A few simple examples of nations who have went through rather devastating wars and civil wars including Islamists who's main ideology is that anything pre-Islamic is to be destroyed as it might lead to heresy, and who go out of their way to destroy historical places and artifacts. And if not war, then the fact that the cultures of those areas traditionally dont value historical artifacts the same way the developped European, or Chinese influenced countries did in their times.

I am sorry but it is not defending colonization, it is a legitimate issue given that the middle east is stuck on an unresolved powder keg of issues, keeping the Pregammom in Britain instead of where it came from is a good thing.

Even during WW2 the UK, Germany and France set out programs to saveguard historical cultural treasures in protected areas.

Are you under the impression that the British Museum does not show its Egyptian collections?

>it's not particularly relevant to the local culture

Ancient Egypt also has essentially nothing to do with the culture of most of Egypt, with the exception perhaps of the Copts.

I think you are misrepresenting GP & parent's comments.

Yes, absolutely, totally, Brits have a well-deserved reputation of colonisation.

But as a hypothetical conundrum, who would you return the relics from a long expired society to -- the current (arguably quite distinct, religiously & culturally) administrations of those lands?

What moral right is exercised (or exercisable) of relics of, say, Atenism, crafted 3 to 4 thousand years ago -- locals with an orthogonal religion & culture, or foreigners with an orthogonal religion and culture?

(Personally I instinctively lean towards your take, albeit a little less abruptly - but I think it's all quite complicated - partly with the bizarre 'cultural birthright' thing, partly curator cred, less so the accessibility claims.)

The stronger version: how is it the case that Egypt, or Egyptians, today "own" something that has been in the British museum far longer than any of them have been alive? Even if the artifacts were wrongfully taken in the first instance, does that automatically mean that the only right thing to do is to return them, even after centuries? Are the myriad other interests that have accumulated in the interim simply not matter? How long domes something have to remain in Britain for it to meaningfully become part of British heritage as well as Egyptian? Should we also be working to return artifacts looted by the ancient Egyptians to their own ancestral homes, even though the looting occurred thousands of years ago when they were the dominant power? Perhaps they should give back everything south of the First Cataract to the Nubians. (Hopefully it's clear that this is a reductio not a policy proposal!)

That's not to say I think it's categorically acceptable for powerful nations to take historical artifacts. But I don't think this has really anything to do with "stealing" in the usual sense. if anything, that rhetoric just obscures the issues here that might truly be worth thinking about.