Important historical objects in museums should be returned to their country of origin. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Important historical objects in museums should be returned to their country of origin. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Agree. Why? 

• Repatriation is justified since the things belonging to a civilization should remain with them as their legacy 

• This will act as a gesture of friendship and acceptance of mistakes made in the past

• When countries that own these rightfully, they will be able to boost their tourism  

Disagree. Why?  

• Most artifacts lying in museums belong to poor countries who may not have money to protect those remnants

• These objects should be made available for access to the widest possible audience which is only possible in their current locations. 

• Geographical boundaries have altered and  it will hard to decide that to which side of the borders these belong to

• Some objects might be damaged while transporting and lost forever  

Some suggest historical objects should be in the possession of society that owns them, while others believe that it is not the right thing to do. The following paragraphs  shall analyze the practicability of this suggestion and also the dissenting view. 

There is a profound controversy making rounds about the repatriation of  artifacts to societies they are endemic to. Since the attitudes to this opinion are ambivalent, a critical analysis is required to decide on this matter. 

Those vouching for homecoming of objects produced in the past to their native societies believe that it is a warranted demand: the communities whose predecessors created these are the ones who deserve to have this legacy in their possession. Most of such things were stolen, and illegally smuggled out during the imperial era, and now as the world order has changed,  the old mistakes must be undone and the objects given back to their rightful owners. For instance, the  Kohinoor diamond that decorates the royal crown of Britain actually belongs to India, and it is the latter that has a justified claim on it. 

However, there is rampant skepticism about this issue; it is felt that most of the ancient objects lying in museums across the world are in a dilapidated condition and are vulnerable to permanent damage and even loss in transit. Therefore, these should not be moved and instead retained wherever they are. 

Similarly, even though the proposal seems quite valid, it is suspected that if these remnants are handed over to societies that own them, they might not be able to maintain them. Most countries that assert their ownership are poor - erstwhile third-world countries in Asia and Africa, face an acute dearth of resources, financial and expertise, and might fail to protect and restore them.

Overall, disputes aside, the perspectives of both sides carry weight, so the old objects that are in a position to be moved safely should be transferred to countries that own them, and others should be allowed to remain where they are.