Posted on 03/05/2006 10:40:21 AM PST by wagglebee
I fear, however, that some on this thread, infected with the PC virus are saying quite different things.
You obviously are not Native American. I happen to be one-quarter myself. What do you think would happen if it were discovered that Yale had Frederick Douglas' bones hidden? The whole campus would have been burned during the late 1960's.
The United States should now start to scour the entire country of Peru looking for anything that once belonged to the US (even the stones and granite used to make Peru's buildings) and demand those back, poste haste.
BTW does Peru owe the U.S. any money? Time to demand that loan repayment back right now, plus interest.
Also so many Peruvians have gone to Yale University to study - should Yale demand that they get their education back?
Time for the old Skull and Bones Peruvian branch to do some secret work behind the scenes in Peru.
Texas.......New Mexico.....Arizona......California.....
Please don't go to New Haven. It's not sanitary.
From reading the article, I get the idea that:
a) Peru claims ownership of these artifacts
b) Yale refuses to acknowledge Peru's ownership, but also does not explicitly claim ownership themselves, and it attempting to negotiate favorable terms for partial repatriation of the artifacts
It's hard to escape the conclusion that Yale knows it doesn't own the artifacts, knows that Peru does, and just doesn't want to admit it because then Peru would have the right to have all the artifacts returned immediately, and Yale would lose its bargaining position.
Yale was lent the artifacts and now is trying to leverage its current possession into part ownership.
"If Yale can't produce a transfer of ownership from Peru, Yale is in possession of stolen property."
Wow. If I visit Mexico or wherever, and buy any native art or handiwork or anything at all really, and do not have a bill of sale that matches the bill of sale that the sellers have, I am in possession of stolen goods.
Seems like all the seller has to do is lose their copy, and I am now in possession of stolen goods. Great racket if you can get into it.
If it was on loan it should be returned. Even the fact that Peru is poor does not justify stealing Peruvian artifacts.
Yeah, why don't they send the Taliban spokesman down there, he'll straighten the whole thing out, or better yet, get his head shrunk.
Taliban ? Peru is a Christian country.
BTW, the University of Lima is one of the oldest universities in Americas, it was founded in 1551 AD, long before Yale.
Might as well burn down Monticello while we're at it, eh? Pave over Gettysburg and put up a racino and a McDonald's? Chip up Stonehenge for bricks and grind the Parthenon to dust?
The ex-Taliban spokesman is a student at Yale.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
I was taught that when you borrowed something, you were to return it as quickly as possible and in better shape than when you borrowed it.
"Recent research indicates that Machu Picchu was actually discovered in 1902 - nine years before Bingham's expedition - by Peruvian farmer Agustin Lizarraga and two companions, Gabino Sanchez and Enrique Palma, on a trek through the southern jungle province of Cuzco."
Guess they weren't as good as Bingham at picking up stuff off the ground.
Peruvians are in their right.
If some country had Lincoln's mummy im sure America would want it back.
If any artefacts are legally acquired then it's ok but unfortunately, western governments have stolen or bought stolen artefacts A LOT. There's gonna be plenty left though, and acknowledging the other's ownership would be the justifiable thing to do.
Museums will probably use the loan-system a lot, where they simply lend artefacts to other countries and museums and lend other ones the next year. That would make the museums a lot more popular too, as many seem to never change much in display.
From The Gadsen Purchase of 1854 Securing Mesilla Valley
By Phyllis Eileen Banks
Events always have a precursor and the Gadsden Purchase is no exception. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, ended the war with Mexico. It confirmed U.S. claims to Texas and set its boundary at the Rio Grande. Mexico also agreed to cede to the United States, California and New Mexico. This included what is now California, Arizona, Nevada and Utah as well as parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming. The purchase price was $15 million and assumption by the United States of claims against Mexico by U. S. citizens. The U. S. Senate ratified it on March 10, 1848 and the Mexican Congress on May 25.
The boundary was vague and both sides were unhappy. Mesilla was a part of Mexico and was on the west bank of the Rio Grande. Las Cruces and Dona Ana were on the east bank of the river and were in American territory. So many pioneers came to claim the American land, many native Mexicans moved away. If they wanted to remain in the area they just moved across the river. The town of Chamberino began as a refuge for New Mexicans who could choose between Mexico and the United States. In 1853 the Mesilla Civil Colony Land Grant was issued by the Mexican government, and Mesilla was formed. President Franklin Pierce wanted to insure U. S. possession of the Mesilla Valley as it was the most practical route for a southern railroad to the Pacific, but it was still owned by Mexico.
Enter James Gadsden, railroad promoter and diplomat. Gadsden was appointed Minister to Mexico in 1853 and was instructed to purchase the border strip of approximately 30,000 square miles. The purchase would include the Mesilla Valley, providing the land for the southern railroad. Gadsden negotiated the purchase for $10 million, and the Senate ratified it in 1854 by a narrow margin. Those who had moved across the river to be in Mexico now found themselves in the United States. The U. S. Government, however, honored the ownership under the Mexican Land Grant. On November 16, 1854 the flag of Mexico was lowered and the flag of the United States was raised in the plaza of Mesilla. Unfortunately the Santa Fe Railroad did not include Mesilla in its railroad route but chose Las Cruces instead.
From the above, the nationality of the states their lands we know today as Texas, CA, WY, CO, NV, UT, AZ, and NM were confirmed as US in 1848 by the Treaty of Guadalupe, INCLUDING a $15 million purchase AND assumption of all claims against the Mexican Government.
People resettled to adjsut to nationality and the areas in a riverine valley were debatable. That area was GRANTED to settlers by Mexico and then the area resolved again by the US paying another $10 million to confirm the national boundaries without going to war again.
Even though these two international agreements settled the issue of US and Mexican authority over the lands and established those boundaries, the Gadsen Purchase further allowed the US to protect the interests of those who had settled on the land as a Mexican GRANT, and gave them OWNERSHIP of the land as US citizens.
All past confusion over land ownership was resolved in those two actions, with the US paying far more than what it was probably worth.
Gadsen purchase was for 30,000 sections for $10 million or about $2/acre. Land in undeveloped Tennessee still sold for a $1/acre about a century later in the 1940s.
Anytime a revisionist attempts to cloud the issue on Texas and CA nationality, remember these two agreements. Both had material exchange of monies between them and one of them also concluded a state of war. Both methods of addressing grievances which are recognized throughout recorded history had been performed in finalizing the nationality of the lands in question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.