|
|
Post by wapentake on May 13, 2023 21:38:42 GMT
I think it has moved on from that. Returning anything now will strengthen the case for many other artifacts to go back home. Whatever the arguments it rests on the fact that where do we draw the line in history when a wrong must be righted. It is the eternal question that does not seem to have an answer. That does seem to be the issue stopping the British Museum from returning the marbles. If they could just return them I suspect they would but then they would have to give up a great many other artifacts from around the world. And one of the reasons for my my question,how far do we go back and which countries history is liable and why. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 13, 2023 21:43:58 GMT
Elgin made no profit from his sale of the marbles, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as to his motives, but that was then, and this is now. Greece is no longer part of the Ottoman empire and the Greeks opened an ultra-modern new Acropolis museum costing 130 million Euros a few years back with almost 14,000 sq metres of exhibition space, dismantling the years-long argument that there isn’t a proper place to host the ancient sculptures in Athens. I think it has moved on from that. Returning anything now will strengthen the case for many other artifacts to go back home. Whatever the arguments it rests on the fact that where do we draw the line in history when a wrong must be righted. It is the eternal question that does not seem to have an answer. Maybe, it could be approached from the viewpoint of what English law would do if the two parties had been English. It has been pointed out that the marbles would have been destroyed had Elgin not intervened. What would have happened under English law in those circumstances. It seems a fair question. Surely, it's not unreasonable to expect the state to demand the same of itself as it demands of its citizens. If John's house was on fire, and Bill ran into the burning building to save a priceless painting hanging on the wall, Bill wouldn't acquire ownership of that picture under English law. It's true that the painting would have been destroyed if Bill hadn't risked his life to save it, but the painting will still belong to John, who doesn't have to reward Bill in any way for his intervention. If that rule is 'right' when two English people are involved, why isn't it right when dealing with a foreign country? *I don't know how Scottish law would deal with it. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 13, 2023 21:48:23 GMT
That does seem to be the issue stopping the British Museum from returning the marbles. If they could just return them I suspect they would but then they would have to give up a great many other artifacts from around the world. And one of the reasons for my my question,how far do we go back and which countries history is liable and why. The point about the UK I suppose is that there is a clear unbroken line of continuum from Empire to modern Britain. Very few countries have that without some major debacle or upheaval that destroys that continuous line. Even the English civil war was more of a hiccup than a debacle. It seems that a revolution or a major defeat in war wipes the historic slate of culpability clean. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 13, 2023 21:50:53 GMT
And one of the reasons for my my question,how far do we go back and which countries history is liable and why. The point about the UK I suppose is that there is a clear unbroken line of continuum from Empire to modern Britain. Very few countries have that without some major debacle or upheaval that destroys that continuous line. Even the English civil war was more of a hiccup than a debacle. It seems that a revolution or a major defeat in war wipes the historic slate of culpability clean. 1688 then? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 13, 2023 21:55:20 GMT
I think it has moved on from that. Returning anything now will strengthen the case for many other artifacts to go back home. Whatever the arguments it rests on the fact that where do we draw the line in history when a wrong must be righted. It is the eternal question that does not seem to have an answer. Maybe, it could be approached from the viewpoint of what English law would do if the two parties had been English. It has been pointed out that the marbles would have been destroyed had Elgin not intervened. What would have happened under English law in those circumstances. It seems a fair question. Surely, it's not unreasonable to expect the state to demand the same of itself as it demands of its citizens. If John's house was on fire, and Bill ran into the burning building to save a priceless painting hanging on the wall, Bill wouldn't acquire ownership of that picture under English law. It's true that the painting would have been destroyed if Bill hadn't risked his life to save it, but the painting will still belong to John, who doesn't have to reward Bill in any way for his intervention. If that rule is 'right' when two English people are involved, why isn't it right when dealing with a foreign country? *I don't know how Scottish law would deal with it. I suppose the point is that in your fire analogy both parties are within the jurisdiction of English law. As far as the marbles are concerned they were under the control of a foreign power. In your analogy ownership of a painting would have to be proven by the party that wanted it back and it is in Bill's possession. If John had stolen the painting in the first place and left it in a cellar gathering dust then that would severely weaken his claim. It is a bit of a Big Yellow Taxi type situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 13, 2023 21:55:33 GMT
It seems rather odd that those who are the most vehement adversaries of nationalism in principle are also the most strident advocates that instances of national patrimony such as the Benin bronzes be returned to their countries of origin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on May 13, 2023 21:57:08 GMT
That does seem to be the issue stopping the British Museum from returning the marbles. If they could just return them I suspect they would but then they would have to give up a great many other artifacts from around the world. It's not up to the British Museum - it is against the Law for the major museums to return artifacts. Returning or not is a decision for the Government of the day. Boris Johnson, who was in favour of returning the marbles, said it was a matter for the trustees of the British Museum to resolve, not the government. www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/jul/03/letters-show-how-boris-johnson-backed-return-of-parthenon-marbles |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 13, 2023 21:58:26 GMT
The point about the UK I suppose is that there is a clear unbroken line of continuum from Empire to modern Britain. Very few countries have that without some major debacle or upheaval that destroys that continuous line. Even the English civil war was more of a hiccup than a debacle. It seems that a revolution or a major defeat in war wipes the historic slate of culpability clean. 1688 then? Well it is called a glorious revolution but in reality it was just a little shift sideways with a bit of posturing and nudging. The apparatus of state remained unchanged and James departed without much of a contest. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 13, 2023 22:01:29 GMT
I presume this is a matter of export licences rather than being ''against the law''. It is unlikely that if the BM was to offer to return the marbles that an export licence would be not be granted. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 13, 2023 22:04:34 GMT
Well it is called a glorious revolution but in reality it was just a little shift sideways with a bit of posturing and nudging. The apparatus of state remained unchanged and James departed without much of a contest. 1487 then? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 13, 2023 22:07:08 GMT
Well it is called a glorious revolution but in reality it was just a little shift sideways with a bit of posturing and nudging. The apparatus of state remained unchanged and James departed without much of a contest. 1487 then? Before Empire so not applicable. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 13, 2023 22:08:34 GMT
Maybe, it could be approached from the viewpoint of what English law would do if the two parties had been English. It has been pointed out that the marbles would have been destroyed had Elgin not intervened. What would have happened under English law in those circumstances. It seems a fair question. Surely, it's not unreasonable to expect the state to demand the same of itself as it demands of its citizens. If John's house was on fire, and Bill ran into the burning building to save a priceless painting hanging on the wall, Bill wouldn't acquire ownership of that picture under English law. It's true that the painting would have been destroyed if Bill hadn't risked his life to save it, but the painting will still belong to John, who doesn't have to reward Bill in any way for his intervention. If that rule is 'right' when two English people are involved, why isn't it right when dealing with a foreign country? *I don't know how Scottish law would deal with it. I suppose the point is that in your fire analogy both parties are within the jurisdiction of English law. As far as the marbles are concerned they were under the control of a foreign power. In your analogy ownership of a painting would have to be proven by the party that wanted it back and it is in Bill's possession. If John had stolen the painting in the first place and left it in a cellar gathering dust then that would severely weaken his claim. It is a bit of a Big Yellow Taxi type situation. No, I don't think it would weaken his claim. If I remember correctly, the party with possession has the stronger right in law. For instance, if you move into John's house while he is away on a trip around the world, you acquire squatters' rights. This means that if Jason goes onto the property, you can sue Jason for trespass, even though it is John's house. (even though John could sue you for trespass). It wouldn't matter that you 'stole' John's property - you could still sue Jason for trespass. Possession is 9/10ths of the law (not exactly, but in a roundabout way). Similarly, Greece wouldn't have to have owned the marbles. It would have been enough that they had possession of them. Of course, the real owners of the marbles would be entitled to sue Greece for them, just as John would have been entitled to sue you for trespass. I say this tentatively, because it is some time since I studied this area of law. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on May 13, 2023 22:16:21 GMT
And one of the reasons for my my question,how far do we go back and which countries history is liable and why. The point about the UK I suppose is that there is a clear unbroken line of continuum from Empire to modern Britain. Very few countries have that without some major debacle or upheaval that destroys that continuous line. Even the English civil war was more of a hiccup than a debacle. It seems that a revolution or a major defeat in war wipes the historic slate of culpability clean. Success breeds not just hatred but liability too. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on May 13, 2023 22:17:24 GMT
I presume this is a matter of export licences rather than being ''against the law''. It is unlikely that if the BM was to offer to return the marbles that an export licence would be not be granted. The government's position is that the marbles were legally obtained, so they won't compel the BM to return them. Nor would they prevent their return if the BM were so inclined, I imagine. But there is growing international sentiment in favour of returning them because they belong to a world heritage site. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 13, 2023 22:24:40 GMT
I suppose the point is that in your fire analogy both parties are within the jurisdiction of English law. As far as the marbles are concerned they were under the control of a foreign power. In your analogy ownership of a painting would have to be proven by the party that wanted it back and it is in Bill's possession. If John had stolen the painting in the first place and left it in a cellar gathering dust then that would severely weaken his claim. It is a bit of a Big Yellow Taxi type situation. No, I don't think it would weaken his claim. If I remember correctly, the party with possession has the stronger right in law. For instance, if you move into John's house while he is away on a trip around the world, you acquire squatters' rights. This means that if Jason goes onto the property, you can sue Jason for trespass, even though it is John's house. (even though John could sue you for trespass). It wouldn't matter that you 'stole' John's property - you could still sue Jason for trespass. Possession is 9/10ths of the law (not exactly, but in a roundabout way). Similarly, Greece wouldn't have to have owned the marbles. It would have been enough that they had possession of them. Of course, the real owners of the marbles would be entitled to sue Greece for them, just as John would have been entitled to sue you for trespass. I say this tentatively, because it is some time since I studied this area of law. Sticking to the fire analogy Bill is in possession, John may have had that possession but would have to prove that. To go back to the marbles there is little doubt they resided in Greece and were part of Greek history but do artifacts belong to the people or can they be in private ownership. It is certain they were being slowly destroyed through misuse and negligence. Two things seem certain. They are Greek, they are in British possession. Beyond that the eternal problems with historic 'injustice' raise their heads and I have no answer other than they may be a dam holding back a flood. |
|
