Comments on: History repeated

By: Betty Bop

Betty Bop — Sun, 13 May 2007 02:41:34 +0000

So, I know I’m > a year late but did you hear that the indigenous people of tazmania well, the remnants have just won a case against the brits (museums)?
According to the London Paper or a version the musems planned to carry out or carry on testing amongst other things on aboroginal bones exported to and exhibited in duting the rape of Australia. !!!!!!!! it’s 2007!

By: akiey-5

akiey-5 — Mon, 01 May 2006 06:40:58 +0000

It’s the same dumb logic that some nation uses to ensure that them only them possess nu-ke-lear (as someone calls them) arms bcoz any other nation having them can turn into a rogue state?

National artifacts are called so for the simple reason that they’re “national” or to use a more crude term, “native” to that country & no amount of lying through the teeth can excuse anyone taking them for endless decades for “safe keeping”

By: akiey-5

akiey-5 — Mon, 01 May 2006 06:40:42 +0000

It’s the same dumb logic that some nation uses to ensure that them only them possess nu-ke-lear (as someone calls them) arms bcoz any other nation having them can turn into a rogue state?

By: mshairi

mshairi — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:34:38 +0000

There is an underlying assumption here that Africans would not be able to look after their national treasures, in war or without. At least this is what I gather from Mr. Hensher’s article. I really don’t want to sound like a Philistine as I love art however; another problem is who decides on the nature of a national treasure i.e. what or who defines this? Is it people like Mr. Hensher or the Sudanese? Will these objects matter 10, 50, 100 etc years from on or will the important thing be peace and prosperity for the Sudanese people. I rest in the knowledge that amongst them are extremely talented artistes who will continue to create ‘national treasurers’ for each generation.

By: kipepeo

kipepeo — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:30:14 +0000

And so many people cannot make it to Addis and more can get to Rome, this makes it ok? Did he think about this while he was standing on his head? It still belongs to them! Quit with the thuggery! hm!!

By: spicbear

spicbear — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:11:34 +0000

it was so wierd to read that there were kenyan artifacts on loan … to kenya. and its strange how they keep going round in circles when it comes to the issue of taking back items to their country of origin. they weren’t taken out for our own good, they aren’t kept out there for our own good. the underlying fact is that it is more beneficial to them and that is that. anything else is just window dressings as far as i am concerned. if he countries decide that the items would be better off abroad then that is fine. but they have no right to say what is best if the countries want their stuff back, it’s like a thief who stole your tv but won’t give it back because you aren’t ready yet. the nerve!

By: JKE

JKE — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:01:42 +0000

“they are worthless without a people, alive, fit and well who can narrate the histories that these artifacts represent.”

To me, this is THE arguement with all these material items. On the other hand – what are we (=everyone) supposed to appreciate on anything historical if history repeats all the time and doesn’t teach us anything on how we could shape the present and future?

By: Mich

Mich — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:57:16 +0000

My argument here would be that surely that’s not his/our decision to make. If other countries are happy for us to ‘host’ their treasures then so be it. In no circumstances can you jusify keeping something that belongs to someone else against their will ‘for their own good’. That argument didn’t make sense then nor does it make sense now.