So it’s better to keep it somewhere thousands of kilometres away where they’ll never be able to see it as compared to being able to see it albeit with difficulty?
That’s an internal problem for them to solve, not an excuse to hoard someone else’s culture.
I never said it’s better to keep it but it’s not enough to bring it somewhere in the country. Countries are a social construct so instead of focusing on boarders, bring it directly to the cultural heirs. Of cause keeping it is worse. If the capital is too far away, why would London be better?
Of cause keeping it is worse. If the capital is too far away, why would London be better?
Exactly. We agree there then.
Countries are a social construct so instead of focusing on boarders, bring it directly to the cultural heirs.
I think this tricky. Usually, I think the Cultural heritage belongs to the countries from where the artifacts were taken, so that’s where the artifacts should be returned to. Otherwise, How do you decide who to give an artifact to? Most inhabitants of central America share Mayan ancestry, and they no longer follow the maya religion.
I guess it’s a case to case basis. I am sure the rare cases in which there is a dispute it should be left upto the countries or institutions that claim the artifact to arbitrate.
It’s worse, obviously. It’s not enough to bring it into the country but it’s worse to keep it in Western Europe or the US. You could argue that once it’s in the capital it won’t travel anywhere closer to the people but when it stays in London or Berlin, it’s not moving anywhere. On the other hand, once you ship it to the country of origin, you can take the extra mile and bring it to the cultural heirs. But keeping it is the worst option.
Many ethnic minorities complain that their cultural heritage is exhibitioned in the capital far away. Countries are a social construct
So it’s better to keep it somewhere thousands of kilometres away where they’ll never be able to see it as compared to being able to see it albeit with difficulty?
That’s an internal problem for them to solve, not an excuse to hoard someone else’s culture.
I never said it’s better to keep it but it’s not enough to bring it somewhere in the country. Countries are a social construct so instead of focusing on boarders, bring it directly to the cultural heirs. Of cause keeping it is worse. If the capital is too far away, why would London be better?
Exactly. We agree there then.
I think this tricky. Usually, I think the Cultural heritage belongs to the countries from where the artifacts were taken, so that’s where the artifacts should be returned to. Otherwise, How do you decide who to give an artifact to? Most inhabitants of central America share Mayan ancestry, and they no longer follow the maya religion.
I guess it’s a case to case basis. I am sure the rare cases in which there is a dispute it should be left upto the countries or institutions that claim the artifact to arbitrate.
So a museum in Western Europe or the US is better, or just as bad?
It’s worse, obviously. It’s not enough to bring it into the country but it’s worse to keep it in Western Europe or the US. You could argue that once it’s in the capital it won’t travel anywhere closer to the people but when it stays in London or Berlin, it’s not moving anywhere. On the other hand, once you ship it to the country of origin, you can take the extra mile and bring it to the cultural heirs. But keeping it is the worst option.
You’re right, and I was being facetious.
You responded well and explained it for all. Thank you.