Cultural frames and cultural property -- part three

Royal Flying Corps, marching in Toronto, Canada
1st May 1918

In many countries, and under different names, today is Remembrance Day. Although now applied to remember those of the armed forces who were killed in all military conflicts, it originated as a response to World War I. In 1914, H. G. Wells published a book entitled The War That Will End War. Even at the time, the title met with some skepticism, but it captured the public imagination over the following few years, especially because of the dreadful loss of life for so little advantage. It epitomized the Pyrrhic Victory.

A young person, today, might be forgiven for misunderstanding the symbolism in the Remembrance Day events. While being a tribute to those soldiers who fell, are we supposed to envision some sort of glory in their deaths? Certainly, during and after World War I, it was widely understood that there was no longer any glory in a war where thousands were killed over a piece of ground that had been a market garden (Ypres). How many people, today, have learned the lesson that H.G. Wells wrote in that book (p.16):

But be it remembered that Europe's quarrel is with the German State, not with the German people; with a system, and not with a race.

But could the desire to end wars also lead to another sort of Pyrrhic victory? let us return the theme that I started yesterday, an analysis of some of the points in UNESCO its Purpose and its Philosophy, by Julian Huxley, 1946. Let us look at another passage:

The moral for Unesco is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it -- education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise, as the only certain means for avoiding war.

Is this not a bit like saying that the best solution to avoid strikes and other forms of labor unrest would be slavery or totalitarianism? In the Wikipedia entry for the causes of World War I we read: "Militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism played major roles in the conflict as well." Yet, the very nature of all of the various UNESCO conventions about cultural property revolves around alliances and nationalisms.

Pursuant to the UNESCO cultural property conventions, are the U.S. Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) about the importation of objects designated as "cultural property" into the U.S. These are deals arranged between the U.S. State Department and foreign nations by which bans are imposed by the U.S. on the importation of  certain classes of objects (without an export permit -- which is often impossible to obtain) in return for concessions paid to the U.S. by the nations in question. While the American people are informed of what they must forgo in importation rights, they are not informed of what these countries have agreed upon as a quid pro quo. In fact, that side of the deal is a State Secret and not even obtainable (so far) through legal actions. An illusion of democracy is maintained by allowing the public to voice their concerns, agreement, or disagreement with the proposed MoU through messages that are published on the web, yet it is only one side of the deal which is revealed. It is thus very possible, and in the light of the secrecy component, highly likely that many Americans in favor of the MoU would not be so favorable if they knew all of the details. So far, there has not been a single incidence of where the public were overwhelmingly against a particular cultural property MoU and it was subsequently dropped, so the problem is moot. It is only an apparency, and thus a mockery, of the democratic process.

For about three years, I did some voluntary work for the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild which included encouraging public responses and aiding those with questions about various MoU's which included ancient coins. No other collecting area was similarly represented by any organizations or individuals because advances in numismatics are overwhelmingly due to the work of independent scholars. The subject is so complex, and so interdisciplinary, that it cannot be successfully taught during the time allowed for a university education. I have told many people that I think that it takes at least twenty years to become proficient enough in the subject to make real contributions to its methods. Because of the nature of the subject, these methods are often unique to a study in question. There is little "one size fits all" methodology beyond simple die-linking and, as I have proven in my own work, the usefulness of that is limited. Anyone who has read my blog for some time will realize that the number of subjects I have used in my research are many.

Over a number of MoU processes, I heard things about, and did further research on, the subject of what secret concessions were granted to the U.S. in return for their imposition of import restrictions. Interestingly, only two possibilities surfaced: the establishment of military bases and concessions to the Monsanto Corporation. The first was an expected response -- almost part of  the mythology about the U.S. The second was due to actual observations and known data -- Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State at the time and if you want to make up your own mind, then simply Google Hillary Clinton Monsanto.

So, we have seen two of the assigned causes of World War I (alliances and nationalism) also absorbed by the UNESCO cultural property conventions, and the other two (militarism and imperialism) absorbed by the perceived quid pro quos in the U.S. cultural property MoU processes. Of course, the latter depends on much speculation because its secrecy allows only for speculation. Yet, it is very clear that these two are the only answers voiced by the American public and are thus indicative of their main concerns. You would think that the U. S. government would be swift to reveal the second half of the deal knowing, as they must, this aspect of public opinion if neither were true. The only other explanation is that the real quid pro quos are so horrible that they have not even been imagined by members of the public.

After banging my head against the wall for three years, I came to the conclusion that public opinion could not possibly sway the U.S. State Department, and instead, I decided to start this blog to show the more positive side of amateur research. This current series, however, contains a crossover between the two, and this particular post is the only one where it will show up. I thought it pertinent to Remembrance Day as during those three years, "war" and "battle" were the dominant metaphors that I had encountered. Tomorrow, we will start to look into the ways that nationalism and the past has been used to influence people's thinking to the benefit of certain politicians and leaders.