In recent years, many historical artifacts have been dispersed around the world. There is a belief that they should be returned to their origins. Although I understand the reasons behind this concept, I disagree with the idea of returning historical objects since it could benefit more for them, especially in the process of preservation and minimizing unessential effort.
On the one hand, it is reasonable why people have the concept of returning things to their original places. To begin with, there is an undeniable rule of returning deprived things to their old owners, especially in the field of moral. Specifically, most of artifacts in the museum around the world come from hundred years of stealing and depriving from colonies by empires. These actions pointed out a fact that the countries whose historical objects have been stolen could be ethically satisfied if the objects are returned. In the long run, this method might strengthen the international friendship, healing the wounds from wars. Ultimately, this solution could also be a contributor in boosting world peace. Moreover, returning historical relics also play a crucial role in preserving cultures or traditions. For instances, in Vietnam, there are a lot of ethic minorities whose origins or traditions are unknown because of their ancestral relics have been taken by the colonial empires. If their cultural artifacts are returned, there cultures could be conserved.
On the other hand, I still believe that these artifacts could take more advantages when being kept in their museums. Initially, keeping those relics in the museum might be the safest and simplest way to keep them to stand with the test of time without making any new disputes or financial burdens. To be more particular, some types of historical objects have complicated origins or they could even belong to an obliterated civilization. As a result, it would require numerous financial effort or debates in order to clarify their origins. In this way, keeping things on their current place might be the safest method to alleviate the unnecessary effort in the future. Furthermore, preserving artifacts in their current places might boost their lifespan. To illustrate this, many developed countries such as France, the UK, or the USA may have better skills or technologies which are important to conserve relics than developing countries. Therefore, the artifacts might receive better protection procedures, increasing their own lifespan.
In conclusion, although returning historical objects might satisfy the moral concern or the demand of preserving traditions, I still think the advantages of keeping them in the museum are more significant and efficient for the artifacts. It is necessary to choose a solution flexibly depending on the circumstances.