Leaving Athens for Africa, for the moment—nothing I heard at the two-day “Return of Cultural Objects” conference last week in Athens articulated as comprehensively, intelligently and passionately the arguments for return of objects to their countries of origin as the long article by Kwame Opoku appearing in Monday’s Modern Ghana.
Opoku details and decries the various ways in which objects historically made their way from Africa to international museums, and he debunks in detail the arguments for leaving those objects where they are now. I don’t believe that everything should go back, as he appears to argue. (He previously took issue with my own views, as expressed in my LA Times Op-Ed on cultural-property issues.) But I do believe that source countries’ attachment to and passion for their heritage should be treated not dismissively (i.e., there are no Etruscans in modern Italy; more people can see more objects in Universal Museums than in the source countries), but with the utmost respect and seriousness.
A few excerpts from Opoku:
—The fact that the 1970 [UNESCO] convention does not apply
retroactively does not mean that the convention approves of all
acquisitions made before 1970. Before the convention, there were rules
of law in every legal system which prohibited illegal handling of the
property of others….But it should also be added that the African States have not, to put it
mildly, been active enough to make use of the possibilities offered by
the Conventions. Many African countries have not even bothered to
ratify or accede to these instruments.—The functions of the museums directors are primarily to preserve
evidence of history in the form of objects or documents. Here we have
these scholars telling the people of Benin (and by implication all
Africans) to forget history. They should forget the past and accept the
present situation whereby their most precious cultural objects, taken
by violence or stealth, are kept by western museums and private persons
in the West. This is surely another confirmation of my theory that when
it comes to discussing Africa, some western intellectuals and their
governments often request us to suspend our common sense and our
ability to think.—What this argument [on behalf of the Universal Museum] states is that, no matter the initial mode of
acquisition, because of the stay of these stolen objects in Europe,
they have become better known and have gained universal reputation as
work of art. They have also acquired another value in that they are not
only a manifestation of a religious and political power of a
civilization but are now admired for their own aesthetic value and
craftsmanship. What an insulting argument. On this line of reasoning,
one could also argue that how ever bad slavery may have been, it has
enabled the rich variety and wealth of African culture to be known all
over the world.—The argument…that Africans are unable to look after their cultural
objects…always comes up when the question of restitution is
raised….Would any court accept the argument of a thief that the owner of the
property cannot look after it properly and therefore he is not going to
return it?—It has been argued in all seriousness that in view of the possibilities
of digitalization, there is no longer any real need for physical
repatriation….What is meant by “virtual and visual return which is offered as alternative to physical repatriation”?
That we can see these objects via internet and also in the form of
photos? What about the cultural objects we require for religious and
ritual practices? Is the British Museum seriously suggesting that we
introduce internet into our cultural and religious practices, including
our dances and masquerades, instead of the physical objects?…Can someone tell me how we can dance with a digitally repatriated mask?
There’s a lot more provocative commentary where that came from. To view it, go to the article of origin (linked above).