Poll about theft

[ADigitalArtist]

I think this point was also made in the Black Panther film, when Killmonger brings up how the museum acquired the artifacts.

This is a side topic but it's interesting how they humanized Killmonger and his goals so much that it seems like they had to shoehorn in reasons for audiences not to root for him.

What's funny about that scene is Killmonger wasn't interested in restoring the artifacts to the people, he just wanted it for himself and used the cultural theft as an excuse to take it back (with lots of murder to do it). Which is a worry with a lot of countries with huge wealth inequality or instability. How many artifact returns would just go into the private collections of some exploitative rich guy? How can they make sure it goes to the people, not just the ruling class?

 

[Meow Mix]

What's funny about that scene is Killmonger wasn't interested in restoring the artifacts to the people, he just wanted it for himself and used the cultural theft as an excuse to take it back (with lots of murder to do it). Which is a worry with a lot of countries with huge wealth inequality or instability. How many artifact returns would just go into the private collections of some exploitative rich guy? How can they grunted it goes to the people, not just the ruling class?

Both good points.

To a certain extent I almost feel like museums with ancient artifacts shouldn't be "owned" by individual countries/musuems/whatever, but should be considered humanity's heritage.

But that's dicey too: that stuff isn't mine to say "well it's everybody's."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Take the poll first, then read the spoiler. Then comment.

Spoiler: Look after poll choice

Do you see any implications with respect to Native Americans, or perhaps to descendants of slaves?

Spoiler: Read this after the first spoiler

I am not saying things are that simple, but it is food for thought, n'est-ce pas vrai?

So...I wussed out. I hate...hate, hate, hate...binary polls these days. Perhaps I just enjoy sitting on fences too much, I dunno.
However, when I read your poll, and assumed there was a little provocative tweak beneath the spoilers, my thoughts jumped to First Nations people. Weirdly, I'm better read on Native Americans than Indigenous Australians...something a psychiatrist would potentially have a field day with, but regardless.

A few things leapt to mind, but these are in NO way coherent. Just thought bubbles. I jump a little between specific and hypothetical here, so sorry if that's confusing.

1. Person C might be obligated to give things back to Person A. Depends a little on what the things are. If Person A gives up their child for adoption due to a court order (Person B) over drug use and child abuse, and Person C raises that child, invests many years in developing them, in sacrificing for them, etc. Well...that's quite different to Person B stealing a car, and selling it on the black market for a few dollars and a slab of beer.

2. Native American land titles (and Indigenous Australian for that matter) are tricky because concepts like that commonly didn't exist. Indeed, the idea of 'private property' was entirely foreign in some cases. So Person B didn't take Person A's property so much as Person B came in and completely and fundamentally changed the landscape, the rules, and the outlook. Once Person A adjusted to this new reality (eg. moved to reservations, where they were granted autonomy) Person B then changed the rules again, when the land turned out to be mineral rich. Or on a projected train route. Or suitable for cattle. Or...or...or...
I have no idea how to deal with this, but it makes for sad reading (as an outsider) and I can only imagine what it's like for the people directly impacted.

3. I'm not a smart guy, and have no clever answers or pithy and insightful one liners on this topic.

4. Perhaps the most coherent thought I had...if we can acknowledge there has been harm caused to Person B, regardless of whether we have clever answers or not, surely we can take a step to do no MORE harm, and to treat them and their culture with respect? Unpicking what's done is just outright tough, and I don't mean to wave my hands and say it's not possible. Just that it will be a tricky path, and some better informed and smarter people than me will need to be involved. But...just like a first responder is taught...isn't the first thing we need to do is to prevent additional harm being added to what's already occured?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Both good points.

To a certain extent I almost feel like museums with ancient artifacts shouldn't be "owned" by individual countries/musuems/whatever, but should be considered humanity's heritage.

But that's dicey too: that stuff isn't mine to say "well it's everybody's."

Yep. And that was a criticism of the Indiana Jones "that belongs in a museum!" As he was talking about doing literal graverobbing on foreign lands then declaring the stolen artifacts should go to the National Museum.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

This question is one of the biggest and long standing arguments in archeology.

I've recently seen that it's expanding even to paleontology as well.

 

[Meow Mix]

So...I wussed out. I hate...hate, hate, hate...binary polls these days. Perhaps I just enjoy sitting on fences too much, I dunno.
However, when I read your poll, and assumed there was a little provocative tweak beneath the spoilers, my thoughts jumped to First Nations people. Weirdly, I'm better read on Native Americans than Indigenous Australians...something a psychiatrist would potentially have a field day with, but regardless.

A few things leapt to mind, but these are in NO way coherent. Just thought bubbles. I jump a little between specific and hypothetical here, so sorry if that's confusing.

1. Person C might be obligated to give things back to Person A. Depends a little on what the things are. If Person A gives up their child for adoption due to a court order (Person B) over drug use and child abuse, and Person C raises that child, invests many years in developing them, in sacrificing for them, etc. Well...that's quite different to Person B stealing a car, and selling it on the black market for a few dollars and a slab of beer.

2. Native American land titles (and Indigenous Australian for that matter) are tricky because concepts like that commonly didn't exist. Indeed, the idea of 'private property' was entirely foreign in some cases. So Person B didn't take Person A's property so much as Person B came in and completely and fundamentally changed the landscape, the rules, and the outlook. Once Person A adjusted to this new reality (eg. moved to reservations, where they were granted autonomy) Person B then changed the rules again, when the land turned out to be mineral rich. Or on a projected train route. Or suitable for cattle. Or...or...or...
I have no idea how to deal with this, but it makes for sad reading (as an outsider) and I can only imagine what it's like for the people directly impacted.

3. I'm not a smart guy, and have no clever answers or pithy and insightful one liners on this topic.

4. Perhaps the most coherent thought I had...if we can acknowledge there has been harm caused to Person B, regardless of whether we have clever answers or not, surely we can take a step to do no MORE harm, and to treat them and their culture with respect? Unpicking what's done is just outright tough, and I don't mean to wave my hands and say it's not possible. Just that it will be a tricky path, and some better informed and smarter people than me will need to be involved. But...just like a first responder is taught...isn't the first thing we need to do is to prevent additional harm being added to what's already occured?

These are some salient points, and noteworthy exceptions. A few of such knots have come up in prior responses. I am glad that it has fostered thought and conversation, though.

I agree that there's not a simple solution, and that certainly further harm should be prevented. I've offered some thoughts on what might be able to be done (in a very vague fashion) in post #16.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I've recently seen that it's expanding even to paleontology as well.

Absolutely. If you've never seen the Dinosaur 13 documentary I highly recommend it. It's how we almost never got to see the most complete tyrannosaurus skeleton because of ownership disputes between the land owner, the museum and private collectors.

 

[F1fan]

I agree with some in principle, some I just don't like the wording of: such as conditional return of lands (if return of lands is on the table, I do not think it should be conditional).

My idealistic self agrees with you. My practical and wary side thinks that since the federal government has done well to protect open lands that if some were to be returned to NA people that the USA should want some assurances that there won't be a big "screw you America, we are cashing in" if there are mineral and oil rights to be sold. I say that given the whole casino thing which is a legal exception some NA people are taking advantage of. I don't blame them, but it is an odd reality.

However I think my perspective on this is that reparations isn't so much just giving money or land to people; but healthy programs that ensure historically marginalized people get the kinds of opportunities that can lead to generational success. I consider affirmative action a form of reparations, and I think it is good (if imperfect; it is more good than not). Things like that.

I think it's helped. I don't think it's been nearly enough.

If we look at wealth distribution and there are these stark differences due to historical reasons, that's a problem. Giving a few people money doesn't solve that problem; but making sure entire generations have the chance to succeed and get on even ground seems like it does.

The recent realizations of how mortgage companies and banks have sabotaged and exploited POC in housing and business makes me sick. The wealth of black people in the USA has been drastically diminished in the 20th century by institutional racism. There's been massive theft. The Tulsa Massacre is just one illustration. And even today many white people turn their heads. There's little shame, little accountability.

It is getting better. A friend of mine who is a female, black lesbian is in a program where she is buying a house that needs fixing up. Since I'm in that business I've been checking out houses with her and giving my advice. She's an amazing person. I have black friends but she's the only one who has really absorbed herself in her heritage and experience as a lesbian. She suffers a huge amount of discrimination. More than I was ever aware of. She has been doing her genealogy and discovered she is descended from slaves in Texas. She even found the family that owed her ancestors. It's heartbreaking what she shared about this, how she felt shame. She was emotional and devastated. She did not expect to fell that way.

Her experiences really opened my eyes to what many black citizens may feel about their place in a nation that supposedly has this issue resolved, but clearly isn't. I'm a bleeding heart liberal that ranks more liberal than Bernie Sanders, so I support the efforts to resolve the prejudice that helped make America what it is, and shouldn't be. It's hard to know what to say as a white person when listening to the plights of black citizens. Listening is a first step, but it's going to take action at some point.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree with some in principle, some I just don't like the wording of: such as conditional return of lands (if return of lands is on the table, I do not think it should be conditional).

However I think my perspective on this is that reparations isn't so much just giving money or land to people; but healthy programs that ensure historically marginalized people get the kinds of opportunities that can lead to generational success. I consider affirmative action a form of reparations, and I think it is good (if imperfect; it is more good than not). Things like that.

If we look at wealth distribution and there are these stark differences due to historical reasons, that's a problem. Giving a few people money doesn't solve that problem; but making sure entire generations have the chance to succeed and get on even ground seems like it does.

You mentioned this post in your last response to me, so seemed easier to find it and quote it directly.
I like the idea of paying it forwards via affirmative actions, and agree there is no 'perfect' here.

I think it's important...and difficult...to apply affirmative action principles whilst not directly disadvantaging other groups. I don't say that in the 'traditional' sense (ie. giving x group some advantage deliberately is 'unfair').
Instead, I mean it from the point of view of PR. Sadly it's important to consider how messaging is handled. Helping a small number of people at the cost of causing resentment amongst a larger group could actually be counter-productive in terms of generational change, I think.

I have absolutely no answers here, and (to be clear) I think affirmative action policies are both reasonable and required. Moreso just how they are best structured, and how they are presented.

I've seen (as I am sure you have) social attitudes change around various things where concerted campaigns have been run including PR, social welfare, and even punitive approaches (taxation, etc). Cigarette smoking, for example. I've also seen other attitudes seemingly mired in old attitudes that are passed down generation on generation. I wish I had a better understanding of what the difference between the two is, really.

I do know that primary children here tend to have a much more positive view of Indigenous Australia, and a different understanding of colonization than my generation was taught. However, I'm yet to understand how much this general attitude persists into adulthood, or what impact it has. I'm not completely sold on our education system doing a good job of ACTUALLY educating our youth on this topic (which I can understand...it's complex, and subjective). However, the baseline assumptions many people leave school with are not the same ones made by my generation, or the ones before.

Basically, social engineering has had some success in it's goals, I'm just not sure how valuable those goals are. Best guess? It helps, just not as much as some people think.

 

[Meow Mix]

My idealistic self agrees with you. My practical and wary side thinks that since the federal government has done well to protect open lands that if some were to be returned to NA people that the USA should want some assurances that there won't be a big "screw you America, we are cashing in" if there are mineral and oil rights to be sold. I say that given the whole casino thing which is a legal exception some NA people are taking advantage of. I don't blame them, but it is an odd reality.


I think it's helped. I don't think it's been nearly enough.


The recent realizations of how mortgage companies and banks have sabotaged and exploited POC in housing and business makes me sick. The wealth of black people in the USA has been drastically diminished in the 20th century by institutional racism. There's been massive theft. The Tulsa Massacre is just one illustration. And even today many white people turn their heads. There's little shame, little accountability.

It is getting better. A friend of mine who is a female, black lesbian is in a program where she is buying a house that needs fixing up. Since I'm in that business I've been checking out houses with her and giving my advice. She's an amazing person. I have black friends but she's the only one who has really absorbed herself in her heritage and experience as a lesbian. She suffers a huge amount of discrimination. More than I was ever aware of. She has been doing her genealogy and discovered she is descended from slaves in Texas. She even found the family that owed her ancestors. It's heartbreaking what she shared about this, how she felt shame. She was emotional and devastated. She did not expect to fell that way.

Her experiences really opened my eyes to what many black citizens may feel about their place in a nation that supposedly has this issue resolved, but clearly isn't. I'm a bleeding heart liberal that ranks more liberal than Bernie Sanders, so I support the efforts to resolve the prejudice that helped make America what it is, and shouldn't be. It's hard to know what to say as a white person when listening to the plights of black citizens. Listening is a first step, but it's going to take action at some point.

This is such a good post, I wish I could give more than one "Winner." I can't imagine what that genealogy revelation must have been like for your friend. I really hope her home adventure goes well in the best possible way, and I'm glad that you're there for her too!

 

[Meow Mix]

You mentioned this post in your last response to me, so seemed easier to find it and quote it directly.
I like the idea of paying it forwards via affirmative actions, and agree there is no 'perfect' here.

I think it's important...and difficult...to apply affirmative action principles whilst not directly disadvantaging other groups. I don't say that in the 'traditional' sense (ie. giving x group some advantage deliberately is 'unfair').
Instead, I mean it from the point of view of PR. Sadly it's important to consider how messaging is handled. Helping a small number of people at the cost of causing resentment amongst a larger group could actually be counter-productive in terms of generational change, I think.

I have absolutely no answers here, and (to be clear) I think affirmative action policies are both reasonable and required. Moreso just how they are best structured, and how they are presented.

I've seen (as I am sure you have) social attitudes change around various things where concerted campaigns have been run including PR, social welfare, and even punitive approaches (taxation, etc). Cigarette smoking, for example. I've also seen other attitudes seemingly mired in old attitudes that are passed down generation on generation. I wish I had a better understanding of what the difference between the two is, really.

I do know that primary children here tend to have a much more positive view of Indigenous Australia, and a different understanding of colonization than my generation was taught. However, I'm yet to understand how much this general attitude persists into adulthood, or what impact it has. I'm not completely sold on our education system doing a good job of ACTUALLY educating our youth on this topic (which I can understand...it's complex, and subjective). However, the baseline assumptions many people leave school with are not the same ones made by my generation, or the ones before.

Basically, social engineering has had some success in it's goals, I'm just not sure how valuable those goals are. Best guess? It helps, just not as much as some people think.

I agree with your remarks and sentiment here, especially regarding messaging. It is the unfortunate reality. For instance in the states, the biggest stupid (IMO) debacle to come from the left (and before anyone thinks I'm using "the left" as a snarl word, I am "the left") was the "defund the police" campaign. The ideas behind it were good, but people failed to realize that the branding (e.g. the name) would hurt those very same ideas by turning people against it. Yes we could argue that anyone that judged it based on the name just isn't doing their research, but what do you expect?

We have to be more careful than that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree with your remarks and sentiment here, especially regarding messaging. It is the unfortunate reality. For instance in the states, the biggest stupid (IMO) debacle to come from the left (and before anyone thinks I'm using "the left" as a snarl word, I am "the left") was the "defund the police" campaign. The ideas behind it were good, but people failed to realize that the branding (e.g. the name) would hurt those very same ideas by turning people against it. Yes we could argue that anyone that judged it based on the name just isn't doing their research, but what do you expect?

We have to be more careful than that.

Oh my God, great example. I'm somewhat left (by Aussie standards) but I'm also a pragmatist. If we want ACTUAL change, then it can't always be about some sort of idealistic positioning. That's just a way for people to feel like they're one of the 'good guys/girls', without getting their hands dirty.

It's always interesting talking to people who are 'in the trenches' and dealing with social issues. In my experience, they're always trying to work out how actionable things are, and what the short and long-term impacts will be. Not just 'what's my idealistic view on this'.

 

[Meow Mix]

Oh my God, great example. I'm somewhat left (by Aussie standards) but I'm also a pragmatist. If we want ACTUAL change, then it can't always be about some sort of idealistic positioning. That's just a way for people to feel like they're one of the 'good guys/girls', without getting their hands dirty.

It's always interesting talking to people who are 'in the trenches' and dealing with social issues. In my experience, they're always trying to work out how actionable things are, and what the short and long-term impacts will be. Not just 'what's my idealistic view on this'.

Unfortunately I can't do as much activism as I used to do. I did some stuff for a couple of groups I shouldn't post the names of (they have the name of my city in them and I don't want to do that, as much as I'd like to gas them up for being awesome), but I don't have that kind of time with full time research and work now. I still try to help prep for the feeding programs around holidays and that's about it. Lots of people out there doing solid work though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Unfortunately I can't do as much activism as I used to do. I did some stuff for a couple of groups I shouldn't post the names of (they have the name of my city in them and I don't want to do that, as much as I'd like to gas them up for being awesome), but I don't have that kind of time with full time research and work now. I still try to help prep for the feeding programs around holidays and that's about it. Lots of people out there doing solid work though.

And sadly/lazily, I'm not about to claim I'm one of them.
My wife is pretty connected through her work (in mental health oversight). There are some extraordinary people putting in amazing levels of effort, and over time the level of knowledge and understanding they get is both deep and nuanced.

 

[Meow Mix]

@lewisnotmiller I will give a “fun” little anecdote: one of the groups is a secularist organization that isn’t so much political as it just does charity work. For a while we relied on some church kitchens and just helped to distribute food such as around Thanksgiving (I dunno if you know this holiday in Aus).

Anyway at one point they unexpectedly told us not to help. Why? “Because we want to tell people about Jesus, and what if they have questions? You’re atheists.” We were like… if you must, put a pamphlet with the food then. We just want to help distribute it. (In later years we set up our own food)

 

[Deidre]

In the purest sense of feeling wronged by theft, I wouldn't want to accept something that had been stolen ''for'' me. But, we could go down a number of rabbit holes as theft comes in many forms. Maybe we don't even realize that we are third party to thievery.

 

[Heyo]

Take the poll first, then read the spoiler. Then comment.

Spoiler: Look after poll choice

Do you see any implications with respect to Native Americans, or perhaps to descendants of slaves?

Spoiler: Read this after the first spoiler

I am not saying things are that simple, but it is food for thought, n'est-ce pas vrai?

Giving back would be nice but I don't expect that from someone who keeps on stealing.
Dakota Access Pipeline protests - Wikipedia
Native burial sites blown up for US border wall

 

[Spirit of Light]

Take the poll first, then read the spoiler. Then comment.

Spoiler: Look after poll choice

Do you see any implications with respect to Native Americans, or perhaps to descendants of slaves?

Spoiler: Read this after the first spoiler

I am not saying things are that simple, but it is food for thought, n'est-ce pas vrai?

Stealing is wrong in the first place, so if a person recieve something stolen it should be delivered back to the owner.
Every Native American artifacts, bones, and so on should be given to the families of Native Americans who live today, or to their tribe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is an excellent point. I've heard of such disputes but hadn't been thinking about them when making this post. Thanks for bringing it up.

I think the museums should probably give them back or at least formally ask permission for them, rent/pay for them (if that is agreed upon), etc.; as long as they're not sending them to get destroyed (such as if an ISIS-like entity requested statues to probably destroy them, etc.)

That is your cultural imperialism speaking.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Both good points.

To a certain extent I almost feel like museums with ancient artifacts shouldn't be "owned" by individual countries/musuems/whatever, but should be considered humanity's heritage.

But that's dicey too: that stuff isn't mine to say "well it's everybody's."

Again, that is imperialism.