The concept of cultural heritage is paradoxical to say the least. On the one hand, the concept of property is something that one owns, that is alienable, and that someone can lay claim to. Culture, on the other hand, is none of this. Even if culture arises from groups, it is not static; it is hybridized, appropriated and contaminated through various human interactions and therefore no group has exclusive rights to a culture. This is the cosmopolitan argument that Kwame Appiah presents in the book chapter “Whose Culture is It,” arguing against a conception of cultural property that excludes other people than the one from whom that property originated and calling instead for the exchange of these products cultures across the world. world. Although Appiah presents a strong philosophical argument for a cosmopolitan approach to cultural property, using legal frameworks such as the preamble to the 1954 UNESCO conference that cultural property is considered universal property and providing numerous artistic and cultural examples, he ignores the reality that some of these cultural assets have been taken from their owners through looting and looting, contradicting itself and justifying the barbarity of unjust ownership and holding some in higher regard than others. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The cosmopolitan approach to cultural property used by Appiah in this chapter states 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 objects of cultural significance to other countries. This is what Appiah generally presents in the first part of his chapter, stating that declarations by a number of international bodies to prevent the illegal movement of cultural artefacts between nations go against the cosmopolitan view because it teaches people that cultural property is owned by a particular nation. and a given group of people. In the second part, Appiah shows how cultural property does not belong to any specific group but must be appreciated by humanity. He then goes on to say that 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. It also shows how some countries of origin do not have the necessary resources to maintain such objects and are better off in other countries. In the third part of the argument Appiah states that people cannot lay claim to art objects because they have been influenced in their art by others nationally and transnationally. It also states that for countries that require 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 from knowing that they are connected to them through humanity. Appiah's main argument is based on the preamble of the 1954 UNESCO conference that "...every people makes its contribution to the culture of the world" (Appiah, 75). This is what Appiah uses to demonstrate that national or group culture is not limited to the group and nor does the group have exclusive rights to what it would consider its cultural property. Using this preamble, Appiah shows that cultural artifacts and objects held only in certain nations and are prohibited from carrying. outside the nation they would only make sense to people within the territories to which they are limited. This is unfair for the simple fact that such objects and the culture they promote do not bringno significant contribution to world culture. Giving the example of Mali, Appiah says the move to limit the export of cultural artefacts serves no one's good. He demonstrates that these regulations do not stop the export of cultural goods; only theyencourage illegal business which leads to the loss of value of most of these cultural artifacts. A Malian seeking to illegally sell a cultural object would avoid documenting the object, including where it was found and characteristics related to its making. On the other hand, using the right channels, such objects would be professionally found and documented thus maintaining their value and contribution to the world's culture (Appiah, 78). Restricting the sale and export of such items therefore adds no value to Mali or such items. Appiah says the idea of ​​cultural heritage is flawed saying that if this argument is based on the sentiment that “art belongs to the culture that gives it its meaning, most art does not belong to a national culture at the national level ”. everyone" (Appiah, 79). This is because it says; Most artists in their work are influenced and inspired by the work of other artists who came before their time. Most of these predecessors are international figures and shows how the greatest artists of all time were inspired by the art of regions other than their own. Therefore, if art must derive its ownership from where it derives meaning, no nation can claim ownership; art then becomes international. The question of cultural heritage is still valid when the custodians of this culture themselves become destructive forces, is the question that Appiah asks, referring to cases such as those of Afghanistan where the Taliban regime destroyed what it considered to be non-Islamic cultural antiquities . He says that taking such objects and placing them in other places would have been a better idea to protect them from Taliban iconoclasm than claiming that they belong to the Afghan nations even when the nations' masters saw no value in them (Appiah, 82). Appiah states that those who are entrusted with cultural artifacts should be able to ensure that they are well cared for in order to preserve them for future generations (Appiah, 83), and this is nice. It would make no sense to have such poor custodians that possession of the artefacts, whether native to their own country or imported, compromises their existence. The problem however arises when this is used to justify failed efforts to repatriate what was brought illegally and illegally from their countries of origin. Appiah states that while he is not against repatriation, some of these countries where the artifacts originated are too poor to be able to preserve these artifacts (Appiah, 83). It seems to support the barbarity of theft that most countries suffered during the colonial period and the labels of inferiority assigned to these nations, which is the main reason why some of these nations are in their pitiful conditions. Appiah also describes the zeal that most people have to have their cultural antiques close to them where they can sit close and 'wonder' at the cultural objects. He says the connection people feel towards objects made in their homelands is strong and powerful, and people may feel a desire for these objects to be brought back home. However, he states that, while this is true, people should be open to the possibility of feeling connected to objects through other means; through the understanding that humans have of these objects. He says that when objects are found in other parts of the world, the,?