Nowadays, many people hold the view that historical artifacts ought to be sent back the country whence they came from. While I acknowledge the demerits of this situation, I personally support this though for two main reasons.
On the one hand, repatriating historical items to their country of origin can be seen a change for the worse. First of all, it can be detrimental to transfer these fragile objects. It is proved that some ancient items may be fragile, requiring significant amount of effort and time. As a result, some risky movements can damage the quality of these items.For example, the picture of “Mona Lisa”, which was drawn by Leonardo da Vinci, was damaged due to carelessness and negligence. Secondly, it can be costly to transfer these object. It is clear that it may require significant amount of money for countries. Consequently, countries may lose much money, weakening their economic stability.
I,however, hold the view that merits of this trend should not be overlooked. First and foremost, returning back historical items to thier original countries may provide some economic benefit. It is evident that tourists often are interested in historical items, including pictures and unusual stones. Thus, these historical objects may attract more and more tourists. This, in turn, can result (boost) in the economic growth. Secondly, it can be useful in terms of education. By returning historical items to original place, country can reconnect with their history and cultural traditions. Consequently, every people from this country may get an opportunity to learn their culture.
In conclusion, although sending back the historical objects to the their country of origin may be disadvantageous in terms of security risk and financial side, I strongly believe that this trend can be a change for the better when it comes to economic growth and national pride or education.