• GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Uh yikes. Mexico has issues but they also have real institutions too. Further, who are you or I to say? Even if such issues exist, it’s already a system in failure-state. Returning to the host country is the first step towards a success-state, even if internal theft happens afterwards.

      Put this way: as long as the home nation has an appropriate facility, the artifact should be returned promptly.

      • MNByChoice@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with most of your points, but not this:

        Further, who are you or I to say?

        I don’t have a say, as I neither have artifacts nor am of the relevant culture. You may speak for yourself. But others may have a say.

        However, this could be interpreted as the facilities with the artifacts currently, have no say. They very much do. Discounting them is also wrong.

        We can all discuss the moral grounds, which should include which groups get a say.

        Cheers

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not sure what you mean. We are all from places, which may be missing artefacts.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Mexico has the federal department INAH (National Institute of Anthropology and History), which preserves and cares for ancient artifacts and historical sites from the Maya, Aztec, Izapa, Teotihuacan, and more. They operate over 100 museums and handle over 139,000 archeological sites, with 150 open to the public. I think Mexico would be able to handle any artifacts found in Mexico.