Editing Metropolitan Museum of Art (section)

=== Looted Indigenous American art and NAGPRA violations ===
{{See also|Visual arts of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas}}

Since 1993, Charles and Valerie Diker have donated 139 Indigenous objects to the museum, many of which are funerary. Most of these objects have [[Provenance|ownership histories]] with 200–2,000 year gaps in known owners.<ref name="Sharp-2023" /> The display of Native American funerary objects is problematic, not just because of its unethical spotlighting of private ceremonial objects, but also due to its violation of [[Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act|NAGPRA]]. NAGPRA, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, established in 1990, states that institutions that receive federal funding must work to [[Repatriation|repatriate]] Native American [[Human remains (archaeology)|human remains]], [[Grave goods|funerary objects]], and other [[Ceremonial Objects|ceremonially important objects]].<ref name="www.nps.gov">{{Cite web |title=Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (U.S. National Park Service) |url=https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/index.htm |access-date=2023-12-06 |website=www.nps.gov |language=en}}</ref> This was done to ensure that the respect and dignity deserved by all humans was given to Native Americans. Part of the goal of enacting NAGPRA was to begin a dialogue between American museum institutions and Indigenous groups. Written into NAGPRA is an acknowledgement of museums as the preservers of history.<ref name="www.nps.gov" /> The Met has been able to avoid the repatriation of valuable objects that fall under the grasp of NAGPRA because they have not formally owned them. Objects that are on permanent or semi-permanent loan to a museum do not legally necessitate the initiation of the repatriation process.<ref name="Sharp-2023" /> As the Diker collection is slowly incorporated into the Met's permanent collection, the objects will become illegal possessions, as the Met is a publicly funded institution.<ref name="Artforum-2023">{{Cite web |date=2023-04-25 |title=Propublica Inquiry Into Met's Native American Art Collection Reveals Provenance Issues |url=https://www.artforum.com/news/propublica-inquiry-into-mets-native-american-art-collection-reveals-provenance-issues-252675/ |access-date=2023-12-06 |website=Artforum |language=en-US}}</ref>

In April 2023, [[ProPublica]] published a [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-met-museum-native-american-collections report] detailing the Indigenous American collections of the Met Museum. The report exposed the loophole of loan vs. own that the Met was using to cling onto objects that they had an ethical and legal responsibility to repatriate. The report came to the conclusion that the Native American art held by the Met could only have come into the possession of the Diker's through violence, [[looting]], and [[dispossession]]. Additionally, the report exposed that only 15% of the 193 objects donated to the Met by the Diker collection have known provenance.<ref name="Sharp-2023" /> The Report was the cause of international outcry due to its bold pinpointing of just some of the Met's shoddy [[Art Acquisition|acquisitioning]] history.<ref name="The Art Newspaper-2018">{{Cite web |date=2018-11-06 |title=Native American group denounces Met's exhibition of indigenous objects |url=https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2018/11/06/native-american-group-denounces-mets-exhibition-of-indigenous-objects |access-date=2023-12-06 |website=The Art Newspaper – International art news and events}}</ref><ref name="Artforum-2023" /> This callout of the unequivocally respected institution that is the Met Museum caused a reckoning amongst museums displaying Indigenous American art.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-12-02 |title=North American museums face a reckoning on Indigenous rights |url=https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2021/12/02/museums-face-reckoning-on-indigenous-representation |access-date=2023-12-06 |website=The Art Newspaper – International art news and events}}</ref> In response to this scandal, the Met claimed that they were in contact with tribal governments about creating appropriate displays of Native American art and funerary objects, but did not specify which tribes.<ref name="The Art Newspaper-2018" />