tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331917990627226586.post4929411365008956946..comments2023-08-29T04:35:15.852-07:00Comments on The Trent Philosophy Blog: GuiltNeil Turnbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07757980706607642699noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331917990627226586.post-55663330220777551902010-05-18T05:22:02.626-07:002010-05-18T05:22:02.626-07:00WE ought to be careful with claims to artefacts. T...WE ought to be careful with claims to artefacts. The first defence of say british ownership of acient egyptian items might be: ancient egyptians were a differnt culture and people to those who occupy that territory now, they are just as much OURS as they are THEIRS. again this is problematic. We might even say that perhaps the mona lisa should return to italy, we'll have OUR blakes back from new york and the dutch can have the van gough's that now sit in the national gallery. But what a frightfully dull, nationalistic, selfish and cold thing we would make art thenfred, dux hominumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06310017562311163045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331917990627226586.post-5382402617354886432010-05-18T05:01:07.189-07:002010-05-18T05:01:07.189-07:00I agree that there seems to be something intrinsic...I agree that there seems to be something intrinsically illogical about a county bearing collective responsibility for the acts of their ancestors, sometimes generations back. Where does this end? Many of the fine architecture in Liverpool or Bristol was built from the proceeds of slavery and associated wealth. Likewise, Britain's great country houses are built from the wealth generated by exploitation eg coal and factory workers. Should the once great families bear for the guilt for this wealth too? As you suggest, though Fred, this isn't a simple matter and many do seem to want to argue that one should apologise for war crimes/atrocities etc committed generations before, and that nations do bear collective responsiblity for such deeds. <br /><br />I guess this could be linked in to another perennial question concerning treasures which were taken(or plundered depending on your point of view) during times of war. This could also apply to treasures taken from archaelogical digs eg in Egypt. Should such artefacts be repatriated to their country of origin, or is it a case of finders keepers? It is often argued that "we" have earned the right to be custodians of such items because we have the resources and knowledge to preserve artefacts within the public domain for future generations in a way that "they" ie the original owners, are unable/unwilling to do. If it weren't for our expertise and thirst for knowledge, such artefacts would have been lost for ever (or never found, in the case of archaelogical items)It is even sometimes argued that because such treasures are priceless they belong to no country, but should instead be held in trust, as it were, by their custodians who just happen to be of a particular nationality.<br /> I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this issue...<br />RuthRuth Griffinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16653229851182852342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331917990627226586.post-10235002471311825832010-05-18T01:34:39.575-07:002010-05-18T01:34:39.575-07:00I would like to add that guilty, or rather not gui...I would like to add that guilty, or rather not guilty, parties are often quick to justify their actions, we can imagine what they would say: 'The British Raj ended slavery and religious intolerance in India,''Hiroshima ended the war months, if not years before it would have ended.' do good consequences or good intentions nullify guilt? Of course this is another question, my chief point his historical regression, but its worth consideringfred, dux hominumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06310017562311163045noreply@blogger.com