Today we went to the British Museum. I had a great time as there was so much to see. One of the best things about the Museum was its vast collections of artifacts and art from all over the world. However, the location of those pieces here in London raises questions concerning Britain’s (and other nations) history of “relocating” or “saving” items of cultural significance from around the world. While admiring all of the artwork, I couldn’t help but ponder on whether the British Museum should be allowed to hold such important pieces of other societies. On one hand, I would argue that it is good that the British Museum has done this, as someone like me can visit one place and see art from all over the world, dating back thousands of years. London, being such an international city, provides easy access for all of the world to experience those works of art. Had those pieces stayed in their places of origin, I would not have been able to see Greek pottery, Roman sculptures, Egyptian mummies, Chinese jade jewelry, and so much more in just one day. Most likely, I, and many other people, would have never been able to experience any of those things. On the other hand, I would argue that there is something not quite right with someone growing up in Greece, living within eyesight of the Parthenon and never seeing the Parthenon Marbles while a kid living in England could see them whenever they choose. The more I think about it, the harder it is for me to say that it’s okay. Why does England (and several other countries) get to take the most incredible pieces of culture from all over the world and keep them for themselves? Imagine if the U.S. (or any other country) just took the Crown Jewels and held them in a museum. I think everyone would agree that that isn’t right, so what’s different about what England has done? Nevertheless, I am grateful that I was able to visit the British Museum and experience all of “its” wonders.