5 ms·

Should western museums return colonial cultural artifacts stolen from Africa?

12 points by fatumasvoice 7y ago

fatumasvoice 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
  - dvdbloc 7y ago
    For many people it may be completely unobtainable that they travel all over Africa to see the best. For that reason, is it best that these items frequently travel the world for all to appreciate? Or is that bad as well?
  - Baeocystin 7y ago
    Did you go to the Cairo museum before or after the most recent looting? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/8/130823-museum-mallawi-egypt-looting-artifacts-archaeology-science-antiquities/ 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.
    - Larrikin 7y ago
      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 7y ago
        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_Archives_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monuments,_Fine_Arts,_and_Arch... 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-library-ancient-manuscripts 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.
  - toohotatopic 7y ago
    How do you make sure that artifacts are not destroyed once they return like in [1-3]? With 3D printing, I don't think there is an argument left for keeping artifacts, once the security is provided. 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-gold-mask-egypt-beard-repair https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/dec/16/tutankhamun-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan [3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-the-real-story-behind-the-great-iraq-museum-thefts-515067.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/reveale...
  - henrikschroder 7y ago
    > It should be left up to the nations that the loot was plundered from What if the nation it was last plundered from in turn took it from someone else even further back in history?
Waterluvian 7y ago
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.
fit2rule 7y ago
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 7y ago
  > 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?
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    >These artefacts could be considered common human heritage. Until there is a common human state, this argument is Imperialist nonsense.
  - henrikschroder 7y ago
    > 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.
    - fit2rule 7y ago
      This viewpoint is only 'acceptable' if you're the thief. If you're the victim, of course you want justice. If you stole my house from my family two generations ago, it doesn't matter an iota to me that your offspring think its okay for them to keep it. Seriously people, I can't believe you're justifying this. What the fuck is wrong with you? Shall we attempt this same moralist judo on artefacts of the good ol' USA to demonstrate the facetious nature of this argument?
Causality1 7y ago
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.
badrabbit 7y ago
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 7y ago
  > 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 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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.
KaiserPro 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.
ponsin 7y ago
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.
djdjebffj66 7y ago
Valid spoils of war and small tokens of appreciation for the invaluable benefits of civilisation gifted to Africa by European pioneers, in my view. If the tables were turned, do any of you really think for a moment that Africans would graciously donate our ancestors' artefacts to us in this scenario? If any of us were even left alive to complain about it, that is.
djdjebffj66 7y ago
Should almost incalculable wealth be returned to Germany for everything taken from them in the world wars and the subsequent extortion which continues to this day? Or are they too pale?
ykevinator 7y ago
Yes

12 points by fatumasvoice 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.
- dvdbloc 7y ago
  For many people it may be completely unobtainable that they travel all over Africa to see the best. For that reason, is it best that these items frequently travel the world for all to appreciate? Or is that bad as well?
- Baeocystin 7y ago
  Did you go to the Cairo museum before or after the most recent looting? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/8/130823-museum-mallawi-egypt-looting-artifacts-archaeology-science-antiquities/ 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.
  - Larrikin 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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_Archives_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monuments,_Fine_Arts,_and_Arch... 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-library-ancient-manuscripts 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.
- toohotatopic 7y ago
  How do you make sure that artifacts are not destroyed once they return like in [1-3]? With 3D printing, I don't think there is an argument left for keeping artifacts, once the security is provided. 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-gold-mask-egypt-beard-repair https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/dec/16/tutankhamun-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan [3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-the-real-story-behind-the-great-iraq-museum-thefts-515067.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/reveale...
- henrikschroder 7y ago
  > It should be left up to the nations that the loot was plundered from What if the nation it was last plundered from in turn took it from someone else even further back in history?

Waterluvian 7y ago

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.

fit2rule 7y ago

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 7y ago
> 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?
- fit2rule 7y ago
  >These artefacts could be considered common human heritage. Until there is a common human state, this argument is Imperialist nonsense.
- henrikschroder 7y ago
  > 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.
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    This viewpoint is only 'acceptable' if you're the thief. If you're the victim, of course you want justice. If you stole my house from my family two generations ago, it doesn't matter an iota to me that your offspring think its okay for them to keep it. Seriously people, I can't believe you're justifying this. What the fuck is wrong with you? Shall we attempt this same moralist judo on artefacts of the good ol' USA to demonstrate the facetious nature of this argument?

Causality1 7y ago

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.

badrabbit 7y ago

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 7y ago
> 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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.

KaiserPro 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.

ponsin 7y ago

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.

djdjebffj66 7y ago

Valid spoils of war and small tokens of appreciation for the invaluable benefits of civilisation gifted to Africa by European pioneers, in my view. If the tables were turned, do any of you really think for a moment that Africans would graciously donate our ancestors' artefacts to us in this scenario? If any of us were even left alive to complain about it, that is.

djdjebffj66 7y ago

Should almost incalculable wealth be returned to Germany for everything taken from them in the world wars and the subsequent extortion which continues to this day? Or are they too pale?

ykevinator 7y ago

Yes