Printable View
Perhaps we should take the Acropolis and put it in London? There is surely, therefore, as much reasoning for that as taking the Marbles and sticking them on the Acropolis if the goal is to re-unite the Acropolis with the Marbles. That really is just an excuse to demand them. The whole issue is filled with tha afore-mentioned nationalist sentiment.
And what does the fact that there are polythiests hanging around have to do with the matter?
One should attempt to make note of the smilies next to facetious statements before arguing against them. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
The marbles weren't sold to Lord Elgin. He had them removed. Stole them, essentially. Why? Because he could. It's pretty much that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Please explain how Britiain's claim on the marble friezes from the Parthenon is more valid than the claim of the Greeks. Is it really your contention that because the modern Greeks aren't polytheists and aren't exactly the same people as those who erected the temple in the first place they, therefore, have less claim to the marbles than the country where they were taken to in what amounted to theft? I'm just not understanding your position, I suppose, Papewaio.
Are you saying that because modern Egyptians don't walk about in skirts with kohl around their eyes while worshipping pharaoh that it should be OK for some more powerful country to come there, dissassemble the pyramids and remove them wholesale somewhere else? Simply because the people there now didn't erect them, don't worship the same way and are related only by virtue of being in the same place now? Please think your logic through to its conclusion.
Assuming a natural right of origin is more fanciful than assuming that might makes right? I could, perhaps, be convinced that the weight of argument might go in Britain's favor if the marbles had actually been removed for safekeeping rather than cheap theft; but they weren't. Had a meteor dropped out of the sky and fortuitously popped the marbles to the UK, then perhaps an argument that they're better off where they are might hold water. But none of that is the case. They were removed. They were stolen. They should be returned to the location from which they were stolen. It doesn't matter if the people living there now are a race of small pygmies who don't even know how to spell marble. The artifacts, and I'm including all stolen artifacts here, should be returned. All arguments otherwise are nothing more than mental gymnastics and specious arguments which amount to "possession is nine tenths of the law and therefore too bad, bugger off!"
Well, if you want to get down to the harsh basics of it the Brits have them now, the Greeks can't exactly coerce them, and that's that. If they don't feel like turning them over, SUX 2 B U.
Which is, of course, why they engage in all that annoying whining over the matter.
It's not like we Finns are going to return that gilded throne Alexander I left here as a symbolic representative of the Czar regardless of how many times the Russians ask, either. Or the gilded two-headed eagle sitting atop that obelisk down in the Market Harbor (I've been told it's about the last of the originals surviving today). Or that one little British launch captured off the coast in a Crimean War skirmish (by some accounts the last British surface combatant ever to be captured by enemies). Or the Swedes want to even discuss all the stuff they nicked from Germany back in the Thirty Years' War.
... or that the French pilfered from Italy and other countries, or what the Russians pilfered from Germany, who in turn pilfered it from other countries, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Perhaps you should insert smilies next to facetious statements -- none of the things I addressed had smilies except one which indicated confusion (:dizzy2: ) and another where you addressed Watchman and was not the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
He claimed to be doing it to preserve the marbles -- which technically he succeeded in doing, since that part of the Acropolis was destroyed/severely damaged during the War of Independence. Furthermore, he had permission from the Sultan, who ruled Greece at the time.Quote:
The marbles weren't sold to Lord Elgin. He had them removed. Stole them, essentially. Why? Because he could. It's pretty much that simple.
So, if there's some war or epidemic in Britain, can I ship you off to some other place in the world, place you in a cage to be looked at for the rest of your life, if your Queen or Prime Minister give me permission to?
No, that's called slavery, and is something quite different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
They're still called smilies, whether you recognize them as such or not. It might also be helpful to include the entire context of the statement, as well; although that would require the learning of Latin on your part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
He claimed. Yes, indeed. Very well said. They were saved by the valiant Lord Elgin from the savages. Well, war's over. No excuse now to keep them. Unless one means that carrying an old lady's groceries up the stairs for her means you can keep the gorceries after. So much for that argument.Quote:
He claimed to be doing it to preserve the marbles -- which technically he succeeded in doing, since that part of the Acropolis was destroyed/severely damaged during the War of Independence. Furthermore, he had permission from the Sultan, who ruled Greece at the time.
As for the Sultan agreeing to Elgin's theft, from what I've read, the firman given to Elgin was for making drawings and castings of the antiquities, removing any new (non-antiquity) construction if needed to better view the antiquities and removing any statues inside that he might find.. for the Sultan. Elgin decided that statues meant everything that wasn't attached to the bedrock and went far beyond what was permitted or even implied in the Sultan's firman.
Now, as to nationalism, which is the furthest from what I argue, I find it rather amusing that all of those arguing "it's ours now!" don't see themselves as being nationalistic. "It's our now!" is the crux of every argument made so far on behalf of the looters, not just those supporting the British view on the Elgin marbles, but all of it. I find that attitude very nationalistic. It's ours now! The seedy buggers couldn't take care of it themselves, so we stepped in. It's better off in our hands, etc. It doesn't get much more condescending and nationalistic than that, does it?
For those of you still intellectually honest enough to think through to the logical conclusions of your own arguments. Let's do a little thought experiment, shall we?
The amber room. It was made for a czar. It was stolen by the Nazis. Then it disappeared while in Nazi custody. If it's found, then who gets it? Using the logic of some here, the Russians would have no claim on it; since it was made for a czar and Russia has since been ruled by the communists and now the post-communists. If the descendant of the Nazi officer who looted it were to appear and lay claim to it, then by the logic of some here it would belong to that person - especially if that person produced some document claiming that it had been stolen to save it from the destruction of the war. Still others appear to stake out the position that it would belong to the finder, in spite of its historical significance as an artifact that was stolen. A few, myself included, maintain that it wouldn't matter who found it, why it was removed or for how long, who lives where it was, or who lives where it is - that it belongs where it was found, regardless. Where do you find yourselves on that scale? Hmmm?
Well, let's quote the entire "facetious" argument of yours with the smilies (only the first of the three arguments I quoted, by-the-by).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Well, apart from the fact the Rector of my school did not let me take Latin, I can glean a few words, "an absurd argument" and "after this, thus because of this", well, Elgin claimed already to have taken the marbles to save them before he took them, so that latter latin phrase of yours is wrong.Quote:
Acid rain. Yes. Another "gift" from the West. The argument now becomes that the Elgin marbles were "saved" by the brave British? If we're going to resort to argumentum ad absurdum and post hoc ergo propter hoc logic (since Watchman is fond of inserting Latin ), then we can simply suppose that the West is saving the history of the savage poor peasants of underdeveloped countries from conditions which the West itself has caused.
And even if he had not claimed such and that the argument that they have erstwhile been saved is wrong, your latter argument is not only absurd, but wrong, since the West did not cause such conditions.
Except that the old lady gave him permission to keep the groceries.Quote:
He claimed. Yes, indeed. Very well said. They were saved by the valiant Lord Elgin from the savages. Well, war's over. No excuse now to keep them. Unless one means that carrying an old lady's groceries up the stairs for her means you can keep the gorceries after. So much for that argument.
From what I have read, the firman allowed for the removal of any piece of stone with inscriptions or figures thereon. Furthermore, there is documentation of correspondence between the Ottoman government and the port at Piraeus telling the port to let the marbles sail out.Quote:
As for the Sultan agreeing to Elgin's theft, from what I've read, the firman given to Elgin was for making drawings and castings of the antiquities, removing any new (non-antiquity) construction if needed to better view the antiquities and removing any statues inside that he might find.. for the Sultan. Elgin decided that statues meant everything that wasn't attached to the bedrock and went far beyond what was permitted or even implied in the Sultan's firman.
The British Museum's stance on the issue
Just a thought, is Athens not the cradle of Western Civilization? Hence, ultimately responsible for acid rain?!! :laugh4: Why not as there are many absurdities in the arguments here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Fact is, some people (non-Greeks) really want the 'brave British' as you sarcastically call them (though we like to think of ourselves as brave, of course ~;) ) to be forced to return the 'marbles' in order to humble them, with an element of Schadenfreude thrown in. Go on just admit it.
I can understand the Greek desire for their return but their case is very dubious IMO and they can only really depend on a goodwill gesture. Maybe if the Frenchies, Americans, Germans etc, return their Greek antiquities then we can think about it.
Just to add a little bid of (olive) oil on the fire, up to when the restitution of goods and values? No, because Rome (so Italy) killed half of the Gaul (my ancestors, well officially at least) and enslave ¼. So, can I expect some compensation? And what about Greece thinks about to compensate Iran for the pillage of Persepolis?:laugh4:
You'd have a hard time finding any Romans to sue, though. Italians may like to claim descent, but everyone knows that's pretty much a load of fertilizer.
The Russians could sue Mongolia for the ravages of the Golden Horde, though. Iran, Iraq and Syria too for the Ilkhanids.
...I wonder if the Sámi want their old hunting grounds from before we pushed them up north back, though...
I'll agree with Red Peasant that all of the antiquities should be returned. This isn't just about the Elgin marbles or Britain itself. The marbles are just the most visible and currently in vogue symbol for the systematic looting of many places around the world by the colonial powers. Britain bears the brunt because Britain was well-practiced at it, both colonialism and looting. It's about the arrogance and condescension and greed in the way some countries have acted for centuries. Countries which refuse, because of an overabundance of national pride to admit to any wrong-doing. Other countries aren't exempt. There are pieces of the Parthenon in Paris and Copenhagen. The same applies to artifacts from other sites residing in other museums as well.
We should move this thread to the backroom, though; since Duke Malcolm persists in being obtuse and I can't unleash on him in a fruitful way here. The argument is getting us nowhere. We shall just have to agree to disagree.
A few thousand polytheists does not an entire culture make.Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Impresario
The current Greek people are not the same culture as those who made the Acropolis. Therefore they have no more right to a piece based on cultural inheritance then another nation.
Also the arguement for this is if someone from the same geographic lands made something and then another one sells it to someone else, if enough time passes you can have it back because it was made in the same geographic lands as you currently possess. Some strange idea that ultimate ownership goes to the occupier of the site of manufacture. Kind of a long term lease. "Buy it now and in 99 years time it goes back to whoever holds these lands".
So in a hundred years time I can expect whatever culture holds Taiwan to demand back all the cultural artifacts... millions upon millions of plastic army men with Made in Taiwan (TM) stamped on their feet.
Those pesky Maori might start demanding their land back and such, eh?
TheTreaty of Waitangi.
So they already can, have and done so.
I do believe that is a six old chap.
Please come again.
Who said the opposite anyway? I just commented merrily on one previous statement. Parthenon had been a church and a mosque as well hehQuote:
A few thousand polytheists does not an entire culture make.
Claiming that the above comprise the argument for the return of the marbles is merely a way to discredit the "opposing" view, I wouldn't want to call it a strawman though, because some people actually use it. It's still debatable whether they 're wrong or right but ultimately it isn't comprising any official position for what it's worth.Quote:
The current Greek people are not the same culture as those who made the Acropolis. Therefore they have no more right to a piece based on cultural inheritance then another nation.
Also the arguement for this is if someone from the same geographic lands made something and then another one sells it to someone else, if enough time passes you can have it back because it was made in the same geographic lands as you currently possess. Some strange idea that ultimate ownership goes to the occupier of the site of manufacture. Kind of a long term lease. "Buy it now and in 99 years time it goes back to whoever holds these lands".
So in a hundred years time I can expect whatever culture holds Taiwan to demand back all the cultural artifacts... millions upon millions of plastic army men with Made in Taiwan (TM) stamped on their feet.
Oh, did I mention that we don't have in this specific case individual artifacts?
Firstly, Red Peasant didn't say all the antiquities should be returned, just that it would rely on peer pressure -- other countries would have to return them first. Secondly, it is just about the Elgin Marbles. The Greek Government has stopped pressing for all antiquities to be returned, the onus is now just on the Elgin Marbles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
If you can only "unleash on me in a fruitful way", then I would wish the thread stays here, since I can only assume that that would mean insults against me and my compatriots. This forum should suffice -- you can put forth your arguments here as long as they are factual and reasonable. You have thus far responded to several of my arguments with slights against myself, in replies 32, 39, and the above quote. If you cannot debate without addressing counter-arguments by somewhat rude comments against myself then this debate is not exactle productive. There is no need to move this thread to the Backroom if we discuss the matters reasonably and in a civil way.Quote:
We should move this thread to the backroom, though; since Duke Malcolm persists in being obtuse and I can't unleash on him in a fruitful way here. The argument is getting us nowhere. We shall just have to agree to disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Even more so for the Athenians/Greeks, I'd say!!
Anyway, nobody is going to agree on this matter, so the argument boils down to possession, and Britain has them.
If you're hard enough, come and take 'em! :laugh4:
Tino rangatiratanga . Game, set, match. Play again?Quote:
Originally Posted by PapewaioThe
So they already can, have and done so.
I do believe that is a six old chap.
Please come again.
Precisely the Maoris have a Treaty in place which can/could/should be adhered to. While the Elgin Marbles do not.
The Maori seek self govenorship (which is in fact ceded by article 1 of the Treaty of Waitangi)... they where made British subjects and were supposed to have full property rights and tribal authourity.
The Waitangi Tribunal is an attempt to fulfill the Waitangi Treaty and modern cultural understanding.
So the Maori seek self determination within the framework of a treaty. That is the kahurangi approach. It is on the whole a positive change for the whole of the society.
The Elgin Marbles are tied to no treaty and the only leverage is a bogus attempt at shame based on the people asking for it sharing a geographic location with those who created it. Do all works of art and craft return to their country of origin? No. So why try a guilt trip on the Elgin Marbles.
If it really is so important to them, cough up the dough or stop whining.
Umm, Papewaio, we weren't arguing anything about treaties. You brought up Waitangi when I brought up the Maori as an aside in the discussion about claims of indigenous peoples. The treaty of Waitangi has absolutely nothing to do with the Elgin marbles. Nice attempt, though.
And speaking of coughing up the dough...
That brings up another question. If Elgin was saving the marbles, as he claimed and as is being used as a basis for absurd arguments now, then why did he turn a profit selling them in 1816 to the British museum? They weren't donated. They were sold to the museum. So, did he remove them to protect them, or remove them for personal gain? If the former, doesn't that imply that he was safe-guarding them for someone else? The whole protecting the marbles argument is just an excuse. He looted the marbles. He then sold the marbles to the British museum for a very nice sum. Thief and fence, the Earl of Elgin and the British Museum - what a pair. I wonder, did Elgin inform the Sultan of his profits? After all, the Sultan supposedly (and this is in some dispute, as far as the Sultan's firman is concerned) gave Elgin permission to take the marbles. Did the Sultan know that the Earl of Elgin was going to turn around and sell them to the British museum a few years later?
Actually the treaty has everything to do with it.
You brought up the Maori claims trying to show the validity of claims of the Elgin Marbles. I pointed out that the Maori have a valid treaty. So using your own example of the Maori and applying it to the Greeks we end up with the following.
- No Valid Treaty
- Hence no valid claim on the Elgin Marbles.
As for Elgin, once ownership was passed onto him by the then Ruler of Greece, he could do as he pleased with the items. I'm glad he sold them to a museum rather then a private collector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I did nothing of the sort. Try again. I mentioned the Maori asking for their land back. I didn't refer to the Elgin marbles. It had nothing to do with the Elgin marbles. It was a dig at you for the ridiculous comment about plastic army men and Taiwan. Somehow you've twisted and morphed it into a discussion about treaties applying to the Elgin marbles. This has to be the biggest non sequitur I've ever seen in a forum debate. Frankly, I expected somewhat better from you, of all people.Quote:
You brought up the Maori claims trying to show the validity of claims of the Elgin Marbles.
Ownership was never passed to the Earl of Elgin by the Sultan. I'll say it again. The Sultan's firman had nothing to do with Elgin removing just about everything from the Parthenon that could be removed plus more from other buildings on the Acropolis. The idea that Elgin had such permission is pure fiction. He had permission to do certain things, none of which entailed removing whole parts of the Parthenon and shipping them off to England and then selling them to the British Museum. However even the limited permission he seems to have been given is in question.
If you wish, take the time to peruse this document which was originally included in Appendix A of the submission of the British Committee for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles to the House of Commons Select Committee. The only existing firman, appears not only to have been something much less than a firman (an official ruling of the Sultan) but may, in fact have even been nothing more than a mektub, or letter, with no legal weight behind it at all, and was never even seen by the Sultan. In addition, none of the other documents claimed by Elgin have ever been found, even though all such official documents are supposed to be recorded.
Basically, the British museum and Parlaiment F***ed up. They purchased stolen goods, which were achieved by the bribing local officials, and now they're trying to make it all seem somehow open and honest. It wasn't ever open and honest.
A few things, Aenlic. Firstly, you brought up to issue of the Maoris to counter Papewaio (who is from Australia, not New Zealand). You used the Maori to counter Papewaio's argument, and hence to try and prove your view on validity of the claims.
Also, Elgin also expressed he intended to give the Marbles to the British Museum early on in his endeavours for the Marbles. He was bankrupt when he finally got the Marbles back to Britain, and started asking the Government for money for the Marbles. They refused. They finally offered him a paltry sum, which he had no option but to accept, because he had no money.
As for that website, which is also biased but...
The document is a letter from the acting Grand Vizier, a senior official in the Ottoman government, no? Also, it is only a copy. It may be that it is a simply letter to the Athenian folks, and the firman was kept elsewhere and is lost, destroyed, or somesuch thing.
Similarly, just because no original documents remain does not mean they never existed. The correspondence shows they existed, the port allowed the marbles to leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Website
The Museum and Parliament did no such thing. They purchased legally acquired goods.
Actually I was born in Fiji, raised in NZ and live in Australia. I agree that it is an absurd idea that future residents of Taiwan would demand back the plastic army men on the claim that they were manufactured there in the past and hence belong to them. The parallel is that the Marbles were manufactured in the distant past by someone in the same land as Greece and that the future residents of that land now want it back.
You also tried to dent my arguement by bringing up the Maori, which only meant you lead a lesser trump to a superior hand. You tried a play and got another thread that shows why the Marbles should not automatically belong to a people based on being the residents of the area. (My grandmother worked at the Treaty of Waitangi House).
“He looted the marbles. He then sold the marbles to the British museum for a very nice sum.” That was a accepted method to become rich, like slaughtering yours neighbours and pillaging their houses. You can’t put a moral statement on events which took place two centuries ago…
“I mentioned the Maori asking for their land back”: Is it valid for every country? What will be the date of reference? Every country had an Empire at one moment. Hum, almost every country…
So, all countries loot and trade what was either stolen or taken. That is history.
I see, Papewaio. My jab about the Maori wasn't serious; but apparently your ridiculous mention of plastic army men was serious. That's appalling.
35,000 pounds is not and never has been a "paltry" sum. As for letters, missing documents, non-firman firmans and intent. There is one existing letter from Lusieri, Elgin's project manager, which suggests that the political situation in Greece was changing and that they'd better take advantage of favorable Ottoman conditions before the government changed. Think about it. It was as if the Swiss consul in Paris was being told he'd better hurry up and loot the Louvre because there was an invasion in Normandy and the occupying power was about to get booted. Luckily, that didn't happen in Paris (although the Nazis stole art works just about everywhere else); but it did happen in Greece.
Brenus, I was not arguing that indigenous people should get their lands back. I was being sarcastic in reply to what I originally thought was sarcasm on Papewaio's part; but which turned out, sadly, to be a serious argument about plastic army men.
Actually it was sarcastic response... but that is all the ridiculous idea of sending the Elgin Marbles to people who have a geographic location the same as the makers deserves.
Find a vaild reason other then being in the same site of manufacturer.
Treaty? no
Same culture? no, I do believe even Europe is capable of change in a 2000 year time span.
Same DNA? No, its not a human artifact.
Same religion(s)? Not really unless Greek Orthodox has disappeared.
It was released from Greece with the consent of the lawful rulers of the time. There are plenty of artifacts that are in the same state as the Marbles... and I would hazard a guess that Greece museums hold quite a few artifacts that were not manufactured in Greece either.