Museums: Not so old and dusty anymore

The Basu piece delves into the problematic issues, which arise with European museums as they hold much of the objects representative of the heritage and culture of people overtaken by colonial powers. As Basu focuses on Sierra Leon as the point of origin for much of these artefacts, one can see where the idea of ‘stolen goods’ can somehow be dubbed as an object diaspora. This ‘dispersed’ collection of culture and history are (as Basu puts it) re-contextualized within these new places, taken away from their homeland, they begin to take on a different meaning to those who view them, who are not necessarily a part of that culture and do not share any of its heritage. The Catalani piece does have some notions of this as well. As both depict this image of colonial takeovers at the centre of where much of these objects come from, they are still in favour of the argument that there is much good to be had. Catalani, in describing the importance of this history vs. memory dialogue, conjures up the idea that perhaps in the study of these histories, the memories from which they come from (through the objects involved in those memories) could somehow come to be a part of the story told of the people the objects belong to. Similarly, Basu argues that much of the history of Sierra Leon is of hostility and war torn backwards people, left behind in the dust of the colonial conquests of the past… But museums may change this; they can show a rich, vibrant cultural smorgasbord for Europeans to feast on. Perhaps the mere fact that much of these objects are so close (being in the museum and not a plane trip away) Sierra Leon might not seem so far afterall.  They arouse a sense of responsibility then on the part of the ‘post colonial’ patrons of these exhibits. In doing so, compassion and understanding of these diasporic communities begin to intertwine in the intellectual (and informal – as Catalani writes) discussion of the culture, hopefully breaking down the ‘THEM and US’ routine and moving towards a ‘WE’

There is much to be said about the idea of a museum in of itself… but when I read these texts, my idea on what they represent has shifted so much so that perhaps they could be a gateway into people whose objects they hold. Catalani speaks of the separation of history and memory as a written versus oral account of the past, and I agree with this only in so far as history can be written, while memories are not often carried on this way. But, I do think that perhaps history, can and has been carried on orally. Take First Nations people, (which I admit I know little about) have a rich (VERY RICH) history, which is passed on through story and hardly ever written down. Which dovetails into my questions:

1: When looking at a representation of something in a museum, take something as specific as a hunting spear from a tribe in South Africa, with what we know (or think we know) about the dramatic change colonialism has affected on the native population, do you wonder if colonialists had not taken this artefact, would we know anything about it today?

2: Part 2 of the first… does it even matter in the grand scheme of things? Or is so far past what South Africa looks like today (mostly commercialized and void of much of the ‘typical’ African (isms)) that it no longer represents its ‘native’ population. (white or black)