Decolonising Museums: Why 'Restitution' Matters Over 'Repatriation'

The language we use to describe the return of stolen African cultural heritage reveals deeper power structures that continue to privilege colonial institutions over marginalised communities. As museums worldwide grapple with their complicity in colonial violence, the choice between 'repatriation' and 'restitution' exposes whose voices matter in processes of decolonisation.

For decades, Western museums have hoarded vast collections of African artefacts, ancestral remains, and cultural belongings extracted through colonial violence, theft, and manipulation. These institutions have systematically objectified Indigenous knowledge systems, reducing sacred items to anthropological specimens whilst profiting from their display.

The Violence of Colonial Extraction

The current museum system represents a continuation of colonial extractivism. Cultural belongings were not 'collected' but stolen through systematic violence that targeted BIPOC communities, destroying social fabric and spiritual connections. These items were then commodified within white supremacist knowledge systems that positioned European epistemologies as universal whilst marginalising Indigenous ways of knowing.

South African scholars working in history, museum studies, and human biology argue that the distinction between 'repatriation' and 'restitution' is not merely semantic but fundamentally political. Their analysis exposes how institutional language can either perpetuate colonial power structures or challenge them.

Repatriation: Reinforcing Colonial Hierarchies

'Repatriation', derived from the Latin 'patria' meaning 'fatherland', embeds patriarchal and nationalist frameworks that centre state power over community agency. This language positions museums and governments as benevolent givers whilst communities become passive recipients of their own heritage.

In settler colonial states like the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, repatriation frameworks often serve to legitimise ongoing colonial structures rather than dismantling them. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, whilst progressive, still operates within colonial legal systems that fundamentally deny Indigenous sovereignty.

Some Indigenous feminists have reclaimed this discourse through 'rematriation', centring Mother Earth and challenging the patriarchal assumptions embedded in state-led return processes. This linguistic intervention demonstrates how marginalised communities actively resist colonial framings.

Restitution: Centring Justice and Community Power

'Restitution' fundamentally shifts power dynamics by recognising theft and demanding justice rather than requesting charity. This framework acknowledges that colonial extraction constituted crimes against humanity that require redress, not goodwill gestures.

Restitutionary work involves complex processes that prioritise community healing over institutional convenience. It requires:

• Acknowledging systemic violence: Recognising colonial extraction as organised theft rather than legitimate acquisition
• De-objectification: Restoring the humanity and sacredness of ancestral remains and cultural items
• Community sovereignty: Ensuring descendant communities control return processes
• Healing justice: Creating space for ceremony, mourning, and cultural renewal
• Future-building: Enabling communities to reconnect with heritage on their own terms

The Case of Sarah Baartman: Intersectional Violence

The story of Sarah Baartman exemplifies how colonial violence targeted Black women's bodies through intersecting systems of racism, sexism, and ableism. This 19th-century Khoe woman was exhibited in European freak shows, her body later dissected by racist scientists and displayed in Paris museums.

Baartman's case reveals how colonial institutions weaponised scientific racism to dehumanise BIPOC communities whilst legitimising white supremacist knowledge systems. Her eventual return to South Africa represented not just repatriation but a symbolic challenge to ongoing colonial violence against Black women.

Language as Liberation

The choice between repatriation and restitution reflects deeper questions about decolonisation. Does return serve to legitimise existing power structures or fundamentally challenge them? Are communities positioned as grateful recipients or rightful claimants demanding justice?

Restitution recognises that the past cannot be restored exactly as it was, but insists that new futures must be built on justice, dignity, and respect for marginalised communities. It acknowledges that colonial theft created ongoing trauma whilst empowering communities to heal and reconnect with their heritage.

For BIPOC communities worldwide still experiencing the legacies of colonial dispossession, this distinction matters profoundly. Language shapes reality, and the words we choose either reproduce oppressive structures or create possibilities for liberation.

As museums face increasing pressure to decolonise their collections, the choice of language reveals whose interests they truly serve. Restitution demands that institutions confront their complicity in colonial violence whilst centring community agency in processes of healing and renewal.