Is repatriation of Indigenous cultural items always the best solution

The momentum is building behind the drive to return Indigenous museum pieces to their rightful owners. The latest such move on this front is the return of a pipe and saddle by the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) to the family of 19th Century Plains Cree Chief Poundmaker. The "repatriation" of the cultural items was highly celebrated, and took place amid lavish Indigenous ceremonies. 

I understand the impetus behind this movement, and I am cognizant that many such items were basically stolen, or obtained under duress, and in general terms it makes sense that they should be returned if requested. 

What I am less sure about is whether this should be a blanket [sic] operation. It seems to be me that in some cases, it may be the best option - for the country, for the Indigenous community, even for the family of the original owners - for high profile national museums like the ROM to continue displaying such items (which appropriate accreditation, of course).

Chief Poundmaker was one of the great Indigenous leaders of the the 19th century, and was instrumental in negotiating Treaty 6, which covers portions of present-day Saskatchewan and Alberta. As such he should be applauded and acclaimed, and what better way than having history front and centre in a well-known national museum?

I just think that, if my grandfather had done something special and noteworthy, I would probably be more than happy to have his deeds broadcast to the world through a museum than to hide it away at home. Is it possible that Indigenous communities are cutting off their noses to spite their faces by their dogged insistence on repatriation all cultural items? Or is the ability to "stick it to the man" on this issue more important than any such practical considerations? If so, I can probably appreciate that.