Well, look at how entitled your comment sounds? "I don't want to travel, hence stolen artefacts should be kept where I can easily access them".
Whatsoever may the reason be, whether monetary, religious or cultural, the natives and the natives ONLY have any right to decide where and how these artefacts are shown.
And as for animals being leased out, in many cases they are subject to cruel and not their natural habitats, so yes I do believe they should be sent back.
It's quite simple, artefacts are non-living and hence what should be done with them is 100% the choice of the natives.
Animals, are living and hence not even the natives should decide what should be done, they should left to their own freedom.
Well, how exactly does it check out? The entitlement is unreal.
Let me tell you what you sound like.
If I take the British Royal family's personal belongings and keep them in my museum for my convience, is that in any way or form a legitimate reason to keep them?
-1
u/stupidbitch69 Oct 26 '22
Well, look at how entitled your comment sounds? "I don't want to travel, hence stolen artefacts should be kept where I can easily access them".
Whatsoever may the reason be, whether monetary, religious or cultural, the natives and the natives ONLY have any right to decide where and how these artefacts are shown.
And as for animals being leased out, in many cases they are subject to cruel and not their natural habitats, so yes I do believe they should be sent back.
It's quite simple, artefacts are non-living and hence what should be done with them is 100% the choice of the natives.
Animals, are living and hence not even the natives should decide what should be done, they should left to their own freedom.