Cyprus-Forum.com

[kimon07]

Send them back: The Parthenon Marbles should be returned to Athens

Monday June 11th, 2012, Cadogan Hall
Doors open at 6pm. The debate will begin at 6.45pm and finish at 8.30pm

What's all this nonsense about sending the Parthenon Marbles back to Greece? If Lord Elgin hadn't rescued them from the Parthenon in Athens and presented them to the British Museum almost 200 years ago, these exquisite sculptures – the finest embodiment of the classical ideal of beauty and harmony – would have been lost to the ravages of pollution and time. So we have every right to keep them: indeed, returning them would set a dangerous precedent, setting off a clamour for every Egyptian mummy and Grecian urn to be wrenched from the world's museums and sent back to its country of origin. It is great institutions like the British Museum that have established such artefacts as items of world significance: more people see the Marbles in the BM than visit Athens every year. Why send them back to relative obscurity?

But aren't such arguments a little too imperialistic? All this talk of visitor numbers and dangerous precedents – doesn't it just sound like an excuse for Britain to hold on to dubiously acquired treasures that were removed without the consent of the Greek people to whom they culturally and historically belong? That's what Lord Byron thought, and now Stephen Fry is taking up the cause. We should return the Marbles as a gesture of solidarity with Greece in its financial distress, says Fry, and as a mark of respect for the cradle of democracy and the birthplace of rational thought.

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/even ... on-marbles

[boomerang]

who cares what the greeks want...how about that you stop wasting your time and everyones time with boring and meaningless threads, and start demanding ROC territory to be returned from the british and leaving the greeks aside to demand what ever they want?...

[supporttheunderdog]

On the marbles as I said back in late 2010 The issue to me is did Elgin acquire the marbles with a legitimate purchase or under some other genuine lawful arrangement with the then acknowledged legal owners, the Ottoman authorities: if the answer is no, then from both a legal and moral POV the marbles should be returned: if the answer is yes, and Elgin properly acquired legal title (and I am quite happy to agree some of the evidence suggests he did not) then from a legal POV (but not necessarily a moral POV) there is no obligation on the British Government to return them.

[Kikapu]

On the marbles as I said back in late 2010 The issue to me is did Elgin acquire the marbles with a legitimate purchase or under some other genuine lawful arrangement with the then acknowledged legal owners, the Ottoman authorities: if the answer is no, then from both a legal and moral POV the marbles should be returned: if the answer is yes, and Elgin properly acquired legal title (and I am quite happy to agree some of the evidence suggests he did not) then from a legal POV (but not necessarily a moral POV) there is no obligation on the British Government to return them.

Can you really say that the Ottoman authorities were the legal owners of the marbles at that time.?

If yes, then is that not the same as saying Turkey is now the lagal owners of everything in the north?

[Lordo]

You always get things arse backwards my friend. The question is not were the Ottomans the legal owners but was the Ferman given by the big chief included the removal of the said materials.

The Greeks had lost their marbles some time before that to allow the Ottomans to rule them for 400 odd years. You may well ask what is so odd about 400 years and you might be right there.

Now when it comes to Northern Cyprus, it is an interesting question. I suspect as they managed to acquire Istanbul in the same manner, and still own it, North Cyprus is not far behind. About 10 years behind I would say.

Now does that answer your questions?

[supporttheunderdog]

On the marbles as I said back in late 2010 The issue to me is did Elgin acquire the marbles with a legitimate purchase or under some other genuine lawful arrangement with the then acknowledged legal owners, the Ottoman authorities: if the answer is no, then from both a legal and moral POV the marbles should be returned: if the answer is yes, and Elgin properly acquired legal title (and I am quite happy to agree some of the evidence suggests he did not) then from a legal POV (but not necessarily a moral POV) there is no obligation on the British Government to return them.

Can you really say that the Ottoman authorities were the legal owners of the marbles at that time.?

If yes, then is that not the same as saying Turkey is now the lagal owners of everything in the north?

The words I used were "the then acknowledged legal owners," and whatever we may think Now it is the recognised position at the time we have to live with. Where otherwise do we undo the mess of history bearing we cannot retrospectively undo the recognition governments gave to each other at the time.

And no it is NOT the same as saying everything in the North NOW belongs to Turkey becuase they have never been recognised as the legitimate authority in the illegal occupied zone arising out of events in 1974 by anyone but themselves, so swivell on it Lordo.

[Bananiot]

Who will remember this conversation in 30, 40 or 100 years from now? If Turkey eventually becomes a big economic and military power in our area (some would say it is already) then the legal part will be "settled" by life itself. This is my fear Kikapu and I have not heard anything positive as to how this trend can be reversed, other than a solution which albeit, will not be ideal perhaps to start with, but which can be improved with time.

[Kikapu]

You always get things arse backwards my friend. The question is not were the Ottomans the legal owners but was the Ferman given by the big chief included the removal of the said materials.

The Greeks had lost their marbles some time before that to allow the Ottomans to rule them for 400 odd years. You may well ask what is so odd about 400 years and you might be right there.

Now when it comes to Northern Cyprus, it is an interesting question. I suspect as they managed to acquire Istanbul in the same manner, and still own it, North Cyprus is not far behind. About 10 years behind I would say.

Now does that answer your questions?

No it doesn't, about the north being owned by Turkey anyway, because it was a rhetorical question with sarcasim, which you have missed.....obviously!

Try living in the present for a chance and not in the 13th century when it comes to acquisition of territory through wars. Despite Turkey having 40,000 troops in Cyprus from 1974 conflicts and after thousands of displaced refugees in their own country, thousands killed and murdered, and thousands raped, in 2004, the EU scooped the whole island of Cyprus without firing a single shot. Now, that's what modern times of acquisition of territory is all about, which has left Turkey on "no man's land". Well, actually, they are now on EU's land.

So much for Turkey's so called, "great military might"!

Point taken, "Supporttheunderdog"!

[GreekIslandGirl]

On the marbles as I said back in late 2010 The issue to me is did Elgin acquire the marbles with a legitimate purchase or under some other genuine lawful arrangement with the then acknowledged legal owners, the Ottoman authorities: if the answer is no, then from both a legal and moral POV the marbles should be returned: if the answer is yes, and Elgin properly acquired legal title (and I am quite happy to agree some of the evidence suggests he did not) then from a legal POV (but not necessarily a moral POV) there is no obligation on the British Government to return them.

Such logic! We can now say goodbye forever to all those icons and religious relics which the Turks have sold off after pilferaging the occupied Churches.

- Your continuing undying support of the ways and means of fascist Imperialist invaders is most 'commendable'.

[Kikapu]

Who will remember this conversation in 30, 40 or 100 years from now? If Turkey eventually becomes a big economic and military power in our area (some would say it is already) then the legal part will be "settled" by life itself. This is my fear Kikapu and I have not heard anything positive as to how this trend can be reversed, other than a solution which albeit, will not be ideal perhaps to start with, but which can be improved with time.

A solution that will not be ideal today, will not be an ideal solution later on, dear Bananiot. 1959 Zurich agreements surely must have taught us that much. Even with the flawed 1959 Zurich agreements, Turkey has taken upon herself to violate every principles in the 1959 Zurich agreements, just to try and claim, if not parts of Cyprus, but the whole island for herself and not because to save the TCs, and the 2004 Annan plan was the second not so ideal solution that was presented to Cypriots, so lets not look at Turkey to do the right thing in the future by agreeing with her on a not so ideal solution today. Our best hope is to bargain with Turkey when the time comes for her to give up the north for the EU, if and when Turkey ever becomes a true Democratic country. Until then, the status quo is next best ideal solution, wouldn't you say, specially now that 100% of Cyprus is in the EU ?