The “Elgin Marbles”

ShootersHillGuru said:

No reason for this to become political so thought it might be interesting to see the CL thoughts and wisdom on this subject which seems to be, according to this BBC piece raising the possibility of an arrangement for the sculpture to be returned to Greece. I’d certainly support that idea

Elgin Marbles: New body aims to return sculptures to Greece https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63231885

We should return stolen goods to their rightful owners.

We could make copies of them and send the originals back. 

You snooze you lose. Keep them where they belong, bang in the heart of London.

In a purely selfish way, I would be disappointed to see them go as it's great to be able to be able to access all this stuff on our doorstep.

However, if the country that we stole them from want them back they should 100% go back.

MuttleyCAFC said:

If we gave them back and sorted out an agreement they would return for 6 months every 20 years, they would make a lot more money as it would become an event they could charge for rather than something we can do tomorrow and never get round to it.

I think we should just give them back, no strings attached. 

swordfish said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

SporadicAddick said:

You snooze you lose. Keep them where they belong, bang in the heart of London.

Ever been burgled ? 

Not in the 1800's so I wouldn't feel the loss personally.

It might also set a precedent for resolution of historic crimes and  misdemeanors with consequences for reparations etc.

If to return them was the end of the matter avoiding all the above, then I've no objection to returning them.

It's hardly important right now though given what else is going on in the world. 

Is that a bad thing? 

cafcfan said:

A complex subject. Not least because at the time they were removed Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire and the Pantheon site was far from well cared for.

Anyway to bring a little light-heartedness to the subject. I was discussing said items with colleagues at work one lunchtime. An ex-Superintendent of the Met Police asked, in all seriousness: "So, these Elgin Marbles, what are they made of and who brought them into the country?".

I thought everyone knew that they are made of Elgin and brought into the country by Marbles.

It could be dealt with on a case by case basis. 

bobmunro said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

No reason for this to become political so thought it might be interesting to see the CL thoughts and wisdom on this subject which seems to be, according to this BBC piece raising the possibility of an arrangement for the sculpture to be returned to Greece. I’d certainly support that idea

Elgin Marbles: New body aims to return sculptures to Greece https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63231885

We should return stolen goods to their rightful owners.

Depends what you mean by "stolen", surely?

If items were bought, gifted or removed with the full permission of the relevant authority at the time then that's completely different to if someone just turned up and helped themselves.

Otherwise we'd better "give back" Cleopatra's Needle whilst we're at it, as well as anything made of gold that wasn't mined in the UK!

Gribbo said:

swordfish said:

se9addick said:

swordfish said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

SporadicAddick said:

You snooze you lose. Keep them where they belong, bang in the heart of London.

Ever been burgled ? 

Not in the 1800's so I wouldn't feel the loss personally.

It might also set a precedent for resolution of historic crimes and  misdemeanors with consequences for reparations etc.

If to return them was the end of the matter avoiding all the above, then I've no objection to returning them.

It's hardly important right now though given what else is going on in the world. 

Is that a bad thing? 

Not necessarily, but how far back do you go to draw the line and if a line isn't to be drawn, who's the appropriate authority to adjudicate on such matters.

Spot on and I can nominate at least 10 "Lifers" who could arbitrate on behalf of humankind...

Thing is, such matters have to be decided referencing recorded historical facts, but those so called 'facts' are often disputed aren't they? However, it's not as if you can call on witnesses to give living testimony.

I'm not talking specifically about the Elgin marbles case here btw, but there are far too many cases of injustices today being suffered by the living and that should be the primary focus of demands for reparation.

In an ideal world with limitless resources, all cases could be looked at, but that's for the birds 

swordfish said:

se9addick said:

swordfish said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

SporadicAddick said:

You snooze you lose. Keep them where they belong, bang in the heart of London.

Ever been burgled ? 

Not in the 1800's so I wouldn't feel the loss personally.

It might also set a precedent for resolution of historic crimes and  misdemeanors with consequences for reparations etc.

If to return them was the end of the matter avoiding all the above, then I've no objection to returning them.

It's hardly important right now though given what else is going on in the world. 

Is that a bad thing? 

Not necessarily, but how far back do you go to draw the line and if a line isn't to be drawn, who's the appropriate authority to adjudicate on such matters.

Why not do the right thing in this instance, give back the marbles, and then cross those bridges when we get there? 

se9addick said:

swordfish said:

se9addick said:

swordfish said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

SporadicAddick said:

You snooze you lose. Keep them where they belong, bang in the heart of London.

Ever been burgled ? 

Not in the 1800's so I wouldn't feel the loss personally.

It might also set a precedent for resolution of historic crimes and  misdemeanors with consequences for reparations etc.

If to return them was the end of the matter avoiding all the above, then I've no objection to returning them.

It's hardly important right now though given what else is going on in the world. 

Is that a bad thing? 

Not necessarily, but how far back do you go to draw the line and if a line isn't to be drawn, who's the appropriate authority to adjudicate on such matters.

Why not do the right thing in this instance, give back the marbles, and then cross those bridges when we get there? 

I don’t think we should “avoid” the idea that we should consider how this country has benefitted significantly from the exploitation of other parts of the world and, if there is a genuine case for restitution, then it should be considered. 

That makes the (big) assumption that giving the marble back is the "right thing" because they were stolen in the first place. I'm no expert by any means, but isn't that the whole point?