ignore all the mummies Europeans ground up into powder and ingested as “medicine”. Savagely eating dead humans with the same mouths that say brown people are too savage to take care of their own artifacts.