> Is Italy, a country 200 years old, the heir of ancient Rome?

This is an interesting question. The answer is hard to pin down precisely, but sometimes when there is a change of governance the culture continues to exist. For instance, if something was produced in Japan before World War II, Japan remains the heir even though a new constitution is now in place. Similar with something produced in Moscow during the Soviet era: Russia is the heir. But something produced in Kyiv during the Soviet era, Ukraine is the heir.

> The easiest woke thing

Please don't derail discussion with inflammatory culture war, it's against the HN guidelines.

I think it’s a reasonable criticism that often the immediately “right” thing is in fact fraught with unintended consequences, and when there’s intense societal or cultural pressure to do the immediately right thing without thinking of those consequences, you could end up in a worse position than you began.

Not committing theft, or returning shit you stole, is considered "woke" now?

It's not shit you stole, not even shit your ancestors stole, it's shit someone who once occupied the same territory that you now occupy stole during a state of war.

I think for the same reason we have a Statute of Limitations on property crimes, you shouldn't have to return anything. Returning it would be very woke indeed.

What does "woke" mean in this context?

If centuries ago your ancestors stole from a country that no longer exists in the modern day, then yeah it's woke to return it to a different country occupying the same geographic space.

It's interesting that you refer to the thieves as 'ancestors', but yet refer to those who were stolen from only in terms of "country", which then conveniently allows you to dismiss restitution based on a technicality ('the country doesn't exist anymore). Do the people who had their possession stolen not have existing ancestors too?

Several years ago someone stole my former startup's first hardware prototype, along with a bunch of other stuff. In 300 years, should my descendents have a right to claim restitution from the descendents of whoever stole my things?

Do children inherit the sins of their parents?

Some pieces of art can be strongly tied to the history or culture of a nation/group. Is that really morally objectionable to give that back to the people that still strongly identify with it?

And using your bad example. If someone 300 years from now had an item of little sentimental value to them, but meant the world to another family that has a strong history tied with that company, wouldn’t you say that the moral thing is to give it to people that care about the object?

It’s not always about the law and giving legal responsibilities. It’s just about doing the decent and moral thing.

This one is hard to me. For instance, it’s obvious to me that you can’t pay interest on this thing but if it were an actual thing, surely one should give it back.

I mean, if I took a gold bar stamped with your name and authentically yours from you and decades pass and your son meets my son and my son shows off his gold bar, does your son not have a right to that bar?

Seems like straightforward theft. Intellectual property and imputed losses are hard but an item that is still itself? It feels different.

It's because the demand for items being returned only goes in one direction which supports what can only be described as 'woke' beneficiaries of the pieces. It's also not clear who properly owns what or why but it suits a narrative.

For example, do the people who think art taken during the colonial era from Asia and brought to France or England should be returned also think that art taken from the Catholic Church should be returned to the Catholic Church? Probably not. Has this happened? Yes, absolutely.

In any event morally unscrupulous rich people in other parts of the world may have no problem buying or stealing these items once they have left western museums where they may disappear forever.