Art Theft Forces France to Confront Colonial History
Last Wednesday, a small French courtroom witnessed the controversial trial of Congo-born activist Mwazulu Diyabanz and his four associates, who were accused of attempted art theft. The art in question was a 19th century African funeral pole from the Quai Branly Museum in Paris, an artifact historically stolen from sub-Saharan Africa by French colonizers.
Diyabanza, in an act of protest streamed live on Facebook, argued that he never intended to complete the robbery, but rather bring attention to cultural theft and emphasize the true origins of such artifacts. This act was only the most recent in Diyabanza and his associates’ attempts to shine light on colonial theft, as it follows their previous protests at a museum in Marseilles as well as in Berg en Dal in the Netherlands.
The activists’ efforts come amid months of international protests against racial injustices, forcing France to directly confront its brutal history as a colonial power and a country of slave-traders. Similarly, at the forefront of the debate about France’s colonial past is the call for its restitution of stolen treasures to its former colonies.
A lawyer for the museum insisted that, at the moment, the artwork belonged to the French state. He deemed this political act as unnecessary, citing the current negotiations between French President Emmanuel Macron and African countries as the expansion of legal restitution pathways.
In 2017, Macron pledged to return many stolen African artifacts from French museums back to the African countries submitting requests for them. A later report from the French government found that more than 60 percent of the Quai Branly Museum’s items, or around 46,000 objects of African heritage, remained eligible for restitution. These objects occupy only a portion of the French state’s 90,000 sub-Saharan cultural holdings largely accumulated during their colonial era.
Since the 2017 pledge, however, only one object has been returned to its country of origin in Senegal. Despite 26 other cultural artifacts having been announced for restitution to Benin, they have yet to move from their cases at the Quai Branley.
Fundamentally, the bill supporting these returns is less than perfect. Not only is the bill yet to be voted on, but it also calls for the consideration of restitution on a case-by-case basis, qualifying artifacts for return in “exceptional” cases rather than establishing a system for regular returns.
One of the defendant’s lawyers, Calvin Job, claimed that this aspect of the bill communicated “a desire not to settle the issue” rather than an effort to “enshrine the principle of restitution in the code of law.”
Echoing this sentiment, Congo-born social worker Laetitia Babin said upon watching the courtroom proceedings, “It’s not up to them to decide how artworks are returned to us, it’s up to us.” At the conclusion of the trial, prosecutors requested a 1,000 euro fine against Diyabanza and reduced fines against his associates. The modest fine, accompanied by no jail time, was viewed as a victory by restitution activists.
A verdict will be announced on October 14 while the case of French restitutions has yet to be resolved.