Right. Thanks!
Not being a lawyer, I’ll need a scenario applicable to looted colonial artifacts.
[tongue-in-cheek] Perhaps a case where one invades a house, kills the owner, and refuses to return the stolen goods to the son? :dubious:
What about looted colonial land?
If the British museum has to give art back to countries, does the United States have to give all the land back to the Native Americans?
That’s consistent with the idea that property rights are either absolute or meaningless. I can see the moral case for it too. But, well: good luck.
If your argument against First Nations’ land reclamation is “Tough luck” then we have our answer in response to my question on the ‘reality’ of ownership. Property rights exist… or they don’t.
No, that’s not true. Ok, look at the Americas. Altho indeed the “white man” took most of the last from the natives- various tribes were warring and moving around. Not really anything left of the clovis people. Do we “give it back” to the last Amerind tribe holding it, even tho they took from another tribe, who took it from another tribe and so forth.
England? First populated by Homo antecessor who were wiped out by the Beaker culture , who were wiped out by the Celts, who were invaded by the Anglo-Saxons, who were invaded by the Norse (many of whom stayed) and the Normans. So who owns England? Beaker culture? Anglo-saxons, Celts, and Normans have to leave? They have only been there for a couple thousand years.
Other than a few places, there is no land that hasnt changed hands due to war over and over and over.
Property rights aren’t a issue of “Property rights exist… or they don’t”. There’s a lot of grey area.
And you still havent answered my question about selling property? is that OK? Gifting? Inheriting?
adverse possession?
eminent domain?
Land can easily be shared in such instances or can be agreed upon, but what you are suggesting is that no ownership exists outside of what the US government confiscated which is a different kettle of fish.
Are any displaced people here are claiming ownership to land that they don’t live on? Do the people living there descend from these inhabitants? This sorts that out by itself.
Claiming rights over looted relics due to theft and murder is what it is. I’m not sure what other right you are claiming exists outside of this.
This sounds about right. Every combat vet I knew brought back trinkets or more.
Not since 1945. The Pentagon has been victory-averse since they stopped being the Dept of War. Winning a war is no good for continuing careers and procurement. We create enemies so the funds keep flowing despite public disapproval. Congress hasn’t declared war since 4 July 1942; the US hasn’t scored a win post-WWII. Coincidence?
One truism remains: Sucks to lose. The winners will take what they want. Losers must regain power before they can regain takings.
Mea culpa: We (wife & I) have accumulated much ethnic art & crafts of the Americas, often at auctions run by Cherokees. The best stuff dried up awhile back, attributable to the success of NA casinos. Tribes got rich and started buying-back what their prior generations had sold for survival - hopefully mostly intact. We’ve seen buyers and sellers ripping feathers from baskets and weavings after rumors of federal inspectors looking for “endangered” artifacts.
UK will return the Elgin Marbles when Brexit leaves the realm bankrupt. Just wait.
Returned to whom? The Taliban destroyed 1700 year old statues of buddha. Not the same as the OP, for sure, but something to consider.
Sorts itself out? Okay, so the only way to keep the land is to wipe out any potential claimants. Then you can keep it. So the First Nations would get a pass because there’s no trace of their predecessors, but the European colonists are out of luck. Right…
Well I’d agree to give land to the corpses too, but I doubt they have much need for it.
Your unusual idea of property rights is turning into a hijack, perhaps start a new thread, eh?
So, making sure we’re on the same page, your answer is that property rights don’t exist?
If property rights are to be respected then it would include the looting of priceless historical artifacts, especially during the course of colonial invasion/pillaging; to claim otherwise is to just uphold/extend age-old racist legal/political systems to the present day **against **the present day victims who (by racist design) held no status in law nor politics.
Given back to whom?
That’s not always an easy question to answer. The modern Greeks, at least, claim cultural continuity with the ancient Greeks, but I’m not aware that the Taliban claims any continuity with the the builders of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, and certainly attempts made under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) have involved competing claims from rival tribes.
When researchers studied the DNA of the Anzick child (a Paleoindian infant’s remains found in Montana), they discovered he was most closely related to modern SOUTH American natives, NOT any of the local tribes. However, it was the local tribes who reburied him; no South Americans had any input. Is that less an act of cultural appropriation than whites studying him?
Modern India has not been exactly welcoming to Muslims. What, therefore, is India’s claim to artifacts of the Muslim Mughal emperors, when the government and people of modern India chased away or killed many Muslims? (Some estimates suggest over a million Punjabi Muslims “disappeared” during Partition, e.g., leaving western India but never arriving in Pakistan.) Does Pakistan have a better claim instead?
slash2k the present day governments who are requesting the return of these artifacts are recognized as the legitimate sovereign rulers from the areas these items were looted. What do you think the UK government would say if you violently questioned their sovereign rule over Stonehenge because “the English aren’t even ‘true’ ancient Druids”. That line of thought is laughable.
To take your argument at its own logic; are you even prepared to accept foreign looters sneaking in India (today) to steal Mugal era artifacts based on this idea of non-ownership (let alone colonial era looting)?
If being the recognized ruler is all that is needed, I need only point out that the British Crown was the recognized ruler of India (and huge chunks of Africa, North America, etc.) for quite a long time and exerted sovereignty over that area in accordance with the internationally accepted laws and norms of the day. That would mean, according to your argument, that they had authority to make decisions about those items, including disposing of them.
If the recognized sovereign rulers from the areas where cultural artifacts were found has the sole right to determine the ownership and fate of those objects, that means that the government of the United States or of the individual state has sole authority over Native American graves and grave goods found outside the boundaries of Indian reservations, and the tribes do not. Do you accept that argument?
I am not questioning UK rule over Stonehenge; I am pointing out what I see as an inconsistency of your position vis-a-vis sovereignty.
Some other countries have destructors of art at their helm.
That logic only makes sense once you’ve omitted all my references to “legitimacy”, but I don’t think I’m so absentminded as to allow for that omission to stand. British exertion of sovereignty over her colonies is not considered legitimate by the Indian people nor the Indian government (which is why both fought to free themselves of colonial rule) nor even the British today. That’s the reason why former colonies are demanding their looted artifacts back too. The theft is an extension of that violent illegitimacy. Kinda a big omission on your part here.
I know you are not questioning UK rule over Stonehenge, but according to your world view you SHOULD be.
The whole point is that legitimacy depends on the eyes of the beholder. For example, the Indian princely states had varying sorts of relationships with the British Crown; all of India was NOT within the sole sovereignty of the Raj, and some of the states had basically the same relationship with the Viceroy as they’d had with the Mughal Emperor. Does the current Indian government regard the princes (nizams and maharajahs and nawabs, etc.) as “legitimate”? For that matter, is the current Indian government the legitimate ruler of Manipur? There is an active and ongoing insurgency there, and a fair proportion of the population there (or in Jammu and Kashmir) would say absolutely not.
I notice you choose not to answer the question about Native American artifacts. Would you care to do so?
If the Indian government is demanding their historic artifacts that answers the question on the legitimacy of the British Crown looting colonial treasures through vassals.
Now if you want to question the Indian government’s own legitimacy over key disputed/conflict ridden areas the argument has already shifted **from **“we/Europeans stole it fair and square” to “the ownership belongs to the legitimate governing representative of Manipur (or Jammu and Kashmir)” who are requesting it’s return. If that is your true argument…then we have no further disagreement.
I will make it more clear then. The argument that “the government of the United States has sole authority over Native American graves and grave goods found outside the boundaries of Indian reservations, and the tribes do not.” does not fit any measure of legitimacy. The US government’s authority over these areas are very much in dispute by the tribes who were forced from these lands.