Comment by 2muchcoffeeman
1 year ago
I agree. At the beginning I thought this was a conservation effort.
Turns out to be the modern equivalent of colonisers stealing local artefacts.
Why export this at all!?
1 year ago
I agree. At the beginning I thought this was a conservation effort.
Turns out to be the modern equivalent of colonisers stealing local artefacts.
Why export this at all!?
Today I learned that carefully preserving an artefact that neither its owner nor anyone else in its origin country wanted = “colonizers stealing.”
This is the same for a lot of supposed “theft” by museums. Lots of “priceless” objects now were at the time junk, so they were thrown away.
[flagged]
3 replies →
Conservation or not, that TV has been given out by its owner so there is no theft involved. Neither has it been moved out of the country by colons or illegaly.
And it is a damn TV. A big one for sure but it isn't Moctezuma II headdress nor are those Devatas carved from Banteay Srei cambodian temple.
This example is what makes much of the "stealing" claim bogus, both for this and many artifacts. The Japanese owner wanted it gone and considered it trash. It wasn't some beloved item. Even Sony didn't care.
And so much of what is considered "stolen" was given away by someone in that culture as trash.
That's the standard excuse of a thief. "I'm not stealing it, I'm saving it". Better stop the excusing.
Except that the owner is the one giving it away. The current owner doesn't claim theft.
The only people claiming theft are a third party that never owned the property in question or at the time gave it away freely.