[MSN] IS THE ABSENCE OF A FORMAL DEMAND FOR RESTITUTION A GROUND FOR NON-RESTITUTION?
MSN
msn-list at te.verweg.com
Sun Apr 13 14:48:25 CEST 2008
IS THE ABSENCE OF A FORMAL DEMAND FOR RESTITUTION A GROUND FOR
NON-RESTITUTION?
“The restitution of those cultural objects which our museums and
collections, directly or indirectly, possess thanks to the colonial system
and are now being demanded, must also not be postponed with cheap arguments
and tricks.”
Gert v. Paczensky and Herbert Ganslmayr, Nofretete will nach Hause. (1)
Priest with a gong. Benin, Nigeria. Ethnologisches Museum, Berlin.
In a recent report on the Benin exhibition in Berlin, Benin - 600 Years
of Royal Arts in Nigeria, an official of the Ethnology Museum Berlin,
presumably, the Director of the African Section of the Museum, is reported
to have stated that there has been no formal request for restitution from
the Benin/Nigerian authorities and therefore the question of restitution did
not arise as far as the Ethnology Museum of Berlin was concerned. (2) A
reporter who was at the opening of the exhibition has stated that the
Nigerian Minister of Culture, Prince Adetokunbo Kayode announced plans of
his government to recover the stolen bronzes in “a very diplomatic and
civilised way”; but that his government was not primarily concerned with
restitution but interested first of all in international scientific
co-operation to elaborate an inventory of all the pieces which had been once
in the palace in Benin. (3)
Irrespective of what exactly the Nigerian Minister of Culture said at the
opening of the Benin exhibition, we have heard this argument before from
Austrians, Germans and others with respect to stolen cultural objects in
their museums that there has been no formal/official demand and so the
question does not arise for them. We would like to comment briefly on what
may appear, at first sight, to be a reasonable position from the point of
view of a holder of stolen or found property. Certainly it is a useful
tactic if an owner does not bother to reclaim lost/stolen property for the
holder to remain passive.
As is well-known, the Benin bronzes came to Europe and America as a
result of British imperialist military action against Benin in 1897 when the
British soldiers in their usual manner, ransacked the royal palace, carried
away thousands of cultural objects, burnt Benin City, terrorized the areas
around the city, sent Oba Ovonramwen into exile and executed his close
associates. There was no formal voluntary act of handing over the art
objects to the British. (4)
Since the sack of Benin, there have been frequent demands by the Edo
people and the Nigerian Government for the return of the stolen objects but
to no avail. Nigeria has had to buy a few of the Benin bronzes from the
British Museum at high prices. (5)
Prof. Ekpo Eyo, a former Director of the National Commission on Monuments
and Museums and a leading authority on Nigerian art wrote that when a
National Museum was being established in Benin City attempts were made to
secure a few of the bronzes from foreign countries. UNESCO passed a
resolution urging those who were holding these bronzes to return a few to
Benin. Copies of the resolution were given to all diplomatic and consular
missions in Lagos. Not a single object was returned. As a result, the new
museum was opened without the original bronzes and instead photos of those
objects were displayed. (6)
Since 1972 the United Nations General Assembly has in several resolutions
requested Member States to return cultural objects which were taken away
during the colonial days. The Assembly has the item of restitution of
cultural objects to the countries of origin as a permanent agenda item. In
its resolution entitled “Return or restitution of cultural property to its
country of origin” of 4 December 2006, (A/RES/61/52,) the General Assembly
reiterated the importance of restitution to these countries and called upon
all bodies of the United Nations and UNESCO as well as Member States “to
continue to address the issue of return or restitution of cultural property
to the countries of origin and to provide appropriate support accordingly”.
All these resolutions have not moved most of the western countries that hold
illegal or stolen cultural objects. (7) The western countries do not seem to
have much respect for the decisions and resolutions of the United Nations
when its decisions do not coincide with their wishes but are heard often
urging other States to abide by the decisions of the international
organization. Apparently many intellectuals in these countries also follow
the line taken by their governments. What then is the use of the famous
academic freedom? It is seldom used to defend African interests.
The current Benin exhibition, Benin: Kings and Rituals - Court Arts from
Nigeria, is a cooperative effort between the Ethnology Museum, Vienna, Musée
du Quai Branly, Paris, The Ethnology Museum, Berlin, the Art Institute of
Chicago and the Nigerian Commission for Museums and Monuments, Nigeria. The
exhibition has a catalogue which is valid for the exhibition in Vienna,
Paris, Berlin and Chicago. The present Oba of Benin, Omo N’Oba Erediawa
states in an introductory note that the objects displayed were of “religious
and archival value to my people” and ends with the declaration: “As you put
this past on show today, it is our prayer that the people and the government
of Austria will show humaneness and magnanimity and return to us some of
these objects which found their way to your country”. (8) In the same
catalogue, there is a preface signed by directors of the museums involved,
(excluding Nigerian involvement) stating clearly that they have no intention
of returning any of the stolen Benin bronzes and urging the Nigerians to
forget the past and look ahead to the future. (9) As has often been said,
the request for restitution is not about the past but about the continuous
present. Although the initial perpetration of the wrongful act lies in the
past, the present and continuous refusal to return the stolen object is
clearly in the present and constitutes a continuing violation of the human
rights of the lawful owners.
At the opening of the exhibition in Vienna on May 9 2007, the brother of
the Oba, Prince Prof.G.I. Akenzua made a statement which in a clear and
unmistakable language demanded the return of some of the Benin bronzes.
At an International Symposium held on 10 May in Vienna in connection with
the opening of the exhibition, the issue of restitution came up with regard
to a paper read by Prof. C. Feest, Director of the Ethnology Museum, Vienna.
The professor repeated the usual feeble grounds for non-restitution and was
told clearly that his arguments were not sustainable. The proceedings of the
opening of the exhibition as well as the International Symposium have not
yet been officially published but there was sufficient coverage of the
events and discussions in the Austrian press. (10) Some NGO’s have discussed
the issue of restitution and made their views known to the Austrian and
German authorities and the museums. (11) The internet contains ample
discussions on the general issue of restitution and the particular case of
the Benin bronzes.
Assuming that the Director of the African Section, Ethnology Museum,
Berlin and his collaborators are not aware of all the above, including the
information in the catalogue of the current Benin exhibition which their
Director-General also signed (incidentally, it appears the text of the
preface was prepared in Berlin), is this sufficient ground for refusing
restitution or for not taking any steps towards restitution?
Is the statement by the Oba in the exhibition catalogue not formal
enough? Are the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and
UNESCO not formal enough? Is the statement made by the Oba‘s brother, Prince
G.I. Akenzua during his lecture entitled, The Loss of Benin Artworks and
their Original Function at the International Symposium on 10 May 2007 not
formal enough?
The recent UNESCO International Conference, The Return of Cultural
Property to its Countries of Origin, 17 - 18 March, 2008 urged museums to
initiate dialogues on the return of important cultural property to the
country and community of origin.
Should States and institutions holding such stolen cultural property not
voluntarily take action to return them? What then is the use of the repeated
declarations on willingness to co-operate internationally when one is not
even willing to consider restoring admittedly stolen items? In what will
such States co-operate? What then is the point in talking about heritage of
mankind? Does mankind consist of only those in the Euro-American world?
The refusal to return stolen cultural property clearly violates the right
to culture and right of access to culture as provided for in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (I966) and the International Covenant on Civic
and Political Rights (1966) in so far as the deprivation of a whole people
or community of its cultural objects renders it impossible for the
individuals in that community to exercise rights guaranteed under the
international instruments. Indeed some acts of refusal to return cultural
objects, such as crosses or other religious symbols must be considered as
violations of religious freedom. The religious and ritual objects of the Edo
are necessary if they are to follow their tradition and religion. It is
remarkable that some States that pride themselves of their religion as part
of their culture and even require immigrants to adopt these values do not
seem worried by the thought that they are preventing others from following
and cultivating their traditional and religious values.
The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit
Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970)
considers in its preamble that “cultural property constitutes one of the
basic elements of civilization and national culture, and that its true value
can be appreciated only in relation to the fullest possible information
regarding its origin, history and traditional setting” and states that “as
cultural institutions, museums, libraries and archives should ensure that
their collections are built up in accordance with universally recognized
moral principles”. To this end, the Convention provides in its article 15
that nothing in this Convention shall prevent States Parties thereto from
concluding special agreements among themselves or from continuing to
implement agreements already concluded regarding the restitution of cultural
property removed, whatever the reason, from its territory of origin, before
the entry into force of this Convention for the States concerned.
The ICOM (International Council of Museums) Code of Ethics for Museums,
2006, which sets minimum standards for museums and their staff, provides as
follows, regarding return of cultural property:
6.2 Return of Cultural Property
Museums should be prepared to initiate dialogues for the return of cultural
property to a country or people of origin. This should be undertaken in an
impartial manner, based on scientific, professional and humanitarian
principles as well as applicable local, national and international
legislation, in preference to action at a governmental or political level.
6.3 Restitution of Cultural Property
When a country or people of origin seeks the restitution of an object or
specimen that can be demonstrated to have been exported or otherwise
transferred in violation of the principles of international and national
conventions, and shown to be part of that country’s or people’s cultural or
natural heritage, the museum concerned should, if legally free to do so,
take prompt and responsible steps to co-operate in its return.
The cultural artefacts of the African countries, as well as all the
symbols of power which the colonialist took away at the time of conquest and
during the colonial days should all have been returned at the time of
Independence. To retain still part of these objects amounts to preventing
the people concerned from exercising to the fullest extent, the right of
self-determination. The right of self-determination does not only consist in
the right to choose your own flag, parliament, army and constitution and
other institution; it extends also to the right to choose your own cultural
institutions and to determine your own cultural and economic development.
Instruments and symbols of a culture which have been confiscated by the
colonial power must be returned in order for self-determination to be
complete.
In view of the above, it is our considered opinion that the lack of a
formal/official request is no ground for the holding State and its
institutions for not initiating a process of restitution or for refusing to
return stolen cultural property. There is a positive duty on States and
their museums holding stolen or illegally exported cultural items to start
discussing their return, whether there is a formal/official request or not.
The contrary argument would mean that violations of human rights can
continue so long as the victim has not formally or officially complained.
What about if the complaints are not heard or received or if the violator
pretends not to hear or be really deaf, as some institutions and their
management in Europe appear to be with African demands? Often the State
which has lost cultural property may not even know where to find it. It is
only the holder who has the full information about the present circumstances
of the object. This is precisely the case of the Benin bronzes. Since they
were stolen by the British in 1897 and partly sold to the Germans, Austrians
and others, the Nigerians have not had the chance of seeing most of these
objects. The members of the Benin Royal Family and the Nigerian Commission
for Monuments and Museums saw many of these objects for the first time,
since they were stolen, during the current exhibition. There are still many
of these objects that are hidden in the depots of museums such as the
Ethnology Museum, Berlin, the Ethnology Museum, Vienna, the British Museum
and many others. Hence the interest of the Nigerian Minister of Culture to
have established a comprehensive list of all the items that were in the
palace of the Oba in 1897 before the British invasion.
The museums - Louvre, Quai Branly, British Museum, the Metropolitan
Museum of Art - that argue or insist that they hold cultural property on
behalf of mankind or serve the world, the so called “universal museums” must
admit that if they take their pretence seriously, then they would also have
a moral obligation to discuss with the countries from which the objects in
their museums were derived. Or are they acting as trustees for mankind
without any obligations towards the beneficiaries, not even a duty to
discuss the objects they display and the status of those objects?
The statement or the view that due to the lack of formal request from
Nigeria, there is no consideration of the question of restitution is
somewhat hypocritical. Have the Germans given any indication to the
Nigerians that a formal request will be given reasonable consideration?
Egypt which has been claiming the restitution of Nefertiti since 1933 has
not got anywhere nearer to receiving its stolen cultural object even though
it has sent several formal requests to the Germans. (12) Ethiopia has not
had any favourable response from the British to its request for the
restitution of the various religious and cultural objects stolen at Magdala
in 1868 by British soldiers. Would a formal request by the Nigerians through
a judicial process not be considered as an unfriendly act by the Germans?
This may be eventually a step to be considered.
The Nigerians have shown their goodwill in lending objects for the
exhibition. Have they not expressed to the Directors of the museums involved
in the exhibition their desire to have at least some of these objects back
as the Nigerian parliament has in the past requested? (13) What really
prevents the Ethnology Museum of Berlin which holds 600 of the Benin bronzes
to return a few to Nigeria as an indication of a determination to commence
new and better relations with Nigeria and the other African countries?
Peter Junge gives the impression that the Nigerians are even happy that
these objects are in Europe. (14) He is reported to have said that the staff
at the Ethnology Museum were positively surprised by what the Nigerian
Minister of Culture and Tourism, Prince Toukumbo Kayode said at the opening
of the Benin exhibition; namely that Benin art should be regarded as part of
world art and that Benin art should be seen not only in Benin City, Nigeria
but that it should be seen as a world-wide exhibition. To be positively
surprised implies that one could have been negatively surprised or even that
one was expecting a negative statement. Why should a German museum director
be surprised when a Nigerian Minister states that Benin art is part of world
culture? Is Benin art not obviously part of the art of the world? The
difference, I submit, lies in the different understanding of “World art” as
the Nigerian minister and most Africans use the phrase and what the Germans
mean by “Weltkunst”. The ethnologists are trying to avoid the criticisms
they have received from the use of the word “primitive”, and the attacks
against Ethnology for its role in the colonial period and for spreading
prejudice against non-Europeans. Some Ethnology Museums are even calling
themselves Museums of World Cultures (15) but they do not include Europe and
Egypt in their world cultures! Such museums do not include modern African
art in their collections since modern art generally contradicts the
ethnologists’ view of Africa. Africa thus appears to have only traditional
art and no contemporary art! For some, it appears that African art ends with
the Benin bronzes. It almost seems as if after inspiring Western artists to
new conceptions and modes, African art ceased to evolve and indeed
regressed! Our continent is the only one which is constantly being denied
the capacity to progress, even in art. Many western books and general works
on art still treat African art as if it were an art from the early history
of mankind.
Africans insist that Benin art, like all art found in African societies,
is part of the total arts that exist in this world, each of them valid and
valuable, none of them being civilised and the others being primitive. When
Germans and other Europeans and Americans speak of world art, they are not
referring to the totality of arts that exist in this world; they are
referring to the arts of those countries which used to be called “primitive”
and were considered to fall in the province of ethnologists. They do not
include European art in the phrase “world art”. So what kind of world art is
this which does not include European art? Are the Europeans and their art
not part of this world? One can see this at the Berlin museum scene where
European art is in the Museum Island whilst African art is to be found in
the Ethnology Museum. Moreover, Egyptian art is not in the Ethnology Museum
but in the Museum Island. Why do they separate the art and culture of one
African country from those of the others?
This is based on a very old European prejudice, going back to the
philosophers of Enlightenment Hegel, Kant, Hume, etc. who, instead of
enlightening Europeans about Africa, poisoned their minds about Africa. For
them Africa, from which they excluded Egypt because they respected Egyptian
culture, did not have any culture, history or religion. They simply equated
Africa with primitivism. This perverted conception of Africa, left by famous
European philosophers clearly hinders many Europeans from looking at Africa
and indeed treating Africans as equal partners in the world. The
intellectual history of Europe needs very much to be cleaned of such ideas
that are not based on knowledge but on prejudices and fantasies of writers
who never visited Africa or knew any Africans but felt authorised to make
damaging statements with permanent effects. But how can the Europeans and
Americans justify to-day this foolish idea that Egypt is not part of Africa?
Do they know better than Gamel Abdel Nasser, Anwar Sadat and Hoseni Mubarak
who put their country in the OAU and the African Union?
The British Museum, Louvre and the Metropolitan Museum of Arts all
maintain Egypt apart from other African countries. Sometimes they add
Sudanese art to Egyptian art. What kind of logic excises two large African
countries from the rest of the Continent and indeed the winner of the 2008
African Cup of Nations, Egypt? Hegel declared that Egypt must be detached
from Africa and attached to Europe. (16) It seems many Europeans have
followed this injunction from the master of the Enlightenment.
The statement attributed to the Ethnology Museum, Berlin does not tell
correctly the history of the demand for the restitution of the Benin bronzes
in the past or in the present. It reflects also the observed game of making
statements in German for home consumption and a more carefully worded one in
English for the international public. That kind of game should now stop
since the whole world has, in a sense, became a global village. Moreover,
there are now enough interested Africans who read most of the European
languages.
Peter Junge says he was positively surprised that the Nigerian minister
said that the art of Benin is to be considered as part of world art and that
it was important that Benin art should be seen not only in Benin City, in
Nigeria but also in the whole world. Is the museum director here
deliberately cultivating and sustaining a misunderstanding or
misapprehension which has a long tradition in European art history?
As has often been said, if the Europeans and the Americans do not want to
return stolen African artworks, this is a matter for them and their
conscience. They should not, however expect us to suspend our common sense
and provide us with explanations that are baseless or only tell us partial
histories.
Sooner or later, the European governments and their people would
recognize the damaging role of some museums in this matter. Politicians who
are more interested in having access to the enormous natural resources of
Nigeria and the other African countries will become irritated by the
persistent debate on stolen African cultural objects and will seek a
solution. They will decide that the holding of stolen African cultural
objects is clearly not important for the survival of Europe. Africa and
Europe must seek to clear some of the obstacles in their way to a better
understanding. Stolen African objects in European museums can be easily
dispensed with and European culture will not suffer any irreparable damage.
Moreover, none of us is asking for the total and whole repatriation of all
African art objects from Europe and America. The connections and bonds
between the peoples of these continents are too important to be made to
suffer by such disputes. None of us has any interest in a total withdrawal
of all stolen African cultural objects even if this were possible. We are
requesting that the European countries and their museums recognize that
African art objects belong to Africa; that some of them should be returned
so that our peoples have the chance of knowing what our countries have
produced in our history and culture. Is this asking for too much? Should it
be accepted as normal, moral and legally sustainable that, for example, the
Ethnology Museum, Berlin has 600 Benin bronzes and the British Museum has
700 whereas Benin itself has only a few? How would the Germans or the
British feel if most of the masterpieces of their culture were kept in
Nigeria or Ghana and museums there argued that it was in the interest of
mankind that they be kept in Africa? Surely, most people would agree that we
have now an unhealthy and immoral situation, where the best masterpieces of
African art and culture are to be found outside Africa, in London (British
Museum), in Paris, (Louvre and Musée du Quai Branly), in Berlin, (the
National Gallery and the Ethnology Museum), in Zurich (Rietberg Museum) and
in Brussels, (Tervuren). Would Europeans accept to have their best
masterpieces in Lagos, Accra, Dakar, Bamako, Doula, Lome and Kinshasa? We
should recall that there is not one single piece of a European masterpiece
in Africa.
So far as I can tell, none of the European museum directors nor European
intellectuals have suggested that in a global village where people are
talking about, “universal culture”, “world culture”, “heritage of mankind”
etc. that some Picassos, Rembrandts, Goyas, Matisses could be sent to Africa
so that many Africans also get the chance to see and appreciate the variety
of artworks that mankind has produced. It seems to be the opinion of many
that Europeans need to have access to African cultural objects but that
Africans have no such need. Is this fair?
Given the above background, much of the talk about the heritage of
mankind appears to be a ploy by western museums to hold on to stolen African
cultural objects and avoid any action of recovery or restitution. One can,
in view of the above also understand that museums such as the Ethnology
Museum, Berlin, the British Museum, London, Louvre, Paris and Musée du Quai
Branly, Paris, will present excuses that they have not received any
formal/official request to return some of the stolen goods. When these items
were stolen and brought to Europe, nobody bothered about formalities of
provenience or ownership. The great museums were pleased to receive the
loot. When there is no goodwill, there are thousand and one arguments based
on formalities which would seem to justify unwillingness to act. Any lawyer
can supply them.
“The history of museums shows that these institutions have facilitated,
justified and benefited from colonialism and related policies of
discrimination, assimilation and genocide. They have also often served to
inform and engage broader societal concerns. The present- day ‘commitment to
righten historic wrongs’ by former metropolitan powers and their museums
must include restitution claims of indigenous and other colonised peoples.
Museums must be actively involved in reversing and ameliorating the ongoing
effects of these policies and practices”.
Ana Filipa Vrdoljak, International Law, Museums and the Return of Cultural
Objects, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006, p.302)
Kwame Opoku, 12 April, 2008.
NOTES
(1) p.183, C. Bertelsmann, München 1984
(2) Gudrun Meyer, Geplünderte Kultur
http://www.focus.de/kultur/medien/berlin_aid
(3) Der Blick hat sich gedreht, Michael Zajonz
(http://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/ausstellungen/Benin;art2652,2472247).
Another report stated that the Nigerian Minister declared that the art of
Benin is an important element of the identity and symbols of the traditional
society and hence the 600 objects exhibited are by no means dead antiquities
for the inhabitants of Benin today hence a right to claim the return of the
objects displayed Kunst,Kanonen und Zwerge
(http://www.3sat.de/3sat.php?http://www.3sat.de/kulturzeit/tips/119165/index
.html). One other journalist reported the Nigerian Minister Kayode stated
that there was no thinking of requesting the return of the artworks and that
his government was more interested in scientific co-operation. “Sich
erinnern" heisst in Messing giessen"
(http://www.scienzz.de/magazin/art9614.html) Josef Tutsch
(4) Darshana Soni “The British and the Benin Bronzes”
(http://www.arm.arc.co.uk/britishBenin.html).
(5) British Museum Sold Benin Bronzes
(http://www.forbes.com/2002/04/03/0403conn.html)
British Museum sold precious bronzes
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/28/education.museums)
Out of Africa (http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/16/zachary2516b.html)
(6) Museum, Vol. XXL, no 1, 1979, Return and Restitution of cultural
property, pp.18-22, Nigeria.
(7) See resolution 61/52. Return or restitution of cultural property to the
countries of origin, in which the Assembly refers to its previous
resolutions.
(8) Benin: Kings and Rituals - Court Arts from Nigeria, ed. Barbara
Plankensteiner, Snoeck, 2007, p.13.
(9) B. Plankensteiner, op.cit. p.11.
(10) Kurier, 9 Mai 2007, p.37; Falter, 22/07, p.6; Die Presse, Feuilleton,
9. Mai 2007, p.37.
(11) K. Opoku, Opening of the Benin Exhibition,
http://www.afrikanet.info/index; Culture and Development
http://www.culture-and-development.info/issues/restitu.htm
(12) K.Opoku, Nefertiti, Idia and other African Icons in European Museums:
The thin edge of European Morality www.museum-security.org/wordpress/; see
also http://www.nofretete-geht-auf-reisen.de
(13) Nigeria demands treasures back, http:/news.bbc.co.uk
(14) Höfische Kunst aus Nigeria und der Spanische Bürgerkrieg
http://www.inforadio.de/static/
(15) See, Mannheim Museum Weltkulturen D5 ; Frankfurt:
http://www.mdw.frankfurt.de/home
(16) The reader may find interesting insights in Olufemi Taiwo, Exorcising
Hegel's Ghost: Africa’s challenge to Philosophy which is an excellent study
on Hegel’s continuing and persistent influence on the Euro-American
intellectual tradition in its approach to Africa.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, The Philosophy of History, Dover
Publications. New York, 1956 “Africa proper, as far as History goes back,
has remained — for all purposes of connection with the rest of the World —
shut up; it is the Gold-land compressed within itself — the land of
childhood, which lying beyond the day of self-conscious history, is
enveloped in the dark mantle of Night. Its isolated character originates,
not merely in its tropical nature, but essentially in its geographical
condition.” p.91 “The northern part of Africa, which may be specially called
that of the coast- territory (for Egypt has been frequently driven back on
itself, by the Mediterranean) lies on the Mediterranean and the Atlantic; a
magnificent territory, on which Carthage once lay — the site of the modern
Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. This part was to be — must be attached
to Europe.” p.92 David Hume, Selected Essays, Oxford World Classics, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 1998
“I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the whites.
There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any
individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious
manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most
rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present
Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of
government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference
could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an
original distinction between these breeds of men”. p.360 Immanuel Kant,
Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime, University of
California Press, Berkeley, 1960.
The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the
trifling. Mr. Hume challenges anyone to cite a single example in which a
Negro has shown talents, and asserts that among the hundreds of thousands of
blacks who are transported elsewhere from their countries, although many of
them have even been set free, still not a single one was every found who
presented anything great in art or science or any other praiseworthy
quality, even though among the whites some continually rise aloft from the
lowest rabble, and through superior gifts earn respect in the world. So
fundamental is the difference between these two races of man, and it appears
to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in colour.” p.111 “
but in
short, this fellow was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that
what he said was stupid.” p.113 Kant, Physical Geography, cited in Emmanuel
Chukwudi Eze, Race and the Enlightenment: A Reader, Blackwell, 1997, p.63
“In the hot countries the human being matures in all aspects earlier, but
does not, however, reach the perfection of those in the temperate zones.
Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites. The yellow
Indians do have a meagre talent. The Negroes are far below them and at the
lowest point are a part of the American peoples”.
______________________________________
http://www.museum-security.org
http://www.museumbeveiliging.com
http://www.handboekveiligheidszorgmusea.nl
______________________________________
More information about the MSN-list
mailing list