I think there is the rare case where you could be right but it's also important to note that the UK has been using that excuse to avoid returning artifacts to Greece (where they would obviously not be in danger).

The Buddhas of Bamiyan are the extreme case, where the local rulers destroyed cultural heritage. There are also some items that can not reasonably been repatriated. But there are hundereds of items from Greece, Turkey, Egypt or reltively stable former colonies in museums in Western Europe. And then even famous institutions like the British museum manage to loose precious items.

I'm also conflicted on that one, and to further compound yours, I can give you the destruction of the Egyptian museum of Berlin in ww2 as an example of a case where stuff would better have been left in the country of origin, or even in the sand.

what's the library in Africa that's being eaten by sand?

This kind of loses sight of the whole part of why these artefacts are actually important: their situ. In-situ (in the original location it was found in the position and orientation it was in when found) can tell us everything from its purpose, the culture of origin, etc. But outside of situ many of these artefacts become useless.

Yes, these objects being in unstable countries can mean much risk to those objects. This instability is often directly caused by the policies of the more politically powerful countries, though. For instance, the Afghanistan example you give is arguably directly due to Ally foreign policy destabilizing the region for our own self interest.

Rather than accepting the current political climate's default stance of leaving the middle east a wartorn region in the world - and having to choose between either leaving artefacts to potentially be destroyed or destroying the situ of the artefacts and robbing the native descendants of their ancestral objects - we should probably instead push for foreign policy which lifts unstable regions into developed States where they are better able to preserve their heritage.

Both Greece and Egypt have excellent museums, quite good enough to display and protect the objects and human remains liberated from their countries

Didnt stop the british from stealling a multi tonne statue. Fun fact the base is still in egypt. Because the British couldnt figure out how to move it.

There even used to be a pigment sold to painters made from the ground up flesh of mummies.

A lot of the old shit was just left in a field to rot. Someone came along and said see all this shit over here anyone want it? No one did.

We're going to need some legitimate citations to back your claim about "a lot of the old shit" being left in fields that people passed by and didn't take for themselves.

someone soar value

Are you a brit using text to speech?

Left in a field to rot? You say this why? You assume someone graciously assigned value to trash and that’s why museums are full? Why would you think that?

That’s nothing like what actually happened though. But in case I’m wrong please tell us all how the royal arts of India, various different African countries, statues of marble and plates of gold were magically removed from their country of origin and ended up Britain.

Because you claim they were just rotting in a field? Do you know how far off the mark that is?

Or, you know, they just agree that the artifacts should just be returned.

Generalising across a while group, let alone a nationality, is just plain dumb

I'm British, visited an anthropology museum last week and left feeling angry. Give it all back.

Unnecessarily insulting and broad statement there.

Most people over here are pro-returning artifacts. It's just that it's a common anti-British talking point and not many people actually have the agency affect what happens with the artifacts, so eventually it just gets frustrating to hear about all the time.

With consent, I'd agree with this take. If it has never been asked about, there's always today. Who to ask? Well... Let's let these expensive museum administrators earn their keep.