Museums and object repatriation

Catalani and Basu argue against the popular critique which demands that Western museums return their ‘colonial loot.’ Both articles employ the concept of object diasporas to trouble popular notions of stolen or seized objects that ought to be returned to their ‘rightful’ homes. Catalani and Basu’s task is certainly difficult because the arguments for repatriation hold a lot of weight in popular circles, and I certainly read both articles with these counter-arguments in mind.

Catalani’s basic point is that simply calling for artefacts to be returned overlooks the role and function non-Western objects can play within Western institutions. By incorporating the input, knowledge, and values of originating and source communities Catalani argues that Western cultural institutions are producing dialogue around the history and memory of these cultural objects. One problem with this argument is evident in regards to the AGO Maharaja exhibition where certain objects that come from a specific class are taken to represent South Asian identity. It is always a particular representation of cultural identity that museums can offer and including source communities as was the case in the AGO exhibit doesn’t always address this issue. Catalani refers to source communities as though they hold valid, and ‘true’ historical information or facts about cultural artefacts. But more likely museums probably engage with a certain segment of source communities, and artefacts hold multiple meanings, just as diasporic communities are segmented rather than uniform and homogenous.

Basu tables the notion that Sierra Leonean objects might play a more valuable role in post-conflict rehabilitation from their diasporic locations that if they were repatriated. But the utility of cultural artefacts for diasporic populations misses the point of the post-colonial critique, and Basu doesn’t really present arguments for how diasporic communities specifically engage with these objects in museums, and how this directly affects post-conflict Sierra Leone. I understand the point that diasporic populations are involved in and participate in homeland conflicts, and the importance of remittance pathways to social structures and economies. But how does Basu presume having Sierra Leonean objects in UK museums affects this process? I would be more convinced of the argument Basu is attempting to make if the article included interviews or some kind of evidence about how the diasporic community engages with the artefacts.
For example when we talked about qat, the guest speaker presented the idea that chewing qat engages Somali youth with their community and identity. Do the collections Basu is referring to have any kind of similar effect? If anything I read Basu’s claims as rationale for having these collections housed in Sierra Leonean cultural or community centres in the UK.

Questions:
Did the readings offer convincing arguments against repatriation?
Basu compares repatriation arguments to diasporic return movements, did you find this comparison appropriate/convincing?