Egypt to France: Give our antiquities back

It's not like they are asking for antiquities that have been in France for centuries. These are pieces stolen in the 80s that the Louvre purchased.
 
Did someone say something about reanimating me?

confused.gif
 
As to this issue in specific, France is clearly in the wrong, apparently has admitted they were in the wrong and has yet to do anything to resolve the issue. Zahi Hawass' response is completely appropriate, and the Louvre should either return the items, or pay Egypt to continue displaying them, if Egypt will allow. Paying for stolen goods is worse than stealing them yourself, as you ensure there is an incentive for more theft.

On the wider issue of France and England keeping objects plundered during their empires... I'm torn. There is no doubt that both countries were wrong to have taken them, and almost without exception acted in bad faith with all of their "colonies"... that said, a very real argument could be made than many of the pieces in question would not have survived to the present day without France and England taking conservatorship of them. These objects should belong to their countries of origin, not France and England where they are oddities not heritage... but it is not an issue as simple as that.
 
Since when did the Loevre stoop so low as to buy from thieves? This seems pretty clear cut to me. They even admitted they were in the wrong. They should return the murals.
 
Obviously they should return the materials.

In fact, they should have cooperated with Egypt and Interpol when they were contacted to help stop the looting. It's a world-wide epidemic fueled by private collectors, but also sometimes involving famous institutions like the Louvre and the Met in NY.

As for items acquired legally, (at the time), that's a different set of complications. Taken to its absurd extreme, should the Netherlands be able to demand the return of a legally acquired Rembrandt simply because it was painted in Delft?

But in this case, I should think the Louvre knows what they will eventually have to do, they are just negotiating for a long-term loan.







smokin.gif
 
This thread reminds me of parts of David Bromberg's positively stunning (if you play guitar even a little bit) version of Statesboro Blues:

Give me back the hat I bought you, and the big umbrella.
Give me back the dress, I want the shoes, and all.
If you don't love me, woman, you got no reason to stand there and squawl.
Give me back the wig, and let your goddamned head go bald.


I done more for you, woman, away last year
I suffered through the summer, and I scuffled through the fall.
I done more for you, woman, than the Good Lord hisself ever done.
Hell, I put hair upon yo' head, and you know He never give you none.
 
DoobieWah, this is strictly for conversations sake, as I've stated my position above... that said, does right-of-conquest really hold up to scrutiny as being "legal"? It seems to me that theft under rule of law is still theft. The ethics of the transaction are unchanged, the only difference is the nature of the assailant.
 
mia, I apologize for the delay in responding.

The problem is one of pragmatism. Objects "looted" decades or even centuries ago often come with a provenance of having been obtained as a gift or a purchase from someone who at least nominally had the authority to do so - a local petty government official, chieftain, etc.

That authority may or may not have been "official", or would be trusted in today's litigious society, but much of the material was not gold or silver, but marble and limestone and ceramic. And the stuff was just laying around in much of the ancient world.

I don't think anyone anywhere is suggesting that the Royal Museum be stripped and its exhibits returned to the country of origin.

This particular example is clearly a case where the outcome is obvious. At this point, the Louvre is just looking for its most favorable terms.






smokin.gif
 
Agreed, completely. I just think the issue is more complex than "we gifted it to ourselves when you were our colony" would allow. Personally, I think it is somewhat wrong that the British Museum won't even entertain permanently "loaning" Greece the Elgin Marbles. I think there is something to be said for heritage, that certain things belong to the community of their origin. It is irksome to me that the Plataean Tripod is in Istanbul, even though it has been there far longer than it ever was at Delphi.

Empires rose and took what they wanted, but certain things should transcend ownership (instead be about conservatorship) in my mind. I realize that is an enormous over simplification, but I can think of no reason why I would have to travel to London to see something like the Rosetta Stone which is an Egyptian artifact. I recognize the validity of their claim, none the less, these objects seem out of place to me.

London and Constantinople took these things because they could, and did so without adequate (or in some cases any) compensation to their native lands. If they were taken by a man with a knife or a gun, it would be robbery, but if they were taken at the end of a spear or canon, it is all of a sudden acceptable... and I disagree in principal.
 
Native Americans didn't recognize the concept of property rights and wouldn't have claimed ownership they way that the Europeans did. They wouldn't need to because population density was much lower than in Europe. No doubt the displacement of the Native Americans was a crime in and of itself, but I challenge the notion that they would have recognized that particular injustice (Manhattan specifically, probably less so Oklahoma) as land theft.
 
Longtex, I'm not sure what are you arguing, cause you are kinda all over the map. If your argument is that because theft is a recurring theme through out history, then there is no legitimate ownership of anything... then what the hell do you care about the native americans, and why aren't you getting all pretentious and quoting them blues music?

What are you advocating for?
 
You can't impose modern standards of conduct on past generations. If you think the US owes the Native Americans, then what do you do for the tribes that were forced from "their" lands by other tribes. The term Sioux comes from the bastardized French translation of an Indian word for "snake." French fur traders asked another tribe (can't remember which one) what the Lakota were called, and the answer sounded like a word that could be spelled S-I-O-U-X.

The Lakota were not on the Great Plains when French explorers traveled the region in the early 1700s, but they were when Lewis & Clark went up the Missouri in 1804. They forced other tribes out of the region. Took their land, one might say.

The point is, everyone has or had enemies. Throughout most of human history nations, tribes, etc. took what they could by force. It is a relatively new concept that nations should not take what is not theirs. The US could have taken lots of land after WWII, but we chose not to. A century earlier, we probably would have kept what we conquered.

That being said, the answer to the original question is "yes."
 
God help me I almost sided with the French on something.

If they knew it was stolen it should go back and the people who knowingly did it in the Lourve should go to jail.
 
I see your confusion and I should point out, longtex, that I didn't attach pretension to the blues, I attached it to you personally.

You seem to be making the argument that no wrongs can be rectified until ALL wrongs are rectified... and that is a stupid and thoughtless argument. The American Indians were collectively hose-jobbed by the American people, you'll get no dispute on that point from me... or anyone really. That said, that is not a problem which is easily or practically rectified. In any event, the difficulty of addressing the complaint (which we are all agreed is valid) does not mean that redress should not be attempted, but I'm not sure I'm smart enough to know where to start on that score. That said, stolen antiquities seems pretty straight forward and easy to address, and the case we were discussing specifically has not one thing to do with the American Indians.

That the materials were stolen is not in dispute, both the Egyptians and the French agree that it was. That the next step is that the materials are to be returned to Egypt is ALSO not in dispute. There are two problems on the table. First, that the French are dragging their feet on returning the stolen property, and the Egyptians are rightfully denying them access to other artifacts until they do. Second, that the French seem to have KNOWINGLY purchased illegally obtained artifacts. To me the second is the greater crime, since it both gives a market to thieves and that it gives the Louvre's stamp of legitimacy on theft in general.

Longtex, I agree that the Indians got jobbed, and that redress is still owed (though in what form I am not sure). That that situation is unresolved has nothing to do with addressing other claims which are just as legitimate and many times easier to rectify.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top