Who owns history?

[Sandwich]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8110010.stm (CLICK HERE FOR LINK)

As many people may or may not be aware, the British Museum houses a huge number of very important ancient artifacts, many of them entirely unique, and none of them actually from Britain. Instead, they are relics bought or taken during the time of the Empire.

Recently the question came up of the Elgin marbles (the marble friezes which used to decorate the outer walls of the Pathenon) which are on display in the museum in London. To briefly sum up the article for those who don't want to read it, although it's quite short, the Greek minister is asking, now that a suitable museum has been constructed in Greece, that the marbles be returned.

The question is now: who has the right to own them? Does anybody have a right to history?

Geographically speaking, the Greeks of course own what was made in Greece. Yet had they not been preserved by the British when they were, it is likely that the Elgin marbles would have been degraded by pollution and not received adequate care (simply because that's how it is!). Similarly, the marbles were purchased by the British, and in terms of availability to people wishing to view them, they will receive considerably more visitors in the British Museum than in almost any other suitable museum in the world. Indeed, they have their own permenant gallery, and are complemented by similarly magnificent pieces from other time periods and places, also stored in the British Museum.

So there are plenty of 'for' and 'against' arguments to be made-- but which is most persuasive? Is it that the history will be best kept, most available to the public, geographically correct, that history was purchased? Can 'history' embodied in works such as the Elgin marbles have some sort of value in themselves-- are they intrinsically Greek because it was the ancestors of today's Greeks who made them? And of course how this applies to other situations, not necessarily just the Elgin marbles.

What do people think?

[sweetnsimple786]

Interesting.

Being as objective as I can, I'd say that the "right" thing is for the Elgin marbles to be returned to Greece.

Firstly, the money bartering system is useful in real life, but there are certain situations in which it is no longer applicable. Something larger than life. For example, the old tale about the sale of the island of Manhattan [New York, USA] for a chest of trinkets worth about 24USD from Native Americans to the Dutch (I'm sure you could google the story if you're unfamiliar with it) shows this conflict. The natives thought they were loaning the use of the land to the Dutch because owning land was a foreign idea.

So something as conceptual/ethereal as history, represented by the friezes, cannot be bought. I think, like you suggested, it is intrinsically Greek.

Secondly, millions of dollars are spent to restore architecture (duh, haha. One of many examples: http://www.akdn.org/akaa_previous.asp). It seems morally questionable to keep the stones from the Greek. There are many factors at play here, but I see the most important thing as trying to preserve culture. The British Museum recognized the importance of preserving the marbles, yet it demands money and recognition.

However, I think obtaining the Elgin marbles is the priority here, not semantics. Some believe reputation is everything, but at the end of the day if you die for your name [see John Proctor, fictional character], then you're dead. In this case, if the Greeks won't acknowledge British ownership [not that they should have to], then they are ultimately the losers.

[Chris Kuno]

Who owns history? The country who wins the war or who has the money to write history. History would be told very differently if Nazi Germany had one the war (Thank God) then the history of World War 2 would differ greatly. In addition, America, the leading economy of the World just happens to also control the major news networks (CNN, Fox)in addition with Britain (BBC) etc etc. If the biggest news networks for providing "World News" was China, than the story could differ greatly.