[MSN] WHY DO EUROPEAN MUSEUMS HAVE SO MUCH TROUBLE WITH AFRICAN BONES? (Kwame Opoku)

[MSN]

WHY DO EUROPEAN MUSEUMS HAVE SO MUCH TROUBLE WITH AFRICAN BONES?

“The contested human remains in Western museums were collected at a time of
gross inequality of power. A power that we now recognise was terribly abused
at the expense of the indigenous peoples. We now have the opportunity to
redress that historic imbalance acknowledging that this may well entail a
loss to science that will in its turn heal open festering wounds. And it
won’t all be a loss for the Western museum or the anthropologist; there is
plenty of evidence that dialogue and transfer of authority back to where it
rightfully belongs leads to a healthy relationship in which cultural
exchange and understanding can flourish between the museum or the scientist
and the indigenous community. That seems to me at least a pretty good
dividend for addressing past injustice and working with the willing consent
of indigenous peoples.”(1)

Tristram Besterman,
Former Director, Manchester Museum


It seems the colonial past of many European museums will keep haunting them
for a considerable time and in the foreseeable future as they try to come to
grips with the implications of the colonial enterprise for the activities of
museums.

In response to the various demands for the repatriation of the human remains
of many persons from Africa, Asia, Australia and America which have been
lying in European museums for a long time, the Musée du Quai Branly held an
international symposium in Paris on 22 and 23 February, 2008 on the subject:
“From anatomical collections to religious objects; conservation and
exhibition of human remains in museums”. (“Des collections anatomiques aux
objets de culte: conservation et exposition des restes humains dans les
musées.”) The main question is whether the European museums have the right
to keep the remains of Africans and other colonized peoples or do the
relatives of those whose bones are lying in Europe or America to request the
return of their remains.

It should be recalled that under colonialism, many African peoples, Hereros,
Namas etc. were massacred in various invasions and their bones collected for
museums in Europe and America. The relatives of these peoples are now
seeking the return of the bones of their ancestors and relatives for proper
burial in accordance with customary rites.

According to a report in Le Monde of 26 February, 2008, directors of various
museums, jurists, anthropologists and representatives of several communities
in Paris attended the symposium. As the paper pointed out, the issue
revolves around the basic difference in attitude towards death. Whereas some
Europeans consider death as the end of life, for many Africans and others in
Australia and Asia, death is only another phase of life; they believe in
life after death and hence seek to give their dead ones proper burials in
accordance with customary rites. These people are not happy until their
ancestors and relatives are given proper burials. The museum directors
should read the books that have been written by their anthropologists to
understand the role of death in these societies.

The museum directors argue that these bones and skulls are needed for
scientific purposes and that the repatriation of the human remains will
upset scientific research. But is this really true? These museums have had
the human remains in their possession for hundreds of years now. How much
longer do they need these bones and skulls? Why were hundred and more years
not enough for their studies? And why do they not take bodies of their own
people in Europe for such experiments but had to go to Africa and elsewhere
to collect foreigners for experimentation and research? A false conflict is
established between the West which stands for science and the rest who are
not for science although they have the bones. Are European bodies and bones
not good enough or is there something else behind their preferences? Do we
not have science outside the West and its museums? The real conflict is
between the right of individuals and their communities to determine what can
or cannot be done with their bodies and those who believe they can justify
the unlawful acquisition and possessions of the bodies of others in the name
of science. We know where this defence of science can lead to. Besides, the
museums do not seem to realize how offensive most of their displays of human
hair, teeth, and other parts of the body are. Their depiction of Africans
has always been considered racist by most Africans. How would the Europeans
feel if, under the pretext of increasing human knowledge we started
displaying in Accra, Lagos, Timbuktu and Dakar parts of the bodies of
Europeans who died in Africa? We could show their unusual noses and other
features which would surprise the average African. We could perhaps also
organize human zoos and ethnic shows and if necessary ask the museums and
the ethnologists to send us the necessary samples.

One professor, Alain Froment, in charge of the physical anthropology section
of Musée de l’Homme which has some 30,000 pieces is quoted as saying that
the study of these skeletons and mummies enabled us to know precisely the
living conditions of peoples who are now extinct, the origin and diffusion
of diseases. He agreed there could be some restitution provided family ties
could be established between the demanders and the remains. I hope that the
professor is aware that conceptions of family ties differ very widely
between African cultures and European cultures. Whereas most Europeans
recognise basically a narrow circle of relatives, in Africa we tend to have
a wider view and most of us easily accept about hundred persons or even more
as being part of our families. Whether this is based on blood relationship,
marriage or simple custom, we claim many persons as relatives who will not
be so recognized in Europe. So whose conception should prevail here and why?
Especially, in questions of death and burial, our African conceptions tend
to be wider than in actual day to day life. I would suggest that any
requirement of family relationship will cause unnecessary distress and
dispute. It should be enough for persons from the same community as the
deceased to establish a legitimate ground for their request which need not
necessarily involve the establishment of family ties. Very distant friends
may even want to have a person back home for proper burials.

I can envisage situations in which an African may feel responsible for the
proper repatriation of the body of a person without being in a position to
establish any link by marriage or blood. There are social links which are
equally strong and sometimes even stronger than blood relationship but can
Europeans understand all this?

A French sociologist and member of the French Constitutional Council,
Dominique Schnapper is quoted by Le Monde as saying: “The museum, successor
to the European Enlightenment, aims at a form of transcendence, that of
knowledge which is beyond the circumstances of time and tastes. Thus
repatriation is contrary to the collection. It is therefore impossible to
envisage a general repatriation.” Though the sociologist thought the museums
could participate in some form of recognition of the wrongs done to
non-Europeans (2) he did not think the French law of 2002 on the museums
which prevent them from repatriating such objects as skulls without
ministerial consent should be modified.

Abdoulaye Camara, director of Musée d’art africain of Dakar, tried to assure
the European museum directors by declaring: “We do not want to empty your
museums. We are only reclaiming the objects which we need in order to
recover our cultural identity”. It is indeed remarkable how often many
European museum directors seem to be frightened that they may wake up one
morning to find that their museums are empty because Africans and others
have been allowed to collect their cultural objects. This is an indirect
admission that the European museums have too many stolen items from Africa.

The solution proposed by Jean-Pierre Mohen, Director of Patrimony and
Collection at the Musée du Quai Branly, is very reminiscent of what we
usually hear from European museum directors: “We need projects and the will
to work together. We have thus cooperated with the Vietnamese to build an
ethnology museum and a war museum, and with the people of Benin (Republic)
to prepare an exhibition on the Kings of Dahomey without raising
insurmountable problems.”
With all due respect to the Director from Musée du Quai Branly, neither the
issue of human remains nor any of the outstanding issues between European
museums and Africans/African countries will be solved through ad hoc and
partial demonstrations of good will, smacking of opportunism. There has to
be a genuine and honest admission of the evil acts committed under colonial
rule which enabled the European museums to acquire vast amounts of African
cultural objects. Many museums in Africa do not have any of these objects
which were originally made by their ancestors in fulfilment of the
exigencies of their culture and not for simple aesthetic appreciation. There
has to be an admission of the need for massive repatriation of some of these
objects, followed by actual repatriation. No amount of talk will be
sufficient substitute. How many war museums can the Musée du Quai Branly
build or assist in building in Asia or in West Africa? And what lasting
effects will the exhibition on the kings of Dahomey have on Benin Republic
when the regalia and other objects which the French stole from Behanzin go
back to Paris after the exhibition?

Why is it so difficult for Europeans to recognize the evils of colonialism
and slavery? These massacres and daily oppression of peoples in order to
achieve material wealth should surely be recognizable by human beings in our
century. If this is too difficult to recognize and admit, even today, the
evils of the past then what is the use of all the talks about human rights
to-day? Why do those who promise to help in rebuilding the economies they
have distorted and ruined have such difficulties in returning to us the
bones of our dead ancestors? What the French are trying to do here, like the
Germans in the case of the Herero Genocide, is to try and jump over the
necessary steps to reconciliation. They want to reach reconciliation without
passing through restitution or reparation but this is bound to fail or be of
limited effect. Any psychologist will tell them that the first initial
stages are absolutely necessary for a long-lasting and genuine
reconciliation.

What the French museum director described as “interminable discussions” are
the whole story of colonization and its various aspects which come up
anytime there is a discussion on an issue such as the repatriation of human
remains. But there is, unfortunately, no other way one can fully grasp this
issue and its implications without examining the colonial background which
made possible the massive collection of bones and skulls. One can understand
that many Europeans are uncomfortable with the accounts of colonial history.
So too are many Africans. But this is our history, Europeans and Africans
and we cannot run away from the historical reality.

There has up to now not been a single bold act by any European government or
museum that would impress Africans as an indication of a genuine
determination to repair some of the damage caused in the past and to lay
grounds for a new relationship. Not even the question of human remains seems
to help Europeans to finally come clean with the past and to assuage the
deep wounds of Africans and to atone for some of the evils of colonialism.
On the contrary, anytime such questions come up, the wounds are opened
afresh and the pepper is rubbed in again and again by the museum directors.
Many Europeans do not seem to be aware that we are involved in a healing
process which may take centuries. It is no use to ask the victims of
colonial and imperialist aggression to forget the past when the effects of
the past accompany them everywhere in their daily lives.

Many Europeans, who should know better, appear to be genuinely surprised
that even after 50 years of independence, the wounds and damages inflicted
during the 500 years of slavery and colonialism are still there. They have
no idea about the persistence of structures. They have no idea, for
instance, about the hazards we have to go through in order to come to London
or Paris for a conference. They are not aware that many artists have had to
abandon projects in Europe because of the harassment and obstacles to be
overcome before an African finally reaches London or Paris.

Kwame Opoku. 1 March, 2008


1.”Human Remains: Objects to Study or Ancestors to Bury?”
www.instituteofideas.com/transcripts/human_remains.pdf

It is gratifying to note that there are museum directors who recognize the
basic inequality in the colonial context in which most museum objects were
acquired and therefore do not try to defend the indefensible; they should
not allow their divisive and provocative colleagues in London, Paris and
Chicago to dominate the media discussions on the role of the modern museum.

2.Le Monde uses the word “autochthones”, ”natives” without any specification
or explanation as if there were a group of persons born “native” only in
some parts of the world but not in Europe.



Source: Dr. Kwame Opoku
Story from Modern Ghana News:
http://www.modernghana.com//news/159140/1/