James Cuno has responded to Roger Bland's review of Who Owns Antiquity? ("Yesterday Nebuchadnezzar . . .", London Review of Books 30, no. 24, December 18 2008). He claims that Bland has "misread" the book and states, "My argument is that cultural property is a political construct put to the service of modern governments’ agendas [sic.]". Cuno places an emphasis on Iraq in his response.He concludes:
Bland calls my arguments ‘US cultural imperialism at its worst’. On the contrary, my book is an argument against the nationalism of culture (on the part of the US and all other governments) in favour of encyclopedic museums like the British Museum (Bland’s employer).
1 comment:
I always thought that "cultural property" was a legal concept like "private property" or "family property" but now I am told it is a "political construct".Is "intellectual property" also a "political construct"? Are the lawyers also working with a "political construct"? What about all the cases that deal with"cultural property"?
Is Cuno now presenting his book as some sort of critique of "cultural imperialism"? I got the impression that the book only criticizes what the author perceives as"nationalism" of the so-called source countries.
Could it be that most of those who read Cuno,s book have misread it?
Dr.Kwame Opoku.
Post a Comment