Many of the world's major museums display objects that were removed from other countries, often during periods of colonial rule or conflict. Whether these artefacts should be returned is a sensitive issue. Although there are reasonable arguments for keeping them, I believe that objects taken without genuine consent should, in most cases, be returned.
Those who believe the objects should stay where they are put forward several arguments. Large international museums attract millions of visitors from around the world, so artefacts displayed there can be seen by a far wider audience than they might be elsewhere. These institutions also have considerable expertise and resources for conservation, and some argue that fragile objects could be damaged if moved or kept in less suitable conditions. In addition, there is concern that returning one collection would set a precedent, leading to so many claims that museums would be emptied.
On the other hand, supporters of return argue that many objects were acquired unjustly, through looting, force or agreements made under unequal power. For the communities from which they came, these items may hold deep religious or cultural meaning, and their absence represents a continuing loss. Returning them can therefore be an act of justice and a way of acknowledging past wrongs. Moreover, many countries of origin now have modern museums capable of caring for these objects, which weakens the argument about conservation.
In my view, the question of how an object was obtained should be decisive. Where there is clear evidence that an artefact was taken by force or without fair agreement, it should be returned. Museums could maintain good relationships with the countries concerned by arranging long-term loans or joint exhibitions.
In conclusion, while major museums offer wide access and expert care, these benefits do not justify keeping objects that were taken unfairly. Returning them is the more ethical course.