DMS 1st Period Should African Artifacts Be Returned to Africa
Yes, returned to Africa.
Side Score: 151
|
No, stay where they are.
Side Score: 120
|
|
|
|
11
points
I think they should be returned because Ethiopians have long grieved at the loss as part of national heritage. Ethiopians feel that this act of appropriation had absolutely had no justification on the internal law. I think it is time for the return of Ethiopia's looted treasures Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
1
point
7
points
I think that the artifacts should be returned because they are somebody's ancestors and that could of been the last thing they have of that person and it could be very important to them. I also think that they should get the artifacts back because they might of been stolen. this is all from sources #2, #3, #4, Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
7
points
I think that the artifacts should be returned to Africa because the African countries don't know their history. I believe that the country itself should know about how they got there and not a country that's not really related at all to the artifacts. The Europeans know more about Africa than the African countries themselves. Source 1 shows that the Africans don't know about what their ancestors created and how they helped their country. Also, the law that protects the Europeans from giving the artifacts back was made by Europe themselves, and only favors them. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
1
point
6
points
African artifacts should be returned to Africa. Like Activist Richard Pankhurst said, “People of those countries should be able to see the treasures their ancestors created.” I agree with that statement because once they lost those artifacts part of their history was lost and the people of Africa can’t learn about that part of their past, which is unfair. In source 2 it says that "the Ethiopians feel like this act of appropriation had no justification in internal law." If the Declaration of Human Rights was around back then this would be against a lot of the rules. One human right this is against is that there is human rights no matter where you go. That includes all the human rights so treating people fair, don’t discriminate, life liberty and safety, etc. When the people stole the artifacts they were not following those guidelines. In source 2, it states that "Ethiopians have longed grieved at the loss of this part is their national heritage." That shows that Ethiopians feel like they deserve to have their artifacts back because it is unfair. Just imagine if someone stole something from the US that is a very significant part of our past, like the first flag created in the Revolutionary War, we wouldn't be able to learn about that part of our history anymore. That is what the Africans are going through. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
3
points
2
points
6
points
African artifacts were stolen by the British during the battle in 1868, they are rightfully Africa's, Says in Source #1: Statement from activist Richard Pankhurst. In source #3 it states “The English returned the stone of Scone to Scotland some years ago.” So I don't know what the problem is, the British should give back the articles. It also states in source #3 that the African people feel that the artifacts were removed from chapters of their history books. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
5
points
I think they should be returned because they were looted from africa by britain soldiers and africa today wants them back. Source 3 says that the English returned the stone of scone to Scotland so why can't they return the African artifacts to Africa. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
5
points
I think Africa should be returned their artifacts because Africans were the people who created them and with out them they are loosing part of their culture. Africa also didn't purposely lose their artifacts they were stolen. This is unfair for the English people to be asking to keep the artifacts because the reason they got them in the first place was an unfair way. even though Africa should be able to keep their artifacts I also think certain parts should not be able to keep them because of wars and poverty and they wouldn't want them to be destroyed. sources 1 and 2 show my point that Africa should keep their art and source 9 shows my point on why some art shouldn't be in parts of Africa. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
5
points
i think that they should because they British looted them and the source # 2 it says that Africans lost a part of there national heritage and the Brits had no right to just take them with out making a deal or trading for it and looting is against the international law so even tho they got it a long time ago when human rights were not made that doesn't give them the right to still have it today Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
2
points
5
points
I think the artifacts should be returned to Africa because in source #1 it says that "people of Africa should be able to see the treasures that their ancestors made.". Also in source #3 it says that the artifacts that were stolen are chapters of their history. They didn't know how to write so they created these artifacts. -Tia Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
5
points
I think that artifacts should be returned to Africa. One reason is that those artifacts behold some of Africa's history, and their way of life. The President of Ethiopia says, "I must state that Ethiopians have long grieved the loss of this part of their national heritage." And Prince Edun Akenzua states, "Those things that were removed were chapters of our history book." Also, many of these artifacts were stolen by Westerners, and taken to Europe. If the English returned the Stone of Scone to Scotland, without hesitation, so why aren't Africa's artifacts being returned. Source 9 counter argument shows us that the artifacts were stolen and not given an agreement or trade to be taken from Africa. Many people say that Africa and the British fought and that's how Europe "earned" the artifacts, but really is a surprise attack by the British a fair way to get the art? The so called war was one-sided, and unfair to the Africans. In conclusion, I believe that artifacts should be returned to Africa because of the reasons stated above. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
5
points
yes,African artifacts should be returned in source number 2,3 gives plenty of evidence from the packet that the artifacts should be returned. also in the popup museum the image of the man with the bumps on his back (beauty practice) is apart of the Africans history and culture. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
I think that we should return these stolen artifacts. I don`t think we are obeying human rights by doing this and we are not respecting their freedom. This is very uncaring of their culture.As said in source 1, they deserve to keep the work of their ancestors. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
3
points
I personally believe that the artifacts should be returned to Africa. "People of those countries should be able to see the treasures their ancestors created." - Activist Richard Pankhurst. I agree with this statement because as the President of Ethiopia said, "Ethiopians have long grieved the loss of this part of their national heritage. The Africans feel they have lost a part of their culture and history. Prince Edun Akenzua from Benin City also said, "Those things that were removed were chapters of our history book." Imagine if you took lots and lots of time, materials and effort to make a beautiful piece of artwork, and it was stolen from you! Now, imagine the person who took the artwork put it somewhere for other people to look at it, and wouldn't give it back. Well, that is how the Africans feel! These works of art meant a lot to them, and now they have been stolen and the British won't return them! Also, the artifacts belong to their creators, the Africans. This is why I think the artifacts should be returned to their home. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
5
points
Source 2 says "The President of Ethiopia has written to British museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the British Library and Cambridge University Library seeking the restitution of more than 400 so-called "treasures of Magdala", which were stolen by british soldiers following a battle in 1868". I agree with this a lot because they were stolen and should be returned. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
Many famous people including the president of Ethiopia and prince Edun Akenzua of Benin city have spoken for the ancient artifacts to be returned to Africa. The artifacts show the history of Africa and is something private for only Africans to own. At least give the African people a choice on whether or not to own their history. The world thinks that if it finds something it belongs them, we don't even consider who made it and if they still want it. Source 1 2 & 3 all show that people are acting for the return of African artifacts and source 4, Sindika Dokolo's opinion back up that Africans should have a choice about their artifacts. For to long the world has bullied Africa, let this be a start to a new world of respect and peace. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
4
points
To my opinion they should get back their artifacts Brittan wouldn't like it if someone went into their area and took their things without permission also that may be the only thing that they have left to remember their ancient culture that may be gone someday and plus they planned to invade Africa ....... they broke off pieces of Africa on a map and planned out which section everyone would get and not one person from Africa was their.....its really degraving Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
4
points
I think that African artifacts should be returned to Africa because it is violating human right number 27 that says no copy right and human right 17 was violated because it says that you have rights to your own things and since they stole the artifacts than that violated human right 17. also the artifacts were the only history that the Africans have to know about there ancestors. like Ethiopia's president said that when any big event would happen his ancestors would tell the artists to make some thing to represent it. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
4
points
I think that African artifacts should be returned to Africa because the artifacts are apart of their national heritage. Also, they should be returned because the artifacts are what they used to record history. Since these artifacts were stolen I think they should be returned to Africa. Source #3 says that the artifacts mean so much to Africans but mean nothing to the British. The artifacts were stolen by British soldiers in 1868 and I think they should be returned because the artifacts do not belong in the hands of the British. These are some reasons I think the artifacts should be returned to Africa. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
2
points
4
points
3
points
I think African artifacts should be returned because, these artifacts are part of their heritage and culture. Also, the president wore about how "that Ethiopians have long grieved at the loss of their national heritage." The Ethiopian "treasures of Magdala" "were stolen by the British soldiers following a battle in 1868." Sources 2 explains why I think this. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
3
points
In my opinion on this argument is that the people of Africa should be able to enjoy the discovery of their history. since there was no written language those artifacts are the only thing the Africans have to learn about their history. on the African article source 1 the artifacts were also looted from Africa, and should be returned. even though more people would be able to see the artifacts the Europeans can simply make replicas. I think that the people of Africa should be able to see the artifacts their ancestors created, how would you feel if all you had to tell your history were some artifacts that weren't even in your own continent. and let me ask you a question why can't they return their things? Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
The artifacts should be returned to Africa. I think this because like it said in source #2 the African that care so much about the artifacts are extremely sad and they b grieve the loss of their past. The artifacts should be returned but the ones that were or sold to the Europeans should stay in the Museum and if they Europeans want to they can buy some more artifacts for their museums. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
2
points
these artifacts should also be returned because history is what makes us who we are as a country today which is very important to most people and if the Africans don't have any way to recall on their history and all the evidence is half way across the world how are they going to remember their own history? it stats in the human rights that you have the right to your own belongings. Side: Yes, returned to Africa.
|
11
points
Most of these artifacts were bought and sold in Africa at marketplaces and belong to the person who bought it, it said in source #9: Both sides of the argument article. And in source #8 Article on the positives of the "spoils of war" it states that, since the African artifacts were in the British museum they were visible to more people to learn about pre-colonial Africa. Plus the artifacts are not safe in Africa because of wars and poverty. -Abbie Side: No, stay where they are.
2
points
1
point
I think that we have every right to keep these artifacts. The only reason why the people of Africa lost their artifacts was because they lost in battle. Keeping the artifacts lets the whole world see their works of art. Africa should thank us for sharing their works of art. In source 6 it says that not even all the artifacts were looted so we would have no reason to give them back. Side: No, stay where they are.
1
point
The artifacts should stay in the English museum. I think this because more people will be able to see their past and they can share their ancestors life. The people in Africa that want the artifacts back can just buy a replica if they want it that bad. Also there may be thieves in Africa that will want to steal the artifacts and sell them to bad people for money or something else. Hence the artifacts stay in the English museum with top notch security they don't get stolen and they are shared with the world. Side: No, stay where they are.
1
point
5
points
5
points
5
points
I think England should be able to keep the artifacts because that's where most people would want to go to see and experience African art instead of going to Africa where it might be dangerous(like said in source 9) England can also take much better care of these artifacts by keeping them in a safe museum. Even though England did steel their artifacts long ago, it wasn't really a law then so England can keep their artifacts like stated in a blog. England will take good care of these artifacts and lots of people in the world can enjoy the art instead of a few people traveling to Africa. I do also think some of the main parts of Africa with out war and bad things happening should get some of the art since they were the ones who created it. Side: No, stay where they are.
5
points
they should stay were they are because now they can be seen by more people because it is in one of the worlds most famous museums and as said in source # 8 a lot of the artifacts were got in the market place or the Brits got them when they won a war because after they won the war the land and all of its belongings were theirs Side: No, stay where they are.
5
points
kids learn from their artifacts they should stay where they are ....Africa is being selfish we learn from them and their culture and our human rights #26 it says "you have the right to be educated" and these artifacts educate on THEIR culture so why be so needy when we're just educating ourselves on your country?! youthforhumanrights.org Side: No, stay where they are.
5
points
African artifacts should stay where they are because, like stated in source 6, some of the artifacts weren't looted. Also source 6 mentions that museums are making the artifacts available to the international audience and in source 9 it states that African art should stay in foreign countries because with its wars and poverty, Africa won't be able to protect the artifacts. I think that artifacts that were bought and traded deserve to stay. Side: No, stay where they are.
5
points
I think they should not return the artifacts because, they want the artifacts to be preserved and somewhere where they are more likely to not be harmed or damaged. "There are exhibitions in Europe and the United States that have helped promote African artifacts." Sources 4 proves my point. Side: No, stay where they are.
4
points
3
points
3
points
1
point
3
points
3
points
2
points
2
points
4
points
The artifacts should stay in Britain because they are only trying to protect the artifacts from getting damaged. Also in source #8 it says that not all artifacts were looted, some were sold to them. In source #9 it says that African art should stay because of all of Africa's wars and poverty. The artifacts should be shared with the world not just in Africa. Side: No, stay where they are.
4
points
I think that the artifacts should stay in Europe because most of them were legally bought or traded for. The African countries probably didn't think much about giving away their history, but wanted to survive and have a greater wealth. Also in source 7, it tells about the law that protects the European countries form giving the artifacts back. So it isn't even legal to give the artifacts back to Africa. Side: No, stay where they are.
4
points
i think that the artifacts should stay in europe because maybe the europeans bought them from the africans a long time ago. so that would give them the right to own the artifacts. also if they did steel them before the human rights than it would be legal. Side: No, stay where they are.
1
point
When this African art was stolen the world was able to see what Africa was really about. No one before really understood all that went on down in Africa. Source 8 proves the bewilderment and amaze of African art. As well as showing the skills of Africa, selling the art back to Africa now would go against British law. The British library has no power to decommission the artifacts under the British Library Act of 1972. On,y the government has power to decommission these historical artifacts. Source 7 proves this point. Side: No, stay where they are.
2
points
I think that the African artifacts should stay in Europe. I think this because I believe that if they stay in Europe, they will have a bigger audience to come and appreciate this artwork. Yes, it did come from the African's ancestors, but as Andre Magnin, a French museum African art specialist says,"I don't think you've got to be from Africa to enjoy African art..." This proves that just because the Africans culture and lifestyle is reflected from their art, doesn't mean you have to be from Africa to appreciate and enjoy this art. Also, I feel the Africans should be thrilled that many museums and other places are willing to fight to keep the Africans artwork in Europe. To add, according to the British Library Act of 1972, the British can't just give their artifacts back. Even if they decided to give the artifacts back, it wouldn't be immediate, and in my opinion, not worth the time (Source 7). In conclusion, I believe the artifacts should stay because of the reasons shown above. Side: No, stay where they are.
2
points
I think artifacts should stay where they are because in a museum many more people can see the artifacts. The looting of Benin made artifacts visible to a much larger audience and people outside Africa saw the artistic achievement of Benin. Also, in some places in Africa there is a lot of war and poverty. These are some reasons I think artifacts should stay in Africa. Side: No, stay where they are.
1
point
1
point
I think that the artifacts should stay in the British Museum so that everyone can enjoy and learn about them. The artifacts being in this museum also make them easier to access for most people. There are many risks of returning the artifacts to Africa, too. Such as the protection the artifacts need and the lack of institution as it says in source 9. Another reason the Artifacts should not be returned is that some of the artifacts were not looted, but bought in market place. Also, The British Library act of 1972 doesn't give them the power to de-accession these artifacts, only the government has that power. Side: No, stay where they are.
1
point
the artifacts could stay in Africa because there is poverty and war. they also couldn't just give the artifacts back they would have to discuss it with their government says source 7. some artifacts were bought so they have a right to those treasures. that's the reasons that the Europeans should keep the artifacts. Side: No, stay where they are.
1
point
return to "africa" is super general. Africa is a continent with many different states, cultures, and governments. So you have to look at this according to which artifacts belong in which states. In some instances theyre so old that they really dont belong to anyone because the culture doesnt exist anymore. But if you can trace that culture to a modern day state than it depends on the state. A country like Egypt is probably stable enough and has its own museums so if they show an interest in the artifacts and want them back then those negotiations ought to take place and i would support giving them to their rightful owners. However if artifacts belong to a country like Somalia there is no stable government there. Who would you even give them to? And if you did find a leader to give them back to then theres no museums to display them and theyll likely wind up in some warlords palace as his footstool. Not a fitting use for such delicate items. So i guess my answer is this question is far too simple to even answer. The short answer: No. You cant hand them back to "africa". There is no entity representing "africa" that would even be able to accept them. Long answer: it depends on the state and how they will be treated. Side: No, stay where they are.
|