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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS