Q&A | Ex–Peruvian first lady hopes for artifact return
Q&A | Ex–Peruvian first lady hopes for artifact return
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Eliane Karp-Toledo, the former Peruvian first lady, spoke last night at the Yale Political Union. Before her talk, she sat down with staff reporter Paul Needham to discuss Peru’s lawsuit against Yale over the Inca artifacts at the Peabody Museum, as well as her future and that of her husband, former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo.
Q: Why are you here? What do you hope to accomplish with your speech?
Eliane Karp-Toledo speaks in SSS at a YPU debate on whether Yale should return all Machu Picchu artifacts to Peru. (She was in favor.)
A: I’m just coming to give a talk. To show some very hard evidence of our patrimony and how we relate to it … this of course has nothing to do with the lawsuit and I definitely don’t come as a representative of the government of Peru. This is a process that of course belongs to the academic world, and I’m here to be a part of that.
Q: Are you satisfied with how things stand now between Yale and Peru? What do you hope will happen next?
A: I think Washington’s a good place for the lawsuit. I hope that Yale will realize it’s on the wrong track and that it will be inspired by its dignity and status as an academic institution and follow the path of the [J. Paul] Getty Museum and the [Metropolitan Museum of Art] and [Museum of Fine Arts] in Boston who have returned the pieces.
Q: Do you get the credit for pushing the Garcia government to sue?
A: I think there’s been a very strong reaction from society in Peru; they’re usually very militant about their belongings. The Garcia government is just facing the truth that there’s nothing to negotiate. Three more additional years of negotiation is not going to help us, because it doesn’t seem like the Yale administration wants to see things through. I’m sorry we have to go to court — it’s a waste of time and money for everyone — but there’s no other choice.
Q: Why didn’t you want students to hold a vote at the end of the YPU debate? Are you setting the stage for your husband to run again in 2011?
A: It was not very clear what would have been voted against or in favor. And it’s such a sensitive issue. As for the future, we’ll see. Right now I’m teaching at Stanford … we’ll see what happens after that.
Comments
None 3 years, 1 month ago
Given that many of her own facts are misleading (at best) and that Paul has been writing on this issue for over a year, I'm sure he feels he can authoritatively ask certain questions that are "biased" but probably true. The questions are fine, but the other article was not, in that it definitely misled the reader on the general sense of the audience.
None 3 years, 1 month ago
anonymous (#5),
I stand corrected with regards to her degree. Thanks.
As for your other claims, I think nuance would help your case. I, too, actually find anthropologists suspect, because of the sorry history both of imperialism through anthropology of "primative" cultures, and more recently, through the notion that one can "become" part of a culture.
However, #3 is correct that many people do consider here their champion. Culture is nebulous, and their is no reason why one can't change cultures. You fail to acknowledge that she has been living and working with indigenous peoples for most of her life — even before she had political ambitions.
Those who disagree with her are not somehow removed from the political situation; they are ususally her political opponents. Everything is political, so calling it "political" really shouldn't be seen as a pejorative.
Also, it is arguable that the poverty levels in Peru say much mroe about the long-term affects of neoloberalism started by Fujimori than 5 years under her husband, Toledo.
None 3 years, 1 month ago
Spherical Cow #8,
What indigenous movement has she championed? Which people support her? When her husband left office, he had an 8% approval rating and she had even left. -Its widely acknowledged that the increase in poverty was due policies by Toledo that benefited the rich and middle class in the large cities.
-Karp was involved in a scandal with the world bank in which 2 million dollars sent to her organization CONAPA disappeared. Researchers only could find evidence of one school in Cuzco that benefited from this program. -Many indigenous peoples from Peru feel no connection to the Inca Empire or the Peruvian state. Especially peoples in the Amazon who often derided as less than civilized and who have often been subjugated in the pursuit of minerals and rubber. Fujimori is much more celebrated in the highlands and jungle for building numerous roads and other public projects. -Karp has never spent much time with indigenous peoples of Peru. -Her husband is from Chimbote, a city on the coast -all her facts about Machu Picchu during her presentation were wrong. The torreon was never a mausoleum. Pachacuti was never buried there. It was a royal palace. These ideas of mysticism and "sanctuary" are new age constructs. Many of the inhabitants at Machu Picchu were ripped from their homeland in other parts of Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia to support the Inca emperor. Should Bolivia and Ecuador ask for their remains and pottery?
While I believe the artifacts should go back, Karp has only hindered the discussion between Peru and Yale. She makes a mockery of indigenous rights through her political grandstanding, misstates what Machu Picchu is, and fabricates a degree that she does not have. She disappeared 3 months before her husband left office. Many believe it was because she was about to be indicted on charges related to the world bank. -She represents no one but herself and has contributed little to the causes (because there are many) of various indigenous peoples.
None 3 years, 1 month ago
One thing not mentioned by the YDN reporter is that Karp was an American citizen, born and raised in the U.S., who only moved to Peru when she married her husband, who is the actual Peruvian.
Her husband, though, the one with the actual legitimate patrimony claim, has never said a word about the return of the artifacts. This lawsuit is merely a pet project of Karp's, and one has to question whether or not she truly speaks for Peruvians (and Incan descendents) as a whole, or if she is merely trying to further her own agenda.
None 3 years, 1 month ago
1,
It would help your argument if you got your facts straight. She was born in Belgium, and merely got her PhD at Stanford.
Also, regardless of whether it is a pet project of hers, that doesn't imply that others don't also agree with her. She didn't invent the indigenous movements in Peru; she's not that powerful ...
None 3 years, 1 month ago
1) So, she was actually born in France.
2) As an anthropologist she has spent enormous amounts of time with the indigenous people of Peru and as First Lady many accepted her as their champion.
3) She did not start the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Republic of Peru in December, 2008. Her husband left office in 2006.
4) FACTS! Argh.
None 3 years, 1 month ago
Yale needs to end the patronizing latter-day imperialism, and give the items back to Peru. It is not complicated.
None 3 years, 1 month ago
2, you should get your facts straight as well. she never got her phd. she is only ABD. Further, she doesnt speak for any indigenous movement. She has herself appropriated the culture of others for political gain. Her track record only shows contempt for the actual indigenous people. When her husband left office, poverty had risen to 51% most of which are indigenous.
None 3 years, 1 month ago
I'd like to know why the reporter's questions are clearly being asked with such bias already. I mean, he's basically attacking and slandering her with these questions. Why not have fair questions?
Or login with:
OpenID