71–80 of 281 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Not committing theft, or returning shit you stole, is considered "woke" now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article it sounds like it was stolen from the German people by an American soldier.
The German people stole it from someone else so why does it matter
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not committing theft, or returning shit you stole, is considered "woke" now?
If centuries ago your ancestors stole from a country that no longer exists in the modern day, then yeah it's woke to return it to a different country occupying the same geographic space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She's an antiques dealer. It's her job to buy old things and sell them for more. That's why she was in Goodwill. I think she likely wanted a payout. Also the terms of the deal are confidential. If she didn't get a payout, I don't see why they would be confidential.
Getting a payout seems fair. I doubt the Germans paid anybody when they took it from Italy.
Why? The museum was not built by nazis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not committing theft, or returning shit you stole, is considered "woke" now?
If centuries ago your ancestors stole from a country that no longer exists in the modern day, then yeah it's woke to return it to a different country occupying the same geographic space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some points (IANAL): * How is it going to be transported? Squashing it into airplane luggage is probably not a good idea, neither is sending it via a parcel. * What happens if something happens to it during transport? Generally works of art are insured before they are being transported. Do you know insurers though? Before you insure it, you need to determine the value. * For very important works of art, countries mig…
Ask them to pick it up.
There are well-established legal procedures to deal with matters like identity verification, and lawyers can handle them. That's one reason why she needs a lawyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That sounds like an a posteriori justification for stealing, like saying "see, that building ended up being bombed, so it's a good thing I stole all these Ukrainian paintings from the country last year" There's a difference between justification and acknowledgement. Just because people are able to acknowledge that specific artifacts only exist because they were stolen, does not mean that they believe the original t…
> Just because people are able to acknowledge that specific artifacts only exist because they were stolen, does not mean that they believe the original theft was "right or reasonable." I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? Yeah, if you hadn't burglarized my house yesterday, all my things would have burned up in the fire that happened there today. That's all well and good, except you…
Why should anything beyond facile acknowledgement be expected from the average person when it comes to appreciating artifacts that still exist on our planet?
Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Are people "justifying" that crime that happened before they were born, because they're glad that the painting still exists?
> She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. I don't understand. Museums in the West are full of looted ancient art [1]. Why are they allowed to keep it, but this woman cannot keep this one item? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/learning/should-museums-r...
Museums shouldn't be full of looted treasures, museums should be full of treasures of the culture who built the museum. It is an injustice that any significant artifact is not in the custodianship of the culture it belongs to and when the infrastructure is in place to preserve the items, they should be returned to the community they came from.
Indeed, across the entire globe, only a tiny fraction of the population own the vast majority of land and other resources.
Let's all sort out this much bigger and globally impactful inequality first, before worrying about some museum pieces.
> She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. I don't understand. Museums in the West are full of looted ancient art [1]. Why are they allowed to keep it, but this woman cannot keep this one item? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/learning/should-museums-r...
Museums shouldn't be full of looted treasures, museums should be full of treasures of the culture who built the museum. It is an injustice that any significant artifact is not in the custodianship of the culture it belongs to and when the infrastructure is in place to preserve the items, they should be returned to the community they came from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She deserves a payout because she spent money a on lawyer to get a payout? That seems circular.
She specifically stated this in her article, > She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. She couldn't sell it. And giving it back to its rightful owners was a lot harder than it sounds. Why are you building up a false narrative?