Museums and auction houses should not hold human remains, UK lawmakers say
Lawmakers and campaigners in the United Kingdom are pushing for an end to the display of human remains in museums and the sale of human body parts in auction houses.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Afrikan-Reparations (APPG-AR), which is made up of parliamentarians, campaigners and community members, released a report Wednesday calling for a ban on the sale and display of ancestral remains, including Egyptian mummies.
At present, the law that regulates the storage and use of human remains in the UK only requires consent for acquiring and holding body tissue from people under 100 years old.
The Human Tissue Act 2004 also only prohibits people from buying, selling and possessing body parts for transplantation.
The report, titled 'Laying Ancestors to Rest,' outlined the distress caused to diaspora communities by British institutions holding ancestral remains, many of which were taken during colonial rule.
'The mummified person has historically been traded among the upper classes of Britain and France as a luxurious commodity, also featuring as entertainment in British 'mummy unwrapping parties' in the 19th century,' the report said.
'In more recent times, Egyptian mummified persons have been transformed to the popularised, haunted 'mummy' figure, which reduces Egyptian heritage to exoticised mystique for the Western audience,' it added.
The report made 14 recommendations, including that the sale of human remains should be made illegal; the Human Tissue Act 2004 should be amended to include the remains of people who died more than 100 years ago; the boards of trustees for national museums should be representative of the diasporas in society; and funders should dedicate resources to mapping the inventory of ancestral remains in the UK's cultural institutions.
Guidance for museums and other institutions on how to care for human remains was published by the British government back in 2005.
Under that guidance, museums can decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to return human remains, if requested.
During a debate on the issue in the House of Lords, Parliament's upper house, on Thursday, Fiona Twycross, a junior minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, acknowledged that the guidance was dated and 'the world has changed substantially' since then.
She added that incomplete databases and collections also make it hard to know where human remains are being kept but said the recommendations put forward in the report 'will inform the government's consideration' of the issues.
In the debate, Paul Boateng, a peer from the governing Labour party, described the trade of human body parts as an 'abomination.'
'This abominable trade must stop, and the continued retention and objectifying of the remains of Indigenous peoples in our public collections, against the will of their descendants and the originating communities concerned, must cease,' he added.
He was among several politicians to praise the 'good practice' of the Pitt Rivers museum in Oxford, which removed 120 artifacts, including an Egyptian mummified child, Naga trophy heads and shrunken heads, from display in 2020 as part of its 'decolonization process,' because the items 'reiterated racial stereotypes.'
Professor Laura Van Broekhoven, director of the Pitt Rivers Museum, told CNN in a statement Friday that the museum is 'very supportive' of the calls to 'ban the sales of human remains and the display of human remains in public museums.'
She added that her museum's approach 'rehumanises our museums and our collections in unprecedented ways, bringing opportunities of true partnerships, that work towards global healing and peace building.'
During the parliamentary debate, Boateng criticized the British Museum in London for refusing to hand over several preserved Māori tattooed heads and the skulls of two named individuals from the Torres Strait islands.
He added that the museum was 'forever seemingly on the defensive and on the back foot' and in need of 'long-overdue reform.'
Twycross said ministers regularly meet with the museum and that she would ensure that this was raised as an issue.
The British Museum holds more than 6,000 human remains, according to its website, which it says 'furthers our understanding of the past' and advances research.
'The Museum is mindful of ethical obligations and closely follows the guidance set out by the Department of Culture, Media and Sports and the Human Tissue Act 2004 which ensures that human remains held in its care are always treated and displayed with respect and dignity,' a spokesman for the museum told CNN in a statement Friday.
Controversy surrounding the display and auction of human remains persists globally.
In October, the Swan auction house in Oxfordshire, England, was forced to withdraw more than two dozen lots of human remains, including shrunken heads and ancestral skulls, from sale after an outcry in the UK and India.
In 2023, the head of the Smithsonian Institution in the United States apologized for amassing a collection of tens of thousands of body parts, largely taken from Black and Indigenous people without their consent, during the first half of the 20th century.
The same year, London's Hunterian Museum stopped exhibiting the skeleton of an 18th-century man known as the 'Irish Giant,' who grew to be 7 feet, 7 inches tall and wanted to be buried at sea to prevent his body being seized by anatomists.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In African universities, Russia's war against Ukraine finds new supporters
The halls of academia have long been considered sanctuaries of critical thinking, intellectual discourse, and the pursuit of truth. Universities across the globe pride themselves on fostering environments where diverse perspectives can be examined, debated, and understood through the lens of scholarly rigor. However, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has exposed a troubling trend within certain African academic institutions: a marked bias toward Russian narratives that undermines the very principles of academic integrity and intellectual honesty that universities claim to uphold. This bias is not merely an abstract concern about geopolitical alignment; it represents a fundamental betrayal of the educational mission that universities exist to fulfill. When academic institutions abandon objectivity in favor of political positioning, they fail their students, their communities, and the broader pursuit of knowledge that defines higher education. The stakes could not be higher as universities shape the minds of future leaders, policymakers, and citizens who will navigate an increasingly complex global landscape. When African academics present papers at international conferences that uncritically repeat Russian talking points, they undermine their own credibility and that of their institutions. Across various African universities, a concerning pattern has emerged since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Rather than maintaining the scholarly distance necessary for objective analysis, numerous institutions have embraced narratives that closely align with Russian state propaganda. This manifests in multiple ways: academic conferences that present one-sided perspectives on the conflict, research publications that uncritically amplify Moscow's justifications for the war, and classroom discussions that frame the invasion through the lens of Western imperialism rather than examining it as a clear violation of international law. Read also: Ukraine must look beyond the EU for its agricultural future The roots of this bias are complex and multifaceted. Historical ties between the Soviet Union and various African nations during the Cold War era have created lingering sympathies that some academics appear unable to separate from contemporary realities. Additionally, legitimate grievances about Western colonial history and ongoing concerns about neocolonialism have been exploited to create false equivalencies between Russian aggression and Western influence. Some academics have conflated criticism of Western policies with support for Russian actions, creating a dangerous intellectual blind spot. Economic factors also play a role. Russian investment in African educational infrastructure, scholarship programs, and research partnerships have created institutional relationships that some universities appear reluctant to jeopardize through objective analysis of Russian actions. This economic dependence has compromised academic freedom, creating situations where financial considerations override scholarly integrity. The influence of Russian state media and disinformation campaigns cannot be overlooked. RT (formerly Russia Today) and Sputnik have specifically targeted African audiences with sophisticated propaganda operations designed to shape public opinion. Unfortunately, some academics have proven susceptible to these narratives, either through genuine belief or through a misguided sense that amplifying Russian perspectives represents intellectual diversity. When universities abandon objectivity, the consequences extend far beyond the ivory tower. Students who receive biased education are ill-equipped to understand complex global issues, make informed decisions as citizens, or contribute meaningfully to policy discussions. They graduate with skewed worldviews that may influence their professional and personal choices for decades to come. The credibility of African scholarship suffers when institutions are perceived as politically motivated rather than academically rigorous. This damages the reputation of African universities in international academic circles, potentially limiting collaboration opportunities, research partnerships, and the mobility of African scholars. When African academics present papers at international conferences that uncritically repeat Russian talking points, they undermine their own credibility and that of their institutions. True intellectual independence requires the courage to analyze situations objectively, regardless of political pressures or historical sympathies. Perhaps most importantly, bias in academia contributes to the broader information warfare that authoritarian regimes wage against democratic values and international law. Universities that should serve as bastions of critical thinking instead become unwitting participants in propaganda campaigns designed to undermine global stability and human rights. The situation becomes particularly problematic when considering the humanitarian dimensions of Russia's war against Ukraine. Hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure have been deliberately targeted by Russian forces, creating a refugee crisis that has displaced millions of people. When universities fail to acknowledge these realities or attempt to justify them through geopolitical frameworks, they implicitly endorse violence against civilians and violations of international humanitarian law. African universities must recommit to their fundamental mission of pursuing truth through rigorous scholarship rather than serving as vehicles for political propaganda. This transformation requires several concrete steps. First, universities must establish clear guidelines for faculty regarding the difference between legitimate academic analysis and political advocacy. While scholars should be free to examine controversial topics from multiple perspectives, they must do so within frameworks that respect evidence, logic, and established principles of international law. Second, African universities must diversify their funding sources and partnership arrangements to reduce dependence on any single country or ideological bloc. The current situation, where some institutions appear reluctant to criticize Russian actions due to financial relationships, represents an unacceptable compromise of academic independence. Read also: Hiding in plain sight — how Russia's cultural centers continue to operate in US, Europe despite espionage claims Third, universities must invest in media literacy and critical thinking education for both faculty and students. The susceptibility of some academics to Russian disinformation campaigns reveals significant gaps in the ability to evaluate sources, identify propaganda techniques, and distinguish between credible and manipulated information. Fourth, African universities must strengthen their commitment to international academic standards and peer review processes. When scholars publish work that fails to meet basic standards of evidence and argumentation, it reflects poorly on the entire African academic community. Rigorous peer review can help ensure that African scholarship maintains the quality necessary for international respect and collaboration. The pro-Russian bias evident in some African universities represents more than just a misguided political position; it constitutes a surrender of intellectual independence to foreign propaganda. This is particularly ironic given that many of these same institutions pride themselves on their commitment to African independence and self-determination. True intellectual independence requires the courage to analyze situations objectively, regardless of political pressures or historical sympathies. It means acknowledging uncomfortable truths about allies while maintaining the ability to critique opponents fairly. Most importantly, it means refusing to sacrifice scholarly integrity for political convenience. African universities have a proud tradition of intellectual leadership, from their role in anti-colonial movements to their contributions to post-independence development. This legacy is endangered when institutions abandon their commitment to truth in favor of political positioning. The current moment represents a critical test of whether African higher education will live up to its historical role as a force for enlightenment and progress. The stakes extend beyond the immediate question of how to analyze Russia's war against Ukraine. Universities that compromise their integrity on this issue signal their willingness to subordinate academic standards to political considerations more broadly. This has implications for everything from scientific research to economic analysis to social policy development. African universities stand at a crossroads. They can continue down the path of political bias, sacrificing their integrity for short-term political or economic gains, or they can lead by example by recommitting to the principles of scholarly objectivity and intellectual honesty that define higher education at its best. The choice is not merely about how to analyze one particular conflict; it is about the fundamental purpose and character of African higher education. Universities that choose bias over objectivity risk becoming irrelevant to serious academic discourse and ineffective in their mission to educate future leaders. The world needs African universities that can contribute meaningfully to global conversations about complex issues. This requires institutions that maintain high scholarly standards, resist political pressure, and commit themselves to the pursuit of truth regardless of where it leads. Read also: Can South Africa lead the charge for nuclear safety in Ukraine? Submit an Opinion Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent. We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
an hour ago
Ahead of UN climate talks, Brazil fast-tracks oil and highway projects that threaten the Amazon
MANAUS, Brazil -- Months before hosting the U.N.'s first climate talks held in the Amazon, Brazil is fast-tracking a series of controversial decisions that undercut President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's lofty environmental rhetoric and show widening divisions within his cabinet. The country's federal environmental agency approved plans for offshore drilling near the mouth of the Amazon and rock blasting along another river in the rainforest, while Congress is moving to make it harder to recognize Indigenous land and easier to build infrastructure in the rainforest. These efforts would be controversial in normal times. But on the eve of the COP30 climate summit, environmental advocates say they're undermining Lula's claims to be an environmental defender whose administration has made headway in slowing deforestation in the Amazon. 'What will Brazil show up with at COP30 in November?" asked Cleberson Zavaski, president of the National Association of Environmental Public Servants. "Will it be, once again, a list of commitments that contradict what the country itself is putting on the table today — such as expanding the highway network and oil exploitation?' Protecting the environment was a central part of Lula's presidential campaign in 2022, when he ran against President Jair Bolsonaro, who presided over increasing deforestation and illegal activities in the Amazon, such as gold mining and land-grabbing. But when Brazil's environmental protection agency rejected the state-run oil company's bid to conduct exploratory drilling in an about 160 kilometers (99 miles) off Brazil's Amazonian coast, Lula supported the company's appeal and in February criticized the agency for taking too long, saying it 'seems like it's working against the government.' On May 19, the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources or IBAMA, approved an emergency plan to allow the drilling. A week later, IBAMA approved a rock-blasting operation along 40 km (25 miles) of the Tocantins River to enable year-round navigation, despite criticism from local grassroots organizations. The river, which cuts through the Amazon rainforest, is set to become a critical waterway to ship soybeans, mainly to China. The Federal Prosecutor's Office said the authorization was illegal because it failed to address issues highlighted during the environmental study, and filed a lawsuit seeking to have it overturned. Since taking office in 2023, Lula has argued that Brazil can both further its development while protecting the environment. 'France, the U.K., Norway and the U.S. also produce oil. And Brazil has the cleanest energy mix in the world: 90% of our electricity comes from renewables,' Lula said in an interview to French newspaper Le Monde published last week. Brazil gets most of its own electricity from hydropower and other green energies, while its oil exports, a major source of income for the country, are on the rise. Emails to the president's chief of staff seeking comment were not answered. On May 21, the Senate approved sweeping legislation that weakens federal agencies' environmental licensing powers. Among other measures, the bill streamlines review for projects deemed priorities by the federal government, reducing the approval process from three bureaucratic steps to one and imposing a one-year deadline for review. It also elimates reviews for upgrades to existing highways, which could clear the way for to pave the whole of BR-319, a highway that runs about 900 kilometers (560 miles) through the western part of the Amazon. Environmentalists argue that the paving will lead to mass clearing of a pristine area of rainforest. The bill is opposed by Lula's Workers' Party, but it's expected to pass the lower chamber of Congress. Lula could veto all or parts of the bill, but according to press reports he is expected to support of the bulk of the changes with only minor adjustments. Lula has said he has no position on the environmental bill. Meanwhile, Congress has also approved rules that make it harder demarcate Indigenous lands and is moving forward with legislation to weaken licensing rules that, among other impacts. The bill is opposed by Lula's Workers' Party, but according to several press reports Lula will support of the bulk of the changes and will only negotiate minor adjustments. 'It's the perfect combo to wipe out environmental protections and Indigenous land demarcations in the country, accelerate the tipping point of the world's largest tropical forest and set off a carbon bomb against the global climate,' Climate Observatory, a network of 133 environmental, civil society and academic groups, said in a statement. Former U.S. Interior Interior Bruce Babbitt, who sits on the board of the nonprofit Amazon Conservation, said in a statement that the bill 'will lead to massive destruction of the Amazon rainforest. It should be opposed by all Brazilians and friends of Brazil in the international community.' The licensing bill has also deepened internal divisions within Brazil's government. Environment Minister Marina Silva said the law will end one of Brazil's crucial mechanisms of environmental protection, but she appears increasingly sidelined in the administration. Local media have reported that Lula's Chief of Staff Rui Costa promised the bill's sponsor that Lula would not oppose changes to licensing rules, and Minister of Transportation Renan Filho said in a social media post that the bill is 'excellent' news that will get the highway project moving. At a press conference last week, Lula praised Silva, calling her 'loyal' and adding that it's normal to have friction between the environmental and other ministries of government. But many see echoes of Lula's previous administration, during which Silva resigned from the same post after being marginalized by the rising influence of agribusiness. João Paulo Capobianco, executive secretary of the environment ministry, reiterated her criticism of the bill in a speech last week, calling it a 'real risk of setback.' He added that Silva is working with Lula's cabinet toward 'a point of convergence between those who seek efficiency — and deserve a response — and the need to preserve the system without dismantling environmental licensing.'
an hour ago
EU seeks to lower a price cap on Russian oil and discourage Nord Stream pipeline investors
BRUSSELS -- The European Union wants to lower a cap on the price of Russian oil to deprive the Kremlin of extra profits to fund its war in Ukraine as part of a new raft of sanctions aimed at forcing Moscow to the negotiating table, senior officials said on Tuesday. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the bloc is 'proposing to lower the oil price cap from $60 to $45, which is lower than the market price, and lowering the oil price cap will hit Russia's revenues hard.' Kallas said the EU also wants to impose 'sanctions on the Nord Stream pipelines to prevent Russia generating any revenue in the future. In this way, it sends a clear signal we are not going back to business as usual.' All 27 EU member countries must all agree for the sanctions to enter force. In 2023, Ukraine's Western allies limited sales of Russian oil to $60 per barrel but the price cap was largely symbolic as most of Moscow's crude — its main moneymaker — cost less than that. Still, the cap was there in case oil prices rose. Oil income is the linchpin of Russia's economy, allowing President Vladimir Putin to pour money into the armed forces while avoiding worsening inflation for everyday people and a currency collapse. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she assumed that the price cap would be discussed and agreed among the leaders of the Group of Seven major world economic powers when they meet in Canada on June 15-17. She said the United States and its G7 partners realize 'that the oil price has lowered so much that the effectiveness of the cap is to be questioned, and therefore we all want to lower the oil price from $60 per barrel down to $45 per barrel.' The Nord Stream gas pipelines were built to carry Russian natural gas to Germany but are not in operation. They were sabotaged in 2022, but the source of the underwater explosions has remained a major international mystery. The Commission has said that it wants to impose sanctions on the operating consortium to discourage investors from trying to use the pipelines in future. The blasts happened as Europe attempted to wean itself off Russian energy sources following the Kremlin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and contributed to tensions that followed the start of the war. Von der Leyen noted on Tuesday that at the beginning of the war in 2022, 'Russia had 12 billion euros ($14 billion) of energy revenues from fossil fuels" from Europe per month. "And now we're down to 1.8 billion (euros).' The new EU sanctions would also target Russia's banking sector, with the aim of limiting the Kremlin's ability to raise funds or carry out financial transactions. A further 22 Russian banks will be hit with measures, von der Leyen said. An export ban worth some 2.5 billion euros would also be imposed, and the assets frozen of more than 20 Russian and foreign companies alleged to be providing support to the Kremlin's war machine. Von der Leyen said the sanctions are aimed at forcing Russia into serious talks about peace with Ukraine. 'We need a real ceasefire, and Russia has to come to the negotiating table with a serious proposal,' she told reporters. The EU has imposed several rounds of sanctions on Russia since Putin ordered his troops into Ukraine in February 2022. Around 2,400 officials and 'entities' – often government agencies, banks and organizations – have been hit. It's last raft of sanctions, imposed on May 20, targeted almost 200 ships in Russia's sanction-busting shadow fleet of tankers, and tightened trade restrictions to stop produce that could be used for military purposes from reaching Russia's armed forces.
