The podcast argues that restitution (paying someone back) and repatriation (returning an item to its original location and people) are not sufficient on their own. It argues for reparations as well, which include both of the above as well as an admission of guilt and offer to make amends. I agree with this approach, imagining how it would feel on a personal level if someone took something deeply important to me. Merely returning the object or giving me the monetary value of the object would not feel sufficient; I would also want an apology with a recognition that a wrong had been done. This additional piece signals a more genuine step towards acknowledging the wrongs of the past while also promising to not do the same in the future. 

The podcast lays out a series of important steps national governments, communities, scholars, and museums should take when considering what to do with African cultural items in their possession. It argues for conducting research as to the provenance of an item to make sure what is brought into museums et al is clean (not looted). If items are verified as legally acquired, or if agreements are made with the country or people of origin for culture pieces to remain elsewhere, then it is incumbent upon the receiving party to understand and display the object’s cultural significance and place it holds within the culture’s history. A quote I really appreciated from the podcast that speaks to this is: “Is the curator giving me some sense of what this object is like for the person who made it?” This people-centered approach values the contextual history of sacred items.

How do museums influence what visitors believe about Africa?
Museums control what visitors can learn about Africa.  Just having items in a museum connotates they are "exotic" or other-worldly.  I appreciate exhibits that encompass more complete stories behind their display.  And every time a museum announces an exhibit on Africa, we are re-cementing that generalization that Africa is one place instead of 53 different countries, each with their own stories, culture and histories.

What is the difference between repatriation, restitution, and reparation—and why do those distinctions matter?
I once heard a historian from the Mohawk nation describe repatriation in this analogy: "My grandpa stole your grandpa's car and I'd like to return it."  Continuing in this analogy, restitution would be something like, " My grandpa store your grandpa's car and I'd like to return it, restoring it to the exact shape it was in when it was stolen."  Reparition would be, " I'd like to return the stolen car and make up for the difficulty it put your grandpa in at the time, the hardship he faced because he no longer had the car, how it affected his family and livelihood, to put right the frustration and even anger he may have had, or the difficulty he had in reporting the theft and any harm to his reputation, and any lasting affects on his children and grandchildren." 

In this simple analogy reparation is the most comprehensive and difficult to complete.

Who should have the authority to decide the future of African cultural heritage held in museums abroad?
As others have mentioned, I feel a council of some kind should be the decision makers on first, how items are obtained, what objects are obtained (respecting cultural values; for example, for some cultures displaying items that represent themes of the after life may be disrespectful), and where they are displayed.  Then steps can be taken to determine disagreements on objects museums currently have.  It seems that if a an object's country of origin has any hesitations, the process stops there and items are returned.  If a country of origin wants to share items for an exhibit or is agreement for foreign museums to house their items, that could be an option.  

This underlying thread of power runs throughout this discussion.  A balance needs to be found between exhibiting objects, the stories behind the objects and a more equal distribution of power on deciding what objects, where displayed and what stories are told.

I also think about how African countries could gain monetarily by the return of many of their artifacts. Museums are often the reason why many people visit a place.  More African countries would have more reason to become destinations for tourists and the stories have the possibility of feeling more authentic because they would be in the places that they were produced. 

What is the difference between repatriation, restitution, and reparation—and why do those distinctions matter?

I thought about how I might define these words for my students. Repatriation is when you return something (or someone) back to its original home. Restitution is returning something back to the person who should have it, or paying money to fix something that you broke. Reparation is similar to apologizing (often with money), but on a much larger scale and for much larger “wrongs”. Simply returning an object to its country or community of origin does not seem sufficient on its own. I’m having trouble thinking about what actions might be sufficient in addressing the ways through which African cultural materials entered Western museums. The podcast referred to it as exploitation. 

Who should have the authority to decide the future of African cultural heritage held in museums abroad?
I think descendants of the original owners of any given piece of work or art should have the authority to decide the future of African cultural heritage in museums abroad.

One of the cool ideas from this summer was the public facing museum.  These were installations in non-traditional museum spaces--highly public areas.  

The museum can make a wide array of artifacts accessible to a large number of people.  The public facing museum that is mobile takes this asks the public to not only view the exhibit, but to interact with the exhibit and possibly re-create the exhibit.  I like this idea as a tool for teaching and learning in the classroom because it asks students to bring themselves and their knowledge to the learning.

In contrast, some of the traditional museum place the visitor more in the role of being passive observers.  The organizing and labeling and presenting of objects is an activity that is the domain of the museum leaders.  This is especially problematic with regard to African exhibits, which have historically been influenced by colonial mindsets that decontextualize cultural artifacts from their cultures.  This perpetuates harm by not allowing people with historical ties to objects to have a say in the telling of the stories of the objects.  

The podcast asks us to think about the underlying values of the museum.  What is the history of how museums in the west have come to obtain African objects?  What is the duty of repair for museums?   How can the museum give voices to people who are connected to the objects?

What is the difference between repatriation, restitution, and reparation—and why do those distinctions matter?
Repatriation: Returning an object or human remains to its country or community of origin. restitution: Returning a specific object to its rightful owner after theft, looting, or illicit transfer

Reparation: Acknowledges that physical return alone cannot erase the long-term economic, cultural, and psychological damage of colonial violence

These distinctions matter because using the wrong term can limit the scope of justice. For example, treating a colonial injustice merely as a matter of "repatriation" can result in an object being sent back to a national museum in Africa without addressing the local community it was stolen from, or the systemic trauma caused by its violent extraction.

Who should have the authority to decide the future of African cultural heritage held in museums abroad?
I think this questions can be very debatable. Where does the artifact come from; was it a gift to another colony, country, government? Was it stolen, or gifted? In my opinion, there needs to be an effort of returning the artifact to the rightful owner/community. The podcast states that there was an issue with France and Nigeria. France refused to return artifacts to Nigeria because they "were afraid of it being misrepresented." I find that insensitive of France since the artifacts were Nigerian. Therefore, I believe the artists/ descendants of the communities and museum professionals should work together to decide the fate of those objects, not governments.

We learned that museums are more than just collections of items; they create knowledge by how the objects are labeled and arranged. The collections tell stories.

On the surface, the objects are interesting and provoke thought. However, fundamentally, these items are loot. Many western museums justify keeping these stolen objects by saying that they are better prepared to care for the objects rather than returning them.

There is another option. Repatriation of the objects intends to make amends with the past. To try and undue some of the harm done. Furthermore, most African museums do not want all of the objects to be returned. They want to leave some in western museums to serve as ambassadors, showcasing the creative output of people.

Ultimately, museums come down to power. Do they continue to patronize Africa as backwards and isolated? Or, do they create evocative themes with their collections, give some back, and give voice to the communities that created the art?