Am I alone in thinking that the sub-text of the rather fabulous BBC/British Museum radio series / media extravaganza "History of the World in 100 Objects" is actually the text?
I haven’t seen a single comment on its lightly argued position that the loot in the BM should stay there, and I’m feeling pretty lonely.
It’s a terrific programme. Fifteen minutes of un-missable delight every week-day, as one selected object from the past, and its historical implications, are described by the highly-regarded Director of the British Museum, the brilliant, unassuming and engaging, if hubristic, Dr. Neil MacGregor.
Go to the websites, both of them, (BBC and British Museum) see the objects, get the podcasts, upload your own historical object, be a part of emerging intellectual history. You can listen to the story while looking at the object, brush-stoke close if you want to. New technologies are yielding new insights from old objects, and the latest multi-media communications bring it all alive.
But there's a bit of a whiff in the air ....
For starters, under all this wonderfulness, its pretty weird, isn’t it, that all the objects in a programme about world history are in one place: London.
For starters, under all this wonderfulness, its pretty weird, isn’t it, that all the objects in a programme about world history are in one place: London.
I mean, seriously, WTF??
And they’re not only in one place: they’re in one institution – the British Museum.
And we all know how all this stuff got there, some of it paid for, some of it not. That world historical process we call colonialism. Which denied people their own history.
It's almost too obvious to mention, but on the other hand, should we be dazzled into overlooking it? That's the point.
It's almost too obvious to mention, but on the other hand, should we be dazzled into overlooking it? That's the point.
So even while I’m hearing all this terrific stuff about how multi-faceted history is, and how connected we all are, I can’t help remembering that much of the evidence got there through that kind of connectedness we call exploitation.
And precisely because they are there, Dr. MacGregor feels that: "a world narrative can only be told in a museum like this". Only? (emphasis mine) If we want to have "world" history, it seems, we have to overlook the rather mixed provenance of the objects: the other history embedded in them.
Here's how the argument goes. We can understand world history more easily if, for example , we check out theElgin Parthenon Marbles and then pop down the corridor and see the Persian sculptures, because Greece and Persia were at war at the time, and we can make a comparison.
This is true, very true. And its certainly a very nice thing to be able to do, if you can, if you happen to be in London, and so much easier for the scholers than having to schlep around all over the place. But its not the only way to get a handle on world history. It's not necessary to an understanding of world history.
And how much better if we could look out from their beautiful new museum in Athens and see their original location in the Parthenon itself, and then stroll over and make a comparison with the footworn stones that were there when the marbles were first carved, and sit on the warm stones in the agora and think about the kind of society that produced both the marbles and democracy, right there where you are sitting. Feel the heat. Hear the cicadas, that were also here when the marbles were. Get a real sense of the place of these marbles in history.
And precisely because they are there, Dr. MacGregor feels that: "a world narrative can only be told in a museum like this". Only? (emphasis mine) If we want to have "world" history, it seems, we have to overlook the rather mixed provenance of the objects: the other history embedded in them.
Here's how the argument goes. We can understand world history more easily if, for example , we check out the
This is true, very true. And its certainly a very nice thing to be able to do, if you can, if you happen to be in London, and so much easier for the scholers than having to schlep around all over the place. But its not the only way to get a handle on world history. It's not necessary to an understanding of world history.
And how much better if we could look out from their beautiful new museum in Athens and see their original location in the Parthenon itself, and then stroll over and make a comparison with the footworn stones that were there when the marbles were first carved, and sit on the warm stones in the agora and think about the kind of society that produced both the marbles and democracy, right there where you are sitting. Feel the heat. Hear the cicadas, that were also here when the marbles were. Get a real sense of the place of these marbles in history.
Through all the multi-media glitz of this glamorous tour de force, the deep message is that it’s OK for us to have hijacked their history because (only) we can tell it as world history, and tell it better.
Bejabers, that’s hubris, if ever I heard it !!
Bejabers, that’s hubris, if ever I heard it !!
Me, I think its time for the formerly colonized peoples to have their own damn things back, if they want them, and tell their own history.
Then some-one could make a block-buster series about that, and how the objects transformed knowledge generation in their own communities. Now that would really be world knowledge.
Love it.
And in case we forget, it’s not only the objects from places like Greece and Egypt that matter, where their governments have made a high-profile effort to get them back.
My friend Leone Ross, the brilliant Jamiacan/British novelist and short story writer, has reminded me that there are plenty of people who bitterly wish they could take back their things when they go into museums, even if their governments havn't made a big show about it, and I can well understand the sentiment.
Then some-one could make a block-buster series about that, and how the objects transformed knowledge generation in their own communities. Now that would really be world knowledge.
That would be a great sequel.
Downloaded from Flickr under Creative Commons.
Rosetta Stone
And in case we forget, it’s not only the objects from places like Greece and Egypt that matter, where their governments have made a high-profile effort to get them back.
My friend Leone Ross, the brilliant Jamiacan/British novelist and short story writer, has reminded me that there are plenty of people who bitterly wish they could take back their things when they go into museums, even if their governments havn't made a big show about it, and I can well understand the sentiment.
That makes this particular representation of “world” history seem pretty much a masquerade, doesn’t it? Pretty darn hollow?
Here’s what I think should happen: there should be a world network of, say, 100 museums, big and small (especially small), that are collectively, jointly, presenting a holistic view of world history, with the originals where they belong, and copies elsewhere. We have the technology to make perfect copies now, and all the networking bells and whistles to bring it alive.
That would be world history. That would be context. I think the public would be delighted, and everyone's bottom lines would benefit. Terrific idea!
That would be world history. That would be context. I think the public would be delighted, and everyone's bottom lines would benefit. Terrific idea!
I'm hoping that someone more in the loop on these things than me can tell me its already in the works.
That’s the way to go. It would be hard to arrange, but would make a cosmic world-class multi-media blockbuster.
Love it.
Mooretown Museum, Jamaica. By Wayne Gunne
Dedicated to Nanny, a Maroon Heroin, who defended her people right here in this valley.
Downloaded from Flickr under Creative Commons License
