Museums that have collected things from other cultures
Burgess
Shipmate Posts: 49
in Epiphanies
Ok so thanks to my kid (he is a computer guy in IT for his job) for getting me where this come from, and getting this all organized. Hope you like it.
The reason I starting this topic is from here: https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/comment/735905/#Comment_735905
And this is what it says
Wanted to start it because of this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/piapot-repatriation-manitoba-museum-1.7630588 which is about a museum returning. It said this ""We ... understand the role of museums in harms of the past and the role of museums in housing the belongings of nations, some of which were acquired under duress, economic strain or under pressure,"
Some things were looted, some were given but in the way that it is hard not to give, like I give a police a commoration pin one time because he stopped me and wanted that. If people from here like me and other colony places like here had taken Euro country things no matter how important those things are to culture now and said they were gonna keep them, think that would be a problem eh. If the things would have been destroyed if museums did not save them is bossy. Why do museums people and colonists think they had the rights to take and preserve things that don't belong to them? Things that aren't your's you should give back when your asked to. Remember around is world of the wars and how people got starved, slaved, racism, and now keeping our stuff. It ain't good.
The reason I starting this topic is from here: https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/comment/735905/#Comment_735905
And this is what it says
This thread seems to be turning into a serious discussion. As such it should really go into Epiphanies.
If somebody would like to start a thread there please do.
Dafyd Hell Host
Wanted to start it because of this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/piapot-repatriation-manitoba-museum-1.7630588 which is about a museum returning. It said this ""We ... understand the role of museums in harms of the past and the role of museums in housing the belongings of nations, some of which were acquired under duress, economic strain or under pressure,"
Some things were looted, some were given but in the way that it is hard not to give, like I give a police a commoration pin one time because he stopped me and wanted that. If people from here like me and other colony places like here had taken Euro country things no matter how important those things are to culture now and said they were gonna keep them, think that would be a problem eh. If the things would have been destroyed if museums did not save them is bossy. Why do museums people and colonists think they had the rights to take and preserve things that don't belong to them? Things that aren't your's you should give back when your asked to. Remember around is world of the wars and how people got starved, slaved, racism, and now keeping our stuff. It ain't good.
Comments
@Burgess please check you pm inbox.
Thanks,
Doublethink, Admin
[/tangent]
I am a Pakeha (non Maori) so can't really speak for the families of those who were welcoming back their whanau (family) but the importance of the ceremony to the participants was obvious, even to an outsider just watching it on TV.
I think after the ceremony they were taken back to their ancestral grounds -their turangawaewae (which literally means their place to stand).
(this was how I saw it as an outsider with only a limited understanding despite the explanations that were given to the viewers.)
Did we discuss human remains before? I feel like we did. For me, human remains on display are never acceptable.
I believe we did, and I think I noted having recently visited the Jorvik Viking Centre where skeletons of two individuals are part of the exhibit. It didn't feel "wrong" to me, but I don't know if that is me being insensitive or whether context matters:
- the skeletons are displayed a matter of metres from where they were discovered; they have neither been sold nor stolen.
- the museum's curators and staff are largely locals, largely the descendants of the community from which the two came.
- the whole museum is dedicated to explaining the place and culture of those two individuals, and the skeletons are there as part of that, not used as exotic exhibits among a largely random collection.
- they are exhibited respectfully, surrounded by explanations of what has been learned from them of their lives and deaths. Their names might not be known but they are there as people, not merely something to gawp at.
Now I can understand if any such display is considered beyond the pale, but I do see a qualitative difference between this and sailing off with nameless heads from a culture on the other side of the world and putting them on show purely for the spectacle.
AFF
For more modern saints, such as St Carlo Acutis, it's easy to trace at least a general acceptance of the practice of venerating the relics of saints to the person in question, so you can at least assume their consent.
For ancient saints, I think you can reasonably assume consent on similar lines.
And if the saint in question was comfortable (or could reasonably be assumed to have been comfortable) with the idea of their body parts being venerated, then I don't see that anyone else has standing to say much about it.
An interesting example of historic treasures being looted from Europe is the so-called Treasure of Priam. This was a collection of gold (and other) objects originally looted from what was then the Ottoman Empire by Heinrich Schliemann in 1873-1879 and taken to Berlin. It was again looted in 1945 and ended up in the Hermitage Museum in Leningrad St. Petersburg. The Russians, of course, claim that their taking of the treasure wasn't looting but rather a war trophy. So if the gold is to be repatriated does it go back to Berlin or to Türkiye, the successor of the Ottoman Empire and site of excavation.