Andrew Lee Nicole Cardoza Andrew Lee Nicole Cardoza

Stop “wokewashing.”

The CIA and Nike ads are part of a wave of campaigns lining up behind social justice initiatives. We might look at this as evidence of success. If a multinational company speaks out in defense of Black people organizing, and the U.S. foreign intelligence agency promotes diversity in career advancement, maybe it’s a sign that social justice initiatives are winning — or have already won.

Happy Wednesday and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily. Corporations pledged billions to racial equity initiatives, but most of that money hasn't been seen. But there are many other ways to feign solidarity for the sake of profit. Today's newsletter unpacks the concept of "wokewashing" and how marketing campaigns may cover more insidious actions.

This daily, free, independent newsletter is fully funded by contributions from our readers. Consider making a monthly or annual donation to join in, or give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza).

– Nicole

TAKE ACTION

  • Don’t accept progressive statements from powerful institutions at face value. Look at their present and historical practices within marginalized communities.

  • Ask yourself: is social justice language being used to help create the conditions for social justice? Or instead, is it being used as a substitute for real change?

  • Look beyond the rhetoric to support sweatshop workers and oppose American abuses abroad.

GET EDUCATED

By Andrew Lee (he/him)

This spring, one American employer posted a recruitment ad brimming with social justice sentiments narrated over swelling string music. A Latina mother talks of hee pride in having ascended the ranks of her organization. “I am a woman of color. I am a mom. I am a cisgender millennial woman who has been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. I am intersectional, but my existence is not a box-checking exercise,” she tells us. We watch her stride the halls of her workplace with a shirt reading “Mija, you are worth it” underneath a feminist icon with a raised fist.

“I am a proud first-generation Latina,” she says, “and an officer at CIA” (YouTube).

A different ad from last year opens with plain white text on a black background. “Don’t pretend there’s not a problem in America. Don’t turn your back on racism,” it reads. “Don’t accept innocent lives being taken from us.” Plaintive piano music plays.

“Don’t think you can’t be part of the change. Let’s all be part of the change.” The video, produced by Nike, ends with its iconic swoosh (YouTube).

The CIA and Nike ads are part of a wave of campaigns lining up behind social justice initiatives. We might look at this as evidence of success. If a multinational company speaks out in defense of Black people organizing, and the U.S. foreign intelligence agency promotes diversity in career advancement, maybe it’s a sign that social justice initiatives are winning — or have already won.

We should consider analyzing what’s going on beneath these inspiring words. As more and more institutions proffer social justice-inflected statements, many have been accused of “wokewashing,” or “cynically cashing in on people’s idealism and using progressive-orienting marketing campaigns to deflect questions about their own ethical records” (The Guardian). Read Nicole’s articles about the (mis)use of “woke” and pitfalls of corporate accountability statements.

We need to see if an institution’s actions match their rhetoric. Nike directs us to stand up for racial justice, even offering Colin Kaepernick a platform (Huff Post). But the company is infamous for subcontractors who pay poverty wages for work in horrifying conditions. Women making Nike sneakers in Vietnam regularly coughed up blood and fainted on the factory floor from heat and exhaustion (NY Times). An Indonesian union organizer was hospitalized after paid assailants attacked with machetes (Clean Clothes Campaign). Nike’s domestic support of racial justice is part of an effort to rehabilitate its image and increase its profits. According to one report, “the Nike brand is arguably stronger, thanks in no small part to the company being out in front in supporting Black Lives Matter” (Marketplace).

We should also doubt the CIA’s anti-oppression credentials. A decade after planning the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow the Cuban government (History), the CIA was involved with the horrific bombing of a Cuban civilian airplane that killed all 73 passengers on board (Daily Mail). They trained paramilitary death squads from Vietnam (Counterpunch) to Afghanistan (The Intercept), including one group that blew up dozens of civilians in a Lebanon car bombing (N.Y. Times). In the modern-day, the CIA runs documented torture programs out of secret prisons (N.Y. Times). As part of the ongoing “War on Terror,” CIA agents have sexually violated prisoners, threatened to rape and murder their family members, intimidated them with power drills, and dumped freezing water on them as they were shackled to walls naked (U.S. Senate). These aren’t the actions of an intersectional feminist organization. But by portraying itself as progressive, the CIA can both facilitate recruitment of new hires as well as defuse liberal outrage and opposition to their actions, some of which are truly appalling.

Groups like Nike and the CIA wouldn’t even bother manufacturing “progressive” ads had it not been for decades of struggle from the racial and immigrant justice, feminist, and labor movements. The fact that they make the effort to pander to justice-minded people shows that organizing and advocacy and struggle works. The fact that they continue perpetrating abuses proves that we need to grow these movements even more. Wokewashed hypocrisy isn’t a reason to rest on our laurels. It’s motivation to support people-powered efforts to actually create an equitable world, a world in which liberal ads can’t distract from American sweatshops, secret prisons, and torture chambers because such things no longer exist.

Key Takeaways

  • In the past year, institutions like Nike and the CIA have put out pro-racial justice ads.

  • We need to investigate the practices and policies behind lofty rhetoric. 

  • Nike and the CIA both use racial justice language for their own benefit while committing incredible harm to communities of color around the world.

RELATED ISSUES

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

Read More
Andrew Lee Nicole Cardoza Andrew Lee Nicole Cardoza

End the “lunchbox moment”.

The fun of this segment is based on disgust: we see our famous celebrities shriek, gag, and embarrass themselves confronted with revolting foods. Some of the items featured were clearly specially created to evoke just such revulsion: hot dog juice, hot sauce and olive jello, the aforementioned ant pickle.

Happy Friday, and welcome back! Food is central to many cultural traditions across the world and throughout history. How we relate to one another is often evident in how we respect each other's cuisines. Today's topic is just one of many ways we can ostracize people without thinking. Andrew shares more.

Thank you for your support! This daily, free, independent newsletter is made possible by your support. If you can, consider making a donation to support our team. You can start a monthly subscription on Patreon or our website, or give one-time using our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza).

– Nicole

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

By Andrew Lee (he/him)

Earlier this month, Kim Saira started a petition that now boasts over 40,000 signatures (change.org). Saira’s petition wants to fight anti-Asian racism through an unusual venue: by opposing one of the sections on The Late Late Show with James Corden, “Spill Your Guts or Fill Your Guts.”

​

In this recurring segment, a celebrity sits opposite Corden around a spread of apparently revolting foods. Each takes turns selecting one that their opposite will have to consume should they decline to answer an embarrassing question. Justin Bieber swigs a shrimp-and-chili-pepper smoothie in lieu of admitting which country is home to his least favorite fans (YouTube). Instead of eating bull penis, Kim Kardashian discloses that her then-husband Kanye West’s most annoying habit is falling asleep in public (YouTube). Alicia Keys chooses to take a bite of an ant-covered pickle instead of saying which city she most dislikes performing in (YouTube).

​

The fun of this segment is based on disgust: we see our famous celebrities shriek, gag, and embarrass themselves confronted with revolting foods. Some of the items featured were clearly specially created to evoke just such revulsion: hot dog juice, hot sauce and olive jello, the aforementioned ant pickle.

​

The trouble is that other dishes are just normal, non-Anglo food: cow tongue, which appears in Korean BBQ and in tacos as lengua; chicken feet, a dim sum staple; or durian, a popular Southeast Asian fruit with a strong aroma. Some of these are presented in the least appetizing way possible such as the cow tongue, which appears unseasoned and whole. Others, like Chinese century eggs, are evidently grotesque enough as they are for Corden and guests to theatrically dry heave in disgust (Inkstone News).
​

Nobody is obligated to enjoy every food and there are some that each of us might emphatically refuse to taste. But dramatizing the “grossness” of Asian foods for popular entertainment is a low blow, especially given that so many immigrants in the United States are mocked for the food they eat. It’s repugnant coming from a celebrity with a large audience and influence, since that media plays a key role in giving permission to react with disgust to “exotic” dishes.

​

“The story of being bullied in the cafeteria for one’s lunch is so ubiquitous that it’s attained a gloss of fictionality,” writes Jaya Saxena. “It’s become metonymy for the entire diaspora experience; to be a young immigrant or child of immigrants is to be bullied for your lunch, and vice versa.” In my case, I got to hear about how disgusting all of my fourth grade classmates thought it was that I brought kimbap instead of a sandwich for lunch one day. That this is a common and widely recounted experience makes Corden’s display of Asian foods for shock, disgust, and amusement especially repulsive.

​
But no food is inherently disgusting, even if it’s a new dish from an unfamiliar culture. The “lunchbox moment” – that experience that many children of color have when they're shamed by their peers for what they brought for lunch – doesn't just happen, it's learned and perpetuated through pop culture. Although it exists for many, it’s anything but universal. One Indian girl growing up in South Dakota, for instance, found her white classmates reacted to Indian food “with either genuine curiosity or ‘at worst boredom’” (Eater).

​
That’s because disgust – especially the over-the-top enactments of it that are the bread and butter of the “Spill Your Guts” segments – is something we’re taught and something we teach each other. That’s not to say if, when left to our own devices, we’d find each and every new food wonderfully appealing. But we are taught that expressing public revulsion at some things is permissible and even encouraged (immigrant lunches, cow tongues), but that being disgusted at other things is a sign you have no class or taste (French haute cuisine, your mother-in-law’s signature dish). Public disgust at things that seem foreign isn’t just a matter of taste but a political act, and not a very good one at that.

​
That’s why 40,000+ people have signed onto the Change.org petition against “Spill Your Guts.” “In the wake of the constant Asian hate crimes that have continuously been occurring, not only is this segment incredibly culturally offensive and insensitive, but it also encourages anti-Asian racism,” it reads. “So many Asian Americans are consistently bullied and mocked for their native foods, and this segment amplifies and encourages it” (Change.org). On Instagram, @intersectional.abc is making videos showing how delicious some of the show’s “gross” foods actually are (Instagram). And we can all rethink the instinct to reject or disrespect new or unexpected foods or cultural practices.

Key Takeaways

  • In “Spill Your Guts” segments, James Corden and guests have to eat “gross” foods or answer uncomfortable questions.

  • Many of these dishes are just non-Anglo foods that Corden and guests react to with horror and disgust.

  • We can choose to react to unfamiliar foods or practices with respect instead of revulsion.

RELATED ISSUES

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

Read More
Andrew Lee Nicole Cardoza Andrew Lee Nicole Cardoza

Forget what you know about MSG.

As a former waiter in an Asian restaurant, I know very well how many people claim to be sensitive to monosodium glutamate or MSG. Customers would demand that their meal be MSG-free to avoid the headaches or nausea or weakness they swore they would suffer afterward (Mayo Clinic). Often, they informed me of their MSG-adverse status in the same way they might disclose a life-threatening allergy: not as a preference but as a serious, permanent condition with dire consequences. The MSG-avoidant are real and numerous and often quite militant. I have seen them and served them noodles.

Happy Wednesday! And welcome back. The stigma surrounding MSG is part of the broader anti-Asian sentiment that's been carefully cultivated in the U.S. In order for us to dismantle it, we have to take it apart and analyze all the cogs and wheels that have kept it running. That's why I appreciate today's analysis from Andrew.

Yesterday's newsletter seemed to resonate with many of our readers. I just learned about Rachel Cargle's lecture called "Unpacking White Feminism" which is well-worth watching, along with EVERY educational resource she offers. Also, the posts I referenced were removed from Instagram after I scheduled yesterday's email. I think the content still offers much to learn from.

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

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

By Andrew Lee (he/him)

As a former waiter in an Asian restaurant, I know very well how many people claim to be sensitive to monosodium glutamate or MSG. Customers would demand that their meal be MSG-free to avoid the headaches or nausea or weakness they swore they would suffer afterward (Mayo Clinic). Often, they informed me of their MSG-adverse status in the same way they might disclose a life-threatening allergy: not as a preference but as a serious, permanent condition with dire consequences. The MSG-avoidant are real and numerous and often quite militant. I have seen them and served them noodles.

This isn’t just anecdotal evidence. According to one industry group, four out of ten Americans avoid MSG (Washington Post). That means more people stay away from MSG than caffeine, gluten, or GMOs. The cluster of symptoms afflicting the MSG-sensitive is so well-known that its name is even enshrined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: “Chinese restaurant syndrome” (CNN).

I’m generally against sweeping statements about what foods other people should or should not ingest. If you’d like to only eat a paleo diet, or Cool Ranch Doritos, or foods starting with a certain letter depending on what day it is (MSN), that’s really none of my business. 

With all that being said: if you think you suffer from “Chinese restaurant syndrome,” your actual ailment might be inadvertent racism.

MSG critics largely cite one single study contesting its safety. In this experiment, scientists injected mice with incredibly high doses of MSG soon after birth and found they grew up with health problems (Men’s Health). There are a number of common food ingredients that might be harmful when injected into baby mice, but that doesn’t mean they’re unhealthy for people to eat. Aside from the newborn mouse injection study, almost all the evidence for MSG’s terrible side effects comes from decades of personal reports. 

The problem is that “Chinese restaurant syndrome” is only ever reported after eating Chinese food. Nobody gets it from tomatoes or Campbell’s chicken noodle soup or KFC. Sufferers of “Chinese restaurant syndrome” aren’t stricken after eating mayonnaise or potato chips or cheese or beef jerky.

All of the foods just listed contain MSG (Healthline). MSG is chemically indistinguishable from glutamate (FDA), a common amino acid found in almost every living being on the planet. If you feel tired and nauseated after eating a bite of Chinese food but not after eating a few Doritos, the culprit isn’t MSG. If you spend life avoiding Asian immigrant-owned businesses but not hot dogs, we aren’t talking about a medical problem but rather a social one. 

Ever since Asian immigration to the United States started in the mid-nineteenth century, white supremacist narratives have associated Asians with disease. The founder of the New York Tribune wrote that Chinese immigrants were “uncivilized, unclean, and filthy beyond all conception” (Time). In 1906, Santa Ana, CA burned down its own Chinatown over fears that one resident had leprosy (LA Times). Last year, a man attacked a Thai woman on a train, yelling “every disease ever has come from China” (CNN). Much American coverage of the initial COVID outbreak in Wuhan centered on the “bizarre and unusual” livestock for sale in the “unsanitary” Huanan Market (FAIR), the equivalent of a Western farmers’ market. 

Asians have long been thought to be an invasive, unclean element bringing exotic diseases into the American heartland. This belief is an element in anti-Asian violence, in moral panics over MSG, and in the idea that it’s only white-owned restaurants who can sell the “clean” versions of Asian food (Gothamist). As natural diets and “clean” living gained popularity after the 1960s, it’s no surprise that an “allergy” to a scary-sounding chemical provided a convenient vehicle for a very old racist narrative. 

But at a time when both Asian restaurants and Asian people in America, in general, are under attack, it’d be nice if some non-Asian Americans forgot what they “knew” about MSG.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • MSG critics largely cite one single study contesting its safety.

  • Ever since Asian immigration to the United States started in the mid-nineteenth century, white supremacist narratives have associated Asians with disease.

  • The “Chinese restaurant syndrome" terminology could easily be applied to unhealthy foods from other cultures, but is specifically reserved for Asian cuisine.

RELATED ISSUES

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

Read More
Raye Zaragoza Nicole Cardoza Raye Zaragoza Nicole Cardoza

Support musicians of color.

Late last year, I had a conversation on the difference between tokenism and inclusion in the music industry with fellow Americana artist Lizzie No that was published on Talkhouse.com. We chatted about how festivals, conferences, concerts, and events often believe they are practicing inclusion when really they are exhibiting harmful tokenism. “We have to talk about the differences between actually including people and bringing them to a seat at the table, versus using them to promote what’s already there.” - Lizzie No.

Happy Thursday and welcome back! Our latest podcast episode seemed to truly resonate with our listeners, prompting more curiosity of what a more and inclusive music industry would look like. Raye joins us today on the newsletter side to share more about her experience. If you missed it, find the latest Anti-Racism Daily podcast episode wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

GET EDUCATED

By Raye Zaragoza (she/her)

Late last year, I had a conversation on the difference between tokenism and inclusion in the music industry with fellow Americana artist Lizzie No that was published on Talkhouse.com. We chatted about how festivals, conferences, concerts, and events often believe they are practicing inclusion when really they are exhibiting harmful tokenism. “We have to talk about the differences between actually including people and bringing them to a seat at the table, versus using them to promote what’s already there.” - Lizzie No. 

Tokenism: the practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality within a workforce. 

Inclusion: the action or state of including or of being included within a group or structure.

(dictonary.com)

As a New York City-born, Folk/Americana music artist and Brown woman of Mexican, Native American, Japanese, and Taiwanese ancestry, I have experienced firsthand the line between inclusion and tokenism. I have realized that this line is oftentimes one that I can see but one that the white folks in power can not see. To me, inclusion when you’re being invited to speak for yourself, as your whole self, and have an equal share of the mic to your white counterparts. Tokenism is when you’re being propped up by the pieces of you they want to exploit, a cosmetic cover-up for previous years of failing to bring in diversity, and one’s racial identity being centered and advertised more than the work itself. 

According to data collected by the Census Bureau in 2017, 73.6% of singers, musicians, and related workers are white, only 13% are black, and less than 1% are Indigenous. It is easy to see how this lack of representation has led to a hunger for diversity in the music industry. It’s time that we insist on effective inclusion rather than harmful tokenism within the music industry and beyond. 

While folk music is predominantly populated by white artists, it is heavily influenced by the work of Black artists. “In fact, without the spirituals sung by enslaved people, the railroad songs of the Reconstruction era, and the ragtime hits of the early twentieth century, modern folk music would not exist” (library.org). It is important to acknowledge that inclusion in the music industry, and specifically within folk music, is not about bringing underrepresented groups to the table, but about acknowledging that the table itself was inspired by the music of the underrepresented groups themselves — a credit that is long forgotten. 

In our conversation on Talkhouse.com, Lizzie elaborates on her experience of feeling tokenized throughout her music career: “When I’m on a bill, sometimes bookers will be fast and loose about labeling my music — like ‘African-American folk,’ or like ‘Black folk.’ And, sure, I’m a Black artist as a person, but I wouldn’t describe my music as Black music any more than any other Black artist’s music is Black music. So, yes, I find that to be a really good way for people to pat themselves on the back for booking me, and to let me know that they’re not as familiar with my music.”

Like Lizzie, I have experienced times where the line between inclusion and tokenism felt like it lit up like a Christmas tree in my mind. For example, there was the time I was on a panel that was questioned about whether the project encompassed indigenous issues and they pointed to me as their coverage of the “indigenous issue.”  And the time I was on a call with folks who wanted to use my music for a promotional video and they had never actually listened to my songs but were interested in my mixed racial identity. And the countless times concert promoters told me that they booked me cause they really needed a “diversity factor.” Tokenism is incredibly harmful because it leaves the artist questioning whether anyone is even listening to the work itself.

Inclusion, when done right, can be incredibly productive and can open doors for diverse folks. Folk Alliance International brought in the Indigenous Music Summit, a satellite conference led by and for Indigenous people in the folk music community (folkconference.org). Jonathan Azu started the Diversity in Music Employment database, a talent database of BIPOC and female music professionals looking for jobs in the industry (www.musically.com). The American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) created The Black Independent Music Accelerator (BIMA) to amplify independent, Black-owned music businesses (a2im.org). With inclusion, it is important that the mic is being passed not only to speak, but also to lead. I applaud these organizations and conferences for doing just that, and I hope we will continue to see more. 

As live events and national tours have been put on hold, it is time to reevaluate our inclusion practices in the music industry and take action by empowering those fighting for their voices and music to be heard. I am incredibly grateful for organizations and artists that fight for empowering and effective inclusion practices and bring more BiPoc folks into positions of power in the music industry. I hope you will consider lifting these voices and acknowledge the change that is needed. 

Raye Zaragoza (she/her) is an award-winning singer-songwriter who NPR Music called “one of the most fresh and compelling voices in folk music today." Her sophomore album Woman In Color offers an intimate exploration of coming into her own, in a country where for many, simply existing is political.

Lizzie No (she/her) is a New York based singer-songwriter, harpist and guitarist who released her second full-length album, "Vanity," on August 2, 2019. Rolling Stone Magazine called the first single, Narcissus," a "crisp alt-rock gem" and a "Song You Need To Know." The album was a "Now Hear This" pick in No Depression Magazine. Lizzie is currently working on her third studio album and creating content through her subscription service on ampeld.com/artist/lizzieno

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • It is important that the mic is being passed not only to speak, but also to lead.

  • Musicians of color deserve to be recognized as their full selves.

  • Though most recognized folk musicians are white, the genre owes its existence to the work of black artists.

RELATED ISSUES

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

Read More
Ebony Bellamy Nicole Cardoza Ebony Bellamy Nicole Cardoza

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.

RELATED ISSUES

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

Read More