This article helps prove one of the main ideas of this article, that these ethnological expositions only worked based off of the naiveness of the people. For example a common German would think that the natives in the expositions are purely savage, and that the name prince was a title given to mock them and not one that Germany would take serious. But this quote from a newspaper shows otherwise, not only was the prince welcomed, but he was greeted by the director and driven in a carriage. Surely this is not something that savages would want/ be allowed to do.

I think this a really important aspect to highlight. I am assuming that the chiefs and or kings of the Bell and Akwa towns were named as leader by their people. But it is only after the natives began having more contact with the Germans (due to trade) that their peoples decision to choose a leader is no longer allowed.

Manguen is a Cameroon village that is located in its central region. The population mainly consists of the Bassa (Bantu speaking) people.

(Paul) Pondi was born in Ngog Bassong Cameroon in 1928. He was considered a major Cameroonian political figure and served as Cameroon's ambassador to the United States from 1982-1993.

Apart from the government not wanting to use the word "genocide" in order to not be legally obligated for reparations. What other reasons would permit someone to not want to use the word, especially if the meaning of genocide is the literal killing of a large mass of people from a particular background in-order to destroy that group?

A theory in German history that ponders if Germany followed a different course then the rest of Europe in terms of going from aristocracy to democracy.

Volk is the German word for people and is the first cousin of the english word "folk".

I love this point as it is prevalent not only in Germany but around the world. We still label black Americans as African Americans while other races/ cultural backgrounds do not have their motherland attached to their race.

C) I 100% agree with the authors claim that museums are modern day versions of "display cabinets for the spoils of robber barons"and are ways that symbolize that the colonial empires have not entirely fallen yet. However, I also understand how important structures such as museums can be in education and teaching children. I think we all looked forward to field trips to the local museum. So how can we change the way they operate in way that museums can still be good teaching systems but also respective of other cultures. For example is taking a picture of a remain but having it retuned to its homeland still considered intrusive and wrong?

B) I find this line extremely interesting as I do not understand why the University, or the head of that particular department, would result to burning the bones instead of returning them back to their homeland. Like what does burning them and then burying them in the basement actually do? I argue that it is even more disrespectful because at least the bones had been laying there undisturbed for a number of years. Then after they are "suddenly rediscovered" you decided to further more disturb their piece. Even if the University refused to return them it would've been better PR if they had left the bones and made some sort of gravesite there.

A) Repatriating usually refers to the returning of someone (usually a person who was a prisoner of war and or a refugee) or something (a particular object) that is dead or alive back to their ancestral homeland.

I am really interested in learning more about the Pan-African Congress as this reading is the first I have every really heard about it. After a little research I know that it was organized by George Padmore and its goal was to try and secure a place for peoples of African descent within the new world order , but I would like to know more especially about their achievements.

Vis-á-Vis in german means apologizing and attracting someone’s attention.