[jajko]

> But I doubt they would be in anything like as good a state if they had been left in their original locations.

I get it, but thats problem with 'good theft', its still amoral, and well we all know history and how things actually happened. Inability to even properly acknowledge fuckups of one's ancestors leaves little room for moving further and learning hard from that, instead of some shallow blah to not stick out of the crowd.

[JumpCrisscross]

> thats problem with 'good theft', its still amora

You may have meant immoral. But amoral puts it better.

From the perspective of common heritage, it’s better at the British Museum. From the perspective of ethnonational self determination, it should be returned to its origin even if that means its destruction.

I personally tend towards the latter for newer artefacts and the former for older ones. (The logic for the people living somewhere today having exclusive domain over something made millennia earlier falls apart if the present occupants may be barely more related to those forerunners than someone on another continent.)

[notmyjob]

But everything old was new at some point. If it can’t survive it’s youth then there is no real dilemma.

[grosswait]

And an inability to acknowledge the ongoing fuckups of strangers(eg: see Taliban and ISIS destruction of archaeologically significant sites) that very well could have resulted in the same fate if they had been left in situ. None of us knows what would have actually happened, but at least standing out of the crowd earns some points.

[CPLX]

I do agree that this is a complex topic but it is worth noting that the looting of Iraq was done by the British both times, making the argument a little circular.

Like good thing the British saved the relics from what might have happened from the aftermath of the invasion the British also engineered.