It was a gift from Egypt

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_Obelisks

Egypt was subjugated to the Ottoman Empire at the time.

And even if they had some kind of king/dictator, it is certainly was a decision of a free people.

What antique France monuments did France give away just like that for no reason? Do not take what should not have been offered.

It was _essentially_ independent by then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Egypt_under_the_Muh...

It was in principle still part of the Ottoman Empire, but not really meaningfully under their control.

the ruler was maybe somewhat independent, the nation was not.

Romans also considered Herolds to be a just ruler of an "free" Judea as far as they are conceres. That's how often subjugation works.

It was kind of the opposite, AIUI; the Ottomans claimed that Muhammad Ali was just a regional governor, but the country was de facto independent; the Ottomans had no ability to control it.

How do you know? It was not free. The people certainly were not free.

> The people certainly were not free.

Oh, no, definitely not. I mean, it was the early 19th century; not _literally having slaves_ was considered a dangerously radical experiment that even revolutionary France could only half-commit to. Freedom wasn't a big thing in the early 19th century.

But Egypt under Muhammad Ali was about as independent as any country was at the time, really. It controlled its own domestic and foreign policy, had its own military, and _invaded its nominal suzerain_, taking Syria off the Ottomans.

So Palestinians should get their lands back?

> What antique France monuments did France give away just like that for no reason?

It may stretch the definition of "antique" but does the Statue of Liberty count? Nations give other nations things all the time, and when power changes hands that doesn't negate those gifts of the spirit in which they were offered.

Ottoman did not make the gift they gave to France. A democracy should not accept a tyrant giving a ancient gift from it "people"

That is just silly. Should we demand Iran returns things from Greece, Egypt, etc that they acquired during the Persian empire? Should Egypt return things they acquired from their neighbors in the past?

Depends on "acquired" means. Pillages as part of a war? Then yes, why not give it back? "Acquired" in terms of gifted by the other party, like this Obelisk, then no, that wouldn't make sense. Same goes for purchased.

But things stolen with violence or threat of violence, should probably be returned (if they want it returned). While we shouldn't hold children responsible for the actions of our parents, we can also be better than our parents and return things we know aren't rightfully ours.

Off-topic, but you're probably one of the top 3 persons in the world with the most similar first+last name as myself, with a Levenshtein Distance of only 6 :)

Americans "purchased" new york from the natives after feeding them alcohol to decimate their population for a few dollars.

Everything in America is "pillaged" I guess and should be returned. Seems unrealistic.

Honestly, I would have more respect for people who do land acknowledgements if they tried to give the land back. I don't think they should (because I believe that we shouldn't attempt to fix the sins of those who are long since dead), but at least then they would be attempting to walk the walk. Right now it comes off very poorly because people go "this land belongs to the natives" and then happily continue to possess it as if saying "well you own this technically" makes everything alright.

You must be well impressed with Gough Whitlam and Eddie Mabo et al then.

> to fix the sins of those who are long since dead

A good number of land right issues and acts of racism began with those long dead and continued forward under the actions of generations that followed, perpetuated in some form by some still living.

In a US context there are still current acts of administration that impact native title and rights to reservations that are current and contentious.

> I believe that we shouldn't attempt to fix the sins of those who are long since dead

I mean, we should try where it's possible and reasonable and the impact is ongoing. When a bunch of long dead people passed a law saying that women can't own property we were right to later correct that sin. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be trapped by the horrible choices of the dead. We just have to be careful about when and how we try to correct the wrongs of the past.

While I generally understand the sentiment, I would also argue that most of the countries that have been pillaged of artifacts are also incredibly unstable. I would rather the pillaging exist than to lose history. We could go on as to why those countries are unstable but keeping it bounded to simply the pillaging of artifacts I stand behind it.

Europeans routinely destroyed the artifacts of any culture they considered heretical. They tore down Greek and Roman temples to build churches on the ruins. They stripped the Coliseum for parts. They made soup out of mummies and traded grave goods as baubles. The premise that they somehow deserve to be considered the librarians and guardians of the very cultures they colonized and exploited is an absurd, and implicitly racist, imperialist ideal.

You may be right that the political situation has become complicated (the specific case of this obelisk is complicated) but let's not retroactively claim noble intent behind what at the time was little different than what the Vikings did when they showed up at Lindisfarne.

> They tore down Greek and Roman temples to build churches on the ruins. They stripped the Coliseum for parts. They made soup out of mummies and traded grave goods as baubles.

And yet they/we changed, and have preserved countless artifacts that even their original cultures are only now interested in. Not to forget that the very promotion of those foreign artifacts played a big role in making Westerners recognize the value of those other cultures and how much we have destroyed!

And they should continue changing by repatriating artifacts if the original owners want them back. It's entirely possible that some cultures might prefer having their artifacts be kept by others, but that clearly isn't always the case. For instance, bones and sacred items taken from indigenous peoples.

And as far as instability is concerned, a lot of that was caused by the same imperialist governments that looted the artifacts to begin with, so blaming those governments for that doesn't seem fair.

Recently Buddha's jewels where on the news due to it's british owners putting them up for auction and all the buddhists of the world not being very happy about it

> Not to forget that the very promotion of those foreign artifacts played a big role in making Westerners recognize the value of those other cultures and how much we have destroyed!

This is kind of where I stand on zoos. It sucks to see animals taken from their homes and held in unnatural captivity but the science, conservation, and educational aspects have a lot of value which is hard to ignore. A lot of people would never care if they didn't see with their own eyes what they stand to lose.

This conveniently ignores that Ancient Egyptian monuments were often little cared for by the natives of the land for centuries to the point where they would go and deface ancient statues because religion. I think at some point a zealot was lynched when he tried to damage the Sphinx of Giza though so there's also that. And it's not like ancient European monuments fared any better at the hands of later Europeans. They'd also go and pillage Byzantium FWIW. Likewise the pharaohs would often pride themselves how they killed and dismembered enemies and what riches they brought back as spoils of war. I will not excuse slave trade or tolerate war as a business model, however show me the civilization that did not wage war for gains when in doubt.

Whereas Antiquity Egyptians were well-known for being a well-behaving people, that never ever dared touch their neighbor's property? Didn't countless Pharaohs proudly inscribed in stone how many foes they killed, how many lands they conquered, how much riches they pillaged?

So you - and a lot of people judging from the comments - believe that it's perfectly legitimate to steal from someone who has ever, themselves, done anything in the past you consider wrong. That morality, ethics and laws should only protect the blameless, and everyone and everything else is fair game.

I have to admit I don't agree, I personally think the morality of a crime doesn't depend upon a value judgement of the of the victim. Theft is theft even if you steal from thieves, and two wrongs as they say don't make a right. But I suppose some people need to assume the victims of imperialism had it coming, but of course they themselves don't.

Good luck with that, and keep your doors locked.

> believe that it's perfectly legitimate to steal from someone who has ever, themselves, done anything in the past you consider wrong.

That's not my point, no – if only because inter-personal relations are not and should not be handled like inter-state relations.

My point is that human history, especially in crucibles such as e.g. the Mediterranean is such a mess of victors turning to losers, conquerors to conquered, migrations, emigrations, remigrations, internal & external invasion, pillaging, destruction and so forth, that not only (i) the modern countries are all but representative of the people that inhabited them through History, (ii) so deeply intertwined, that trying to bring reparations is a lost cause from the very start.

Let us accept that the French should give back the obelisk: but then, to whom? To Turkey, the descendant country from the Ottoman Empire, who originally gifted it? To ethnic Mamluks, who controlled Egypt at the time as a client state of the Ottoman Empire? To Arabic people, ruled by Mamluks, who invaded Egypt before the Mamluks came into the picture? To Italian, Macedonians, or Greeks, that ruled over Egypt before that? Or should they launch some DNA sampling campaign to find what population in Norther Africa is the closest to the Ancient Egyptians, and bring back the Obelisk there?

Never claimed the intent was noble, but I am saying I generally disagree with returning them to their origin spot.

Now I'll just be waiting for Italy to return the colleseum stones to Jerusalem. Pretty sure the temple would have been fine, if they would not have destroyed it themeselves.

The "we took it to keep it safe" argument is kinda of weak, and still morally wrong

You can hand wave all you want. I am not defending the original reason for those artifacts being taken but I am saying for existing countries in the world that are unstable I don’t find your argument to hold much validity.

I'm not sure how many things were taken to keep them safe and not just because "we want this", but I can envision instances where it would be justified. It'd have been nice if people swooped in to rescue the statues the Taliban went around destroying, or saved the rare books that were being burned in Baghdad.

I suppose the nice thing to do in those situations would be to return those artifacts to the areas they came from once the place was reasonably stable, but in some situations that day has yet to come.

>(also looking at you, England and Italy...)

*Great Britain, and whoever.

Is the US planning on giving back the Statue of Liberty? Would make as much sense

You can keep it, it's pretty where it is. And we already have like 20 of those: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicas_of_the_Statue_of_Libe...

TBH, the statue of liberty was a gift while the obelisks were pillaged.

...they weren't?

I stand corrected. The pillaging was initially planned but failed and it was gifted under circumstances that are not clear from the Wikipedia article.

It was too complex to steal, and Ottomans historical alliance with France, while disturbed by Napoleon, was still strong after his coup ended (France had sovereignty over a lot of small territories in the Ottoman empire due to their "protector of the Church" status).

That we don't know what was traded exactly (some people say it's the Cairo clock, but it is unclear and probably false) doesn't matter. The fact that Champollion already translated the rosetta stone from ancient greek and that hieroglyph could now be translated probably had an impact on this decision, especially since among all the Obelisks in egypt, Champollion singled out this particular one.

Any idea why the ottomans felt obliged to "gift" another obelisk to the brits though?

Yes, probably because the British helped the ottomans push back the Napoleonic army before they could enter 'true' ottoman lands (basically stopped them at Rafah or something, I have to check) then let the ottomans retake Egypt for free, without involving other regional powers (it was under ottoman rules in name only when Napoleon was sent there, and truly ruled by ottomans when he got kicked out). I have _not_ read about the English empire in this era, so I might be absolutely wrong. I mostly know French (and Italian somehow) 'modern' history (and only part of it, im not well read on the first Napoléonic empire, just on the moments before, the moments after, and the late second empire)

They were, Egypt was conquered at the time.

The empires pillaged it and gifted it among themselves.

What nations have never been conquered at any time? Rulers come and go. Countries are born and die and become new countries that get conquered and become something else ruled by someone else. Everything in America can be considered "pillaged" by that same standard, but would you see it all returned?

If you know who it belongs to, sure.

Are you planning to return the genes in you that came from other nationalities and tribes?

Actually, that's interresting.

According to wikipedia[0], the frenchs did think about stealing it during the Napoleonic wars, but didn't. Some time later they "suggested" to the Ottomans that the obelisks be offered, in exchange for a monumental clock[1]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_Obelisks#Luxor_Obelisk...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Citadel_Clock

In any case, it didn't belong to the Ottomans to give away.

Getting it as gift from a conquering entity, does not make any of it better.

I mean, if you really want to go down this way, it does not really belong to the Egyptians either. It's not because current-day Egyptians share the same land as antiquity Egyptians that they are the same people – countless waves of war, massacres, migrations, emigrations happened in the last 4 millenia.

By that logic who does it belong to? How long does someone need to be in an area to be the "owner" of it. The people on Egypt currently weren't there when it was moved. Why should they get it? The people that were there when it was moved definitely weren't there 3000 years ago when it was made. Did they own it? In fact who owns anything in the world?

easy, never give away or sell ancient artifacts. Would you be fine with people conquering rome, and selling it all stone by stone? Would you be OK with some Italian dictator doing it?

Rings true to me. The notion of ownership has been extended to almost everything and it makes no sense that anyone can claim ownership of an ancient obelisk. Or rather, we should distinguish between "I'm the caretaker of", "I'm the one who benefits from", and "I can do whatever I want with".