[psychphysic]

I think we disagree fundamentally about rights in this situation.

It's their objects and it'll never be ours.

We wouldn't let Egypt come into Britain unearth items and take them back to Egypt.

Ultimately that they couldn't stop us makes it okay for you.

For me that is just 'might is right'.

In the story above the kid neglected his tablet. That doesn't make it mine if I want it.

My nephew will often cry if I start playing with a toy despite him originally neglecting it.

I give him his toy. Because it's his.

If I found a childhood toy in a friend's backyard I wouldn't walk off with it. It's still his. Should he die it would belong to his estate.

When these objects were taken, most of the time laws were broken. No one questions this. Occasionally it was just bullied away. Sometimes it was just stolen.

People are still stealing objects from other countries. And it is wrong no matter how much they think they would value it more. [0]

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-61274804

[jterrys]

I think you're not really seeing my point. Nobody here is a kid. You acting as an adult comes off from a position of benevolence towards children, which is in its own way belittling to Egyptians as a former colony of England. Like England the parent should do the 'right thing' in your opinion to Egypt its child.

Modern Egyptians don't have anything in common with ancient Egyptians. The artifacts found were in places long abandoned and forgotten, sometimes in places looted in antiquity. Sometimes in the middle of the desert. I don't understand what laws you think were broken. The British didn't raid any museums or enter people's homes (in so much as dig beneath them where the people had NO idea anything was there). They actually built the museums in Cairo where these artifacts are stored. Is there a proportion of artifacts that were taken from Egyptians, possibly stolen by the British? Absolutely. But the modern Egyptians owning those artifacts have so little in common with the ancient Egyptians that their own possession comes from theft anyway. The difference is the British used them for archeological purposes that gave the artifact a different value. There is so little claim to genealogical ancestry by modern Egyptians that its preposterous to even have this conversation from. Especially when they've been looting and smashing grave sites since antiquity. [0] The history of ancient Egypt is the history of the World at this point. But its within the interests of Egypt As The State to safeguard its treasures because they derive their (quite profitable) national identity from it.

[0]https://nyupress.org/9781479820078/a-physician-on-the-nile/

FWIW, archeological expeditions happen in foreign countries all the time, and the ownership of found objects is pretty clearly negotiated before a dig site is even planned. It would be fucking stupid for a university to finance a trip where it actually can't possess or at least lease out the items it finds. Obviously, in countries embattled by instability and corruption it's much harder to fairly negotiate the status of artifacts, like in the article you linked.

[psychphysic]

I think we disagree on too many points.

Fundementally we disagre about rights. I think all within a country is owned by that country. That could be gem stones or antiquities.

I don't think invading a country gives you ownership over their belongings but you seem to wrt the British Empire. No more than Russias claims to Ukrainian grain.

I think Egyptians are capable of making decisions about their national belongings themselves and they have decided that they are better guardians than Brits. Inexplicably you seem to think they can not make this decision.

Ultimately you're view that British stole from 19th century Egyptians antiquities and now they belong to Britain is simply might is right thinking.

The idea that Brits are better caretakers of these items is not dissimilar original justification. Africans are too barbarous to look after their own assets.

What do you think of the Benin Bronzes. For me they are essentially similar morally. I suppose you'd say it was wrong to take them, but they looked after them, and now they shouldn't be returned?

[jterrys]

I don't know, I think we tried a few times and are simply yelling over each other at this point. You're refusing to understand my argument. I don't think it will benefit either of us to continue on. So this will be my last reply.

>I think Egyptians are capable of making decisions about their national belongings themselves and they have decided that they are better guardians than Brits. Inexplicably you seem to think they can not make this decision.

I'm not saying that they're incapable. I'm saying they're not entitled to those artifacts because they never dug them up in the first place. I didn't steal from you because I went through your trash you left on the side of the road. The fact that I found something precious that you want back is frankly your entitlement being met with the reality that you didn't know what you had was valuable. That's entirely a "you" problem. Not a "me" problem. Modern Egyptians were looting and smashing tombs far before the British arrived, and in fact kept the practice up during and after the British left.

>Ultimately you're view that British stole from 19th century Egyptians antiquities and now they belong to Britain is simply might is right thinking.

I'm not saying "might is right thinking". I'm saying one man's trash is another man's treasure. The Egyptians never excavated the artifacts that are under hot contention. It was the British that went digging and excavating. Before the British, Egyptians were smashing and looting tombs and selling the gold and jewelry[0]. The British even built the national museum in Cairo in which Egyptian artifacts are stored, among the things they took back.

>The idea that Brits are better caretakers of these items is not dissimilar original justification. Africans are too barbarous to look after their own assets.

The justification isn't that Africans are too barbarous. Egypt is still a very corrupt country, that still sells artifacts on the black market for profit. A population of Egyptians still go out of their way to destroy these artifacts because they consider them blasphemous against their religion. When it comes to the question of stability, yes: the British would be better safekeepers. This one among other reasons why the Egyptians aren't entitled to those artifacts. They didn't dig them up. They didn't keep what they found safe. Now they want what the British have because the British dug their artifacts up and kept their artifacts safe.

>The idea that Brits are better caretakers of these items is not dissimilar original justification. Africans are too barbarous to look after their own assets.

Again, my point is that they don't own those assets. They never found them. The British did. Once more: Just because I went through your trash and found something valuable does not make you entitled to that trash. You threw it away.

[0]https://nyupress.org/9781479820078/a-physician-on-the-nile/

[psychphysic]

> Again, my point is that they don't own those assets. They never found them. The British did. Once more: Just because I went through your trash and found something valuable does not make you entitled to that trash. You threw it away.

Here's what you don't understand, if you break into my home. Beat me up. Raid my kitchen trash take and item and walk off. That item is not yours.

If I dump an item in international waters yes take salvage. But on my land it is mine.

And I agree this will be my last reply.

The Johnny Harris series is excellent on the mentality of imperialism that led to raids allover the world. Watch if you like it's from a couple days ago but critises the precise logic you're using to steal

https://youtu.be/9XECUXXbjhU