Although public understanding of the damage caused by Western colonialism is gradually improving, an area which is commonly overlooked is the facilitation of art theft during this time; a topic that spurs controversy to this very day. Arguably, one of the largest thefts of African Art was during the Benin Expedition of 1897, which has served as a lightning rod for the debate regarding the restitution of African art looted during the colonial era. 

Background

Benin city, currently located in Southern Nigeria and 25 Miles north of the Benin River, was once the capital city of Igodomigodo, a kingdom ruled by the Ogiso dynasty. Through trade with allies, as well as military conquests, Benin became one of the mightiest and most prosperous kingdoms within the West African region.  In particular, it was renowned in the Ancient world for its exceptional craftsmanship, with Benin artists mastering not just the famed bronze, but also the arts of ivory and mud. From at least the 16th century onwards, they created and produced various artefacts, which are now conventionally referred to as the Benin Bronzes.Cast brass plaques from Benin City at British Museum. Photo: By Joy of museums – Wikimedia commons.

Benin fell in 1897, with a raid on the city described in the British National Archives as a ‘punitive expedition’ – a punishment for the ‘Benin Massacre’, in which the Benin King oversaw the killing of 7 British officials.  In December 1896, James Phillips, a British official in the Niger Coast Protectorate, led an expedition to demand an end to the collection of customs duties from British traders. Unbeknownst to Phillips, some Itsekiri chiefs had warned the king, Oba Ovoramwen, of Phillips’ intention to visit Benin. On the 4th of January 1897, the Benin forces caught Phillips and his men unprepared in a forest in a village near Ughoton. They persuaded Phillips not to further his journey to Benin because of the ongoing religious Igue festival which did not allow the king to welcome any visitors. Phillips, ignoring these warnings, was subsequently killed alongside his troops, with only two British officials surviving.

The Raid on Benin

Upon hearing the news, Britain responded to these attacks immediately, mounting an expedition to capture Benin. On February 17th 1897, Admiral Harry Rawson led approximately 1200 troops to invade the city and burn it to the ground. Consequently, the city of Benin lost its independence, its sovereignty, and its control of trade. The king (Oba) was captured and exiled to Calabar until his death in 1914, and a number of Benin chiefs were executed. This brutal colonial episode marked the end of the Kingdom of Benin, which went on to stay under British rule until 1960.

After Benin was successfully laid in ruins, the city was looted, with the British confiscating all the royal treasures, seizing more than 3000 artworks and religious artefacts. This included a range of objects removed from shrines as well as over 900 brass plaques. These plaques had previously decorated the palace walls and were key historic records for the Benin Court and kingdom, providing insights into the historic practices and traditions of Benin. As the British forces returned to their homeland, some of the Benin bronzes were given to individual officers, but the majority were taken to auction in London to pay for the cost of the expedition. These objects made their way into museums and private collections across the globe, with a notable amount being transferred by the Foreign Office to the British Museum (which still holds around 900 artefacts). Others have since been sold to foreign museums in countries as far as Germany and America.

The debate on repatriation

The Benin Bronzes revolutionised African Art within Europe. The artefacts provided an aesthetically rich record of life within the Benin Kingdom, depicting the evolution of the dynasty. However, they were also stolen.

For years, the British museum has faced calls for the looted goods to be returned to Africa, with the Benin Royal Family requesting the property to be restored to them at the start of the millennium. It would be incorrect to state that there have not been actions to make reparations for the events of the Benin expedition; in fact, the long and ongoing fight to restore the looted goods has seen some marked successes. In 2014, a grandson of a British soldier on the Expedition returned two inherited items to the Benin Royal family, whilst in 2017, University of Cambridge students removed a cockerel statue, one of the looted artefacts from the expedition, from the hall of Jesus College, which was followed by protests against the celebration of colonialism. This led to the Jesus College SU declaring that the sculpture will be returned. The country of France has agreed to return 26 artefacts to Benin by 2021 and, most strikingly, the British Museum has agreed to loan back some of the bronzes to Nigeria. However, are these actions enough to atone for these goods being taken for over 120 years?

Some argue that the stolen art should be kept in museums and used to educate the West on the consequences of colonialism. There are also many difficulties with the actual practice of repatriation, including endless bureaucracy, diplomatic miscommunication, and lack of funding. Even if museums comply and want to return looted art, this is made difficult by the pressure imposed on them by the government. A letter sent last month by Oliver Dowden, the government’s cultural sector, to publicly-funded museums, implied that the government would cut financial support for institutions that chose to remove statues or other artefacts deemed to be culturally insensitive. With funding already tight, museums are simply unable to take action on the requests of the public by returning the goods.

According to a 2018 report commissioned by Emmanuel Macron, 90 to 95 percent of Africa’s artefacts are held outside the continent. The loss of art from the area, as a direct result of colonialism, has led to many Nigerians being unable to see the Bronzes, a crucial part of their collective historical identity. Additionally, African countries are unable to benefit from the revenue and tourism that could be generated by owning the art. However, the bottom line remains, that the possession of artwork taken under the conditions of spoil of war, looting, imperialism, and colonialism is frankly unethical. Returning African objects is not only vital to compensate for Britain’s past wrong-doings, but also to give Africans the rightful opportunities to control their own heritage and culture.

For those interested in learning more about Benin Bronzes, a book ‘The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution. The Brutish Museums’ is set to be released next month, by Dan Hicks, a Professor of Archaeology at the University of Oxford and curator at the Pitt Rivers Museum. The book aims to shed a deeper light onto the story of Benin and calls for Western museums to return these objects, as part of the widespread movement to address the outstanding debt of colonialism.

A Neglected Series of Human Rights Violations in our Modern History Textbooks: Human Zoos

Yiwen Zhang

Our history textbooks frequently shed light on the positive, vibrant aspects of European and American popular culture in the 19^th to 20^th century, with a particular emphasis on film, fashion, theatre, literature, and music. However, Western school curriculums and media continually fail to address the horrific realities their ancestors are guilty of, cherry-picking only the progressive elements of Western modern history.

Human zoos otherwise referred to as ‘ethnological expositions’, epitomize an inarguable violation of human rights in black history; black and indigenous human beings were kidnapped from their lands, locked up in cages, and placed on display often with animals for enormous crowds in European countries like the UK, Germany, and France, as well as American states like New York, for millions of white people – friends and families – to enjoy. These human beings were viewed as ‘savages’ who existed in a ‘primitive’ state and were devalued to a mere source of public entertainment for white people. Whilst slavery had been abolished in 1833 under the Slavery Abolition Act, it is more than apparent that the objectification and dehumanization of black people continued to perpetuate in the eyes and activities of the Western world well beyond the early 19^th century.

How did human zoos become popularised?

In the 1870s, Carl Hagenbeck, a German wild animal merchant and business operator of multiple zoos in Europe in the 19^thcentury served as a key figure in popularising the emergence of this deeply racist and horrifying human exhibition chain in Europe. After being faced with rising costs of acquiring and maintaining animals, Hagenbeck searched for alternative methods to alleviate the financial strains endured by his company. Upon suggestion from his friend Heinrich Leutemann, who proposed that humans from foreign lands were to be seized to accompany the animals on display, Hagenbeck ordered a group of Sami and Samoan individuals from Lapland to complement his shipment of reindeer; these indigenous people, derogatorily known as ‘Laplanders’, were showcased at an exhibition in his Hamburg Tierpark in 1874, sparking the rise and popularisation of human zoos.

Whilst Hagenbeck’s shows did not constitute the first historical event in which foreigners were captured for display – which can be traced back to the Ancient Romans – he has undoubtedly boasted about his first shows parading ‘cultures’ from foreign lands. Thus, in an era prior to mass technological innovation and globalization, such inhumane exhibitions were excused as a way for white people to ‘learn about the culture’ of black and indigenous populations. White Europeans and Americans observed behind barriers, whilst these indigenous individuals apparently carried on with their lives in an unnatural, inhumane and enclosed environment, equivalent to zoo enclosures for animals.

Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm II meeting Ethiopians standing behind a wooden fence in Hamburg, Germany (1909

Some example exhibitions of black people

In 1876, Hagenbeck directed an associate to the Egyptian Sudan in pursuit of bringing back both wild beasts and Nubians as European collections to be on public exhibition. This exhibition served as a huge ‘success’ in Paris, London, and Berlin. The 1878 and 1889 Parisian World’s Fair presented a ‘Negro Village’; the 1889 World’s Fair showcased 400 indigenous people, attracting 28 million visitors, unveiling the extent of support towards human zoos harvested in the West.

Ota Benga, a member of the Baschelel tribe in the Belgian Congo served as a notable victim of human zoos, having been on display at the 1904 World Fair in St. Louis in the US. As a pygmy captured by Samuel Phillips Verna, a Presbyterian minister from South Carolina who originally tried to kill him, Verna conceptualized Benga as the ideal image of a ‘savage’: dark skin, short stature, and teeth filed down into spikes. Thus, Benga was put on display with several other pygmies, and forced to reside in makeshift village huts. As a result of tips paid to pygmies by visitors at the World’s Fair, pygmies spent earnings on Western habits like smoking cigars and wearing stylish top hats. However, such substances and objects were confiscated by white organizers, due to its direct paradox with the notion that these individuals were ‘primitive natives’ incapable of appreciating other cultures.

Benga, who gained significant recognition for being good with animals was further profited off by Bronx Zoo director William Temple Hornaday in New York City; here, he was placed in his own exhibition in a monkey cage, receiving countless sneers from visitors on a daily basis. Isolating Benga in a cage with an ape epitomizes the total defilement of basic human rights, highlighting the cruel, inhumane manner in which black people were treated.

Ota Benga at the Bronx Zoo in 1906

Shockingly, human zoos were still in operation around 60 years ago – the final human zoo exhibition was not until 1958: The World’s Fair in Brussels which comprised of a Congolese village. This culminated in the tragic death of a number of black people during the show, who were buried in a large, unmarked grave, a further exemplification of the absence of empathy and consideration of black lives, and the dehumanizing nature of human zoos. Fortunately, the popularity of human zoos had overall faded by then, and the majority of human zoos were condemned and banned; the Brussels World’s Fair had served as a historical outlier.

Brussels World Fair (1958) 

Key Implications

Ultimately, it is shocking that a horrific series of events attracting millions of people, embodying a rampant form of entertainment in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, has been fully neglected in our curriculum. White Europeans’ cruel treatment of black people, in particular, has been downplayed and ignored in our history textbooks.

Upon reflection, Hagenbeck writes in his memoirs: ‘it was my privilege to be the first in the civilized world to present these shows of different races’. His statement only fortifies the existence of white privilege; even after the abolishment of slavery in 1833, white people have continued to unethically and cruelly profit off the mere existence of black people. Referring to the West as the ‘civilized’ world only reinforces the white supremacist sentiment that white people are intrinsically superior; considering that this alleged ‘civility’ comes as a product of centuries of slavery, colonialism, imperialism, and the dehumanization of black people as zoo exhibitions, his statement must be re-evaluated.

With the present-day rising level of controversy surrounding the morality of zoo enclosures for animals, it is difficult to comprehend that just six decades ago, human beings were locked in cages, shut behind barriers, and placed on display, to be sneered upon by millions of people. Nonetheless, this mirrors the fast-paced nature of change in modern societal perceptions; this provides a glimmer of hope that the systemic racism that remains rooted in today’s society could be defeated sooner, rather than later.

https://www.popularresistance.org/deep-racism-the-forgotten-history-of-human-zoos/ 

Hello Everyone,

This year, for Black History Month we’ll be putting up a series of blog posts. This week’s blog is by Rafi Ahmed.

Seneca Village: The Forgotten Victim of Central Park’s Racial Past

Rafi Ahmed

Everyone knows Central Park at New York City – a sprawling beautiful green space with walkways, ecosystems and sculptures at the heart of Manhattan. However, very little know about how Central Park was previously a majority-black community named Seneca Village. What happened to Seneca Village and why is it an important period of black history?

Read along to find out!

How was Seneca Village established?

In the early 19^th century Upper Manhattan was mainly a countryside while Lower Manhattan was a dense and crowded urban area with white, blacks and immigrants. From 1800 to 1830, the number of black slaves decreased from 21000 to just 75. Hence, more and more freed black men and women joined the workforce. This created racial tensions between whites and blacks as whites felt that black people were stealing their jobs. Racial tensions led to racial violence that made lower Manhattan too dangerous to live in.

That’s when a solution arose. In 1825 plots of land started going up for sale in the area now known as Central Park. Andrew Williams, a 25-year-old African-American shoe-shiner, bought the first three lots for $125. Word spread around the black community and more plots were sold to black households and churches. By the mid-1850s, Seneca Village comprised 50 homes and three churches, as well as burial grounds, and a school for African-American students. Thus, between 82^nd and 89^th street that the community of Seneca village was born.

(Courtesy of NYC Municipal Archives)

Why was Central Park made?

Over the next three decades after Seneca Village was established, the population of Lower Manhattan nearly quadrupled in size. The city’s white elite feared that New York would turn into a concrete jungle. They wished that the city had a park that could serve as both the lungs and a sight of beauty for the city similar to the Kensington Park or the Champ Elysees in Europe.

Hence, in 1853, the New York State Legislature enacted a law that set aside approximately 750-800 acres of land in Manhattan – from 59^th to 106^th Streets, between Fifth and Eighth Avenues – to create the country’s first major landscaped park: The Central Park.

Unfortunately, some of the area allotted to the Central Park belonged to Seneca Village. The village was destroyed so that Central Park could be built.

(Courtesy of MYC Municipal Archives)

Why was Seneca Village destroyed?

Urban re-development projects are designed by demolishing old buildings to create space for new ones. We see it everywhere, across time and geography. However, Seneca Village is not just another example of a strategic re-development project. The plight of Seneca Village speaks to racial injustice in modern America. It speaks to the reductive ways white America viewed racial communities and weaponized race to justify their actions and words.

In order to facilitate the park’s development, the city’s newspapers started to downplay who really lived there. They described the residents as living in miserable broken-down shanties. From their perspective, poor people of debased cultures lived in these ‘No Man’s Land’ infested with dogs and rats. These stereotypes were commonly used to describe people of colour and immigrants, as a way of showing the superiority of the white elite in America. The stereotypes were used to explain how unsightly these communities were compared to a potentially beautiful park.

However, the descriptions were simply not true. In 2011, Cynthia and a team of archaeologists excavated in the former Seneca Village. They came away with 250 bags of objects to analyse. These objects suggest that Seneca village was wealthier than one assumed. For instance, a commonly found object was a toothbrush that was not common amongst working- and middle-class people till the 1920s. Compared to other African-Americans living in New York, residents of Seneca Village seem to have been more stable and prosperous — by 1855, approximately half of them owned their own homes. While some residents lived in shanties and in crowded conditions, most lived in two-story homes. Census records show that residents were employed, with African-Americans typically employed as laborers and in-service jobs, the main options for them at the time. Records also show that most children who lived in Seneca Village attended school.

But to the white NY elite it was not worth saving. A July 1956 article referred to it with a slur calling it the ‘N**** village’. They were notified to leave by early August. Many residents fought to keep their land by filing objections to their forced removal only to be met by failure…

Why is learning about Seneca Village important?

Seneca Village is a testament of Black excellence. It was a community of well-educated, prosperous black men, women and children in a world not willing, at the time, to grant wealth or education to people of colour. The village was also a representation of black political capital. In 1821, New York State required African-American men to own at least $250 in property and hold residency for at least three years to be able to vote. Fast forward to 1845, of the 100 black New Yorkers eligible to vote, 10 lived in Seneca Village. Lastly, Seneca Village was a symbol of inclusive America. By 1855, the village consisted of approximately 225 residents, made up of roughly two-thirds African-Americans, one-third Irish immigrants, and a small number of individuals of German descent.

The demolition of Seneca Village was an attack on racial minority and immigrant power, excellence and integration. Eviction of families from their own homes meant cutting down the intergenerational passage of wealth in the form of property and education. The attack was motivated by racial prejudice to make way for the luxuries of the white elite. While Central Park is certainly an important architectural and environmental feat, it could be built including – not excluding – Seneca Village.

Seneca Village is important because, in principle, it is relatable for all of us who have been looked down upon for our race, sex, religion or skin colour. We need to know, write and speak about Seneca Village because truth is power and black lives matter.

The LSESU International Development Society is pleased to announce the publication of the first edition of our journal, Voices. Focusing on the interdisciplinary nature of the field, the articles explore the impact of development policies through socio-economic and political lenses as well as assessing issues across the domestic, regional, and international realm in an ever-changing world. We offer our gratitude to the committee of 2019-2020 for all their hard work and efforts with a special mention for outgoing President Nicolas Feil and Head of Research Johann Power. We hope to continue to uphold this initiative under our new team and look forward to sharing further editions throughout the year. We hope you enjoy reading it!

Voices Volume I 2020pdf

Today is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty!

In light of today, we bring to your attention the recent winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics: Banerjee, Duflo and Kremer. The Nobel was awarded for their “experimental approach to alleviating global poverty”. It’s increasingly important that the Nobel committee and other economists identify the significance of development economics and provide its researchers with a platform to encourage conversation.

Click on the link below to find out more about their innovative work:

https://www.wionews.com/opinions/economics-nobel-prize-2019-why-abhijit-banerjee-esther-duflo-and-michael-kremer-won-256045

Today at our AGM we confirmed a constitutional amendment which introduces the Conferences subcommittee. We also confirmed the new Head of Conferences, Nicole Trofimov.

See the new constitution: Constitution proposal 2019

Your committee

General prerequisite: Applications are only open to current members of InterDev.

Leadership positions

The 2019/20 Executive Committee of InterDev is thrilled to announce that our Annual General Meeting (AGM) is scheduled for Week 1 of Michaelmas Term 2019. At the AGM, we will elect the following two positions. If you want to apply, please just show up and/or fill out the form linked above in order to hear when and where the AGM will take place exactly.

Head of PR & Marketing: Direct the society’s online image, including Instagram, Facebook and website; Manage the PR/Marketing sub-committee; Takes responsibility for copy-editing public content (e.g. blog). Lead the society’s PR & Marketing subcommittee. Desirable: Experience with graphic software, photography skills, good camera

NOW FILLED: Head of Conferences: Direct the society’s flagship conference, the London Development Symposium. This is a week-long conference to be held in LT 2020. Duties will include managing the Conferences sub-committee and liaising with LSE and intercollegiate partners. The sub-committee is jointly responsible for inviting and managing speakers, event management, catering, security, ticketing etc.

General time commitment for leadership positions: six hours per week.

Subcommittee positions

Subcommittee members will be selected by the current Executive Committee. Applications close on Sunday, 6 October 2019 at 23:59. Successful candidates will be invited to an interview in the following week and be notified by the end of that week.

Events manager: The events sub-committee will meet regularly with the Head of Events to organise events. This is including but not limited to ticketing, budgeting, security as well as finding, securing and managing guest speakers. The sub-committee will have the opportunity to chair specific events and to organise their own events.

Sponsor relations manager: The Sponsor relations sub-committee will meet regularly with the Treasurer. Key responsibilities will include finding sponsors via emailing and calling, as well as through personal relationships. Sub-committee members will gain an overview over the whole society and gain marketing skills, as they market the society to potential sponsors.

PR & Marketing manager: The PR & Marketing sub-committee will meet regularly with the Head of Marketing. Key responsibilities will include updating social media (Facebook, Instagram) with publicity for upcoming events, overseeing the InterDev blog and updating the website. Sub-committee members may also help to produce photos and videos for social media pages, help out with producing flyers and photographing events. Desirable: Clear communication skills and experience with graphic software

Conferences: The Conferences sub-committee will organise the society’s flagship event, the London Development Symposium. This is a week-long conference to be held in LT 2020. Duties will include inviting and managing speakers, event management, catering, security, ticketing etc. Desirable: Experience in event management

General time commitment for subcommittee positions: three hours per week.

Calling all InterDev members!

The 2018/2019 Executive Committee of InterDev is thrilled to announce that our Annual General Meeting (AGM) is scheduled for Lent Term, Week 10.

Ahead of the upcoming AGM, the current Executive Committee is hosting an informal drop-in session for all those interested in society leadership positions on Wednesday, 27th February from 12:00-15:00 in Room 2.03, New Academic Building. Come along with any questions or concerns.

In the meantime, see below for role descriptions, with blurbs written by the current Executive Committee.

General prerequisites: Applications are only open to current undergraduates and members of InterDev. We advise interested postgraduate applicants to consider executive involvement in our partner society, DESTIN.

President

The President’s role is to oversee the society’s activities as a whole. You’re responsible for developing ideas to guide InterDev and our activities into the coming year. In addition, you have responsibility for maintaining relations with the Students’ Union, from ensuring compliance to communicating with relevant officers on society activities. You take charge of managing your team and ensuring everyone is contributing and involved (which is definitely easier said than done). Plus, formal/informal outreach and maintaining partnerships comprises a very time-consuming part of your role. Some responsibilities super specific, and contingent on your team’s involvement: for example, sending the weekly newsletter, an event proposal form, or sponsorship application. Versatility is key.

Ideally, the President should be very enthusiastic and willing to devote lots of time and energy to the society’s development (approx. five hours a week, inc. before Michaelmas Term 2019). Whether meeting other student-run initiatives or introducing an event, your role is unavoidably outward-facing, so it’s important to be a clear communicator and confident public speaker. An interest in international development (academic or otherwise) is crucial.

Vice President

Key responsibilities include supporting the president in the running of the society; this can include filling in for the President when necessary and working with the President in key decision-making and outreach (within the LSESU, i.e. to other student societies, and outside campus, i.e. with organisations or potential partners).

Also, you play a role in event organisation and management; for instance through liaising with outside speakers and the co-ordination of event logistics.

Secretary

The Secretary’s role on the Executive Committee is to act as a liaison between society leadership and society members. In addition, you should be responsible for administrative tasks, including booking venues, sending out society emails and taking detailed meeting notes on all internal committee meetings, society meetings and events. Plus, you are encouraged to get involved and lend administrative back-up to event project reams.

The Secretary should attend all society meetings and events, and aim to devote a couple hours a week to completing administrative tasks. As an official liaison between leadership and members, your role is socially demanding and it’s critical to be an effective, clear communicator with admirable time and information management.

Head of PR & Marketing

This position is responsible for managing the reputation of the society; this encompasses marketing events, messaging with individuals, and posting on our social media outlets. Essentially, the duty is to use media and communications to build and maintain a positive relationship with our society members as well as with the LSE student body and the general public.

The ideal person for the job is creative, works well in a team, and has great communication skills.

Treasurer

Being Treasurer for LSESU InterDev is an immensely rewarding experience and will allow you to learn about the inner financials of the student society.

As treasurer you are responsible for the society’s finances and funding. Job Description:

1. Ensure the society is financially healthy and has funds to execute events

2. Approve expenses and reimbursement claims on 365Expenses app

3. Apply for LSE/SU funding (via activates fund, annual fund or similar etc.)

4. Secure sponsorship from an external organisation

Head of Events

As a Head of Events, you come up with and organise events that would cater to the interests of our members. You liaise with external organisations and individuals, as well as work on logistics along with other society members. You also manage a team of events sub-committee who assist with the above.