Pirates of the Smithsonian

         The debate over the morality of recovering and presenting the treasure findings from a shipwreck in the Indonesian Ocean has given the Smithsonian Museum an immense amount of hype! Whether it was the hype the Smithsonian was looking for, is a different story. 
            I watched the trailer for the exhibition and listened to the news reports on the NRP media player regarding the controversy. Hearing both sides of the story from the NPR news report gave me a little more insight to where the Smithsonian thought they had the right to display these artifacts. However, as I see where those on the Smithsonian side are coming from, that these artifacts are being used to educate, I still believe that the Smithsonian has no right to these findings. I understand that it is a controversy in its own whether or not the discovery of these trade items were looted or not. I also believe that they should be considered looted items and one of the Smithsonian's own regulations is not to display any looted findings. The country they came from  (China) has the right to obtain these beautiful trade items. If China agreed that they should go to be shown and preserved in the Smithsonian Museum, then I see no issue. On the other hand, China is the owner of these items and if they would like them back, they deserve full rights to them, without debate. 
         In our "Practices of Looking" textbook, a couple examples were given for situations similar to this. Saartje Baartman. Before reading the textbook, this was just another name, and one that I certainly had difficulty pronouncing. Although, after reading the section about her, I felt an incredibly heavy feeling in my heart. This woman was on display in French slideshows and society events, "hawking her as an anatomical curiosity on the basis of her buttocks and labia (described as unusually large)" as stated in the textbook. Then when she passed, efforts to have Saartje's body returned to South Africa were rejected for almost 40 years. This woman did not belong to the Musee de l'Homme where she was put on display after her death. She belonged to be back in South Africa where they wanted her body returned in order to give a proper burial according to her Khosian tradition. The museum should be respecting the traditions, not treating Saartje as an inhumane object and be thankful for being able to hold the display while they were allowed. However, her body did not belong to them. South Africa, I believe, did the right thing, holding a burial to the proper tradition. 
         I tried to use logic to further understand the side of the Smithsonian by placing myself in the situation. Lets say I was  traveling to another country and I dropped some beautiful artifact into the ocean while I was on a boat, and several years later, I die. If someone found those artifacts, I would want my mother and family to have them because thats where they came from. If my family thought it was important enough to be displayed in a museum, that would be okay, but if they refused to give the items to my family and they desperately wanted them for tradition or whatever their reason, thats where they should be. 
         In my opinion, the Smithsonian had no intention of looting these trade items or taking what isn't theirs. I understand their reasoning for wanting the treasures, even. However, I don't think they should be displayed there. They should be given back to the country they came from. Part of the fun and interest of going to a museum in any place is to learn more about the area you are in. China could set up a museum and place these findings there. After all, they are part of their culture, not ours.