Contents:
Available for download now. Available to ship in days. Der achte Kontinent German Edition May 22, Rodin , Hieronymus The Younger. Taken thoughts Shortstory Aug 31, Rodin , Hironymus Theyounger , R. Die Wahrheit German Edition May 22, Die Flucht German Edition Sep 12, Rodin , Hieronymus R. Provide feedback about this page. There's a problem loading this menu right now. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime.
Science - Fiction Kurzgeschichten (German Edition) - Kindle edition by A. R. Rodin, Hieronymus The Younger. Download it once and read it on your Kindle. Der achte Kontinent: Teil 2: Die Wahrheit (German Edition). Kindle Edition . Der gestohlene Körper (Kurzgeschichte) (German Edition) Jan 07, by A. R.
Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping. Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Advertising Find, attract, and engage customers. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon.
Kerstin ist in Gummi gefangen und ergibt sich wie in Trance ihrem "Schicksal". Away from the usual tourist paths you will discover places and urban surprises that you probably would not have discovered alone or only by a sheer coincidence. Librivox 31 , science fiction 15 , Anatomy of Wonder 1 Core Collection 14 , Google Books 12 , into-movie 9 , time travel 7 , fantasy 7 , horror 5 , future war 5 , into-tv 4 , satire 4 , animal attack 3 , lost world 3 , magic 3 , war with aliens 2 , alien invasion 2 , mars 2 , list NPR Top 2 , first moon voyage 2 , Utopia 2 and 65 additional tags. So, we logically cannot guarantee the quality of each and every translation. But power is not law.
Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. We tried using casts and photographs to fill gaps but the desired effect was unachievable. We therefore thought of making an appeal to the world for loans or return of some works so that Benin might also be to show its own works at least to its own people. We tabled a draft resolution at the General Assembly of the International Council of Museums ICOM which met in France in , appealing for donations of one or two pieces from those museums which have large stocks of Benin works.
The resolution was modified to make it read like a general appeal for restitution or return and then adopted. We have known of secretaries throwing into wastepaper basket important documents in order to reduce the load of materials to be filed but would a German embassy act in this way? The Nigerian Parliament asked President Obasanjo in to request the return of artefacts taken away during the colonial era 8 But would the government of a city that has been at the centre of many international disputes ever read or listen to what other governments were saying or for that matter what the media had been reporting?
The Oba of Benin sent his brother in to bring the request for the return of the Benin bronzes to the British Parliament which has become an important document in history and is known as Appendix It is true that the document was addressed directly to the British as being primarily responsible for the Benin invasion and hence for the dispersal of the precious artefacts. But would the German government not hear about this and take notice of the intention and desire of the Oba of Benin?
In the last few years, the demand for the return of the Benin bronzes has been repeated at every Benin exhibition and we can confirm that German museums and other institutions were well represented. At the opening of the Benin exhibition Benin: There ensued a debate over restitution where Prof. We promptly and unambiguously rejected the baseless arguments. It once again, reminds the world of a civilization truncated by the imperial forces of the colonialist.
The works on show at this exhibition are some of the odd pieces of bronze and ivory works forcibly removed from my great grandfather's palace by some Britons who invaded Benin in The British kept some of the loot for themselves and sold the rest to European and American buyers. It links us, nostalgically, with our past. As you put this past on show today, it is our prayer that the people and government of Austria will show humaneness and magnanimity and return to us some of these objects which found their way to your country.
The Preface was signed by Prof. It is clear from the rejection by the museum directors that the demand by the Oba was directed to all the Western holders of the looted bronzes and not only Austria. How come then that the authorities in Berlin can now in declare they have not been directly or indirectly approached by the Oba or the Nigerian authorities? The declaration by the Berlin authorities that they have not been directly or indirectly approached with a demand for restitution by the Oba of Benin or the Nigerian government is based on a basic assumption that a person or entity that has lost property must submit a request to the holder of the property.
In other words that in the absence of such a request the Germans cannot return the Benin bronzes. Readers will no doubt be well aware of the farcical games played with the Egyptians regarding the demand of the restitution of Nefertiti. The restitution of cultural objects to the countries of origin has become a permanent agenda item. Several international conferences have also urged the return of artefacts. They have also often served to inform and engage broader societal concerns. The gown he is wearing hides his shackles.
From the Howie photo album in the archives of the Merseyside Maritime Museum Clearly, the refusal to return stolen cultural property violates the right to culture and right of access to culture as provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights I and the International Covenant on Civic and Political Rights in so far as the deprivation of a whole people or community of its cultural objects renders it impossible for the individuals in that community to exercise rights guaranteed under the international instruments.
Indeed some acts of refusal to return cultural objects, such as crosses or other religious symbols must be considered as violations of religious freedom. The religious and ritual objects of the Edo are necessary if they are to follow their tradition and religion.
The possibility of developing partnerships with museums in countries or areas that have lost a significant part of their heritage should be explored. This should be undertaken in an impartial manner, based on scientific, professional and humanitarian principles as well as applicable local, national and international legislation, in preference to action at a governmental or political level.
Therefore, the declaration that the Berlin authorities have not been approached directly or indirectly by either the Oba of Benin or the Nigerian authorities, cannot be accepted as an excuse for not returning or discussing the return of the cultural objects to the Oba of Benin.
Notwithstanding the above observations, we have suggested that Nigerian authorities write directly to museums with large collections of Benin artefacts in order to prevent the holders of looted artefacts from saying that there has not been any demand, an easy but unconvincing argument.
The argument demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt the unwillingness of the holder to envisage restitution. This position strengthens the determination of the holder not to consider the issue of restitution on its merits by blocking the demand at its very first step. The Oba of Benin sent in letters hand-carried to the board of trustees of the Art Institute of Chicago and to the Field Museum,Chicago, requesting restitution of some Benin artefacts.
Until today, there has not even been an acknowledgement of receipt from both institutions. Such is the conduct of those allegedly promoting understanding between different cultures of the world. There is no need here to recount the full story of the notorious bloody invasion of Benin in by the British army and the subsequent looting of the cultural artefacts.
As has been correctly stated above, the British sold the looted artefacts in London, on open market. The Germans were very enthusiastic purchasers of the Benin bronzes and indeed it was the German acquisition of various objects that prompted British institutions to increase their own stock. This racist conception which existed in German intellectual tradition and was present in the atrocities in Namibia continued its trajectory under Nazi rule in Germany and elsewhere.
With racist theories of European superiority and doubts whether Africans were human beings with intelligence, the British invasion of Benin was certainly not regretted by people like von Luschan and even long after his time, one seldom hears any expressions of regret by Europeans regarding the killings of thousands of Benin people Edo. This is in contrast to regrets and apologies rendered in the case of victims of Nazi atrocities and aggressions.
Austrians, Germans and others who obtained Benin Bronzes from the British must be considered as not having any valid title to the artefacts they hold. Benin being the place of the pretended acquisition by the British, the law of Benin should govern the act of acquisition.
Many have discussed this issue as if there were no laws in Benin in that would forbid such patent violation of rights in property. Joseph Egharevba, leading authority on Benin history and laws, states in his classic work, The Benin Laws and Customs that the person of the Oba is sacred and his property cannot be touched without his consent. He is the source of law and could make and repeal laws. The British of course were not interested in presenting a true picture of Benin society but preferred to depict the kingdom as a land of juju, cannibalism and human sacrifice.
But what about others who have discussed this issue? How can they assume implicitly that Benin Law was not relevant, unless they were only concerned with power? But power is not law. Legality of German purchases of Benin objects presupposes the legality of the British acquisition of the looted objects. The British looted the artefacts during their notorious invasion of Benin City. Does looting of property of others confer legality on the looter? Clearly, no legal system would accept the transfer of proprietary rights in this violent manner.
There may be de facto acceptance of this illegality but does the fact that no one can push the looter to return the looted goods confer legality on the violent looter? Some have argued that the law in authorised a conqueror to take all the cultural artefacts of the defeated. But those arguing this way do not specify which law. After the devastating lootings of Napoleon and his troops in European International Law clearly regarded looting of cultural artefacts as illegitimate. Incidentally, there is not one single example of a victorious African army stealing the cultural objects of the defeated and proudly displaying in its country.
The British looting of the Benin bronzes was from a legal point of view illegal and illegitimate. It follows from the above that the looters, the British, could not transfer any proprietary rights to the Germans. They may have paid cash but the objects they allegedly bought were tainted with illegality ab initio. Moreover, the Germans knew very well that the objects they were buying were illegally transferred from Benin City to London.
They bought the Benin Bronzes, from a notorious British auctioneer, W. Webster who also sold Benin artefacts to Austrians. Indeed the first auction took place a few months after the invasion, in May Many of the objects the Germans and Austrians bought must have had some of the blood of the people of Benin on them, fresh from the battlefield.
Is that what the Berlin government regards as legal acquisition? In any case, the Germans cannot completely distance or disassociate themselves from the criminal invasion of Benin in After all, it was the attempt by the British to enforce the division of areas of control or influence which the Germans and the British, with others, had set up in in Berlin that led to the conflict between the British and Oba Ovonramvem who resisted British attempts to exercise control over Benin.
The conflict that eventually led to the looting of the Benin artefacts cannot be seen as a remote consequence of the Berlin Conference but must be accepted as a direct result of that division of areas of control by the Europeans. At the time of the conference, Africa and the areas the Europeans allocated to themselves were known to be inhabited and it was clear to all that conflicts would ensue. Contracts of purchase between the Ethnologisches Museum and British dealers should not be treated like ordinary contracts between German tourists and English shopkeepers in Regents Street.
The historical context must be seriously considered to give the act of purchase its full significance and meaning. In answer to the question what meetings had been held with the owners of the Benin bronzes, the Berlin government answered as follows: The agreed aim of all participants is in the long term to find a possibility to present in Nigeria objects from the Benin collections in Europe. Stockholm and Dresden, holders of large collections of Benin artefacts, were about documentation of the artefacts; a documentation that would also be placed in the internet and an eventual display of some of the artefacts in Nigeria.
Up to now, many had the understanding and the impression that these meetings were about the restitution of at least some of the looted Benin bronzes. Newspaper reports as well as statements from the National Commission had led to the belief that some progress had been made in the direction of restitution. Though the document issued at the end of that meeting was entitled The Benin Plan of Action on Restitution, there was nothing in it that envisaged restitution of the precious Benin artefacts.
No wonder that the representative of the Oba declared he would not take part any more in such meetings in future. Besides, the British Museum did not take part in the meeting. One cannot help feeling that the name of ICOM was thrown into the statement by the Berlin government to secure for the museums a veneer of legitimacy and legality. The statement seeks to create an aura of rectitude around the museum in order to avert criticisms especially from the youth. If the Berlin museums were really conscious of their historical and political responsibility as regards artefacts acquired in the colonial era, they would not want to be seen arguing with Africans about the return of cultural artefacts that are undoubtedly African.
The cruelty and unbelievable oppression in German colonies require no elaboration here. When it is said that many artefacts were given to the museums as gifts by German travellers, it should be remembered that these were objects extracted from Africans who had no choice but to hand over to the Europeans whatever they wanted. Some individual contemporaries were perfectly aware of this fact. I believe that half of your museum consists of stolen objects. We need only remember Namibia, formerly German colony of South West Africa where the cruelty of German colonial rule exceeded all bounds and stamped Germany with a terrible reputation only surpassed by Nazi Germany.
The effects of the oppressive German regime are still felt in Namibia where recently the human remains of those Namibians massacred and brought to Germany have been returned after arduous negotiations. Germany still refuses to apologize or pay compensation. They should be interested in returning at least some of the looted artefacts and seek a reasonable compromise.
They would in any case seek to avoid endless discussions on such an issue and endeavour to prevent any impression of continuity in the present and past German practice and ideology with regard to collecting cultural artefacts of others. But can one achieve this and still maintain the loot of the past, albeit via the British? From the Benin artefacts that the Berlin regime mentioned although by some counts there should be more, about some for example, could be returned to Benin City; arrangements could be made for lending some of the remaining objects if the Nigerians request.
From the answer of the Berlin government, there is no trace of a sense of historical responsibility and moral consciousness. The government is out of tune with the spirit of our times which is to return artefacts wrongly taken away from colonial and other oppressed peoples. Magnus Magnusson has rightly stated: