Prompt: Historical objects should be brought back to their country of origin. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is argued by some that the relics should be placed back to where it originally came from, while others maintain that these items were typically acquired fairly. From my perspective, I believe the former choice is undoubtedly persuasive since it can go a long way to easing resentment between various countries. Ċ In the past decades, there were a wide range of antiques be spread through several countries. The invasion was the root cause of the incidents mentioned above. Those intruders not only destroyed the architecture in the weak states but also lacked knowledge of preserving the historical objects that they stole. Therefore, the culture in the weak nation would be obliterated gradually. The new generation would end up forgetting the culture which was once belonged to them but stolen by the strong power right after. Take China as an example. Around a century ago, British and French soldiers raid China which was ruled by Qing dynasty at the moment. Both armies from the UK and France embezzled the collection in Yuan Ming Yuan. Even throughout the present days, the experts still find it hard to gather those valuables since they are still spread all over the free markets. Ċ On the other hand, the countries who stole from others might distort and display the inaccurate interpretation of the history which show no respect to those states who initially owned the relics. Ċ To conclude, for the purpose of paying respect to the historical culture, I would argue that repatriating the relics back to their homelands is the best route.