Some individuals are of the opinion that the repatriation of objects that hold significant historical value should be done. Personally, I partly agree with the suggestion based on some reasons that are explained in this essay.
On the one hand, there are some reasons that explain why returning objects with historical significance back to the country of origin is beneficial and should be done. Although some historical objects might have been traded fairly in the past, a lot of them ended up in another nation due to unethical practices, such as colonial plunder. As a result, the repatriation of these historically significant objects can rectify historical wrongdoings, acting as a form of restorative justice.
On the other hand, returning historical objects to the origin nation can still have some drawbacks. It is true that many significantly important objects are being protected and conserved in very secured environments, which cost a lot of money and require specific expertise. As a result, many origin nations may not have these capabilities to ensure the best conditions for historical objects. Thus, repatriation may eventually damage the very history it aims to safeguard.
In conclusion, although there are mixed opinions on determining whether historical objects should be returned to the country of origin, I believe that most of them bringing back the historical artefacts not only boost the relationship between states but also brings happiness in the society as many sentiments and culture values are attached to it. Historical maintenance with no change and the concern of unity are what truly matter in the view of respect.