
Should western museums return colonial cultural artifacts stolen from Africa? - fatumasvoice
https://www.fatumasvoice.org/should-western-museums-return-colonial-cultural-artifacts-from-africa-the-caribbean-and-the-pacific/
======
badrabbit
Yes...you should return what you took by force. The history and cultural value
of the items belong to the country of origin. Why is this even a question?
These artifacts are symbols that represent cultural identity of individuals in
the country of origin right now! I suspect the whole "culture and tradition is
not a big deal" indoctrination prevalent in the west makes it difficult for
some westerners to imagine associating your identity and even value as a
member of the society the artifact represents.

~~~
KaiserPro
> imagine associating your identity and even value as a member of the society
> the artifact represents.

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.

~~~
badrabbit
Sharing is up to the owner not the receiver. You are concerned about learning
about other culutures, that is what I mean by a disconnect, if they had the
ability the countries of origin would inavde (war, killing,etc..) Over those
artifacts. This would be unthinkable in a western context. 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?

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

~~~
KaiserPro
I was talking about all artefacts. rembrant, van gough, the grays inn hand
axe, the sutton hoo hoard, should be on tour, for the world to see and learn
about.

> 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.

------
Causality1
It would depend on each individual item's provenance would it not? If it was
seized during a war or under Colonial rule certainly it should be returned. If
it was found by a private citizen during a legally sanctioned dig or purchased
from the legal owner, then no.

------
Waterluvian
It would be interesting if renowned museums could be mobilized as stewards of
antiquities. Not only do they take on a new mandate: returning cultural
artifacts, but also share the skills developed over generations for how to
care for and curate these artifacts.

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.

------
KaiserPro
why just africa?

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.

~~~
threatofrain
There's little meaningful exposure to other cultures or worlds by going to
museums. I'm sure HN is the kind of place that already has a higher density of
museum memberships, but to me, it's all infotainment. I will continue such
museum memberships because they're great infotainment for when guests come to
town, or when I visit some major city.

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.

~~~
KaiserPro
I'm not sure what museums you are going to, but for me they taught me:

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.

------
ykevinator
Yes

------
fatumasvoice
A large number of artifacts held in Western museums and libraries are known to
have been appropriated over the ages through conquest and colonialism. The
looting of African objects anthropologists, curators and private collectors
took place in war as well as in peaceful times. It was once justified as an
act of benevolence; as saving dying knowledge. So what now that we know the
truth?

~~~
Larrikin
It should be left up to the nations that the loot was plundered from. After
going to the Cairo museum it's a painful experience going to an Egyptian
exhibit in the US. But going with people who have never been to Egypt or even
the African continent there is definitely a real appreciation of what is in
the American Museum. The best of the best should go back to Africa but there
should be thought put into things left behind to inspire people to goto the
source.

~~~
Baeocystin
Did you go to the Cairo museum before or after the most recent looting?

[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/8/130823-museum...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/8/130823-museum-
mallawi-egypt-looting-artifacts-archaeology-science-antiquities/)

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.

~~~
Larrikin
Yes I went before the recent bad times in Egypt. I think your opinion is the
wrong path to go down, because if we start putting arbitrary rules of
stability on countries they will never be returned.

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.

~~~
Baeocystin
Nazi artifact plundering and destruction was a huge loss for everyone. (Same
with the firebombing of Dresden, for that matter.) Thankfully, the West also
set up the MFAA post-war, and recovered a great deal of material.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monuments,_Fine_Arts,_and_Arch...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monuments,_Fine_Arts,_and_Archives_program)

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-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/28/mali-timbuktu-
library-ancient-manuscripts)

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.

------
ponsin
Let's take ancient Egyption artifacts as an example. The ancient Egyptians who
created the pyramids and all of those related artifacts we're conquered by the
Romans. Since then there had been many wars, conquering nations and
revolutions. Right now Sisi is the ruler of the land of Egypt yet I don't see
why he deserves ancient Egyptian artifacts any more than any other leader
whose country conquered Egypt at one time time.

------
fit2rule
How is this even a question? Of COURSE they should.

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.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _How is this even a question?_

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?

~~~
henrikschroder
> Putting aside recent imperialism, should Republican Roman artefacts
> plundered from Gaul or Syria be returned to Paris or Damascus?

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.

