Democratic.net: [RED DEMOCRATICA] Comentarios: YALE : Devolucion de las piezas de Machu Picchu al Peru: Comentarios de los alumnos de Yale al evento.

Pagina con los comentarios de los alumnos de Yale al evento, se puede ubicar en :
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/comments/28530

y si desea puede agregar su propio comentario. Aqui remitimos las notas .

Para leerlo en espanol , puede visitar nuestra seccion de la Red Democratica correspondiente a : Boletin Diario RED en : Http://reddemocratica01.blogspot.com
Alli encontrara un traductor en el lado izq. que con un "click" , primero en el titulo del articulo y luego otro en el traductor podra traducir el articulo en mencion al espanol.

Arts. rels. :
Leer en Http://reddemocratica.blogspot.com

Editor

Peruvian blasts Yale

Shahla Naimi and Paul Needham

Contributing Reporter, Staff Reporter

Published Tuesday, April 7, 2009

As a crowd of students, faculty and even a few Peruvians hissed and clapped, Eliane Karp-Toledo, the former first lady of Peru, called for the immediate return of all Inca artifacts housed at Yale last night.

#1 By Also Present (Unregistered User) 9:54am on April 7, 2009

Oh, come now, Paul.
We were there, too. Are you serious in your claim that "the majority did not buy [her] arguments"? Admittedly, it was not lop-sided either way, but the Liberal Party and Party of the Left looked to be mostly in favor of Karp-Toledo's argument. Also, the Conservative Party was not at all in favor of returning the artifacts.

#2 By Camila (Unregistered User) 10:09am on April 7, 2009

As a member of the Party of the Right, I have no idea where the YDN got the idea that most of the support was coming from the PoR, or the Conservative party for that matter (given that i believe only two or three conservative party members were present at the debate). I would very much like to know how the YDN reached that conclusion.

#3 By Frustrated (Unregistered User) 11:55am on April 7, 2009

Wow. Was the reporter there? The room was very split and the others posting here are correct; I think most of the support for Mrs. Karp-Toledo came from the Left side of the room. Also, it's kind of insulting that the reporter implies that the students who spoke against her could only do so because they were coached by Yale faculty, which is not true at all; especially since so many speeches were not prepared ahead of time. This was a great YPU debate, even if it only received mediocre coverage.

#4 By a PoL member... (Unregistered User) 12:45pm on April 7, 2009

I mean, jesh, this was bad writing. The first student aff was from the PoL. We talked about it afterwards, and most of our party was in favor of the aff.
Get it right!

#5 By Dara L. 1:02pm on April 7, 2009

#1: There's a difference between agreeing with the principle of the arguments Ms. Karp-Toledo presented and agreeing with her evidence. On the Left side of the auditorium, it seemed to me, there was much more support for the former than the latter. I heard a lot of people questioning Ms. Karp-Toledo's evidence, but agreeing with her that the fate of the artifacts should ultimately be left up to Peru.

#6 By Cass (Unregistered User) 2:52pm on April 7, 2009

The items belong to Peru, and according to this lady's exposition there are documents that prove that these items were supossed to be returned to the Peruvian government long ago:
- a January 1916 contract by Bingham and the National Geographic Society, which joined Yale in sponsoring the explorer's 1912 and 1914-15 expeditions, with the Peruvian government in which a time limit is set for return of the items.
-the pieces were loaned so that Yale could perform research on them for a maximum of 18 months, and therefore they should have been returned in June 1917, at the latest.
- Ninety-two years later!! Why does YALE keep holding on to something that does not belong to YALE, its professors or researches. It belongs to PERU, to the peruvians. These items are part of the peruvian history.

#7 By Observer (Unregistered User) 5:57pm on April 7, 2009

The Administration seems to view the situation as akin to what Barry Goldwater said about the Panama Canal: "It's ours, because we stole it fair and square!"

#8 By IP (Unregistered User) 12:43am on April 8, 2009

In response to Class, the contract from 1916 pertained ONLY to artifacts extracted during the 1914-15 expeditions. These were returned in the 1920s. This was just one of the many factual inaccuracies in Ms. Toledo's remarks.

#9 By Hmmmm (Unregistered User) 5:57am on April 8, 2009

Awful.
"But, judging from hisses and claps, the majority of the YPU did not buy Karp-Toledo's arguments."
Oh. Perhaps they instead stole them.

#10 By Mike (Unregistered User) 6:02pm on April 8, 2009

I worked on several expeditions who, by law, had to turn over turn over the the gov't everything we found when our research was completed. What we found had to be kept in a facility guarded by Peruvian selected security. When we would go back to the next year, at last half our finds were missing. One guard was found guilty and then released - none of what he stole was ever recovered. This is a common occurrence in Peru. While one can argue we should not keep another country's history, Peru, among others, isn't doing it either.

#11 By Return for what? (Unregistered User) 4:19am on April 10, 2009

I wasn't at presentation but as a peruvian I would ask Ms Karp-Toledo what would the peruvian goverment or even the peruvian institute of culture do with all the inca's artifacts?? Show them at the National Museum?? I don't think so. The artifacts would probably end up stored in boxes away from the general public,the turists and the students. I think the artifacts -even if they belong to Peru by right- have a better use in a place where people can learn from them and appreciate them in adequate conditions. I don't share Ms Karp-Toledo's perspective of "not using something but don't let anyone else use it either" very common among small minded people.

#12 By not again (Unregistered User) 12:03pm on April 10, 2009

Were these YDN reporters actually at the debate? Because what's written here is coverage of a different debate from the one I saw -- seriously, the POR and the CP in favor of the resolution?