Believe Black women.

Last Sunday, March 7, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle sat down with Oprah Winfrey for a tell-all interview on stepping down as senior members of the royal family. In that interview, Meghan Markle named that the stress and anxiety from the defamatory press led her to suicidal ideation, but she received no mental health support from the palace. She also details the racism that she and her child, Archie, experienced directly, including that the Crown would not provide her son titles or protections and that someone in the family questioned how dark his skin would be (Vulture).

Happy Wednesday and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily. I'm still sitting with the "Harry and Meghan" interview with Oprah. Two of the most powerful Black women on Earth sat and discussed racism, oppression and mental health live on television. But you don't need to be in positions of power to experience the harm and rejection that Meghan Markle named. Today's newsletter unpacks some of this, along with links to great content to dive deeper.

This newsletter is a free resource made possible by our paying subscribers. Consider giving $7/month on Patreon. Or you can give one-time on our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza). You can also support us by joining our curated digital community. Thank you to all those that have contributed!

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Donate to the Loveland Foundation, a nonprofit organization founded by Rachel Cargle that provides therapy resources to Black women and girls (which is supported by Meghan Markle’s foundation). Black women: apply for support here.
One way to prioritize racism allegations is to de-prioritize those that gaslight or diminish those that speak out. Actively seek to use your privilege to address those like Piers Morgan who aim to discredit serious claims.
Believe Black women when they say they have been harmed.

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza (she/her)

This post references suicidal ideation. If you are in need of support, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255.

This interview only reaffirmed what became quickly apparent after Meghan Markle and Prince Harry began dating in 2016: that the tabloids, and perhaps even members of the royal family themselves, treated Markle differently because of her racial identity. There are countless examples of the disparities of headlines for Markle vs. Kate Middleton and headlines making unfair accusations based on her race, referencing her (false) “gang-scarred” upbringing and “exotic DNA.”

These only escalated after the couple announced their departure in early 2020. The tabloids blasted their departure as a “Megexit,” using a term that was already a popular hashtag online where users would post racist and sexist comments about Meghan Markle (Vanity Fair). As the couple said in their interview, they decided to move to the U.S. to escape the abuse they experienced in the U.K.

Because Meghan is Black, she experienced a particular form of misogyny: misogynoir. Coined by queer black feminist Moya Bailey, this term explains the misogyny directed towards black women where both race and gender influence the bias and discrimination that one may experience.

But we didn’t need to wait for Meghan Markle to analyze the anti-Blackness of the British monarchy. Since its start, it’s been deeply invested in the enslavement and control of Black people. By investing in English trade with West Africa, the Crown hoped to find financial independence from Parliament. Between 1690 and 1807, European enslavers brought over 6 million enslaved African people to the Americas. Half of that trafficking was protected and funded by the Crown and Parliament (Slate). Although the Crown first publicly supported anti-slavery efforts in 1838, they have still yet to address their contributions to the system or the harm they’ve created, even after the past year’s racial reckoning. We can also look to the impact of British colonial rule on the destruction and disparagement of African culture, community, and heritage, an effect that persists to this day (Quartz).

There’s a lot of criticism against Meghan Markle for participating in this system. If she knew about colonialism and anti-Blackness in the institution, why would she even marry into it, to begin with? Why didn’t she expect to deal with racism all along? And quite frankly, that’s no one’s business but hers. We need to continue to question why these systems continue to perpetuate violence instead of chastizing how marginalized folks choose to navigate through them. What do we gain from punishing the victim? What do we lose when we fail to hold our institutions accountable? Why is it up to one woman to protect herself from a legacy of harm?

We also need to emphasize the light skin privilege on display here. Meghan Markle is a very light-skinned Black woman with a Black mother and white father. Colorism is the reason why Meghan Markle was likely even able to marry Prince Harry and be considered a part of the family to begin with. She experienced this violence because she was “white enough” to be included and still “too Black” to be loved, respected, and protected. Darker-skinned Black women experience more misogynoir than their lighter-skinned peers (Change Cadet). But light-skinned women are often more privileged to have a platform to share their experiences. So as you follow stories of misogynoir, always look for what you don’t see, too. Colorism is especially insidious in British culture. Learn more in this comprehensive article by Seun Matiluko (Glamour UK).

We don’t have to wait for breaking news to find examples of racism against Black women, though. Meghan Markle bravely named the same kind of fear, guilt, and shame that many Black people have experienced at their offices or dinner parties or while buying groceries or meeting their significant other’s family. 17.1 million people tuned in to this conversation last night on CBS, but how many of us are listening when we have a front-row seat to this violence happening in real life? Her statements came as no surprise to many Black Britons who have experienced the same racism and discrimination themselves (AP News).

Many people have reflected on how damaging the interview is to the monarchy. But how much has the monarchy hurt us? And this goes beyond its legacy of colonialism and oppression. We have to recognize its complicity of normalizing and perpetuating misogynoir on a global platform through its treatment of Meghan Markle. We must recognize the harm inflicted on Meghan Markle, her son Archie, and her daughter.

And most urgently, we must recognize how it harms the Black women in our community. Listen to what we say. Believe us. Platform our voices, not those of white men committed to disparaging us (Washington Post). Ensure we have the tools we need for our well-being. And, for all of this, prioritize the safety and wellbeing of dark-skinned Black women.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The "Harry and Meghan" interview with Oprah was the first time the couple publicly addressed why they stepped down as senior members of the royal family and named the racism and harm they experienced from the tabloids and members of the royal family.
Meghan Markle is subject to misogynoir, a specific form of misogyny where race and gender both play a part.
Meghan is a light-skinned Black woman, which gives her a particular set of privileges that also fail to protect her from harm.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Nicole Cardoza 9/4/20 Nicole Cardoza 9/4/20

Tell museums to replace stolen artifacts.

It's Friday! Last week's newsletter on art generated a lot of discussion. Ebony continued her research to unpack how the art industry is reckoning with its history of colonialism. Her newsletter today unpacks why many museums are sending artifacts back to their home countries. It's a good reminder that in order to do this work, we must change our actions moving forward while acknowledging and repairing the past, as best we can.

Tomorrow is Study Hall, where we reflect on the key topics from this week and any questions from the community. Share your questions and insights by replying to this email, and I'll do my best to answer them!

As always, your contributions are so appreciated! You can give on our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe monthly on our Patreon.

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

The next time you visit a museum (even virtually), do the following:

Research how artifacts on display were brought to the museum
Look for stories of that museum participating in repatriation
Ask: How does the museum verify how objects from collectors and dealers are obtained?

Consider how your desire to support museums contributes to stolen artifacts being on display.

GET EDUCATED

By Ebony Bellamy

In 2013, the Metropolitan Museum of Art made headlines after announcing plans to return two statues to Cambodia. This announcement came after Cambodian officials were able to prove the two 10th-century Khmer statues, which were donated to the museum as separate gifts between 1987 and 1992, were smuggled out of a remote jungle temple around the time of the country’s civil war in the 1970s (New York Times).

This isn’t the first time a museum has been accused of acquiring stolen artifacts. The most notable is the British Museum, which displays various well-known artifacts from marginalized communities. The British Museum, along with museums in the UK, Germany, Austria, and the US, have bronze sculptures on display that were stolen in 1897 after British troops invaded the Kingdom of Benin, which is now southwestern Nigeria (History.com).

Nigeria has repeatedly asked the UK to return the sculptures, and in 2018 the two countries agreed to a deal that required the British Museum to send a few sculptures to Nigeria for the Royal Museum they plan to open in 2021 (History.com). However, the British Museum claims the bronze sculptures are on loan and expect Nigeria to return them.

In a 2007 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) forum, they found that between 90% to 95% of sub-Saharan cultural artifacts are housed outside Africa (NPR). Many, like the bronze sculptures from Nigeria, were taken during the colonial period and now reside in museums across Europe and the US.

The British Museum is notorious for refusing to return artifacts to their country of origin. In 2016, Australia asked for the Gwaegal shield to be repatriated, which is the process of returning something or someone to their country of origin (Merriam-Webster). The shield was stolen from Australian Aboriginal people in the late 18th century by the British (History.com). Instead of returning the shield, the British Museum let Australia borrow it with the expectation that it will be returned to them, which it was. And the list of stolen artifacts the British Museum refuses to give back is long and includes Egypt’s Rosetta Stone, Easter Island’s Hoa Hakananai’a statue, and Greece’s Parthenon marbles (History.com).

Despite us knowing the origins of these famous artifacts, it’s extremely difficult to pinpoint the provenance of most items because once they’re removed from their original home, they’re sold to private collectors who sell them to museums and claim the items were legally acquired (The Verge). The Archaeological Institute of America estimates that roughly 85 to 90 percent of classical and various other types of artifacts don’t have a documented place of origin (The Verge).

This makes it extremely difficult to determine which artifacts should be considered for repatriation because there is no specific way to decide whether or not an artifact was stolen or acquired legally. To deal with this, the UN created the 1970 convention, which was designed to end the export of stolen artifacts and allow countries to file repatriation claims and pay to have their items returned to them. But, a 2012 UN report showed that the 1970 convention had “serious weakness,” such as a lack of staff and limited international laws to support its mission (The Verge). So, the UN committee was created and it has presided over six successful restitution cases in the last 40 years (The Verge).

UNESCO and Interpol have also been helping maintain watch lists for artifacts that are reported stolen (The Verge). But, despite all their efforts, when it comes to American museums, repatriation occurs on a case-by-case basis, normally when foreign governments provide museum officials with solid evidence that an artifact was stolen (The Verge).

As a result, there’s no adequate way to keep track of how many repatriation claims have been filed over the years. Within the US alone, both the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) and the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) admitted they don’t keep records of repatriation claims and returns (The Verge). Despite the lack of records, museums are still actively returning stolen artifacts to their countries of origin.

Last year, the Metropolitan Museum of Art returned a stolen 2,100-year-old coffin to Egypt after officials discovered it was looted and smuggled from the country in 2011 (BBC News). In 2010, the Brooklyn Museum parted ways with 4,500 pre-Columbian artifacts that were stolen a century ago. They offered these pieces to the National Museum of Costa Rica for $59,000 because the Brooklyn Museum’s closets were “overstuffed with items acquired during an era when it aimed to become the biggest museum in the world” (New York Times).

In 2018, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that 26 bronze artifacts, which were “looted during General Dodd’s bloody siege on the Béhanzin palace in 1892,” will be returned to the country of Benin (artnet News). This a part of a five-year plan to “enact a permanent restitution agenda for all art taken ‘without consent’ from Africa during the colonial era” (artnet News). This means that all museums in France will have to return all or most of their African artifacts.

To implement Macron’s vision, a study was performed, which recommended: “the restitution of any objects taken by force or presumed to be acquired through inequitable conditions by the army, scientific explorers or administrators during the French colonial period in Africa, which lasted from the late 19th century until 1960” (The Guardian). Once this was released, museums across Europe raced to develop new policies on restitution and repatriation, so they wouldn’t have to forfeit artifacts they’ve had at their museums for years (The Guardian).

This response shows museums’ blatant disregard for the history they’re trying so hard to preserve. Yes, these artifacts are valuable pieces of history that should be available for everyone to see. But, they should also be accessible to the nations and countries they were stolen from. Those places deserve to have ownership of essential pieces of their heritage and culture. They didn’t ask to have their history stolen or their people enslaved and murdered.

So, we as a society, we should acknowledge our theft of artifacts and culture and work to make marginalized communities and countries feel seen and appreciated.

key takeaways

Repatriation is the process of identifying a stolen artifact and returning it to its country of origin.
It’s difficult to pinpoint the provenance of an artifact because private collectors can claim the items were legally acquired with forged documents.
The 1970 convention, UN committee, Interpol, and UNESCO help prevent the export of stolen artifacts and allow countries to file repatriation claims.
In American museums, repatriation occurs on a case-by-case basis, normally when foreign governments provide museum officials with solid evidence that an artifact was stolen.

ARCHIVES

Believe Black women.

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

KEY TAKEAWAYS

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Tell museums to replace stolen artifacts.

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

key takeaways

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT