It’s a conundrum. If we start returning things that were stolen in the past, well that includes a lot of stuff.
If you are on the losing side you might sometimes have to return things (see looted nazi stuff), but if you are on the winning side you probably won’t (see pretty much all of the Americas).
You're just re-stating what happens, not why it can't happen.
'Museum attendance might drop a bit so the British Museum of History regrets to inform you and your country that the exhibit is just too popular to return to Tuva. Sorry.'
"Better luck next conquest!" -- is it okay to be that petty with regards to stuff that doesn't necessarily even have 'a winning side', aside from the vultures that profited from the museum work?
We're not talking about landback, that's a different issue. The United States actually has a much better record on repatriation than the British Museum.
>It’s a conundrum. If we start returning things that were stolen in the past, well that includes a lot of stuff.
That isn't a conundrum, it's a hassle.
Britain did the work to plunder the world, they can do the work to return the plunder, or pay rent to the countries they stole from if those countries choose to have their property remain in British custody.
>If you are on the losing side you might sometimes have to return things (see looted nazi stuff), but if you are on the winning side you probably won’t (see pretty much all of the Americas).
The sun set on the British empire ages ago, and it's starting to set on the American empire. In the long term, both will end up on the losing side of history, as all empires do.
A museum, or generally any arm of academia, should strive to work towards a moral imperative rather than disregarding morality because of a contractual allowance.
Pilfering a nation is often times legal , but it's rarely right.
That's called Colonial looting. They didn't ask anyone to steal from all the slaved African nations, and whatever war they won. And you're right, a lot of countries did the same: it doesn't make it right
