(an email conversation with her Dad)
By Torera Fagbenle
I just finished reading the article, Who Benefits when Western Museums return looted art? written by David Frum. He’s a good writer and covers a lot here, over centuries.
However, the writer annoyed me greatly in many areas of the piece, and I disagree with his ultimate conclusion that the art should be spread around the world just because the three Nigerian stakeholders do not currently agree, and just so the greatest number of people can benefit from its ‘easy access’ in the west (‘easy’ for whom exactly?). In one breath he says this, but then both heralds the museum in Bilbao as a great example of what a museum can do for a place, and talks about all the benefits that would come with the building of such a museum in Benin.
He says ‘because it is not clear who will take control of the art, and how, it could stay in Western museums and money could be paid to Benin or money could be used to support modern African art’.
His conclusion smells a lot like the old, “Weeelll they might not be looked after well (read: how ‘we’ have been looking after them’), so they should stay here for now.”
He fails to properly highlight the symbolic and spiritual importance of returning the art. Every moment they spend in British and wherever museums, is a reminder of the mess Europe made of Africa. That they were stolen is reason enough to return the art, no matter their supposed end in Nigeria.
He should stay out of this conversation. Europeans/Americans lost all moral authority on the matter of Benin art when they repressed and continue to repress African people for 500 years. He failed to mention just how Nigeria came to be so corrupt, in any descriptive way. He talks about the world back then as ‘a place where all but the elite were suffering’ — a veiled attempt to downplay the unique and continued pain and rape of Africa. He failed to mention the complexities of the Benin slave trade, and painted a ‘they sold slaves for Portuguese metal’ picture as if that was anything like the brutal and vicious transatlantic slave trade, and as if they were dealing on fair terms.
Lastly (can you tell I am annoyed? Hahaha), he has no say or stake in this matter except that his parents collected African art and pushed for African art to be seen in western museums. This story that ‘the last generation worked so hard to get African art in western museums and now people are working hard to get the art back out again o woe is us o woe Europe woe woe’… that might read well in The Atlantic piece but I don’t buy it for one moment. Not least because: THE BENIN ART DIDN’T BELONG IN THOSE WESTERN MUSEUMS IN THE GODAMNN FIRST PLACE. This is not at all like that Greek piece he talked about. Where was the theft there? What the hell kind of comparison is that to make?
His writing was patronisingly annoying. That he was a speechwriter for the president who invaded Iraq under falsehoods, and whose pitiless inaction on Hurricane Katrina led to many deaths of Black people, and that he used this connection as his ‘in’ to interview the oba, speaks volumes.
He thinks the return of art cannot wipe away the past, or ‘absolve white people of guilt’. That is not the aim of the return, at least not on the African end, in my view. Their European guilt will remain their guilt (because they were and are devilish), whether the art is returned or not. The aim of the return is in step with Africa’s demand that Europe stops its devilish ways. The aim is an attempt to make amends for a past wrong done unto African people (I think the impact would go beyond Benin), it’s to return African glory to Africa, not least because Europe tried to decimate us to the ashes, spiritually, economically, politically, socially, racially, culturally(!!!)…. and it damns near succeeded. They have no say in what happens on the other end. Once the works are returned, we can goddamn feel good that we recovered something that is OURS, even if some of the European institutions were simply caving in under pressure, without any remorse for their, again, devilish ways.
Returning the art is simply ‘the right thing to do’… whether the Federal government looks after it, whether the oba looks after it, whether the Trust looks after it… sha it is returned. David Frum of The Atlantic, is not the custodian of Benin art, as interested as he may be in their end.
I am so annoyed by his suggestions. What do the Benin works have to do with supporting modern art? What do they have to do with modern virtual reality ‘experiences’ for European people in European museums? Why is he talking about some unknown future when this conversation is firmly about the past? What do the works goddamn have to do with anything but Benin?
Ughhhh!!! Why is he so concerned about what happens to objects he does not own? He spends hundreds of words talking about the importance of art, then belittles art by saying it cannot do X, Y, or Z… when throughout history there are examples of it doing just that and more. Art is used as a token of immense gratitude, it’s used to broker peace, it’s used as collateral, it’s used as a fierce political statement. Some art is destroyed when those in ‘power’ are fearful of its impact on people they wish to subjugate, or those whose history they wish to dabaru. Art, and who owns it, is powerful. Oh, he is so annoying — how can he say that the return of art doesn’t have the power to right a wrong like theft?
The art isn’t being returned because of any goddamn benevolence of western institutions, just like the slave trade didn’t end because of a sudden change of heart. People all over the world are demanding that the looted art be returned, thus the return would signal a powerful victory of the oppressed over the oppressor. Those are like ‘extreme’ terms, but isn’t that what we’re talking about? A win for Africa?
Tracing the history and movement of artwork can tell us so much about the minds and desires of people, and if those works are not returned, that would be a sorry end to this history. Interestingly, he mentions that the Benin works were not created to be traded in the way the modern world trades art… so art, here, amongst its other ‘powers’, was also art for art’s sake. Benin should have its art, for whatever reason they so choose. The writer has never had culturally significant art stolen from his land by the most savage of pillagers and held abroad in institutions paid for by racist imperialists and colonialists and enslavers and neo-colonialists, whose actions devastated his people for generations past and to come, in every conceivable way, and some of whom are now, again, devilishly suggesting that the art stays exactly where it is — how the hell could he begin to know?
I believe the art should be returned to Benin where it belongs, has always belonged, and will always belong, and the people of Benin can decide what to do with it.
Ọmótómirera, ọmọ Fágbénlé, a Law student based in London and Ìbàdàn. I write whenever the spirit moves me, and can usually be found listening to Abami Eda.
