Easter Islanders want their moai returned

Thought this was interesting:
https://hyperallergic.com/471701/easter-islanders-are-visiting-british-museum-to-request-repatriation-of-ancestral-heritage/

[ Edited by: Tikitube 2018-11-17 10:58 ]

They'll have to pry my Moai mugs out of my cold, dead, hands...

[ Edited by: MrBaliHai 2018-11-18 08:00 ]

I saw this on FB. It's actually a thoughtful, reasonable proposal they're suggesting. The offer of a native-crafted replica cut from island stone and overseen by experts is no small undertaking. The British would be remiss not to discuss this further.

Anakena Manutomatoma, told the Guardian. “Once eyes are added to the statues, an energy is breathed into the moai and they become the living embodiment of ancestors whose role is to protect us.”

Coming from a people whose ancestors were cannibals who is the statue saving the people from, themselves?

“The large-scale deforestation led to soil erosion and over a span of several centuries, the island's ability to support wildlife and farming was compromised. People began to starve. In a last ditch effort at survival, they became cannibals.”

Next our tiki mugs will be deemed cultural appropriation.
So if “The Greatest Generation includes those born roughly between 1900 and the early 1920s” will this be known as the bit*h and moan generation one day.

Really? That's your take on this very reasonable proposal? SMH. No wonder the Museum thinks it can get away with keeping things like the Moai and the Parthenon Marbles.

We live in an age of wonders. If the museum wanted to they could themselves scan the original and have an exact copy CNC'd or printed, down to the last chisel mark.

There really is no excuse to keep a culturally important artifact when the culture it was taken from is asking for it back. Especially when the Rapa Nui
are offering a legit replacement.

Just my $00.02

On 2018-11-19 05:10, tikiskip wrote:
Next our tiki mugs will be deemed cultural appropriation.

You talk like that hasn't already happened.

Overall, the museum doesn't really have a choice. They're getting a very reasonable proposal that has a feel-good story with it, and if they refuse it they'll look like a-holes. In the museum and heritage field in general, we're in a time where it's not merely ethical but necessary for institutions to work with the people they are representing.

Yeah, I don't really care much for some of my close relatives so guess I'm not a family guy.

BUT, the statue in a museum helps to promote and tell their story.

So do they want the team from wherever, National Geographic? to burry the statues back from where they dug them up after the people, (ancestors of the Easter Island) toppled them back when they were fighting?

Just a bit tired of the digging up of every past injustice.

Think of all the things taken in war or otherwise and imagine giving it all back.
Two words, Genghis Khan.

Wonder if France wants that statue they gave us back?

On 2018-11-19 09:23, tikiskip wrote:
Wonder if France wants that statue they gave us back?

Difference being that France willingly gave us the Statue of Liberty. Nobody gave the Moai or the Marbles away, they were taken.

If the British had gotten their hands on the Declaration/Bill of Rights/Constitution in 1812 and taken them back to England to put in the Museum you'd probably want them delivered back to the U.S. government wouldn't you?

"If the British had gotten their hands on the Declaration/Bill of Rights/Constitution in 1812 and taken them back to England to put in the Museum you'd probably want them delivered back to the U.S. government wouldn't you?"

Well if there were like what How many statues are on Easter Island 50, more?
So no if there were 50 Declaration/Bill of Rights/Constitution documents that were mostly the same I would not care that much about getting number 51 back.

Remember that the digging up and even bringing them back to England helped the Easter Island economy, heck is that the only source of income, tourism I think?
People saw that stuff in a museum and said lets go check that place out.

I bet the Inca people want their gold back too, that stuff must have been lots of religious stuff too.

Damn it was not right but that's what people did back then.
Remember the people that did not fight or plunder way back when, No you don't because most of them are dead.

I really don't know enough about the history involved here so what do I know.
Tiki to me is not really about Easter Island as much as it is about Trader Vic's, Don Beach, Kahiki ect....
Fake Americanization of tiki in a restaurant with Booze and tiki mugs.

Just the opinion of one person, what do I know.
Good luck on your quest people of Easter Island.

I got a question,
If somebody steals a menu from Trader Sam's and then sells it on eBay does Trader Sam's have the right to ask for it to be returned.

If that were the case then there would be LOTS less mugs/menus in all of our collections as many of them were stolen at one time even if not by you the person who has it now.

AND I say that is why there are still good condition versions of these mugs as if they did not sell that mug it would have mostly been broken in the bar through usage.

On 2018-11-19 11:31, tikiskip wrote:
I got a question,
If somebody steals a menu from Trader Sam's and then sells it on eBay does Trader Sam's have the right to ask for it to be returned.

Technically, yes. As the ebay buyer would be in possession of stolen goods. Whether they knew it or not is irrelevant. Although if it were bought "on the level" the buyer can usually just
return said stolen item when informed of its status. If bought knowing that an item was stolen they have committed a crime as surely as the thief.

For something small and not terribly valuable, I doubt anyone would bother. Especially for old things like mugs, where a statute of limitation would likely have been LOOOONG past.

But for a more relevant example, just look at the art world re: big ticket items getting returned after decades or more because they were stolen from some museum or collection.

And in this particular case, the Moai was boosted by the British Navy and gifted to the queen. So whatever the end result was of boosting interest in EI tourism, the motive wasn't all that altruistic.

"the motive wasn't all that altruistic"

I did not think it was altruistic, but I think it did promote tourism sparking interest in the statues many years later.

Chili does seam to be doing well now economically, I don't think the statues are the reason but Easter Island has made money from them.

Wonder when they went from eating each other to doing well economically.
I would like to go there one day.

On 2018-11-19 11:21, tikiskip wrote:

I bet the Inca people want their gold back too, that stuff must have been lots of religious stuff too.

You mean like this?

https://apnews.com/8725727b13564472bd373d44efbca3f2

Every ancient artifact in every museum in the world once belonged to another culture, just as every bit of land once belonged to another culture. I can see the Rapa Nui wanting their Moai back and I appreciate that they are willing negotiate for it. But I also see how this could get out of hand.

Seems to me like their offer to replace it with an exact replica makes this a no-brainer for the museum.

Just because it was a common practice to steal cultural artifacts at one point in time doesn't make it right.

I remember reading Aku Aku and thinking that Heyerdahl was a bit of an asshole when he kept bragging about tricking the natives into giving him their ancestral carvings, even though I thought Heyerdahl was a pretty cool guy.

The real question is this...if the museum refuses and the Easter Islanders were to find a way to steal it back, would they be in the wrong?
:wink:

[ Edited by: tikitube 2018-11-19 15:30 ]

On 2018-11-19 15:30, tikitube wrote:

The real question is this...if the museum refuses and the Easter Islanders were to find a way to steal it back, would they be in the wrong?
:wink:

[ Edited by: tikitube 2018-11-19 15:30 ]

Sounds like the plot of a great movie. Where a crack team of islanders both smuggle copy of an 8 ton statue INTO a museum, and boost the original out- all under the cover of night. :D

On 2018-11-19 15:03, MadDogMike wrote:
Every ancient artifact in every museum in the world once belonged to another culture, just as every bit of land once belonged to another culture. I can see the Rapa Nui wanting their Moai back and I appreciate that they are willing negotiate for it. But I also see how this could get out of hand.

Great point Mike.

In New York where my wife is from they had a treaty that in time the land went back to the Indians well the time came and now people who had a house on that land now pay rent to the Indians and the Indians can at any time say move your house.

Can you imagine having your house on land that was not your land?
But then I would never buy a house with that kind of stipulation, and heck I would never want to live there it is a run down town for sure.

And before you say we took the land from them remember we also took homes from the Japanese in the 50s no less and you never hear about that.

On 2018-11-19 17:17, tikiskip wrote:

On 2018-11-19 15:03, MadDogMike wrote:
Every ancient artifact in every museum in the world once belonged to another culture, just as every bit of land once belonged to another culture. I can see the Rapa Nui wanting their Moai back and I appreciate that they are willing negotiate for it. But I also see how this could get out of hand.

And before you say we took the land from them remember we also took homes from the Japanese in the 50s no less and you never hear about that.

Other than the laws passed in 1988 and 1992 providing them restitution, the official apology from the government in 2013, California having a day honoring/remembering what happened since 2011, George Takei having an award-winning one-man stage show about it...

"Every ancient artifact in every museum in the world once belonged to another culture... But I also see how this could get out of hand." - MadDogMike

This is a really interesting question, mostly because EVERYTHING in a museum is there because it has lasting cultural significance, heck brah, that's why it's there!

What if a past government gave or sold a statue to a foreign museum, but the current government wants it back now? What if that original government was a dictator? Or - what if it was a democracy? Is there a right/wrong difference anyway? How do we ever settle the question for future generations, considering the fluidity of statecraft?

An enormous amount of objects on display in museums were either originally stolen, slipped out of the countries quietly, or simply wouldn't be there under current laws; Egypt has extremely harsh new laws about removing their antiquities. (Basically, you can't remove them. Don't even try.) Of course, the Egypt of 100 years ago was shoving mummies at tourists.

Yeah, and those statues made of gold?
Sure, they're worth a LOT.
Usually the term is "priceless."

"Other than the laws passed in 1988 and 1992 providing them restitution, the official apology from the government in 2013, California having a day honoring/remembering what happened since 2011, George Takei having an award-winning one-man stage show about it"

That is good to hear, Lets say you don't hear about it in Ohio then.

You know drew Barrymore's grandfather had a room with oddities in it and one thing was a shrunken head.

Well back in the 20s 30s it was popular to go on safari and one of the souvenirs offered was shrunken heads, like from really people, well ex real people.

It was said that you would get the strength of a strong warrior if you had his head, that and the ones with tattoos were very popular.

So they went out and got more of the tattooed natives to fill this demand, for heads!

Not statues, but real peoples heads!

Nobody is asking for those back.

I once saw one for sale at a antique store, I think it was real maybe as I have seen a real shrunken head before but I did not buy it as I felt it may have some bad ju ju thinking somebody did take his head after all.
(They make fake shrunken heads out of goat skin)

So I don't know if a statue is something to lose your head over or not.
Har!

On 2018-11-20 03:38, tikiskip wrote:

Nobody is asking for those back.

Actually more often then you think.

Definitely a complex problem with no easy answers. But we seem to be on a societal pendulum swing to over-correct for past sins, I can see how this could easily go awry.

Actually more often then you think.

Wow, who knew.

"Seems to me like their offer to replace it with an exact replica makes this a no-brainer for the museum." -Tikitube

I'll throw a wrench in here:

The British Museum exchanges the Moai (lifted in 1868) for a copy.

The Easter Island Development Commission accepts the Moai.

They sell it to a Russian museum for $7,300,000.00 a week later, before it's shipped back.

Then they build an all-new State of the Art EADC (Easter Island Development Commission) Visitor Center at the boat dock with the proceeds.

Hmmm.....

Which ancestors would be honored by the return of the moai? I doubt the current goal is to honor the birdman-era Rapa Nui islanders, who were pretty demonstrative about their REBUKE OF THE MOAI. I thought they INTENTIONALLY toppled or destroyed pretty much all the freestanding moai by the time that one was taken to England. And often face down in a way that broke their necks - it almost looks like they would've gladly ground them into dust too if they could've! Maybe they even had reasons that'd make sense if we knew the whole story, like if the moai were seen as oppressive symbols, as in the long-ears vs. short-ears story. (Maybe not!)

So if this restoration movement is not about honoring THOSE birdman-era ancestors, then probably it's about honoring the OTHER earlier ancestors who created and RESPECTED THE MOAI. That makes sense, but let's acknowledge that the island's ancestral heritage didn't necessarily have a uniform outlook. In this case what honors some, might even insult others. Humans are complicated!

You know, many of us feel like it's the right thing to save a (tiki) work of art when it's clearly going to be destroyed or cast off by its owners. There is virtue in obtaining an artifact, out of appreciation for its esthetic value, at a time when its stewards would destroy it. I don't know the detailed circumstances when the Brits got it, other than a rough impression that it was AFTER the moai were no longer valued in the island culture. But I suspect it's more complicated than the black and white allegations people relish these days - painting historical events as stealing or whatever.

I do think there's something to be said for the fact that the moai was preserved at the British Museum, where many have gotten the chance to appreciate it in a respectful way. And it seems fair to acknowledge that it's been in the museum a long time now and has a history there as well (how long was it on the island in the first place?). But I think one shouldn't discount the moai's origins on Rapa Nui. There's still some beauty in the thought that the moai might return "home" someday.

-Randy

Some great points there.
It is good that this discussion has not turned into the your a racist for having a different view type stuff that happens so often today.

If you think about the wars some old Hitler, and some new Taliban, LOTS of old artifacts have been destroyed for all time if you split the location of these items you greatly increase the odds of more of it surviving these types of events and even other ways that these things could be harmed.

I would think a museum would be one of the safest places for it to be especially one in England as it would take a very big war event to harm it.

Another thing I always think is going on is it's not about the statue, it's not about the "people" wanting it back, But more so the thought of the curators wanting their fifteen minuets of fame or even a lifetime of fame being the force "that did the right thing and brought the Moai back"

And their names would be in the history books and right next to the statue telling the story on a plaque.

Or even the publicity that all this dust kicking will give them.

Hey what about the NOBEL prize!
They could get a PRIZE for this selfless deed.
And a million bucks!
Did you know you get a million bucks for wining that!?

Look at the work we did.
Hey at any rate they get a free trip/trips to England.

Being around professors is where all this jaded talk comes from, I did not make it up.

It even still could come from good intentions too.

Does the Thor Heyerdahl (Kon-Tiki) Museum in Oslo still have all the carvings he coaxed from the islanders?

These ancient small-sized carvings were kept secretly in caves and "polished" regularly using sand. Thor wanted them preserved before they were literally dissolved using the sand rubbed over the detailed stone.

Thor sincerely believed these carvings were WAY too important historically to leave on the island - in the hands of the islanders whose "magical" application of sand was pretty dang ill-considered.

And keep in mind that Thor's journey, his study of the Moai and protection of the carvings were one of the explosive origins of the whole Tiki movement & serious appreciation and study of South Seas cultures that continues to this day...

I'm a big Heyerdahl fan, but his approach at obtaining artifacts doesn't sit well with me.

We can try to justify that the ends (preservation and exposure to a larger audience) justifies the means, but ultimately he used their superstitions against them and flat out lied to procure many of the items. He explains it in detail in his books, and while he professed a respect for these people, he also seemed proud of his success at tricking them.

One of my favorite youtube channels just uploaded this, and I thought it was pertinent. Easter Island's request to a museum in France is mentioned starting around the 22:00 mark, although I recommend watching the entire thing. Personally, I can see both sides of the argument, they both have merit. And I'm quite glad that I don't work somewhere that would place me in position to make that final decision, whew!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGVSfuJ5QY8&t=1430s

Here's another article that just appeared on my radar. Although it focuses primarily on African artifacts, and is obviously a political play, it could have ramifications on collections of other cultures:

https://hyperallergic.com/472215/president-of-france-will-recommend-full-restitution-of-looted-african-works/

On 2018-11-22 13:47, Onyx_Noir wrote:
One of my favorite youtube channels just uploaded this, and I thought it was pertinent. Easter Island's request to a museum in France is mentioned starting around the 22:00 mark, although I recommend watching the entire thing. Personally, I can see both sides of the argument, they both have merit. And I'm quite glad that I don't work somewhere that would place me in position to make that final decision, whew!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGVSfuJ5QY8&t=1430s

Thanks for sharing... I'll check this out when I've got more data! :)

Norway's Kon-Tiki museum to return Easter island artifacts
http://www.tikicentral.com/reply.php?topic=53124&forum=1

Also mentions the request to the British Museum at the bottom of the article