YES because:
Morally it is the right thing to do
Artefacts are enriched by being viewed in their place of origin
They are part of the area’s history
These artefacts have been illegally procured
These artefacts are the foundation of a potential tourist trade
The artefacts serve as reminders of past oppression
We now have the resources to carry out such a move
The corrupt nature of a country asking for repatriation is not the fact in isssue, and should not even be put forward as a reason for not repatriating the artefacts
Artefacts should be repatriated, including the people which were stolen and scattered world wide
These artefacts should bring revenue to the counties of origin
Globalisation
NO because:
We are obliged to protect the artefact
The historical context of an artefact is more than just its place of origin
Artefacts should be accessible to the largest amount of visitors possible
The majority of artefacts are 100% ‘legal’
Having artefacts in different locations encourages us to think of our common origins
Hope my answer helped u :)
Answer:
The completion of the Transcontinental Railroad
Explanation:
Transcontinental Railroad was completed in 1869 by the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific Railroad Companies. The railroad link the eastern part of the United States to the western part of the United States.
This later led to many more settlers to move west. As the journey seems easier and the prospect of moving to the west to start afresh and get abundant land appeals to people at the time.
It would be D. This was the closest ever to a nuclear war.