Historical objects should be brought back to their country of origin.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
❖ Ideas Used:
Agree side (main opinion):
-
Cultural heritage should be preserved in its rightful context.
-
Returning artifacts fosters national pride and historical understanding.
-
Example: Indian statues returned from foreign museums.
Disagree side (minor point):
-
Some countries lack resources to preserve these items properly.
-
Global display promotes cross-cultural education.
✦ Sample Answer
➤ Introduction
It is often argued that ancient artifacts and cultural treasures, which were removed or taken from their original countries, should be returned. While opinions differ, it is strongly believed that historical objects ought to be restored to their country of origin, as they represent cultural identity and hold deep historical significance.
➤ Body Paragraph 1 – Support for Returning Artifacts
To begin with, the repatriation of historical items is seen as a way to restore cultural integrity. When objects are returned, they are placed in their original cultural setting, which allows people to connect more meaningfully with their own history. For example, several Indian sculptures and religious artifacts that were taken during colonial times have recently been returned by foreign museums. These items, once removed from temples and sacred sites, are now being displayed in Indian institutions where they are valued not only as artistic pieces but as symbols of national heritage. Furthermore, returning such objects fosters a sense of justice and respect between nations. Therefore, the return of these items strengthens both cultural preservation and diplomatic relations.
➤ Body Paragraph 2 – Counterargument (Opposing View)
However, some argue that these objects are better preserved and appreciated in international museums. It is believed that countries of origin may lack the infrastructure or security needed to protect valuable artifacts. For instance, during times of conflict or political instability, museums and cultural sites may be at risk of damage or theft. Additionally, by keeping historical items in global institutions like the British Museum or the Louvre, people from around the world gain the opportunity to learn about diverse civilizations. Yet, despite these advantages, it is still considered unethical to keep objects that were acquired without consent. Cultural ownership should not be overshadowed by display convenience.
➤ Conclusion
In conclusion, although some benefits are associated with keeping historical objects in international museums, I firmly believe that they should be returned to their country of origin. Doing so not only ensures cultural justice but also promotes historical awareness and pride among native populations.
❖ Vocabulary Used
| Word/Phrase | Usage/Meaning |
|---|---|
| Repatriation | The act of returning something to its country of origin |
| Cultural integrity | Wholeness and authenticity of a culture |
| Connect meaningfully | Relate in a deep, emotional, or insightful way |
| Colonial times | Periods of foreign rule over a country |
| Diplomatic relations | Political ties and interactions between countries |
| Infrastructure | Basic systems (buildings, roads, etc.) needed for operation |
| Political instability | Lack of stable governance |
| Ethical/Unethical | Morally right/wrong |
| Cultural ownership | Rightful claim over one’s heritage |
| Display convenience | Ease of showing or exhibiting something |
No comments:
Post a Comment