Ownership of History

[Hoplite]

This is an issue that I've kicked around with numerous friends who are either history majors or who know enough to be history majors. It's a subject that never fails to make for a heated discussion.

What should be done regarding the ownership of historical objects and should we allow private ownership of historical artifacts?

Personally, I dont. History is the property of EVERYONE and to a more practical end, not everyone has the resources or knowledge to properly preserve historically significant objects. We need as much information about our past as we can get and if it's disseminated across collections that the public cant see or study, you're taking history away from people.

What do you think?

[Rafiq]

I think most of the opinions on this site would be in favor of putting them in Museums for the public to see.

I don't know really, it depends. If someone's famous grandpa gave their hat, why should he have to give it up?

[Pretty Flaco]

I don't understand what you're saying.
How are museums not adequate?

[PhoenixAsh]

I think we need to discuss what you consider historical objects. Because everything becomes a historical object at some point in time.

[Robocommie]

That's the catch. What's a historical object? History is everything, and that's more and more the case as history moves away from the fixation on kings, wars and empires and move more towards an interest in social history, the history of common people.

Some people collect old coins, guns, books, some people like to fix up old cars. Where's the dividing line?

[Jack]

History major here.

The ownership of objects of historical significance is not important, it doesn't matter if Lincoln's great great great great great grandson owns his hat (stealing the example from Rafiq), as long as it is properly preserved for historical research or appreciation. It's a nice idea that objects of historical significance should be owned by everyone, but then you get shit like this:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/26806980/detail.html

Private or public ownership isn't an issue to me, as long as the objects are properly preserved and respected.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Author of several books on museums, economics and globalization, here.

I find it surprising you guys (well some of you) fall in with arch-reactionary defenders of museum like James Cuno, whose argument is, that museums (meaning European and American museums) "save" the objects they collect, because they, and they alone, can determine the "true" value of those objects. So, for instance, if you have a Malagasy funerary totem, which is intended to decay and rot, your museum curator is doing the world a favor by preserving it for its "correct" function, which is a) to not have a function and b) to be worth a pile of money. Funny, how "value" always ends up in b)...