Should western museums return colonial cultural artifacts stolen from Africa?
fatumasvoice.org
fatumasvoice.org
If that was the case, these artefacts would hold no value. I don't think sweeping statements like this help any argument.
We should gladly share our culture. If that means shifting heritage artefacts around the world to spread understanding, then so be it. So yes return items to originating countries, but also share them to other countries on loan. This allows normal people to learn about other cultures from first principles.
It also means that in case of war, or difficulty, items can be preserved from damage.
Imagine someone taking libery statue and the whitehouse by force to keep them safe and learn about american culture. You're speaking this way because you are confident those countries won't invade your country and kill your people over it
> if they had the ability the countries of origin would inavde (war, killing,etc..) Over those artifacts
If I understand you properly, you are saying that a number of countries would engage in war to retrieve statues et al, not for the financial gain, but for _morale_? I think you misunderstand what expansionism is about.
> Look at syria,do you think they would prefer if the US or UK permanetly took their artefacts to preserve them instead of letting ISIS destroy them?
I doubt the vast majority care, I think they want peace, food, healthcare and jobs. It is a privileged to care about cultural sights. When you are at the point of having to live in a roman tomb to survive the winter, I think you cease to care about the cultural or historical provenance of a building/object.
> Sharing is up to the owner
define owner. Should the Flaminio obelisk be repatriated, if so, where to, Greece? after all it was stolen from Hellenic egypt.
the Koh-i-Noor is another more complex one to solve. Its been stolen twice(at least), once by Nader Shah, then again by the Durrani who sold it/gave/traded/lost it to the Singh dynasty. It was then traded to the East India Company in exchange for them saving the ruling class from its incredible standing army(who would have conquered india if they hadn't been betrayed by their own leaders).
The Elgin Marbles is more simple, but thats rare.
The actual mechanics of repatriation is pretty hard. Which is why putting all these artefacts into a supra-national trust, travelling around the world is better, because _everyone_ gets to see it. Hopefully it will also stop corrupt governments seconding them to adorn private residences. Like all the stuff looted from iraq.
The idea of going places and shipping findings back home to be stuffed in a museum seems dated and very "colonial" to me. Maybe the future of museums is as described above.
surely if we go down this route that each museum should only really own stuff from it's own country. However that means that each country will have a monoculture.
So ideally there should be a system of rolling loans to allow normal people (ie those who can't drop £5k to fly out to visit a far away country) to see the culture and history of the world.
But how many museum trips does it take to have an interesting take on China and its people without sounding utterly blind? I feel like a lifetime of museum-going might never amount to anything except as toy conversation for a certain kind of social gathering.
1) a boat load of science
2) natural history (evolution, human interaction etc)
3) how to farm
4) a boat load about the romans[1]
5) basic early middle east history
> take to have an interesting take on China and its people without sounding utterly blind
You're missing the fundamental point. Museums are generally a cheap way for people to see and understand the world. They serve as an elementary introduction to the world. If something takes a person's eye, they can talk to the curator and be connected to current academic thinking.
This is something that normally only happens at university, which is expensive. It is about access, if museums go away history culture and understanding become the preserve of the rich.
[1] The Romans are an interesting point. A lot of artefacts are loot from raids especially in the arse end of the empire. Because soldiers were promised land in exchange for service, not only was it colonialism, but they were paid for by the assets of the conquered.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/8/130823-museum...
I want culturally significant archaeological artifacts preserved wherever the most stable environment is. I do not care which country it happens to be, as long the stability and budget for conservation is there. I think the urge some people feel to return items to whichever country currently occupies the same geographic origin that these artifacts come from is well-meaning, but fundamentally misguided. Preservation for future generations should be the guiding principle. If that means Object X resides somewhere else, then that is the best choice, period.
Egypt was stable for decades. Artifacts were plundered by the Nazis during WWII just a few decades ago and a priceless Van Gogh was stolen just a few weeks ago, so is Europe no longer considered a safe space for those cultural artifacts in Europe? Museums in Africa should be setup and educated with the profits gained from stealing their heritage and they should be returned.
The theft of a single painting is not the same as looters running rampant with destruction. Nowhere is 100% safe. That is the entire problem with long-term conservation! The best we can do is go for maximum political stability.
When I younger, I saw first-hand exactly how much mainland China lost during the Cultural Revolution. Destruction of anything old was the (literal) rule of the day. Again, it was a loss to the history of humanity.
What I want to avoid is events like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/28/mali-timbuktu-...
On a long enough time scale, they become exceedingly common. The one surity of things is that if something is valued by one group, someone else will want to destroy it. The best we can do is ensure that these artefacts are in the most stable locations possible. Over time the particulars will undoubtedly change. But the base answer is the same.
That said, the current cultures in many places have conquered and destroyed the original culture that created those artifacts (including the West). In a sense, it's loot for everybody. So why is it wrong to loot some looter's loot?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/dec/16/tutankhamun-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan
[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/reveale...
What if the nation it was last plundered from in turn took it from someone else even further back in history?
The fact this is even up for debate is preposterous.
Africa should have its artefacts, Greece should get its marbles back and Western museums should be emptied of ALL war treasure and imperialist spoil.
Only then would so-called Western moral authority actually have some basis.
Let me try.
These artefacts could be considered common human heritage. Mesopotamian artefacts are no more the property of the British than the government in present-day Baghdad. In many cases, the local governments are unstable or extremist, which has lead to priceless treasures being destroyed, defaced, lost or stolen.
Anyone claiming this is a simple issue is oversimplifying. Putting aside recent imperialism, should Republican Roman artefacts plundered from Gaul or Syria be returned to Paris or Damascus?
Until there is a common human state, this argument is Imperialist nonsense.
The similarities with colonial reparations are striking, and this issue runs into the same kind of problems. If a crime was committed a very long time ago so that everyone involved is long dead, who should be punished, and who is eligible for restitution?
A blanket proclamation that "Everything that was stolen should be returned" is so ridiculously oversimplified that you can't do anything but dismiss it.
If art belongs at least in part to people or culture... there are a lot of Africans in the US. Should they have the right to learn about the culture of their ancestors in a US museum? Why or why not?
Cultures and people change. Obviously none of the individuals from the 1600s are alive today, but many of the cultures don't either, and peoples migrate. Tracking down every individual ancestor (by culture? by genes?) and allocating them their proportional art seems... challenging.
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't "repatriate" some art. But I don't think it's as simple as "yes, wholeheartedly". There are fractals of complexity to untangle, and it's unclear at what point we cease to be better for trying.
The best case scenario would be they went to some moldy basement of a "museum" and never looked at again. The chance of them surviving the next 10 years would probably be less than 50%.