Fighting The Wrong Fight: Forgotten Before Famous

I've had a quick through my list of blogs and didn't see anything on this topic but I'll start with an apology if I've been here and done this topic before. I know I've written about it a number of times on Twitter and even one of my uni essays went this way so it has good reason to feel familiar territory for me.

I love museums. I worked in one, as a cleaner, and working through my degree modules it was the workplace I aspired to. The particular type of museum wasn't hugely important; art, archaeology, anthropology, natural history, social history...museums are just INTERESTING. From world renowned collections to even very small local ones with relatively little to offer - they provide an invaluable learning resource.

So yeah, I like museums and I've been to all sorts all over the place. Had an almost religious experience (actually, it probably was... #praisetheAten) in Luxor Museum.

When it comes to 'controversies' I mostly take the side of the museum. I say 'mostly' because when it comes to human remains there's a whole different set of ethical nightmares to consider but I'm keeping this blog off that one. Possession isn't really the point; so long as they're available to the public and preserved for future generations.

It is somewhat problematic that somewhere like London has such a high concentration of world artefacts - admittedly disasters like The Great Fire or The Blitz are unlikely to destroy this huge wealth of treasures - but even within a small nation like the UK there are many who will never see such things; even in the south it is considered too far for many schools to offer educational trips. There is an argument to be made for safety of these objects, though. If all the artefacts of a particular culture were returned to its home nation and that nation was to be ravaged by war or fall to religious zealotry (see Buddhas of Bamiyan, Timbuktu, Ninevah, Nimrud) ...isn't that a risk too high to take? There's a reason putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea.

However, I do see the wisdom in it too...London is a major world city, a busy hub for tourists and business-people. An awful lot of people will have a chance to visit at some point in their life - more, it could be argued, that would pass through an awful lot of other capitals. And that is the crux of my argument - that world treasures belong to the world, not just the nation from which they originate. Not least of all when the culture from which they originate - such as with Ancient Egyptian artefacts - is no longer extant. The modern people of Egypt have next to no cultural connection with the pharaonic era...especially if you consider the Ptolemaic dynasty was Greek. Then there are the Romans who got all over Europe. If you were going to do such a thing, who would artefacts be returned to - their country of manufacture or the country they were found in? Or would you argue that everything Roman belongs to Rome and no other Italian city, let alone the rest of the empire?! IF such a practice of 'returning' items was to be adopted it would be an absolute logistical nightmare for starters.

I also feel very strongly for people of non-caucasian origin living in the UK...what message does it send them if artefacts of African, Asian, Aborigine origins are sent away? Why should diaspora be denied access to their cultural heritage? Why should European museums be limited to European history? How do we educate the young of the importance of other world cultures if the evidence of them is no longer there???

I believe, very strongly as you may have noticed by now, that these things belong to the world as a whole more than they do to specific places or even peoples.

But the reason for this blog post is, as so often, an article I saw on BBC News about the efforts to create a digital museum of hidden palaeontological artefacts: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46497406 It may take 50 years to complete the digital recording of the 40 million fossil specimens at The Smithsonian ALONE. FORTY MILLION FOSSILS that may have incredible scientific value but are never seen and inaccessible. 

"there are drawers here in the museum that haven't been opened for decades,"

said Kathy Hollis (Smithsonian)

THIS is what makes me angry about arguments over objects like the Benin Bronzes or Elgin Marbles. They get fought over cos they're famous and envied but they're constantly available to be enjoyed by the general public somewhere at least. No one seems to give a fuck about museums holding MILLIONS of items in storage.

No, I have not gone stark raving mad, OF COURSE I know there is a huge difference between fossilised animal bones and the artefacts of human cultures BUT just think on it for a moment: museums of all kinds have 'surplus stock' - possessions which for a variety of reasons (mostly logistical) are neither displayed nor studied. Worse even than them being in private collections if they're not even being enjoyed! Just think about it...paintings which are never looked at. Why is THAT not something to get mad about?

There's an argument that possession will be of negligible importance in the digital age - as treasures are digitised and made available on the internet will there be a demand for real-world museums with actual stuff in them? OF COURSE THERE WILL BE! There's a thrill to seeing something for real for the first time that is ENHANCED by having seen pictures of it beforehand. Ownership however might become obsolete - the accessibility of artefacts either publicly or privately owned displayed or in storage can only be for the good. I get that people like things to be THEIRS alone but there's something decidedly off about big museums hoarding stuff only to keep it away from people who might study or enjoy those items.

Possession and ownership are not the same thing of course, and part of what makes me mad about stored objects is that they're not on loan to other museums and galleries who could make good use of them. A museum could still own what was on loan and another museum, perhaps in another nation, could possess it - for a time at least.

Example: The Alfred Jewel was found in Somerset and when it was at The Museum Of Somerset in Taunton it garnered enormous attention - queues around the courtyard, people fainting in the heat...staff stressed and cleaners exhausted lol. It normally resides at The Ashmolean in Oxford. Not so very far away and yes, it is on display...I've seen it there too...utterly ignored; a small object unimportant in amongst more exciting displays. So just imagine what a non-displayed object might do to revive a small local museum, or else to found an entirely new one. These objects could and perhaps should be sent around the globe to share the wealth of knowledge and art and history with EVERYONE.

And if they won't share and display actual objects it is probably long past time for ALL museums to digitise their entire collections. To preserve for posterity as well as to enable access.

We need to stop squabbling over a (relatively) few items that are contentious and deal with the bigger scandal that big museums act like monopolies, acquiring and hoarding for no gain - huge hidden collections do not add to their appeal (and footfall) or to the accumulated knowledge of the communities they serve. Because knowledge is power, not what you have hidden away under lock and key.

Pangs

Today is Thanksgiving in America.

Being neither American nor resident in America perhaps it is not my place to comment on their cultural practices but given ongoing world events it seems kind of relevant, so please read the whole thing - especially the paragraph in red.

And as the title might indicate to you I am basing this post around some Buffy The Vampire Slayer quotes from the Thanksgiving episode "Pangs"...so, to start with, as Anya put it: "To commemorate a past event, you kill and eat an animal. It's a ritual sacrifice. With pie." Certainly it is normal enough for us to have such a 'ritual sacrifice' - any past event is commemorated with feasting (with or without pie) such as birthdays, weddings, anniversaries and funerals...but is this a past event which should be commemorated with a 'celebratory' meal or with a service of sombre remembrance like (to use the American term) Veteran's Day? Well, I know which I personally think is more appropriate and my feelings on the subject mesh with Willow's: "Thanksgiving isn't about the blending of two cultures. It's about one culture wiping out another. And then they make animated specials about the part where [becoming flustered with anger] with the maize and the big, big belt buckles. They don't show you the next scene where all the bison die and Squanto (?) takes a musket ball to the stomach."

And I can totally see that Willow is right...the whole thing is sanitised in popular culture (like the above Snoopy and Woodstock cartoon) and whitewashed because people can't face the unpalatable truths of history. That said, feeling bad about history can be just as damaging as whitewashing though. What if the events weren't commemorated at all because of guilt?! In the words of Spike: "You won; all right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did, and he's not going around saying "I came, I conquered, I feel really bad about it." The history of the world is not people making friends. You had better weapons and you massacred them. End of story." There is a lot of truth in that statement. History is brutal, we remember it because we need to - to avoid repeating our mistakes. Feeling bad about it achieves nothing, except creates a desire for the events to be forgotten.

And this is SO relevant to the current world situation. American states are closing their borders to Syrian refugees because a small proportion of them might be terrorists in disguse...this from a nation largely founded on those escaping persecution in Europe. So much anti Islamic propaganda and hatred...this from a nation which supposedly prides itself on diversity. And a Presidential candidate who, amongst many other appalling things, has said he would seriously consider forcing Muslims to carry 'special ID' in a move that screams of Jewish ghettos in Nazi Poland. 
And this is not just the case in America - I don't want this to come off as anti American at all - this is just as true here in the UK where our newspapers feed the (appallingly ignorant) masses a diet of ill-disguised propaganda. Our nation's attitude to migrants, refugees and our Islamic community is an absolute disgrace. People the whole world over are still as ignorant / racist / xenophobic as they ever were. It makes me beyond sad that humanity is anything but humane and that the lessons of history have been so blatantly ignored.

We all NEED to commemorate past events to avoid repeating them...but we do it anyway and what's worse is the PROXIMITY. We've just had Remembrance / Veteran's Day when Nazi atrocities are clear in our minds along with other terrible actions made under the guise of war. Today is Thanksgiving...yet we turn against people in need. 
And finally...

Eliminate Inequality!

There is a lot of discussion in Britain about banning the Burka at the present, following bans in Belgium and France. I am fully in favour of a ban on the Burka - not because I am racist or feminist but because it is FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR.

I have heard a Burka ban described as prejudiced, un-British or infringing on personal freedom of choice - this is not true for one very simple reason: every other person in this country HAS to show their face.

A ban on Burkas would simply close a loophole in British law. Why should a Muslim woman be exempted from breaking existing laws? Anyone else walking around a public place with their face concealed could be challenged and possibly arrested! The police have the power to seize masks and garments used for concealment. Yet, on the grounds of religion, these women are given a freedom denied to every other citizen. If that is not racist, and indeed sexist as this exemption only applies to women, I don't know what is!

No other member of our society can conceal their face and that is inequality. I do not approve of the Burka - I think it is inappropriate and a potential factor in supressing women. However, if I lived in a country where wearing one was required by law I would abide by that. The law of this land is that no one should have their face hidden from sight without ample cause. Islam is not ample cause, because wearing the Burka is not a requirement of the faith but a matter of personal choice.

A British Airways employee was sacked not so long ago for wearing a non-regulation Christian cross to work. She appealed and lost. She did not have the right to express her faith in the manner she chose because it was a matter of personal choice.

I am irritated that in all the discussions I have heard on the news no one has brought up this simple point. I have heard anti-Burka ban politicians spouting about how there should never be a law saying what we can or can't wear but the point is THERE ALREADY ARE! I cannot walk about in public naked (as if I'd want to!) or disguised or concealed.

If I wear a mask I would be challenged. If I wear a hooded top into a shop I can be kicked out as such garments conceal a face from security cameras - I heard of a toddler being banned from a shopping centre because he was in a hoodie! I cannot choose to hide my face...so why should anyone else regardless of race, religion or gender?

If the Burka is not banned the law ought to be changed to allow everyone the choice to conceal their face in a public place - but can you imagine if anyone and everyone could wear a Burka-like garment?! Security cameras would be rendered obsolete and crime would soar!

Police Officer: Can you describe the person who mugged you?

Victim: Not really...

Police Officer: Height?

Victim: Medium-ish...

Police Officer: Male or female?

Victim: No idea...

Police Officer: Ethnicity?

Victim: No idea...

Police Officer: Well, what were they wearing?!

Victim: Ah, you see officer - they were dressed as Mickey Mouse...

I used to be terrified of people in costumes like that when I was a kid. There was actually an acid attack case some years ago, loads of people saw the perpetrator but I don't think he was ever identified...he was dressed as a clown at the time.

People are supposed to be identifiable for a reason and no one should be exempted. One law for all please!

[Edit: This is badly phrased and I apologise. I have always understood the importance of cultural exemptions but the burka is a choice not a cultural marker - some Islamic women choose to wear them, others do not. There is no consensus. This is not anything like the Sikh Kirpan (knife) which is on obligatory article of faith although many Sikhs use a symbolic Kirpan rather than a 'real' (functional) blade or choose to forgo it in order to avoid frightening the ignorant. Fairly sure that if a Sikh used a Kirpan to threaten or harm someone the cultural exemption would be negated.]