Crown Jewels looted from Africa

[Birdy1066]

The massive diamond in the sceptre of the monarch is the Great Star of Africa, 530.2 carats . It was discovered in 1905 and ‘gifted’ to the British royal family by the then colonial powers.
Activists in South Africa are now demanding that it is returned. I absolutely agree with them. Amid all the pomp and ceremony of the recent funeral everyone turns a blind eye to the fact that many of the gems in the Crown Jewels were looted from Africa in one form or another under colonialism.
Africa is NOT poor. But it’s peoples are poor because it’s mineral wealth and massive riches have been torn out of it and shipped elsewhere by western countries.
The majority of the British press couldn’t give a toss about the colonialist legacy of Great Britain but it is crucially important that the issue is examined and reparations made.
Those glittering diamonds, emeralds and rubies so much admired and set in the crowns and gaudy trinkets of the rich were taken out the dirt of Africa and dipped in the blood of its people.
At the very least it’s time they were returned.
Do you agree ?

And this is it. In a nutshell.

@Qisk and @ChazsBrilliantAttitude

Tbh I don’t know enough about the issues you describe in Africa.

You make a point about what people are doing about current issues, such as political corruption and economic exploitation. I say, that’s because it’s riskier, more threatening and emotions run higher because of current vested interests.

Who really wants to upset powerful and influential people? That’s a direct confrontation that powerful and influential people would find threatening enough to shut down at whatever cost (and they have the means to do it too).

This is where reading the history is actually valuable to understand what happens if people contemporaneously stand up to Goliath. In the case I noted upthread about the 10 year old royal child who signed away the Koh-I-Noor, he did stand up to the British Empire in later life. Although he was in the right, he lost because of how powerful the BE were. He ended up dying tragically, then his entire family disappeared so there would be no other claimants to the crown he’d been illegally forced to sign away when he was ten.

Point is. That shows how risky it is to take on political corruption and economic exploitation contemporaneously. Standing up to the big guy isn’t easy. There’s more resistance and risk to lives… is that worth it? That’s an even worse tragedy.

Pointing to historical injustice, however, is a less threatening confrontation. The inheritors of ill-gotten goods have the distance of not being the ones to have committed the initial crimes, although they are the beneficiaries. It’s easier to show them, with the benefit of distance, without it being taken too personally or feeling threatening. Because ‘it’s only history’.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude and @Qisk ”Do we focus on fixing the past or trying to stop it being repeated in the present?”

As above, because it’s riskier to stand up to the big guy in the present. Emotions run higher because people have vested interests. Corrupt politicians and economic exploiters crush opposition…

But also: those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Confronting the past is the first step to stopping a repeat in the present and future.

Fortunately, history is less threatening so it’s a good way in.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude well said

@CurseOfBigness what about world war 2 ? That mentioned just one and lots of negotiations and they signed a treaty straight after not 100 off years later
Do you blame germans now for that past ? Obviously not I would hope

@CurseOfBigness no a good way in is helping people now who are currently experiencing issues
You can't help someone from the past but you can help someone here and now

@worriedatthistime Do you not have Google?

World War II reparations

“After World War II both West Germany and East Germany were obliged to pay war reparations to the Allied governments, according to the Potsdam Conference.“

Why do you think Germany would have to pay for world war 1 but not world war 2?

Do you blame germans now for that past?

Germans now have atoned for the past by confronting their darker history. That’s admirable. They don’t cover it up. Bad thing happened, they acknowledge it happened and it was bad, they’ve learned from wrongdoing and atoned (through reparations). So they’re allowed to move on… Thats usually how the atonement process roughly works.

Reparation claims are still made against Germany for WW2. This was from earlier this month: “Poland puts its WW2 losses at $1.3 trillion, demands German reparations”

But has Britain ever atoned? They’ve not even apologised…
The fact the Koh-I-Noor is still exhibited in a crown as a prize won by forcing a ten year old to sign a treaty suggests they haven’t and have no intention to atone or apologise.

Playing with the sanctity of the crown… is like playing with a crown of wildfire burning thorns. Who wants to but that crown on their head?!

^ Playing with the sanctity of the crown… is like playing with a crown of wildfire burning thorns. Who wants to put that crown on their head?!

@worriedatthistime ”they signed a treaty straight after not 100 off years later”

Well duh 🙄

Germany were defeated. So of course any reparations treaty would be signed straight after.

With the Koh-I-Noor you have the problem with Britain claiming victory. So who is going to demand reparations from the victors straight after? No one, because victors usually go uncontested.

The Koh-I-Noor is shrouded in mystery. It’s a crown jewel and therefore one that finds itself in the balancing scales of divine justice. It takes time to assess if the claimed victory is justified or not… remember the crown symbolises the sanctity of justice. Looted, ill-gotten and stolen gems make a mockery out of the crown’s sanctity.

The wheels of divine justice grind slowly; but they grind to powder.

Addressing historical injustice is about finding the cause to a social illness and operating on it to remove it from the roots.

The helping people here and now is good for dealing with the symptoms. But those symptoms will persist and get worse if the root cause isn’t identified and ripped out from the roots to prevent further symptoms.

Present problems come from being rooted in the past…

@CurseOfBigness but if the British have the diamond 'back', don't you think it would just be used as a 'look at what happened then, don't look at what's happening now' diversion?

A bit like companies such as Nike getting in on BLM whilst doing nothing to address their own workers' conditions or equal pay for black staff?

Also, as I asked upthread, who would you give the diamond back to? Pakistan, India, Iran or Afghanistan. Would you be willing to cause a diplomatic incident with the rest of the countries on the list? If you do choose India, its majority population is now Hindu, but the 10 year old and former owners of the diamond were Sikh. Given the way India is currently treating non-Hindus does that feel 'right'? Why do the last dynasty that pillaged the diamond get to keep it? Is their pillaging more 'moral' than the British pillaging?

Who gets to decide who has the most legitimate claim?

I agree with you in theory but the practicalities are extremely thorny and I can't see how any of these decisions can be made. Especially without causing repercussions for the U.K.

Ridiculous and dangerously naive. Like the idiots on here and Twitter blathering on about how we're the worst country in the world, "an absolute hell hole" (direct quote, from an absolute fool)...

@dibberly ”but if the British have the diamond 'back'” then who do they give it to?

That point is a diversion and deflection in itself.

The heart of the matter is the legal basis on which the Koh-I-Noor (a crown jewel) is held in Britain. Here and now.

And the lawfulness matters because of what the crown represents: sanctity and justice. Having an illegal gem on a crown undermines its symbolism (and the propaganda of the monarchy’s holier than thou status).

“A memo from one senior civil servant made it clear that Britain considered possession to be nine-tenths of the law. It read: "The stark facts are these: i) We have the Koh-i-Noor diamond, whether or not our possession of it is legally justified. ii) We have made it clear that we are keeping the diamond, adducing the best arguments to support our contention."” - The jewel in the crown: The curse of Koh-i-Noor

That senior civil servant was clearly lacking in understanding what unlawful possession of a crown jewel like the mystic Koh-I-Noor means to the British Crown (which is supposed to symbolise the sanctity of justice). Why bring the crown into disrepute?

Possession Does Not Mean Ownership

@CurseOfBigness I do agree with you about the symbolism of having it in the crown, I just mean what would you do about the claims from Pakistan and the other countries? Do you think the gesture of returning it (presumably to the Indian government, from what you've said) would be worth the diplomatic upset? And why do you believe India has a more rightful claim than Pakistan?

I mean this as a purely practical question, you accuse me of deflecting but your answer is as you are not actually addressing what I've asked. I agree with you on the morality of the British claim, but I want to know your opinions on the actual real-world implications for Britain if the government returned it. If you were responsible for the matter.

I have thought about it a lot and that's where I get unstuck. It was 'pillaged' from its previous owners who themselves 'pillaged' it. Should India then have to pass it 'back' to a Sikh community, or the Persians?

I would imagine that it would end up in the hands of the person that's prepared to kill the most people to get it. Then probably never to be seen again.

@dibberly
In terms of reparations… I have conflicting views. At this stage I don’t know because it’s a tangled web spanning about 180 years that needs careful excavation to untangle.

If Sikh royalty was still alive then it’s clear to me that they would be the obvious ones to be repatriated. The problem arises out of the death of Sikh royalty (and if you probe into it does look suspect). To me, it looks like Sikh royalty was ended on purpose (and there is some plausible evidence to back this claim up).

The loss of Sikh royalty is what has opened up claims for the other various countries you’ve mentioned. This an important starting point: Why has Sikh royalty ended? If there was foul play then shouldn’t that be addressed before other contenders to the diamond are considered?

I think the Koh-I-Noor wasn’t part of the Indian partition agreement in 1947/1948 because the diamond had more symbolic significance only to the Sikhs and Punjab at the time, not so much the rest of India or anywhere else. And at the time of partition, members of Sikh royalty were still alive (but anything the last few members were saying were being ignored because their royal line was at death’s door, they were vulnerable and they’d lost influence).

At partition in 1947 the Koh-I-Noor would have clearly have been strongly associated with Ranjit Singh and his son Duleep Singh (the tragic story of the ten year old Sikh Maharajah who signed the Koh-I-Noor away is well woven into the fabric).

The Punjab was partitioned. That created Pakistan as a new country (including Lahore that had been the capital of Ranjit Singh’s kingdom). Ranjit Singh’s granddaughter was dead against partitioning the Punjab (it means land of five rivers, so it’s better kept united). Partition was also ugly and tragic for the people divided by religious violence (in contrast to the religious unity and peace that Ranjit Singh had built). So the granddaughter was in the right to speak up in protest.

William Dalrymple’s research has found it was the founder of the Sikh Empire, Ranjit Singh, who prized the Koh-I-Noor like no other owner before him or after. The Koh-I-Noor was used to symbolise his empire (which others, including the British, were both admirable of and envious). To take the Koh-I-Noor was like taking the Sikh battle standard colours; it was a symbolic gesture of “winning” the Sikh empire and the Punjab (but the British victories were always contested by Duleep Singh’s mother on grounds of breached treaties, invasion, injustice and treachery etc).

It’s clear to me that the Sikhs have the greatest claim to the Koh-I-Noor and are the ones who deserve repatriation (their losses are arguably the heaviest - and that’s also through being the martial race to have assisted the British in various wars in 1857, WW1, WW2 etc.). The problem is that the Sikhs no longer have a royal family to receive the Koh-I-Noor and restore sovereignty or even their own land (the Punjab) as a country in their own right (and it’s unlikely they’ll ever get their own sovereign state back again. Once it was lost is was lost for good…).

Sikhs have the best claim to ownership of the diamond. But I would sincerely be concerned for Sikh and Punjabi welfare and safety if they were given the Koh-I-Noor. There would be too much jealousy and envy - unless there was education about the tapestry and tangled web of history (and I don’t see that education happening willingly).

A consultation with all claiming parties would be an option. A Solomonic wisdom may be needed… but consultation would be a step towards trying.

Before consultation though, Britain would have to atone in some way. And definitely remove the Koh-I-Noor from their crown (because it’s not lawfully theirs and bring the sanctity of the crown into disrepute).

King Charles III, may ye take heed and tread this Koh-I-Noor tightrope cautiously, justly and compassionately.

^brings

Absolutely not, i would go to corrupt governments, would not help the poor people atall

@dibberly “I have thought about it a lot and that's where I get unstuck. It was 'pillaged' from its previous owners who themselves 'pillaged' it. Should India then have to pass it 'back' to a Sikh community, or the Persians?”

The Koh-I-Noor was always won through combat. That’s why it has a reputation as a spoil of war. Koh-I-Noor is about winning glory in a just victory.

The wife of the guy who gave it to Ranjit Singh talked about how the Koh-I-Noor couldn’t be bought but won by sword (combat etc).

Koh-I-Noor is traditionally a martial trophy which is why Ranjit Singh wore it on his bicep 💪🏼 (a symbol of his strength with the sword, amongst other things including auspiciously good fortune favouring his exceptional bravery and genius - the dude had one eye too and still built a magnificent empire!). He also took on the possibility of the Koh-I-Noor curse, because that’s what warriors do… they take on challenges.

I think that’s why getting Ranjit Singh’s frightened child to sign the Koh-I-Noor diamond away in a treaty is so inglorious for the British victory (and unjustified too). It may have been cunning and clever to an extent but also exploitative and cowardly because it’s easy to manipulate a child (like, duh!). There’s no valour or military prowess to speak of in how Queen Victoria (or another other Queen after her) acquired the Koh-I-Noor. Queen Victoria was so frightened of the possibility of a curse that she played it too safe by giving it always to a woman in her family (because it was assumed women were immune to the curse)… very unlike the warrior approach by Ranjit Singh of taking the possibility of a curse on (Sikhs were classed as the martial race and earned a reputation as very good fighters).

Bravery is a virtue associated with the Koh-I-Noor. Fortune favours the brave and all that jazz.

So, to conclude… A consultation with all claiming parties would be a good starting point. Lots of options to resolve the dispute can be put forwards by the claimants. A Solomonic wisdom may be one viable option to put forwards.

Given the traditional way the Koh-I-Noor was won, then maybe they can have a trial by combat?

Like in the Last Duel 🤺 (movie based on a true story to settle a dispute). But more civilised (no one has to die).

Winner takes all. Claimants can put forwards their best fighters in a duel. That would allow the Sikhs to enter the contest even if they no longer have a royal family or sovereign state anymore.

Before consultation though, Britain would have to atone in some way. And definitely remove the Koh-I-Noor from their crown (because it’s not lawfully theirs and brings the sanctity of the crown into disrepute).

How does it help the poor people now?

See above for possible solutions.

Consultation process is a diplomatic start.

You know what,

MAYBE WE SHOULD GIVE THE FUCKING FUCKING DIAMOND BACK TO SA IF IT STOPS BASTARDS DOING VILE THINGS LIKE STABBING MY FRIENDS WITH FUCKING SCREWDRIVERS AND LEAVING THEM, AN OLD WOMAN and HER DISABLED DAUGHTER FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES TONIGHT

@CurseOfBigness thank you for your really interesting responses, they are very well-informed.

@Palmfrond and @dibberly

FYI recently discovered a new podcast on Empire that might interest you…

Episodes 8-12: William Dalrymple and Anita Anand have a 4 part series about the Koh-I-Noor diamond alone. They’ve done 2 and have 2 to go next week.

Really interesting to hear them talk about it in the current context since the change of monarch too.

hope this attaches correctly

Exactly on point piece on looted/ taken/ stolen antiquities