Discussion of “Whose Culture Is It, Anyway?” by Appiah Kwame Anthony Appiah argued that objects of cultural are of potential value to all human beings, holding an opinion of a universal ownership of cultural objects and the on-going appropriations underwritten by such claims. However, his support for pan-human ownership of cultural artifacts and cosmopolitanism are questionable. I sustain a “property” perspective on cultural artifacts and believe that the cosmopolitanism should be based on peace and development of humanity. I. The Author’s Point In “Whose Culture Is It, Anyway? ”, Kwame Anthony Appiah begins by pointing out that some of the museums of the world, particularly in the West, have large collections of artefacts and objects which were robbed from developing and poor countries. He then raises a question: who owns these cultural patrimony and properties? Our first answer may be that since they make up the cultural heritage of a people, they belong to the people and culture from whom they were taken. Appiah has doubt about this and argues that if some cultural artefacts are potentially valuable to all human beings, they should belong to all of humanity. He thinks that when they make contribution to world culture, they should be protected by being made available to those who would benefit from experiencing them and put into trusteeship of humanity. In particular, when discussing the possession of cultural heritage, Appiah believes that from the point of view of cosmopolitanism, cultural and artistic objects do not belong to a particular nation or country, because artists absorbed the essence of diversified civilization and culture in the process of its creation. Therefore they should belong to all mankind. For exam... ... middle of paper ... ...ts value and validity deserves doubt. Thirdly, Appiah thinks that cultural artefacts are potentially valuable to all human beings so they belong to all humanity, without taking historical, social and anthropological reality into account. He is more like trying to cover the shameful trade of stolen loot from its original owners. In a word, cultural heritage belongs to where it is created. Based on this precondition, cultural artifacts can be shared by all the human being only when its owner offers this on his own. Works Cited Brice, Arthur & Shoichet, Catherine E., 2010, “Peru’s president: Yale agrees to return Incan artifacts”: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/11/20/peru.yale.artifacts/ “Cosmopolitanism”: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmopolitanism/#Bib Sen, Amartya, 2006, “Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny”. Allen Lane
Imagine that one piece of history that is taken from a town. This piece of history tells l people how this town was built and all the important people that were apart of the community. “Returning Antiquities to Their Countries of Origin” by Joyce Mortimer can many people about how objects are getting taken from Museums. They should be returned immediately. There are so many artifacts out there that could be so important to people, and if someone can just imagine what it would feel to have one of the most important object taken from a museum and to be never returned again. Many people enjoy seeing these objects so why are they being taken?
113. 424 http://www.aztec-indians.com/aztec-art.html http://www.about-peru-history.com/inca-artifacts.html Voyages in World History, pg. 113.
Think of the term ‘globalization’. Your first thought may be of people from all corners of the Earth exchanging ideas, views, products, and so much more. Appiah introduces his article by describing a scene of a traditional Wednesday festival in the town of Kumasi. He allows the reader to visualize the traditions held by those in attendance, but begins his case by providing details of men on their cellphones and holding conversations on contemporary topics such as H.I.V/AIDS. When Appiah speaks of “contamination,” he highlights the way one culture is influenced by another accepting an exchange of ideas. In his article he asks, “why do people in these places sometimes feel that their identities are threatened?” (Appiah). This question raises a topic that is central to the unification of peoples’ ideals and cultures...
and Memory in a World Without Relics.” Past and Present. The Past and Present Society,
In Stuart Hall’s “What is This “Black” in Black Popular Culture?” the historical implication of popular culture in the U.S is examined and the influence that blackness has in it is deconstructed. According to the text, the departure of European concepts of culture after WWII sparked a hegemonic shift as the United States emerged as a world power. Due to this, the U.S. became the epicenter of global culture production. However, since America has always had a large ethnic population due to slavery, the true face of American popular culture was black American vernacular traditions. Even today, slang that emerge from black ghettos and communities become highly popular with people of other races. In fact, much of black culture is not just our culture,
This can include valuable elements or artifacts belonging to a different culture, and can easily be a violation of their rights. In the 1981 movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Dr. Indian Jones seems to be a master of appropriating cultural artifacts coveted by other cultures. A scene that portrays this idea is the scene at the beginning of the film where Indy is determined to steal a golden idol from a South American Tribe. It is obvious by the many booby-traps that protect this idol, that the tribe members do not want this item out of their possession. Though its importance to the tribe is quite clear, Indy dodges the traps in order to retrieve the idol for his own motives. While he does not successfully get away with this mission, his little disregard for the tribe’s important artifact is definitely noted through his reckless attempt to retrieve
Baxandall, Michael. "Exhibiting intention: Some preconditions of the visual display of culturally purposeful objects." Exhibiting cultures: The poetics and politics of museum display (1991): 33-41.
In this manner, western cultures command great power by being able to represent their own heritage as a higher ranking than the “primitive” art of Third World nations that is often exhibited: “It also means the power to define and rank people, to declare some as having a greater share than others in the community’s common heritage—in its very identity” (Duncan 102). These are the important findings of Duncan’s (1991) analysis of cultural imperialism, which I agree with in terms of the greater influence of American and European museums to ritualize their status as a first world modern nation. More so, American/European museums get greater funding to superimpose their culture over museums in third world countries, which defines the overt power of the museum as a “temple” for first world art. These are important aspects of Duncan’s view that the disproportionate presence of western art throughout the world is based on a primarily imperialistic notion of cultural superiority in the presentation of American and European heritage on a global scale. In my opinion, I feel that western museums deliberately impose their cultural values in terms of “modernity” as a means of ranking themselves above lesser nations. Certainly, the increasing popularity of “primitive”
And lastly, one argument for keeping the marbles in London, the return of such cultural and historical artifacts to their country of origin would 'open the floodgates', The fear that museums across Europe and North America would be emptied as objects returned is unwarranted. Only collections that were acquired illegally, by force or victimization of these other cultures would be involved. There are agreed upon codes and rules such as the 1970 UNESCO Convention that governs and organizes these types of disputes. Thanks to organizations like UNESCO, the return of cultural objects to their countries of origin is slowly but surely taking place. The British have an obligation, not to Greece but to the cultural heritage of the whole world, to restore its symbol, the Parthenon.(Godwin 2013).
(7) Anthony Kwame Appiah, In My Father's House: Africa in the Philosphy of Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992)
The colonial enterprise, particularly the European imperialist projects in the east, has forever changed concepts of identity, otherness, and power in both the Occident and the Orient. Both sides were indisputably and irrevocably altered; however, the effect upon native cultures (the colonized) was far greater than the effect on the imperial cultures (the colonizers). European colonizers were able to cherry-pick the greatest parts of “new” culture—their art, their music, their architecture, or their cuisine—and adopt or adapt it to modern imperial life. In many ways, the cultural practices and artifacts of a newly colonized civilization were treated like the natural resources (oil, silk, spice) the Europeans were there to gather: they mattered only in their usefulness to the empire. Unlike their imperial counterparts, however, the native peoples had no choice which customs and practices to adopt, and which to discard. The sheer military might and nature of the colonial enterprise demanded that the colonized completely adapt to the social and cultural norms of the empire. In essence, then, the colonized were forced to lead a life of double consciousness, wherein they participated in customs and practices and obeyed laws and regulations in which they did ...
... that Africans believes they have. In contrast, the Museums want nothing more than the art to be side by side with other great artefacts of other cultures within the museum, ‘to play their role in history’ (Spring, 2008). There is no direct process that can be prepared in appeasing both sides of the controversial artwork, for the museums perhaps want the artwork for worldwide benefit, whereas Africans want it for cultural reasons.
A common aspect of African culture is our mediating of deities, ancestors, and spirits, by performing rituals and contacting ancestors or historical ideals. This spiritual combination creates a non-Western idea of movement in art. I enjoy this part of our culture, where we create a less static environment. We become other beings, through our usage of art, dance, and costume with mask and headwear. Our artistic creators are forgotten. Our original artwork are eventually forgotten. The work goes back to the Earth, for the only true matter is how the spirits are manifested in the objects at the current time; eventually even this wears out. At the time of the spiritual manifestation in the objects, they are some of the most powerful aspects in our society.
UNESCO, ed. Return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin. Athens, Greece: 2008. Web. 22 Mar. 2014. .
There are two parts to Appiah’s idea of cosmopolitanism: an obligation of concern for others, including those who are not of our own group, and a need for respecting “legitimate difference”. Legitimate differences, for Appiah, are those behaviors and beliefs that accrete around values but are different because of the locality and culture within which they are created. He believes that these differences are desirable, rather than necessarily causing conflict. “Because there are so many human possibilities worth exploring, we neither expect nor desire that every person or every society should converge on a single mode of life” (Appiah: xv). In respecting legitimate difference, we acknowledge that groups have the right to have their own practices and beliefs, though the fact that it is considered a legitimate difference suggests that the difference needs to allow the group to find ways to work with other groups within