reflections on the cancellation of the queen - Afrikanet.info

proceed first by dialogue and failing that, judicial process. However, Western
museums and their governments have not shown themselves to be very keen on
dialogue, despite all pretence to the contrary. Indeed, leading museum directors
in London, Chicago, New York and Vienna have shown reluctance to discuss
and resentment at the very mention of the idea of discussing restitution of looted
cultural artefacts. Those calling for their return are considered unreasonable but
not those refusing to discuss even the possibility of restitution. It seems to me
that it is the lack of pressure to bear on Western museums and their governments
that allows them to get away with arguments and defences that no student would
dare to present to professors without the risk of being thrown out of the
university.
Instead of seeking ways to accommodate the demands of Africans for the return
of their artefacts, leading Western museum directors have been busy inventing
theories and stories which end up by supporting their retention of looted African
artefacts. They argue that our looted artefacts belong to the heritage of human
kind and thus their location in Western museums is justifiable in the interest of
humankind. But the “universalism” preached by the Westerners is a “European
Universalism” as opposed to true “universal Universalism” which would include
all humankind and work against the domination of one group by another.
Western museum directors and their supporters have shown that they are not yet
ready for such a world: they have hijacked the cultural artefacts of others and
refuse to return any. Hence we have situations such as the proposed sale by
successors of some of those who invaded Benin in 1897, killing many women
and children, deposing the king, Oba Ovonramwen and setting Benin City on
fire, just as they had done in Asante (Ghana) in 1874. Similar actions had also
been carried on in Magdala, (Ethiopia) and in Beijing, (China). None of those
involved in such actions seems to have any bad conscience. Indeed, they think
they are doing us a great favour by keeping our artefacts with them.
Unfortunately, some Africans who should know better seem to buy this
dishonest argument.
But in all the discussions on the abortive auction of the Queen-Mother Idia mask
as well as in the restitution debates, one major actor is conspicuously absent or
ignored by some participants, namely, the British Government. There is no
doubt that the main responsibility for the invasion of Benin, the looting of the
Benin Bronzes and the burning of Benin City lie with the British Government
which planned, financed, organized and implemented the invasion. Indeed, the
British Government has not sought to deny its responsibility; what it has tried to
do directly or through interposed agents, is to offer justifications for the invasion
and looting, none of which is convincing. The most absurd explanation for the
looting and selling of the Benin Bronzes has been that the British needed to
finance the costs of the invasion and to provide for widows and children of the
notorious punitive expedition. One commits an outrageous crime and defends
6