It is argued that some crucial historical artifacts that are showcased in museums should be returned to the countries of origin. While repatriation plays a vital role in preserving cultural identity, I believe that this initiative should not be applied in all cases.
There are some reasons why cultural objects should be returned to their origin. To begin with, historical antiques represent traditions, heritage and history. Through having access to visit and observe these artifacts, people can understand their ancestors’ history and struggles; thereby acknowledging their responsibility and developing a strong sense of national pride. Moreover, some items that are taken unfairly through wars or colonialism. For example, numerous ceremonial daggers, tools, and artifacts of the Dong Son culture remain in international museums without permission, leading to many cultural controversies. Therefore, returning historical objects to their homeland can be considered an act of justice.
Nevertheless, not all historical antiques should be returned, especially when the countries of origin lack a developed preservation system. Some less-developed nations may not have substantial funding or expertise for conservation, leading to many objects deteriorating. Therefore, keeping them in international museums can be a better way to protect them, as these places may provide advanced preservation technology. In addition,museums can promote global education, as visitors can have the opportunity to understand and learn about different cultures. This initiative not only allows the global public to have a greater appreciation and raise awareness of a country’s history but also promotes cultural exchange.
In conclusion, while returning historical objects reinforces the authenticity and helps restore ethical value, I believe international museums can provide a better preservation system and promote higher cultural understanding.