SWA # 21

What is the issue? Is its importance explained?  
The advantages and disadvantages of modern technology. It is well explained from four different perspectives


Are four distinct perspectives easily identifiable? What are they? Is the thesis informative and concise? 
The four perspectives are the perspectives of “: university professors and school officials, parents of students and young adults using these technologies, the students and young people themselves, and the makers, marketers, and producers of such gadgets” and they are clear from the informative thesis


Do the introduction and conclusion offer effective leads to and out of the argument? How do you know? 
Yes, because he starts the introduction by giving a good background about how technology has changed our lives entirely in five years


Is the essay effective? Explain? What would you have suggested to the student writer if you had been partnered for peer review?
I would suggest using transition paragraphs between the perspective because it is a long piece and the readers might get lost.

SWA # 19

Thompson, Janna. “Cultural Property, Restitution and Value.” Journal of Applied Philosophy. Vol.20, No.3. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Web. March 12, 2012.

                        In this paper, Janna Thompson argues against the restitution of cultural artifacts. She provides some information about the values of cultural artifacts to people in general which I can use as a background in my exploratory essay. Thompson reports the positions of some big museums in England and the US about the point that the artifacts should not be returned only because the other country demands their return. She thinks that most of the cultural treasures we have today are not limited for a particular group of people or a specific place, however, they are universal and for all humans to enjoy and learn from. She tries to convince her readers to accept her idea by listing some cases in which she thinks the artifacts should not be repatriated. For example, if the artifacts were legitimately acquired and not taken without consent or justification from others, and if the item does not play an important in the culture she thinks they should not be repatriated. Thompson also adds the idea that cultural property should not be returned to their place of origin if their countries cannot protect them just like Iraq and Egypt. Her main point is that a country should not be able to demand the restitution of an artifact only because it was produced by some members of that country.

                        Thompson presents her point of view about the issue without paying too much attention to the use different types of arguments. She does not use any statistics or respond to any one in particular. She lays out her opinion and tries to support it with logical arguments and that is it. There is not any addressing to the alternative views that might disagree with her claims. However, the paper is a good source of logical arguments against the repatriation of cultural property. Her argument about the universality of most of the artifacts is a good starting point for to explore more about those who have the belief that cultural artifacts should not be returned because they belong to everyone in this universe.   

Carpenter, Betsy, and Gillian, Sandford. "Who Owns The Past? " U.S. News & World Report 135.21 (2003): 58-60. Academic Search Premier. Web. March 13, 2012.

                        In this article the authors focus mainly on reporting different responses to Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, activities to return the Egyptian artifacts to its national museum. They talk about the economic value of these artifacts and how they attract millions of visitors every year. The authors report that some museums reject the restitution claims, fearing that repatriation of even a few treasures could unleash a flood of demands which might cause the dismantling of their collections. These museums use the argument that the cultural artifacts are a universal property and a tool to unify the different cultures together. The German national museum claims that the bust of Nefertiti, which is one of the most valuable Egyptian artifacts and one of the treasures that Hawass is fighting to get it returned to Egypt, was discovered under the “find sharing agreement” and the Egyptian passed on it in 1925. The author also mention that some experts believe that host countries have done a better job of preserving the sculptures over the years than their original countries such as Greece where lots of sculptures have been ravaged by air pollution, and such as Afghanistan where a Buddhist statues carved centuries ago was destroyed by people from a different religion .

                        This article opened my eyes to two important values for artifacts for both their countries of origin and for all humans. The economic value of cultural property is huge and can generate the countries hundreds of millions from visitors and tourists. The cultural artifacts have a great scientific status and value and can give us a better understanding for our past. The article made me think about the possibility of loaning the artifacts to different countries for a limited time and for a financial return to make them available for everybody everywhere and to get the most benefit out of them. The mentioned facts about some countries not being able to protect their cultural property made me reconsider where I stand in this issue.  

SWA # 17

Bettelheim, Adriel, and Adams, Rachel. “Stolen Antiquities.” Congressional Quarterly Researcher. 13 April 2007. Web. March 9, 2012.

  In this article, the author discusses the issue of cultural artifacts being in countries other than their countries of origin in general. Bettelheim focuses on the readers that do not have enough background about the problem and tries to make the aware of this issue. The author says that about $4 billion worth of artifacts are not in their countries. Then he provides a list of the most important of these artifacts and talks about their values. He also mentions the 1970 UNESCO agreement, which was signed by 102 countries. The agreement obligates the countries to prevent the illicit transfer, export or import of cultural property. Bettelheim also presents the different points of view about this issue. He even proposes a suggestion that he thinks might work well. He suggests that we use the 1970 agreement as a time limit, therefore, any artifacts that were acquired before that can remain where they are now, and any artifacts were acquired after that date should be returned to their countries of origin.

  I learned from this piece new information about the different ways the artifacts left their countries of origin and now I know the fact that most of them were illegally acquired. The writer uses some findings and statistics from reliable sources such as the Art Institute of Chicago and Thomas Jefferson University.  Furthermore, he quotes from some experts in the field to add more credibility to his paper. I found some key words that I can use to find more resources. The article helped me understand the perspectives that are used by different countries in their claims about whether the artifacts should be repatriated or not. I am going to use some of the findings in my project and his proposal of using 1970 agreement as a time limit as a presented solution even though I disagree with him on that.

 =========================

Winter, Irene. “Cultural Property.” Art Journal.  Spring, 1993. Web. March 9, 2012.

  In this piece, Winter puts his focus on the weakness points of some conventions that are created to protect cultural treasurers such as the 1970 agreement and the European cultural convention. He mainly focuses on defining some related terms that, according to Winter, the 1970 agreement failed to define. He thinks the definition of terms such as “countries of origin,” “illicit” and “cultural property” can be very complex. He believes that the definitions of these terms in the 1970 UNISCO agreement are neither clear nor specific enough and which may cause some trouble in the future. He brings some issues that are not discusses in any convention. For instance, the artifacts that were taken from countries whose borders have been changed over the years, cultural heritage lost during periods of colonial or foreign occupation and the black market. At the end, he talks about the legally acquired artifacts and how they should be treated, and talks about the role of diplomats in losing a large number of cultural heritages. Winter also discusses the moral and ethical sides of this issue and provides some examples. His proposal is that we need to have an international cultural convention that is comprehensive and we can refer to in every situation instead of having different national or regional laws.

  I am going to use the notes he made against the 1970 UNISCO agreement in the overall solution that I will present in my final paper. The writer seems to be not neutral and he tends to be against the repatriation of cultural artifacts to their countries of origin Winter’s disagreements with the alternative views and the ways he addresses each one of them represent him as an expert in this field. I agree with him on the point that we need an international law that is clear, comprehensive, and not complex. He quotes for some experts in this issue to support his argument and to make his paper more reliable. I like the fact that he brings other issues to the table, that might change something when the problem of cultural property is discussed, such as colonization, borders-changing and the black market.

  

SWA # 16

Chimento, Madeline. "Lost Artifacts of the Incas: Cultural Property and the
Repatriation Movement." Loyal Law Review. New Orleans College of Law.
Spring 2008. LexisNexis. Web. 



In this article " Lost Artifacts of the Incas: Cultural Property and the
Repatriation Movement" Madeline Chimento argues internationalism and
nationalism of cultural artifacts. He started by giving a short background about how
this issue began and about the importance of the cultural artifacts. This problem
became diplomatic battle between many countries recently. He thinks those
countries should use negotiation to solve their cultural artifacts problems. Then, the
author wrote about the ways of taking these artifacts from their country of origin
and weather they are legal ways or not. After that, he talked about his main point
which is about nationalism and internationalism of cultural artifacts. He supported
his article from both sides , people who agree with the return theory and people
who disagree. The author thinks both opinions have good arguments, however they
are not effective in this complicated problem.


In this document the author focused a lot about the law side in this issue
I think because it is taken from a law journal. He also talked about negotiation and
agreement with some concessions from both sides as a solution for this problem
which I think it is not fair because if I have right I would not give any concessions to
take it. I think the author is inclined to the internationalism of the cultural artifacts.
I found some good arguments that would help me in my research about the
nationalism, for instance, how the British diplomat bribe Ottoman who was the ruler
of Greece in 1801 to allow him to remove some valuable marbles to his country.
The author also mentioned something that destroys the idea of how safe England
is when he talked about when of the Greek artifacts turned from white to brown
because they used chemical cleaners which affected the artifact.            


=================================


             In this article " Looted cultural relics should be returned", talked about


stealing artifacts movements especially in China. Firstly, he talked about the


importance of the stolen cultural artifacts for their countries of origin. Then, he


mentioned some reasons that those countries have lost their artifacts because. After


that, he gave some statistics about the number of Chinese artifacts that remain in


different museums all around the world. Eventually, he gave some of what officials


from both sides said about this issue. In the end, the writer mentioned his opinion


about those artifacts and said that they should be back to their countries of origin.


                  In my opinion, the writer focused mostly on the return of the artifacts. He


did not discuss the other side's point of view which I think he should have done,


however, his argument was quite strong especially when he used some numbers


and statistics to support his idea of the return. His ideas about the importance of the


cultural artifacts for people in their countries of origin will be helpful for me in my


research. I will use the statistics from this article in my research paper to support the


idea of the great number of the lost artifacts that remain in different countries which


is about the return of the artifacts.