I'm certainly for basic politeness and respect. And I'm sure I could be convinced this is a good idea. But my immediate reaction is that it's an overreaction. Thoughts? Leading Museums Remove Native Displays Amid New Federal Rules
I am not a big fan of historical cancel culture (NYC removed a Jefferson statue this week for instance, which is insane to me). But Native American stuff falls into a different category. Many of the artifacts were taken without permission, many of the exhibits were set up by what were essentially conquerors to their land and heritage without Native American input, and even now there are still historical battles being fought by tribes over how they were done over. The USSC sees one or two a year. Gotta rethink the entire process here.
Without knowing details, I don't love the idea of the Feds micro-managing museums and question whether they can even do that. But if there are concerns involving stolen artifacts or sovereignty rights, I'd be receptive to hearing about them.
Jon Oliver did a great segment on stolen artifacts and the people fighting for their return. It's a pretty extensive problem with museums, it would appear. I really think the artifacts should be returned on demand and it is appropriate for the museums to ask permission to display them, at the very least.
I'm kind of in favor of giving this land back to the people it was taken from. That is, to the descendants of the few who survived. Could Native Americans do a better job of governing this country today than that disgraceful, pathetic bunch in D.C.? Who the hell couldn't?
Palestinians have entered the chat EDIT: I'm just trying to be TH funny. Let's not derail river's thread.
The stuff in the Jon Oliver segment was pretty major items, like statues, totem poles, reliefs carved into ancient buildings, all which were haphazardly broken off and brought to other countries. He was showing how you can still match the locations of the cut-out reliefs, or how the feet of the feetless statues in are still attached to their bases where they came from in Cambodia. But still, no matter how small, if they prove it was stolen or looted during an invasion, it should be returned. FWIW, I think modern day archeologists do a better job of keeping their findings under local control.
Who first ominously said, "I'll be back"? No, it wasn't Arnold Schwarzengger in "The Terminator." It was Christopher Columbus to the Indians.
Mostly focused on the British Museum ... but same applies. Has a quote from the British PM saying if they gave back artifacts, the British Museum would be empty. Museums: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) - YouTube
Seems like overkill. I couldn’t understand a reasonable process to allow tribes taking back items that should not have been taken, but taking exhibits down or covering them up seems stupid.
The purpose of these displays is to allow people to get a sense of what native american life was like and develop an appreciation for their culture. Maybe that's not as important to some as getting some money out of the deal.
The federal rules require permission from the object of research, before performing research? That's just about ridonkulous. As for relics and who has rights over them--stake your claim in a court of law, state your case in same. A carte Blanche rule the pretends to adjudicate rights over relics with no process, is nothing short of patently abusive. Yet another example of government screwing things up by trying to fix em.
Personally I think Cracker Barrels should be closed down. That shit is offensive to us rednecks everywhere.
There are literally millions of objects around the world that have been looted. The courts don’t have the space and the aggrieved don’t have the money to fix it all. The museums have an obligation to verify the things in their collections were obtained properly whenever possible. And if they weren’t, they should be returning them.
