Brit Museum Sucks Without Stolen Stash?

We’re asked, “What is the British Museum without Imperial Loot?” Ironic how the nation of “shopkeepers” who chastised an ambitious Emperor Napoleon isn’t now just another imperialist clan refusing to give back stolen art?

Care to opine, Harry? If the chastised royal wasn’t so into sniveling, we’d listen to him answer: “Blimey, now that you mention it, the British Museum would bore us more than King Charles, that is, without its bloody prized Elgin Marbles, Benin Bronzes or (General Napoleon’s) Rosetta Stone. As the WSJ story goes, “major international museums are increasingly giving back plundered treasure, but the London institution has long resisted returning artifacts from the colonial era.” Think it’s just the money generated from gawking tourists? Think again, as the paper notes: “In a small windowless room in the basement of the British Museum sit some of the holiest relics of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church: 11 small wooden plaques called Tabots considered by Ethiopian Christians to contain God’s presence … Not even the director of the British Museum can view them” and “the 14-inch tablets with carved inscriptions have hardly been seen since they were looted from an Ethiopian fort in 1868 by invading British forces.”

The Brits refuse to “give” back the holy relics, although they say they might “lend” them for a bit. Apparently, British law forbids outright “returns”, unless they are “forgeries.” As museum chair George Osborne recently explained in a speech, the stubborn no return policy is a good one, “not just because the law prevents it … That’s an excuse to hide behind for those who don’t have the courage to make their case. But [it's] because we believe in this museum bef [the best caretaker] of our common humanity.” Sound like hiding behind more British BS?

Davd Soul