The article tells us how on-going debates about stolen African artefacts, in particular those from Ethiopia, and held in Western museums, have divided opinions of policy-makers in Europe. 

This article discusses about on-going efforts to return Benin artefacts that were stolen more than a century ago and are now on display in Western countries including Germany and France among others. 

“The restitution of those cultural objects which our museums and collections, directly or indirectly, possess thanks to the colonial system and are now being demanded, must also not be postponed with cheap arguments and tricks.” Gert v. Paczensky and Herbert Ganslmayr, Nofretete will nach Hause. [1]

Nigeria should abandon its ineffective policy of quiet diplomacy while seeking to recover its stolen artefacts, and pursue vigorous and open policies to bring back its artefacts. 

The idea of Europeans establishing in Benin City a permanent display of looted Benin artefacts that continue to be in European ownership should be considered by every African as an insult to Nigerians and African peoples. Successors to looters become arbiters of the location and display of Benin artefacts. The wishes of the Oba of Benin are simply ignored. The Benin artefacts should be returned to the Oba of Benin and his people who may decide to organize a display showing artefacts that were looted in 1897 by a violent British army.

An exhibition will be held at the Musée du quai Branly in honour of former French President Jacques Chirac from 21 June to 9 October 2016. This exhibition and renaming of the museum after Chirac do not change the status of the artefacts: They were looted from Africa and other places and the rightful owners want them back.

Could a museum with all the precious stolen artefacts of others and the support of the French government fail? Such celebrations are the self-congratulatory affirmations of the seemingly impregnable position certain Western cultural institutions have assumed as a result of relentless colonial exploitation and oppression of African and Asian peoples. Or how could one explain that institutions holding admittedly looted artefacts are not bothered about the illegality of their acquisitions?

In a ‘Requiem for Amílcar Cabral’, which is full of praises and admiration for Cabral, the Sao Tomean poet Espirito Santo underlines the important position of the Guinean leader in Africa before the barbarous act of his ambush and assassination and calls him the ‘Guevara of Africa’, an allusion to the great historic leader of the Cuban guerrilla warfare that overthrew the US- supported corrupt regime of Batista in 1959.

One cannot purport to condemn colonialism while enjoying the benefits of colonialism. Germany’s keeping of the looted Benin artefacts despite demands for return is the surest sign of lack of respect and an obvious demonstration of continuing centuries-old contempt of westerners for Africa and its peoples.

More than half a million objects are to be moved to a massive German museum now under construction. Many of these items were looted from Africa and now the argument justifying their continued holding in Germany is that they are shared global heritage. It is unacceptable.

Recent statements from politicians and government officials give the impression that Germany is preparing to abandon the long-standing practice of denying responsibility for the genocide of 1904-1908 and is now prepared to characterize those wars of extermination as genocide. But has the German government adopted fully a new position?

The original owners in Africa that were supposed to keep the skulls and bones of their Ancestors may not even be aware of the whereabouts of the kota. Does it not matter that what is part of a people’s belief may be decorating the rooms of non-believers elsewhere in the world for aesthetic pleasure?

It is strange that a museum that is under permanent criticism for holding looted objects of others or objects acquired under dubious circumstances now presents itself as “guardian” of looted artefacts.

Bodomo argued for the study of African languages not only for the languages themselves, as important as they are and for the cultures associated with them, but also from linguistic and literary perspectives.

Prof. Bodomo has produced an excellent book that will for years to come be the standard work for scholars. “Two points I will always retain are: the African who was surprised that the Chinese do not speak English and the complaint by some Chinese that the Africans are intensely dating Chinese women. What did they expect?”

Unique historical evidence of the ancient cultures of a continent is being put up for sale on the open market in Europe. Yet in the countries of Africa where these priceless treasures belong, there is little public interest in the matter.

The key lesson of Walker’s rare gesture is that every people creates its artefacts for its use and that people should not, through violence and other oppressive means, be deprived of the basic human right to cultural development and self-determination of the location of their own artefacts.

The influential American scholar falsely attributes to the UN cultural agency UNESCO a mandate it clearly does not have. What is more, he supports an outdate and unfair system that allowed rich countries which financed many explorations and excavations of archaeological sites to loot artefacts.

Churches supported the establishment of colonial regimes, especially through the destruction of societal, cultural and religious systems in Africa. Until today racist and ignorant assumptions about African cultures inform the justification of keeping artefacts that missionaries looted from Africa to create collections and museums in Europe.

As China gathers its state and non-state resources to buy back its looted historical treasures, questions arise about the legitimacy of this method for reclaiming stolen cultural history.