Gonna play a game of comment roulette. How far do I have to scroll before I see someone say something like, "That can't be in their museum because they can't be trusted with it".
Spinning the chamber now.
better a museum than on a shelf in someone's living room (no I won't be donating it)
Marion, this is a movie made in the 1980s and set in the 1930s, what the hell are you even talking about?
"I liked you better when you were a child I was grooming!"
Marion, you knew when you met me that I came from the mind of George Lucas. It's not my fault I'm a little fucked up!
Well I'm British so... fuuuck that!
Britannia Jones and the stolen museum artifacts.
What's the opinion on certain high risk countries where there's a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed? If I remember correctly ISIS and other similar organizations have burned or bombed several historical sites before.
The only opinion that should matter is that of the people the artifacts belong to.
“It’s safer with us” is an excuse that’s been abused by colonizers and raiders for too long.
If you're suggesting a daring heist at the Smithsonian, I'm in!
Museums should participate in cultural exchange, if a museum feels under threat then they have channels they can trust to protect their artifacts until they can be returned
We have to be extremely wary of people who cite that because it's so easily used as a justification for artifact theft and can have deep roots in racism.
That's the question. Where is the line between racism and artifact protection?
Presumably somewhere between racism and artifact protection.
ISIS works for usa, so, the answer is kill all yanks
Much like the theft of historical artifacts by the UK et al, ISIS was the result of decades of imperialist meddling by the US. Maybe just leave things be and let the locals work out what they want to do with their land, their people, and the artifacts on it. Offering assistance without strings attached is good, interventions are bad.
It's like offering to help your neighbor with their yard: it's acceptable to offer to lend them your mower, but it's not acceptable to dig up everything on their property, replace it with grass sod, and spray it regularly with herbicides because you didn't like the look of their local fauna and are afraid the dandelions and clover would spread to your lawn after your first intervention.
Who do you recognize as the authority to make that decision though? If the locals are currently ruled by a terrorist group or Nazis or whatever, do they get to decide? What about the locals that disagree with the government currently in power?
And an answer of 'if we just didn't needlessly meddle' might be the ideal, but it's ignoring the realities that we have meddled and some countries are unlikely to stop doing so. We have to accept the world we have not the one we wished we had.
-Why there are pyramids in Egypt?
-Because Brits couldn't moved them to British Museum.
Imagine doing a Gate of Ishtar maneuver but with the pyramids
It's not quite the same thing (particularly because of the motivation), but, uhh…I suggest you read about Abu Simbel, if you haven't already.
Countries and borders are an arbitrary concept created during the peace treaty of Westphalia.
Those relics belong to dead people.
Attributing modern concepts of borders to Westphalia is a Eurocentric worldview. What, you don't think they had the concept of statehood and sovereignty in Asia for at least a few thousand years prior to this?
Countries and borders are an arbitrary concept created during the peace treaty of Westphalia.
Stealing this foolproof argument for when I next apply for a UK visa to go to British Museum. Thanks!
Hot take: all artifacts should be located in the most geopolitically stable area possible
Hotter take: un peacekeepers should protect world heritage sites with weapons-free orders
Gotta love how the first movie opens with him stealing an idol from an uncontacted Peruvian tribe, and the heroic music swells as he narrowly escapes with spears flying around them.
Granted, this takes place in 1936 and his actions were the norm for the period, but despite coming out in 1981 the movie plays this scene out rather uncritically.
He narrowly escapes with his life after having the idol stolen from him by his rival, Belloq, who works for the Nazis and actually hired that Peruvian tribe to be his little private army. Belloq then orders the Peruvians to attack Jones and he barely escapes on his hired plane.
Temple of Doom had way more questionable scenes in it with the banquet, the heroic British soldiers at the end and... Short Round. Did they really have to name him that?
Although the cultists were based on a real group and I actually saw something that looked like the heart thing in an Indian movie, so maybe that's based on something real as well.
scandalized stare
edit *innocent stare I meant
Karen Allen, the perfect example of aging naturally and radiating beauty.
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
