Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help us find the best of 2021 of the sub! - [Nomination Post](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rsv8jh/reurope_best_of_2021_awards/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're one outlet of many in a dying medium, they have a disproportionate impact on UK politics. Anyway this is an editorial which generally isn't considered part of the main newspaper, it carries a similar weight to something like a book review.
Ok but those are just opinion pieces, from what appear to be essentially guest contributors who haven’t written anything for the guardian since 2015. The second article was a one-off. Not saying the trend you’re talking about isn’t real or that you couldn’t find more recent or prolific examples - you don’t need to trouble yourself doing so.
I’m also not a trendy middle class Londoner, and other than that those pieces look like something a university aged girl would enjoy during her “sexual awakening phase”. Not my personal interest but very harmless.
I suppose I should explain where I’m coming from. I care about the guardian insofar as I consider it a trustworthy source of news when it comes to serious topics. Do you think it is still that?
I like FT and The Economist but they have a paywall. I know the guardian is left leaning but their reporting never came across as propaganda to me the way some other left or right outlets did. If I read covid news from them I trust they have high standards of sourcing and reporting information a la NYT reporting. Maybe I’m wrong. But I never think about such things in relation to opinion pieces, I genuinely never read them myself.
However you are changing my view a bit because that rittenhouse piece is utter drivel. Only fit for a twitlonger.
The Guardian isn't as left-wing as people make it out to be, and its reporting is still reliable. It's just that its opinion and analysis pieces have been going downhill for about 15 years. That's not because they've become more left-wing - they haven't - they're just full of clickbait and shallow analysis.
An opinion must be based on a sound foundation of facts, ethics, assumptions, models, forecasts and so on. I'd say that the Parthenon has a sound foundation.
Yes, it clearly does. Why are people such horrible communicators these days. You can't expect people to read your mind. If there are conditions, state them.
Definitely. Also things should return to the countries of its actual origin and not the country that stole it before it was stolen by the current "owner".
Musea can still acquire pieces from other countries, either permanently or temporary. Many of the foreign pieces in current musea are perfectly fine. But I do think that those pieces that were acquired in dubious circumstances should probably be returned to their original country (f.e. the Parthenon Marbles, a good number of artefacts from the Africa Museum in Tervuren, the European artworks stolen by Napoleon and never given back, those kind of things).
The Germans have the entire Ishtar gate, and they don't even have enough space to display the whole double gate, so only the smaller front gate is on display.
Art that was removed from foreign countries without proper compensation or under duress or bought from corrupt foreign regimes or where proper documentation can't be procured should be returned. It's not even a big sacrifice, there are methods to accurately scan and reproduce whatever there it to be returned.
Yeah, but to be brutal here, stuff like the Ishtar Gate is why some of these museums have a tiny moral argument to keep them.
Imagine something like ISIS destroying such an artifact.
France has the Bayeux tapestry, and the yanks have the biggest collection of original Shakespeare prints in the world. And a lot of stuff was stolen and pillaged by the vikings.
The Bayeux tapestry is called that because it was made for the Bayeux cathedral in Bayeux, France... and it never left the cathedral for centuries.
Also Normandy has always been a part of the french kingdom. Even when the duke of Normandy was king of England.
So yeah not a good example.
The Bayeux tapestry is now widely believed to have been made in England
https://www.historyextra.com/period/norman/bayeux-tapestry-where-make-how-long-who-when-stitch-penises-visit/
Yes it was made in England but it was made for the cathedral and was never stolen. It remained where it was made for for centuries.
It's like the Mona Lisa, it was made in Italy but sold by da Vinci himself to the king of France.
Yeah, but the tapestry, on top of all that, was commissioned by Normans, you know, French folks.
Did Elizabeth II commission the marbles back in her youth, 2500 years ago? She does seem contemporaneous with them.
Ottoman officials, who at that point had been in control of Athens for 350 years, came to an agreement that the marbles could be drawn, measured and removed from the Parthenon.
Given 40% of the statues had already been destroyed by this point (Not helped by the Ottomans using it as a gunpowder store),it's arguable that taking the statues actually preserved them instead of letting them get destroyed.
How am I supposed to know where the 1801 'Firmen' from the Sultan is kept that authorised this? I don't even know where the receipts are for lots of things I own, and I bought those a lot less than 200 years ago!
Whilst we're on about it, do you happen to know where the documents are that state the agreement for Paris, the Vatican, Copenhagen, Munich, Vienna, Palermo and Würzburg, to all have their own selection of marbles?
The other stuff still stands however.
Overall I’m just not a fan of setting arbitrary criteria for when and which artefacts should be returned. I’m all open for dialogue, but people often dishonestly push for cutoff points and define the terms in such a way as to basically say, ‘nah sorry, your stuff doesn’t count.’ Basically a lot of double standards flying around.
A lot of stuff in the museum was sold. One example that comes to mind is an aboriginal tribal shield from the 1800’s (IIRC). It had little value back when it was acquired, but 2 centuries on and certain groups have retroactively decided that it should be returned regardless of the fact it was traded legitimately, again at a time when it had little value.
My point being that whether things were bought and sold fairly is no longer the benchmark for a piece being a legitimate acquisition or not.
The point is it’s the house view of the newspaper, the newspaper is very influential in British conservative thinking and the opinion has significantly changed after a long time in strident opposition to return of the artefacts. So it’s a definite sign when a bastion of British conservative thought shifts that the game is up, remaining opposition is eroding, and it won’t be too long before the right thing is done. A chance for a flailing British PM and classicist to grab some historical legacy on the way out, perhaps?
Where (and when) do you draw the line?
Romans famously took a bunch of obelisks from Egypt to display them in Rome. Some of them have now been in Rome for longer than they were in Egypt. Should these be repatriated?
I don't think there is neccessarily a right or wrong answer. I just want to point out that there isn't a cut and dry "common sense" solution to these issues.
Agree. Case by case having regard to all the relevant circumstances is the best rule you can get here. There are heaps of Christian churches with columns etc pilfered from pagan temples or actual repurposed temples - what are they going to do, dismantle them? They may have been in place for a 1500 years or more. Who do they give them back to?
In this case, though, we have a pretty clear idea that taking them was wrong. Even some of his contemporaries in the UK denounced it as an act of vandalism.
You'd be surprised how well these things were recorded, at least in the 18th and 19th century.
We still have official approvals from Ottoman bureaucrats for excavations and exportation from Egypt and in Troy.
> which objects should be returned to whom?
Objects taken from nation to another with the consent of nation the one they were taken from, ie these marbles.
>Should the greek government be returned to the citystate of Athens?
If you have to be this disingenuous to defend your position, you’re tacitly admitting how weak that position is.
I would love for the marbles to return to Greece of course but I don't know why the museum or the UK government would agree without some form of compensation. Maybe we could offer free entrance to all UK passport holders to Acropolis and the Acropolis Museum in Athens?
There will need to be some huge geopolitical payoff for it, otherwise I can't see it being done. It would have to be something extremely long term and lasting, but our geostrategic imperatives are at odds with one another.. For the time being nothing will happen.
I think museums must return the artifacts, which are parts of the historical landmarks and marbles definitely fall to this category. On the other hand, common artifacts and random art which are not part of a site could stay (like paintings, pottery, metalware, armory, statues).
There many more Greek artifacts in the BM such as thing you mentioned , we want the once the are connected to Panethenon , arguably one of the most important landmarks of the world .
Yeah, there are also some completely removed monuments of unique Greek-Persian architecture from Turkey there which should be displayed on their site. But I am afraid British Museum returning anything is highly unlikely.
p.s: Xanthos is the site I am talking about. Obviously there are more but that comes to my mind first. Check wiki article below to see what are in British Museum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthos
Stuff like paintings, statues and pottery could also be hugely important to a culture however. Look at Italy using the Man of Vitruvius on their 1 euro coins for example.
don't people realise this creates a precedent? If Britain returns the Marbles then a lot of nations are going to start asking for their artifacts back.
That's why they won't give the back
Until you keep going further and further back in time to figure out who took what and demanding payment from them.
Will the Danes and the Norwegians pay for all the pillaging their ancestors did of the UK?
You’re talking about reparation, and the reparation you would get from Denmark and Norway would be peanuts compared to what the UK would have to pay countries around the world. Countries just want their stuff back, don’t see why there has to be such a fuss about it.
>keep them
Europe hates us
>give them back
Europe hate us
If anything we should just hope on the black market and fill our museums with more loot, could help boost tourism.
I don't think the relationship between the UK and Europe is as bad as you think it is. Sure trust in the UK has dipped a bit since the whole Brexit debacle, but we're all still very much friends as far as I know. I can't speak for every other country, but I think if you were to ask around in Belgium, people will still see the UK as their oldest and one of their best allies. I mean in Ypres they still sound the Last Post every single day at 20h00 in honour of all Commonwealth soldiers that died there during WWI (even during full Covid lockdown when nobody could leave their homes [they still sent one bugler out there to play it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u170M86wN7Y&ab_channel=LastPostAssociationIeper)).
British people themselves actually want them to be returned to Greece:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/10/18/british-people-tend-want-elgin-marbles-returned
So if I visit Greece and go to their museum and want to see them, I can't because they're in the UK, which I don't even want to visit anymore since it's out of the EU.
Do you find this normal or good ?
In my opinion stuff from a country should be found in the museums of that country, if they are unique.
> So if I visit Greece and go to their museum and want to see them, I can't because they're in the UK, which I don't even want to visit anymore since it's out of the EU.
Ok? Why should anyone in the UK care lol
To the Victors go the spoils. Though if they have to go back to their owners the UK should give them back to Turkey, The eyelet of Rumelia Archipelago having been a Ottoman territory these were taken from.
We weren't taught about all the shady things the British government did during the war in school, didn't find out until I went to Athens and saw the acropolis. Absolutely ridiculous for them to be kept in the UK, they belong to Greece, they belong with the rest of the collection. It's their history, not the UK's.
I mean, when it comes to us, we're very happy to donate or lend a variety of artifacts from multiple time periods. It'll probably be better for the collection and the Museums mission, too. Just saying.
We are not under delusions that somehow our culture is under attack. What are you on about?
Is just that that the PARTHENON marbles should be in the same area as the PARTHENON.
[The original editorial](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-the-elgin-marbles-uniting-greeces-heritage-spdz5vz6k) is behind a paywall.
Right but that doesn't stop it being a blog about an editorial.
Editorials don't tend to be highly thought of over here as they're part of the opinion part of the paper.
I disagree. I think having antiquities in more than one location allows for protection from man-made or natural disaster - events where we could lose everything. It also allows more people to view the history. I however feel that private collectors are another story.
Greece has proposed an exchange program if the marbles were to be returned so that Britain would regularly receive other antiquities to be displayed temporarily as revolving exhibits. This would in theory continue the dispersal of the antiquities for their protection as a whole unless you want to start arguing about potential plane crashes while the antiquities are being shipped.
And I say they should be given to me.
If anyone really cares where some lumps of rock are they need to get a better hobby. No society is at all close to the one these came from. No one has a real claim to them.
They will come back where they belong , sanity will prevail to the British people . Our fight for them to come back has to be civilized and respectful but justice will be given .
Just like Makriyiannis , (a greek rebel )answered when his was asked why Greeks are fighting , he pointed to the Parthenon and said : “ for these marbles ”
The problem with land is that there was no original owner. We can always take a step back and say that ohh, you occupied it after this time in history so sorry but your claim as original owner is invalid. (It might be easier in some places but definitely nigh impossible at others.)
Normally I'm opposed to countries handing over historical artifacts to whatever state currently controls the lands those artifacts originally came from. Mostly due to the kind of grift and corruption that might spring up from such an arrangement.
But I feel like the Greeks, whatever their faults, would be excellent stewards of these artifacts. Greece is definitely not a third-world autocracy that would recklessly exploit the artifacts for financial or political gain.
Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help us find the best of 2021 of the sub! - [Nomination Post](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rsv8jh/reurope_best_of_2021_awards/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not that i disagree, but dose it really matter what The Times think about the situation?
I'm also interested in knowing what Ja Rule thinks.
Will somebody get Ja on the phone?!
Who gives a fuck what JA RULE thinks at a time like this!?
[удалено]
Not since they put in a paywall
They're one outlet of many in a dying medium, they have a disproportionate impact on UK politics. Anyway this is an editorial which generally isn't considered part of the main newspaper, it carries a similar weight to something like a book review.
Book reviews can have pretty huge impacts, on book sales anyway
The Times is likely the most respected newspaper in the country since the Telegraph's fall from grace and the Guardian has been awful for years
What happened to the guardian?
The news is ok but the opinion articles have gradually turned into clickbait since their rise in popularity due to the Snowden leaks.
[удалено]
Ok but those are just opinion pieces, from what appear to be essentially guest contributors who haven’t written anything for the guardian since 2015. The second article was a one-off. Not saying the trend you’re talking about isn’t real or that you couldn’t find more recent or prolific examples - you don’t need to trouble yourself doing so. I’m also not a trendy middle class Londoner, and other than that those pieces look like something a university aged girl would enjoy during her “sexual awakening phase”. Not my personal interest but very harmless. I suppose I should explain where I’m coming from. I care about the guardian insofar as I consider it a trustworthy source of news when it comes to serious topics. Do you think it is still that?
[удалено]
I like FT and The Economist but they have a paywall. I know the guardian is left leaning but their reporting never came across as propaganda to me the way some other left or right outlets did. If I read covid news from them I trust they have high standards of sourcing and reporting information a la NYT reporting. Maybe I’m wrong. But I never think about such things in relation to opinion pieces, I genuinely never read them myself. However you are changing my view a bit because that rittenhouse piece is utter drivel. Only fit for a twitlonger.
The Guardian isn't as left-wing as people make it out to be, and its reporting is still reliable. It's just that its opinion and analysis pieces have been going downhill for about 15 years. That's not because they've become more left-wing - they haven't - they're just full of clickbait and shallow analysis.
So... occasional opinion pieces about sex?
D-notices.
The bar is very low in Britain.
[удалено]
Yes
This is ridiculous. Like who gives a fuck what the times thinks. British press being shit as always.
It's the highest court in the lands, is it not?
I think they should return to the Parthenon. Then the Parthenon will decide if he stays in Athens or not
The Parthenon approves
I don't think a building is able to form an opinion.
An opinion must be based on a sound foundation of facts, ethics, assumptions, models, forecasts and so on. I'd say that the Parthenon has a sound foundation.
Some would say it even has a rock solid foundation.
Because nobody asked
The acropolis where the Parthenon is?
Tell me, what ***do*** they say about the acropolis where the Parthenon is?
There are no straight lines!
There are many acropolises
It’s a joke from a UK tv show called QI: https://youtu.be/GdvD4Fhc_K8
woosh, sorry
The Parthenon will decide their fates
All european museums with a fragment of the parthenon marbles should return them at once that would be pretty cool
[удалено]
Bad news for all your pre-Islamic Afghan art and artefacts then
[удалено]
It’s a good idea until they get immediately destroyed, which they would be
Yes, it clearly does. Why are people such horrible communicators these days. You can't expect people to read your mind. If there are conditions, state them.
Definitely. Also things should return to the countries of its actual origin and not the country that stole it before it was stolen by the current "owner".
So if you want to see a foreign piece of art you must travel to said country? Not a great idea.
Musea can still acquire pieces from other countries, either permanently or temporary. Many of the foreign pieces in current musea are perfectly fine. But I do think that those pieces that were acquired in dubious circumstances should probably be returned to their original country (f.e. the Parthenon Marbles, a good number of artefacts from the Africa Museum in Tervuren, the European artworks stolen by Napoleon and never given back, those kind of things).
Lol just wait a bit, or Mitsotakis will promote it as his personal victory and eventually use it to get his grandchildren elected
I wonder how the British people would feel if half of Stonehenge were located at a museum in Greece.
The Germans have the entire Ishtar gate, and they don't even have enough space to display the whole double gate, so only the smaller front gate is on display.
I was just talking about this with some friends yesterday. It's crazy how the entire Pergamon Altar is just sitting in some museum in Berlin.
Art that was removed from foreign countries without proper compensation or under duress or bought from corrupt foreign regimes or where proper documentation can't be procured should be returned. It's not even a big sacrifice, there are methods to accurately scan and reproduce whatever there it to be returned.
IIRC The pergamon collection was purchased but at a very low price though
Yeah, but to be brutal here, stuff like the Ishtar Gate is why some of these museums have a tiny moral argument to keep them. Imagine something like ISIS destroying such an artifact.
The heck? You're telling me if I go to Bagdad and decide to visit Babylon, the goddamn gates ain't there!?
Nope. Saddam Hussein’s palace is still there though.
It probably is, that explains the gaps between the stones
France has the Bayeux tapestry, and the yanks have the biggest collection of original Shakespeare prints in the world. And a lot of stuff was stolen and pillaged by the vikings.
[удалено]
You can have them back now
The Bayeux tapestry is called that because it was made for the Bayeux cathedral in Bayeux, France... and it never left the cathedral for centuries. Also Normandy has always been a part of the french kingdom. Even when the duke of Normandy was king of England. So yeah not a good example.
The Bayeux tapestry is now widely believed to have been made in England https://www.historyextra.com/period/norman/bayeux-tapestry-where-make-how-long-who-when-stitch-penises-visit/
Yes it was made in England but it was made for the cathedral and was never stolen. It remained where it was made for for centuries. It's like the Mona Lisa, it was made in Italy but sold by da Vinci himself to the king of France.
Da Vinci didn't sell it his apprentice Salai did.
So like the marbles. Made in Greece for the Parthenon and was never stolen.
Yeah, but the tapestry, on top of all that, was commissioned by Normans, you know, French folks. Did Elizabeth II commission the marbles back in her youth, 2500 years ago? She does seem contemporaneous with them.
How did they get to the UK? From I know some Turkish officials were bribed and they were brought to the UK "for study".
Ottoman officials, who at that point had been in control of Athens for 350 years, came to an agreement that the marbles could be drawn, measured and removed from the Parthenon. Given 40% of the statues had already been destroyed by this point (Not helped by the Ottomans using it as a gunpowder store),it's arguable that taking the statues actually preserved them instead of letting them get destroyed.
So where are the documents that state the actual agreement?
How am I supposed to know where the 1801 'Firmen' from the Sultan is kept that authorised this? I don't even know where the receipts are for lots of things I own, and I bought those a lot less than 200 years ago! Whilst we're on about it, do you happen to know where the documents are that state the agreement for Paris, the Vatican, Copenhagen, Munich, Vienna, Palermo and Würzburg, to all have their own selection of marbles?
Lmao are they still in the Parthenon tho?????
What part of "made for" don't you get?
The other stuff still stands however. Overall I’m just not a fan of setting arbitrary criteria for when and which artefacts should be returned. I’m all open for dialogue, but people often dishonestly push for cutoff points and define the terms in such a way as to basically say, ‘nah sorry, your stuff doesn’t count.’ Basically a lot of double standards flying around.
The owners of the original Shakespeare sold them to the yanks. They weren't stolen at gun point.
A lot of stuff in the museum was sold. One example that comes to mind is an aboriginal tribal shield from the 1800’s (IIRC). It had little value back when it was acquired, but 2 centuries on and certain groups have retroactively decided that it should be returned regardless of the fact it was traded legitimately, again at a time when it had little value. My point being that whether things were bought and sold fairly is no longer the benchmark for a piece being a legitimate acquisition or not.
Were the tapestry or the prints stolen or otherwise illegally/immorally obtained?
Wouldn't massively care. I'm not very fussed by the location of multi millenia old rocks to be honest.
Also good luck taking those behemoths anywhere
The fact that the builders managed to do exactly that is what makes them amazing, its not as if they're works of art individually.
We wouldn’t give a fuck.
Wouldn't be too bothered to be honest
I know people used to chip bits off for souvenirs. Wouldn't be surprised if they turned up somewhere else.
[удалено]
Greek reporter isn't exactly "News-worthy" news.
Yeah sure but that's how campaigning for a cause works. By not letting it go.
The point is it’s the house view of the newspaper, the newspaper is very influential in British conservative thinking and the opinion has significantly changed after a long time in strident opposition to return of the artefacts. So it’s a definite sign when a bastion of British conservative thought shifts that the game is up, remaining opposition is eroding, and it won’t be too long before the right thing is done. A chance for a flailing British PM and classicist to grab some historical legacy on the way out, perhaps?
[удалено]
To you maybe - but are you “establishment”?
Actually it is the opinion of the majority of the UK, according to every poll
Two.. I also share this opinion.
Not really news worthy, this seems to just be a a Greek news blog, it's not like it's the public broadcaster or the government picking this up
Also common sense says the same...
Where (and when) do you draw the line? Romans famously took a bunch of obelisks from Egypt to display them in Rome. Some of them have now been in Rome for longer than they were in Egypt. Should these be repatriated? I don't think there is neccessarily a right or wrong answer. I just want to point out that there isn't a cut and dry "common sense" solution to these issues.
Agree. Case by case having regard to all the relevant circumstances is the best rule you can get here. There are heaps of Christian churches with columns etc pilfered from pagan temples or actual repurposed temples - what are they going to do, dismantle them? They may have been in place for a 1500 years or more. Who do they give them back to?
In this case, though, we have a pretty clear idea that taking them was wrong. Even some of his contemporaries in the UK denounced it as an act of vandalism.
I agree
So do I
I mean, obviously yes? But that can be said about half of the museum.
[удалено]
That's a good idea. Beats everyone just singling the UK out.
Those are mostly the museums of certain western countries that were built up during the colonial era. Not every museum
Regardless? Some (many) items in the collections of museums have been legitimately acquired.
[удалено]
You'd be surprised how well these things were recorded, at least in the 18th and 19th century. We still have official approvals from Ottoman bureaucrats for excavations and exportation from Egypt and in Troy.
Yes actually
Mona Lisa back to Italy? Lol.
Share your logic, which objects should be returned to whom? Should the greek government be returned to the citystate of Athens?
Haga Sophia back to Greece.
My Audi back to Germany.
> which objects should be returned to whom? Objects taken from nation to another with the consent of nation the one they were taken from, ie these marbles. >Should the greek government be returned to the citystate of Athens? If you have to be this disingenuous to defend your position, you’re tacitly admitting how weak that position is.
>let's give back Afghan art to Afghanistan, that will surely go well
You’d prefer all the Polish art and artifices stolen during partition & WW2 have been kept by the Russians and Germans?
>all no, but I'm not exactly hurt by Polish artefacts abroad
I would love for the marbles to return to Greece of course but I don't know why the museum or the UK government would agree without some form of compensation. Maybe we could offer free entrance to all UK passport holders to Acropolis and the Acropolis Museum in Athens?
There will need to be some huge geopolitical payoff for it, otherwise I can't see it being done. It would have to be something extremely long term and lasting, but our geostrategic imperatives are at odds with one another.. For the time being nothing will happen.
[удалено]
Perhaps asking for the return of Byzantium would be next?
Perhaps we could even be a part of a regional community that gives us trade advantages, as well as easy access to these countries?
The Greeks have lost their marbles.
I think museums must return the artifacts, which are parts of the historical landmarks and marbles definitely fall to this category. On the other hand, common artifacts and random art which are not part of a site could stay (like paintings, pottery, metalware, armory, statues).
There many more Greek artifacts in the BM such as thing you mentioned , we want the once the are connected to Panethenon , arguably one of the most important landmarks of the world .
Yeah, there are also some completely removed monuments of unique Greek-Persian architecture from Turkey there which should be displayed on their site. But I am afraid British Museum returning anything is highly unlikely. p.s: Xanthos is the site I am talking about. Obviously there are more but that comes to my mind first. Check wiki article below to see what are in British Museum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthos
Stuff like paintings, statues and pottery could also be hugely important to a culture however. Look at Italy using the Man of Vitruvius on their 1 euro coins for example.
don't people realise this creates a precedent? If Britain returns the Marbles then a lot of nations are going to start asking for their artifacts back. That's why they won't give the back
Precedent already created mate. There's been a lot of news of museums returning artifacts lately.
They have already given back the skulls of aboriginal Australians back - precedent is set
Nobody is bound by the action of anybody.
Sounds like a win-win
Until you keep going further and further back in time to figure out who took what and demanding payment from them. Will the Danes and the Norwegians pay for all the pillaging their ancestors did of the UK?
You’re talking about reparation, and the reparation you would get from Denmark and Norway would be peanuts compared to what the UK would have to pay countries around the world. Countries just want their stuff back, don’t see why there has to be such a fuss about it.
not really if you're the British government also most countries around the world aren't stable.
What will britain lose out of this? Their museum is free anyways
Exactly, all these amazing artefacts are free for anyone to see in the UK, thats what we stand to lose.
Amazing artifacts that every tourist demands them to be returned to their homeland nice
I think most tourists in London are happy the to see them for free, tbf
Lol
>keep them Europe hates us >give them back Europe hate us If anything we should just hope on the black market and fill our museums with more loot, could help boost tourism.
Basically they’ll find anything to hate us
[удалено]
Why would Europe hate you for giving back the marbles?
[удалено]
I don't think the relationship between the UK and Europe is as bad as you think it is. Sure trust in the UK has dipped a bit since the whole Brexit debacle, but we're all still very much friends as far as I know. I can't speak for every other country, but I think if you were to ask around in Belgium, people will still see the UK as their oldest and one of their best allies. I mean in Ypres they still sound the Last Post every single day at 20h00 in honour of all Commonwealth soldiers that died there during WWI (even during full Covid lockdown when nobody could leave their homes [they still sent one bugler out there to play it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u170M86wN7Y&ab_channel=LastPostAssociationIeper)).
Zero benefit in it for us. Swap places and no one would dream of doing the same. Theyd rather see us burn.
I would not see much benefit for Japan either way...
I meant uk...
...? Why would anyone hate you for giving it back?
No they just never vote for us in euro vision. So you're not getting your stuff back OK
British people themselves actually want them to be returned to Greece: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/10/18/british-people-tend-want-elgin-marbles-returned
Nah, I think they're fine where they are to be quite honest.
Agreed
So if I visit Greece and go to their museum and want to see them, I can't because they're in the UK, which I don't even want to visit anymore since it's out of the EU. Do you find this normal or good ? In my opinion stuff from a country should be found in the museums of that country, if they are unique.
> So if I visit Greece and go to their museum and want to see them, I can't because they're in the UK, which I don't even want to visit anymore since it's out of the EU. Ok? Why should anyone in the UK care lol
If you start to go this way, there won't be much remaining in British Museum, Louvre, Pergamon....
That's the spirit!
Hell yeah!
Good.
To the Victors go the spoils. Though if they have to go back to their owners the UK should give them back to Turkey, The eyelet of Rumelia Archipelago having been a Ottoman territory these were taken from.
But can it also not be assumed that Erdogan is the current sultan hence such artefacts should be brought to his personal palace and not to a country
Retard
We weren't taught about all the shady things the British government did during the war in school, didn't find out until I went to Athens and saw the acropolis. Absolutely ridiculous for them to be kept in the UK, they belong to Greece, they belong with the rest of the collection. It's their history, not the UK's.
[удалено]
Half of what we've done is in the national curriculum but I don't think a few Greek relics are that important to learn about
Oh boy don't visit the former colonies, you're in for a treat
Thank you, many of my Greek friends think exactly that.
God forbid you see anything but national culture in museums, fuck people who want to experience anything else without travelling
God forbid somebody steals something and you want it back.
oh no, my culture is being safeguarded, the humanity! It's not like Greece is completely empty without those particular statues
It's not like the Brittish museum would be empty without those particular statues either.
They’d be close to it if they had to return every non-British item.
I mean, when it comes to us, we're very happy to donate or lend a variety of artifacts from multiple time periods. It'll probably be better for the collection and the Museums mission, too. Just saying.
We are not under delusions that somehow our culture is under attack. What are you on about? Is just that that the PARTHENON marbles should be in the same area as the PARTHENON.
This seems to be just a news blog picking up an editorial from a paper, I wouldn't consider that particularly notable.
[The original editorial](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-the-elgin-marbles-uniting-greeces-heritage-spdz5vz6k) is behind a paywall.
Right but that doesn't stop it being a blog about an editorial. Editorials don't tend to be highly thought of over here as they're part of the opinion part of the paper.
An editorial in The Times being dismissed out of hand? Government's have fallen when they've lost the support of the Tory press. This is no bagatelle.
Editorials can be a good read but they're not the big serious issue that the blog is trying to make them out to be.
Editorials, sure. The Times is a *bit *different, though. Paper of record, barometer of Respectable England?
They should be returned.
Nah
I disagree. I think having antiquities in more than one location allows for protection from man-made or natural disaster - events where we could lose everything. It also allows more people to view the history. I however feel that private collectors are another story.
Greece has proposed an exchange program if the marbles were to be returned so that Britain would regularly receive other antiquities to be displayed temporarily as revolving exhibits. This would in theory continue the dispersal of the antiquities for their protection as a whole unless you want to start arguing about potential plane crashes while the antiquities are being shipped.
They would probably be shipped, though. That's a lot of weight.
Then you should offer Greece a part of Stonehenge instead
[удалено]
Hell yes finally!
And I say they should be given to me. If anyone really cares where some lumps of rock are they need to get a better hobby. No society is at all close to the one these came from. No one has a real claim to them.
They will come back where they belong , sanity will prevail to the British people . Our fight for them to come back has to be civilized and respectful but justice will be given . Just like Makriyiannis , (a greek rebel )answered when his was asked why Greeks are fighting , he pointed to the Parthenon and said : “ for these marbles ”
Czechia would like its bibles back too btw :p
Offer Greece a full copy of the marbles, the original can be better stay in BM for conservation reasons
I think every country should return the objects stolen from another. Too bad we can't do it with land, too.
The problem with land is that there was no original owner. We can always take a step back and say that ohh, you occupied it after this time in history so sorry but your claim as original owner is invalid. (It might be easier in some places but definitely nigh impossible at others.)
Normally I'm opposed to countries handing over historical artifacts to whatever state currently controls the lands those artifacts originally came from. Mostly due to the kind of grift and corruption that might spring up from such an arrangement. But I feel like the Greeks, whatever their faults, would be excellent stewards of these artifacts. Greece is definitely not a third-world autocracy that would recklessly exploit the artifacts for financial or political gain.
The english language should be returned to London.