For imperialism and colonialism as a whole though that's hard to do because the past inherently impacts the future, and the legacy of imperial regimes often remains in many countries. This might not be particularly important but it's nevertheless a decent gesture that can act as some form of apology, or at least as a recognition of past ills.
Should artifacts be returned to former colonies?
- Thread starter Adisa
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
In an ideal world, yes artefacts should be returned, especially the things that were looted while still holding significance to the local population.
It becomes difficult once multiple ownership claims through purchase are taken into consideration. Take the looting of the Forbidden Palace for example, the palace contained an amalgamation of China's historical artwork and pottery but due to to constant ownership changes over the years it's hard to say who has a claim to the artefacts now.
It becomes difficult once multiple ownership claims through purchase are taken into consideration. Take the looting of the Forbidden Palace for example, the palace contained an amalgamation of China's historical artwork and pottery but due to to constant ownership changes over the years it's hard to say who has a claim to the artefacts now.
Why not 7?!
Just asking - but, why does that matter?
If someone steals your phone and it gets sold on several times is it still your phone?
Why can't they be looked after and displayed for the world to see in the original country?
Right, so leave it in... London. Seems the most logical place to leave it.
Not really. The items are displayed predominantly foe the local population of the country that the museum is in, as well as anyone wealthy enough to visit that country.
Perhaps create a new international organisation that oversees these artefacts and takes them on tour around the world?
Did/do these asinine arguments come up when plundered Nazi art is recovered? Does anyone go, "well it's changed hands several times, and who knows who the Jew owner took it from, best we leave it with this rich investment banker"? Do they feck.
Plundered Nazi art had legitimate living owners with documented ownership.
The safety of the artifacts is a responsibility of the original country. The western countries have no rights in keeping stolen artifacts in the name of "preserving them".
I feel like that argument can become very problematic as well in who we define as being 'corrupt'. And can also be perceived as fairly patronising as well, like we're the responsible adults who need to withhold something from a misbehaving child.
There are many variables which are often stated when discussing this but ultimately they should all really return to yes, they should be returned.
Initially you have to look at fundamentally how they were obtained, in this case it was stolen, which is immediately a red herring. But even then, many of these artefacts have been obtained through dirty deals, which always benefited the colonialist. They make a claim on the artefact as because they've found it it should be rightfully their own and it's continued through the cheek of the spokeswomen in the article when she states that “The museum is one of the world’s leading lenders and the trustees will always consider loan requests subject to usual conditions" which is absolutely ridiculous considering it's a stolen item.
Again in this case, it's an artefact which holds great precedence within the Rapu Nui peoples culture, as it embodies an emotional connection which is not going to be understandable by those who do not follow or are part of that culture, and it's not being respected by the item being withheld. It's not really our place to judge whether the artefact does or does not contain "the spirit of their people", when to them it does.
'But in the British Museum it's more publicly available for people to see' - As an archaeologist one of my main gripes is how disconnected it is from the public but there is a correct way of doing it, and this isn't it. It's ethically wrong and what advantage does the 'real' artefact in this case have over a copy of it? I don't see any. In museums you're also generally not allowed to touch the artefacts, they're purely for display.
In turn, people will argue that the BM can conserve the item better compared to it being on Easter Island and the possibility of theft while there is an issue. True, but can the investment that would be made here not be placed into the Island and it's upkeep? It's also not our artefact to decide what or how it is conserved. It's the Rapu Nui peoples, and it is for them to choose how it is used, displayed and kept.
I believe that these items and the people (aswell as many others around the world) should be recognised as culturally impressive and important, but it also doesn't give us the right to choose how or where it is put. It also doesn't give us and others the right to see it.
Initially you have to look at fundamentally how they were obtained, in this case it was stolen, which is immediately a red herring. But even then, many of these artefacts have been obtained through dirty deals, which always benefited the colonialist. They make a claim on the artefact as because they've found it it should be rightfully their own and it's continued through the cheek of the spokeswomen in the article when she states that “The museum is one of the world’s leading lenders and the trustees will always consider loan requests subject to usual conditions" which is absolutely ridiculous considering it's a stolen item.
Again in this case, it's an artefact which holds great precedence within the Rapu Nui peoples culture, as it embodies an emotional connection which is not going to be understandable by those who do not follow or are part of that culture, and it's not being respected by the item being withheld. It's not really our place to judge whether the artefact does or does not contain "the spirit of their people", when to them it does.
'But in the British Museum it's more publicly available for people to see' - As an archaeologist one of my main gripes is how disconnected it is from the public but there is a correct way of doing it, and this isn't it. It's ethically wrong and what advantage does the 'real' artefact in this case have over a copy of it? I don't see any. In museums you're also generally not allowed to touch the artefacts, they're purely for display.
In turn, people will argue that the BM can conserve the item better compared to it being on Easter Island and the possibility of theft while there is an issue. True, but can the investment that would be made here not be placed into the Island and it's upkeep? It's also not our artefact to decide what or how it is conserved. It's the Rapu Nui peoples, and it is for them to choose how it is used, displayed and kept.
I believe that these items and the people (aswell as many others around the world) should be recognised as culturally impressive and important, but it also doesn't give us the right to choose how or where it is put. It also doesn't give us and others the right to see it.
I'd say its the responsibility of who has them at the moment to ensure they remain safe, especially in situations where the original country is run by militants who are committed to destroying artifacts.
Which countries?
One was painted with the purpose of being sold. The other was part of a building that should have stayed part of that building.
If a country wass overrun by the likes of ISIS or the Taliban for instance, both with a track record of blowing up artifacts, then you would obviously want to wait until those countries were stable. Right now, there are no such countries but there certainly were in recent years.
I totally agree. We need to own up to the sins of our past and make recompense for them where we can.
Drawing a line under our history and pretending either it never happened or worse that the Empire was a good thing is just not how a civilised nation should act.
The British ended up giving Maggie Thatcher back to the Devil, so I don't get fuss over a few clay pots and statues.
Get your facts straight. Which one was painted with the purpose of being sold?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Supper_(Leonardo_da_Vinci)
I struggle to believe this is even a debate. Most, if not all, of these items were stolen. England, Germany, France, whomever; give the stuff back.
As someone who works in museums in the UK, I don't think it's fair to tar all with the same brush. Some are more socially aware than others. The British Museum is still a brilliant place to visit and see all the sights of the world, but many of those objects were plundered and looted in the age of the British Empire and they don't want to make an effort to reconcile that fact.
For them, it's the inconvenient truth that they have no moral rights to large parts of their collection, just a fact that they can say that they are taking great care of the objects, which is undoubtedly true. The conservators and curators will not want to part with objects that are in their care, and that's also understandable to a degree, but not a good enough reason to retain what are essentially stolen goods.
Last edited:
I'm not sure you are speaking from personal experience or just suspicion, but if you're a UK museum, for example, you have to abide by the laws of the land as well as a code of practice, which means all of the shady dealings you mention are not going to happen. There's always got to be a paper trail.
World history is littered with conflict and various degrees of imperialism and colonialism. Many of the ex British colonies had attempts at creating Empires themselves. We were not the first, the last, the worst or even the biggest in terms of area conquered. Still, the legacy of all these is ingrained in the culture of each place and i don't see why it's always just the British Empire that is singled out as the evil one. I am actually proud of my country's place in history and i don't think we should be forced to apologise for, and make attempts to undo, what people none of us ever knew did hundreds of years ago.
I'm not talking about the contemporary art and not so much about the XX century, although that's where it begins — problems with provenance are very common (2 World Wars don't exactly help) for the works from the first decades of the XXth. But my point was about earlier centuries — XIXth and before, because it was a norm, for example to take the best art from the conquered nation, even from the museums; and that's a well documented and known collections, imagine what happened with personal ones, which ceased to exists with their owner's untimely demise — only for the works to appear a few decades later in a different country. That's something that I know from experience of working in that field.
So it's not only a local problem with, say, British Empire, stealing historical from their colonies. It's something that went on for centuries all over the world.
Take a look at the recent scandal at Ghent museum. It's a little different problem, I wasn't even going to mention forgeries, but still, there is a collection full of them (and, obviously, those works don't have credible paper trail — because they are, well, fake) and a huge museum in a law-abiding country does a whole exhibition on them. This example, by chance, got public, usually they don't.
Exhibitions in museums don't typically last longer than 6 months.
OK I understand your point of view. I am not looking at it in the same way though.
I would argue from the point of view of identity politics that works of art do not play a significant role in the formation of national identities. Whilst yes Egypt is no longer run by Pharaohs, the Egyptian national identity draws significantly from artifacts of that era. It is a sense of national pride that their society has existed that long. It is the same for the Irish with regard to places like Newgrange. Nobody is going to hold up the Mona Lisa as an icon that represents the Italian national identity. In fact when we look at the Mona Lisa we are completely detached from the nationality of the artist and the subject. It is not something that is considered by the viewer by default. The same is not true when we look at Tuts sarcophagus, we instantly identify it as Egyptian. The artifact just speaks time, place and nation.
Most people would struggle to even locate Da Vinci during his life outside of a guess like Florence? People would not even need to think about where King Tut is from.
So I guess from a purely artistic viewpoint that the two items are similar because they represent something aesthetically and artistically beautiful, I would argue that the meaning inherent in the items goes much deeper than that.
Whilst I would agree that there are pieces of art that do hold significance for national identity, like say the Book of Kells, they are few and far between. But like I said, someone looking at the item purely as an artistic expression would probably class them all in one bucket, pieces of art, however someone from an anthropological background like myself, would read the items with a different academic toolset.
Last edited:
I'm not trying to deny other countries have their own dark histories or single us out. But regarding the bolded part - none of us were involved in imperialism but through the generations there have been obvious indirect benefits insofar as Britain remains one of the world's most advanced economies, a status our imperial ventures helped establish and maintain. We don't need to consistently apologise and say sorry in everything we do because most of us weren't responsible - nevertheless if we have stuff we actually stole from other countries then it seems only fair to give it back. It's a small, easy gesture.
This is an incredibly short-sighted view, and I don't think anyone is singling out the British Empire, but this particular incident does involve the British Empire indirectly, so it's going to be discussed.
You realise a lot of countries were still under British rule 60 years ago? I have great-family members who were directly impacted by British rule including loss of land, riches & being forced into war. There are millions who are directly affected to this day, no apologies are needed but equally some accountability should be taken.
So should we be knocking on Denmark and Sweden's door and asking for everything they stole from us back, too? What about the Italians? You could spend all day compiling lists of what was stolen from who, but it only ever seems to be the British anyone cares about. On this forum in particular everything seems to come back to how terrible we were. The East India Company probably even appointed Mourinho.
British colonists were bad but I wonder why no one ever mentions the French. They were a thousand times worse. Yes, the British used India for its own benefit but at least it tried to make excuses and at times actually did try to integrate with society (still was pretty bad overall but I mean they built some infrastructure too)
The French on the other hand were absolutely brutal with the African nations they colonized.
The French on the other hand were absolutely brutal with the African nations they colonized.
If there's stuff that was genuinely stolen from us that we want back then, yeah, sure, nothing wrong with asking for it.
Your fixation on how we apparently only care about Britain is bizarre though. The OP itself - while highlighting a British example - is open-ended in how it refers to colonies, and so I'd apply this to any former imperial power - whether Britain, France, Belgium or someone else.
I'd also say the British case with Scandinavian countries differs from us and our former colonies in that where we went on to become the world's foremost power and largely still benefit from that, not really feeling the effects of previous invaders beforehand, a lot of the former colonies remain fairly impoverished and the lingering effects of imperialism lie there much more strongly. It's not as if we're talking about something to do with ancient history either - in plenty of former colonies there will people currently alive who were alive back when Britain still controlled them.
Belgians were brutal in the Congo as well.
The 'not as bad' excuse tends not to get used though because it inevitably becomes a slippery-slope from people who're keen to whitewash previous narratives. And it can seem fairly condescending to former colonies as well I imagine - some decent infrastructure doesn't really begin to excuse the immense suffering that took place and the human rights abuses we perpetrated.
It doesn't excuse it but there is no harm in comparing which was worse to at least educate more people.
A lot of the southern/confederate people in America talk about how "the whole world had slaves and only we get sh*t for it". Well it's because North American slave was on a different level of brutality and ownership than slaves around the world. It doesn't make any slavery justifiable but in America they were not only born into slavery for generations but treated worse than animals.
Lighten up mate. Why the angst? I will admit I was wrong but there is no need to be rude about it.
I will come from a different angle then. If a work of art that is in situate in a building in Bath say is deteriorating and is removed to be restored and kept in a different building in England to make sure it's preserved then that is ok. I would rather it be where it was first meant to be but as long as it is kept inside the country of origin then that is acceptable.
If the UK had been occupied by Germany in the second world war and they had taken the art to Germany to be restored and kept in a condition that allowed it to be observed and maintained I would hope and expect it would be returned to the UK after the war was over.
Probably just feels like that from your vantage point. I'd imagine, as a Brit, who goes on British websites and english-language forums such as this, you're undoubtedly going to see more discussion about Britain and British issues. That doesn't mean simila discussions aren't going on in other countries, it's just that you've not been exposed to them. You have a small data sample essentially.
It's coming home...
Haven’t read the thread, but just from the title: yes.
I studied the Benin bronzes when I was at university. Some of the shit the British did to get them, and yet they’re still on display in the British museum...
I studied the Benin bronzes when I was at university. Some of the shit the British did to get them, and yet they’re still on display in the British museum...
Britishers seem to be remarkably well-educated about how not-brutal their empire was.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...d-the-british-empire-poll-finds-a6821206.html
I don't buy into such polls. They're not fair. How many of them truly know what happened? It also depends on how the question was framed.Britishers seem to be remarkably well-educated about how not-brutal their empire was.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...d-the-british-empire-poll-finds-a6821206.html
"The sun would never set on the British empire. Does it make you proud?" vs "The British sold fake whitening soaps to local Indians to boos their failing industry, does it make you proud?"