Huguenot

AAAAAAAAAAh!!!! Like it's a two horse race!!! What, either first-past-the-post or PR? Gimme Single Transferable Vote any time. Which isn't PR. Try this. I don't agree with the study, but it's a good one.

That's addressed nicely at nitwits, not Moos, as were my other posts. Even so Moos, you present a number of grammatical problems. I hope some bruiser isn't going to suggest that Plato was Greek, any more than George and the Dragon were British.

Oh, and Socrates (Plato), yeh. Nitwit.

And since I'm on a fugging roll.... Democracy isn't about majority, it's about consensus. Which is very different. Thank (whoever I need to thank).

To pay respect to Atila, who is carrying offence like a rucksack, I was only trying to point out that majority doesn't confer quality of thought... and actually it was in support of repatriation, read the post again. From a capital punishment perspective, I wholly ally myself with retribution, the p*sser is that we get it wrong. It takes an academic nonce to point out the inconsistency when the mob is baying for blood. I'd thrash the bastard until their skin came off, but only if I was sure it was the right guy. Not recently a history of the British legal system. Percentages are weak in this area. I'm not colonial, but more specifically neither is the BNP. Their prediliction revolves around a good hosing down afterwards, not colonial oppression. They'd probably prefer that the bloody foreigners didn't exist, let alone explore culture and learning. Honestly? I'd prefer to see the marbles with the Parthenon in the background. But it's not about me is it?

Right. That's it. The Moos that roared indeed. If they didn't have a farking chit, I don't understand the blinking dispute.

;-)

"I am afraid I am not getting into poor and illiterate arguments about national identities because clearly you have issues and narrow points of view. In addition your grasp of history stems from a colonial perspective hence all the weak arguments. Do you vote BNP?" How very silly Crona. All sort of flouncy and spiteful at the same time. Like a spoilt little girl.

I'm guessing the issue with replicas is the same for both parties. There was a study when researchers asked candidates to wear a brown button cardigan. The speed with which they removed it after they were told it had been worn by Fred West is apparently spectacular. If they were told it was simply of the same make or design, the candidates were largely indifferent. There's clearly a superstitious element to authenticity which is at play in the debate.

I didn't know that intriguing story about Elgin though. Fascinating. :))

I haven't offered my own view, merely expressed the arguments at play in this arena. However, Greece wasn't occupied, it had never existed. You're simply showing a poor grasp of history. A better understanding of the Ottoman Empire would be comparison with a modern USA and it's various vassal nations across the Americas. As with the USA, the Ottomans were quite happy to employ military might to ensure economic cooperation. I'm not sure if that then negates the rest of your arguments, but on the assumption it doesn't: You're then comparing it with Iraq using contemporary social mores. Again quite impossible, the idea of an independent nation state or the preservation of cultural artefacts associated with this is nonsense considering the period and the location. Empires were built as coalitions of tribes for whom involvement was of varying benefit. 'Occupying armies' were as often local residents affiliated to a new political order. Interest in archaeological artefacts was a consequence of European enlightenment, the Parthenon was used as a storage depot because it had a useful geography and no-one was bothered with all the old sh*t. It had the local appeal of a derelict council house. It could hardly even have been considered national cultural property. Major buildings like these were sponsored and created by prestigious local families ('royalty') using imported slave labour. They could sell the property as they wished. Modern Greece is on a search for a cultural identity that can link its disparate tribes together. This is important to the future of the nation, as the recent furore about the use of the term Macedonia to describe one of the new Balkan states demonstrates. As a result there is an overhyped belief that there is an actual Greek identity, and that it revolves around ownership of 'national' treasures such as the Elgin Marbles.

We have a misunderstanding EDOldie, I'm not saying anything of the sort. The art community, as represented by the signatories to the 'Universal Museum' declaration, claim all works of art for all mankind, they feel that the question of nationalism should come secondary to the needs of the academic world. A natural conservatism means that this manifests itself in leaving things where they are, so long as academics have access. Legal and moral claims are hazy because broadly speaking there's agreement that the rules that apply should be those of the time of acquisition, not of the present day. Nationalist claims are not necessarily given precedence, because they're subject to political interference. Consider the Taliban's destruction of the Afghanistan Bamiyan Buddhas - whilst this was the memorable event, it was actually part of an instruction to destroy all artisitic relics. It makes academics wary. Specifically regarding the Elgin Marbles: Greece did not exist when the marbles were purchased. In a loose history we had locally unconnected city states periodically formed into empires. In the region this meant the Byzantine followed by the Ottomans A the time of the purchase the Ottomans ruled the region and carried legal responsibility for the ownership and distribution of their resources - just as the UK does now for its own resources. Some decades after the sales of the marbles the Ottoman Empire segregated along religious lines and the various Greek wars of independence were fought. You could probably argue that Greece as we know it, islands and all, wasn't recognisable until 1923. At least a century after the sales of the marbles. Hence legally they were bought and sold in good faith. It's clearly not practical to start demanding back items sold by your predecessors, or you'll be claiming everything your own Dad ever sold as your own birthright and demanding it back from the current owners. Hence your own concept of 'correct home' is arbitrary and ill thought-through. Should every Gaugin be returned to Tahiti? Should every plastic knife be returned to China? In particular you can't expect museums to do this as it would be an act of calculated suicide, everything they own came from somewhere else... Hence to see this as a colonial theft enacted by a patronising imperial agressor (Britain) is both wrong, and ridiculously sentimental. You can understand why the Greeks would play up this argument because it appeals to Brits apologetic for our past, and willing to believe in subterfuge from our government. Finally, the British Museum does accept that it would be rewarding and spiritually uplifting to see the marbles in the context of the Parthenon. They do not doubt that the Greeks would look after them well. The Museum has accepted the international precedent that so long as ownership is not contested, the marbles could be returned on loan to Greece indefinitely. This is the same precedent that has filled Rome with the relics of it's own heritage that have been returned from the four corners of the world. The issue is that the Greeks won't accept this measure.

For sure AfN If you feel that public opinion on this has moeved significantly in the last ten years then show me the figures. I'm sure that you're much more in touch. Regarding the declaration, well you simply asked me how I had insight into what the art world thought, so I showed you. That the art world thinks that art is important is a bit of a non sequitor.

Erm regarding the 'art community'... yes AfN In 2006, eighteen of the largest museums in the world came together as co signatories on a document entitled 'Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums' This included the Getty Museum, the Guggenheim, the Louvre, the Metropolitan Musem of Art and the British Museum You can find the full document here. I don't know if there's a version of it with large print and pictures so you may struggle - but the essence of the declaration is that museums hold art in trust for all mankind, and are not subject to transitory nationalist disputes.

I thought Freddie was deaddie?

Erm regarding the real world... yes AfN A Mori poll in 1998 found only 39% of the British public in favour of returning the Elgin Marbles. So that'll be a minority then. Mind you, the general public also believe in capital punishment, so they're not particularly to be trusted. I think the question you really raise here is whether a lifetime of study and application can confer expertise on a person, and make their opinion carry correspondingly greater weight. You undoubtedly would consider a plumber to have more expertise than a drama student when it comes to installing a boiler, so I'm sure that applies even in the rarified world of Nunhead. As a consequence we should consider that the art world has thought longer and harder about the Elgin Marbles than a plumber. This does entitle them to make a more considered response. God forbid that the Nunhead massive would instigate such a cultural revolution (come the revolution) that the academics would be banished to work camps eh?

I should add EDOldie, that this has applied universally, with museums still retaining vast quantities of items Chinese, French and others regardless of the nation's size or political influence. Check out this story here, and you might recognise the arguments ;-)

Most arguments about restitution of the Elgin Marbles revolve around the second point alone (Greek Nationalism), but the reason why this has not prevailed is because the art community is manifestly not responsive to political administrations. In the case of the Elgin Marbles when the other three elements are taken into account there's a fairly strong case for them to remain where they are. The building of the Parthenon museum is clearly a step to address access, education and preservation - but there is still an affront to the art community in that the Greek position is overtly nationalist. The art community would argue that present day Greece has nothing more to do with the bronze age mediterranean city states than an accident of geography.

The argument over 'restitution' isn't straightforward, there are four facets to the argument: * Cultural Property Internationalism (Universalism) * Nationalist sentiment * Legality * Morality In practice the most broadly influential principle in the academic world is the first: it embodies the idea that art is universal, not national, and questions about restitution should revolve around access, education and preservation not ownership. The second is fairly obvious, revolving around the importance of a piece of art to national cultural identity The third is not quite so obvious, as it reflects the legality of the world at the time the artwork was acquired, not the legal system of the present day. Morality is also a grey area, as morals and public opinion change across time. This creates questions about which ethical standard to apply. Nearly every lawyer would insist that it has to be the time of acquisition not the present day.

So what are you after AfN,a war footing?

Public interest is indeed a complicated idea. Is it in the public interest to promote conflict? Many news stations would have come to the conclusion the they gave less of a monkeys about public interest and more about ratings. Thankfully unlike Sky and the Nunhead massive, the BBC doesn't have a tabloid mentality.

Martyrdom in fact has a very niche appeal in the muslim world. The they're 'all out to get us at whatever the cost' is an irresponsibly paranoiac position that incentivises pre-emptive unilateral action. Not a bright idea to propagate this myth then.

I'm not sure why you think that proves that the BBC doesn't have independence. You haven't actually got a clue why the story was the way it was. The media has a legal responsibility not to give a platform to those who incite racial hatred, so that would be a pretty good reason not to use this coverage in particular. Please don't confuse that with freedom of speech. We are most certainly not free to say whatever we like in the UK. Either way, I don't actually know, and make no pretence at knowing. You own pretence is really a rather silly conspiracy theory that appeals to the champagne revolutionaries in Nunhead.

Erm yes AfN. It was a headline. Has been for days. On the BBC. Shocker. Just makin' stuff up again?

"Elections become simply a way to choose an alternative set of managers rather than a government with a mandate for change" Precisement, as they say in Peckham. I guess I don't want government to be idealist. I'd like them to manage central funds to deliver services to the electorate. I'd like them to consider both short and long term investments rationally according to the information on hand, and make decisions accordingly. I don't want them to have manifestos to 'shrink' this or 'develop' that. I'd like them to sit in a rather dull but in a worthwhile way firmly on that middle ground.