I think the difference is that - chatgpt is very personified. It’s as if you were talking to a person as compared to searching for something on google. That’s why a headline like this feels off.

The heart thing is not unique to India?

It’s a very common thing to take the heart out by villians everywhere.

Of cause keeping it is worse. If the capital is too far away, why would London be better?

Exactly. We agree there then.

Countries are a social construct so instead of focusing on boarders, bring it directly to the cultural heirs.

I think this tricky. Usually, I think the Cultural heritage belongs to the countries from where the artifacts were taken, so that’s where the artifacts should be returned to. Otherwise, How do you decide who to give an artifact to? Most inhabitants of central America share Mayan ancestry, and they no longer follow the maya religion.

I guess it’s a case to case basis. I am sure the rare cases in which there is a dispute it should be left upto the countries or institutions that claim the artifact to arbitrate.

https://youtu.be/eJPLiT1kCSM

I doubt it.

There are 1.4 billion people. I think there’d be a stereotype about them doing black magic if it was an ever prevalent thing.

To be fair to the movie, it isn’t trying to say all Indians worship dark gods. It’s just depicting a cult that happens to be in India.

She has a beautiful smile.

So it’s better to keep it somewhere thousands of kilometres away where they’ll never be able to see it as compared to being able to see it albeit with difficulty?

That’s an internal problem for them to solve, not an excuse to hoard someone else’s culture.

deleted by creator

Those relics belong to dead people.

No, it belongs to a community. Does something stop belonging to a people if the original creators die? No.

That way nobody owns any land, because it belongs to the amoeba.

Returning the artifacts is meant to be a good will gesture, and a sort of a reparation (in lieu of the actual reparations) for all the horrible colonial era crimes that were propagated not more than even 100 years ago.

Many cases

Source: my ass

You will never be able to get everyone to agree on anything and you can’t hold a referendum for every artifact.

So as far as responsibility goes, barring edge cases, it should be left upto the government to decide, as they represent the people.

And tbh, this feels like an argument made in bad faith, because this is such a rare case. No government is going to ask for an artifact back and then destroy it. What happened in afganistan and Syria was a tragedy (they didn’t ask for those artifacts back, they were already there) But that only happened because the previous governments had been destabilized by Russian and American influences. (Iraq war - Isis, Afganistan war - alqaeda)

There’s no clear ‘owner’ in many cases.

Just return it to the country where it was taken from. And I don’t think there are many cases where ownership is vague, most are pretty plain and clear.

then we should prioritize saving the artifacts over the ones that seek to destroy them.

That’s not on you, that’s on their original keepers. Otherwise you are propagating colonial era crimes and justifying them by arguing in bad faith.

P.s.

• Museums have a notorious record when it comes to maintaining artifacts (they aren’t shining beacons of humanity), especially the British museum.
• They also do less than what’s needed to discourage artifact smuggling.
• watch: https://youtu.be/eJPLiT1kCSM