Description
The past decade has seen a broader ‘reckoning with the past’ as European societies are starting to grapple with the often violent and deceitful circumstances through which now-treasured pieces of art and heritage made their way from their colonies to the local museums in the metropole. Museum administrators have long argued that their ethnographic museums’ objective is to educate the populace about cultures around the world. Others advocate for restitution, arguing that rather than an education purpose, these museums perpetuate colonial practices and appropriation. Caught between these arguments, former imperial states have adopted different approaches to the restitution of colonial-looted art. The analysis uses a comparative case study approach, structured focused comparison, and qualitative data. On the one hand, both Belgium and the United Kingdom (UK) have extensive colonial art in their national museums. But while Belgium has made inroads into provenance research and has declared art restitution a national objective, the UK has long refused art restitution. How can we explain these differing approaches, while both states are liberal European democracies subject to similar international expectations and norms? Using primary data from newspaper articles and interviews with museum administrators, civil society groups, and policymakers in both countries, the paper charts and explains the contrasting approaches of Belgium and the UK to demands for restitution from source communities abroad and from domestic groups. After discussing the ways in which these states have agreed to and/or refused to return objects, the paper explains the causes influencing states’ willingness to return, including the extent to which a country has started to confront its own colonial history. The paper contributes to emerging research on museums as sites of International Relations and transitional justice in established democracies.
