Okay. But that's surely not a reason why the Brits get to keep it. "This is too hard, let's give up and keep bringing in tourist money to our museums through these artifacts" feels like an awfully convenient excuse.

For what it's worth, the Benin Bronzes are in the British Museum, which is free to visit. (Though special exhibitions usually cost extra.)

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/...

I was under the impression that most museums around the world are a cost to governments rather than a boon, there's probably a few exceptions.

People who are travel to see the crown jewels are going whether or not this one is there with it.

Especially when most museums and galleries in London (all of the UK?) are free to enter. It’s usually only touring/limited display special features that have a modest fee to see them.

A ticket to the Tower costs 30 pounds: https://www.hrp.org.uk/tower-of-london/visit/tickets-and-pri...

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.)

Or the money from it being on display in the museum could be split as a charitable donation to all the countries involved. Seems like a win-win-win-win-win.

People screech in terror and hide their wallets anytime the word "reparations" is said. I don't think colonial empires are going to be sending a considerable amount of plundered money back any time soon.

Many people don't think states are first class entities and what matters are individual people. So why should Alice give tribute (probably via taxes given to the central gov) to Bob for crimes done by someone she's never even heard of that were done to someone with only the most tenuous relationship with Bob? Particularly when Alice may not even be related to the criminal and has not benefited from the crime (heck, her parents probably immigrated from another state) and when Bob's ancestors did the exact same thing and are paying no reparations.

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.

Quite true, not sure why you're down-voted. Colonial empires managed to get away extremely lightly, with respect to putting right their wrongs.

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

You mean West Germany paid a fraction of what they received under the Marshall plan to Israel, and Israel alone. Doesn't really seem to put right the slaughtering they did all across Europe including the slaughtering they did to their own who weren't considered good enough.

There were more reparations paid by West Germany, mostly by losing territory and by dismantling of surviving industry, taking industrial products, intellectual property and rail lines.

There also were payments to Poland, Greece and Yugoslavia.

Should Mali also pay reparations to Ghana over the atrocities they committed during 13th century wars of conquest?

Your comment is somewhat meaningless in the context. But yes, in general, I believe that if you commit or benefit from atrocities, you should be held accountable. Even if it was your grandfather that murdered people and you inherit the wealth he looted, you should at the very least give that wealth back once you realise that it was wrong, especially if the people you looted from are dying from lack of resources.

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.

So are the Italians going to pay reparations to the British for the Roman occupation?

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?

Considering a lot of the richest people in Britain still have Norman names, I think the « French reparations » is something the British should ask from their own aristocracy.

How far back should we go? Alexander the Great?

I guess then in your opinion what the Nazis did was fair game, and they should not have had to pay reparations either? What, in your opinion, is the cutoff point in time, where sins are universally absolved?

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.

The nazis paid reparations in the lifetime of the people affected.

The US and British strategy is to wait out the plundered to avoid repayment. For this reason, Germans deserve a lot more respect. Reparations has been a serious topic of discussion since the late 1800s in the case of the American enslaved populations and it still hasn't been done.

And Hindus should demand reparations from Muslims for the 800 years of colonization before the British. That’ll go over great.

Possession is 9/10 of the law.

This is along the lines of the other, equally glorious line:

"Property is theft, therefore theft is property."

You won't mind if my gang and I steal your TV at gunpoint then?

I would mind, because possession is nine tenths of the law.

Especially possession of guns and weapon systems.

Arguably it is morally good as it renders fighting over possession by the region's countries a futile effort.

Surely "it brings joy in this museum and isnt causing violence in Niger" is a good reason to keep it?

exactly. if you can’t determine a ‘true’ owner, even throwing the diamond into the ocean is a more fair solution than the british monarchy just keeping it while no inkling of plans to ever rectify the situation.

Seems like he needs to write a 419 email to retrieve it.

https://www.419eater.com/