The concept of cultural property is paradoxical to say the least. On the one hand, property is something that one owns, that is alienable, and that someone can lay claim to. Culture, on the other hand, is none of these things. Even though culture arises from groups, it is not static; it is hybridized, appropriated and contaminated by various human interactions and therefore no group has the exclusive right to a culture. This is the cosmopolitan argument that Kwame Appiah presents in the book's chapter "Who Owns Culture", opposing a conception of cultural goods that excludes people other than those from whom these goods come and instead calling for the exchange of these cultural products throughout the world. world. Although Appiah makes a strong philosophical argument for a cosmopolitan approach to cultural property, using legal structures such as the preamble to the 1954 UNESCO conference for which cultural property is considered a universal property and by giving numerous artistic and cultural examples, he ignores the reality that some of these cultural properties were taken from their owners through pillage and plunder, contradicting himself and justifying the barbarity of unjust ownership while giving greater esteem to some than to others. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The cosmopolitan approach to cultural property that Appiah uses in this chapter asserts that culture is universal. The purpose of this view is to oppose national restrictions that some countries use to regulate the sale and movement of culturally significant objects to other countries. This is what Appiah generally presents in the first part of his chapter by saying that the declarations of a number of international bodies aimed at preventing the illegal movement of cultural objects between nations go against the cosmopolitan vision because they teach people that cultural goods belong to a given nation. and a given group of people. In the second part, Appiah shows how cultural goods do not belong to any specific group but must be appreciated by humanity. He then goes on to explain how the value of these cultural objects comes from their appreciation and this is not necessarily limited to their places of origin. If people elsewhere can appreciate them, then they remain valuable. Furthermore, it shows that some countries of origin do not have the resources to maintain such objects and are better off in other countries. In the third part of the argument, Appiah asserts that people cannot lay claim to art objects since in their art they have been influenced by others nationally and transnationally. It further says that for countries that request repatriation of what was taken by force; the connection they claim to seek from these objects may come not only from access to these artifacts, but also from knowing that they are connected to them through humanity. Appiah's main argument is based on the preamble to the 1954 UNESCO conference that “…each people makes its contribution”. to the culture of the world” (Appiah, 75). This is what Appiah uses to show that national or group culture is not limited to the group nor does the group have exclusive rights to what it would consider its cultural property. Using this preamble, Appiah shows that artifacts and cultural objects held only in certain countries and whose exit is only prohibited would have meaning for the inhabitants of theterritories in which they are restricted. This is not fair simply because these objects and the culture they promote make no significant contribution to world culture. Giving the example of Mali, Appiah says the decision to restrict the export of cultural objects serves no purpose. the good of everyone. It shows that such rules do not stop the export of cultural goods; They only encourage illegal trade, which leads to a loss of value for most of these cultural objects. For a Malian trying to illegally sell a cultural object, they would avoid documenting the object, including where it was found, the characteristics surrounding its manufacture. On the other hand, using the right channels, these objects would be professionally found and documented, thus retaining their value and contribution to world culture (Appiah, 78). Restricting the sale and export of such items therefore adds no value to Mali or to such items. Appiah says the idea of ​​cultural heritage is flawed saying that while this argument is based on the feeling that "art belongs to the culture that gives it its meaning, most arts do not belong to a national culture at all." national level”. all” (Appiah, 79). This is because he says: Most artists in their work are influenced and inspired by the work of other artists before their time. Most of these predecessors are international figures and he shows how the greatest artists of all time were inspired by the art of regions other than their own. Therefore, if art is to derive its property from where it derives its importance, no nation can claim ownership; art then becomes international. Does the question of cultural heritage still apply when the very guardians of this culture become destructive forces, this is the question Appiah asks, referring to cases like those of Afghanistan where the Taliban regime has destroyed what he considered un-Islamic. cultural antiquities. He says that taking such objects and placing them elsewhere would have been a better idea to protect them against the iconoclasm of the Taliban than considering them to belong to the Afghan nations even when the nations' masters saw no value in them (Appiah, 82).Appiah says that those who are entrusted with cultural objects should be able to ensure that they are well cared for in order to preserve them for generations to come (Appiah, 83), and this is nice. It would make no sense to have caretakers who are so poor that owning items, whether native or imported, compromises their existence. The problem arises, however, when this is used to justify the failure of efforts to repatriate what has been done. were taken illegally and illegally from their country of origin. Appiah says that while he is not against repatriation, some of the countries where the artifacts came from are too poor to even be able to preserve these artifacts (Appiah, 83). It seems to support the barbarity of theft from which most countries suffered during the war. colonial period and the labels of inferiority that these nations received, which is the main reason why some of these nations are in their sorry state. Appiah also describes the zeal most people have to have their cultural antiquities near them, where they can "stand". close” and “marvel” at cultural objects. He says the connection people feel to objects made on their own land is strong and powerful and people can feel a desire to bring these objects home. However, he says that even if this is true, people should be open to the,?