• Universal Cultural Heritage: Cultural products are contributions to the culture of all humankind. For instance, if the Louvre Museum in Paris was damaged, it wouldn't just be a loss for France, but for all of us globally. A real-world example can be the burning of the Library of Alexandria in ancient times, which was a loss for all of humanity. The UNESCO conventions and the United Nations Human Rights Council support this idea.

• Cultural Repatriation vs. Universal Collections: This concept relates to the debate whether cultural artifacts should be returned to their countries of origin (cultural repatriation) or be kept in museums serving a global audience (universal collections). For example, Greece has long demanded the return of the Elgin Marbles from the British Museum, but they're still housed in London for the global public to see.

• The Inherent Tension: This idea refers to the tension between individual and collective interests. Art is of value for individual development and to humankind as a whole. For instance, owning a Picasso painting might give you personal joy, but wouldn't it be more beneficial for humanity if it was in a museum where everyone could enjoy it?

• Western Concentration of Museums: Most major museums are located in Western nations. This raises the question if it's fair that a vast part of global culture is primarily accessible in one region. For instance, the British Museum holds artifacts from all over the world, while many source countries don't have similar access to their own heritage.

• Marginalization of Non-Western Art: There's a history of marginalizing non-Western artworks, often being dismissed as 'primitive'. This is like saying sushi isn't a culinary masterpiece because it's not a French dish. Matthes argues that redistribution and repatriation of artistic works can facilitate recognition for marginalized groups.

• Private Collections: Vast knowledge is held in private collections away from public access. This poses the question of whether governments should intervene in these collections. Imagine if Da Vinci's notebooks were held in a private collection, wouldn't it be better if they were in a museum for everyone to study?

• Who should navigate the inherent tension?: Should it be museums or national governments? For instance, who decides whether the Elgin Marbles stay in London or return to Athens - the British Museum or the governments of the UK and Greece?

• Western Museums' Mission vs. Location: The mission of many leading museums to serve humanity seems contradictory with their concentration in Western nations. It's like saying you're hosting a party for everyone but then holding it in a remote location that's hard for most to reach.

• Redistribution and Recognition: Redistribution of cultural artifacts can help recognize and appreciate marginalized groups. Just like how Korean pop music's global popularity has increased recognition and appreciation of Korean culture.

• Government Intervention in Private Collections: Should governments intervene in private collections? If so, what would be some implications? It's like your parents deciding what you should do with your personal comic book collection.

Your take on these points would make a great class discussion or essay!