After delays, Egypt set for lavish opening of grand museum

I wonder if the British Museum will do the right thing and return previously stolen artefacts?

I’m conflicted. I understand the concept that stolen goods should be returned and it’s the right thing to do, but at the same time it was centuries ago and the preservation was done by them. I have seen well preserved exposition in that museum and then you visit the original country where it’s from and they themselves have nothing or very little left from that era.

We never fail to find someone to defend colonization!

> then you visit the original country where it’s from and they themselves have nothing or very little left from that era.

You seem to generalize quite a lot in order to validate your view point that everything stolen should stay stolen.

Sometimes it's the entire opposite. It's not being shown anywhere, it's just hidden in a museum collection in the UK. In other cases it's exposed but with very little relevant information because it's not particularly relevant to the local culture or the colonizer is too ashamed of the real history of how this object got there that they fail to explain the true story of it.

Here's a great podcast that I hope will make you change your mind, lots of examples: https://www.cbc.ca/listen/cbc-podcasts/1030-stuff-the-britis...

> We never fail to find someone to defend colonization!

I think you are misrepresenting GP & parent's comments.

Yes, absolutely, totally, Brits have a well-deserved reputation of colonisation.

But as a hypothetical conundrum, who would you return the relics from a long expired society to -- the current (arguably quite distinct, religiously & culturally) administrations of those lands?

What moral right is exercised (or exercisable) of relics of, say, Atenism, crafted 3 to 4 thousand years ago -- locals with an orthogonal religion & culture, or foreigners with an orthogonal religion and culture?

(Personally I instinctively lean towards your take, albeit a little less abruptly - but I think it's all quite complicated - partly with the bizarre 'cultural birthright' thing, partly curator cred, less so the accessibility claims.)

> But as a hypothetical conundrum, who would you return the relics from a long expired society to -- the current (arguably quite distinct, religiously & culturally) administrations of those lands?

Has this ever been in doubt? With Egyptian artifacts, they’d go to Egypt, with looted Greek artifacts they’d go to Greece. With the heads of Māori warriors, New Zealand Maori.

Are there any real world situations where it’s confusing as to who they would be returned to?