Accessibility and Inclusion

 Should artifacts be returned to their country of origin? 

Bronze plaques from the Kingdom of Benin in the British Museum, many removed from Benin City during the Punitive Expedition of 1897 (photo: adunt, CC BY-NC 2.0)

Morally it is the right thing to do. The area from which these stolen artifacts come are being deprived of parts of their history. Artifacts are enriched by being viewed in the country they originate from. One may argue that wherever the artifact(s) currently reside, they are obligated to protect them, meaning they cannot be returned to their place of origin. Having accessibility to artifacts from all around the world is very informative and beneficial for the public to see whether they are within their original country or not. Personally, I understand the benefits of keeping artifacts from all over the world within museums, however, I think the country of origin should be the judge on where their artifacts are exhibited. A country should be allowed to decide where and how their ancestors work is displayed. This is their history.

 The majority of instances of repatriation are the result of colonization or imperial oppression. Throughout history, powerful nations and empires have taken valuable objects, including cultural property, from those they have conquered and colonized all over the world. In order to resolve these issues, reparations have been discussed on a case by case basis between nations. Progress has begun and many museums such as the Netherlands' National Museums of World Culture decided to return all of the artifacts stolen during the colonial era.

Dr. Senta German, "Repatriating artworks," in Smarthistory, July 5, 2020