Tag Archive | Germany

Africa’s Auschwitz: The Concentration Camp the West Erased from History*

Africa’s Auschwitz: The Concentration Camp the West Erased from History*

 

By Johnny Liberty

 

 

Perhaps no atrocity has been more extensively covered than the Holocaust carried out by the Third Reich in Germany. Yet few Americans are aware that there was a holocaust committed by the Second Reich 40 years prior.

 

While Adolf Hitler is a household name, synonymous with evil, his predecessor, Kaiser Wilhelm II, is far less recognizable — although many of his crimes were just as bad, if not worse, than Hitler’s.

Wilhelm II was crowned in 1888 and launched a “New Course” in German foreign relations. His policies ultimately resulted in Germany’s involvement and eventual defeat in World War I. Despite his notable involvement in World War I, little else is taught about Wilhelm’s reign, in American schools.

 

The Beginning of the 1st German Holocaust:

Germany’s African reign of terror began in 1883, when they raised their flag in South West Africa, heralding the first conquest of the Second Reich’s African empire. Wilhelm II later used the land (now the country of Namibia) as a testing ground for his Lebensraum policy.

Wilhelm II’s Lebensraum, or “living space,” policy was advocated by 19th-century German geographer Friedrich Ratzel, who believed that a race’s survival was dependent on migration. Wilhelm II used this theory to advance a policy with the goal of creating a “New Germany” on African Soil.

The disastrous consequences of this policy led to the suffering of tens of thousands of indigenous African people. Similar to the Jew’s treatment during World War II, the native Herero and Nama people were labeled an “Inferior race” and watched as their human rights were repeatedly violated.

After two decades of mistreatment, the Herero people revolted. In 1904, Germany responded by dispatching 14,000 Soldiers to quell the insurgent colony. After the brutal campaign to defeat the Herero ended, German Lieutenant-General Lothar von Trotha announced a new disturbing policy, saying,

“I believe that the nation [the Herero] as such should be annihilated. Only following this cleansing can something new emerge, which will remain.”

Africa’s Auschwitz: Death Island, the ‘Original’ German Concentration Camp

“Death Island,” also known as Shark Island, served as an ideal location for a prison camp due to its low possibility of escape. General Trotha’s troops transported the defeated Herero and Nama people to the island and several other concentration camps within the German colony. Prisoners were transported in cattle cars and served as slave labour for the new colony’s railway system, along with a number of other construction and demolition projects.

Labor conditions on the island were extremely dangerous, resulting in a high number of fatalities. One German Technician noted that his 1,600-slave workforce had decreased to only 30-40 available labourers. By late 1906, at least seven slaves were dying daily due to the grisly working conditions.

Food and provisions on the island were also extremely scarce, as witnesses recalled, “prisoners fought like wild animals and killed each other to secure a share.” Conditions on the island continued to deteriorate and prisoners starved to death or committed suicide to escape the nightmarish conditions. Eventually, German soldiers began referring to it as a “Death Camp”.

One of the first civilians to visit the island briefly described the horrific scene he saw:

“A woman, who was so weak from illness that she could not stand, crawled to some of the other prisoners to beg for water. The overseer fired five shots at her. Two shots hit her: one in the thigh, the other smashing her forearm…in the night she died.”

 

During their imprisonment, captives were frequently whipped, forced into unsanitary living conditions where diseases such as typhoid rapidly spread, and received virtually no medical care. Herero women were photographed being raped and the images were sent back to Germany as “pornographic postcards.”

German scientists also used the island and its prisoners to conduct medical experiments. Shark Island camp physician, Dr. Bofinger injected prisoners with a toxic cocktail of arsenic and opium in attempts to determine if scurvy was a contagious disease.

As bodies continued to pile up, researchers began to perform autopsies on the dead to conduct further experiments. According to German medical statistics, 778 autopsies were conducted in just one year.

After they concluded their experiments, the Germans forced Herero women to boil the heads of their own people and clean them, so they could be sent back to Germany for further research. In all, Over 3,000 skulls of Herero people were sent to German Universities, which they used in an attempt to prove the similarity between the Herero people and apes.

The human cost of Germany’s African Holocaust.

In 1907, German officials finally relented to domestic and international pressure, and shut down “Death Island.” While there is no ‘official’ death toll of the prisoners held on Death Island, the German Imperial Colonial Office estimates 7,682 Herero and 2,000 Nama people died in colonial concentration camps in South West Africa. Historians estimate that, of these deaths, as many as 4,000 may have occurred at “Death Island.”

The consequences of German colonialization in Namibia are staggering. It is estimated that, in a matter of decades, the Herero population was reduced from 100,000 to less than 15,000, and the Nama population was cut in half.

A report released by the United Nations in 1985 listed the German holocaust in Africa as the first genocide of the 20th century.

While Germany’s outright murder of Africans in Namibia temporarily ceased, as any student of history can tell you, this would not be the last attempted genocide by a German ruler. In fact, many people would say Wilhelm II ‘perfected’ the development of concentration camps, a model later employed by Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich.

 

 

Source*

Related Topics:

At the World Economic Forum-Africa Germany Pitched a Dubious New G20 Corporate Strategy*

Namibian Indigenous Groups Sue Germany for Genocide*

Germany’s Legacy of Genocide in Namibia*

Stop E.U. from Hijacking Africa’s Clean Energy Future*

Europe and U.S. Dodging Demands for Slavery Reparations*

Sorry European racial “purists,” it turns out your ancestors were African and Middle Eastern*

Why Is Rosa Parks’ Former Detroit Home Being Shipped to Germany?*

‘Mein Kampf’ Now Part of Germany’s School Curriculum*

130,000 Refugees Vanished after Being Registered in Germany*

Somali Man Takes Legal Action against US, Germany Over Father’s Drone Killing*

Germany, where’s the Reparation for Greece?*

NWO Germany and France Agree to Draw up Roadmap on Developing E.U.*

NWO Germany and France Agree to Draw up Roadmap on Developing E.U.*

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel address a news conference at the Chancellery in Berlin. | Photo: Reuters

 

Macron said the possibility of change to E.U. treaties was “not taboo” and that he wanted to see better protection for Europe’s workers.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she and France’s new president, Emmanuel Macron, agreed on Monday to develop a medium-term roadmap on how to deepen European Union integration and make the euro zone more resilient against crises.

“Germany will only do well in the long-term if Europe does well and Europe will only do well if there is a strong France,” Merkel told a joint news conference with Macron, adding their governments would hold a meeting on key issues in July.

“I am happy that we can work together on a common roadmap for the European Union and the Euro Zone,” he said. “In the past, the subject of treaty change was a French taboo. It will no longer be the case.”

“There are several areas in which we can cooperate in the short term,” he added “Common asylum policy, posted workers and bilateral trade. All these will have an impact on our citizens. We need more pragmatism, less bureaucracy and a Europe that protects our citizens.”

Merkel said that, from Germany’s viewpoint, it would be possible to change E.U. treaties, adding:

“I would be ready to do this, but first we will work on what we want to reform.”

Source*

Related Topics:

Macron Dumps Parliamentary Candidate after Israel Lobby Pressure*

French Presidential Election 2017: Nothing Succeeds Like Success. Macron “Selected”. Billionaires and Bankers Rejoice*

German domination of Europe: Marine Le Pen Savages Merkel, to Her Face in E.U. Parliament

CONFIRMED: ANTI-GERMAN PARASITE ANGELA MERKEL IS A JEW!

Merkel Tells Cameron Support E.U. Military in exchange for EU negotiation Talks*

At the World Economic Forum-Africa Germany Pitched a Dubious New G20 Corporate Strategy*

E.U. Founders to Form Federal Union of European States*

The United States of Europe!

At the World Economic Forum-Africa Germany Pitched a Dubious New G20 Corporate Strategy*

At the World Economic Forum-Africa Germany Pitched a Dubious New G20 Corporate Strategy*

By Patrick Bond

Last week’s World Economic Forum (WEF)-Africa conference in Durban hosted some of the world’s most controversial politicians: not just Jacob Zuma and his finance minister Malusi Gigaba plus regional dictators Robert Mugabe, Yoweri Museveni, King Mswati and Edgar Lungu, but also the most powerful man in Europe, the notoriously-corrupt neoliberal German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble.

At a public lecture last Thursday hosted by the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Schäuble undiplomatically threatened Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May, in the midst of her election campaign: “The [Brexit] negotiations will become terribly difficult for the U.K. They will see it.”

The next day at the WEF-Africa summit, Schäuble sold his plan for reviving multinational corporate investment in Africa. It is a priority, he said, because “In Europe, we have come to understand that Africa represents one of the most important issues for the growth and stability of the global economy.”

Africa as an ‘issue’ for global economic ‘growth’ – managed by imperialist elites – dates to an earlier Berlin project: the infamous “Scramble for Africa” in 1884-85. The continent’s dysfunctional borders were drawn then, with nary an African in sight, in order to facilitate property rights for colonial extractive industries, all the better to ensure infrastructure investment. Roads, railways, bridges and ports needed to withdraw resources have been cemented into place ever since, and now require refurbishing and expansion.

In addition to imperialist aspirations, another explanation arises: Germany’s national election is in September. Schäuble’s boss Angela Merkel needs a rhetorical device to explain to voters how the million African refugees who entered Germany over the last dozen years can be kept at bay in future. Hence the ‘Compact’ with African elites.

Schäuble was speaking on behalf of a G20 bloc that will hold its annual meeting in Hamburg in two months’ time. Amongst the world’s largest economies plus multilateral financial institutions, South Africa – with only the 3rd largest African economy and sixth most populous society – represents a continent glaringly absent from view.

The ‘C20’ group of civil society critics (within which I find myself occasionally) has expressed concern not only about Schäuble’s top-down process, but about “higher costs for the citizens, worse service, secrecy, loss of democratic influence and financial risks for the public… … and the multinational corporations involved demand that their profits be repatriated in hard currency – even though the typical services contract entails local-currency expenditures and revenues – and that often raises African foreign debt levels, which are now at all-time highs again in many countries.”

In contrast to Berlin, Donald Trump’s Washington regime has proposed cutting the USAID budget dramatically and diverting$54 billion in state funding to the military. But while once preaching isolationism, Trump has already expanded hectic albeit low-profile “Africa Command” interventions from the Maghreb across the Sahel to the Horn, according to researcher Nick Turse who last week analysed newly-declassified Pentagon data.

On June 12-13, more Compact details will be shared with G20 finance ministers at a Berlin meeting reportedly to be co-chaired by Schäuble and Gigaba. In spite of the latter’s occasional leftist rhetoric and widespread praise for his WEF-Africa diplomacy, Gigaba’s record of white-elephant infrastructure promotion when he was State Enterprises minister suggests how prone Pretoria remains to offering massive public subsidies to construction and mining corporations. That tendency overlaps precisely with Schäuble’s aims.

In addition to South Africa, five countries have initially signed up to the Compact with Africa – Côte d’Ivoire, Morocco, Rwanda,Senegal and Tunisia – with many more anticipated to join, so as to maintain aid and political favour with the European Union.

Schäuble’s Compact was released in March in the German resort of Baden-Baden without substantive African input (in contrast to Tony Blair’s 2004-05 Commission for Africa which coopted a comprador elite including Finance Minister Trevor Manuel). Schäuble  not only sidelined the more generous ‘Marshall Plan’ strategy advanced by Merkel’s development ministry, he also insisted that African governments provide more public subsidies – and take on much more risk – for ‘Public Private Partnership’ infrastructure. This typically amount to profits, pilfering and – for consumers of commercialised infrastructure – pain.

In his new autobiography and a Guardian article last week, former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis described Schäuble as a hypocritical financial dictator who privately confessed that his ongoing squeeze of the Syriza government and Greek people – on behalf of the Euro – should really have been rejected by Athens. The very day Schäuble spoke in Durban, he was also busy imposing more austerity on Greece and rejecting a previously promised bail-out.

Varoufakis regrets trusting Europe’s “Deep Establishment” in 2015, and indeed he should have known better. Fifteen years earlier Schäuble had been expelled as leader of the Conservative Party for accepting and then publicly denying a cash bribe – the equivalent of $60 000 – from arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber (whose generosity also wrecked the once-invincible Helmut Kohl’s reputation.) A comeback thanks to Angela Merkel’s generosity gave Schäuble first the German Home Affairs and then Finance portfolios.

Likewise, IMF managing director Christine Lagarde is a close Schäuble collaborator and endorser of the Compact with Africa. Less than six months ago, she too was convicted in French courts for a €403 million payout to a major conservative party contributor, Adidas owner Bernard Tapie, when she was finance minister. Her comeback was far faster than Schäuble’s: she continues in her present job, even gaining a re-endorsement on the day of her Paris conviction by IMF directors including those representing the Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa bloc.

Meanwhile African infrastructure has failed to attract anywhere near the investment in the manner envisaged in the African Development Bank 2010 Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa and the wildly overoptimistic 2012 Southern Africa Development Community regional master plan.

But this not only a function of weak local systems – including widespread corruption in Africa’s construction sector – but another factor for which Schäuble, Lagarde and other elite financial managers are partly responsible: an utterly unreformed, chaotic world economic system.  Africa faced commodity price hikes of 380% from 2002-11 and then crashes by more than 50% in 2014-15, to unprofitable levels. And no Compact with Africa aiming to incentivise multinational corporate investment merely with state supply-side subsidies can reverse those inherent crisis conditions within global capitalism.
Source*

Related Topics:

Declaration of the South African Federation of Trade Unions*

World Bank Funds some of Africa’s most Notorious Land Grabs*

Leaked Trump Presidential Memo Would Free U.S. Companies to Buy Conflict Minerals from Central African Warlords*

Apartheid 2017 Still Kicking in S. Africa *

Should a Country Like France Be Indicting African Leaders?

Netanyahu Boasts of Israel’s War on Africans*

BP, Trafigura and Vitol Export Dirty Oil to Africa to Kill People*

French Draft Resolution on Syria Reflects its Longing for its Colonial History in Africa*

U.S. Military is Building a $100mn Drone Base in Africa*

French Terrorists Dispatched to Sub-Saharan Africa*

E.U. Bullies its Way through an Reciprocal Trade Access in Africa*

Hiding Africa’s Looted Funds and the Silence of Western Media*

ICA Finally Admits World Map is a Propaganda Tool for Power, Western Cartographers Deliberately Shrunk Africa*

Rothschild Billion Dollar Money Laundering Plot in Africa*

“U.S. Destroyed Libya to re-colonize Africa”*

Offshore Firm Helped Billionaires Plunder Africa*

New Colonial Carve-up of Africa? British firms vying for £1trn Natural Resources*

The Case for Reparations to Africa: Britain Apology is Cheap*

Embedding Transnational Agribusiness and GMO’s into African Agriculture*

Vaccine Producer Merck’s President Led Secret Biowarfare Program, Influencing Experiments on Americans*

Vaccine Producer Merck’s President Led Secret Biowarfare Program, Influencing Experiments on Americans*

By Cassius Methyl

Merck & Co. is the world’s largest vaccine manufacturing corporation, and is one of the largest pharma companies in the world. They created such things as the MMR vaccine, and the HPV vaccine Gardasil.

As a corporation that has affected the lives of almost everyone around us in the Western world, with most people receiving their vaccinations that are known to do damage, we should know their history.

In this article, we will examine Merck’s connection to biological warfare, and the implications of that connection.

Merck & Co. is not to be confused with the German “Merck KGaA,” but they both originate from the original German Merck.

Merck was founded in 1668, in Germany.

By 1887, a U.S. division of Merck called Merck & Co. was set up in New York by George Merck. George Merck moved to NY in 1891.

In April 1917, as the U.S. entered the Great War (WWI), the government announced the seizure of corporations affiliated with Germany.

Merck & Co. was seized, but George Merck and partners founded a “McKenna Corporation” to bid on Merck as it was put up for auction, and they managed to buy Merck back in 1919, fully separating from the other Merck in Germany (as far as we know).

From that point, Merck made efforts to stay boldly on the side of the American war effort, and perhaps that influenced their involvement with the US’ biological warfare program during the peak of World War II.

In 1925, the same year Nazi chemical monopoly IG Farben was created, George Merck passed his company onto his son, George W. Merck.

George W. Merck grew up in a privileged position, using the workshop of Thomas Edison as a child and inheriting his position as the president of the company.

He would become Merck’s president for 25 years, all throughout World War II: and he was given a central leadership position in the U.S.’ biological warfare program during the same years he led Merck, retiring from the company years after his alleged retirement from biowarfare.

It was George W. Merck who led biological warfare work as the head of the War Research Service, the department in charge of Ft. Detrick, while still being president of Merck. According to Wikipedia:

“During World War II, he led the War Research Service, which initiated the U.S. biological weapons program with Frank Olson.”

According to MIT Press:

“By midsummer, three candidates had rejected an offer to head the new group: economist Walter W. Stewart, who chaired the Rockefeller Foundation, geographer Isaiah Bowman, president of Johns Hopkins University, and economist Edmund Ezra Day, president of Cornell University. Finally, in August, chemist George W. Merck, president of the pharmaceutical firm Merck & Co., accepted the position.

The innocuously named War Research Service (WRS) started out in mid-1942 with an initial allocation of $200,000. Wide contacts with major biologists and physicians enabled the eight member directorate to initiate secret work in about 28 American universities, including Harvard University, Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Northwestern University, Ohio State University, the University of Notre Dame, the University of Wisconsin, Stanford University, and the University of California. “

To read George W. Merck’s report to the Secretary of War in 1945, click here.

This history perfectly illustrates what “the system” is, and how it extends into all the major universities.

He was later given several awards, and was put on the cover of the August 18, 1952 edition of Time Magazine, while the public was unaware he was ever involved with biological warfare, let alone his setting the foundation for experiments on Americans.

Ft. Detrick is one of the most well known biological warfare centers in US history: it’s the place where the plan to spray bacteria over San Francisco in the 1950’s and 60’s under Operation Sea Spray was conceived, shortly after Merck left. After Merck’s departure from the War Research Service, Ft. Detrick became a central factor in experiments on US citizens.

It was the place where paperclipped Nazi scientist Kurt Blome advised biological warfare experts on how to experiment on US citizens. Blome had previously experimented on his victims with Bubonic Plague.

It was where Frank Olson worked, the man who was almost certainly assassinated for starting to question the morality of his work with biowarfare, and with MK Ultra. According to Center for Research on Globalization:

“On 28 November 1953, at 2 am, a man crashed through a closed window and fell to his death from the 10th floor of the Statler Hotel in New York City. He was identified as Frank Olson, a bacteriologist with the US Army Research Center at Fort Detrick, Maryland. He had fallen from a room he shared with another scientist, Robert Lashbrook. It was ruled a suicide.

Twenty-two years later, in 1975, William Colby, then CIA director, declassified documents that changed the complexion of the case. It was revealed that Olson had actually been an undercover CIA operative at Fort Detrick, and that one week prior to his death, he had been drinking Cointreau at a high-level meeting with scientists at Deep Creek Lodge in rural Maryland. The Cointreau was laced with a large dose of LSD administered by his CIA boss, Sidney Gottlieb. He was then sent to New York with Lashbrook, also with the CIA, to see a psychiatrist because the LSD had induced a psychosis.

It was also revealed that Olson had been part of the top secret CIA program that was known as Project MK-ULTRA, exploring the use of chemicals and drugs for purposes of mind control, and bacteriological agents for covert assassination. Olson had been working on ways to deliver anthrax in aerosol form, for use as a weapon. New evidence that came to light, through the persistent efforts of Olson’s son Eric, made the suicide ruling highly suspect.”

Fort Detrick was a secret centre of plans to poison and destroy what this compartmentalized power structure said was “the enemy.” To understand what other enemy they may have had in mind, we need to understand the academic culture of that era.

With the persistent obsession with eugenics that thrived so much among the wealthy classes in that day, what if “the enemy” was the common people of a nation? What if the enemy were the poor whites, African Americans, alleged “criminals” and dissidents who the prominent academics of early 20th Century America plotted to wage war against through coercive sterilization?

The academic institutions that aided the biowarfare effort, such as Harvard and Stanford, were involved with eugenics and coercive sterilization for decades precisely leading up to the moment biowarfare work begun. They only stopped advocating for eugenics openly when they got a bad rap from the Nazis.

To further illustrate this academic class, a man involved with the creation of “chemotherapy” out of mustard gas was a racist who could be found alongside eugenicists, receiving Rockefeller funding: Dr. Cornelius Rhoads. He was also involved in biowarfare. According to What Really Happened:

“1931: The Puerto Rican Cancer Experiment was undertaken by Dr. Cornelius Rhoads. Under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, Rhoads purposely infected his subjects with cancer cells. Thirteen of the subjects died. When the experiment was uncovered, and in spite of Rhoads’ written opinions that the Puerto Rican population should be completely eradicated, Rhoads went on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama. He later was named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and was at the heart of the recently revealed radiation experiments on prisoners, hospital patients, and soldiers (these are covered in the ACHE report. http://www.seas.gwu.edu/nsarchive/radiation/)”

And for more perspective about the 1940’s culture of academia, also from What Really Happened:

“1940’s: In a crash program to develop new drugs to fight Malaria during World War II, doctors in the Chicago area infected nearly 400 prisoners with the disease. Although the Chicago inmates were given general information that they were helping with the war effort, they were not provided adequate information in accordance with the later standards set by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. Nazi doctors on trial at Nuremberg cited the Chicago studies as precedents to defend their own behaviour in aiding the German war effort.”

That’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the history of biological warfare: is it really implausible to suggest these people were trying to wage war on the people they didn’t like at home?

Through solid anecdotal evidence we can follow the trail and see that these experiments may have been toward an agenda of eugenics, sterilization, population control justified under the guise of some Nazi or Russian threat.

Another anecdotal observation to go along with this theory is that the bacteria sprayed on San Francisco, Serratia Marcescens, is actually thought to cause infertility, as suggested in papers as late as 2017.

Could it be that they sprayed San Francisco to master the use of bacteria that causes infertility?

In conclusion:

This is just the entrance to an entire field of research with so much pertinent info to where we are at today.

With more research, this could lead to strong anecdotal evidence that Merck & Co. used pharmaceutical treatments developed shortly after WWII such as the Polio vaccine against Americans, as bioweapons.

After all, Eli Lilly/Merck’s Polio vaccine (that came a few years after the biowarfare activity) was mysteriously contaminated with the cancer causing virus SV40, which they claimed had accidentally been derived from the Rhesus monkey kidney cells used to prepare the vaccine. We know associated academics had purposefully given people cancer multiple times in the past.

Many people who understand Merck’s Gardasil vaccine for HPV is utterly destroying the lives of thousands of paralyzed, injured, and killed young girls and boys suspect one thing: they suspect Merck is part of an agenda to damage people on purpose, in this same vein of population control we saw in the old age of Merck.

So a question to ask is: could Merck today be complicit with an agenda to poison people? Either deliberate or not, they are undeniably injuring and killing thousands of people, as you can find in VAERS vaccine injury reports or anywhere else you search.

Source*

Related Topics:

Hitler Never Gassed His Own People; but the U.S. Did*

CIA Mind Control: The Philadelphia Experiment on Americans

Former Merck Rep Says Mandatory Vaccination Is For Profit and Not Public Health*

Teenager Dies Five Days after HPV Vaccination*

Pentagon Admits 60,000 Black Soldiers Used in Human Experiment*

Bayer and U.S. Govt. Knowingly Gave HIV to Thousands of Children*

German domination of Europe: Marine Le Pen Savages Merkel, to Her Face in E.U. Parliament

German domination of Europe: Marine Le Pen Savages Merkel, to Her Face in E.U. Parliament

From Alexandra Bruce

I don’t agree with the entirety of Marine Le Pen’s party platform, but I really do get a kick out of her oratorial bombast and watching her kick Angela Merkel’s butt – and those of the unelected E.U. technocrats who are on the U.S. State Department’s “unofficial
payroll”.

Here, she blasts how the E.U. maintains itself “With blackmail, threats and intimidation…Your model is to become a servant of the USA, austerity, disloyal competition, mass spying on citizens, ‘social dumping’, migratory submersion.

“I represent another model that unites Europe’s people. One of independence, of a Europe of nations in a multipolar world, of intelligent protectionism, of individual liberties… some will call me the ‘Anti-Merkel’. I accept that label with honour. I don’t acknowledge you, Madam Merkel!

“The ‘right of self-determination’, is a ridiculous attempt at the German domination of Europe. The defense of German interests does not justify the vassalization of the other peoples of Europe. I am the voice of sovereign Europeans. They thirst for the  freedom of their nations. I represent the French people, who have turned their backs on you, Mr. Hollande, the same way they turned their backs on Sarkozy because they thirst for a France that’s free!”

Related Topics:

We Live in a Europe that Is Totally Dominated by Germany

Hollande Calls for Transfer of Sovereignty to a United States of Europe*

Soros-Obama-Merkel-Erdogan get Control of Europe!?*

The E.U.’s Dictatorship*

Europe’s Vindictive Privatization Plan for Greece*

E.U. Founders to Form Federal Union of European States*

U.S. Lawmakers Introduce Legislation to Unleash Nuclear Arms Race in Europe*

Islamists Attack Christmas, But Europeans Abolish It*

European Parliament Demands Legal Scrutiny of CETA’s ‘Corporate Court’ System*

Hungary Becomes First European Country to Ban Rothschild Banks*

The Genocide of the Peoples of Europe*

War Criminal Blair to Eradicate European Culture to Create a United States of Europe*

Europe is Built on Corpses and Plunder*

TTIP Controversy: European Commission and Big Tobacco Cover-up*

E.U. Making Paedophilia Legal Across Europe*

Twenty-Seven Million Russians Died Defending Europe against the Cabal’s WWII*

 

 

German Soldier ‘posed as Syrian Asylum-seeker to Carry out Terror Attack and Blame it on Refugees’*

German Soldier ‘posed as Syrian Asylum-seeker to Carry out Terror Attack and Blame it on Refugees’*

The lieutenant, who has not been identified, was living a double life

 

By Justin Huggler

An officer in the German army who spent more than a year posing as a Syrian refugee has been arrested on suspicion of planning a terror attack.

The 28-year-old lieutenant, who has not been named under German privacy laws, was living a double life, prosecutors said on Thursday.

Police are believed to be working on the theory that the officer, who has a history of expressing anti-foreigner views, planned to carry out a “false flag” terror attack and blame it on refugees.

No details of the suspected terror plot have been released.

The arrested man successfully posed as Syrian asylum-seeker despite the fact he is of German background and speaks no Arabic.

He spent some time living in an official refugee shelter and was paid benefits as an asylum-seeker.

“This is quite an unusual story,” a spokesman for prosecutors in Frankfurt said.

“It’s more than strange. We will have to wait for the investigation to uncover his motives.”

The officer first came to the authorities’ attention in February, when he was arrested by Austrian police after being caught trying to hide a gun in a toilet at Vienna airport.

Although he was swiftly released, German police and the MAD military intelligence service began investigating him, and uncovered an extraordinary trail of evidence.

To investigators’ astonishment, they found that the lieutenant, who was posted to a joint Franco-German unit in France, was also living some of the time as a Syrian asylum-seeker at a refugee shelter in Germany.

He first presented himself as an asylum-seeker in December 2015, in the midst of the influx of more than 1 million migrants who flooded into the country under Angela Merkel’s “open-door” refugee policy.

He was given a place to stay in a refugee shelter in the town of Giessen, near Frankfurt, and formally applied for asylum under a false name in January 2016.

Prosecutors were at a loss to explain how he was able to register as a Syrian asylum-seeker despite the fact he speaks no Arabic and is not believed to be of Syrian origin. The authorities raised no suspicion at the time of his application.

He is believed to have continued living sporadically at a refugee shelter in the months that followed, dividing his time between there and the military base in France where he was posted.

“Just because he was stationed in France does not mean that he had to stay there every day. He was able to move freely during his free time,” a police spokesman said.

One theory being pursued by investigators is that he may have posed as a refugee to set up a false trail of evidence ahead of a terror attack. According to this theory, he would have deliberately left his fingerprints at the scene of an attack so they would lead back to the fake refugee.

A second man, a 24-year-old student from the officer’s home town of Offenbach, has also been arrested in connection with the case. Prosecutors described him as an “accomplice”, though they gave no details of his role in the alleged plot.

“We know from various voice recordings that both men had anti-foreigner views,” the prosecutors’ spokesman said.

Source*

Related Topics:

Mass Sexual Assault by Refugees in Germany was Fake News*

Children Sexually Assaulted at E.U.’s Official Refugee Camps*

Who Is Responsible for Sexual Violence in Europe?*

Fake News on Muslim Attack on German Church*

130,000 Refugees Vanished after Being Registered in Germany*

Belgian Reporter Sexually Assaulted by 3 White Men in Cologne*

Teenage Girl Admits Making up Migrant Rape Claim That Outraged Germany*

Far-right Activists Impersonated Police, Attacked Refugees, Stole their Possessions in Calais*

Syrian Refugees Protect Woman from Sexual Harassment in Germany*

Refugees Donate Time and Money to Help Italian Earthquake Victims*

French Caught Planning an ISIS False Flag Terror Attack on the French*

Putin: ‘95% of World Terrorist Attacks are Orchestrated By The CIA’*

European Museums to ‘loan’ Looted Benin Bronzes to Nigeria!?*

European Museums to ‘loan’ Looted Benin Bronzes to Nigeria!?*

Credit: K. Opoku

 

By Kwame Opoku

The idea of Europeans establishing in Benin City a permanent display of looted Benin artefacts that continue to be in European ownership should be considered by every African as an insult to Nigerians and African peoples. Successors to looters become arbiters of the location and display of Benin artefacts. The wishes of the Oba of Benin are simply ignored. The Benin artefacts should be returned to the Oba of Benin and his people who may decide to organize a display showing artefacts that were looted in 1897 by a violent British army.

We, Europeans, who have received and transmitted and continue to transmit these objects, are on the side of the conquerors. To a certain extent, this is also a ‘heritage that weighs us down’. But there is no fatality. The good news is that in 2017 the history of Europe being what it is and has also been for centuries, a history of enmity between our nations of bloody wars and discriminations painfully overcome after the Second World War, we have within ourselves the sources and resources to understand the sadness, or the anger or hatred of those who, in other tropics, much further away, poorer, weaker, and have been subjected in the past to the intensive absorbing power of our continent. Or to put it simply: it would be sufficient today to make a very tiny effort of introspection and a slight step aside for us to enter into empathy with the dispossessed peoples’’ Bénédicte Savoy

Queen-Mother Idia, Benin, Nigeria, now in British Museum, London, United Kingdom.

I read with great interest an article entitled ’University-owned Benin collections may be loaned to Nigeria’ written by Monty Fynn on 4 April 2017, in Varsity, independent student online newspaper of the University of Cambridge.

The article reports that an agreement was reached at meeting of a so-called Benin Dialogue Group that met in Cambridge during the first week of April 2017 with delegations of the Benin Court, Nigerian museums, and a number of European museums with major Benin collections to establish in Benin City an exhibition of a certain number of Benin artefacts loaned by European museums. According to the article, ‘the display will consist of rotating material from a consortium of European museums.  There are no details about which artefacts will be in the projected display or about the museums that will make contributions. We do not know whether the British Museum, the museum that holds the greatest number of the looted Benin artefacts, will be participating in this project, or whether any artefacts from British museums will be loaned and when this project will start. The participation of the British Museum cannot be taken for granted. When the museums met in 2013 to draw the so-called Benin Plan of Action, the venerable museum did not participate owing to alleged logistic difficulties to travel to Benin.

The reported information seems to have come from a statement by Prince Gregory Akenzua. A spokesperson of the University of Cambridge is also reported to have stated that the agreement builds on the Benin Plan of Action of 2013. We prefer not to comment here on that miserable document. It may be symptomatic of the nature of the discussions said to be going on that the public receives very little information. We are to be surprised by a scheme that may raise many controversies.

In the absence of more details about the proposed display in Benin City, we reserve our right to make detailed comments later. Meanwhile, we offer a few preliminary comments on the available information. We believe that ideas should be discussed vigorously before they are concretized and before it is to late to change or challenge them. The long 500-year period of relations between Africa and Europe has taught us several lessons which should not be ignored even by museum officials.

We should pay careful attention to the idea of successors to the looters of the Benin artefacts making a loan to the rightful and legitimate owners of the artefacts looted in 1897 by the members of the nefarious British Punitive Expedition.

Since when do looters or their successors loan the very stolen objects to the owners instead of simply and correctly returning them?

What will be the status of the Benin artefacts that were wrenched from their locations with great violence and mayhem?

Would this mean that, for instance, Nigerians cannot send any of the artefacts to Ghanaians for a Pan African festival in Accra without the consent of Europeans? Are we moving forwards or backwards? We should be aware that by accepting a loan of looted Benin artefacts, one could be considered to have recognized thereby the ownership or ownership rights of the museums in the artefacts. One will be estopped, in English law, from asserting a contrary position later. So far, no such recognition of ownership has been formally accepted. Once we reach such a situation, we can forget all our claims for restitution of looted African artefacts. A dangerous precedent would have been set for other African States.

It would be interesting to know what price Nigerians would pay for this revolving display of Benin artefacts. Would they have to pay money for the loan? Would they be paying for the loan of their own artefacts to the successors of the notorious looters? Or would there be some other consideration such as renouncing forever any claim to the looted artefacts? There is in the museum world, as elsewhere, no such thing as free lunch. The danger here is that much of the arrangements between African museums and their European counterparts are usually shrouded in mystery and the public never gets to know the details. The need for transparency is not felt by many African and European museum officials. Many museums appear to be run almost as secret societies. No one knows about their expenditures and they react badly to questions about details of their finances. They do not see it as a duty to inform the public about arrangements with other institutions.

They invite the public to see and admire the objects in exhibition but do not want an inquisitive public that seeks information about the administration of the museum. For example, nobody knows what the Russians paid for having a Parthenon marble flown to St. Petersburg for exhibition. We also do not know how much Nigeria received for Benin: Kings and Rituals-Court Arts from Nigeria in Vienna, Paris, Berlin and Chicago. Nor is one informed about the expenses of Kingdom of Ife: Sculptures from West Africa.

Members of the nefarious Punitive Expedition of 1897 posing proudly with looted Benin artefacts

 

It is true though that many African governments have not provided sufficient funds for their museums which must often rely on external funds from the very states that are holding our looted artefacts. That clearly weakens the bargaining position of African museum officials in their dealings with European museums. Think of the deleterious effect of such situations on the production of knowledge in museum studies. The often-stated commitment of African governments to African culture is not generally followed by any concrete acts. Hardly any politician follows the example of Léopold Sédar Senghor who made sure that the budget of Senegal made sufficient provisions for arts and culture.

The idea of Europeans establishing in Benin City a permanent display of looted Benin artefacts that continue to be in European ownership should be considered by every African as an insult to Nigerians and African peoples.  Successors to looters become arbiters of the location and display of Benin artefacts. The wishes of the Oba of Benin are simply ignored. The Benin artefacts should be returned to the Oba of Benin and his people who may decide to organize a display showing artefacts that were looted in 1897 by a violent British army. This would be the true history of the Benin Bronzes, however painful and shameful this may be for some persons and institutions. For the sake of all those who lost their lives and properties in the notorious invasion, the true story of Benin should be preserved. Falsification and distortion of history will not do.

Nigerian officials should finally pay some attention to the so-called manifest destiny of Nigeria on the African continent and bear in mind that any arrangement they reach with European museums and governments will be cited as precedent for similar agreements regarding restitution of looted artefacts from other African States.

Head of an Oba, Benin, Nigeria, now in Bristol Museum, Bristol, United Kingdom of Great Britain.

 

The report on the proposed display of Benin artefacts on loan from European museums demonstrates once more, if another proof were necessary, European contempt for Africans and our intelligence. How could anyone, conversant with the history of the violent detachment of the artefacts from the palace of Oba Ovonramwen in 1897 make such a proposal? Would Europeans accept such a proposal if their looted treasures were in Nigeria and were shown from time to time in London and then returned to Benin where they would be kept for good? Do Benin artefacts belong to Nigerian history or European history? And how can any respectable African agree to such a proposal? Where is the self-respect of African representatives?

Queen-Mother Idia, Benin, Nigeria, now in the Ethnological Museum, Berlin, Germany.

 

We expect nothing short of the full restitution of the famous Benin bronzes such as the hip-mask of Queen Mother Idia, now in the British Museum, the bust of Queen-Mother Idia, now in the Ethnological Museum, Berlin, the plaque of Oba Ozolua and his retainers, now in World Museum, formerly Ethnological Museum, Vienna, the altar with Oba Ewuakpe, in the Ethnological Museum, Berlin, Germany, as well as the altar with Oba Akenzua I. in the same museum. These Benin nobles must return home to occupy their rightful place in the history and culture of the Benin and Nigerian peoples.

Altar group with Oba Ewuakpe, Benin, Nigeria, now in Ethnological Museum, Berlin, Germany.

 

The famous and well-known bronzes, relating to Benin history and culture, should be returned to Benin unless the Oba of Benin agrees that some of them may stay abroad. It would not be acceptable that European museums select for their own use the better-known objects and return to Nigeria lesser known artefacts.

What the people of Benin need is not a museum of rotating artefacts, here today in Benin City and back tomorrow in Berlin or London. We do not know whether other countries have such a system, apart from special exhibitions. In most countries, historical figures, such as Queen-Mother Idia, would have their statues standing at a definite place in a definite museum for decades. Students and pupils would visit such figures at places known by all. But how do you teach the public about such personalities when they are constantly changing and returning to the countries that have been keeping them since the invasion of 1897? How do you create and build knowledge on such a basis? No one could prepare a history of Benin for schools on such basis.

Regarding the number of artefacts to be returned, one would hope that the Nigerians may agree to leave a few in European museums but the majority should be returned. For example, the Ethnological, Berlin, holds some 508 Benin artefacts. There is no reason why at least 300 should not be returned to their original abode in the palace of the Oba of Benin from where they were looted. [5] We believe Benin should have most of Benin artefacts just as the Europeans have most European artefacts. Alas, Westerners have banned justice and morality from issues of restitution. For example, instead of seriously considering returning many Benin artefacts to Benin City, German museum officials are busy working on how they can display the artefacts in the new Humboldt Forum now under construction in Berlin. Those holding looted items do not seem to have any urge to return them.

Western museums holding looted Benin artefacts are not likely to change their attitudes so long as countries like Nigeria do not increase the pressure on them to release stolen objects. Since independence in 1960, Nigerian parliaments and governments have frequently requested the restitution of the looted artefacts and have mandated officials to contact the holders but so far not even one of the looted artefacts in the museums has been returned. In a speech delivered in Vienna, at a conference on New Cultures of Collaboration, Sharing of Collections and Quest for Restitution: The Beni Case, Vienna, December 2-3, 2010, the Director-General of the National Commission on Museums and Monuments (NCMM), Nigeria, invited what he called ‘international museums’ to establish museums with branches in source countries.

The idea is not new and has been mentioned by a Nigerian scholar some decades ago. We consider this idea very dangerous. When we have Western museums known for holding looted Nigerian artefacts, refusing to return any, it does not seem right to invite them to open branches in Nigeria. In effect, one is inviting them to open a depot at the source for the looted/stolen artefacts in their museums. As the Director-General would know from the examples of British lootings he mentioned, the universal museums, (which he prefers to call international museums) have always played a major role in such lootings. For example, Richard Rivington Holmes, an assistant in the manuscripts department of the British Museum, had accompanied the expedition against Magdala, Ethiopia, as an archaeologist. He acquired a number of objects for the British Museum, including around 300 manuscripts which are now housed in the British Library.   http://www.britishmuseum.org

Whether in Beijing, (China,1860), Magdala, (Ethiopia, 1868), Kumasi, (Gold Coast, Ghana, 1874) or Benin City, (Nigeria, 1897), it is obvious that the looted articles were not taken at random by wild soldiers hungry for loot; the objects were taken with advice from experts from museums or auction houses. Even in our days when meetings are held on ‘what objects we should save in case of war’, this is usually a training seminar by experts to instruct on what is valuable in a museum or palace which one should take out. Looters in time of invasions do not simply loot on instinct but with knowledge, training and skill.

We can imagine the consequences of inviting universal museums to open branches in Nigeria, as regards corruption and looting of artefacts. One facilitates the transfer of looted artefacts from Nigeria. We used to think that one of the major mandates of the NCMM was to secure the return of the thousands of Nigerian artefacts abroad but instead it now seems to be inviting the illegal holders of the artefacts to open branches in Nigeria. Something is not right here.

Readers may have noticed that it is only when an international meeting is on the question of restitution of looted African artefacts that the word ‘sharing’ features prominently. There has never been a meeting between Africans and Westerners on artefacts where sharing is mentioned in connection with European artefacts. We have mentioned often that we could also share with Europeans their cultural artefacts but nobody has taken up the suggestion or criticised it. It appears the Europeans are so shocked by the idea that a European painting, for example, a Turner or Picasso could be sent to an African museum. The European attitude is: mine is mine, yours is ours. It appears that those who talk about sharing are not really interested at all in sharing the looted artefacts they hold. What they mean by ‘sharing’ is that Africans agree to their keeping the objects and from time to time they may display one or two objects to Africans. Otherwise where is the difficulty for the Ethnological Museum of Berlin sharing the 508 objects it has with Benin? Has the museum shown its goodwill by, for example, sending a few of the artefacts to Benin until there is agreement on the eventual number of artefacts to be returned? Numbers are not even being discussed.

African delegates are sent to argue for the restitution of our looted artefacts and they end with discussions on sharing the looted African artefacts with Europeans. It seems in the opinion of many Europeans, Africans do not even deserve to have African artefacts. If Nigerian representatives feel they cannot, after all these years, make any progress towards the recovery of Nigerian artefacts, they should inform their people and government so that they may take other measures and relieve them of their impossible mandate. Above all, there should be no attempt to create any illusions that Nigeria has been successful in the recovery of looted artefacts. When Nigerian peoples, parliaments and governments request the return of Nigerian treasures abroad, they are surely not thinking of customs and police seizures of criminal attempts to transfer artefacts abroad: they think of the thousands of Nigerian artefacts in museums and other institutions in the West – they think of the Benin bronzes in the British Museum, London, Ethnological Museum, Berlin, World Museum, Vienna and Metropolitan Museum of Arts, New York and Museé du quai Branly, Paris.

Routine police and customs seizures of unlawful attempts to smuggle Nigerian artefacts should not be confused with efforts at restitution that have so far failed. The return of some of the artefacts looted in 1897 was not a result of Nigerian efforts but a decision by an individual British subject, Dr. Mark Walker, who, disturbed by his conscience that the artefacts inherited from his great-grand father were secured through violence against the Benin people, returned them to Benin. [9] The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, voluntarily returned 8 pieces of looted art to Nigeria. Again, this was not due to any Nigerian demand or pressure. Moreover, the museum’s action was related only to artefacts stolen after 1970 thus excluded artefacts looted in 1897. The museum is still holding artefacts stolen in 1897.

Two artefacts returned by Dr. Mark Walker. rbp.blogspot.com

 

The lack of enthusiasm in pursuing the recovery of looted Nigerian treasures has been noted by many. Plankensteiner, a curator of the exhibition, Benin Kings and Rituals-Court Arts from Nigeria, has written:

‘Sotheby’s had informed the Nigerian authorities in advance about the upcoming sale with an official letter to the Nigerian National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM). The Art Newspaper reported that Nigerian official bodies made no formal claims in the end; also, an approach to the family seemingly never happened, although it had been planned by officials of the NCMM’.

‘Willett also deplored the slow reaction of the NCMM in replying to reports they received from customs or international colleagues who informed them about detected stolen objects and in officially claiming them back.’

It is interesting to note that the auction sale of a Benin bronze, Queen-Mother Idia mask, mentioned above was finally aborted because of agitation by Nigerian students abroad. There was no input from Nigerian authorities nor was there any follow-up on the issue by Nigeria. The Galway family may have sold the mask privately without too much publicity. Again, Cambridge students succeeded in making the university authorities consider the return of the Benin Cockerel without any real input from Nigerian authorities and yet we are given the impression that the student agitation was somehow the result of the so-called quiet diplomacy.

Prof. Wilhelm Östberg, has also stated that Nigerian officials may have other interests in lending national treasures without seeking reciprocity and that may also explain why the same officials are not keen to submit formal requests for restitution:

‘There are many ways to develop relationships besides returning museum objects. Informally, it also appears that different kinds of collaboration that are currently in progress are more important to Nigerian museums. That might explain why Nigeria has not registered any formal demand for the return of the Benin collections, but has preferred to engage in dialogue and cooperation with museums that have Benin collections. It seems Nigeria is chary of bringing the matter to a head. How does one otherwise explain that the National Museum of Nigeria was willing to lend its extensive and unique collection of Ife art to the British Museum for a special exhibition 2010, without demanding reciprocity?’

No one has challenged this assertion by the former Director of the Ethnological Museum, Stockholm, a museum that organized with Nigeria an exhibition on Benin artefacts in Stockholm.

We do not know exactly how many artefacts were stolen in 1897 but we accept that more than 3,000 artefacts were looted as stated in a plea before the British House of Commons by Prince Edun Akenzua, great-grandson of Oba Ovonramwen in whose reign the artefacts were removed from the Oba’s palace. What is more important for the issue at hand is the number of Benin artefacts that the various Western museums hold. This number could be easily established if the museums were interested in helping. As stated in the annex below, most museums refuse to divulge the number of Benin artefacts they hold. And yet they are public institutions or claim to serve the public.

It would be interesting to know how the displayed Benin objects would be insured. Who will pay for the insurance? Would it be the European museums who would be acting as ‘owner’ or Nigeria as a ‘user’? Would the objects be insured with a European insurance company or a Nigeria company? Would the details be made known to taxpayers? We recall that during FESTAC the proposal to bring home the hip-mask of Queen-Mother Idia was accompanied by exorbitant claims for insurance that Nigeria was finally unable or unwilling to accept.

We note that the discussions on the return of Benin bronzes have so far involved only European museums. What about American museums? Is the British government, that is ultimately responsible for the looting and dispersal of the Benin artefacts, going to assume its responsibility, and ensure that the looted artefacts are returned or will the Nigerians have to negotiate separately with Americans and thus free the British Government from its responsibility of having sent its troops to Benin who looted the artefacts?

We would expect Nigerian officials and their European counterparts to elaborate a set of principles that would make the choice of artefacts to be returned apparent and recognizable. The whole process should be transparent and not be shrouded in a cloak and dagger operation as some are wont to do. The Nigerian public, the European public and students of Benin culture should be enabled to follow discussions and measures on a matter of a wider public concern. Nor should Nigerians accept a procedure that would keep the people of Benin waiting for another hundred years before they finally see the return of their valuable treasures. The proposed arrangement would turn looters and their successors into owners and make owners and their successors miserable beggars. The arrangement would clearly reduce the pressure on the holders of looted artefacts to return them.

It seems that international cooperation and solidarity cease for many Westerners when it comes to restitution of looted African artefacts. They will do everything except return them to the legitimate owners. Westerners, even today, seem to have a deep-seated reluctance to admit that slavery, colonialism and imperialism and indiscriminate use of violence against Africans are all wrong, and hence their unwillingness to restore looted African artefacts as they have done for other peoples. Compensation for loss of life and destruction of property are clearly not on their agenda. And they find Africans to accept this situation.

The latest proposal to establish a rotating display of Benin artefacts in Benin City shows clearly that Western museums have not yet abandoned their pretentious claim to universalism which was used to justify their retention of looted artefacts from around the world. That unfounded and arrogant racist claim based on imperialist and colonialist assumptions about Caucasian superiority, supported by some Enlightenment philosophers, has been demolished in the last decades and is no longer directly presented but still appears to be the basis of many Western thoughts and actions. The notion still seems to reign in museum circles but must African officials and intellectuals accept such racists beliefs, even if they have done their apprenticeship and studies in Western universities and museums?

Contemporary Westerners purport to condemn the imperialism and colonialism of their forebears but are unwilling to give up any of the artefacts looted during previous eras. They appear in this light to be worse than their predecessors. Could Western museums be the last bastions of colonialism and imperialism by holding on to looted artefacts which should have been returned at the time of independence?

Does anybody find it proper to propose to the Oba of Benin, owner of the Benin bronzes, the sharing of the looted Benin artefacts in the western world? Do our senses of legality and morality permit such a proposal? In effect, successors to the looters are saying to the successors of the Benin owners, let us share what our predecessors stole from your ancestors. Can self-respecting Nigerians accept such a proposal and become accomplices after the fact of the looting of 1897?

Arrogance, denigration, humiliation, racism and lack of respect have been the hallmarks of Western discourse on restitution of looted African artefacts and the recent proposal of displaying Benin artefacts in Benin City is no exception. Nothing demonstrates more clearly the powerlessness of the African continent than the issue of restitution of looted African artefacts.

Future generations will marvel at those who proclaim the freedom of art and artistic creativity at every occasion but stubbornly refuse to return looted African artefacts they have been holding illegally for decades. They have hijacked the most important African contribution to the civilisation of the universal advocated by Léopold Sédar Senghor.

‘But should the recipient countries continue to be so completely oblivious to the feeling of deprivation which is suffered by the loser countries? What is more, in many cases, objects which now adorn museums and private homes in the recipient countries and which are merely regarded as curios or objets d’art have overriding cultural and historical importance for the countries of origin. That is why the discussion on the restitution or return of cultural property is often accompanied by impassioned outbursts’. -Ekpo Eyo.

Oba Ozolua and his retainers, Benin, Nigeria, now in World Museum, formerly Ethnological Museum, Vienna, Austria.

 

Source*

Related Topics:

Hiding Africa’s Looted Funds and the Silence of Western Media*

The Return of Looted Antiquities

Destroying Nigeria Vital to World Entropy *

Blood and Gold: Children Dying as Egypt’s Treasures are Looted*

A 55,000 year Old Artefact Found in Sierra Leone made Out of Oxygen?*

Looted Palmyra Treasures Discovered in Geneva Warehouse*

Indigenous Mexicans Slam Misappropriation of Native Designs*