> I can't and won't try the case, but these are my
> ramblings for something that questions my sense of
> right and wrong.
It questions mine too because there is no clear cut right
or wrong. Many of these transactions have happened so long
ago and you cannot simply have faith that they were all
done with good intentions on both sides. Neither can you
assume that every act was nefarious in nature. How then can
you make one set rule for varying situations?
> What if George Washington's body turned up in Egypt?
> Can you imagine them not giving him back?
Yes, I can imagine them not "giving" him back, but I can
imagine an offer of trade. Which is what hangs up some of
my, and apprently Indigo's, sense of right and wrong. If a
country long ago sold a piece of valuable cultural heritage
to the highest bidder and then that
bidder/government/institution has cared for that piece,
they certainly need to be compensated for their resouces
spent in some fashion, be it cash, even a modest sum, or
another object that is not so vital to that country's
cultural heritage so that those around the world might
benefit from seeing them. This is one of the main arguments
against repatriation and I think it is sound reasoning. I
also think that a country should have its "George
Washington" within its own borders. Those key pieces of
cultural heritage are very important. See, both sides have
made very good arguments. I'm more than grateful that there
are objects from Egypt a car ride away from me. Seeing them
makes me want to visit Egypt even more, not less. Books and
documentaries are no substitute for the 3-dimensional,
hence the existence of museums.
>Do the artifacts belong to the country or its people
The country/institution owns the objects which it holds in
trust for its people/community (this means the
government/institution is obligated to take care of the
objects in order to benefit the people through public
education, research, etc) . . . at least that is how it is
viewed here. Some countries all cultural heritage is owned
by the government for the good of the government and that's
all she wrote. Yes some governments could turn around and
sell them to some private collector for ungodly sums of
money, but those that do will be found out and that would
be the end of repatriation to that country. ICOM wouldn't
stand for that. No one would. Little good that does for
those objects that are then lost.
This subject touches nerves because no one wants to be
uncaring and unethical. And no one wants culturally
valuable pieces taken away from their institutions. With
NAGPRA and our foreign policies regarding cultural
heritage, we, the USA, have many eyes on us. What we do,
where we draw the lines is going to be watched and noted.
We are like the first landmark case that will forever be
trotted out and measured to see what the "norm" should be.
We all desperately want to get it right. We want to set a
good example. All we have to do is figure out what is
"right". Even with ICOM's code of ethics to guide us, it is
much easier said than done.
Marie Morgan
Evening Librarian, Archivist
Coffeyville Community College
Coffeyville, KS
-----
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise. Margaret Atwood, Cat's Eye, 1988
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
