>

Are any museum pros here? There is a misappropriated item I just want to look at but I don’t know what museum it went to.
Ngārimu Blair, deputy chair for Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei people, said most of the artefacts belonging to the tribe were looted by early “treasure hunters”. This, along with urbanisation and displacement, has left the tribe with only a handful of significant artefacts. 
“We have so very few of these taonga and treasures left in our possession,” he said. “When something like this comes up where we’re both excited, but also that sorrowful that we lost so much.” >


Blair cited the example of a carved pounamu (greenstone) club, or 'mere', which is part of the auction. According to a newspaper report, it was originally given by Ngāti Whātua chief Pāora Tūhaere to a British vice-admiral in 1886 on the condition that it remained in his family. Blair says now that the 'mere' has passed out of the family’s hands, it should be returned. 

Intergenerational takeback-sies probably isn't going to happen. Not the best example to focus on if they want people to support their case. 
The looted shit, however - more likely. >

If the old contract doesn't apply anymore, then they don't have any right to own it or transfer ownership anymore. >

At some point though you can’t expect informal deals to be enforced. Like, everyone involved in the deal is dead along with any existing family at the time. We often don’t enforce actual contracts after the people involved are dead. It happens with art occasionally. An artist will give a painting to a museum under the condition they never transfer it, but eventually the artist dies and the museum closes or relocates and time moves on. >

Almost all common law legal systems would recognize ownership towards the vice-admiral, giving it back to this Maori tribe would be charity, albeit probably done with moral conscience. You can't really claim something someone you don't know gave away 150 years ago without some sort of legal basis. >

I get wanting to throw out the legal bs but it's not like this is a domestic dispute, it's an international affair involving a large amount of money, you can't expect whomever purchased the item (likely in good faith) to simply give it up. If they do that's a huge accolade to them but what some group on the other side of the planet who had claim of it 150 years ago thinks of your sale currently might not come as a dealbreaker and I think that's fair. 
Family is a big deal in a lot of cultures, I know that if someone was selling my great great grandfather's heirlooms I'd definitely want them back but I wouldn't reasonably expect to receive them for no price paid either. >

..it's not theirs. >

You dont have to smash them with a hammer... jeez >

But then how will they enjoy the gooey centers? >

X Ray!!!! >

TIL MSN still exists >


MSN

It's MicroSoft Network. of course it exists, otherwise all those windows 95s that run your airplanes, aircrafct carriers and nukes would stop functioning. /s but no /s >

I feel bad for these groups, but I don't see how an auction house could legally just take someone else's legal property and give it away.  There usually has to be some proof that the specific items were stolen, and that the current owner wasn't a good faith purchaser, and then the government can seize the property.  Auction houses are constantly selling historical items with sketchy provenance.  It wouldn't be good for their business if customers thought there's a chance they would steal your property and put the impossible burden of proving its historical chain of title on you.
If these items mean that much to today's living descendants, they can always purchase them like any other collector.  I'd love to have some cool items that my great-great-great-great-grandfather made too, but I have no right to steal them.  Now if they can prove the items were stolen and that the current owner bought them knowing that, that's different. >

or the NZ government just buys them at auction and gives them back to the maori people. >

Why should the taxpayer pay for Maori to get back something they gave away, because they now don't like the fact they gave it away. That's absurd. >

Was everything "given away"? >

Not everything. Lots was stolen. Lots more was traded for steel tools, jewellery and firearms. No one seems to want to talk about that lot though. >

Rich people shuffling assets around. The price of nothing. >

I'd like the house back that my great grandfather built and my grandfather sold. 
It is spectacular and definitely a treasured relic I don't have. >

Only if you can prove it was loaned out under specific circumstances that are no longer being met. >

Can they prove this club was loaned out under specific circumstances that are no longer being met?
At risk of sounding reductive you would be astounded how far an undocumented verbal agreement from 150 years ago is from "proof."
This isn't to say there isn't an excellent moral case for returning it to the Maori tribe in question, it's just lots of people seem to be attempting to redefine reality to service that moral case instead of making a realistic assessment of the situation. >

I guess it comes down to understanding the history and questioning if a fair verbal agreement was even possible >

The verbal agreement is irrelevant even if it can be proven. It's like if your great grandfather was given something by a friend who said you can have it but please don't sell it. They die, your grandparents die and then your parents die and the object comes down to you. You are under no obligation to not sell the item and the family of your great grandfathers friend has no entitlement to the object if you try to sell it. These pounamu were very popular gifts in the 19th century and had little intrinsic value beyond the labour used to make them at the time. The maori however believe they become more valuble as they pass from generation to generation for 'magic' reasons. Who exactly will this be given to in the tribe anyway? >

If the tribe wants it, they can buy it. >

Or steal it back >

It was literally gifted >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot)


A M?ori tribe in New Zealand has called on Sotheby's to return its treasured relics listed for sale by the auction house.
Ng?rimu Blair, deputy chair for Ng?ti Wh?tua ?r?kei people, said most of the artefacts belonging to the tribe were looted by early "Treasure hunters".
In an effort to return such objects to the place they actually belong, the British Museum is in "Constructive discussions" with Greece over the return of some of the Parthenon marbles which were taken by Lord Elgin, a British diplomat.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: return^#1 artefacts^#2 tribe^#3 Treasure^#4 British^#5 >

Of course its a British Lord's fault, what a surpise >

The British lord in that tldr is completely unrelated to this story and a reference to Greek artefacts that were stolen.
The club this story focuses on was given to a British admiral. >

Oh i see >

I promise: if I ever become rich (Sotheby's auction rich), I'll go bid on (and win!) stollen artifacts just to donate them back to where they belong. >

You would be shocked just how much stuff like this different organizations and groups say we're stolen from them. You could easily spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on the low end, billions a year on the high end. >

I think I'm ready for the challenge
Edit: meaning, I'd still do it if I could >

Seller:  "You’re trying to kidnap what I’ve rightfully stolen!” >

Sotheby's and such doesn't care about history or heritage. They just want old shiny stuff to parade in front of people for donations. >

Return them. >

redditors wax lyrics about cultural appropriation and multiculturalism until we call them out on their own insensitivity, then its right back to the “white man's burden” and superior race arguments. >

Why would an auction house have the authority to do this, even if they wanted to?  They're brokering the sale of someone else's items. >

What are those? Sacred dildos? >

Mere (clubs). >

I didn't realise "Shut up and hakka" was a valid position when discussing return of seized items from colonial times. >

Sadly, examples like this are why it’s said that possession is 9/10th of the law. Meaning, if I possess something you used to possess, fuck you it’s mine now. Shit like this is actual cultural appropriation. >

1) That isn't how it works. If you can prove original ownership or breach of contract, you can get things back. Do you really think thieves get away with stealing things because they now possess it? Like I can I go steal an 85" tv from Best Buy, a PS5, and several hundred dollars in games, and as long as I make it out the door, I am good to go? Absolutely not.
2) Looted artefacts are not cultural appropriation. It is... looted/stolen artefacts. Now if the collectors of the meres were running around chanting gibberish while swinging them around then you might have a point, but you don't because they aren't. >

If Sotheby's returned all of the looted/stolen antiquities they auction off, they would no longer be able to keep the lights on. >

Gotta love Sotheby’s this isn’t there first time trying to auction off items that have significant provenance to certain group. I think one time they tried to auction off the Rolex that was given to the first president of India. >

Are any museum pros here? There is a misappropriated item I just want to look at but I don’t know what museum it went to. >

The problem with this is that if Sotheby's does return the relics, nobody will ever trust their valuables to them again. This business is built on trust and once that's gone, they're gone. The tribe should absolutely pursue legal means of reaquiring their relics, if they were stolen and not purchased. >

Seems naive to plead with thieves. >


Ngārimu Blair, deputy chair for Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei people, said most of the artefacts belonging to the tribe were looted by early “treasure hunters”. This, along with urbanisation and displacement, has left the tribe with only a handful of significant artefacts. 
“We have so very few of these taonga and treasures left in our possession,” he said. “When something like this comes up where we’re both excited, but also that sorrowful that we lost so much.” >


Blair cited the example of a carved pounamu (greenstone) club, or 'mere', which is part of the auction. According to a newspaper report, it was originally given by Ngāti Whātua chief Pāora Tūhaere to a British vice-admiral in 1886 on the condition that it remained in his family. Blair says now that the 'mere' has passed out of the family’s hands, it should be returned. 

Intergenerational takeback-sies probably isn't going to happen. Not the best example to focus on if they want people to support their case. 
The looted shit, however - more likely. >

If the old contract doesn't apply anymore, then they don't have any right to own it or transfer ownership anymore. >

At some point though you can’t expect informal deals to be enforced. Like, everyone involved in the deal is dead along with any existing family at the time. We often don’t enforce actual contracts after the people involved are dead. It happens with art occasionally. An artist will give a painting to a museum under the condition they never transfer it, but eventually the artist dies and the museum closes or relocates and time moves on. >

Almost all common law legal systems would recognize ownership towards the vice-admiral, giving it back to this Maori tribe would be charity, albeit probably done with moral conscience. You can't really claim something someone you don't know gave away 150 years ago without some sort of legal basis. >

I get wanting to throw out the legal bs but it's not like this is a domestic dispute, it's an international affair involving a large amount of money, you can't expect whomever purchased the item (likely in good faith) to simply give it up. If they do that's a huge accolade to them but what some group on the other side of the planet who had claim of it 150 years ago thinks of your sale currently might not come as a dealbreaker and I think that's fair. 
Family is a big deal in a lot of cultures, I know that if someone was selling my great great grandfather's heirlooms I'd definitely want them back but I wouldn't reasonably expect to receive them for no price paid either. >

..it's not theirs. >

You dont have to smash them with a hammer... jeez >

But then how will they enjoy the gooey centers? >

X Ray!!!! >

TIL MSN still exists >


MSN

It's MicroSoft Network. of course it exists, otherwise all those windows 95s that run your airplanes, aircrafct carriers and nukes would stop functioning. /s but no /s >

I feel bad for these groups, but I don't see how an auction house could legally just take someone else's legal property and give it away.  There usually has to be some proof that the specific items were stolen, and that the current owner wasn't a good faith purchaser, and then the government can seize the property.  Auction houses are constantly selling historical items with sketchy provenance.  It wouldn't be good for their business if customers thought there's a chance they would steal your property and put the impossible burden of proving its historical chain of title on you.
If these items mean that much to today's living descendants, they can always purchase them like any other collector.  I'd love to have some cool items that my great-great-great-great-grandfather made too, but I have no right to steal them.  Now if they can prove the items were stolen and that the current owner bought them knowing that, that's different. >

or the NZ government just buys them at auction and gives them back to the maori people. >

Why should the taxpayer pay for Maori to get back something they gave away, because they now don't like the fact they gave it away. That's absurd. >

Was everything "given away"? >

Not everything. Lots was stolen. Lots more was traded for steel tools, jewellery and firearms. No one seems to want to talk about that lot though. >

Rich people shuffling assets around. The price of nothing. >

I'd like the house back that my great grandfather built and my grandfather sold. 
It is spectacular and definitely a treasured relic I don't have. >

Only if you can prove it was loaned out under specific circumstances that are no longer being met. >

Can they prove this club was loaned out under specific circumstances that are no longer being met?
At risk of sounding reductive you would be astounded how far an undocumented verbal agreement from 150 years ago is from "proof."
This isn't to say there isn't an excellent moral case for returning it to the Maori tribe in question, it's just lots of people seem to be attempting to redefine reality to service that moral case instead of making a realistic assessment of the situation. >

I guess it comes down to understanding the history and questioning if a fair verbal agreement was even possible >

The verbal agreement is irrelevant even if it can be proven. It's like if your great grandfather was given something by a friend who said you can have it but please don't sell it. They die, your grandparents die and then your parents die and the object comes down to you. You are under no obligation to not sell the item and the family of your great grandfathers friend has no entitlement to the object if you try to sell it. These pounamu were very popular gifts in the 19th century and had little intrinsic value beyond the labour used to make them at the time. The maori however believe they become more valuble as they pass from generation to generation for 'magic' reasons. Who exactly will this be given to in the tribe anyway? >

If the tribe wants it, they can buy it. >

Or steal it back >

It was literally gifted >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot)


A M?ori tribe in New Zealand has called on Sotheby's to return its treasured relics listed for sale by the auction house.
Ng?rimu Blair, deputy chair for Ng?ti Wh?tua ?r?kei people, said most of the artefacts belonging to the tribe were looted by early "Treasure hunters".
In an effort to return such objects to the place they actually belong, the British Museum is in "Constructive discussions" with Greece over the return of some of the Parthenon marbles which were taken by Lord Elgin, a British diplomat.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: return^#1 artefacts^#2 tribe^#3 Treasure^#4 British^#5 >

Of course its a British Lord's fault, what a surpise >

The British lord in that tldr is completely unrelated to this story and a reference to Greek artefacts that were stolen.
The club this story focuses on was given to a British admiral. >

Oh i see >

I promise: if I ever become rich (Sotheby's auction rich), I'll go bid on (and win!) stollen artifacts just to donate them back to where they belong. >

You would be shocked just how much stuff like this different organizations and groups say we're stolen from them. You could easily spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on the low end, billions a year on the high end. >

I think I'm ready for the challenge
Edit: meaning, I'd still do it if I could >

Seller:  "You’re trying to kidnap what I’ve rightfully stolen!” >

Sotheby's and such doesn't care about history or heritage. They just want old shiny stuff to parade in front of people for donations. >

Return them. >

redditors wax lyrics about cultural appropriation and multiculturalism until we call them out on their own insensitivity, then its right back to the “white man's burden” and superior race arguments. >

Why would an auction house have the authority to do this, even if they wanted to?  They're brokering the sale of someone else's items. >

What are those? Sacred dildos? >

Mere (clubs). >

I didn't realise "Shut up and hakka" was a valid position when discussing return of seized items from colonial times. >

Sadly, examples like this are why it’s said that possession is 9/10th of the law. Meaning, if I possess something you used to possess, fuck you it’s mine now. Shit like this is actual cultural appropriation. >

1) That isn't how it works. If you can prove original ownership or breach of contract, you can get things back. Do you really think thieves get away with stealing things because they now possess it? Like I can I go steal an 85" tv from Best Buy, a PS5, and several hundred dollars in games, and as long as I make it out the door, I am good to go? Absolutely not.
2) Looted artefacts are not cultural appropriation. It is... looted/stolen artefacts. Now if the collectors of the meres were running around chanting gibberish while swinging them around then you might have a point, but you don't because they aren't. >

If Sotheby's returned all of the looted/stolen antiquities they auction off, they would no longer be able to keep the lights on. >

Gotta love Sotheby’s this isn’t there first time trying to auction off items that have significant provenance to certain group. I think one time they tried to auction off the Rolex that was given to the first president of India.