Search Results: arguments

Settle an argument for me please.

FUN FACT: Only 1% of the artifacts that the British museum holds are on display. This prevents the entire planet from engaging with world history. Do they have the right to deny us our planetary heritage?

There are a number of arguments AGAINST returning artifacts to their countries of origin, including:

Safety: The artifacts may not be safe in their new location.

Loss of artifacts: Museums would lose many of their artifacts, which could make them nearly empty.

Visitor numbers: Museums would lose their most prominent artifacts, which could hurt their ability to attract visitors.

Economic loss: Museums and private companies would lose financial opportunities.

Lack of facilities: The source country may not have the proper facilities or personnel to receive the artifacts.

Unclear destination: The ancient kingdoms from which the artifacts came may no longer exist, or they may be spread across multiple modern countries.

Colonialism: Returning artifacts obtained during colonialism does not make up for the destruction of colonialism.

Legal acquisition: Most objects in museums were legally obtained and have no reason to be repatriated.

There are a number of arguments FOR return to indigenous cultures:

Cultural objects, as part of cultural and political identity, belong with the civilizations that developed them.

Stolen or plundered property should be restored to its rightful owner because it is ethically correct.

The greatest way to appreciate and comprehend art is in its original context.

What do you think?