Even had to return the ceiling.
Much of what the British and French didn’t take, was LOOTED for private collections; dug-up Egyptian mummies were literally sold on the Cairo streets to be ground up into “medicinal” potions:
- Tasted like shit.
- Did jack shit medicinally or for anything else at all, for that matter.
- Destroyed an entire ancient, priceless cultural legacy.
Do you think those old grave burglars wanted the jewelry as it was, as some sort of sacred amulet? Bullshit, they melted those artifacts, all they cared or knew about was the street price of gold by weight.
In many cases, being taken into public museums around the world, saved many priceless objects from being destroyed or becoming part of some wealthy asshole’s secret art stash.
That doesn’t explain why, in the 21st century, they can’t give things back to countries that are now stable and safe.
For example, there’s still lots of Irish artefacts in British museums that they refuse to return to Ireland. Greece has also been requesting the Elgin Marbles back but Britain continuously refuses.
Granted, there’s also lots of artefacts in Irish museums that were put there when Ireland was a part of the British Empire. But the difference here is that Ireland seeks to repatriate them and Britain does not.
Britain taking care of those artefacts to protect them from looting is one thing, but when a country of origin requests their artefacts back, its the refusal that turns the caretaker into the thief.
We’re still looking at it.
I like to joke about “archeologists” selling mummy cocks for rich folks to grind up as an aphrodisiac, but there is a dark twist often to my humor (humour, as the penis eaters might spell it)
Alternative point of view: maybe if British and French didn’t colonise those countries, there wouldn’t be this LOOTING. Do people in Britain and France practice LOOTING their own relics? Do you think LOOTING is an inherent trait of savages or maybe there’s some other reason like British and French people destroying their country?
This take is hilariously racist. “Primitive non-europeans were innocent passengers of history living in paradise”. People in other areas of the world weren’t that different to Europe, they just didn’t have the same technology.
“Looting” isn’t something unique to Europe, finding old things magical/mysterious isn’t something unique to Europe.
Especially in regards to Egypt which had famously been looted since forever. The day after someone was buried in an extravagant mastaba someone probably started planning how to dig it up.
This take is hilariously racist. “Primitive non-europeans were innocent passengers of history living in paradise”.
It does sound racist. However I never said it, so please don’t attribute it to me.
I replied to a comment claiming that stealing other nations relics by the Europeans is a good thing because otherwise natives would have looted it later(as they sometimes did). My point is that this looting later might be the result of Europeans involvement.
I think it’s reasonable to say that if those relics Europeans stole were not looted before the Europeans arrived there’s no indication they would have been looted if the Europeans didn’t arrive.
So overall the idea by OP that looting by Europeans is a good thing because it preserved some of the relics is a bad take in my opinion.
maybe if British and French didn’t colonise those countries, there wouldn’t be this LOOTING
However I never said it, so please don’t attribute it to me.
Reads like youre saying it
I think it’s reasonable to say that if those relics Europeans stole were not looted before the Europeans arrived there’s no indication they would have been looted if the Europeans didn’t arrive.
How do you explain all the looting that had already happened before the Europeans arrived then? Not like the temples or pyramids were still filled with valuables and relics when Europeans showed up and picked them clean.
Most historical artefacts are sadly lost to time and short-sighted greed.
Reads like youre saying it
Hmm, maybe my English is this bad but I think there’s a big difference between general “looting” you are talking about that people do sometimes and “this looting” OP post is talking about that happened after the Europeans plundered the country and left. I mean that’s the whole point of the discussion: is it justified to steal other people relics under the pretext that the people whose lives you made miserable later looted some of the artefacts you didn’t steal? My answer is “no, it’s still stealing” even though it may have been better for the relics.
How do you explain all the looting that had already happened before the Europeans arrived then?
It happens, as you said(and I agree) people do loot sometimes, the harder their lives are(like being colonized for example) the more they do it.
Not like the temples or pyramids were still filled with valuables and relics when Europeans showed up and picked them clean
Well we know for a fact there still was a lot left, so you need to explain then how the artefacts the Europeans stole were not looted before for many many years.
the people whose lives you made miserable later looted some of the artefacts you didn’t steal?
Im not sure if its on purpose but youve changed the timeline here, the artefacts were looted before not after europeans showed up.
the harder their lives are(like being colonized for example) the more they do it.
The point Im trying to highlight is that the vast majority of artefacts were looted/lost before anyone got colonised.
Well we know for a fact there still was a lot left, so you need to explain then how the artefacts the Europeans stole were not looted before for many many years.
Im no historian so take this with a grain of salt. The easy-to-find valuables were looted by random individuals over the course of history and sold off. The ones ruling Egypt at the time couldnt or wouldnt protect these sites. Then Europeans showed up with equipment and a scientific method, understanding the need to finding and preserve the past. The easy-to-find stuff was naturally already gone so they had to start excavating and searching the low odds regions.
The only reason why Tutankhamun is so famous today, he was a pretty unimportant pharao, is because his tomb was found by a modern archeologist and his relics ware preserved. The more famous pharaonic tombs were looted long before any Europeans showed up and therefor lost to history
Im not sure if its on purpose but youve changed the timeline here, the artefacts were looted before not after europeans showed up.
Oh, I reread the original comment and you are right, it is talking about looting over time before the colonization, not after. I feel stupid now. Thank you for being patient with me.
Ancient Egyptians made anti-looting measures on their graves because ancient Egyptians were already looting graves.
It seems those measures were effective since those relics were preserved up to the time Europeans stole them.
Tombs were robbed since whey were first made. The pyramids had protective measures to keep them away, ask yourself why they’re put them there in the first place. Abbott Papyrus is a document from 3000 years ago that describes tomb robbery. Fact is, people have been thieving ever since someone had something more than the other.
I don’t understand how it relates to my comment which criticised the idea that Europeans stealing relics is a good thing because otherwise the natives would have stolen them.
Alternative point of view: maybe if British and French didn’t colonise those countries, there wouldn’t be this LOOTING.
Grave robbers have been around as long as there have been ornate graves. It was a noted problem in Ancient Egypt.
I don’t think “Steal the items first” is much of a solution, but let’s not pretend that looting is something that was kicked off by the Euros.
Do people in Britain and France practice LOOTING their own relics?
Historically? Uh, yes.
Do you think LOOTING is an inherent trait of savages or maybe there’s some other reason like British and French people destroying their country?
Looting is an inherent trait of any sufficiently large human society (ie over maybe 100 people)
So we agree that “stealing to preserve” is a bad argument.
Yes.
Over a span of 5000 years and the tombs only got robbed when the British and French showed up yes
deleted by creator
Well, apart from all the stone, bronze and Iron Age artifacts from our own country, and all the stuff (legally) on loan…
So… Why don’t they return all the things they stole?
And properly bought, or received as gifts. These things do exist.
They do, the meme is just being cheeky about the Brits having notoriously sticky fingers throughout the 19th century.
Don’t interrupt their “museum bad” circlejerk
Which is itself just a dogwhistle for “white people are evil and have no culture”
White people have no culture because white people don’t exist. It’s a made up race. All Europeans aren’t a single race, there’s like a hundred of European races. People just made up the idea of white people in America to make all the Europeans feel united in oppressing the brown and black people.
Yeah, but let’s not pretend China, Japan and Southeast Asia didn’t do the same thing.
Museums aren’t bad you dolt. Stealing artifacts from other cultures is.
I just find the endless beating of a dead horse to be tiresome. Not all artifacts are stolen you dolt.
Even a “only from your country” museum would mostly be artifacts from indigenous people, which should be considered just as stolen. So what’s left after that’s returned?
I’m sorry are indigenous people not counted anymore? Am I suddenly no longer American?
Way to go out of your way to take offense. My point was that most countries hold artifacts of people they’ve subjugated or even removed. Taking over didn’t make those artifacts “theirs” anymore than it does for artifacts they’ve moved from other countries.
I like how this one doesn’t even need an explanation.
Pretty sure every country that exists today has museums full of stolen stuff, ok not every country, third world countries don’t have anything, it’s all been stolen already.
C’mon, museums in developing nations still have good stuff, don’t shame em.
I can’t believe this image can still make me sad because of the show ending not because of the brits stealing artifacts
I visited Copenhagen recently and that was my thought walking through Carlsberg’s collection of statues. It was pretty cool though
Quick! Put the Sutton Hoo mask on everything! It even has a mustache!
Pretty funny to think how people treat ownership.
The societies that created the artefacts are dead and gone, the only thing connecting them and those alive today is the land they lay upon. Who has the right to the artefacts if there is no one left to claim them from the originators? Might aswell be those that take care of them and preserve them.
It’s an interesting conundrum. What inspiration could a local population get from seeing artifacts of their lands ancestors and how they lived? How might a society and individuals be improved when exposed to museums and art that those before them created? We seem to put a lot of emphasis on the importance of the arts in western culture so it seems to be relevant by our own standards.
How does the securing and profiteering of those said artifacts by outside forces effect the area (economically and religiously) and the populations opinion on those historic and ancient sites when abused and seen as an excuse to enslave and brutalize the locals?
Who, in those outside forces that come to remove what they seem valuable, gets to determine what is cared for/sold and preserved? What positive narrative do they wish to portray of a land and people that they have no real connection too?
History has already shown the outcomes in museums when we refer to barbaric and “savage” people. Do you really think those institutions have always had the best in mind when concerning all of this?
It’s an interesting conundrum. What inspiration could a local population get from seeing artifacts of their lands ancestors and how they lived?
They might have, but there is evidence that they didn’t. At the very least not any society they would deem as savage, brutish or sacreligious. There is a long history of people that didn’t value recording the past. It’s frustratingly one of the many reasons that most of recorded history is either Chinese or Christian.
How does the securing and profiteering of those said artifacts by outside forces effect the area (economically and religiously) and the populations opinion on those historic and ancient sites when abused and seen as an excuse to enslave and brutalize the locals?
Don’t know, but its hardly a new occurrence. It has always been the case that property and land is subject to conflict. The difference is that the Renaissance and industrial age GREATLY affected the outcome between those that has technology and those that didn’t.
Who, in those outside forces that come to remove what they seem valuable, gets to determine what is cared for/sold and preserved? What positive narrative do they wish to portray of a land and people that they have no real connection too?
Its of course easy to be self righteous after the fact, but given the times when they happened, most of us wouldn’t have any choice in the matter. I would perhaps equate it to something like clothes today. You know that a child likely made the clothes you wear, but would you go naked outside? The artefacts where either purchased by a ruler of the land, or taken by the proposed rulers of the land, so it would be theirs by right.
History has already shown the outcomes in museums when we refer to barbaric and “savage” people. Do you really think those institutions have always had the best in mind when concerning all of this?
Like i said earlier, acting like other people were savages wasn’t exactly a new occurrence in the Imperial age. Just exacerbated by difference in technology. I don’t think that they did, but to compare them to institutions of today more than a hundred years after the fact is just not relevant in my eyes.
Welcome to Earf.
artefacts
That’s the British English spelling if you’re insinuating it’s incorrect spelling.
