Immigration/tourism requirements are always the strictest against the very countries who were plundered during colonial times, in comparison to rich countries with an imperial past/present.
Most of the world will never visit the UK. Most of the value that the British museum supplies goes back to the UK in the form of tourism and to close allies of the UK in terms of exposure to these artifacts.
Trivially false. The UK has strict requirements for Russia, a former imperial power. The USA was formerly 13 British colonies and has few restrictions.
Russia is currently in direct conflict with the UK (specifically financial and indirect military support to Ukraine, obviously not with regards to a hot war). Whereas that is not the case with any African nations I am aware of, yet many of those nations face significant travel restrictions not faced by a pre Ukraine invasion Russian population.
The UK allows only 83 countries' passport holders visa-free.
I picked Singapore at random. Probably some other country is even more visitor-friendly.
The “easiest” city to visit for the majority of the world depends on several factors, such as accessibility, flight connections, visa requirements, and infrastructure. However, based on these considerations, Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is often cited as one of the easiest cities for global travelers to visit. Here’s why:
1. Geographical Location: Dubai is centrally located between Europe, Asia, and Africa, making it a natural hub for international travel. Most of the world’s population is within an 8-hour flight of Dubai. 2. Major International Airport: Dubai International Airport (DXB) is one of the busiest airports globally, with direct flights to over 240 cities across six continents. Emirates Airline, based in Dubai, has extensive routes connecting the world. 3. Visa Policies: The UAE has relatively flexible visa policies. Many nationalities can obtain a visa on arrival, while others have access to electronic visas or straightforward visa processes. 4. Tourism Infrastructure: Dubai is extremely tourist-friendly with world-class hotels, transport systems, and tourist attractions. 5. Political Stability and Safety: Dubai is considered a safe and politically stable city, which adds to its appeal for international visitors.
Other cities like Istanbul, Singapore, or London also offer excellent global connectivity and infrastructure, but Dubai’s visa policies and central location make it a standout.
The UK has been very stable for a long time, however they are profiting indirectly from the museums, since it s a driver of tourism.
Should the UK become less stable, we should have a hard look at ensuring the continuity of the collection. As others have mentioned, a lot of these things would have been destroyed or forgotten had the British not decided it was important to keep it - and as time goes on, those things become even more irreplaceable.
The library of Alexandria was destroyed by imperial Muslims. It’s insane and hard to contemplate how much knowledge and history was lost.
“They” seem to have settled in the area. Should we give everything back to them, a culture that seems hellbent on destroying everything they don’t like?
Not sure if I was unclear, but my thinking is that: no, nothing should be given back from the British Museum.
> art project idea: "The British Museum", which is housed somewhere outside the UK and will accept and display any donations from anonymous donors into its collection that were provably stolen from Great Britain
Please don't shoot the messenger here. I'm just saying hypocrisy doesn't negate legal rights. I'm American, so no dog in the fight, but the UK would have the right to take those artifacts back.
Would be a glorious protocol in the eyes of Mike Pompeo & Co.
Most of the collection of the British Museum is not on display at any given moment (if ever). They could lose 90% of their inventory and the display would be exactly the same.
But that's beside the point. Museum entry may be free, but London is pretty expensive to go to, especially if you are from a place where the items in question were plundered (ie poor third world countries). In some cases it may even be illegal. Most of the people whose cultures those items belong to cannot afford to go visit the museum.
As for London being expensive, well visiting any foreign country is expensive by non-natives. At least in London you can get a large set of cultural exposure in a single visit.
> Most of the people whose cultures those items belong to cannot afford to go visit the museum.
There is no ancient Greek or Egyptian alive today, those cultures are long dead. What claim do modern inhabitants of those regions have over these artefacts?
So why not use this logic to extract all of The Hague's Mauritshuis (including The Girl With The Pearl Earring) to London? Let's include the most prized artifacts of other European countries too in this "large set of cultural exposure".
I think the default should be to return to the native country wherever possible. Although it does beg the question of what to do if the native countries have changed significantly due to imperialism/colonization, idk.
But I do appreciate the value of cross cultural sharing so perhaps museums could have a rotating selection that they can borrow for some time from the native country, as long as the transport does not have negative impacts on the artifacts.
Isn't this like saying "I'm not going to return what I stole because you clearly aren't capable of taking care of it, if you are it would never have been stolen"
I think there's a misunderstanding about the intention behind asking for return of stolen artifacts. It's not aleays about the artifacts themselves or how valuable they are or preserving them at all.
Returning items is like acknowledgment of historical mistakes and a signal that the other party is ready to make amends.
Merely acknowledging the mistake while holding onto the stolen artifacts is just a lip service that isn't even sincere.
The fish should never been taken but trying to do the ideal thing will kill the fish. Be practical not idealist.
You have a very cynical and skewed view of things. These museums were built specifically for the public good, to show off things that were of no interest in their original countries at that time. The British didn't say they wanted to build public museums to increase tourism, that came later as an unintended consequence.
You have a very cynical and skewed view of things.
Was anyone in the Mesopotamian area interested about cuneiform tablets a century ago? Where locals doing any archeological digs at Ur or Uruk?
It grants free access to British citizens and those few who can afford to travel to the UK. The grand majority of the world’s population cannot afford this.
Most important, the locals living in cities that were pillaged by the British can’t access cultural items at all. Sure, the museum entry might be free, but they can’t afford to travel to an island far far away.
I think that's besides the point.
To me this means a goodhearted effort to right past wrongs.
Firstly, as others have pointed out, the British Museum is not freely accessible to the vast majority of the world population. The world is larger than WEIRD countries and the richer sections of formerly colonised countries countries
Secondly, it is not the British Museum's decision to make about whether the cultural artifacts of other people is more valuable to "global culture" than it is to the culture it originated from. Let's take an example: India and China both have a population more than double that of the EU. Which means a museum located in either country provides visa-free access to billions of people with relatively cheap travel.
Would that be an argument to move the Girl With the Pearl Earring from The Hague's Mauritshuis to New Delhi or Beijing? Would it be an argument to move the painting to the British Museum? Indeed why not move the entire Mauritshuis to the British Museum? After all London receives far more visitors than The Hague does. Surely the global cultural value of those artifacts is greater than the value that the Dutch place on it.
Consider that you apply this logic to extract all Dutch artwork from that country and place it in a second country. Consider that the second country was largely responsible for such extraction, which included not only cultural artifacts but also wealth. Consider that the second country now places visa restrictions that make it harder for Dutch people to visit the country and even if they did, the cost of actually doing so would largely exclude most Dutch people. What effect would this extraction of cultural heritage have on the Dutch?
The reason why children are protected from abusive parents, is because they are protected by human right laws. A child is legally entitled to an upbringing safe from abuse, so a state is obligated to remove children from abusive housrholds.
Of course antiquities aren't people so they don't have any human rights. That is why it's stupid to compare artifacts to abused children.
After all, the British Museum, the main example for restitutions, is located in a global city, given completely free access to its huge collection on display and pays for preservation. The global cultural value it adds is much larger than individual museums all over the would could provide.
> Marieke van Bommel, director general of the National Museum of World Cultures, tells the New York Times’ Lynsey Chutel that “the thief cannot tell the rightful owners what to do with their property.”
And in the meantime the academy establishment seem to ignore doing what's best for the artefacts or the public. Abused children are taken away from their parents, but artefact are to simply be given back to whatever state has jurisdiction over some area they were in way back?
There seems to not be a simple answer on when things should be given back or not, but at least some effort should be put into figuring out some triage criteria.