Step 4: THW return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin

THW 

return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin

            During the 18^th and 19^th centuries, imperialism spreaded all over the world, when more powerful countries took over weaker countries, where they exploited natural resources, humans themselves, food, labor, and even cultural artifacts. The number of total stolen treasures from weaker countries is unreasonably huge, and the victims, now aware of the significance of the artifcacts, are claiming to restore them as soon as possible. However, the previous imperialistic countries are asserting their rights to have the treasures since they got them using their own power, which is, according to them, just and fair. Also, since the previous imperialistic countries are far more developed countries compared to those that aren’t, they are still retaining the relics in their hands. These, should be returned to their original places for the following reasons.

Tourism is one of the most important industries today, bringing huge income to areas with relics. This is because most people, especially scholars, think that the cultural, historical artifacts are worth observing and examining directly, and that they could better understand history through the research. Due to this desire towards relics, the related industries, such as hotel, guidance, and entertainment industries develop together, ultimately bringing progress into the city or the state. Today, as the world is becoming more and more globalized, more people around the world are willing to travel far away to appreciate the relics. For these reasons, the proprietorship of cultural artifacts greatly alters the economic income of countries that own the artifacts. The ownership, for sure, should be of the country from which the artifacts belong to. Otherwise, the original country is being deprived of its economic opportunity to build a successful tourist trade. 

Jikji is one the most valued artifacts in Korea that has been taken by French by force. “Jikji” is the abbreviated title of a Korean Buddhist document, whose title can be translated "Anthology of Great Buddhist Priests' Zen Teachings". Printed during the Goryeo Dynasty in 1377, it is the world's oldest extant movable metal print book, and UNESCO confirmed Jikji as the world's oldest metalloid type and included it in the Memory of the World Programme. (Jikji) It is now possessed by the National Library of France, and although Korean scholars are trying their best to restore Jikji, France is stubborn in its view, not returning it ever since they stole it. The NationalLibrary of France is earning tons of money from the Jikji, and probably tons more from the different industries related to it. Meanwhile, Koreans are trying their best to take back what is theirs. Just because imperialistic countries were strong enough to steal treasures out of weaker countries by force, it doesn’t mean that they deserve to have them permanently.

Most of the cultural artifacts that are “misplaced” are taken by imperialistic countries using force. Whether it was acquired through winning a war, or through hoarding it secretly by using spies or illegal traders, this is called “stealing,” as long as it wasn’t agreed upon by both countries. This is an “international crime,” which is why this case should go through trials for fair judgement, let the artifacts return to their original place, and let the criminal country be punished severely. As a part of this idea, UNESCO regulations also drafted “Convention on the Means ofProhibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownershipof Cultural Property 1970.” Importantly, the convention also requires states parties to seize illegally traded cultural goods and return them to their countries of origin. To date, 88 countries have ratified the treaty, but of the major art market nations – those that have prominent museums or large private collections – only France and the United States have joined. (Odor) Since this is obviously a crime, the UN should not make this as a recommendation, but make it as a punishment of a serious international crime.

It is true that the level of technology or the expertise on the historical evidences is much higher in the pre-imperialist countries, such as France, Britain and the United States. Thus, interpreting or deciphering the artifacts is much easier, academically deeper and accurate in these countries. These relics are not preserved for mere displays or for museums that want to earn some money out of them. Instead, they are preserved so that we can investigate and dig up the historical significance out of them, and use them to build up history. Thus, scholar will access much better to the treasures. This is the main reason for some people why these legacies are better off when they are in imperialist countries where they are now. One example that benefited from this was Rosetta stone, which changed the interpretation of whole bunch of history considerably. However, deciphering Rosetta stone could have been done by local historians, if only the stone was left in its own country. Furthermore, although it is true that the developed countries like Britain and France have the superior technology, it has been proven that the technological development is not always proportional to the ability of conservation of the artifacts. For example, the Elgin marbles havebecome ‘irreparable’ during their stay in Britain. The culture minister, Elisavet Papazoe, said, “The damage wrought by the museum's botched attempt to clean the 2,500-year-old treasure earlier this century had been much worse than originally thought.” (Smith)

She also said,

The findings of a Greek group of conservationists, who recently inspected the marbles, demonstrated that the very morphology of the sculptures had suffered as a result of the misguided efforts to make them whiter than white. This was the first time the marbles have ever been examined by experts outside the British Museum and unfortunately the findings have confirmed the fears that they were damaged irreparably. In some cases, excessive rubbing and polishing had not only destroyed the sculptures' historic surfaces, but deformed them to a shocking degree. (Smith)

Here, the fact that the British experts hadn’t been able to identify what was wrong before what Greeks have found out, whether it was intentional or an accident, clearly proves us that higher technology doesn’t necessarily mean better preservation. Mrs. Papazoe also admitted that “The debate around the marbles is full of myths which have been exposed with this new evidence.” She also said, “For the first time we have a scientific reality, beyond archive material, which we cannot ignore.” (Smith)

To sum up, it is only fair if the “misplaces” artifacts should be returned to their original spots, because the countries deserve the economic benefit coming out of them, the imperialstic countries literally “stole” the artifacts, and the level of technology is not always proportional to the level of conservation. It is understandable that many countries do not want to return the treasures back, for they are definitely bringing in so many dollars and they provide great historical references to many scholars, but it is right to return them as soon as they can.

Works Cited

Ana Filipa Vrdoljak , “THIS HOUSE WOULD RETURN CULTURAL PROPERTY RESIDING IN MUSEUMS TO ITS PLACE OF ORIGIN”, international debate education association, http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/culture/aboriginal-culture/house-would-return-cultural-property-residing-museums-

General Conference of the United Nations Educational, “Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970”, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 14 November 1970, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Jessica Odor, “The Return of Cultural Artifacts to Countries of Origin”, http://www.uni.edu/ihsmun/archive/sc2005/Artifacts.htm (no website name)

Helena Smith, “British damage to Elgin marbles ‘irreparable’”, the guardian, Friday 12 November 1999, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/nov/12/helenasmith

“Jikji”, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jikji

Frankenstein

< Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus >

Since I first grabbed this book in my hand, I’ve been excited to find out how the main character “creates a life.” Also, I was fascinated by the subtitle, “The Modern Prometheus.” It turns out that the main character is called Victor Prometheus, who was born into a family in Switzerland. All the family stories aside, Victor introduces himself to a life-long friend Henry Clerval, who turns out to be extremely helpful when Frankenstein gets into a very poor state after his experiment.

Before Frankenstein’s first attempt to create a living organism, he shows a great interest in alchemy and studies all the works of well known alchemists, and studies chemistry, especially alchemy like a mad person. This is kind of a foreshadowing, which probably laid the foundation for him to make a “brand-new monster.” In his school Ingolstadt, he meets his mentor, Waldman, a professor who was the only one to truly appreciate Victor’s passionate interest in alchemy. Waldman showed his works and devices he had, and even encouraged Victor to study “every branch of natural philosophy.” Personally, I blame Waldman for all the tragedies in the latter part of this book. If he hadn’t talked to Victor about how valuable his knowledge is, or encouraged Frankenstein to study more in the field, he might not have even tried taking this risk.

Here, as the subtitle indicates, Victor could be compared to Prometheus, who had an obsession for more knowledge about the world of Gods and Goddesses, and about the secrets they had. This guy Victor also has an infinite thirst to know more about life and death and eagerly tries to conquer the world of life and death. Studying night and day on this subject for a long time, he finally gains the confidence for controlling the “life.” Again, like Prometheus, this confidence gave rise to a terrible result, the creation of a troublesome monster. Prometheus also had the confidence that he would be able to save and enlighten the human beings, which led to his own tragedy.

The actual central outline of the story starts when Frankenstein devotes every bit of himself to creating a “new life” in his laboratory. He shuts off his contact from the outside world, even from his own family, throws himself to this scientific experiment, and combines the body parts collected from the morgues and cemeteries. At first, I loved the way he was engrossed in this project, so concentrated and focused as he was. If we observe how all the famous scientists throughout the history were able to create innovative inventions or develop revolutionary ideas, it seemed as if Victor was creating a life that could really be a living creature.

Here, Victor can not only be compared to Prometheus, but he can also be likened to God, who is thought to have made humans. This metaphor can be made because Victor, just like what God did, abandons his new creature without taking any responsibility for what he had done. Both Frankenstein and God try to stop the catastrophic consequences their offsprings had made, but they already had become unstoppable. 

Step 3: THW return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin

Argument 1

Cultural artifacts can better serve their values when they are placed in its original environment.

The treasures should be exhibited where they belong. Otherwise, they are merely disconnected pieces that don't serve their purpose anymore. 

Ex) Carved door

Argument 2

The imperialistic countries literally “stole” the cultural artifacts from the weaker nations, acquiring them illegally. This is a “CRIME.” The Court of International Justice strictly punishes people or nations who have committed crime, both domestic and international affairs, don’t it? Same thing!

Rudenstine, David, 'Did Elgin cheat at marbles?' Nation, Vol. 270, Issue 21, 25 May 2000.

Odor, ‘The Return of Cultural Artefacts to Countries of Origin’. 

UNESCO regulations 

UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects

Argument 3 (Counter-argument)

Original argument (one of the Points-Against)

The level of technology or the expertise on the historical evidences is much higher in the pre-imperialist countries, such as France, Britain and the United States. Thus, interpreting or deciphering the artifacts is much easier and academically deeper and accurate in these countries. These relics are not preserved for mere displays or for museums that want to earn some money out of them. Instead, they are preserved so that we can investigate and dig up the historical significant out of them, and use them to build up history. Therefore, these legacies are better off when they are in imperialist countries where they are now, since the scholars can access better to the relics. One example that benefited from this was Rosetta stone, which changed the interpretation of whole bunch of history considerably.

Counter-argument

Yes, sure. The developed countries like Britain and France have the superior technology.

The problem is, the technological development is not always proportional to the ability of conservation of the artifacts. For example, the Elgin marbles have become ‘irreparable’ during their stay in Britain. (British damage to Elgin marbles 'irreparable'.)

Step 1,2: THW return cultural property residing in museums to its place of origin

THIS HOUSE WOULD RETURN CULTURAL PROPERTY RESIDING IN MUSEUMS TO ITS PLACE OF ORIGIN

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines cultural property as“property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science”, but a broader definition would not require the state to be proactive in ‘designating’ such cultural property, something which may lead to a bias against minority cultures. So debaters may wish to work with a broader definition simply based upon the significance of an object to a particular area or people.[1] In 1970, UNESCO drafted the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.[2] The convention requires states to create national bodies to oversee the protection of cultural heritage and to establish guidelines for transferring cultural property across borders. To date, 88 countries have ratified the treaty. But of the major art market nations – those that have prominent museums or large private collections – only France and the United States have joined. The member states of UNESCO also decided to create an independent body that could oversee the return of cultural artefacts and uphold the provisions of the 1970 convention. In 1980, the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation[3] met for the first time. The committee is charged with: 

“1, seeking ways and means of facilitating bilateral negotiations for the restitution or return of cultural property to its countries of origin…

2, promoting multilateral and bilateral cooperation with a view to the restitution and return of cultural property to its countries of origin;

3. encouraging the necessary research and studies for the establishment of coherent programmes for the constitution of representative collections in countries whose cultural heritage has been dispersed;

4. fostering a public information campaign on  the real nature, scale and scope of the problem of the restitution or return of cultural property to its countries of origin”

As well as this it guides implementation of UNESCO programmes on such restitution, encourages establishment of museums and provides training for the care of cultural properties and promotes exchanges.[4]

The debate about the return of cultural property to countries of origin is most often argued in terms of the Elgin (or Parthenon) marbles, masterpieces of classical Greek sculpture removed from the Parthenon in Athens in 1801 by Lord Elgin, and sold to the British Museum in London in 1816. Greece has consistently demanded the return of these national treasures since independence in 1830, which Britain has consistently refused. The marbles are part of a wider debate about the ownership and display of cultural treasures, often acquired from the developing world by imperial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries, and now displayed in Western museums. The British Museum’s charter implies that the institution cannot legally return items from its collection: "The Trustees of The British Museum hold its collections in perpetuity by virtue of the power vested in them by The British Museum Act (1963)"[5]. Yet the debate rages: should cultural property such as the Parthenon marbles be returned to its country of origin?

I feel like copying the exact same arguments from this website. Is this the way I should feel when I'm doing this, or should I come up with something new on my own?

Those who argue that the artifacts should be returned to their original place, say that the treasures should be exhibited where they belong. Otherwise, they are merely disconnected pieces that don't serve their purpose anymore. However, the cultural and natural environments where the artifacts were placed originally have changed dramatically over the past several centuries. Therefore, we can never truly understand the context of the relics even if they were placed in its homeland. For example, the Elgin marbles of Parthenon is argued that it is merely a fragment of relics if it is detached from its original place. 

Unfortunately, the level of technology or the expertise on the historical evidences are much higher in the pre-imperialist countries, such as France, Britain and the United States. Thus, the interpretation or deciphering the artifacts are way easier and much academically deeper and accurate in these countries. These relics are not preserved for mere displays or for museums that want to earn some money out of them. Instead, they are preserved so that we can investigate and dig up the historical significant out of them, and use them to build up history. Therefore, these legacies are better off when they are in imperialist countries where they are now, instead of returning them back to their original places. One example that benefited from this was Rosetta stone, which changed the interpretation of whole bunch of history considerably.

Sources

Hitches, Christopher, The Elgin Marbles: Should They Be Returned to Greece, Google Books

Theguardian, British damage to Elgin marbles 'irreparable'

Everything is a Remix

Everything IS a remix
I became the most passionate follower of this 'Everything is a remix' theory after watching all four videos.
My first impression when I saw this video was, Wow, whoever made this video is really a smart guy!
The video-maker is supporting his theory with millions of historical and recent examples, which are so valid and very well fit into his theory.
Thomas Edison's light bulb invention, the creation of world wide web, the typewriter developments and how modern computer was evolved through decades of years.

I agree most on the part where the author claimed that almost all the music in this world are remixes of another. As a person who learns over 200 new songs a month, I certainly agree with this, and I found a LOT of remixes that nobody knows. It should take like a full week for me to make a full version of a video that contains these remixes, so I would like to introduce some of the ones that are popular in the Internet these days.

The explanations of these so-called 'copied' songs are to be written soon,

and I also found out that Pixie Lott has been 'remixing' a lot of other songs to make her own, especially in the <Turn it up (Louder)> album, which was released on October 15th, 2010. All the melodies and beats sounded familiar and I found the origins of some of her songs.

So many artists and so many songwriters and singers are being accused of 'plagiarism', but as the Everything-Is-A-Remix-theory suggests, it's not a plagiarism if the songs sound similar; rather, they're the remixes.
I personally think that these remixes are vital and inevitable, especially in songs, because there are certain kinds of melodies or beats that people feel more comfortable or accustomed to. Of course, every songwriter wants to make his song sound great, thus without any intention to copy anything, they simply remix the previous songs and make another version of great music. In this way, there is approximately 95% of chance that the song will be popular, and so the songwriter will make money out of it.
Furthermore, I think the success of a song depends on how well the music was remixed, or how much of the original idea was put into it. Of course, when remixing a song, you're not completely "remixing" it. In other words, you should put SOME new and original melodies into it. Finding a correct beat that nicely fit with the remixed song is really important, and also it's really important to change everything in a nice way that people usually don't notice that the song is a remix. If these factors are met correctly, you got a new song that will be sold to a lot of audience. Most remix songs are not on billboard top 10 chart, since most of those songs are ALMOST truly original and are very innovative in terms of melody or beats.
Simply put, even though it wasn't so back in the 18th century, when geniuses like Mozart or Chopin created completely new kinds of music, the modern music industry is a "Remix" industry. Therefore, I think in order to be a great songwriter, you should first be a great copier or a remixer.

NOT FINISHED!