Comments on: The Economist on the Elgin Marbles http://www.elginism.com/20090625/2164/ Elgin Marbles (Parthenon Marbles or Sculptures) Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:10:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: DR. KWAME OPOKU http://www.elginism.com/20090625/2164/comment-page-1/#comment-5507 DR. KWAME OPOKU Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:25:30 +0000 http://www.elginism.com/?p=2164#comment-5507 Comments on “Lord Elgin and the Parthenon marbles Snatched from northern climes”. Why is it that when it comes to restitution of looted artefacts or objects acquired under dubious circumstances even respectable persons and papers cannot keep to facts or logic. The opinion above is really surprising. The title of the article under discussion is as untrue as it is self-serving: “Greek demands to get back the Elgin marbles risk stopping a better idea: museums lending their treasures”. There is no evidence that the demand by Greece would stop or slow co-operation between museums or the restitution of cultural objects. Internet columns such as Looting Matters http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/ provide information on the various restitutions to Greece, Italy, Egypt and Ethiopia in the last few months. The article states that “A previous Greek administration was willing to finesse the question of ownership and co-operate with the British Museum over a joint display of the marbles.” Why are we not told what happened then? Did the British accept the Greek offer? The author reaises again the old groundless argument that restitution to Greece would set a precedent and cause others, including the Nigerians to demand restitution. Are the big museums made up only of stolen/looted artefacts or objects of doubtful acquisition? Anytime one asks for the return of an unjustifiably taken object, we are told that if it were returned all the others will claim their looted property. Is this a valid argument? Can one legally or morally advance the argument that because one has wrongfully taken objects from many other persons, nobody should have their property back because the illegal holder would have nothing else in his possession? It is also remarkable that once a claim is made with respect to a specific object, the holders broaden the argument to cover all objects. If you ask for the return of the Benin Bronzes, you are told that cannot be done because there would then be a claim for the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles. If you ask for the return of a Nazi-looted object hanging in the British Museum, you are told that cannot be done because then there will follow a claim for the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles. Thus the different histories of the acquisition of the various contested objects in the British Museum are mixed. Can one injustice be used to defend another injustice? The author resurrects again the discredited Universal Declaration on the Value and Importance of Universal Museum of (2002) which has now been abandoned in practice by its signatories. True the British Museum did not sign but it was the promoter of the idea. The Declaration was intended to stave off Greek political pressure for the return of the Parthenon/Elgin Marble. The article creates the impression that China and Taiwan are cooperating on the basis of the discredited agreement which in fact was signed mainly by Western museums: “Who thought that China’s Palace Museum and the National Palace Museum in Taiwan would hold a joint show in Taipei, as they plan to in October, reuniting Qing-dynasty works that have been separated ever since they were borne away from Beijing by the retreating Nationalist forces in 1948?” The article warning us about the Greeks is extremely misleading and the Economist should not support such efforts. Kwame Opoku Comments on “Lord Elgin and the Parthenon marbles Snatched from northern climes”.
Why is it that when it comes to restitution of looted artefacts or objects acquired under dubious circumstances even respectable persons and papers cannot keep to facts or logic. The opinion above is really surprising.
The title of the article under discussion is as untrue as it is self-serving: “Greek demands to get back the Elgin marbles risk stopping a better idea: museums lending their treasures”.
There is no evidence that the demand by Greece would stop or slow co-operation between museums or the restitution of cultural objects. Internet columns such as Looting Matters http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/ provide information on the various restitutions to Greece, Italy, Egypt and Ethiopia in the last few months. The article states that “A previous Greek administration was willing to finesse the question of ownership and co-operate with the British Museum over a joint display of the marbles.” Why are we not told what happened then? Did the British accept the Greek offer?
The author reaises again the old groundless argument that restitution to Greece would set a precedent and cause others, including the Nigerians to demand restitution. Are the big museums made up only of stolen/looted artefacts or objects of doubtful acquisition? Anytime one asks for the return of an unjustifiably taken object, we are told that if it were returned all the others will claim their looted property. Is this a valid argument? Can one legally or morally advance the argument that because one has wrongfully taken objects from many other persons, nobody should have their property back because the illegal holder would have nothing else in his possession?
It is also remarkable that once a claim is made with respect to a specific object, the holders broaden the argument to cover all objects. If you ask for the return of the Benin Bronzes, you are told that cannot be done because there would then be a claim for the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles. If you ask for the return of a Nazi-looted object hanging in the British Museum, you are told that cannot be done because then there will follow a claim for the Parthenon/Elgin Marbles. Thus the different histories of the acquisition of the various contested objects in the British Museum are mixed. Can one injustice be used to defend another injustice?

The author resurrects again the discredited Universal Declaration on the Value and Importance of Universal Museum of (2002) which has now been abandoned in practice by its signatories. True the British Museum did not sign but it was the promoter of the idea. The Declaration was intended to stave off Greek political pressure for the return of the Parthenon/Elgin Marble. The article creates the impression that China and Taiwan are cooperating on the basis of the discredited agreement which in fact was signed mainly by Western museums: “Who thought that China’s Palace Museum and the National Palace Museum in Taiwan would hold a joint show in Taipei, as they plan to in October, reuniting Qing-dynasty works that have been separated ever since they were borne away from Beijing by the retreating Nationalist forces in 1948?”

The article warning us about the Greeks is extremely misleading and the Economist should not support such efforts.

Kwame Opoku

]]>