Why are there pyramids in egypt?
Because they were too big for the british museum.
Laughs in British
if you want to compare Indiana Jones to real life, the movies say flat out that he is an unscrupulous grave robber and he is completely aware of the hypocrisy. its part of his character arc, where he’s all about fortune and glory and doesnt believe in any of the mystical crap, until he is confronted with powers he didn’t understand and fights to stop others from exploiting them. and at the end of the day it was a movie
Honestly, “country of origin” will have straight lines drawn on a map that are so far removed from where the people who lived there originally considered their borders even that’s probably not pinning it down well enough.
i need someone to convince me why it is wrong to steal from the British museum gift shop
Will you display for free all your stolen giftshop loot for everyone to see, and promise never to damage it, sell it or dispose of it in any way.
I’ll showcase it to people I allow on my house, and say I take care of it, but what if I put then in ebay? who is going to stop me
If you are comparing stealing from the giftshop to the museum’s procurement process then you have to display your loot in an equal (free) manner to all members of the public, and refuse sell any items.
Is it free to the public?
People in Africa/asia, have to get a visa, and spend thousands (if they manage to be super cheap might only be a few hundred) of pounds to see their own historical artifacts, and keep in mind most of the artifacts are not in display, and it is the British curators who decide what is displayed, and what will likely end up in ebay.
IE: my metaphor is correct
but I’ll tell everyone I’m more responsible than those brown/people and that’s why I get to keep them
You don’t have to pay for people’s transport if they come to see your giftshop loot, but you do have to show it them for free.
No. Selling on eBay is not allowed. In fact, once you have started your collection you are expected to pay for all future additions to your collection (although you may get donations).
Your shoplifting metaphor ignored the curation, storage and display responsibilities. It also assumed resale which, in the British Museum’s case, hasn’t occurred.
I still get to control who gets in (visa)
i see the problem, you’re assuming I’m the British museum in the metaphor, but I’m more like the UK in the metaphor.
And there are plenty of artifacts from the museum that ended up in ebay, but don’t worry, the museum promised they will investigate themselves whenever it happens.
Why is a foreign entity, gets to decide what to do with stolen artifacts?
could I rob a bank, and when they catch me I can blame the bank for low security,.and not have to return anything because I will allow some people to come to my house and show them some bank stationary I also stole? while keeping the money for myself and do with it as I please. while pinky promising to not use the money I stole, but there’s no oversight or consequences if I don’t.
I still get to control who gets in (visa)
You don’t control country visas. Neither does the British Museum.
i see the problem, you’re assuming I’m the British museum in the metaphor, but I’m more like the UK in the metaphor.
Ah OK. Then I’m confused what the “UK giftshop” represents, and also what are you stealing from it.
Why is a foreign entity, gets to decide what to do with stolen artifacts?
A good, but different question. We are straying from the question of being morally able to steal from the British Museum giftshop.
could I rob a bank, and when they catch me I can blame the bank for low security,.and not have to return anything because I will allow some people to come to my house and show them some bank stationary I also stole?
The standard response is that you are a white hat bank robber, and you will return the bank assets once they beef up security. But the Greek bank has done this and still doesn’t have it’s assets back.
It should belong to the country of origin, but it could also be shared and tour around museums across the globe so an even greater number of people can check it out. They do this with art pieces. Why not cultural artifacts, too? Is not everyone entitled to learning about anything, including someone else’s culture?
Fun fact: Many cultural artificats do go on tour!
For example I’ve seen both Pompeii & King Tutt exhibits in San Diego that have since rotated. I’ve also seen other traveling exhibits in several other major cities I’ve lived in that were far more than art.
Many cities also have free admission days to museums for people that live nearby (depends on the institution but it could be for City/County/State).
With this knowledge, you too, can now learn and explore societies that predate written word.
I would assume there would be arguments around transporting them increasing the chances of it breaking. It would really only make sense to move these back to their country of origin and have them remain there to minimize potential points of failure. The rarer the artifact itself (another rusted out sword or plain clay cup versus a one of a kind manuscript whose pages have become incredibly delicate) the less their respective owners are going to want it to be moved.
Instead, we should be allowing more people the ability to travel and take time to go explore other cultures in their country of origin instead of trying to transport priceless artifacts across the globe.
They’re too poor to have museums so by default yoink
better a museum than on a shelf in someone’s living room (no I won’t be donating it)
The museum could pay rent per item to the country the artifacts originate from? Bad idea?
-Why there are pyramids in Egypt?
-Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.
To be fair. Most of the pyramids were raided far before the British took an interest and whatever they held has now been lost to time.
Eh, I meant the whole pyramids but fair enough.
how to write lists
- Why there are pyramids in Egypt? - Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.renders to
- Why there are pyramids in Egypt?
- Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.
Markdown guide is in the toolbar (?⃝) alongside a button for lists.
Edit: Disregard. They were trying to do quotation dashes.
Well, that’s the reason why I didn’t write it like that. I wanted it to look like a dash, just like in novels.
So breaking accessibility for the heck of it? How forward-thinking.
How is it breaking accessibility?
Good question: for basic accessibility, structure should be conveyed, which adds
when technologies support programmatic relationships, it is strongly encouraged that information and relationships be programmatically determined
The web supports programmatic relationships through correct markup, so the technique using semantic elements to mark up structure applies, specifically by using ol, ul and dl for lists or groups of links or the markdown equivalent.
If you want to experience this yourself, then put on a blindfold, use a screenreader & compare your “list” to mine.
I don’t have a screen reader installed so I cannot try it but I can guess how it can screw with it. However I agree with Monkey With A Shell here. It’s not realistic for all users to follow semantics, this can only be solved with a better software.
While I use markdown daily, apparently there are still things I don’t know about it. Well, I mostly learn them when I need them but still. So, I could use
—(speech dash) instead of-, which I assume wouldn’t cause a problem with a screen reader. There is no way for me to remember its shortcut on the keyboard, but it seems Markdown already covered this withwhich ends up rendered as—.Thanks for making me noticing about it, learned something new today.
It’s not realistic for all users to follow semantics
Not realistic for users to write lists the normal way that doesn’t look wrong? I don’t know guys
-first -second -thirdlooks obviously bad whereas
- first - second - thirdlooks right. Then you see the rendered result in preview. You also had a button in the toolbar to create a list.
I don’t think this is asking much.
If you weren’t trying to write a list, though, then I don’t know what you were doing & I doubt a chat bot will either: could you link to an example of what you were trying to do? For all you know, I’m a chat bot not figuring out your intent. No technology is about to fix PEBKAC.
I think the bottom line is if you write lists normally, then everything else including accessibility will turn out right without you needing to understand the intricacies.
It doesn’t look like a list to me, but a riddle.
Would putting a Q: and A: in front of them satisfy you or would that send you off on a different tangent of chastising web users on their formatting?
Maybe instead of people needing to apply exacting rules to accommodate an accessibility tech, the tech should get better at interpreting human tendencies of writing. Even today I can write in a non-structured natural language form and a decent chat bot can typically make a reasonable interpretation of it without help.
It doesn’t look like a list to me
Then the
-weren’t needed.Maybe instead of people needing to apply exacting rules to accommodate an accessibility tech
- Nah, writing a space the conventional way suffices:
-SPACE list item. Even aesthetically, the plain text looks atrocious without a space there & worse when rendered. - The technology is fine, there was even a button in the toolbar. It’s not that hard to figure out to anyone trying: there’s a preview button & they can edit.
All anyone has to do is (1) follow regular convention or (2) use the technology. Getting this wrong despite the technology & standard convention is less a technology problem & more a user problem.
Edit: I understand what you both meant now: quotation dashes. They’re less common in English, but still correct! Edited my comment above to reflect this. Thanks.
- Nah, writing a space the conventional way suffices:
Imagine doing a Gate of Ishtar maneuver but with the pyramids
It’s not quite the same thing (particularly because of the motivation), but, uhh…I suggest you read about Abu Simbel, if you haven’t already.
What’s the opinion on certain high risk countries where there’s a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed? If I remember correctly ISIS and other similar organizations have burned or bombed several historical sites before.
The only opinion that should matter is that of the people the artifacts belong to.
“It’s safer with us” is an excuse that’s been abused by colonizers and raiders for too long.
The only opinion that should matter is that of the people the artifacts belong to.
Which people? The government? So in Afghanistan it’s up to the Taliban? If you don’t trust that the government of a country represents the will of the people, then how do you determine what the people want?
And, again, which people? Is a totem pole in a museum in Canada the property of the Canadian people? Or is it something that belongs to the Haida people, and it doesn’t matter what other Canadians want? If it is up to the Haida, it is up to the Council of the Haida Nation, or is it up to the band the original artist belonged to?
What about a Tatar artifact found in Donetsk? Who gets control over that? Is it the Russians since they occupy Donetsk? The Ukrainians because they used to occupy it? Do you have to study the blood of various Ukrainian people to figure out who has the most surviving Tatar DNA?
If you don’t trust that the government of a country represents the will of the people, then how do you determine what the people want?
You mean most governments?
What if some of the locals want it taken away for protection, but the government wants it destroyed?
There’s no clear ‘owner’ in many cases. I think it places where it’s uncertain, then we should prioritize saving the artifacts over the ones that seek to destroy them.
In many cases there is no owner, they’re from a completely separate culture that happened to occupy the same region in the past.
Many cases
Source: my ass
Much like the theft of historical artifacts by the UK et al, ISIS was the result of decades of imperialist meddling by the US. Maybe just leave things be and let the locals work out what they want to do with their land, their people, and the artifacts on it. Offering assistance without strings attached is good, interventions are bad.
It’s like offering to help your neighbor with their yard: it’s acceptable to offer to lend them your mower, but it’s not acceptable to dig up everything on their property, replace it with grass sod, and spray it regularly with herbicides because you didn’t like the look of their local fauna and are afraid the dandelions and clover would spread to your lawn after your first intervention.
Who do you recognize as the authority to make that decision though? If the locals are currently ruled by a terrorist group or Nazis or whatever, do they get to decide? What about the locals that disagree with the government currently in power?
And an answer of ‘if we just didn’t needlessly meddle’ might be the ideal, but it’s ignoring the realities that we have meddled and some countries are unlikely to stop doing so. We have to accept the world we have not the one we wished we had.
Unless whatever group is in power has expressed that they wish to destroy those artifacts, I would prefer to work with whatever government there is to not only transfer the artifacts back, but help them setup whatever infrastructure is required to maintain them, including training of staff in their care.
Your bias is exactly the same on that led to those artifacts being stolen. It can be summed up as “these are savages, how can we trust them with their own things?” The West stole these artifacts and in many cases destroyed other artifacts or defaced historical sites to take them in the first place. It’s chauvinistic to continue this cycle. Give them back, try to make things right, and if things get destroyed, that’s just how it goes. It wasn’t the West’s to take in the first place. More progress is made by working with people than pearl-clutching. This is accepting the world as it is and trying to make it better all at once.
Museums should participate in cultural exchange, if a museum feels under threat then they have channels they can trust to protect their artifacts until they can be returned
if a museum feels under threat
If you run a museum in Afghanistan and are afraid that the Taliban is going to execute you unless you destroy some blasphemous statue, are you going to risk your life to send the artifact to the British Museum, or are you just going to destroy it? Yeah, some heroes will definitely risk their lives, but most won’t.
Better than nothing
The alternative isn’t “nothing”, it’s getting precious cultural artifacts out of high risk countries where there’s a high likelihood of the artifacts simply being destroyed.
How do you think consent works?
If they are consenting then that’s just my suggestion already
Who’s consenting?
ISIS works for usa, so, the answer is kill all yanks
Adults have the right to make their own mistakes?
At the expense of everyone else?
We have to be extremely wary of people who cite that because it’s so easily used as a justification for artifact theft and can have deep roots in racism.
That’s the question. Where is the line between racism and artifact protection?
Presumably somewhere between racism and artifact protection.
Gonna play a game of comment roulette. How far do I have to scroll before I see someone say something like, “That can’t be in their museum because they can’t be trusted with it”.
Spinning the chamber now.
Edit: turns out I wasn’t prepared for what I saw. Now I sad.
on the other hand how often things go missing in the British museum?
Eurotrash gonna eurotrash.
There are occasions when it’s useful.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_cultural_heritage_by_the_Islamic_State
I’m not saying it always is but there are a lot of very unstable places run by people who just don’t care about this stuff. And at the time it was stolen it was either the British museum, someone’s private collection, or the Vatican.
But who made them unstable?
Well, in the case of Syria, decades of oppression under the Assad family combined with religious ideology.
Supported byyyyyyy……
Finders keepers, them’s the rules. Don’t blame me.
