8. Colonial Influences on Pop Culture: Marvel, Egypt and Empire
By Dorene Pilapandet and Zyna Shoukat, published October 2019
By Dorene Pilapandet and Zyna Shoukat, published October 2019
Editor's note & Preface: Cultural appropriation and appreciation, in addition to race-related issues in modern society, have dominated conversation as much as climate change. Diversified movie casts have made headlines. However, major film companies such as Marvel still blunder into traps... especially in household films. This article examines several pieces of pop culture and how they play into stigma, appropriation or race-related issues.
Colonial Origins of Museum Exhibits
Marvel Studios’s 2018 blockbuster film Black Panther marked a major milestone for the depiction of strong and empowering African characters. Extolled for its almost entirely Black cast, the film touches on issues such as post-colonial societies and intergenerational trauma. However, the scene that leaves a resounding impression on viewers is the museum heist. Shot in the Museum of Britain, it features Killmonger, the main antagonist, confronting the museum curator regarding the origins of a particular African mask. After a scuffle in which the team kills the curator and hijacks the museum, the villain escapes with the mask in tow. This scene, albeit fantastical and exaggerated for the sake of cinematic experience, showcases a major plight of our post-colonial world: the loss of culture from stolen art and artifacts.
Many repatriation efforts are taking place all over the world, with the most recent case involving an Ancient Egyptian coffin displayed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. The coffin in question was taken from Egypt’s Minya region during the 2011 revolution by traffickers dealing in smuggled antiquities and was transported through a series of countries before being sold to the Met in 2017 (Karimi and Yeung 2019). The coffin was the resting place for a priest named Nedjemankh and is planned to go on public display in its original home in Egypt. This case marks a successful attempt to repatriate an art piece to its country of origin. Likewise, the Illinois State Museum will become the first museum, as part of the Return of Cultural Heritage Project, to participate in an initiative sponsored by the Australian government to return artifacts to their Aboriginal lands. These include boomerangs, shields, spears, body ornaments and other items, all of which have been on display in the museum since the 1980s (Chen 2019). The movement will conclude in June 2020, the 250th anniversary of Captain James Cook’s first voyage to Australia (AIATSIS 2019).
Despite these small victories in the name of repatriation of cultural artifacts, there is still ongoing debate within the community about sources of art. In fact, often times the art scene reflects much deeper implications that link issues including the opioid crisis that plagues the US currently. Earlier this year, the Guggenheim Museum located in New York City was under fire for accepting donations from the Sackler family, who are heavily involved in the production of oxycontin (a drug heavily linked to the opioid epidemic) (Magowan 2019). This scenario substantiates the often overlooked dark side of museum exhibits that value commercial gain over respect for the cultures that they claim to preserve and honor. Often times, the marginalized populations that these large institutions capitalize on do not have the means to reclaim these artifacts.
Despite the inequity that appears to be perpetuated through the exploitation of art from marginalized societies, there are progressive steps being taken to combat these systems of oppression. Recently, a plan has been proposed by a group of academicians that demands that colonial-era objects be addressed and repatriated. This proposal would go into effect in 2020 and comes after watershed moments in the repatriation effort such as the 2 million euros that Germany had allocated towards addressing these colonial-era objects (Brown 2019).
Standing before a case of African masks, Black Panther antagonist Killmonger berates the museum curator. “How do you think your ancestors got these? You think they paid a fair price? Or did they take it like they took everything else?” Despite his villainous role in the film, this scene depicts an all-too-true reality of museum politics. The rightful owners of these works of art do not benefit from the capitalization by large institutions of their art and history. In fact, the museums harm these cultures by disrespecting their sources and portraying a narrative that only serves to benefit the communities that exploit and objectify these cultures.
Marvel Studios’s 2018 blockbuster film Black Panther marked a major milestone for the depiction of strong and empowering African characters. Extolled for its almost entirely Black cast, the film touches on issues such as post-colonial societies and intergenerational trauma. However, the scene that leaves a resounding impression on viewers is the museum heist. Shot in the Museum of Britain, it features Killmonger, the main antagonist, confronting the museum curator regarding the origins of a particular African mask. After a scuffle in which the team kills the curator and hijacks the museum, the villain escapes with the mask in tow. This scene, albeit fantastical and exaggerated for the sake of cinematic experience, showcases a major plight of our post-colonial world: the loss of culture from stolen art and artifacts.
Many repatriation efforts are taking place all over the world, with the most recent case involving an Ancient Egyptian coffin displayed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. The coffin in question was taken from Egypt’s Minya region during the 2011 revolution by traffickers dealing in smuggled antiquities and was transported through a series of countries before being sold to the Met in 2017 (Karimi and Yeung 2019). The coffin was the resting place for a priest named Nedjemankh and is planned to go on public display in its original home in Egypt. This case marks a successful attempt to repatriate an art piece to its country of origin. Likewise, the Illinois State Museum will become the first museum, as part of the Return of Cultural Heritage Project, to participate in an initiative sponsored by the Australian government to return artifacts to their Aboriginal lands. These include boomerangs, shields, spears, body ornaments and other items, all of which have been on display in the museum since the 1980s (Chen 2019). The movement will conclude in June 2020, the 250th anniversary of Captain James Cook’s first voyage to Australia (AIATSIS 2019).
Despite these small victories in the name of repatriation of cultural artifacts, there is still ongoing debate within the community about sources of art. In fact, often times the art scene reflects much deeper implications that link issues including the opioid crisis that plagues the US currently. Earlier this year, the Guggenheim Museum located in New York City was under fire for accepting donations from the Sackler family, who are heavily involved in the production of oxycontin (a drug heavily linked to the opioid epidemic) (Magowan 2019). This scenario substantiates the often overlooked dark side of museum exhibits that value commercial gain over respect for the cultures that they claim to preserve and honor. Often times, the marginalized populations that these large institutions capitalize on do not have the means to reclaim these artifacts.
Despite the inequity that appears to be perpetuated through the exploitation of art from marginalized societies, there are progressive steps being taken to combat these systems of oppression. Recently, a plan has been proposed by a group of academicians that demands that colonial-era objects be addressed and repatriated. This proposal would go into effect in 2020 and comes after watershed moments in the repatriation effort such as the 2 million euros that Germany had allocated towards addressing these colonial-era objects (Brown 2019).
Standing before a case of African masks, Black Panther antagonist Killmonger berates the museum curator. “How do you think your ancestors got these? You think they paid a fair price? Or did they take it like they took everything else?” Despite his villainous role in the film, this scene depicts an all-too-true reality of museum politics. The rightful owners of these works of art do not benefit from the capitalization by large institutions of their art and history. In fact, the museums harm these cultures by disrespecting their sources and portraying a narrative that only serves to benefit the communities that exploit and objectify these cultures.
Conforming to the Tastes of Colonialists
At its peak, the British Commonwealth was the largest formal empire that the world had ever known. Its power and influence shaped global development in a number of ways. Regardless of whether the rule of the British is classified positively of negatively, it was undoubtedly transformative.
The British Empire was never a static institution, as it constantly mutated, evolved and changed in reaction to events, opportunities and threats. The British Empire of the 1950s looked very different from that of the 1850s, 1750s and 1650s. Previously, colonies all over the world were essentially units of overseas territories controlled by the British Government or organizations.
The British arrived in India in 1615, and over the centuries gradually overthrew the Maratha and Sikh empires. The establishment of the British Empire in the 18th century laid the foundation for modern India’s relationship with the West. Westernization paved the way for a radical change of artistic taste, and a style emerged that represented the adjustment of traditional artists to the new fashions and demands brought by colonialists.
British colonial rule had a great impact on Indian art. The 18th century saw moderate British manifestations of Indian art, monuments, literature, and culture, in stark contrast to the attitude in the mid-19th century, where the colonial view shifted to one of disregard for Indian art.
The European advent was marked by a relative insensitivity to native art traditions. As former Indian patrons of art became less wealthy and influential, Western art became more ubiquitous. The British Empire established schools of art in major cities, such as the Bombay Art Society in 1888.
The Company painting style, for example, became common, created by Indian artists working for European patrons of the East India Company. By 1858, the British Government had taken over the task of administration of India. The fusion of Indian traditions with European style at this time became evident in architectural styles.
Not only did artistic style change with the British invasion of India, so did the subject of art. For example, Muharram is the first month of the Muslim calendar. It is a month of mourning, observed in particular by Shias worldwide. It commemorates the Battle of Karbala in 680 AD, where amongst many, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Imam Hussain, was martyred and other family members of his were killed or subjected to humiliation. Even though, through the ages, Muharram has been commemorated with ferocity, there is little visual evidence of it in the subcontinent before the late 17th century. The commemoration seems to have emerged as a subject of interest only after the European invasion. Muharram seems to have caught the fancy of the British, who, in their exoticisation of the Orient, found this mass mourning intriguing.
As the British exerted power and influence, native Indian patrons became less wealthy and influential in society. The impact of this power shift in was in the creation of art exclusively for European patrons in the British East India Company and other companies. English colonists established a monopoly in the arts, and the work of indigenous artists conformed to their tastes.
At its peak, the British Commonwealth was the largest formal empire that the world had ever known. Its power and influence shaped global development in a number of ways. Regardless of whether the rule of the British is classified positively of negatively, it was undoubtedly transformative.
The British Empire was never a static institution, as it constantly mutated, evolved and changed in reaction to events, opportunities and threats. The British Empire of the 1950s looked very different from that of the 1850s, 1750s and 1650s. Previously, colonies all over the world were essentially units of overseas territories controlled by the British Government or organizations.
The British arrived in India in 1615, and over the centuries gradually overthrew the Maratha and Sikh empires. The establishment of the British Empire in the 18th century laid the foundation for modern India’s relationship with the West. Westernization paved the way for a radical change of artistic taste, and a style emerged that represented the adjustment of traditional artists to the new fashions and demands brought by colonialists.
British colonial rule had a great impact on Indian art. The 18th century saw moderate British manifestations of Indian art, monuments, literature, and culture, in stark contrast to the attitude in the mid-19th century, where the colonial view shifted to one of disregard for Indian art.
The European advent was marked by a relative insensitivity to native art traditions. As former Indian patrons of art became less wealthy and influential, Western art became more ubiquitous. The British Empire established schools of art in major cities, such as the Bombay Art Society in 1888.
The Company painting style, for example, became common, created by Indian artists working for European patrons of the East India Company. By 1858, the British Government had taken over the task of administration of India. The fusion of Indian traditions with European style at this time became evident in architectural styles.
Not only did artistic style change with the British invasion of India, so did the subject of art. For example, Muharram is the first month of the Muslim calendar. It is a month of mourning, observed in particular by Shias worldwide. It commemorates the Battle of Karbala in 680 AD, where amongst many, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Imam Hussain, was martyred and other family members of his were killed or subjected to humiliation. Even though, through the ages, Muharram has been commemorated with ferocity, there is little visual evidence of it in the subcontinent before the late 17th century. The commemoration seems to have emerged as a subject of interest only after the European invasion. Muharram seems to have caught the fancy of the British, who, in their exoticisation of the Orient, found this mass mourning intriguing.
As the British exerted power and influence, native Indian patrons became less wealthy and influential in society. The impact of this power shift in was in the creation of art exclusively for European patrons in the British East India Company and other companies. English colonists established a monopoly in the arts, and the work of indigenous artists conformed to their tastes.
