In recent years, there have been passionate campaigns across the West for looted artefacts displayed in public museums to be repatriated to the lands of their origin. In what can be counted as a modest victory, the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum have announced that they will loan to Ghana dozens of artefacts that originated in the Asante kingdom, including court regalia dubbed their “crown jewels”. This is becoming part of a trend, after Germany returned a number of the notorious Benin Bronzes to Nigeria in 2022.
Many arguments for repatriation contain romantic nationalist premises. Essentially, proponents argue that artefacts are the immutable expressions of a particular volksgeist which was ruptured by colonialism and hence must be restored. As one of Ghana’s cultural advisors is quoted as saying: “They’re not just objects, they have spiritual importance as well. They are part of the soul of the nation. It’s pieces of ourselves returning.” Behind this is the assumption that the treasures of the Asante kingdom mean more to an Asante or a Ghanaian than could possibly be the case for a white British person or an Arab.
What’s noteworthy is that the negotiations weren’t even with the Ghanaian government, but instead with the current Asante king to commemorate his silver jubilee. Likewise, the Benin Bronzes that have been returned were handed over to the current day Oba, or king of Benin, Ewuare II. The Nigerian government issued a decree last year that gave the Oba, and the Oba alone, exclusive rights over all repatriated bronzes as their “original owner”. The worry is that the same fate will befall the repatriated Asante artefacts.
The sad reality is that “decolonising” Western museums will likely mean repatriated artefacts are to be treated as the personal property of redundant African potentates, rather than the common property of the citizenry of these countries. Should this really be the fate of these cultural treasures?
It is certainly true that many of the treasures that currently lie in Western museums were initially seized through the looting and pillaging that came with European colonial expansion into Africa from the late 19th century onwards. Nevertheless, this was no morality tale between oppressor and victim. Both the Benin and Asante empires had slavery as part of their social order and were heavily engaged with European powers in the Atlantic slave trade. Indeed, slavery helped them garner the material and productive base to create their wonderful artworks.
These facts shouldn’t dampen our admiration of these artworks, nor erase the violent history of how they ended up in Western museums. But it does demonstrate the tragedy that is history and the moral quixotism of trying to make the past “right”, especially through the symbolism of cultural repatriation based on nationalist mythology.
Overall, we should ensure that the treasures of world culture are accessible to as many people as possible. This means defending the cosmopolitan, encyclopaedic museum that publicly displays the various treasures from different civilisations from across the world in relation to each other for the masses to see and admire.
Of course, this doesn’t mean they must be restricted to one country or exclusively to the West. Exchange programmes between different museums can be a solution for this problem. But to simply “return” these artefacts to the lands of origin would be to segregate world culture. The truth is that all these treasures were formed by human beings, and thus they truly belong to us all.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeOnce again kudos to Ian Birrell and fellow journalists for doggedly pursuing this story. You are doing a public good even if you do not receive the recognition you deserve.
There is something funny and surreal in this article. The author is forced to document every little step in the chain of evidence even when the weight of evidence clearly points in one direction.
How much more proof do we need that there was an attempt to cover up even the possibility of a leak from the Wuhan virus lab? I guess it depends on who the ‘we’ is in that question. For people at the highest reaches of US and Chinese (and UK) science who want to cover their own tracks, I suppose the answer is there can never be enough proof.
Thank you for this article and the hard work put in. I am sure that many of us who were called ‘conspiracy theorists’ for being sceptical of the accounts of governments, global organisations like the WHO, aligned ‘interested’ scientists working for many large organisations, big tech and corporate media, big pharmaceuticals and the like – now feel almost proud to be ‘conspiracy theorists’.
I would rather be labelled a “conspiracy theorist” and keep my integrity rather than give in and follow the delusional “naive realists” down the easy road of “the science”, that’s for sure. The problem is that the majority of people, including (in fact, in particular) highly formally educated people, sadly don’t seem to be able or willing to do that. We are facing a crisis of truth and meaning, and it is not going well.
Well said. I’m in much the same mind.
Birrell is full on establishment. Ex speech writer to Cameron, the guy who gave us Libya. Ex deputy editor of the left wing independent.
What he wants you to believe is what the establishment wants you to believe.
How do you square that with his pernicious attitude in digging out the truth of an establishment cover-up over the last couple of years?
Unless you’re contending that it was all an establishment plot to lay an establishment plot that was designed to be uncovered?
I am responding to the article written and not the personal history of the author….
This is what journalism should be.
Fantastic article, proper journalism in action. I pity anyone who clings to the naive belief that whatever is said in a peer reviewed journal is beyond question and necessarily above board. The Drosten protocol, infection fatality rates, effectiveness of lockdown measures, and much more have all been the subject of lies and misinformation published in previously respectable journals. The Lancet, in particular, has been dreadful.
But this how the CCP works – it gets its people into places of influence, it bullies, it intimidates, and it lies, lies, and lies again, through whatever means are its disposal. It has no ethical limits, and absolutely no respect for the truth. It’s ultimately very cowardly – it won’t ever defend its cheating in public, it won’t tolerate dissent, and it knows that its power rests on maintaining deceit.
The sooner more people in the west realise that they – and some in their governments – have been systemically manipulated by this vile, corrupt, despicable regime and its corporate and political allies, the better. The realisation that we have been attacked and tricked in this way will be unpleasant for many – some people just won’t able to process it. But it is now the responsibility of those in leadership positions across our society to put their big boy and girl pants on and start to get grips with this to help us fight this disease of misinformation and reclaim our enlightenment.
It’s worth quoting further paragraphs from Eisenhower’s farewell address, the same one warning of the military-industrial complex:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
It is this process that has rendered science-as-it-is-done completely corruptible. Not to mention subject to the pernicious vagaries of social science and various postmodernisms.
Eisenhower was clearly very prescient. His farewell address should be obligatory reading for every high school and university student, for every academic scientist, for every employee of government science funding agencies, and lastly for every politician. Perhaps that would put a stop to the “follow the science” sheep which sin’t science but scientism (a fanatical religious belief), and restore open scientific/medical debate within academia and medicine.
I became aware of this sometime ago. He said this in 1961, long before the massive explosion in technology. I wonder what he would say if he could see what has happened.
Yet again it is clear that academia are utterly servile to those who fund their research and entirely feckless about who funds their research.
Why do we give these “experts” such credence without first invalidating any who have received payment from an actor in the issue at hand?
That’s right. Follow the money. Applies also to climate research.
Absolutely great article. I agree with every word. Really what needs to happen is that a number of these so-called top scientists should be arrested and charged with treason. Perhaps a little bit overboard but it would certainly provide a lesson and example to others that using letters and esteemed academic/government positions of authority after one’s name does not give one license to knowingly disseminate propaganda at the behest of an aggressive foreign power.
Great article, hope there’s more to come on this issue.
However, I’ve long had great scepticism about the moral compass of science. I’d go so far as to say ethics fly out of the window when scientists think they are doing work ‘at the edge’.
In what mad world would a scientist deliberately take bat viruses from a habitat (where they coexist with the population) and remove them to a lab, then grow and engineer them to be more dangerous? Oh yes, the mad world of science.
It’s no surprise that scientists can be motivated by money, power and ego. Have we, however, by our deification of science enabled this to happen?
We have Covid to thank for showing us the spectacle of UK members of SAGE and NERVTAG fighting with each other publicly like rats in a sack. Sorry, that’s disrespectful to rats. But it shows that scientists are human, not gods.
If I was being pessimistic, I’d say that science will be the death of us. Anybody who has read Justin Cronin’s The Passage will surely agree.
I really want to disagree with you, science should not have to cleave to morals (morals beings fragile and changeable). But science is conducted by people and people are always partisan and easily corrupted, sad to say. Corruptis optimi pessima.
I just get my membership because of article like that! This is journalism, research, professionalism and base on the facts! Well done!
The WHO investigator says a Chinese scientist may have started the pandemic after being infected with coronavirus while collecting bat samples in the field. Whether they will count this as zoonotic transmission or a lab leak is unclear?
What is all this building up to mean in a court of civil law?
Will I be able to join some class action lawsuit in getting my losses paid back by China? Is the 10 Trillion, or whatever it ends up being, wasted by the USA on covid response going to be paid back? My guess is no –
Affirmation of the presentation by Nicholas Wade that tore aside a tight curtain. Clearly much more evidence of the attempts to counter the leak hypothesis. Wade was the first to note dangerous research done at lowered safety levels. The research may or may not be critical to mankind, but if done at all, it must be done responsibly.
One item that seems critical is the fact that this research often results in patents with potential financial gain involved. Given how money corrupts, we might need to alter the patent system for discoveries vital to heath. Some research relates to patents that if public funds are involved should be public property. Scientists employed by the public should be allowed no interest in those public patents.
Thanks for your report. We’ll keep an eye on it. Obviously, vigilance in thorough reporting on these events/issues will not recede until many more questions are sufficiently answered in a manner that is beyond dispute.
Thank you. I an a conspiracy theorist of course. Who else would read such journalism?