In-depth Critical Response to Appiah's 'Whose Culture Is It?'

This essay provides a critical response to Kwame Anthony Appiah's 'Whose Culture Is It?', focusing on his arguments about cultural property and repatriation. The analysis includes a summary of Appiah's main points, such as his challenge to the notion of origination and his questioning of cultural patrimony. The essay evaluates the structure and methodology of Appiah's article, examining the evidence used and identifying potential biases or contradictions. It also incorporates the author's own thoughts and opinions, particularly regarding the balance between cultural heritage and the universal value of art. The response addresses the main issues raised by Appiah, such as the ownership and preservation of cultural artifacts, and considers unaddressed perspectives, such as the economic benefits derived by countries that house looted artifacts. Ultimately, the essay provides a comprehensive critique of Appiah's arguments, highlighting both their strengths and weaknesses.

1
CRITICAL RESPONSE PAPER

2
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Outline.............................................................................................................................................2
Aim...............................................................................................................................................2
Thesis...........................................................................................................................................2
Arguments....................................................................................................................................3
Conclusions..................................................................................................................................3
Analysis...........................................................................................................................................3
Structure.......................................................................................................................................3
Evidences.....................................................................................................................................3
Biasness....................................................................................................................................4
Contradictions..........................................................................................................................4
Main issues...................................................................................................................................4
Raised questions and their answers..........................................................................................4
Author’s interpretations............................................................................................................4
Interrelation with my thoughts.....................................................................................................5
Logic............................................................................................................................................5
Author’s assumptions...............................................................................................................5
Unconsidered perspectives.......................................................................................................5
Logical flaws............................................................................................................................6
Reference list...................................................................................................................................7

3
Introduction
This study has revolved around a critical response towards the article namely Whose
Culture Is It by Kwame Anthony Appiah. The study focuses on how the author views a work of
art in social and cultural contexts and how valid her arguments are while establishing her
opinions regarding the value of a work of art in the context of the history of human race. For that
reason, the above mentioned article has been summarized briefly including the underlined aim
and the arguments of the author. Furthermore, the article has been analyzed critically. In order to
elaborate, the structure and the sections of the article have been highlighted along with the
identification of its methodology. On the other hand, the evidences, used in the article, have been
critically evaluated in order to identify any hidden biasness or contradiction in them. In addition,
my own thoughts and opinions about cultural property and works of art have been illuminated
with its relation to the thoughts of the author. Moreover, the main issues and interpretations,
discussed by the author, have been responded upon further in the study.
Outline
Aim
The author, in this article aimed at showing the critical aspects regarding the notion of
cultural property in order to unfold the connections between a work of art and it as a part of
someone’s cultural heritage.
Thesis
The article revolves around finding the rightful ideology involving the preservation of
cultural property. For that reason, she mentioned that foreign invaders like the British have
collected cultural treasures from various countries but do not consider them as looting. On the
contrary, they consider it as legally collecting cultural treasures from other countries. However,
the world is changing and thus once-colonized states have started claiming their cultural
properties. For that reason, now curators are getting blamed for illegally collecting other’s
cultural property.

4
Arguments
The author argues that money matters more than national treasure and thus lands like
Mali needs to have own national museums filled with many cultural properties and not only
preservation of own cultural heritage in their own lands, for their own people. On the other hand,
the author challenges the notion of origination of any work of art by saying that if the origin of a
work of art is not clear then no nation can claim them as their own. Apart from that, the author
explains the modern theft that allows many nations to collect cultural properties that do not
belong to them. Finally, she questions the validity of cultural patrimony by saying that we cannot
ask for returning everything that has been stolen from our lands because it is obvious that we will
not get them.
Conclusions
The author concluded that it is virtuous to return cultural properties to those to whom
they belong to but it is certainly not the duty of the curators to return them. This is so because
they were lawfully handed over to them in the first place. In her opinions, repatriation is needed
to be reconsidered. She states that a work of art can be valued by foreign states that know how to
value a work of art. Thus, it is not necessary that only native people should keep their cultural
properties. Finally, she concluded that art needs to be perceived only as art and not as properties.
Analysis
Structure
The article has three sections in which the third or final section is mostly effective in
establishing her conclusions. The article has been based on qualitative research where both
primary and secondary data have been used. For example, own experiences and data gathered
from friends have been mentioned. Data has been gathered from staff members of national
museums of Kabul that has been collected from other peer reviewed journals and newspaper
articles. On the other hand, data gathered from writings of other writers, treatises have been
mentioned too.

5
Evidences
The sources of the evidences are not always convincing as many evidences are based on
either personal experience or examples based on assumptions. For example, definition of cultural
patrimony has been based on what French might have said. She also claims that an object of
great value can be considered as a property of human race if its origin is not clear even it is taken
from a particular state and this statement is based on her opinions and not on any solid evidence.
Biasness
In a way, the author shows biasness as the evidences are mainly focused around Africa
and not around other looted countries like India. Evidences of Nigerian terracotta, Ghana have
been given main focus. On the other hand, the author’s perspective and suggestions are based on
the perspective of United States and UNESCO. This is so because it can be noticed that the
author believes some rule to be right if UNESCO supports it and wrong if UNESCO rejects it.
Contradictions
In the beginning the author says that the terracotta is Nigerian cultural property but
contradicts the claim when she says that the makers of that terracotta did not make them for the
sake of Nigeria. She also contradicts herself when she says that cultural patrimony belongs to the
people belonging to that culture and then she states that any work of culture belongs to the
human civilization at large.
Main issues
Raised questions and their answers
In the article, the author raises many questions such as she asks whether cultural
patrimony belong to the nation or to the world. Furthermore, she questions whether a work of art
belong to a nation or the artist who create it. The author tries to interrogate the importance of
having a transitional perspective in this context. She asks further if a work of art be someone’s
private property or the aesthetic property of the whole world.
Author’s interpretations
The author tries to answer the raised questions by stating that cultural properties have
wider significance. Furthermore, she suggests that notion of cultural nativism becomes

6
problematic when native people destroy own cultural properties. For example, Afghan people
destroyed their own artifacts with own hands.
Interrelation with my thoughts
In my views, cultural heritage is a part of the native culture while it is also true that any
work of art is a property of the whole human race. For that reason, it is important not to confuse
these two. There are always two sides of a coin and thus similarly, it is not right to justify looting
in any way. On the other hand, I think that cultural patrimony needs to be viewed from
economical perspective as well. Thus, if the intentions of the developed states are only to
preserve the cultural heritages for the sake of human beings all over the world then they can
invest money in other ‘poor’ countries so that they become able to preserve their own cultural
properties. Moreover, I also agree with the author in the fact that the artists or the creators of the
artifacts need to be given the respect that they deserve regardless of which nationality or culture
they belong to.
Logic
Author’s assumptions
The author assumes that the insiders of the looted states had no problems in handling
over their cultural treasures to foreign lands for money. The would-be actions of Nigerian
government are predicted by the author based on her assumptions. The author further assumes
that poor countries are unable to preserve their own cultural heritages and thus firstly it needs to
be evaluated whether they are reliable trustees of their cultural properties or not.
Unconsidered perspectives
She argues that cultural properties can be preserved by any state that can well preserve
them. This is so because, cultural properties are the properties of the world and thus everyone has
a right to experience it. However, what she did not mention is that the countries, that preserve
those properties, benefit from them as many visitors come to see the museums full of those
properties and only that country gets the profit, not the whole world. On the other hand, she also
did not mention the instances where the curators preserve cultural property belonging to other
cultures for the sake of personal interests and not for the sake of interest of the whole human
race. It has been mentioned that sometimes works of art are being damaged in the native country

7
but there are also instances where colonizers destroy native cultural properties and establish their
own in the place of destroyed heritages. These are not considered in this article that could have
given the article a multi faceted outlook.
Logical flaws
There are some logical flaws in the article for example, the author starts the article by
saying that looting is not collecting even if the procedure is directed by the government because
when some government collects cultural property of another lands and shift them to own land
then it is wrong as they never belong to them. However, she also says that as cultural properties
are a contribution to human race thus it does not matter who preserves which.

8
Reference list
Appiah, Kwame Anthony, “Whose Culture Is It?” in Whose Culture?: The Promise of
Museums and the Debate Over Antiquities, edited by James B. Cuno. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, (2012):71-85. Print.