:: 외국인 1:1 Free Talking ::

What’s This About?

Objects housed in museums often have long, complicated histories of ownership. While some were purchased or given as gifts, most were plundered or stolen from their countries of origin during war or colonial rule. So, are museums obliged to repatriate these artifacts? Or should they continue to keep and exhibit them? Let’s find out.

This house believes that museums should return artifacts to where they originated.

Pro

Should Museums Return Artifacts to Their Original Countries?10

Should Museums Return Artifacts to Their Original Countries?10

“I agree…”

Morally and legally, stealing is wrong, yet much of the collections displayed in prominent museums are objects obtained by taking advantage of vulnerable societies. In retaining these culturally and historically significant artifacts, museums deny the rightful owners their cultural heritage. Furthermore, these displays of misappropriated objects serve as an insulting reminder to many developing nations of their past oppression. They insinuate an outdated, patronizing sense of cultural ownership over the once-conquered cultures. Thus, it is only fitting that what was stolen or taken in bad faith is returned to its native soil. Restoring property and ancestors to their cultural places would not only allow people to reclaim precious pieces of culture lost to them but also begin the process of healing the traumas of history. While it would not change the past, repatriation is a much overdue step to acknowledge wrong deeds and bring closure to victims of colonization.

Con

Should Museums Return Artifacts to Their Original Countries?17

Should Museums Return Artifacts to Their Original Countries?17

“I disagree…”

The ownership of the objects in museums is far murkier than you make it sound, generally boiling down to biased records and hearsay. The Elgin Marbles, for example, has been the subject of longstanding international controversy. The one who had them removed from Ottoman Greece to Britain claimed to have taken them with permission from the Ottoman officials who exercised authority in Athens at the time, a stance supported by the U.K. government. Of course, the Greek government continues to dispute the veracity of this claim. In cases such as this, where one presumably acquired the object per the law at the time, should it still be returned to its place of origin? Furthermore, if museums are better caretakers of these important artifacts and returning them to their countries of origin risks them getting lost or damaged, wouldn’t it be better for them to remain where they are?

Pro

Ownership of cultural antiquities should ultimately lay in the object’s roots. Not only is it morally correct, but one must view artworks and historical artifacts in their places of origin to fully appreciate them in their historical and culturally-sensitive contexts. We can see this with the Elgin Marbles. These marble sculptures were originally part of the architectural wonders of the Acropolis of Athens. Yet, housed in the British Museum, the sculptures can only appear as mere disconnected fragments, stripped of their meaning due to losing their geographical and historical context. In addition, I fail to see why museums must own artifacts at all. There is no reason why museums can’t return objects to their homelands and have them on loan periodically. Moreover, once repatriated, these artifacts could become the foundation of the tourist trade in their respective countries, opening the way for culturally enriching and profitable exhibitions.

Con

Repatriation is a slippery slope that may dismantle “encyclopedic” museums whose international collections cultivate the dissemination of knowledge, tolerance, and broad cultural understanding. Storing artifacts of various cultures and fields in large museums in cosmopolitan cities ensures that more people can experience them. Losing prominent items, on the other hand, may undermine a museum’s ability to attract visitors at a time when many already struggle to keep themselves running as it is. We also can’t ignore the reality that large museums employ experts and possess resources that smaller regional museums do not have, making them best suited to restore and maintain fragile antiquities. In addition, I argue that certain items like the Rosetta Stone, whose discovery revolutionized the world’s understanding of history, belong not to any individual country but to humankind. Thus, it may be better for them to remain in institutions where they will be most secure.

Judge’s Comments

Both sides have raised some very intriguing points. What do you think about this issue? Should museums repatriate items taken from foreign countries? Research on your own, and let me know what you think!