logo
The Met's new wing honors a vanished Rockefeller — who may have been kidnapped and eaten by cannibals

The Met's new wing honors a vanished Rockefeller — who may have been kidnapped and eaten by cannibals

New York Post2 days ago

Dissatisfied at being remembered merely as oil barons, real estate tycoons, political bellwethers, and lavish philanthropists, at some point the Rockefellers began to specialize in dramatic exits.
Politician Nelson, at least as Johnny Carson would tell it, died doing what he loved best: his aide and alleged mistress Megan Marshack.
But it was Nelson's son, Michael Rockefeller, whose tragic ending added 'eaten by cannibals' to the family lore.
Advertisement
7 Young Michael Rockefeller died on an expedition to New Guinea in 1961. It's unknown if he drowned or was captured and consumed by tribesmen.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
His story has again captured the imagination of New York with the reopening of the Michael C. Rockefeller Wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art after a refresh that took four years and $70 million.
First opened in 1982, the 40,000-square-foot wing now displays 1,726 artifacts — including the collections of the former Museum of Primitive Art — with the latest scholarship and technology.
Advertisement
'We have the finest surveys of art from these three areas of the world – sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, and the ancient Americas in a U.S. museum,' Alisa LaGamma, the curator in charge of the wing, told The Post.
The wing also houses more than 400 items Michael collected on his travels — though whether or not it contains pieces created by the very tribe that might have brought about his death is still open for debate.
In March 1961, Michael — a newly minted Harvard history and economics cum laude and the son of the Governor of New York at the time — joined the Harvard-Peabody Expedition to New Guinea. Its mission was to study the Ndani people of the Baliem Valley in the remote western portion of the island. But the 23-year-old Rockefeller had an ulterior motive: The stripling anthropologist was on an adventure to trade fish hooks, axes and pouches of tobacco for great masterpieces of tribal art.
7 His story has again captured the imagination of New York with the reopening of the Michael C. Rockefeller Wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art after a refresh that took four years and $70 million.
AFP via Getty Images
Advertisement
The art would be sent back home to his father's innovative Museum of Primitive Art — a groundbreaking effort to extol the fetishes, tools and handicrafts of Africa, the Americas, Asia and Oceania in a townhouse mansion at 15 West 54th Street. At a time when these objects of cultures were rotting in museum ethnography cabinets, the new home would place them at eye level with Western fine art.
In September 1961, the young Rockefeller returned to New Guinea accompanied by Dutch anthropologist René Wassing. This time he would venture deep into the jungle swamps of South Papua inhabited by the Asmat people, famed for their well-endowed bisj pole woodcarvings — and for their cannibalistic headhunting.
On November 19, 1961, while sailing the coast of Asmat, their boat overturned. Wassing could not swim, but shore within sight, Rockefeller decided he could make it with an improvised floatation device. He was never seen again.
7 The 40,000-square-foot wing now displays 1,726 artifacts.
AFP via Getty Images
Advertisement
Of course, the official explanation for Michael's disappearance was drowning, and, in 1964, a Westchester County judge declared the descendent of John D. Rockfeller legally dead.
'All the evidence, based on the strong offshore currents, the high seasonal tides, and the turbulent outgoing waters, as well as the calculations that Michael was approximately 10 miles from shore when he began to swim, supports the prevailing theory that he drowned before he was able to reach land,' Michael's twin sister Mary Rockefeller Morgan writes in her 2014 book, 'When Grief Calls Forth the Healing: A Memoir of Losing a Twin.'
But the stewpot was the better story.
Almost immediately after Michael's disappearance, rumors spread that he was alive and had gone native — or that his skull had been found in the clutches of headshrinkers. In 1962, missionaries claimed to have met villagers who confessed to his killing in the village of Otsjanep.
7 Michael travelled to New Guinea shortly after graduating from Harvard. This is supposedly the last picture of him ever taken.
AP
7 Michael's father, Nelson (sitting down), was the governor of New York at the time. His immediate family also included mother Mary Todhunter Clark, twin sister Mary and brothers Rodman and Steven.
Getty Images
'It was cocktail party lore all through the 60s, 70s and 80s,' publicist R. Couri Hay, whose family had a house near the Rockefeller's retreat in Maine at the time, told The Post. 'I was a kid but I still remember. Nobody could believe it. It became kind of a funny threat. My father would say that if I wasn't good he would send me away to be eaten by cannibals like Michael Rockefeller.'
In 1977, the documentary filmmaker Lorne Blair wrote in an article in the girlie mag Oui, claiming that he had found the man who had consumed Michael.
Advertisement
A slippery private sleuth named Frank Monte told anyone who would listen that he found Michael's skull and was paid royally by the Rockefeller family for it. National Lampoon had a heckle. Leonard Nimoy hosted a TV special in 1978 called 'In Search of Michael Rockefeller.'
Dozens of books, podcasts, documentaries and magazine articles have tried to prove the cannibal theory. Novels, short stories, rock songs and even an off-Broadway show have mined the incident for subject matter.
7 Journalist Carl Hoffman makes the best-researched argument that Michael was indeed likely killed and ceremonially eaten by three Asmat tribesmen in his 2014 book 'Savage Harvest.'
7 Michael is pictured on a small motorboat in New Guinea in 1961. The photo was brought back by a companion on his Harvard expedition.
AP
Advertisement
Journalist Carl Hoffman makes the best-researched argument that Michael was indeed likely killed and ceremonially eaten by three Asmat tribesmen in his 2014 book 'Savage Harvest.'
'In a perverse way,' he writes, 'it seemed to level the playing field that this scion of American power could have been not just killed but consumed, cooked and digested and shat out by his opposite — wild men who had nothing, no power, no money, no influence.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The incredible shrinking president
The incredible shrinking president

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The incredible shrinking president

On Friday, Elon Musk and Donald Trump seemingly broke up amicably in the White House's Oval Office. It was like watching a married couple say, 'We love each other, but we can't live together.' Trump took a swipe at Musk by referring to him as an immigrant, and Musk responded by taking a swipe at Trump as he discussed 'the majesty' of the Oval Office. Otherwise, it was all smiles. Trump even said he'd have Elon back from time to time, like they were sharing a timeshare or something. But Trump's breakups always get messy, so by Tuesday, Musk was referring to Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' as a 'disgusting abomination' and urged Republicans to vote against it. House Speaker Mike Johnson admitted that he tried to call Elon, but Musk ghosted him. I understand that. What's the point of talking to Johnson? He doesn't think for himself and Musk already knows what Trump thinks. Meanwhile, the Democrats were attacking Musk's alleged drug use, and in effect defecating on the one person who apparently doesn't always kiss Trump's . . . ahem, ring. Musk's criticisms of the bill came after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' will add $2.4 trillion to the national debt over 10 years. The Trump team's response on Wednesday was to send out two press releases — one, labeled 'Most Essential Piece of Legislation in the Western World,' quotes seven tweets by Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller in support of the bill. The other press release, labeled 'Mythbuster,' argued that claims the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' adds to the deficit or increases spending are a hoax. In other words, facts be damned. Trust Trump. Of course, he's the guy who said in the Oval Office Friday that gas was at $1.99 a gallon nationwide. So, what does Trump think now of Elon, the deficit, the CBO claims and his 'one big beautiful bill'? I can't tell you. Until after dusk on Wednesday, no one had seen Donald Trump in public since Sunday following a golf outing. Early Wednesday evening, reporters got a statement — but it wasn't from Trump. Following a meeting with the president, Republican Senators John Thune, John Barrasso and Mike Crapo spoke at the stakeout area. They carried neither surprises nor news of any breakthroughs on that Big Beautiful Bill. Thune said they had 'a very positive discussion about the path forward,' adding that everybody is moving 'in the same direction' and agreed that 'failure is not an option.' Barrasso said they left the meeting with Trump 'committed to a safe and prosperous America and that's what this bill is about.' He said they told the president that 'the American people trust Republicans more than Democrats' on the economy. Crapo called it 'a very robust and healthy discussion' and contended 'we have very strong unity.' He said any suggestion that the bill will increase deficits is 'absolutely wrong.' Turns out they spoke quite a bit and said very little. There's an easy punchline there. Take it. Trump finally appeared on the portico of the Blue Room after 7 p.m. on Wednesday to welcome new interns to what the White House described as a 'soiree' on the South Lawn. I don't know why, but I picture White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt behind this. Trump walked onto the portico overlooking the South Lawn like a Generalissimo from a Banana Republic. His mass of young interns assembled and rushed to hear him from below as he watched with amusement from his balcony above the action. He played his greatest hits from his stump speech, never addressing Musk, tariffs or the executive orders he issued Wednesday banning immigrants from Harvard, banning travel to the U.S. from a dozen countries and calling for an investigation into former President Joe Biden, his cognitive abilities and the use of an auto pen. The highlight of his 14-minute appearance was when Trump said, 'When I do good, you do good.' It's always about him, isn't it? But the biggest tell was when he said he was such a great president that in four months, we now have a 'country in love with itself.' Trump beamed with pride. Of course, we have heard from Trump on social media talking about some of the tough issues. His latest rant was a warning for Ukraine after he said he spoke to Vladimir Putin. Putin, apparently stunned by Ukraine's attack on Russian airfields over the weekend, said 'very strongly' to Trump that he will 'have to respond to the recent attack.' I guess Putin needed a press secretary and Trump stepped in. Maybe he took his breakup with Musk harder than we thought. Maybe that explains why his recent public appearances have been fewer than his golf outings. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller appears to have stepped up as the twisted strategist and face of the administration, while Chief of Staff Susie Wiles is the chief tactician. Trump said from the White House Portico Wednesday that even members of the military bow before her. 'They're scared of her. They're afraid,' he said. Wiles lurks in the shadows, thriving in the gray mist of the White House. Stephen Miller flirts with notoriety, obviously loves it, and so far has been far more successful than others who have courted Trump. He never challenges anything Trump says publicly. He and Pep Secretary Leavitt have also learned the best way to survive is to 'smile and wave, boys,' in front of the boss. Compliments help. That's why Musk is out and Miller is still in. After all, if your five-year-old can give you a black eye, you're not the kind of alpha male Trump wants on his staff. He needs the man with spray hair in a can. The real reason for Musk's black eye? Well the ongoing rumor is that Musk shoved Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, who may or may not have retaliated with a fist to the face. As they say, that is merely speculation. Wiles has been notoriously silent on the matter, as has Miller. Only Leavitt has spoken to it, saying the president has hired some people who are 'passionate' about their work. Whoever punched Musk is a hero to millions. And now that he's gone, in a divorce that seemed cordial until Musk used the 'Big Beautiful Bill' as toilet paper, it seems Musk probably won't come around from time to time. Then again, Trump loves to keep his reality show options open. For now, it is Wiles and Miller leading the MAGA faithful as they pull the Trump wagon through the slaughterhouse of what used to be the GOP as if the 'Bring out your dead' scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" was a documentary. Trump is never questioned about why he spends so much time on the golf course, nor is he questioned about his mounting lies, nor has he ever been held accountable for anything in his life. It's really a fascinating study of humanity. Some believe that God is personally guiding Trump. I, for one, have more arcane and mundane concerns. For example, what's up with Trump reposting a seriously twisted conspiracy theory that Biden was executed in 2020 and replaced by a combination of AI, clones, robots, body doubles and a homeless meth addict the Democrats dragged out of a ditch in Missouri. Just kidding. My brother-in-law is still in Missouri. How long can we put up with this? After living through the first Trump administration and seeing how wild covering it on a daily basis was, I can tell you the second administration is so bad it makes the first Trump administration look nearly competent. Today, Trump does whatever he wants, based on whatever he is being told by Wiles and Miller — the choke points for information. It is next to impossible to find the remnants of the GOP capable of serving its constituents. They've chased out all of their sane members. The latest is Joe Walsh. The former Tea Party congressman from Illinois made it official this week: He's now a Democrat. For him, it boiled down to picking a side. 'My former party is a threat to this country. We have to be Democrats, period, to keep our country.'Democratic voters, so far, have embraced him, he says, with very little negative feedback. 'I was the Tea Party's son of a bitch and I think the Democratic Party needs more son of a bitches,' he said. 'This is a big tent. There used to be southern Democrats and conservative Democrats and progressives. We differ on some things, but we all agree to respect the Constitution. And we need to fight for our country.' Trump's time off the center stage, even for the briefest of time, allows the country to see in stark detail the true horror show behind him. Trump has a far stronger understanding of the media and how to manipulate and exploit it than any other politician since Ronald Reagan. Trump's true strength is in the management of his appearances and his narrative. No one else in his administration has that ability. Witness Joni Ernst. The Republican senator recently called up the spirit of Ebenezer Scrooge. Her comments about Medicaid cuts during an Iowa town hall sparked a spectator to shout, 'But people are going to die,' To which Senator Ernst remarked, 'We are all going to die.' Sounds a lot like Scrooge: 'If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." Afterward, she doubled down by doing a TikTok video in a cemetery and claiming if you want to live forever, follow Jesus. It was billed as a 'tongue-in-cheek' production. 'Joni Ernst has all the bedside manner of a cat in a blender,' political commentator John Fugelsang said. ''We're all going to die?' That's not an answer to a healthcare crisis — that's what your creepy uncle says on Christmas after his fourth Jaegermeister.' Fugelsang, who hosts a political show on SiriusXM and is the author of the newly published book 'Separation of Church and Hate,' says Trump, and his closest disciples suffer from a biblical malady; hypocrisy is their hubris. 'Because nothing says 'compassion' like kicking grandma off Medicaid while boasting of your piety, with human graves as props. Why worry about your cancer diagnosis, friends, when you can just accept Jesus and prepare to meet Him real soon,' Fugelsand said. 'Jesus welcomed the stranger and cared for the least of us. Joni's is a trickle-down MAGA Jesus, and her idea of the gospel is to hand you a shovel and say, 'Dig your own grave'.' Of course, there are many who aren't as critical of Ernst's 'tongue-in-cheek' performance. Many of them also claim to be fans of Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, whose greatest claim to fame and qualification for his job other than his outrageous tattoos (if you say it in Randy Rainbow's voice, you'd understand), is his luddite impersonation of a television anchor on Fox Television. His homophobic response to renaming the U.S.N.S Harvey Milk (the second of a new class of oilers) because Milk was the first openly gay elected official in California is petulant, cartoonish and vintage 1930s if you lived in Dusseldorf. Milk was no Admiral Nimitz, but maybe he could have been if he had had the chance. He joined the United States Navy during the Korean War. He served aboard the submarine rescue ship USS Kittiwake (ASR-13) as a diving officer. He later transferred to Naval Station, San Diego, to serve as a diving instructor. In 1955, he resigned from the Navy at the rank of lieutenant, junior grade, forced to accept an "other than honorable" discharge and leave the service rather than be court-martialed because of his homosexuality. To change the name of the ship for no reason other than Milk's sexual orientation dishonors hundreds of thousands, if not millions of similar Americans over the years who have served their country with honor as far back as the Revolutionary War. So far, Trump doesn't seem all that eager to rein in his minions. That could change tomorrow. But, for the first time since he took office, right now he seems content to sit in the background and watch his clown car roll past him. No one in the press with access to the president has asked Trump about his sparse number of recent public appearances, and I won't speculate as to why they've occurred without verified facts. I will say his appearance on the portico was too reminiscent of the episode 'Little Dictator' on "Gilligan's Island' for me — though I could see Trump playing Gilligan. But, if Trump's current scarcity of public appearances continues with only one or two chances a week to see 'proof of life,' it probably won't be long before Jake Tapper prepares his next mea culpa tour for whatever reason.

What globalists get wrong about free trade
What globalists get wrong about free trade

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

What globalists get wrong about free trade

Since at least the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, major media outlets have decried the impending end of globalization. These lamentations have only accelerated since the Trump administration declared April 2 ' Liberation Day,' with our trading counterparties' unfair practices to be summarily addressed through increased and partially reciprocal duties (along with a minimum tariff level). To hear the media tell it, such tariffs are the death knell for a beneficial global trading order and will immiserate billions. But such valedictories for the end of globalization advance a straw-man fiction about what is now supposedly lost: namely, that President Trump's policies contravene an agreed framework whereby goods, capital and labor move across national boundaries in a mostly unencumbered manner. If one believes in the merits of free trade and cross-border capital flows, it is essential not to confuse the ideal with the real. In truth, there have always been (often significant) friction and costs associated with such movements. Today's so-called free trade regime recalls Western support for Soviet communism, snarling 'real communism has never been tried' in defense of its myriad failures. Love it or hate it, what exists today is hardly real free trade. If what we have today isn't it, what does free trade closer to its Platonic ideal look like? This notion, that trade conditions are rarely wholly free or unfree, also confuses the media. The reality is that trading conditions sit uneasily along a continuum, and relatively free trade only occurs under certain conditions. These include (among others): Mutually agreed-upon rules for international commerce, consistently applied or at least generally observed, allowing for relatively open and reciprocal market access; Exemptions for strategic industries, a form of insurance for nations, insulating them from being caught short in a subsequent conflict with trading partners; Reliable cross-border supply chains, allowing for the disaggregation of production into its constituent parts (trading resource control for cost efficiency) and An ideologically unipolar historical moment, or a multi-polar world in which international trade largely occurs within the poles. These and other trade-friendly conditions were largely obtained in the decades leading up to the First World War, and in the 20 or so years following the end of the Cold War. While a world war is an obvious culprit ending an earlier era of globalization, what explains its current travails? A rules-based trading order can withstand certain restrictions (tariffs, regulations, quotas) — in fact, protecting strategic sectors demands some of them. But excessive use, along with outright cheating — subsidies, intellectual property theft and currency manipulation, as in the case of China — gives rise to a prisoner's dilemma with suboptimal outcomes. Similarly, the extended supply chains that proliferated over the last 30 years assumed the only national interest that mattered was economic advancement. Consider the terms made fashionable over the last three decades: 'a borderless world,' 'global citizens,' 'the end of history' and 'soft power.' The disaggregation of business models previously housed under a single corporate roof never anticipated revisionist challenges to Pax Americana, such as the retrograde gunboat diplomacy of China's Belt and Road Initiative, much less the rise of transnational terrorist organizations disrupting commerce and producing failed states. Moreover, the unipolar moment has ended. As China, under the rule of the Communist Party, displaced the Soviet Union as our primary geopolitical adversary, its admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001 conferred upon it a degree of economic leverage over the United States that Joseph Stalin could only have dreamed of. The return of history, with not only China but Russia, Turkey and others asserting spheres of influence and advancing parochial interests while embedded within a global economic system and multilateral institutions, further vitiates unfettered trade and capital movements. Failing to understand that globalization — the mutually beneficial interdependence and integration among nations, entailing a largely unrestricted flow of goods, capital, information and people — only flourishes under certain conditions, is only half of what the media and establishment elites get wrong. The other is the fetishization of globalism as an ideology. One can support globalization without being a globalist. Free trade and capital flows do not themselves comprise a belief system, but are rather a means to an end: actualizing individuals' aspirations and the nations that represent them. Free trade is the handmaiden of liberty, not vice versa. Reifying trade at the expense of other liberal values risks perverse outcomes; offshoring a nation's pharmaceutical production capacity to potentially belligerent nations is but one example. Another danger in globalism as an ideology is that of falling prey to historical determinism. Seeing deepening global integration as inevitable presents several risks. Believing it impervious threatens underinvestment in its sustenance (see the collapse of the WTO's Doha Round); competing objectives such as national self-determination and defense of borders may also be subordinated to globalism's tenets, destabilizing the very nations seeking to benefit from globalization. The proposed Trump tariff regime is not the full-throated attack on a functioning trading order critics make it out to be. To acknowledge this is not to defend blindly the administration's policies. Tariffs have their place as leverage against trading counterparties with onerous trade restrictions of their own. They are also useful to support strategic sectors in an increasingly dangerous world. What tariffs won't do is revive a rust-belt economy, which isn't coming back. Comparative advantage, alas, remains undefeated. Nor should tariffs be sold to the public as a governmental revenue-generator while incumbent income, sales and other tax regimes remain firmly in place. Globalization improves lives and should be promoted. Free trade and capital movements have consistently shown themselves, when the requisite conditions are present, to be mutually beneficial. How these benefits are distributed and whether the unchecked movement of people across borders is similarly beneficial are more complex matters. But the promotion of globalism as an inviolate creed, either for its own sake or as a counterpoint to 'America First' policies, fails to appreciate that globalization cannot be summoned by magical thinking and that it is the servant of liberty, not its master.

'Abandoned': Afghan women waiting for visas feel betrayed by US travel ban
'Abandoned': Afghan women waiting for visas feel betrayed by US travel ban

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

'Abandoned': Afghan women waiting for visas feel betrayed by US travel ban

By Charlotte Greenfield and Mohammad Yunus Yawar ISLAMABAD/KABUL (Reuters) -Fatima, a 57-year-old Afghan women's rights defender waiting in limbo in Pakistan for her U.S. visa to be processed, had her dreams shattered overnight after President Donald Trump included Afghans among those banned from entering the U.S. She worked for decades for U.S.-funded projects in Central Afghanistan and now risks being pushed back to her home country, where she fears for her safety and her teenage daughter is unable to attend school. "Unfortunately, the decisions made by President Trump turned all the hopes and beliefs of us into ashes," she told Reuters, asking that only her first name be published for security reasons. Trump signed a proclamation on Wednesday banning nationals of 12 countries, including Afghanistan, from entering the United States, saying the move was needed to protect against "foreign terrorists" and other security threats. "We are not al-Qaeda, we are the ones who fought back, we are the ones who gave our youth, our strength, our physical energy, our voices, everything we had, for the dream of a peaceful nation, for a country where we could simply breathe, we stood beside NATO forces," said Fatima. "And today, to be abandoned by America is not only tragic, it is devastating, It is a source of deep despair," she added. HELP PLEDGED FOR ALLIES In the chaotic withdrawal of U.S.-led foreign troops as Taliban forces seized Kabul in 2021, Western countries vowed to help, especially those Afghans who had worked for them or on projects they backed. But many have been disappointed. Then-President Joe Biden pledged to help "Afghan allies" and introduced the P-2 programme for admission as refugees for Afghans who met certain criteria, including having worked for U.S. organisations and media. The main refugee advocate agency this year estimated that between 10,000-15,000 Afghans were waiting in Pakistan for their visas to be processed, though that included applicants to the Special Immigration Visa (SIV) program for those who directly assisted the U.S. military and government, which was exempted from this week's order. Fatima said she had hoped never to leave her country but as the prominent head of a women's rights group she felt she had no choice after the Taliban returned to power. The U.S. government instructed her to travel to a third country for processing and like many, her only option was neighbouring Pakistan where she arrived in 2023. She finally received notice that she should send her family's passports to prepare for a flight in January. But a decision that month by President Trump to halt refugee processing threw that into disarray and Fatima has not heard from U.S. authorities since. In the meantime, Pakistan began once again ramping up a repatriation drive that began in 2023, leaving many in the pipeline for U.S. processing fearful of even leaving the house in case they were stopped by police. A spokesperson for Pakistan's foreign office did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday on how it would handle the Afghans in the pipeline for the U.S. The Taliban-run foreign ministry did not immediately respond to request for comment on Trump's executive order. The Taliban, which has barred women from travelling without a male guardian and girls from high school, says it respects women's rights in accordance with its interpretation of Islamic law. It has said that its administration is not targeting former foes with violence and it will investigate any suspected cases. Mahbouba Seraj, a prominent Kabul-based women's rights advocate, said the new U.S. decision was a huge blow to women's rights defenders and other vulnerable groups. "This is absolutely terrible because a whole lot of those... people were waiting, they have all of their paperwork done, they are completely vetted, they are all ready to come to the U.S., they have sold their houses, they have no life in Afghanistan and they are all waiting," she said. "Now this is what happens."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store