There was some discussion a few weeks back (here and here for example) about some mysterious "10000 artefacts" that the Iraqis annouced they would be getting back from the US after they had all been "registered in an electronic archive at Cornell University in the state of New York before they are returned". There was a lack of clarity about what was involved, though it was suspected that they were the documents concerning Iraqi Jews being conserved at the National Archives (approximately 2,700 books and “tens of thousands” of sodden documents retrieved from a ruined Baghdad basement when U.S. troops invaded Iraq a decade ago). This now turns out to be the case, and they will be returning to Iraq next year: Michael E. Ruane, "Archives readies a schoolgirl’s records and a trove of Jewish treasures for return to Iraq", The Washington Post August 13th 2013.
The trove, named the Iraqi Jewish Archive, was found by U.S. troops on May 6, 2003, in the bombed-out headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Hussein’s secret police — who had, among other things, busily gathered intelligence on Iraqi Jews. Most Jews had fled Iraq years before in the face of the violence and intimidation of the mid- to late 1900s, leaving behind the last traces of their rich 2,500-year history there, Archives officials said. With the consent of Iraqi authorities, the material was brought to the National Archives for conservation later in 2003 [...]. But the project stagnated, according to a State Department official, as Iraq descended into insurgency and sectarian bloodshed, and it was not clear who in the Iraqi government would be the contact for the project.But it is good to see that these problems have been resolved and the Iraqi Jewish Archives (IJA) items are being fully documented and the originals returned to Baghdad, to the Iraqi National Library and Archives (Director Saad Eskander).
9 comments:
"But it is good to see that ... the Iraqi Jewish Archives (IJA) items are being fully documented and the originals returned to Baghdad, to the Iraqi National Library and Archives"
Really, Paul? You are keen on promoting ethical standards. What precisely is ethical about returning stolen goods to the thief who stole them?
Shouldn't these things be returned to the people (or their heirs) they were originally stolen ("confiscated") from?
and that is the task of the Americans? Why? Who gives them that right to be arbitrator here?
I am not sure what your definition of "thief who stole them" is here. Certainly some of the items, including the ones discussed in the news item were official documents ABOUT former inhabitants of Iraq, not the personal property OF them.
I think we get into difficult territory here, take Poland for example, which itself has shifted across the map several times and populations shunted from one area to another. Where does the "stuff" belong? This question is important to the Germans expelled from Silesia and Poles from what is now Ukraine, but the stuff is part of the history BOTH of the people that used them who've now partly, mostly, all gone, but it is also part of the history of the territory where they lived (and had their homes, the landscapes within which they moved, and their graves). So the German built heritage is a fundamental part of the Silesian landscape, should it all be knocked down and replaced by "Polish-looking" buildings? What about the fittings of the churches left behind? Are you going to strip that out and ship it off leaving empty shells? Or should these old churches be kept in the state in which they were built and used, even if by an "Other" ?[I am sure they should] And so on and so on... I do not think there is a simple answer here.
How about this stuff goes back to where those families came from? Let's have the Jewish documentary heritage of multicultural small towns in Poland archived there alongside the documents recording the lives of their Polish, German and Armenian and-whatever neighbours. Why separate the Jews out for housing their documentation in some archival "ghetto", away from the rest. Let us see the towns for what they were, the part of the various communities within them, not shorn of a chunk of the evidence to fit how it now is. Surely that is the whole point of maintaining museums and archives. No?
"and that is the task of the Americans? Why? Who gives them that right to be arbitrator here?"
One word: ethics.
For whatever reason, the Americans became temporary custodians of stolen goods. They must be returned to their rightful owner(s). There is NO other ethical option.
There was indeed a mix of items. The "official documents ABOUT former inhabitants of Iraq" belong to Iraq; the "personal property" confiscated belongs to the people (or heirs) it was confiscated from. Simples!
It is indeed difficult territory. But we must bear in mind that things are foremost the property of PEOPLE rather than pieces of land. I think the best answer is to distinguish between immovable property (such as buildings, graves, etc.) and portable property. German churches must remain in Silesia but portable property belongs to the people wherever they now are. Jewish synagogues must remain in Iraq but portable property belongs to the people wherever they now are.
"Let's have the Jewish documentary heritage of multicultural small towns in Poland archived there alongside the documents recording the lives of their Polish, German and Armenian and-whatever neighbours."
Literal documents by all means and in most cases also personal possessions left behind by people who can no longer be traced. But NOT those personal possessions recently acquired in an extremely hostile environment and now curated by descendants of the oppressors in an environment that remains extremely hostile. Iraq is not Poland.
As I said, things are first and foremost the property and heritage of PEOPLE rather than pieces of land. And people move, land doesn't. We have to respect that.
Well, I am sorry, "for whatever reason" does, does it not, skip over the issue that the documents got flooded and taken out of the country because of an act of aggression by the USA on a distant sovereign state.
You might be happy with them walking into other countries and killing people and walking off with their stuff, fine - but then do not say that they have the right to then decide with whom they are going to split that stuff with.
This is the antiquity collector's argument isn't it, it's cultural property and covered by the laws, BUT "I think the laws are stupid laws and so therefore I am going to ignore them". Either the stuff comes from a state-owned archive, or it does not.
Read the 1970 Convention (art 1j, 4, 7b - both parts, 8, 11 especially, and I think in this case 12). The US was a state party to this convention at the time of the invasion.
Well, obviously you as a collector and me as a heritage activist are going to have to disagree over the degree to which individuals can claim individual possession of anything they want for whatever reason.
Paul, you're falling prey to the same fallacious reasoning you're fond of accusing others of: two wrongs do not make a right. How the Americans came into possession of the items has no bearing on how the matter should now be dealt with ethically.
I also find it a little amusing that someone who berates others for sticking to the letter of the law ("it's legal, innit?") instead of applying ethics now twists that stance around to berate me for doing the opposite. You really can't have it both ways.
Yes, it is perfectly legal to go into an English field with the owner's permission and "hoik" every last scrap of archaeological evidence from it. You argue that is legal but not ethical.
Yes, the British Museum is obliged by law to retain the Parthenon Marbles instead of returning them to Greece. You argue that is legal but not ethical.
Yes, the Americans are abiding by international law and returning the "state-owned archive" (actually material from the infamous Mukhabarat, Hussein’s secret police, which includes personal possessions forcefully stolen from private people) to Iraq. I argue that is legal but not ethical.
"Well, obviously you as a collector and me as a heritage activist are going to have to disagree over the degree to which individuals can claim individual possession of anything they want for whatever reason."
I do hope that being a "heritage activist" doesn't necessitate being a raging communist, in which state ownership must always trump individual possession. I am rather keen on preserving the cultural heritage myself (you may recall one or two posts I made in the past) but I had no idea a Marxist–Leninist mentality was requisite and I'm not quite sure I have it. Certainly, I'm not entirely convinced that people claiming items which were violently stolen from them counts as claiming "anything they want for whatever reason".
Indeed, I think we are going to have to disagree and I'll leave it at that.
(Incidentally, being a "collector" has the same ephemeral finitude as being a "heritage activist"; the position lasts only as long as the person is active. I stopped collecting years ago. ;)
Well, I'm not going to argue with you. I'm glad it is finally, after a lot of US foot-dragging probably for the reasons you cite, going back. You are not.
>How the Americans came into possession of the items has no bearing on how the matter should now be dealt with ethically.<
it does, because you seem to assume/accept that just because they have big sticks, the Americans have the unilateral right to arbitrate in a matter which concerns others. I do not accept they have that unilateral right. Period, as they would say.
Obviously if the heirs of the people who had stuff stolen, as you say, want to take it up with the post-Bush Iraqis, then that is a different matter. Their arguments should be listened to, and the Americans and the rest of us can give as much support and leverage as they like. But the stuff that was taken out in the 2003 invasion should be returned, what happens to it subsequently is a different matter.
And again I stress, we must all be grateful to the Americans for doing the conservation work and making a full digital security copy of what went back.
Thanks for the comments. Good to have a chat with a polemecist who can actually articulate a position without resorting to name calling or all the other junk-tactics we see used in these non-debates these days.
"Obviously if the heirs of the people who had stuff stolen, as you say, want to take it up with the post-Bush Iraqis, then that is a different matter. Their arguments should be listened to, and the Americans and the rest of us can give as much support and leverage as they like."
Yes, in an ideal world that is exactly what should happen. But I'm a realist.
I enjoy our chats too. And I'd much rather be a "polemecist" than a "collector". For a scary moment there, I thought you might be resorting to that old Hookerist ploy of trying to win a debate by casting people into stereotypes and pigeon-holing them.
All the best - and regards to your cat!
Oh, I'm well known for pigeon-holing people, but then there are always those rare individuals that don't fit in them David, and they are the ones to listen to.
I'll no doubt do a followup post on the Iraqi Jewish archive later.
"[T]ake it up with the post-Bush Iraqis." LOL.
Post a Comment