************
FORUM TPSIPOL : RED DEMOCRATICA (RED)
Celebrando sus 10 años
BOLETIN No 8
LOS RETOS DEL PERU Y AMERICA LATINA FRENTE A LA GLOBALIZACION Y SUS INSTITUCIONES EN EL SIGLO XXI
Yale should return artifacts from Macchu Picchu to Peru
Se invita cordialmente a nuestos lectores a enviarnos sus comentarios sobre el tema.
24/04/2009
(RED/YALE)
Http://reddemocrati
Http://groups.
************
MINUTES OF THE FLOOR MEETING OF
THE YALE POLITICAL UNION
6th APRIL 2009
The Floor Meeting of the Yale Political Union held on Monday 6th April 2009 was called to order at 7:44 p.m. in SSS 114 with the Speaker, Mr. Adam Hirst, presiding.
The Chairs and Chairmen announce the current happenings of their respective parties.
Mr. Bradley Pough announces that on Monday, the Union will be hosting its annual freshman event in the TD Courtyard at 5:30. Hot dogs and hamburgers will be served, and volleyball will be played. All freshmen are welcome.
The Speaker reminds us that everyone interested in asking questions and giving speeches should be aware that there are two Floor Leaders, Miss Naomi Lisan (Left) and Mr. Joshua Robbins (Right).
The President, Mr. David Manners-Weber, introduces Ms. Eliane Karp-Toledo. First, he explains what the YPU is and what we do. We are the center of debate on campus. We pound to express support and hiss to make our disagreements known, always with respect. We speak our minds, whether in questions or student speeches on both sides of the topic. In the President's time in the Union, we have had Antonin Scalia debate originalism, Howard Dean, and Rick Santorum, among other guests. Tonight, we are excited to have Ms. Eliane Karp-Toledo, the former first Lady of Peru. Born in France, she earned in B.A. in anthropology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, with a specialization in Latin American Studies, and a PhD. in anthropology at Stanford University. She has worked at the World Bank. She speaks 7 different languages, including Quechua. Her husband was President of Peru from 2001 to 2006. The dispute over the Machu Picchu artifacts at Yale is a contentious one. The government of Peru is currently suing Yale over these artifacts, and while neither Ms. Karp-Toledo nor the students speaking today are speaking on behalf of Peru or Yale, many of the broader issues we will be discussing have repercussions beyond this particular dispute. The President thanks Yale for its cooperation in helping to host this debate, especially when many of Yale's experts on the subject are not able to speak to the ongoing legal proceedings. Do ancient antiquities belong to their direct descendants, or do they become part of the broader culture of humanity? How do we balance the claims of indigenous peoples with the need for academic scholarship? Would acceding to the principles implicit in Peru's position threaten the collections of museums the world over? How should we rectify past treatment, perhaps accepted at the time, that would not measure up to the standards that we expect today? The President looks forward to hearing our answers to these questions and more as we debate this evening's resolution.
-
The President moves the topic "Resolved: Yale Should Return All Machu Picchu Artifacts to Peru Immediately."
[Note from the Secretary: this Floor Meeting does not follow the standard format of a debate; rather, it is a presentation to be followed by questions, student speeches and questions, and closing remarks, with no vote to take place at the end. For more details on what has been moved, please see the minutes of the Executive Board meeting of 5th April 2009.]
Ms. Eliane Karp-Toledo dims the lights, for she has prepared slides to accompany her speech. She wants to start by thanking in a very special manner the gracious invitation extended to her by the YPU. It reflects the importance of academic openness and tolerance. This is what she teaches her students at Stanford. She wants to thank Yale as an institution. This debate in no manner diminishes her respect for the prestige and tradition that this university symbolizes. From the start, Ms. Karp-Toledo wants to point out that she is not a lawyer, and consequently, her argument tonight is not a legal one. Neither would she want to interfere with the ongoing legal process between Peru and Yale. She did not come here in representation of the state of Peru. Her views are strictly personal.
Ms. Karp-Toledo and her husband, the first indigenous president of Peru elected, have been actively involved since 2001 in repatriating the Machu Picchu artifacts back to their sole legal owner, which is and has always been Peru and its citizens. Repatriation is not just a legal matter. What is at stake here for us as people is the recognition that the sovereign nation owns all of its cultural production and has an intrinsic right to all of its patrimony as a manifestation of national dignity and identity. In the U.S. Public Code 601 of 1990, called NAGPRA (the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act), recognizes this right to Native American peoples. In Ms. Karp-Toledo's presentation, "patrimony" means a cultural product of any sort, material or immaterial, that has intrinsic, deep, and lasting value to a specific people.
Ms. Karp-Toledo has no doubt that the artifacts in question belong to this description of patrimony. It is the Peruvians' ancestors who constructed this marvel that we now call Machu Picchu. For Peruvians, the Inca state is the actualization of a great ancestral knowledge that has been improved over thousands of years by a great variety of ethnic groups. One of Peru's oldest cities is about 5000 years old, and many sites in Peru reveal rich and complex manifestations of social organization, agriculture, and architecture, and diverse forms of spirituality and languages. Machu Picchu is one of Peru's most precious national icons. It is the symbol of what great human beings can achieve, how they can live successfully integrated with necessity. For this reason, it has been voted one of the Seven Wonders of the World. But even in this globalized world of today, nobody questions that Machu Picchu is culturally important to Peru.
Ms. Karp-Toledo asks us now to look at the slides that she has prepared and to share some of the visions and important arguments that she is using. Ms. Karp-Toledo has called her presentation "Machu Picchu Evidences" because she will be presenting evidences. Machu Picchu is definitely Ms. Karp-Toledo's patrimony. It is a sacred space related to Andean concepts of continuity, relations with the land, plants, the ancestors, and the apus. It is not "ruins"; it is a sanctuary. It is related to vital points in nature. It is today the icon of identity and self-esteem at the national level. It is the symbol of glorious achievement. The Quechua "campesinos" have always known this and have maintained the rituals surrounding it.
Ms. Karp-Toledo explains in just a few words who built Machu Picchu. It is known to have been built by one of the most famous Inca, known as "the merry one." He was born in Cusco. He built many palaces. He expanded the city of Cusco itself. He is a historical person. We know of him through the chronicles of the Spaniards. [The Secretary regrets that he has trouble recording all of the names and historical details in this section of Ms. Karp-Toledo's presentation.
Ms. Karp-Toledo shows a letter that Hiram Bingham himself wrote to the National Geographic Society in DC. It was produced in 1916. She shows an unofficial transcription, which she has made because the original letter is very hard to read. The letter reads: "Now they do not belong to us, but to the Peruvian Government, who allowed us to take them out of the country on condition that they be returned in eighteen months ... the Peruvian Government will probably object to such an arrangement ... The matter has assumed a very large importance in the eyes of the Peruvians, who feel that we are trying to rob their country of its treasures." This is not something to be talked about lightly. The text admits that the artifacts do not belong to Bingham and his expedition. The letter is dated 28th November 1916. The second page of the same letter reads, "They include about twenty fine specimens of trepanning, besides the most remarkable instance of trepanning of which we have knowledge, namely a skull with five holes. I am almost tempted to let the Preuvians [sic] 'whistle for it' ... on the condition that it is to go back to Peru in the near future."
This is a very clear piece of evidence in the archives of the National Geographic Society, which shows that Hiram Bingham never thought that the pieces belonged to somebody other than the Peruvians. He knows to whom the pieces belonged. Ms. Karp-Toledo shows a letter from National Geographic Society president Gilbert H. Grosvenor, which reads, "Dear Hi: Replying to yours of November 28, I feel that we ought to abide by the letter of our agreement with the Peruvian Government and return all the material that we contracted to return, and I am glad that you share this view with me." Grosvenor said in Spanish for the Peruvian public what the letter was saying. But they had no more information than this. There is the own recognition of 1916 and present recognition of responsibility of National Geographic.
Ms. Karp-Toledo asks us to look at the resolution from the side of the Peruvian government. It passed Resolution Number 1529. No excavation that was produced from Peruvian territory could be put up. Bingham asked for authorization to do the excavation and to ship it out of Peru. Ms. Karp-Toledo quotes the permission granted to Bingham: "In consideration of the solicitation of ... Bingham ... in which he is asking permit to practice archaeological and osteological studies in the National Territory, and to take out with exclusive destination to these institutions the objects that will be obtained as a result of these explorations ... subjected strictly to the content of ... The Supreme Decree of April 27, 1893," which prohibits the taking out of objects of value. Yale was to produce a detailed inventory of all of the objects of the excavation. Ms. Karp-Toledo quotes further: "This permit expires on the first of December, 1912 ... Government of Peru reserves the Right to claim from Yale University and National Geographic Society of the United States, the return of the unique objects and duplicates that have been extracted ... as well as a copy of all studies and reports."
Ms. Karp-Toledo quotes another document describing the expedition, this one dated 27th January 1916: "organized under the sponsorship of Yale University and of the NGS of New York, by which they are requesting authority to export ..." In the department of Cusco between 1914 and 1915, it is resolved to authorize Yale 74 boxes. "Yale and NGS are obliged to return within eighteen months, starting from this date, the objects permitted to be exported, having also to give to the Ministry of Instruction, the studies that will have been conducted on those objects as well as the photographs." The documents that Ms. Karp-Toledo has quoted, she believes, are pretty clear. She leaves us with this question: how many years have passed since these agreements went into effect?
Mr. David Trinh asks, on information, if it is not in fact the case that the artifacts that this document references were returned in the 1920's. The Secretary does not hear the Speaker's ruling on this matter.
Ms. Karp-Toledo continues, returning to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 16th November 1990. It is very clear, and there are specific instances that we can cite of materials from U.S. museums being returned to Native American tribes at their request. It is happening here in the U.S. at the request of Native American people. The law provides for the "repatriation of Native American human remains and objects."
In August 2007, the Getty Museum in Los Angeles reached an agreement with Italy over a number of objects in the museum's collection. In 2006, the Met reached an agreement with the Italian Ministry of Culture over 21 objects. In 2005, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston returned objects to the Italian Minister of Culture and pledged to develop a partnership. The Herald Tribune reported in October 2007 that "[t]he return of the works from the Getty was the latest stage in an aggressive new campaign by countries including Italy and Greece to pressure museums and private collectors to return artifacts looted from their territories. In addition to the Getty and the Met, Italy has struck a deal with Boston's Museum of Fine Arts to return disputed treasures."
Ms. Karp-Toledo shows the original memorandum of understanding drafted 14th September 2007 at Yale. It stated a number of things that were unilateral: "Whereas, Peru and Yale have undertaken discussions to create a new long-term collaborative relationship centered around research, education, and the artifacts and related materials excavated by Hiram Bingham in Machu Picchu ... and Whereas, Yale and Peru acknowledge that the Materials are treasured by humanity, and that the monuments of Machu Picchu were properly declared Cultural Patrimony of the World by UNESCO; and ..." So as not to bore us with the reading of these 10 pages, Ms. Karp-Toledo informs us that she has discussed memorandum in her op-ed in the New York Times in February 2008. She does want to highlight one thing: the condition for the traveling exhibit, which gave Yale an unusual way of having to say which pieces are usable and which are of value or not. It is difficult for a foreign entity to put itself into the mindset of the original people of a nation. Maybe a very small piece of bone is important to Peru. Peru is not just after silver, bronze, and gold.
Ms. Karp-Toledo asserts that it has been declared everywhere that Yale will acknowledge that the artifacts are the property of Peru. As subparagraph iv of the memorandum states, the term of rights shall be 99 years. Ms. Karp-Toledo wonders why Yale insists on keeping the bones so that they can ostensibly do research on them, even though they are supposedly not interesting to anybody. The agreement also states: "Except for certain pieces which as agreed by both parties shall be exhibited by the Yale Peabody Museum, and in a portion of the Non-Museum Quality Pieces which shall be pieces as to which Yale has no research plans in contemplation and which shall be designated in the Agreement." There is more text, which Ms. Karp-Toledo will not read to us, and the agreement is signed by Dorothy Robinson for Yale.
Ms. Karp-Toledo did not keep her opinion to herself and wrote an op-ed in the New York Times denouncing the terms of the agreement, arguing that they are very disrespectful to the sovereignty of a nation like Peru. Peruvians in the U.S. wrote a letter that was published in newspapers. Another letter was produced by the citizens of Cusco with very strong language. Ms. Karp-Toledo shows a picture showing how the citizens of Peru reacted.
Ms. Karp-Toledo outlines her conclusions. There has never been any doubt that the artifacts belong to and come from Peru, specifically from Machu Picchu. Machu Picchu is, to date, the greatest icon of national cultural identity for Peruvian citizens across the board, regardless of ethnicity, class, and gender. These facts have been consistently recognized by Bingham, Grosvenor and the Peabody [if the Secretary heard correctly]. There is an extended and detailed correspondence between Bingham and the National Geographic Society that proves their concerns about returning the materials to Peru in accordance with the documents signed. The contractual agreements and Supreme Resolutions from Peru's Government, through the Ministry of Instruction, are very clear about the conditions of this exceptional loan and indicate an exact date of return. There have been numerous claims from the Peruvian Government to request the return of the artifacts (starting 1918, 1920). In 2001, the Government of President Toledo started negotiating for the unconditional return of all artifacts removed as a result of all of the expeditions. In three years, there was direct correspondence and meetings between the Peruvian Embassy in Washington and the Yale administration. The Memorandum of Understanding signed 14th September 2007 at Yale leads to much discontent and questioning from prominent Peruvian intellectuals. Bingham did not start research until many years after the boxes were deposited at Yale. The boxes have changed place, making it difficult to identify correctly the products of the respective expeditions. Bingham actually had the Peabody request a time extension until January 1, 1922.
After all that, what are we fighting about? What is at stake? Why is Yale the only institution concerned that cannot recognize Peru's ownership over the artifacts and state that it is Peru's undisputed patrimony? Why not make a gracious gesture instead, in compensation for so many years of trust in the name of cooperation for the advancement of science? Why the reluctance to send back the artifacts immediately and unconditionally? Why not reach a reasonable agreement based on the facts that the artifacts belong solely to Peru and are to be returned unconditionally, instead of going to a legal battle? Ms. Karp-Toledo leaves us with these questions and thanks us for inviting her.
Miss Dara Lind asks about the rights of Peruvian citizens to the artifacts. There is no monolithic culture among Peruvian citizens, as Ms. Karp-Toledo demonstrates. What is the actual cultural inheritance claim? Miss Lind clarifies: does Ms. Karp-Toledo believe that all Peruvian citizens have equal claim to the heritage expressed in Machu Picchu artifacts, or are there multiple cultures in Peru with different degrees of connection to the artifacts? If so, which groups can claim this heritage?
Ms. Karp-Toledo replies that she has argued that Machu Picchu is the clearest icon of Peru's patrimony regardless of ethnic differences.
Mr. William Wilson is somewhat sympathetic to the argument that people have a right to the cultural artifacts of their ancestors, but how far does this go? Should [a statue whose name the Secretary does not catch] in Venice be returned to Turkey or Greece? Should the French have a right to take the Statue of Liberty back?
Ms. Karp-Toledo points out that the Statue of Liberty was given as a gift. How far can it go? That question has been treated by many researchers. It is a question for the Peruvians themselves. Many of the pieces that we know are part of Peru's history. They involve conquest, wars, and colonialism, which we do not want to repeat.
Mr. Alexander Soble responds to Ms. Karp-Toledo's assertion at one point in her speech that no foreigner can understand true import or meaning of the artifacts. Does Ms. Karp-Toledo understand them, and if so, then how does she reconcile that with the fact that she was not born on Peruvian soil to Peruvian parents?
Ms. Karp-Toledo recognizes that there is a question of identity and deep understanding here. She has done all of her training as an anthropologist since she was a very young girl in Cusco. She has a great understanding of the culture and civilization. To the best of her knowledge, she understands what is going on.
Ms. Rosa Valenzuela is Peruvian. She went to school in Peru; she studied there. What we have here is part of her culture and background. She read about it but did not know. Even now, she has not been close to what we have. It has been about 100 years. She asks the community how we would feel if they took something away from us. Peruvian people do not have exposure to what their background is. She hopes that we have a website and will answer these questions. She is Peruvian and never had the opportunity to see what her ancestors had.
The Speaker asks Ms. Valenzuela to whom her question is directed. She replies that her question is for the body. The Speaker explains that on this floor, questions are directed to the lady or gentleman who has just spoken. He asks Ms. Valenzuela to save her question for a speaker in the negative.
Mr. Ramon Gonzalez asks if the owners' being Peruvian themselves would in itself remedy the situation. Mr. Gonzalez knows of a museum of artifacts in Peru that is run by Peruvians, but it is not open to the public. Its guests are mostly tourists, and visitors have to pay a very high fee. He cannot remember the name of the museum, but he has heard of it.
Ms. Karp-Toledo believes she understands which museum Mr. Gonzalez has mentioned. Visitors must make a special reservation by phone, but it is open to whoever wants to go there.
Mr. Christopher Milan is a Peruvian studying in a PhD. program here at Yale. He asks his question as an anthropologist and archaeologist. The Peruvian government is spending a lot of money on lawyers. As a social scientist, it is very difficult to find money to do research. When we are told that we have to improve Peruvian identity, it seems odd that the government is spending all of this money. Mr. Milan has many friends who are trying to get a Ph.D. who want to do research in Peru, and they are never given the opportunity. He would like to know what Ms. Karp-Toledo's position as an anthropologist is. Would it be better for the government to spend millions of dollars on one lawyer or to spend that money on the country to create more researchers?
Ms. Karp-Toledo can appreciate this concern. However, she believes that it is the wrong question to ask as a Peruvian. Asking this question does not address the question of patrimony. This is not a question about legal proceedings.
The Director of Campus Relations, Miss Leah Libresco, refers to the claim that cultures and peoples have in this object. Peru is a state composed of various peoples. Is the claim really based around the culture, or is it rather based around the state? Is there any reason why the people should be able to claim the artifacts back from the Peruvian government?
Ms. Karp-Toledo responds that the question of identity has been appropriated and subsumed by many states, not just Peru. Machu Picchu has become a national icon of identity.
Mr. Alexander Gregath takes the idea of cultural heritage to another level. Last year, one of the major Egyptian archaeologists in this country advocated a copyright on the concept of a pyramid. Should countries be required to provide monetary compensation for thoughts and inventions?
Ms. Karp-Toledo recognizes that there is a very good debate on natural property rights concerning things like medicine, inventions, uses of plants, and traditions. It is a very large debate. The artifacts from Machu Picchu are very real.
Mr. Michael Knowles believes that the lady acknowledges that the artifacts of Machu Picchu belong to humanity as a whole and specifically the people of Peru and that the purpose of returning the artifacts is for better understanding. Who has greater capability to further this knowledge, given the 100 years of history behind us? Is it an American university such as Yale, with endless funds and experts around the world, or the government of Peru, which has not very progressively furthered their studies of Machu Picchu since 1913? Mr. Knowles points out that Ms. Karp-Toledo teaches at an American university, not a Peruvian one.
Ms. Karp-Toledo comments that Stanford is her alma mater. As for the question of capacity, Ms. Karp-Toledo declares that the Peruvians are not a bunch of savages. There are very competent professionals in Peru who would love to do their research and train students about it. Ms. Karp-Toledo believes that Peruvians should be inviting American students to come to Peru to study, not the other way around.
-
The President moves that we thank Ms. Karp-Toledo for her fine speech on the floor of the Yale Political Union. The motion is seconded and carries without objection.
Miss Carmen Lee declares that in her four years at Yale, she has never seen the Union veer so dangerously close to relevance. We have the opportunity tonight to take a stand on the side of ideas, truth, and right, and unlike many in this body, Miss Lee does not take those words lightly (this occasions a shout-out, "thanks, Michael!" to Mr. Pomeranz). There is a disagreement here over not only the few bone fragments kept in the Peabody Museum up until recently in cardboard boxes but also, more largely, on views of human knowledge and the understanding we have accumulated over time. One side believes that history can be inherited like an object, bought and sold, and traded for political gain. The other side believes in valuing the fruits of human understanding as goods unto themselves, worth preserving across history and unhindered by temporary political realities or hindrances. A lot of the United States' involvement in Latin America over the last century is shameful, but this is not one of those instances of abuse or of genocide or of imperialism. The expedition that was financed by Yale in 1911 was not accompanied by political operatives or murderers and should not be treated as an opportunity for Americans to do penance. The argument that for some reason Yale can be held responsible for the fact that imperialists conquered Peru centuries before the expedition depends on a nonsensical understanding of cultural patrimony. After Miss Lee debunks this understanding, she will then discuss a competing set of moral claims about property rights and scholarship. The 1912 expedition and the dig that was accomplished at Machu Picchu brought back the artifacts to Yale that we are discussing now. The 1912 expedition is not the same as the 1914 expedition, to which many of the letters that Ms. Karp-Toledo designated apply, even though it was not accomplished in Machu Picchu. The artifacts that Bingham removed at that time were from other sites and were all returned in the 1920's. Those are not at issue tonight. A different legal issue governed the extraction of the 1912 artifacts, and under that, Yale's possession is in accordance with what Peru requested. Peru reserved only the right to request unique and duplicate objects of such singular artistic value that they would need to be displayed, which Peru has never done. Yale's objects are for research purposes only. The problem with the idea of cultural patrimony is that it is both short-sighted and hypocritical. The historical timelines that we draw when assigning ownership based on bloodline are extremely arbitrary. In this case, should we draw the line before the Incas surrounded much of the indigenous surrounding land? If after that point, why not start in the 20th century and consider the contribution that this collection has made to Yale's history itself? The Peabody Museum was founded in large part around this collection, and it is one of the best natural history museums in the entire country. These artifacts built Yale social sciences for much of the century. Why should not our history be taken into account? The second reason that the notion of patrimony is paradoxical is that these historical timelines are often inaccurate across generations. How can you prove that you are a descendant of someone who made one of the artifacts? If not, on what basis besides emotional identification do you assert a claim? Miss Lee cannot claim, as much as she would like to, that she has some sort of affinity with the culture of Ghana, but for her to do so would be no more difficult than it would be for some African-Americans in the United States. Finally, Peru itself acknowledged the problem with this idea of cultural patrimony in 1970 in a bilateral agreement that voluntarily renounced the right to call back artifacts from before then. Peru signed this agreement in order to prevent looting and loss. In particular, these ambiguities are highlighted by the fact that there is an ongoing lawsuit in Peru brought by the owners of the land that is now the Machu Picchu site, which was succeeded to government of Peru for a nominal payment that was never delivered. The ownership of artifacts in Peru itself is disputed. To pretend that there is some monolithic claim is ridiculous. What value system should we affirm? Rather than property rights based on emotional identification, Miss Lee believes that we as students particularly have an obligation to affirm the universal relevance of human history.
-
Mr. Jack O'Connor moves that Miss Lee be given an extra minute to finish her speech. The motion is seconded and carries without objection.
Miss Lee continues: Yale's explorations themselves led to widespread scholarship on Machu Picchu. The work being done now is continuing. A lot of the work was done here and not by institutions in Peru itself that had more access to the objects. Examination of the artifacts in context is crucial. There is objective value to institutions like the Met, because they place objects in contact with each other. One reason that this is particularly important in this case is that Yale has access to a lot of the somewhat sketchy past of Hiram Bingham and can place this past alongside the artifacts. This was done very well in the Peabody's 2006 expedition, which Miss Lee saw. Finally, Miss Lee asserts that the pursuit of research into the heritage of human civilization should never be the exclusive right of any nation, ethnic group, or artificial human entity. Yale has as much a right to the study of those artifacts as any Peruvian. Miss Lee affirms equal, safe access to objects of study and the entitlement of humanity to study Incan society regardless of from which side they come. The debate tonight is not between the Right and the Left but between those who believe knowledge belongs to the people most proximate to it and those who believe that all of humanity stands to gain by learning and discovering.
Mr. Dominick Lawton asks if knowledge can be power.
Miss Lee responds, "absolutely, but that is a somewhat meaningless statement."
The Chairman of the Party of the Right, Miss Nicola Karras, explains that her grandmother's [the Secretary does not hear which possession] were stolen by society. According to Miss Lee's understanding, one's connection to one's family may be an artificial construct. Should the Chairman of the Party of the Right get the artifacts back, or should they stay in a museum?
Miss Lee believes that the Chairman of the Party of the Right makes a mistake by acting as though the timelines of things like Machu Picchu can be documented as well as the timeline of one's family. Specific families are not the historical reference point being used in this case.
The Chairman of the Party of the Right asks a follow-up question: on what time stamp does one's relationship to other people not matter?
Miss Lee replies, "on none."
The President, Mr. David Manners-Weber, is very sympathetic to the idea that this sort of knowledge should belong to us all, but it seems like in practice, it is the West that gets to have these artifacts and study them and be able to justify it by saying that we have the best ability to study these artifacts. How would we feel about Native American artifacts going to Ghana? Are these arguments about a global patrimony of humanity somewhat self-serving?
Miss Lee reminds us that she warned stridently at the beginning of her speech against punishing Yale for the sins of the West writ large. Whatever the West benefits is immaterial. In the specific case that we are discussing, Yale was deeded the artifacts by the Peruvian government and has produced scholarship that has made Machu Picchu a household name in the United States, if not worldwide. To discount that in favor of moral opprobrium to be heaped on the West on behalf of other cultures is unreasonable.
Mr. Noah Kazis asserts that Miss Lee cannot have it both ways. She has said both that it is only about Yale and that it is about a universal human system. Why would the ostensibly universal not be exactly the same if we just moved it somewhere else?
Miss Lee recognizes that in principle, it would not matter. The reason we have an obligation to stand with the university is that ceding to the Peruvian government in this instance is not simply moving the artifacts somewhere else and allowing Peruvians to access them. It is admitting nationalist claims on knowledge. The traditions of Yale and the university system would be denied by that affirmation.
Mr. Bradley Pough believes that the lady brought up some legitimate concerns, but before addressing them, he would like to take a step back and talk about the nature of systematic oppression. Throughout history, when a power must try to exert influence over a group of people, one of the most effective means of success has been to detach the people from their past. Both African-Americans and Native Americans have had their histories robbed from them when ripped from their land. Any semblance of that history would be controlled by their oppressors for generations. They had no way of reaching back and drawing strength from the history that was theirs and theirs alone. Something similar happened in Peru. Hiram Bingham made deals with a government that had as little to do with the indigenous people as he did. Did anyone ask the indigenous people how they felt? No. They lost ownership of that part of their history. For the next hundred years, Yale was going to craft their narrative. We draw pride from our histories. We find strength in them. These narratives give us power from the fact that we are able to dictate the discourse surrounding them. This connection makes us human. It serves as the very foundation of culture and is the source of a people's enduring spirit. We have the option to give the artifacts back to Peru, and yet we quarrel with the government, begging to hold on to this last vestige of our imperial past. The laws and agreements at issue here were formed in political oppression and injustice. In a lot of respects, Miss Lee is right; we have really raised the stakes of this debate, not the Peruvians. We called up the rest of the world and asked them to watch as we carried around the stolen treasures like trophies. Both Yale and the Peruvian government are culpable, because neither recognized the indigenous people's rights to an autonomous history. The Peruvian government is trying to make amends, and we should stand with them.
The Chairman of the Independent Party, Mr. Adam Goodrum, understands that Machu Picchu was a lost city before Bingham's expedition. Did we not do Peru a service by bringing artifacts back to the United States to determine what they were?
Mr. Pough believes that "lost city" is a subjective term. The people that led him to Machu Picchu knew that it was there. They knew it had been there for centuries. There were people engraving their names on stones in Machu Picchu who led him there. People knew it was there.
Mr. Jake McGuire asks if one's cultural history is even something meaningful to talk about when its sum total is pottery shards. He asserts that the history of Machu Picchu was brought to light much earlier than it would have been because of Bingham.
Mr. Pough imagines a scenario that might have taken place during the Revolutionary War. In this scenario, Tocqueville came over and got off boat [the Secretary assumes that for the purposes of this thought experiment, we will be neglecting the fact that Alexis de Tocqueville was born in 1805]. Benjamin Franklin greets him, shows him around, and says, "we have this Declaration of Independence, which is cool." Then, Tocqueville hits Benjamin Franklin on the head. He declares, "I'm starting this huge university in France, de Tocqueville University," and he will put the Declaration there. The whole world gets to see it and is promoting the revolution in America. Would we discount the value of the Declaration because England decided to sign a contract and give it to Tocqueville and France?
Miss Shaina Wright thinks that the world is really unjust. This is an excellent point. The world has always been really unjust, which means that any piece of property that has been around the world long enough has probably been unjustly stolen in some way at some point. We live in houses built on land that once belonged to native peoples. How far do we push this, and at what point do we say that we have to follow property laws?
Mr. Pough believes that it is a very blurry line; he recognizes that. He thinks that in this situation, the connection that the indigenous people of Peru have to the Incas is pretty explicit. They are a lot closer to the Incas than we are. If the emotional value that they are getting from these objects is so great, we should give them back.
The lady responds to the claim that nothing that Yale has done has contributed to our understanding of indigenous people. The lady asserts that Yale's research has added to the history of the indigenous people. Why does Mr. Pough argue the opposite?
Mr. Pough believes that Yale has promoted a global understanding of the indigenous people. This can continue when these artifacts are back in Peru.
Mr. Jack O'Connor recalls Mr. Pough's claim that a lot of suffering and death involves separating people from their national past. Mr. O'Connor asserts that a lot of suffering and death involves giving a nation a false past, as in the cases of Germany and Russia. Does the balance of history come down in favor of nationalism?
Mr. Pough believes that it might. He falls down on the side of nationalism over imperialism. It is obvious that these artifacts were inquired in imperialist manners.
Mr. David Trinh rises for a docketed speech in the negative. Before he begins, he wants to address Mr. Pough. He wants to touch on issue of "oppression." Mr. Pough is very uncomfortable with us "oppressing" the Peruvian people. Mr. Trinh does not think that we are doing that. But, in any event, if we are oppressing the Peruvian people, how is giving back the artifacts going to alleviate the oppression? Giving the artifacts back will not make the schools in Peru better, and bad schools, not missing artifacts, represent the kind of oppression about which those on the Left should care. Mr. Trinh wants to address the Tocqueville example. It was funny but slightly inaccurate. No one was hit over the head with a board when these artifacts were extracted. It was done with a legal process. The artifacts are rightfully Yale's, as will be proved. Mr. Trinh agrees that it is important for a culture and a people to have an understanding of their history, and thus, he rejects the resolution. Mr. Trinh presents a dichotomy between a world where people have physical control of patrimony and little to no understanding of it and a world where a small percentage of this patrimony is in a foreign country but the entirety of humanity knows a lot more about the culture. Mr. Trinh would much rather live in this latter world. Some might say that he is presenting a false dichotomy. To his friends on the Left, Mr. Trinh does not want to suggest that Yale is the only university where such research and scholarship could take place. But, we should acknowledge the resources that Yale should continue to bear on these artifacts. These artifacts were legally acquired, and Yale ought to be able to use its resources to explore them. Peru does not have the money to explore these artifacts. Things like neutron activation analysis and DNA testing cost money. Also, Mr. Trinh refers to the sending of artifacts on an exhibition around the world. The Peabody Museum has sent them around the United States and got them to be viewed by a billion people. That costs money. Ms. Karp-Toledo said that no one outside of Peru is interested in bones. That would come as a surprise to many of the scientists and anthropologists in the room. (Ms. Karp-Toledo interjects a review of what she said.) With all due respect, Peru itself has a pretty spotty record of safeguarding artifacts. Recently, a Peruvian museum lost nearly all the gold artifacts in its collection. A few years ago, all of the pieces were lost. Yale is willing to return the artifacts to Peru but wants to make sure that they are kept safe. We should acknowledge that Yale has the best interest of these artifacts in mind. The question before us tonight is not just about the knowledge we can gain from these artifacts. It is about whether it is appropriate for one nation to go to another and demand that any artifacts that belong to its people be returned. Mr. Trinh imagines a giant sucking sound coming out of the Smithsonian or the Louvre as this process goes forward. If we are going to express our support for touchy-feely liberal values like cultural diversity and understanding, we should acknowledge that other countries should have ownership of these pieces.
The Vice President, Mr. Alexander Martone, believes that Mr. Trinh's dichotomy implied that Peruvians could not possibly do research on these artifacts. Is it not possible that these artifacts' going back to Peru could spur research?
Mr. Trinh has two responses. First, Peru does not exactly have a deficit of artifacts from Machu Picchu at the moment. The excavation from 1911 to 1915 was a primitive one. Peru has many more artifacts than we do. Second, Mr. Trinh is okay with sending Yale's artifacts back, but the question that the Left raised is that the Left is trying to value historical understanding. If we value that and want to maximize it, we should recognize that the research is best done here in the United States.
The lady has the same issue at her university. Why has no one mentioned that this is about money? We keep talking about ideology and money, but could we talk about the dollar amount that this would generate for Yale or Peru?
Mr. Trinh believes that the simple answer is that we lose money by keeping the artifacts. Yale sent these artifacts around the United States because it got massive funding from the government. Yale and the Peabody make no money off them.
The Chair of the Liberal Party, Mr. David Porter, responds to Mr. Trinh's claims about the safety of artifacts. Recently, at the Beinecke, a gentleman walked in and cut valuable maps out of books. Recently, in Norway, painters walked in and took one of the most valuable paintings by Norway's biggest artist. Why does Mr. Trinh consider Yale museums bastions of safety and suggest that ignorant third-worlders cannot take care of their stuff?
The Director of Campus Relations, Miss Leah Libresco, asks, on information, if it is not in fact the case that several paintings were stolen from the Slifka Center recently. This is in fact the case.
Mr. Trinh thinks that it is an issue of scale. If we do some research, we will find that the security in Peru is more lax than it is in America. This is not a question of security for him fundamentally, though, in any event, because we legally acquired these artifacts. The point of his speech is addressing the Left, Mr. Pough in particular, and pointing out that historical understanding is best achieved by rejecting this resolution.
The lady asks, in line with an earlier question, if it could not be argued that having certain artifacts outside of Machu Picchu is going to encourage people to want to visit the place.
Mr. Trinh believes that that is true. There was a New York Times article about this. It is a very "Yale" thing to say. After the artifacts went around the United States, tourism to Machu Picchu went up.
Mr. Aaron Bray will keep pushing, because Mr. Trinh still has not answered the question directed at the Left. He wonders if social science knowledge of history, which is the essence of the anthropology of past two hundred years, is on the same plane as the pure knowledge that we seek as human beings. Is it true that historical knowledge sought by people not directly concerned applies to all?
Mr. Trinh thinks that it is hard to "own" your history if you do not know it. Yale has done an incredible service by spending millions of dollars researching these artifacts. Maybe the knowledge that we get is not equally valuable, but the Peruvians are not denied the pleasure of this knowledge simply because these artifacts are not in Peru. They still gain the historical understanding.
Ms. Rosa Valenzuela tries to ask another question; however, the Speaker had recognized Mr. Bray for the final question to be directed at Mr. Trinh.
The President asks, on information, if it is not in fact the case that after a speaker has answered the final question, the Speaker does not take further questions. This is in fact the case. Ms. Valenzuela is encouraged to ask her question after the next speaker in the negative.
Miss Dara Lind rises for an undocketed speech in the affirmative. She is deeply divided on this resolution politically and personally as a member of Yale's Anthropology Department. While she has not taken any classes partaking of the Machu Picchu knowledge, she yields to Mr. Trinh that Yale has been able to produce a lot of historical knowledge. However, history is not heritage. Regardless of what Miss Lee may have said about the arbitrariness of emotional identification, the body owes a great deal to the heritage with which we identify emotionally. Miss Lind notes that both speakers in the negative so far took or are taking Directed Studies. Directed Studies treats a particular heritage tradition to which those speakers owe a great deal intellectually and culturally. It seems hypocritical for a university that has taken a great deal of pride in Western heritage and the Western canon to now claim that it has equal investment to now observe cultures that it still seems to consider less important than its own heritage. This is not to say that it is impossible for Yale to dedicate resources to non-Western cultures. Miss Lind has spent a great deal of time on non-Western cultures. Nevertheless, it is relevant what someone considers their heritage to be, and it should not be denied that people trying to seek an emotional connection to the past should be given some primacy in determining how they get that connection. Miss Lind does not mean to say that every piece that is published on the metallurgy of a particular artifact or the origins of particular bones is of equal value, especially if not explained to Peruvian people. To have knowledge is not the same as to have knowledge taken. Miss Lind will take it on faith from Ms. Karp-Toledo that the Peruvian people need a more direct connection to their heritage than having pieces published in scholarly journals. The reason that Pompeii is such a more meaningful site than any other archaeological site in Rome is that there is physical evidence to build on the substratum of knowledge that the visitor has on going. It is possible both to understand intellectually and to experience something a little more sensory and direct oneself. Miss Lind does not know what it would take to reconstitute such a site at Machu Picchu, but we should at least give a little benefit of the doubt to people who are trying to do so.
Mr. Alexander Gregath believes that it has been made clear that there is no dearth of objects already in Peru. Where does the limited nature of the objects currently at Yale factor into Miss Lind's argument?
Miss Lind acknowledges that point and recognizes that we are taking it on faith that there is something inherently important about this particular set of artifacts. It is also possible that because Yale's artifacts became an item of such relevance recently, it would mean more to have the artifacts returned than it ever did to have them taken away.
Mr. Micah Hendler recently visited Peru in an effort to understand Peruvian culture and the reaction of people to the lawsuit, for he is writing an article for the Globalist. Many Peruvians to whom he spoke did not know about the lawsuit, and those who did thought that it was foolish. Mr. Hendler's cab driver thought maybe Mr. Hendler had come to Peru because he knew about the artifacts and because they were at Yale. Given the difference of opinion between the two members of the Peruvian community who have stood up tonight, Mr. Hendler believes that there is clearly not a unified sense among Peruvians that the lawsuit is the best way to address this issue. How can Miss Lind claim that it is the unified opinion of the Peruvian people that the lawsuit is the best way to appropriate the artifacts?
Miss Lind is trying to speak against the presumption on the part of the negative that there is something called universal heritage. She yields to Mr. Hendler's greater experience of Peruvians' particular opinions.
Mr. David Trinh responds to Miss Lind's discussion of "heritage." What about Yale's heritage? Is it appropriate that we keep a small amount of artifacts to honor the work and history being done here at Yale?
Miss Lind believes that very little of the tradition on which Yale seems to build has to do with cultures outside of the West. Perhaps there are undergraduates who came to Yale because of our connection to Machu Picchu. However, Miss Lind thinks that many more people came to Yale because it is a very particular physical embodiment of a Euro-American tradition. It does that well and should be honored. But it has little significance for Peruvian culture.
Miss Laura Marcus, the Former Vice-President, is no less an American because Whistler's Mother happens to hang in Paris. The Italians seem no less Italian because the Mona Lisa is in Paris. Pieces of the Ishtar Gate are in eleven museums, including one in Paris, and this does not seem to make the Iraqis any less Iraqi. What do these examples tell us besides the fact that, as usual, the real villains are the French? They tell us that cultural patrimony is not invested in physical objects. Culture is a distinct way in which we express a common humanity. Culture endows important life moments with physical trappings. However, the trappings of culture are culture only insofar as they are used for their original purposes. A piece of the Ishtar Gate has no more cultural meaning in Baghdad. Culture is something we live, not something we have. It transcends physical objects. Where will these objects go if they are returned to Peru? Back to cultural practice? Will ritual elements ever be used again? No. They will go to museums, behind glass. Scholars will pour into Peru to look at the artifacts in dark laboratories. The objects have no more value in Peru than they do at Yale. Miss Marcus has already argued that so far as an object is in a museum, it loses cultural value. This distinction between cultural and educational value is quite true. It is true that the Machu Picchu artifacts have relevance for a globalized world, a world that has understood and come to terms with this. Only those who are unfamiliar with Peruvian culture would suggest that the intention is to preserve the original cultural use of these artifacts. Yale's lineup of artifacts transmit their educational value to the world and to Peruvians. So long as these objects sit in a museum, they are educational, and the world may lay claim to them. So long as they are in a museum, they are not Peru's.
The gentleman asks if the problem with the fact that Peruvian artifacts are in the United States is not a matter of imperialism. Italy never had imperial troubles with France.
Miss Marcus does not see it as a problem of imperialism. As has been said before, Bingham was not an imperialist. He was a scholar. Yes, people go all the time to research what is there. They are not made imperialists by virtue of their being Americans. Sometimes, people are actually interested in other cultures.
Mr. Adam Rodriques asks, if objects lose their cultural significance when put them into a museum, on what basis should we decide what is put in a museum? Also, why do we display many things that are not that interesting in themselves, such as pottery bowls, in museums?
Miss Marcus thinks that the reason that the physical objects are useful is that they have something to teach about other cultures. However, because their purpose is explanatory, they are divested from true cultural value. True cultural value is when something is in use, being used as a ritual object or being eaten off of or drunk from. If it is in a museum, that tells us something about a culture. It is not cultural itself.
Mr. William Wilson declares that Miss Marcus has convinced him that the artifacts should be returned to Peru and not put in a museum. He wonders how she would respond to this.
Miss Marcus has tried to convince us that whatever happens to these artifacts, no one is going to give them back to the people so that they can be buried in the ground or drunk out of.
The President wonders if, given what Miss Marcus has said, Israel as a land matters to the Jewish people. Does the Western Wall as a holy site matter to the Jewish people as an object in and of itself? Or, is it true, as crazy Ahmadinejad has proposed, that it would be just as meaningful for the Jews to have a home in Alaska?
Miss Marcus thinks that this is an excellent point, but there is a huge distinction between things and places. Ms. Karp-Toledo talked about the cultural significance of Machu Picchu. Miss Marcus does not doubt the significance of the practices going on. She has been to innumerable Jewish Museums in her life. She has seen tubas from Florence and Jewish stars from France and menorahs from London and all sorts of things. That is all very nice. However, it is nothing that she could not have found out from the Internet. It is edifying and enjoyable to see things in themselves, but it is not the same as praying at the Western Wall on the Sabbath. Places are vested with huge importance because people vest them with importance. People use them. It is their use that makes them culturally important. The objects Miss Marcus has seen in museums all blend together in her head.
The lady talks about a particular artifact in a museum that has cultural significance. It has thirteen stripes. It is the flag that flew over Fort McHenry, which is mentioned in our national anthem. Do Americans lack attachment to that artifact simply because it is in a museum?
Miss Marcus thinks that is a very good point. Insofar as the cultural use of an artifact simply consists in people viewing it, there one can make the claim to cultural patrimony. But the vast majority of the artifacts in Yale's collection were not just for looking. Their cultural value is derived from their use. A piece of pottery is not so much about being viewed.
Ms. Rosa Valenzuela never expected to be here about something that is personal. What we have here today at Yale University belongs to the background and history of Peru. She has heard a lot about the Peruvians. The Peruvians also have a lot of students like us. Some of them are anthropologists. Others are in medical school. Ms. Valenzuela is not an anthropologist, but she knows a Peruvian that is studying anthropology here. He is here right now because he wants to know more about what we have here. The other point is that to be fair to this prestigious school and the Peruvian community of students, Yale should return the objects to Peru. The students from Yale can go back to Peru and study what we currently have here. It would be a fair trade, not only for the Peruvians but also for the Americans. Ms. Valenzuela challenges us to go to Peru and ask people if they know about what is going on between Peru and Yale. Everybody who goes to school back in Peru knows about their history, background, and culture. If we go to Cusco, we will see that the people there feel very proud of what they have from their ancestors.
Mr. Matthew Gerken means this question with all due respect. He would like the lady to tell him about just one example of any object that Yale has, the specific way in which it is culturally significant to her, and whether it is something that is unique. The Yale administration has repeatedly said that none of the objects in our possession is unique. Peru has more objects of the same type and of higher quality. Mr. Gerken would like to hear an example of how an artifact's being here offends Ms. Valenzuela's culture.
Ms. Valenzuela believes that everything that comes from Peru is unique. Every artifact that we have here is unique. The path in history is there. One can measure the oxygen level in a bowl and determine how old it is. Therefore, it is unique.
The Vice President, Mr. Alexander Martone, appreciates Ms. Valenzuela's speech but wonders how she could respond to Miss Marcus's speech. Since Ms. Valenzuela, as she has said, already has knowledge about her history and culture from school, why does she necessarily need specific artifacts?
Ms. Valenzuela will give one example. She comes from Peru and would ask the same question of us. How would we respond?
-
The Floor Leader of the Left, Miss Naomi Lisan, moves that we thank Ms. Valenzuela for her very fine maiden speech on the floor of the Yale Political Union. The motion is seconded and carries without objection.
Mr. Christopher Milan thanks us for letting him speak here. He is an archaeologist and Ph.D. student in anthropology. He would like to talk about the appropriation of the past. There is much interest in the past from everyone, particularly governments. Ms. Karp-Toledo used the term "we" as she inserts herself into Inca culture. Some people even negate the Peruvian government's intentions in doing this. Three to four speeches ago, someone made the point about the Spanish colonial government of Peru. Each entity ties itself to the past in a different way. If any group wants to make a claim of the past, that group should be the ones best prepared to preserve it. The Incans appropriated [a name the Secretary cannot spell] the god as one of their own pantheon. They appropriated a part of coastal culture [Mr. Milan references various cultural elements unfamiliar to the Secretary]. Ms. Karp also references Karral, but this cannot be certain. The people did not originate there. Talking with his grandparents, who are Peruvian, Mr. Milan found that they thought that it was great that at least someone in their family could go about asking these questions. He is not going to be claim to be more Peruvian than others in the room, but he is passionate about Peruvian culture. If anyone is interested in creating policies for better preserving materials, the most important thing to do is to protect those sites that are in danger. What will happen to the collections in [a place in Peru whose name the Secretary does not record]? What is happening to the Casinelli Museum? The Peruvian government does need to ask these questions regardless instead of appropriating the artifacts for the purposes of their own political messages.
Mr. Alexander Gregath thinks that certainly, preservation and education are one thing, but the context in which education takes place is highly important. A drinking bowl may have little significance outside a museum, but when one looks at that bowl near the pyramids where a slave drank from it, it gains more meaning.
Mr. Milan recognizes that context is always important. NAGPRA brings up dubious questions. No such cultural context has been made for the Machu Picchu artifacts. To say that the context is detrimental is disingenuous. We have an interest in bringing Peruvian researchers to the museum.
The Chair of the Liberal Party, Mr. David Porter, responds to the claim that the Peruvian government is pandering to public opinion. Does this not reflect a genuine sentiment in Peru that they are attempting to use? They may be trying to use it for political ends, but there seems to be a real sentiment.
Mr. Milan recognizes that Ms. Karp-Toledo definitely has a genuine passion for the culture and is clearly working hard, but to say that this research can only be done in a specific context is to create a revisionist version of history. It is always dubious and sometimes wonderful. If people are making a genuine claim to looking at that past, they should look at it with a skeptical and academic gaze. If this research holds muster, why should it be questioned?
The Chairman of the Party of the Right, Miss Nicola Karras, is sympathetic to the argument about how people define their own history, but she takes issue with the idea that the only real way to appreciate something is to try to preserve it.
Mr. Milan believes that if there is certain cultural baggage that comes with an artifact, especially when very contemporaneous, it should be treated with respect. NAGPRA is part of this. In the case of Peru, though, this cultural continuity has been disrupted several times. First, [the Secretary does not record the first step]. Second, the Spaniards did significant damage to this culture. To say that there is continuity between the Spanish and this empire is shaky. A revolution in 1821 created the independent nation of Peru. All of this is to say that there have been several disruptions in the past. Peruvians can claim an independent right to their culture, but it is difficult to say that this is part of spiritual and direct ancestry. We should not say, "this is not yours," but rather, "how can we connect this to the present?"
-
The President moves that we thank Mr. Milan for his fine maiden speech on the floor of the Yale Political Union. The motion is seconded and carries without objection.
-
The President moves that we adjourn after hearing closing remarks from Ms. Karp-Toledo. The motion is seconded and objected to. By a vote of 58 in the affirmative and 25 in the negative, the motion carries.
Ms. Karp-Toledo rises for closing remarks. She thanks us for the opportunity. She wants to thank the students who have been taking a stand here for preparing important data. She thanks us for allowing her to know about our organization and institution. She does not want to take much of our time. We want to go have our pizza. She wants to thank the Peruvian Consul of Hartford for being here tonight. She is very glad that the Peruvian community had representatives here. She wants to thank a lot of intellectuals and archaeologists in the room. Many people are concerned about what we are discussing and the purpose of this discussion. She wants to reassure the audience about one thing. There may be different perspectives, but among the Peruvian people, there is no lack of knowledge of past history and identity. She wants us not to tie this event to political interests. They are not her political interests. She wants to raise a fact which has been mentioned a few times.
The gentleman points out, on information, that [someone whose name the Secretary does not record] has now unpacked material sent to Peru as a result of the agreement from the 1914 expedition. The Speaker defers to the gentleman's superior knowledge on this question.
Ms. Karp-Toledo continues her remarks. In response to the gentleman's point of information, she asserts that there is no material relating to Machu Picchu in that shipment. She will concede that material has been returned, but it is not from Machu Picchu. Hiram Bingham asked for some help. We have to be coherent in argumentation. She has heard from some of us and is sorry to have heard in some cases that the argumentation was that Peru is not able to take charge of its past and understand it fully, that it would be much better off if we left the pieces here so that research can be done here. She is not aware that there has been such research and knowledge transmitted back to Peru. After a century, we would have expected much more research to be spread and shared. Finally, why do not we come and visit Peru? Why do we not go visit Peru so that we can do the research there? Peru will raise the funds just as much as we do. Peru is not incapable. Ms. Karp-Toledo invites us to do the research. They will train hundreds of people. She hopes that we contribute in this debate later in time and that we do finally get a solution. She wants us to know that nobody in Peru would prefer a trial to agreement or cooperation. However, what else should Peru do? How else can Peru be heard after so many years of negotiating? Ms. Karp-Toledo wants to release some information tonight before saying goodbye. Some very high and prominent member(s?) of Peruvian government were told, "I'll get an answer for you. You'll get an agreement." So many years later, this promise has fallen to nothing. What other means than a trial should Peru pursue? Ms. Karp-Toledo thinks that this money can be better invested in research, but Yale has to respect the patrimony. There is a contract that Yale has to respect. The rest is a matter of discussion, but first, let us respect our contractual agreements. Ms. Karp-Toledo thanks us.
This Floor Meeting of the Yale Political Union is adjourned at 10:07 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gabriel P. Ellsworth
Secretary of the Yale Political Union
Http://reddemocratica.blogspot.com
Http://www.caretas.com.pe/2000/1631/articulos/protesta.phtml
Http://www.caretas.com.pe/2000/1612/articulos/debate.phtml
Celebrando 10 anos "On Line"..2008
Keep the candle burning
I have a dream
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/interactiveFrame.htm
FORUM TPSIPOL: RED DEMOCRATICA .
Informacion : Http://tpsipol.home-page.org
Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion
Para enviar un message , enviar a: eleccion@yahoogroups.com
Para suscribirse al Forum , enviar un mensaje a : eleccion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Para salir del Forum, enviar un mensaje en blanco : eleccion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
No comments:
Post a Comment