295 Blog Post 2

At the British Museum, we learned that a majority of the artifacts on display are objects that were obtained by the British Empire through plunder. However, we were not told this by the museums none of the museum writings tell this story— not explicitly, at least. By displaying these objects without recognition of how they were obtained, Britain’s Imperialist past continues to be silently promoted by the museum.

I don’t know for a fact whether the museum ever explicitly told these story’s of imperial conquests. However, I tend to think that before counter-opinions like Nagra’s emerged, there was more pride in the British Museum’s imperialistic means of possessing. A pride which likely manifested as a sort of collective national brag. In the height of the British Empire, in fashion with the patriotism toward this power, the museum would have recognized this act of plunder. The plaques would have advertised the exhibit as a positive symptom of Imperialism. After all, in an era of imperialism, proof of the Empire’s power and greatness would only further affirm and promote patriotism on behalf of the Empire. 

But we are no longer in the height of the British Empire which stole these artifacts from the cultures which created them. Still, Britain refuses to amend her imperial past as several countries demand that what has been stolen, be returned. This includes Egypt inquiring for the museum’s prized Rosetta Stone, an artifact of Ancient Egypt. Instead, this object is employed to elevate the status of the British Museum that houses it and consequently, the nation associated with the museum.

A1 

A2

Even with these demands, I doubt these objects will soon be willingly returned. How the museum chooses to display these plundered artifacts is outwardly possessive. If the object is heavy or awkwardly large, it sits in the middle of the exhibit or hangs along a wall (Image A1 and Image A2). If the object could possibly be moved by less than three average-strength grown men, the object is displayed in glass (Image B). This glass serves two purposes. One: to preserve the object it houses. However, if preservation of the artifact is the purpose of the glass, shouldn’t all objects be housed this way? The larger objects instead sit within reach and often with little supervision to prevent attendees from touching, breathing, or coughing on these valued artifacts. In other words, only the smaller objects, by this argument, need to be preserved from being damaged. This is suggestively false because the objects are housed in a museum at all. 

B

Why are only the smaller objects glassed then? Two: to ironically prevent stolen objects from being stolen. After all, only the smaller items— items which could be picked up, then carried out— are protected by a layer of glass. The means by which the objects are displayed suggests the museum is determined to protect their ownership of these items. They are not to be shared or borrowed without permission, despite the museum self-proclaiming ownership for many of the objects. Only by refusing to return these objects, by continuing to proudly display them in this manner, the British Museum continues to have an exhibit. Therefore, the British continues to benefit— most notably through status and profit— from the ethical wrongdoings of their imperial past.

In the first stanza of “Meditations on the British Museum,” Nagra satirizes interaction between museum and attendees by mimicking the style of the museum's writings. In a hortative sentence structure, he writes: “Come bask in our show of travels abroad” (Nagra 49). The audience is the museum’s attendees who have just arrived at the museum. Nagra invites this audience to “come.” It is assumed that they accept. They are suggested to be willing in their attendance through the speaker's singular hortative, rather than active persuasion.

Specifically, he asks them to “bask,” meaning to revel, but not to study or to question. To bask, typically is the effect of a pleasing cause, such as glory, power, design. This is the purpose of a natural history museum, like the British Museum: to permit a space to “bask” in the “otherness” of unfamiliar cultures and times. The speaker is motivated by the knowledge of how these objects were obtained. Their perception of “otherness” reflecting that they were created and belong to another as he notes the 

 His audience, he understands, is unequipped with and unwilling to make this recognition. The objects Nagra guides his audience’s attention to are glassed proof of the Empire’s cruelty, the culture’s lack of empathy toward those they once conquered, but they continue to be perceived as signifiers of British greatness. 

C

Nagra wants his audience to revel “in our”— suggesting his and the audience’s participation and responsibility toward the continuation of this presentation— “show of travels abroad” (Nagra 49). Nagra employs a paraphrases, rather than explicitly calling the artifacts what they are: “plunder.” He refuses to explicitly break the illusion the museum proposes through their internal advertising, which read “collecting the world” (Image C). Nagra's use “show” suggesting the exhibits’ exploitative nature, rather than the museum’s choice word, “collection,” which is playful. Nagra’s frustrated tone seems to scream the question: why are we blind to the facts of these objects, both contextually and culturally do not belong to us? Why can we not see the truth that their language implies? While the museum seem, even after the fall of the British Empire, to silently beg: please remain blind to how we came to own these objects.

In a sense, these items are a “collection” of souvenirs from the British Empire’s “travels abroad.” However, the passive wording begs the question: why did the Empire— a political force— travel abroad? To which the answers become obvious: to colonize, to plunder, to expand the empire. If this question is missed, so is actuality of the objects displayed. 

However, Nagra does not— similar to the museum plaques— lie either about how these objects were obtained. He simply implies the truth. I find it strange that he mocks the internal advertisement by changing the approach, but continues in the tradition to not explicitly name the means of obtaining. 

However, by mimicking the museum’s style, is Nagra’s revelation missed as well? If I had not been told explicitly if the museum is plunder, would I have read between Nagra’s lines to read the truth? Why does Nagra take on the museum’s passive style in favor of explicitly saying, LOOK AT ALL THIS PLUNDER, ISN’T IT WRONG THAT WE KEEP IT?