Basically the Nigerian federal government, the state government of Benin, and the descendants of the kings of Benin who originally owned the stolen Benin bronzes all think they should be the ones to whom the bronzes should be returned -- and in the case of the current king, he asserts they are his family's private property.
On top of that, there is a long track record of art being stolen from modern-day Nigerian museums and sold to other museums or collectors, and returning the bronzes just for them to be re-stolen does not benefit any of the parties involved.
Of course, there's still monetary benefit to the museum, London and Britain from people visiting to see them.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-museum-story/...
People who are travel to see the crown jewels are going whether or not this one is there with it.
Apparently, the Tower is not government property, but belongs to the Crown Estate.
(I suspect the British cannot return the Koh-i-Noor diamond because it's not government property, either.)
Historic reparations (beyond 100 years or so) fundamentally requires you to ignore the individual and treat people as being part of homogenous groups categorized according to some probably highly subjective traits. Its fundamentally evil.
Compare that to Nazi Germany, where reparations were paid in significant quantities, and kids in schools are still taught to be embarrassed by that section of their country's history. Whereas you get the sense that Britain is still, in some ways, proud of its rather ruthless and barbaric empire.
Well, it was a long time ago, so why bring up the atrocities now, eh? Thanks for the wealth, and here are a few meaningless pennies in aid. You can consider us your heroes now. /s
There also were payments to Poland, Greece and Yugoslavia.
Also, just in terms of numbers, the British empire was pretty insane in terms of the quantity of people it murdered, both directly and indirectly. The number is much higher than those murdered by the Nazis, even if it happened over a longer period. They should certainly be held accountable, at the very least.
When you say "the British should be held accountable" all those individuals are dead and gone. It's a bit Catholic to hold the children accountable for the sins of the father. Its unlikely my forefathers even had the vote at that time. So please explain how I'm accountable again?
Edit: It's clearly a subjective topic, but there are significant impacts felt the world over due to the British empire. I'm not sure you can say the same of Alexander the Great. People are directly and significantly affected to this day by the actions of the British. I guess the nature and extent of the impact would need to be decided by a court, but it'll always be an imperfect science. That doesn't mean it's unnecessary.
"Property is theft, therefore theft is property."
Where it is now has a lot of historical and cultural significance. It is currently being admired publicly by thousands of people, sitting on the coffin of Queen Elisabeth.
I think you mistook that photograph in the article or misread the caption - that was Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother's coffin; not Elizabeth II's.
The crown 'currently being admired publicly [...]' does not contain the Kohinoor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_State_Crown
the one in the article (containg the Koh-I-Noor) is the Queen Mother's Crown
If it belongs to the Sikh Empire, which Punjab does it belong to? If it belonged to Jammu Kashmir does it belong to AJK or JK?
On top of that, if it belonged to JK, did it belong to Kashmir w/ Gulab Singh or Kashmir during the Durrani occupation? If the Durrani Occupation, then which successor of the Durrani state - Afghanistan or Pakistan.
The British Raj provinces in the North (Punjab[0], Sindh[1], Pakhtunkwa[2]) was treated differently than the rest of India. We voted for the Unionist Party [3][4] - not Congress or the PML.
And if I'm being honest (and much more annoyed at this point) you guys left us for slaughter during Partition - Congress, Jan Sangh, the PML, Jamaat-e-Islami, Akali Dal, etc. While Gandhi was in Bengal, where were the rest of the Indian independence leaders when my Mom's side were forced to leave Jhelum? Where were you guys when the Muslims in my dad's village were forced to leave by the sword and bullet (both Zia-ul-Haq's and Imran Khan's biradari/clan were from villages within 40-50 miles from my dad's ancestral village before they were forced to leave)? Why did we try to assasinate Nehru in the refugee camps? Why did we try to assasinate Jinnah in Karachi? Why didn't you guys arrest demagouges like Tara Singh who helped flame this shitshow? The rest of India left us to rot, and then did the same thing in the 1980s and the 1990s.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_Province_(British_India...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sind_Province_(1936%E2%80%9319...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-West_Frontier_Province
Time to return stolen goods and the Brits all of a sudden have a learning disability surrounding the topic of who custodies assets on behalf of independent states like India.
Hilarious.
Is that not accurate?
(Because we pay taxes to the crown, doesn't really make sense for the king to pay tax to his majesty's own revenue and customs, HMRC. That said, there was something in the accension council about continuing to volunteer tax on something or another, and as the Duke of Cornwall he volunteered tax on duchy income. My understanding is that the royal family is a net contributor to state coffers even without (how would you even begin) accounting for all the tourism income.)
To stray back into 'some online commentator' though, I believe that may be outdated: I think it's now wholly Waitrose, just a brand. (Notice there's no Essentials/Cooks Ingredients organic brand/products - if it's organic it's Duchy Organic.)
(At least if you believe the figures from Visit Britain, the government organization for tourism.)
That said, it seems silly to argue it brings no tourism whatsoever, and indeed the page you linked doesn't - it claims £500M, which it (fairly enough) goes on to say is negligible in the scheme of UK total tourism revenue and economy.
But that's not the point is it - when people make the claim it says is wrong, or certainly for the point I was making (again which I think tourism can be ignored for anyway) it's about expense vs. revenue from the royal family, i.e. whether there's net income - because if there is then it seems a futile argument for republicans to say they 'cost too much' - not whether or not that income is large enough to put a meaningful dent in GDP.
I don't much care about the costs, but it is a good demonstration of how opaque this part of government is.
(Though in this case, they may end up having to follow through, i.e. cutting their baby into equal parts.)
Tbh I don't care where the rock is or who owns it. Regarding the crown I just wish investments were transparent on par with sovereign wealth funds (Norway's Global Pension Fund is gold standard imo).
Where are they investing, is it ESG? Whats the structure for tax purposes. Etc.
The scenario is obviously not the same - that's the joke. (Which apparently did not land.) The critical difference is: It's better to get part of the diamond than nothing at all. Thus, when any party is presented with the option to take part of it, their only sensible action is to take it. Either it's going to be split anyway, and no one would want to give away their share to the other scoundrels, or all parties are going to come together and refuse to allow it to be split - which leaves us back at the beginning.
The same cannot be said for babies. Who wants part of a baby? Not me
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%203%3...
>They argued back and forth in front of Solomon, 23 until finally he said, “Both of you say this live baby is yours. 24 Someone bring me a sword.”
>A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, 25 “Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him.”
>26 “Please don't kill my son,” the baby's mother screamed. “Your Majesty, I love him very much, but give him to her. Just don't kill him.”
> 27 Solomon said, “Don't kill the baby.” Then he pointed to the first woman, “She is his real mother. Give the baby to her.”
Maybe it was a ploy to see who cared more.
Yes, it might piss some off, but this idea of keeping the status quo (keeping it with the British) because it is complicated is ridiculous.
The Crown is effectively the state. It's different from the private income and possessions of the Monarch and Royal family.
Every other member of the Royal Family are liable to tax, the same as us. They can offset the cost of their official duties against their taxes though.
If somebody stole this from the British today, they have no right to complain!
1) sign the treaty paper where I leave you harmless but take away all your wealth 2) kill you and your family and take away all your wealth
Which option would you choose?
Your heir 200 years later would stop their claim on it ? Fair deal?
Maybe it should be returned to mother earth, that way there would be no violence in the chain of ownership.
it’s more fair than the current situation and there seem to be no other plans to rectify the situation in the near future either.
Every piece of land that every country owns was taken at the point of the sword at one point or another.
And to answer your question no I don't think I have any right to the wealth of the great great great great grandchild of the thief. Courts would also share my view.
I think we are on the same page. Instead of pointing out to Britain that you must return it, one should grab it.
Update: To clarify, Turing_Machine likened the suggestion that California be given to Mexico to alephnerd's description of the complex and unclear proper ownership of the Koh-I-Noor. I claim that the situation in California is simpler, at least in some places, because there are native Californians to give stuff back to and multiple tribes are willing to cooperatively take custody and stewardship of the land, as the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council has. This is in many ways the opposite of Pakistan, India and Afghanistan having competing / mutually incompatible claims.
edit: the OP is actually a good example now that he explained it.
What is now California was never controlled by what is now Mexico until the Spanish colonizers showed up. The Aztecs (who were themselves brutal colonizers, as it happens) weren't running the show there or anything like that.
The rest of your comment scans, but this bit seems weird to me.
What does the rate of inflation have to do, with taxation?
Some points:
- we are no where near record inflation, at least not in the US and Canada, and I presume the UK too. I recall 18% being thrown around in the 80s.
- changing tax policy due to inflation seems a weird idea to me. Inflation causes cost of living changes, but also, as a result, wage increases are fought for and won.
If anything, inflation needs to see taxation brackets moving upward to be fair! Not more taxation...
- look at all consumption tax. Inflation goes up, pricing goes up, so sales tax, gas tax, etc collected increases as a result.
I guess I don't get the inflation angle.
To your second point, CoL in London is basically LA level. London rents+council tax make rental prices SF level (around $1-2k/month in rent and around $1-2k/month in local property tax, which rentors apparently pay as well) while London median incomes are below poverty line LA or SF levels (around $40,000/year) [0], and inflation around 8-9%, the optics of a high net worth family exempt from Income Tax and Capital Gains tax unless they choose to incure it voluntariliy is very jarring.
[0] - https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/average-uk-salary
Oh it absolutely is! People in London pay a lot of money just to be there, and over the last couple of decades I've watched friends move further and further out, some still in flat-share arrangements into their 40s, as the idea of owning property anywhere in anything resembling an inner zone moved from "expensive" to "surely nobody can afford that?" to completely out of the question. And my friends tend to be at least vaguely professional workers, which of course means they are part of waves of gentrification pushing the people with less resources even further away.
How the whole thing sustains itself is something of a mystery to me. The city still needs cleaners.
(FWIW the whole of the UK is pretty much used to quite small living accomodation now, compared to the average American or Australian home)
I was there. And I got hit by the 18% they threw
Because they literally own all (or at least most) of the tourist attractions in the UK. It looks funny how the royal family is paid bunch of money for just existing until you realize they own the land and they have deal with the government where government handles the properties and whatever and pays the royal family for it, but the amount revenue is much much larger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate
(And the monarch is still exempt from inheritance tax on their private property, e.g. Balmoral.)
Personally I would not want it back, because it is just the tip of the iceberg. The church of England (now csi and cni) hold on to 1000s of acres of colonial land across the country.
The kohinoor is just a drop in the ocean.
I think the issue of federal government vs state government - federal government holds it as stewards of the people.
Sure, not in dispute. The point of the exercise is to recontextualize ownership of colonial spoils as the heritage of the colonized people, rather than the personal property of the monarchs involved, or the successor states of an empire. Indeed, I would broaden that to include all wealth plundered from the people, including by their own nobility. If the goal is to restore the diamond to the people who have had the greatest claim to it, it's not an impossible task to determine where their descendants currently live. If we seek to consider to simply restore the diamond to the last royal claimant (and their successor entity) before British hands entered the long relay of property ownership, I'm not sure much is accomplished.
On top of that, both Pakistan and India made themselves successor states of princely states in the 1970s but it's still a murky gray area from a jurisprudence standpoint as cases are still being litigated, as the associated federal-local level deliniation is still lacking. Welcome to the legal world.
[0] - https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/constitution-to-sc...
[1] - http://14.139.211.59/bitstream/123456789/194/6/06_CHAPTER_02...
South Asian colonial history is no more complicated than anywhere else in the world. Nor at any point have I deferred to the legal inheritance of successor states.
Consider for example the Elgin marbles, claimed by the British from a section of the erstwhile Ottoman Empire. Do we seriously believe any of the successor states of the Ottoman Empire other than Greece should claim them? If the goal is to restore the marbles to their "home", the answer to where they should go is easy. Yes, the diamond's history is more complicated, but not impossible to figure out where it's "home" should be. I've offered just one possible model, based on a collective ownership model, and weighing it by the factors such as how long it rested in each place.
Returning this diamond isn't going to magically erase 200 years of colonial rule.
AFAIK they need money a lot more than Britain, and tangible food and resources are a lot more useful than a pretty diamond.
Though I kind of doubt this will happen…
This is the comment’s point. The benefits of a trade deal might measure up to the worth of this diamond in minutes.
EDIT: apparently the diamond is worth even less - google fu has failed me yet again
Articles kicking around estimate at 140 - 400 million, with some "over a billion".
Punjab is part of India, so India will do. It was taken from a Maharaja whos citizens and their descendants wanted to be part of India
And yes, before you harp on it, the land we call America should go back to the Native Americans, the aboriginals of Australia and New Zealand should also get their lands back. Or whoever else has been the subject of conquest.
Ultimately, slavery, caste, and colonization are institutions of brutality.
Reparations are owed.
Britain can never repay the damage colonization caused to India. But it can return the diamond as an admission of guilt. And sure, it’s owed to a bunch of countries. I’m pretty sure India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka can figure out a shared ownership model for the diamond. They seem to get along fine sharing cricket trophies when there’s a draw.
You would have the Earth remain completely static, and wherever your ancestors happened to evolve into humans that’s where you and your descendants live forever until the end of time?
It’s ridiculous. Things change. Move on.
Colonialism isn’t the same as ancestral predator prey mechanics. Or, that we should reverse every unjust war waged in the world.
Some are just blatantly brutal. Simple. We owe it to our species to recognize mistake, apologize and make repairs.
Would Britain really say “it’s ridiculous. Things change. Move on” for forcefully castrating Turing simply because he was gay? Oh wait. No. They didn’t actually do that.
Some atrocities are just that bad. Things don’t change. It’s ridiculous. Grow a spine!
And what did that do for Turing? He's still castrated. He's still dead. Were the people who apologized even the ones responsible? They must be mostly dead now too. Was there any serious concern in 2009 when the apology was issued that the UK was going to continue castrating gay people?
That had far more to do with present day politics and empty gestures to appease people like yourself than with making any repairs or apologies to anyone, not that such gestures mean anything to dead people anyway.
The people who used to own the diamond and could theoretically have any rightful claim to it are likewise dead, as are the people who stole it. It is where it is now and moving it somewhere else won't change the past. India's economy just eclipsed the UK's and is on the rise, while the UK is declining, so they'll have the last laugh anyway. Maybe they can buy it back at a yard sale when King George needs to pawn it to pay the rent on Buckingham Palace.
The problem with your line of thinking is that it’s never applied equally. It always ends up with only white people being assigned moral agency.
We do recognize, apologize and make repairs. This is why Africa, India and southeast Asia are all free, sovereign nations now. Repairs were made.
I always find it funny that Indians venerate the moghuls and vilify the British. They were both foreign invaders that conquered people. At least the British led directly to a much more unified India as it stands today, the concept of a single Indian state is a new one (that was created by the British), India is as much one people as Europe, do you think the Indian government owes reparations to the princely states for forcibly annexing them?
More info: I think what you’re missing is atrocities have been committed and forgotten.
Let’s stick to the topic at hand: we’ll unravel the stack reverse chronological order.
The point here is not to somehow e redistribute all the wealth all over the world. The point is to make reparations. The kingdom of Britain squatting over India for 309 years and then leaving is not morally the right thing to do.
Once the *people* involved in a specific historical event are long gone it's tenuous to imply that the descendants of those parties have a moral obligation to each other. Inheritance is going to be inequitable regardless--it's questionable to assume that anyone deserves to inherit even justly acquired property. So trying to unravel history and decide who deserves what inheritance is ridiculous, even more so when nation states are involved.
We have statutes of limitations for good reasons.
That's how it's always worked.
India is a democracy, people's government. So your argument doesn't stand.
Timeless.
Art and historical objects circle through different museums all the time, it's not a new concept. "Gosh I plundered something from India or Pakistan, oh my whoever will I give it back to?!" isn't a serious issue
That's not how geopolitics works, particularly in that section of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Pakistan_relatio...
If the British had taken possession of an object from an Indian tribe in California in 1800, who would be entitled to it? The U.S. government? The government of Mexico? The State of California? The Tribes' descendants?
Possession is 9/10 of the law.
By the way, there are many examples of colonizing European countries refusing to return things they took during colonization where that "we don't know who we should give it to" argument is much weaker or non-existent.
For example, Egypt has many items that are on display in European (mostly British and French) museums that it has tried to regain where ownership is not that complicated because the item was taken from Egypt by a European without complicated chains that might affect who owns what.
Maybe the most famous is the Rosetta Stone, which was found and taken by French troops from Egypt, then given to the British via some treaty, and the British refuse to give it back despite many calls from Egypt. You could say something like "oh well it's unclear whether the British should give it back to the French or the Egyptians"... but I hope you can see how that would be a stretch.
From an Egyptian viewpoint - a good example might be as follows:
What if an artifact was found in the Gaza Strip in 1955 and taken to the UK, who should the UK return it to? The Gaza Strip government, the West Bank government, the Israeli government, or the Egyptian government?
Edit: cannot reply below -
1. I'm pointing out a specific requirement in IR
2. The Gaza example above is an analogy for the Kohinoor example. I honestly don't care about the Egyptian case because I have no connection with that part of the world and I assume there are different considerations.
Also the Gaza strip example is just unnecessary hypothetical scenario. The British and french stole a lot of things from all over Egypt. There is no need to imagine hypothetical scenarios.
“We stole it earlier” is not a more legitimate claim.
And in any case, these countries are perfectly capable of sorting these disputes out amongst themselves, the same way they had to sort out much else after independence, like who inherits the armed forces and the treasury.
Sure, but the crown shouldn't keep it. Give it to a neutral 3rd party until an agreement is in place.
Give it to Bangladesh then.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/world/asia/pakistan-kashm...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kashmir-poll-idUSDEL29179...
My family and the clan is from that region as well, and just about every family friend has a relative that has died. Jammu, Himachal, and Northern Punjab also have some of the highest per capita rates of per capita Armed Service volunteers in India, so every village or town or family will have a Shaheed/Martyr, which only exacerbates the bad blood. For example, when I go to my dad's village, immediately after crossing the Punjab border into our state you start seeing statues and banners in memory of Shaheeds who died in 1999, 1971, 1965, Uri, Pathankhot, etc. Add to that illegal rifles are very common in the region so there is always the potential for bloodshed to occur. There are generations of bad blood in the area and no one will budge an inch (and who can blame anyone on either side to be honest - when family members die it becomes personal).
Buddhists tend to Ladakhi (a Western Tibetan group). They are closely related to the Baltis (a Shia Western Tibetan group), but there is some bad blood between the two groups, but Ladakh has tended to remain relatively conflict free religion wise (Indian Armed Services and the PLA fight there instead, just like the Sikh Empire did against the Qing Dynasty there in the 1840s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogra%E2%80%93Tibetan_War)).
There is generations of bad blood, and a lot of people with small arms and light arms training. Shit gets real very fast.
PS - I am talking about the Indian side as I have first hand experience there. The Pakistani side is actually Jammu, so a different ethnic group from Koshur. Also a lot of army recruiting from that side into the Pakistani Army. The entire Punjab, Pakhtunkwa, and Jammu Kashmir region has always had a very active martial tradition - think of a Cotton Hill type mentality from King of the Hill.
And also the other jewels stolen from South Africa. Or at the very least, don't keep them on the regalia.
Didn't they, you know, give up their empire? And invite their former colonies to colonize them, to the point that they are now a minority in their own capital?
If anything this should have taught them that, not only will it never be enough, but every act of atonement will count for nothing and be immediately forgotten and discredited.
If they give up the Koh-I-Noor to whomever plundered it before them, ten years later someone like you will be claiming that it is hilariously naive to believe they just gave it up.
On top of that, if it goes to India - should it be owned by the Central/Federal government, the Punjab government (the state that is the core of the former Sikh Empire), Jammu Kashmir's Government (because of Shah Shuja and Raja Gulab Singh), Delhi Government (the Mughal capital), or Andhra Pradesh Government (the mine is located there). And is it worth putting a logjam into the Free Trade Agreement India and the UK are currently negotating?
If they give it to Pakistan, should it go to the Pakistan Federal Government, Punjab Government (the state that is the core of the former Sikh Empire), AJK Government (because of Shah Shuja and Raja Gulab Singh), or Khyber Pakhtunkwa Government (the state that is the core of the former Sikh Empire and former Durrani Empire)? Is it worth putting British Humanitarian and Military Aid at risk?
If they give it to Afghanistan, is it to the Taliban led government, or the government in exile? Is it worth putting British Aid and potential recognition at risk?
It's a conundrum and an complicated legal question that honestly isn't worth it for any of the countries, all of whom have bigger issues to deal with, also it can be argued that the Sikh Empire handed it to the UK fairly.