Repatriating Cultural History

I watched a movie a couple of weeks ago that spoke directly to this issue. Called "The Stone of Destiny", it portrayed the effort made by dedicated nationalist Ian Hamilton to reignite Scottish national pride. To achieve this end, in 1950 he made a daring raid on Westminster Abbey in order to steal back the Stone of Scone and return it to Scotland. Although the British police did retrieve the Stone and return it to England, the British Government decided to send it back whence it came in 1996. This symbol of their cultural history obviously meant enough to the Scots for them to continue demanding the return of the artifact until their demands were met. Why then do they seem unable to comprehend the fact that keeping the two Beothuk skulls in the Royal Museum in Edinburgh is just as wrong as they felt it was for the Brits to keep the Stone of Scone? The skulls of Beothuk chief Nonosabasut and his wife, Demasduit, were looted from their graves by William Cormack, a Newfoundland-born and Scottish-educated adventurer and transported to Scotland in 1827. It is more than time for them to be returned whence they came.
The case is the same for the Grandfather Canoe. One of the oldest birch bark canoes known to exist, this artifact of a people's cultural history was one of three crafted by the native American Maliseet community for British lieutenant-governor Sir Howard Douglas who arrived in New Brunswick, Canada, in 1824. Lieut Stepney St George, who was then serving with the British imperial forces in Canada supposedly bought the canoe (although First Nations people here say there is question as to whether or not the sale actually took place), and transported it to Headford Castle, Galway, Ireland. In 1852, it was donated to the National University of Ireland, Galway’s James Mitchell Museum, its "permanent home", where it was relegated to hanging from the rafters. Chief Candice Paul of the St Mary’s First Nation Wolastoqiyik (Maliseet) community of New Brunswick says the canoe suffered more than 150 years of “isolation and neglect” and “served primarily as a home for pigeons in an institution dedicated to geological collections” at the university.
Similarly, the Beothuk skulls were originally kept in an area of the Edinburgh museum for bird and animal remains. Neither "permanent home" treated the skulls or the canoe with the respect due them as human remains and an icon of a people's cultural history.
Loaned two years ago to the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Saint John, New Brunswick, the canoe has been scheduled to return to Ireland after the loan expires in June. Paul has been appealing for the return of the canoe since it was put on display in Canada two years ago.
Chief Paul's appeals to the National University of Ireland in Galway, the Irish president and the Irish prime minister may be producing results, since it has been announced that NUIG agrees in principle that the canoe should be repatriated to the Maliseet. In a statement released to the Galway City Tribune last week, the powers-that-be at the university said, "In light of interest generated in Canada, the university is assessing the steps which it should now take." The university has, however, added that any decision in favour of permanent repatriation of the canoe "would require further approval at both national and EU level."
What I don't understand is why it should require any further discussion and dilly-dallying. Why can't they stop playing their games with this icon of Maliseet culture and simply say, "Keep it. After all, it is yours"?
I can give you one reason for all the game playing, and you tell me if I'm that far off the mark. True ownership of the canoe in question is being claimed by First Nations people. Repatriation is being sought by First Nations people. Chief Candice Paul and her band members are still not really given respect as full citizens of Canada. They are not yet far enough removed from the years of the government's assimilation policy and its legacy of neglect and prejudice. They are barely listened to as it is when they ask for the right to safe drinking water on reserves. Why should their voices be heard when they ask for the return of part of their cultural heritage and pride? It speaks volumes when you read the coverage given to the situation in the Globe and Mail and see reference made to Chief Paul more than once using a masculine pronoun.
It's damn near impossible not to think that nobody cares about Chief Paul or her people, let alone the repatriation of the Grandfather Canoe.