as a museology student I have to say the PR damage that the British Museum, the Louvre and maybe a couple other BIG BAD museums have done to the entire field of museology gets extremely frustrating at times.
Whenever I see the take "if museums returned all of the stolen artifacts, all museums would be empty" my blood reaches it's boiling point because NO, YOU'RE GENERALIZING ALL MUSEUMS TO BE AS BAD AS THE BRITISH MUSEUM AND DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU*RE TALKING ABOUT
No, I'm not saying this take doesn't ably to any museums in the world, there are museums which would go pretty empty if they returned all of their collections to their places of origin. But these type of museums kinda miss the mark on what is the modern idea of a museum and I will get to that soon.
Yes, many museums (and let's be frank here, especially if not specifically the European ones) have a colonialist history and therefore have artifacts that have been taken away from their country/culture of origin and there is layers of ethical problems in museums having these items and putting them on display. Now to state the obvious: This is of course wrong and I hope this issue will be corrected in the near future.
But people pretend like this is all museums do, when it's the opposite.
Nowadays, at least in my country, the philosophy in the field is that museums are supposed to perceive the history and traditions of their LOCAL cultures. So no, museums will not be empty, they just need to be (and many museums already are) filled with LOCAL artifacts and history. The British museum could, ya now, specialize in British history (and not just from the perspective of the British empire) and the museums in Egypt can display all the stuff about ancient Egypt instead!
When we start thinking of museums this way, it becomes more clear why we still need museums and what their actual purpose in our society is.




















