Introduction

1Repatriation is an important issue that museums worldwide have to deal with (Curtis, 2012). The motivation for and practice of repatriation are complicated and varied in each case. Bienkowski (2013) divided repatriation claims into eight categories. Among them, the claims for objects looted or wrongfully removed in the colonial context can be naturally related to the practice of decolonization. This kind of repatriation aims to restore the Indigenous cultural heritage and address the inequalities and exclusiveness in the culture during colonial times and even now (Onciul, 2015, p. 33).

2Since the American government enacted the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in 1990, museums are obligated to return human remains and sacred objects to Indigenous communities (Dubin, 2001, p. 22). This was a law that focused on repatriation within one country.

3However, most of the current cases relate to colonial history that exists between several countries. A very recent repatriation case is that of the Benin Bronzes: a group of thousands of art objects looted by British troops in 1897 from the Kingdom of Benin (present-day Nigeria), as part of colonial conquest. At a virtual conference held by Columbia University on 9 April 2021, academics discussed myths about the Benin Bronzes. Some were concerned that the artifacts would be safer at the American and European institutions that currently hold them than in Nigerian museums, which are relatively small and unsophisticated. This kind of concern also incurred strong retorts from many art historians and museum professionals (Greenberger, 2021).

4Even today, the cultural, economic, and political debate on the repatriation of artifacts is taking place, making the discussion about repatriation more complicated. Generally, the significance of repatriation is engaging with source communities (Bienkowski, 2013).

5In China, the recovery from abroad of China's lost cultural objects is an appealing issue that attracts huge social attention. The concept of "China's cultural objects lost overseas" was initiated by the China Foundation for the Development of Social Culture (CFDSC) in 2002, and referred to the objects which were taken away from China through illegal and unethical practices during the period from 1840 to 1949 (Zhang & Wang, 2009). According to the Chinese Society of Cultural Relics, the number of China's cultural objects lost abroad is incredibly high and is believed to be millions of pieces (Prott, 2009, p. 145). These cultural objects are now scattered in at least 47 countries and collected by more than 200 foreign museums (Meyer & Brysac, 2015, p. 14), such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the British Museum, and the Musée Guimet.

6Repatriating those Chinese cultural relics from abroad has been an essential task facing the Chinese government. According to Yu Meng, from 1949 to 2016, at least 53 cases were recorded regarding the recovery and repatriation of Chinese cultural objects from abroad to their country of origin, China (Yu, 2018). Those objects were recovered through various approaches, such as transnational civil litigation, negotiation, and international law enforcement. However, most objects were brought back in auctions by the governmental foundation, entrepreneurs, and non-governmental organizations (Yu, 2018).

7Among these repatriation and recovery cases, the objects that were lost because of colonialism are the most attractive to Chinese people. When the auction of Old Summer Palace bronze heads (see Figure 1) took place in France in 2009, repatriation became the most popular social topic that year in China (Cao, 2009). The Old Summer Palace, also known as Yuanming Yuan in Chinese, was a royal garden of the Qing dynasty and housed numerous treasures and artworks belonging to the royal family. In 1860, during the Second Opium War, it was invaded and destroyed by the French and British troops. After that, a vast amount of artworks were looted from the Old Summer Palace and are now found in museums worldwide.

8The loss of artworks from the Old Summer Palace is considered the result of colonialism and invasion wars (Fang, 2009). According to the mainstream view of current Chinese historians, China was considered a "semi-colony" from 1840 to 1949 because of conquests by Western countries. The term "semi-colony" refers to a country whose sovereignty has been destroyed and only maintains its independent sovereign state in name. Imperialist countries control the politics, economy, military, and culture of a semi-colony (Liu, 1998). Internationally, classifying the society of China from 1840 to 1949 as a semi-colony might be controversial. However, China as a victim of colonialism has been written down in the history textbooks of Chinese middle school students and is wildly accepted by Chinese people.

9Along with the perception that China was a semi-colony, colonialism was attributed as the main reason for the loss of Chinese cultural objects from 1840 to 1949 (Fang, 2009). The loss of artworks from Old Summer Palace caused by direct military force, as I mentioned above, is only part of the story. Many trades of artworks between Chinese people and foreigners, such as Dunhuang Manuscripts, are considered illegal and unethical by today's Chinese scholars. As Su Donghai (2003) pointed out, the unequal relationship between the colonizer and the colonized people made those artwork deals happen. Even the deals were legal at that time.

10The repatriation or recovery of Chinese cultural objects removed from China during the colonial time is considered the right thing to do against colonialism in China. However, it is interesting that, while colonialism is a frequently-mentioned word in China, decolonization is not an issue. It seems like China's way of approaching anti-colonialism has never brought about any discussion of decoloniality and shows no sign of tackling decolonization. The question is, why?

11Compared with anti-colonialism, decolonization might be a more complicated issue. Through the cases of returning cultural objects to the Indigenous communities in North America, we can see that repatriation is not only about anti-colonialism but more about decolonization which means respecting and engaging the source community of a cultural object.

12While most Chinese people are enthusiastic about repatriating objects from abroad, repatriation within China is unusual. It seems that there is no problem with collecting and managing cultural objects in museums in China, even though the permanent collection of the National Museum of China was mainly acquired from regional museums, communities, and individuals as instructed by the government policy.

13The National Museum of China was founded in 1912 with no more than 60,000 objects in its possession. In the following 46 years, the museum's collection was accumulated at a very slow pace. The first major acquisitions of the National Museum of China were made in 1958; in that year, as a result of the order from the Chinese government, the museum received around 600,000 objects from individuals, regional museums, provincial departments of cultural and tourism, and regional archaeological institutes (Lv, 2012). Another vital acquisition happened in 2007, when the National Cultural Heritage Administration allocated 400,000 objects to the National Museum of China. According to statistics released from the museum, the total amount of its collection is now 1,400,000. At the present time, there is no official repatriation initiated by regional museums, communities, or individuals requesting the objects' return.

14However, those objects that were handed over to the National Museum of China are always the most extraordinary ones and are significant to regional culture and history. As a result, many regional museums only have pictures or replicas of those objects displayed in the exhibition. While Chinese people are enthusiastic about repatriating Chinese objects to their country of origin, returning the Indigenous cultural object to its community of origin within China is a non-topic. At least, the status quo of the National Museum of China holding such a high number of regional cultural objects has never been challenged.

15According to many Chinese experts, the fight to recover Chinese objects from abroad is in opposition to colonialism and shows the importance of returning objects to their origin. However, the fact that the National Museum of China acquired objects from regional museums and communities is, obviously, taking the objects away from their cultural origin, which contradicts the Chinese experts' words. This raises another question, whether Chinese international repatriation under the umbrella of colonialism can be regarded as the practice of decolonization?

16Two questions were posed in this research. The first was how to understand the phenomenon that decolonization is a rarely mentioned word in the context of repatriation, while colonialism is a familiar issue to Chinese people? The second question was, how to understand Chinese people's attitude towards repatriating cultural objects removed from China during the colonial era?

Current Study

17Most of the past studies on international repatriation have taken the perspective of law and focused on the reason for the loss of Chinese objects and the approaches to their return. Fang (2009) indicated that most Chinese cultural objects were lost in three ways: looting during the colonial invasion, robbery, and smuggling. Many scholars have also discussed the approaches to getting objects back. Yu (2018) indicated that international law enforcement cooperation, transnational civil litigation, negotiation, and gift and purchase were the main approaches to recovering Chinese objects from 1949 to 2016.

18However, the motivation and impact of repatriation have not been covered by empirical research. As repatriation is largely considered a moral issue (Bienkowski, 2013), the cognitive and emotional aspects are crucial in repatriation. This research aimed to provide an in-depth view of Chinese people's understanding of Chinese colonial history, international repatriation and decolonization, and reveal the relationship between those three.

Methods

Approach

19To provide a deeper description and understanding of colonialism, decolonization, and repatriation in China, a qualitative approach was chosen in this research. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to encourage the participants to express their personal experience of and attitudes towards colonialism, decolonization, and repatriation.

20The interview consisted of four parts: personal habits and preferences for museums; understanding of colonial history; attitudes towards repatriation; and understanding of decolonization. There were nine questions in the first part to explore interviewees' preferences for museums and cultural heritage, such as "How often do you visit museums?", "What kind of museums do you like to go to?" and "How do you think of museums' function in society?". The second part comprised nine questions about interviewees' understanding of the colonial time in Chinese history. For example, "What do you think of the colonial time in Chinese history?". The third part aimed to reveal interviewees' attitudes towards repatriating Chinese cultural objects removed from China during the colonial time. There were eight questions in this part, such as "Do you support repatriating those objects from their current museum to China?", "What do you think of the value and impact of repatriation?", "Does repatriation have personal significance to you?". The fourth part focused on the interviewees' understanding of and attitude towards decolonization. There were three questions in this part, including "Have you heard of decolonization?", "What do you think of decolonization?" and "Do you think decolonization has anything to do with museums?".

Participants

21The sample consisted of sixteen Chinese people from diverse backgrounds who were raised, educated, and living in China (shown in Table 1 below). Fourteen participants were from the Han ethnic group, and two of them were from minority ethnic groups. The age group of participants ranged from 18 to 48. Five of the sixteen participants were male, and eleven of them were female. Nine participants were acquaintances of the researcher, and the other seven were recruited from among the visitors to the Zhejiang Provincial Museum. None of the participants were museum professionals because it was the ordinary public's voices I wanted to hear in this research.

22The sampling was not random in this research. The researcher hoped the participants were all more or less interested in cultural heritage, Chinese history, and museums, and at the same time, come from different backgrounds. People interested in cultural heritage, history, and museums are more likely to talk more about the research topic. That is why the Zhejiang Provincial Museum was chosen to be the recruiting place. As the largest history institution in Zhejiang, this museum has the richest collection and attracts diverse visitors. Second, due to the form of this research approach, the sampling amount could not be huge. However, in order to gain a larger picture of the topic, the researcher hoped to diversify the background of participants. Participants with different backgrounds and occupations might provide different insights into understanding colonialism, decolonization, and repatriation.

Table 1

Participant	Sex	Age	Ethnic Group	Occupation
1	Female	18	Han	University student
2	Female	22	Han	University student
3	Female	23	Han	Tourist guide
4	Male	25	Han	Property administrator
5	Female	28	Zhuang	Doctor
6	Female	29	Mongols	Software engineer
7	Female	29	Han	Community service
8	Female	29	Han	Data analyst
9	Male	30	Han	Civil engineer
10	Female	32	Han	Unknown
11	Female	34	Han	Graphic design
12	Female	36	Han	Financial adviser
13	Male	36	Han	Unknown
14	Male	40	Han	Cultural travel guide
15	Male	43	Han	University lecturer
16	Female	48	Han	Retired

Procedure

23Data collection took place in March 2020. The researcher contacted every participant directly and decided the time and form of the interview. Because of the stay-at-home order during the COVID-19 pandemic, all the interviews were conducted through a WeChat video call. Before the interview started, every participant was informed that the interview would be recorded and fully transcribed into texts. The interview normally lasted about 35 to 45 minutes. After that, interviewees received small rewards for their participation.

Method of data analysis

24The data analysis was based on the grounded theory approach, and all the data were analyzed thoroughly in the same way. As there was no established hypothesis before the research, the aim of data analysis was not only to provide descriptions but also to try to explore some patterns in, and connections between, participants' understanding of colonialism, decolonization, and repatriation. There were two waves of analysis for the two research questions.

25The first wave of data analysis focused on the first research question about understanding the phenomenon that decolonization is not a frequently-mentioned word in China, while colonialism is a familiar topic to Chinese people. In the first step, all sixteen samples were divided into two groups according to whether the interviewee knew about decolonization or not. Next, participants' responses about colonialism and decolonization were coded into several categories with different themes. For the responses about colonialism, the themes included national impact, personal significance, etc. For the responses about decolonization, there were themes about eliminating all colonial influences, and improving national confidence, etc. After the coding process, a non-cross-sectional analysis was conducted in the third step. In this step, participants' opinions on colonialism from each group were compared separately to see if they were similar or shared some patterns. The non-cross-sectional analysis was aimed to see if there is a correlation between attitudes of colonialism and familiarity with decolonization in general. The last step was two sets of cross-sectional analysis. The first set was checking the views on colonialism among the samples with the same theme of decolonization. The second set was comparing the themes of decolonization among the samples with the same themes of colonialism. Those cross-sectional analyses might reveal correlations between one kind of understanding of colonialism and a certain attitude towards decolonization.

26The second wave of data analysis shared the same method as that of the first wave but focused on the second research question about understanding Chinese people's attitude towards repatriating cultural objects removed from China during the colonial time. Firstly, all sixteen samples were divided into two groups, with samples in one group supporting repatriation and samples in the other group not. In the second step, all participants' responses about colonialism, decolonization, and repatriation were coded into several themes separately. As responses about colonialism and decolonization had been coded in the first wave, in this phase, the coding process was focused on repatriation. Coding themes of responses about repatriation included national impact, personal significance, ownership, etc. Then, the non-cross-sectional analysis was conducted to compare each group's themed responses of colonialism and decolonization, respectively. Finally, different themes of understanding colonialism, decolonization, and repatriation were compared through three sets of non-cross-sectional analyses.

The understanding of colonialism and decolonization in China

The gap between the understanding of colonialism and decolonization

27Through the non-cross-sectional analysis in the first wave of data analysis, the researcher found no evident correlation between participants' recognition of colonial influence and their familiarity with decolonization.

28Six interviewees indicated that they had some knowledge of decolonization. Among these six people, only one claimed an intense feeling about colonial influence. However, this participant also expressed non-familiarity with decolonization. The remaining ten interviewees were unfamiliar with decolonization, while one of them expressed intense feelings about colonial influence, and three of them had no recognition of colonial influence.

29That is to say, neither intense nor weak recognition of the influence of Chinese colonial history could directly lead to a familiarity with decolonization.

The desire for a powerful China

30After the coding process of participants' understanding of the colonial time in Chinese history, the desire for a powerful China appeared frequently. Nine interviewees mentioned that colonial history inspires the Chinese people's desire for a powerful country and fuels Chinese national development. At the same time, some negative results were found in those nine interviewees' understanding of decolonization.

31Among those nine interviewees, five people indicated that they did not know about decolonization.

Participant 4: I can feel that, because China is becoming stronger and stronger now so that many countries recognize us, the previous colonial history has just become a contrast. It can encourage and promote the development of China.

Participant 10: (colonial influence) For example, the Old Summer Palace, the cultural heritage was lost and looted because we were not strong enough at that time, so the objects were taken away by other countries, and we could not stop that. But, because the country has become stronger now, there will be no such thing again. And we can gradually get those objects back.

32Furthermore, three of the nine interviewees expressed their rejection of decolonization. From those participants' perspectives, today’s powerful China is, to some extent, the result of colonial influence. They believed that lagging behind in economy, military, and culture rendered China a semi-colony from 1840 to 1949. They also pointed out that Western countries' colonization brought advanced knowledge to China and made the Chinese people realize China's weakness. In the following 100 years, the status quo as a semi-colony served to encourage China's development. In this sense, colonialism appeared not so negative to some interviewees. So, there was no need to change or promote decolonization.

Participant 7: It [the colonial history] can inspire the patriotism of the people. Because, you know, the country, at that time, and then you will understand that if a country is weak, it must be difficult to develop itself, so it will, ah, to put it bluntly, it will increase the cohesion and unity of the nation, and it will be beneficial to the rule of the government. . . . Em, actually, there is no such thing as decolonization in our country.

Participant 13: For example, without colonial history, the entire Yangtze River Delta would not be in existence. Shanghai and the Yangtze River Delta could never achieve their current status. I think they have also benefited from colonization. Moreover, I should say, because you have a history of falling, you can have the pleasure of standing up. . . . Why could things brought about by colonization replace our Chinese traditions? Because they have some advantages. Why would you want to deny an advanced thing? Even it stems from an incorrect thing. Why should we overthrow it? There is no decolonization. That word sounds like degradation to me.

33By analyzing participants' understanding of colonial history, the researcher found that the desire for a powerful China is a very common reflection of China's colonial history among Chinese people. According to most interviewees, the lack of advances in science, the military, and culture led China to becoming a semi-colony. Therefore, instead of exploring the inequality between the colonizer and the colonized, many interviewees' notion of colonialism was more about learning from Western countries and pursuing an advanced and powerful China. This understanding of colonial history might not encourage people's willingness to discuss or practice decolonization in China.

The rejection of decolonization

34According to the participants' responses, seven interviewees expressed their rejection of decolonization. The reasons they gave were summarized in two points:

35The first one has already been mentioned above. One participant believed that colonization brings advanced culture. In this case, decolonization was likely to result in degeneration and a reversal of development. Thus, this participant rejected the notion of decolonization.

36For the remaining six interviewees, decolonization meant eliminating all the things brought by the colonizer, such as advanced knowledge and colonial-style buildings, even the whole colonial history. However, they believed that what had happened could not be changed or erased. Thus, decolonization for them was equal to denying the facts and they considered it disrespectful to history.

Participant 11: For me, decolonization is a concept that means to remove, i.e., take away. However, removing colonial history is no good to displaying the history and cultural relics. You have indeed been colonized. It is not that you want to remove it as if it never happened during that period. History has happened, and you can't change your history through any efforts you make now. So, I think the term decolonization is a false proposition.

Participant 14: For example, Taiwan may have been colonized by Japan for a long time. After that, many buildings from the Japanese occupation era were left behind, along with many people's lifestyles. The new ruler may gradually eliminate the marks of the colonial era. He may want to make some huge changes and emphasize more on the tradition. This may be understood as decolonization. But whether it is necessary? I don't know. . . . Maybe I would not choose to do that.

37Generally, these two kinds of attitudes still have one thing in common: focusing on the result brought about by colonialism instead of how colonialism brings about the outcome. We should realize that the essence of coloniality is an unequal and top-down power matrix in which only one kind of authority can be established (Mignolo, 2007). At the same time, the other possibilities are prohibited. Those interviewees who gave some negative comments on decolonization believed that decolonization is to deny or cancel whatever was brought up by colonialism. However, decolonization really means breaking the unequal power system of colonialism and creating tolerance, equality, and diversity.

38Some misunderstandings about decolonization caused interviewees to reject it. Unfortunately, I have to say that those misunderstandings of decolonization might stem from interviewees’ narrow and superficial ideas about colonialism.

Attitudes towards repatriation in China

Chinese repatriation is not motivated by decolonization

39After the non-cross-sectional analysis of the second wave data analysis, the researcher found that the participants' support for repatriating Chinese cultural objects showed almost no positive correlation with their familiarity with decolonization.

40Twelve interviewees indicated that those Chinese cultural objects removed from China during the colonial time should be repatriated to China. However, these twelve participants' knowledge of decolonization was very diverse. Three people claimed that they had never heard of decolonization. Four people said that they had heard of decolonization but had almost no knowledge of it. Five people indicated that they had some knowledge of decolonization.

41For the remaining four interviewees whose opinions were against repatriation, three indicated that they had never heard of decolonization, and one said he or she was very familiar with decolonization.

42As the data above shows, there is no evidence to say that, in China, people's support for repatriation is motivated by or has a correlation with their familiarity with decolonization.

The struggle between national interest and personal interest

43Participants' attitudes towards repatriation were generally divided into two groups: for it and against. Within each group, the participants' answers of personal significance, and national significance were coded and compared. The data revealed a complicated relationship between national interest and personal interests in the interviewees' attitudes towards repatriation.

44The attitudes of interviewees who did not support repatriation were easy to understand. Among the sixteen participants, four said that they did not support the return of Chinese cultural objects removed from China during the colonial time. At the same time, these four people said that repatriating Chinese cultural objects from abroad had no personal significance and would not increase access to the objects, because for them, all the information they needed about the objects could be acquired through the Internet. They didn't need to see the objects in reality. From their perspective, repatriation was significant to the country rather than to ordinary people. In this case, these four interviewees also willingly accepted any alternatives to repatriation, such as shared ownership and loaned objects.

Participant 9: Cultural objects returning to China, maybe, um, to promote national prestige or something? Because the international status of China is high now, the others are giving our objects back. This may also be a means of propaganda for the government. But it doesn't make much sense to me personally. If those objects are in the UK, through the Internet, I can still figure out their story. I won't wait until it is back in China to know it.

Participant 16: Personally, I don't think they should be returned. Maybe some people think it is a kind of national pride, but I think it's also a good thing that Chinese objects are displayed abroad. Because if they are in a museum in our country, like Zhejiang Provincial Museum, as far as I know, there are too many objects piled up in its warehouses. There is no place to display them. I think it is very likely that I will never see them. So, why not keep them in American museums? It doesn't matter to me.

45For the remaining twelve participants who supported repatriation, the situation became more complicated. Six people thought that the return of Chinese cultural objects had no personal significance for them but still supported the return of those objects. For those six people, repatriation was vital because it was of great value to the country, although it mattered little to them. At the same time, the alternatives, such as shared ownership and loans, became hard to accept, even though some could increase their access to cultural objects. Instead, the objects' national ownership became their primary concern. They were struggling between national interests and personal interests.

Participant 1: The repatriation will, ah, increase China's influence on the world. If they are willing to return, it must be because of the increase of China's national power and international influence. And, ah, there is one more, it will increase Chinese people's confidence in the national culture. Personally, it doesn't matter. I hope that the objects can be returned, but it is not important. . . . Shared ownership is unacceptable. Loaning is also impossible. The objects were initially mine. It should be me who lends to them.

Participant 6: First of all, if those countries are willing to return the objects, it means that our country must have some kind of international status. Otherwise, they will definitely ignore you. However, it is not important to me personally because it does not affect my everyday life. . . . For a loan, the cost should be free. If it is not free, they use our cultural objects to make money, which is unethical. For shared ownership, we must hold the primary ownership.

46Six participants supported repatriation and, at the same time, thought that repatriation was personally important to them. From their perspective, national interests had a strong impact on them and outweighed their personal interests.

Participant 2: The repatriation is very important to me personally because I want to see the objects. However, whether I want to see them or not, they belong to my country and should be there [China]. To see or not to see the objects is my business. However, for them [other countries], returning or not returning the objects reflects their attitude and respect towards my country.

Participant 4: It is very important to me personally. Because the return of the objects, first, means that we are recognized by the other countries and can protect our cultural objects. Second, it means that our country is now strong enough to get these objects back.

Repatriation as an approach to restoring China's national dignity

47There was no positive correlation between the strength of recognition of colonial influence and attitudes towards repatriation. According to the participants' attitudes towards repatriation, all sixteen samples were divided into two groups, with one for repatriation and the other against. Then, a comparison of participants' understanding of colonialism was conducted separately in each group. Four interviewees did not support repatriation. Among them, one person said that colonial history had no influence on himself or herself, and three people acknowledged mild impact from the colonial past. Of the twelve interviewees in the other group who supported repatriation, two indicated no impact from colonial history, eight were mildly affected by colonial history, and the remaining two had strong feelings about colonial influence.

48Based on the comparison above, it was not the strength of recognition of colonial influence that directly correlated with participants' attitudes towards repatriation. However, through sets of cross-sectional comparisons about participants' understanding of repatriation and colonialism, the researcher found that interviewees who thought that Chinese colonial history represented national humiliation and vulnerability were very likely to support repatriation and viewed repatriation as evidence of a powerful China. Seven interviewees expressed that Chinese colonial history represented national humiliation and vulnerability. And all of them wanted Chinese cultural objects to be returned and thought that the return had significance for China's national confidence and international status.

Participant 11: The most significant impact of colonial history is to allow you to reflect on all of this, that is, why you were colonized or beaten by others in the past, and what lessons you should learn from this fact so that this kind of thing will no longer occur. I think this is the most important thing. And I hope my country becomes stronger. . . . . The return of lost objects means that our international status is improved, and we have the right to speak. What I could not get back in the past, now I get it back. It is like telling the world. I am no longer the way I used to be. I have become stronger. I think the most important thing is this.

Participant 12: The glory of ancient China can create a gorgeous dream for the Chinese people. But that period of colonial history, that long history, nearly a hundred years, is actually an extreme humiliation. . . . Those lost objects show me a tragedy in the history of modern China. Their return is a national issue and will cheer the whole country up.

49However, it is worth noting that there were another five participants who shared that kind of understanding about repatriation but without the corresponding attitudes towards Chinese colonial history. Thus, there might be other elements affecting participants' support for repatriation and their desire for a powerful China. Unfortunately, they were not found in this research.

Conclusion

50A complicated relationship exists between people's understanding of colonialism and decolonization in China. First, the strength of recognition of colonial influence has no direct correlation with people's familiarity with decolonization. In this case, the popularity of colonialism cannot directly encourage people's interest in decolonization in the context of China. Second, the desire for a powerful China is a common attitude towards Chinese colonial history. However, this kind of desire is unlikely to lead to an exploration of decolonization. Third, the rejection of decolonization is likely to be found in people who hold a narrow and superficial view of colonialism.

51Currently, there is a gap between people's ideas of colonialism and decolonization in China. The notion of colonialism is closely associated with China's national identity, dignity, and strength. Along with that national-based understanding of colonialism, decolonization has not received enough attention and discussion until now. Unfortunately, Chinese museums are not encouraging people's insight into colonialism and decolonization and cannot help close the gap in understanding between them.

52Museums in China are tightly controlled by the government and CCP secretary (Lu, 2013, p. 209). The terms "public" and "state-owned" museums are equal to each other (Bollo & Zhang, 2017), as the state or CCP always dominates and supervises the museological discourse. Even the national ICOM committees in China are led by senior officials of the SACH (State Administration of Cultural Heritage). In this sense, the role of Chinese museums is to construct a "Chinese identity" (Lu, 2013, p. 212) and to provide a "patriotic education" (Bollo & Zhang, 2017). The objectives of museums in China are to promote patriotism and nationalism and to teach the public that socialism is the only way for the salvation and development of China and that the CCP is the only party capable of leading China (Lu, 2013, p. 213).

53Furthermore, due to the lack of social equality, the power system within Chinese museums is a very top-down one. Visitors and local communities are excluded from museums' decision-making and knowledge-formation process (Lu, 2013 p. 214). The Ministry of Culture's State Administration of Cultural Heritage (SACH) regulates presentation in most public museums (Bollo & Zhang, 2017). As a result, the museums' narrative about the history of China is no different from that in students' textbooks (Lu, 2013, p. 215). Therefore, the public's understanding of Chinese history can be standardized in museums. There is only one story in China.

54To be honest, the current existence of Chinese museums is against all the values of decolonization. They are exactly the kind of institution which should be decolonized. However, as a useful propaganda tool of the state, Chinese museums can hardly be changed.

55Besides, in the context of China, the attitude towards repatriation of Chinese cultural objects removed from China during the colonial time has more correlation with the understanding of colonialism than with that of decolonization. First, in China, people's support for repatriation is motivated by or correlates with their familiarity with decolonization. Second, the struggle between national and personal interests can be frequently found in people's attitudes towards repatriation. Third, there was no positive correlation between the strength of recognition of colonial influence and attitudes towards repatriation. However, people who thought that Chinese colonial history represented national humiliation and vulnerability were very likely to support repatriation and took repatriation as evidence of a powerful China.

56In China, repatriation is always motivated by the national interest at the risk of dismissing personal interests and values. In this sense, it is easier to understand that the National Museum of China is collecting objects from regional museums and never returning them. Therefore, it is clear that the request of China's international repatriation is not meant to fight for equality or diversity. Instead, it will help to establish a homogeneous and exclusive cultural environment in China. This kind of repatriation cannot be regarded as a practice of decolonization.