One of the great attractions of living in London is its world-class museums, which offer generally free access to immense quantities of cultural relics from across the globe. Those arriving in the British capital might want to visit sooner rather than later. Before too long, some of those collections might start to shrink.
The theft, loss or damage of around 2,000 items from the British Museum, some of which wound up on eBay, has already led to the firing of one staff member suspected of involvement and the departure of the museum’s director, Hartwig Fischer. The more far-reaching impact of the scandal, though, is likely to be the impetus it gives to international pressure for the repatriation of artifacts.
The UK’s museums are genteel palaces populated by modestly remunerated functionaries often in historic buildings that evoke a spirit of detached scientific inquiry. Yet they are stuffed with the loot of the country’s colonial adventures. As the legacy of empire is increasingly reappraised, more attention has been focused on how these institutions came to possess their treasures. Greece, Nigeria, Egypt, India, Iran, Chile’s Easter Island, Sudan, Ethiopia and South Africa are among the countries and territories that have sought the return of relics.
The response to mounting calls for restitution has been to emphasize the role of such museums as cultural resources that transcend nationalism. “Universal” museums that hold encyclopedic collections from across the world enable the study and comparison of cultures in one place, making them available to the widest number of visitors. Some priceless antiquities would not be safe if returned to their countries of origin, the script sometimes runs. In essence, the argument is: We are the professionals; leave it to us.
The contribution of the British Museum theft, then, is to explode the idea that this fading cradle of empire is uniquely well-positioned to serve as custodian of the world’s cultural treasures, whether the Parthenon Marbles of Greece, the Benin Bronzes from what is now Nigeria, the Rosetta Stone of Egypt or any other number of anthropological wonders. To lose one artifact may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose 2,000 looks like carelessness, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, celebrated satirist of Victorian Britain.
It was always a convenient argument anyway. The case for preserving a museum that serves as a guardian of our shared human heritage is easier to make when you happen to be the one holding that collection. Why are these institutions in the UK to begin with, though London’s status as arguably the museum capital of the world cannot be separated from the legacy of Britain’s 19th-century colonial expansion.
The provenance of museum artifacts can be an immensely complex question, and just because some works come from countries that clashed with the British empire does not mean that they were obtained dishonestly or unethically. Yet the idea that these institutions, having benefited from the country’s imperial wealth, can now stand separately as neutral containers of the world’s cultural treasures, is becoming harder to sustain.
Shifting perceptions of the nexus between the UK’s museum industry and the country’s colonial past are exemplified by The Brutish Museums, an influential 2020 book by Dan Hicks, a curator at the Pitts Rivers Museum in Oxford. Hicks, an advocate of restitution, lays out in graphic detail the violence and looting of bronze plaques and other objects from the kingdom of Benin by British forces in 1897. Nigeria renewed its call for the return of items after the British Museum theft, as did Greece. The Pitts Rivers, along with other British museums, has been in talks with Nigerian authorities on returning them. The “last remaining argument against restitution has been lost,” Hicks wrote after the incident.
For conservative critics, the restitution movement is self-flagellation and wokery: an expression of colonial guilt that fails to appreciate the more complex and nuanced legacy of empire — the world was different then; and besides, the British did some good things like building railways, creating relatively clean administrations and abolishing slavery, including in Benin.
Some of these arguments seem flimsy. The reappraisal of imperialism is partly just a matter of learning the full reality of what happened. The scale of the violence may shock some. My history classes at school included plenty on the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Chartists and the Corn Laws (this was the progressive 1970s, after all); I do not remember any mention of the 1860 sacking of the Old Summer Palace in Beijing or any other outrages.
There are some striking parallels between the tale told in The Brutish Museums and the behavior of British and French soldiers in that episode, a reminder that colonialism was a multinational project with a consistent modus operandi. The destruction of the Beijing complex was such a wanton act of vandalism that it sickened even some of those who took part. “You can scarcely imagine the beauty and the magnificence of the places we burnt,” Charles Gordon (later famously killed at Khartoum) wrote. “It made one’s heart sore… It was wretchedly demoralising work for an army.”
The British Museum incident prompted China’s Global Times newspaper to request the return of all Chinese cultural relics “acquired through improper channels.” The museum has 23,000 such pieces, including some from the palace. The newspaper is state-owned, though it is not necessarily a reliable guide to policy, having a reputation for wolf warrior-style nationalism.
If the UK is starting to warm to the moral case for restitution from countries such as Australia, Nigeria and Greece, then what is the price for China, a much bigger and more important economy? How many more victims of the UK’s colonial heyday are likely to come forward? The cloistered world of museum curation has rarely looked so interesting.
Matthew Brooker is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business and infrastructure out of London. A former editor and bureau chief for Bloomberg News and deputy business editor for the South China Morning Post, he is a CFA charterholder. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Speaking at the Asia-Pacific Forward Forum in Taipei, former Singaporean minister for foreign affairs George Yeo (楊榮文) proposed a “Chinese commonwealth” as a potential framework for political integration between Taiwan and China. Yeo said the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait is unsustainable and that Taiwan should not be “a piece on the chessboard” in a geopolitical game between China and the US. Yeo’s remark is nothing but an ill-intentioned political maneuver that is made by all pro-China politicians in Singapore. Since when does a Southeast Asian nation have the right to stick its nose in where it is not wanted
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has released a plan to economically integrate China’s Fujian Province with Taiwan’s Kinmen County, outlining a cross-strait development project based on six major themes and 21 measures. This official document by the CCP is directed toward Taiwan’s three outlying island counties: Penghu County, Lienchiang County (Matsu) and Kinmen County. The plan sets out to construct a cohabiting sphere between Kinmen and the nearby Chinese city of Xiamen, as well as between Matsu and Fuzhou. It also aims to bring together Minnanese cultural areas including Taiwan’s Penghu and China’s cities of Quanzhou and Zhangzhou for further integrated
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) domestic problem is essentially economic in nature. Unlike other market economies, which might collapse if faced with the deep and dangerous economic problems China now faces, China is unlikely to collapse quickly. China is not a real market economy; it remains a state-dominated command economy. The state has so many tools to ease, defer or postpone a crisis. In the long run, China might not avoid a collapse after a long and devastating economic disaster, but in the short run, Xi and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime might survive. Politically, there is no
During a recent visit to Taiwan, I encountered repeated questions about “America skepticism” among the body politic. The basic premise of the “America skepticism” theory is that Taiwan people should view the United States as an unreliable, self-interested actor who is using Taiwan for its own purposes. According to this theory, America will abandon Taiwan when its interests are advanced by doing so. At one level, such skepticism is a sign of a healthy, well-functioning democratic society that protects the right for vigorous political debate. Indeed, around the world, the people of Taiwan are far from alone in debating America’s reliability
RSS