Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

$35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

kut.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 281 posts

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#91

Post by robonerd »

Isamu wrote: post #23
tomcam wrote: post #19

What amazes me about all these stories is the ridiculously low prices the thrift store charged. Here in the Seattle area, everything seems to grossly overpriced in thrift stores.

Yeah, I can never find a reasonable price on a first century Roman antiquity, and believe me I’ve tried.

How hard have you tried? Assuming antiquities.co.uk is legitimate, I see a Romana-British bronze brooch offered for sale at $44, circa mid 1st century BC to late 1st century AD. There seem to be many small Roman trinkets you could buy for about the price of a pair of blue jeans.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#92

Post by [deleted] »

Thorrez wrote: post #21
LanceH wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both for establishing the right of ownership of who she is sending it to, as well as requiring indemnification on the transfer should someone else step forward claiming it. Worst case would be that she sends it to someone over there, then someone else shows up showing they own it. Imagine if someone in the US ended up showing they owned it and the Germans say tough luck. She would then have to defend herself wherever…

>Imagine if someone in the US ended up showing they owned it She bought it from Goodwill. What benefit would anything think they could get from suing her if she didn't get a payout? >She would then have to defend herself wherever the claimant chooses (possibly even the US), with no actual object should a court decide she has to produce it. How can the court tell her to produce it if she obviously doesn't have it? She…

[deleted]

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#93

Post by coffeecheque »

Ansil849 wrote: post #38
anitil wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I recommend a podcast called 'Stuff the British Stole' by Marc Fenell (aka 'That Movie ... Guy'). It looks at exactly this, including situations where an artefact only exists _because_ it was stolen. http://www.marcfennell.com/stolen (Sorry I couldn't find the RSS feed)

Quoted post unavailable.

Have a listen to the episode. It's called "Shots Fired" and looks at the history of the Gweagal shield.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit...

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#94

Post by coffeecheque »

anitil wrote: post #32
Ansil849 wrote: post #30

> 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...

Can I recommend a podcast called 'Stuff the British Stole' by Marc Fenell (aka 'That Movie ... Guy'). It looks at exactly this, including situations where an artefact only exists _because_ it was stolen. http://www.marcfennell.com/stolen (Sorry I couldn't find the RSS feed)

Links:

PODCAST MAIN PAGE: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit...

RSS FEED: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit...

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#95

Post by Ansil849 »

dumpsterdiver wrote: post #77
Ansil849 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? 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'…

> Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago?

Yes. Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. Try personalizing this to see if it resonates. There's a quilt that has been in your family for centuries, with each family member adding a patch. At some point, your house is burglarized and the quilt is taken. Hundreds of years later, the quilt is around the world, being seen by people who have absolutely no connection to it, meanwhile your great^n children no longer have access to this piece of their cultural heritage.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#96

Post by stormbrew »

anitil wrote: post #32
Ansil849 wrote: post #30

> 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...

Can I recommend a podcast called 'Stuff the British Stole' by Marc Fenell (aka 'That Movie ... Guy'). It looks at exactly this, including situations where an artefact only exists _because_ it was stolen. http://www.marcfennell.com/stolen (Sorry I couldn't find the RSS feed)

The issue of "this is a convenient thing to think if you want to feel less bad about stuff being stolen" aside, it's worth considering that a world in which these things weren't stolen might also be a world where colonialism didn't run rampant throughout the world and the "destruction" they were saved from may have been a consequence of that colonialism.

Anyways, I think to some extent our civilization is descending into a kind of mass packrat disorder. We seem to fetishize preservation to an unhealthy degree on both small and large scales. Sometimes things break, are burnt down, or are left unmaintained until they die. But new things are created all the time, and maybe sometimes we get a little too stuck on the old stuff and don't acknowledge the new.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#97

Post by robonerd »

Ansil849 wrote: post #95
dumpsterdiver wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? 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'…

> Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Yes. Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. Try personalizing this to see if it resonates. There's a quilt that has been in your family for centuries, with each family member adding a patch. At some point, your house is burglarized and the quilt is taken. Hundreds of ye…

> Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it.

My enjoyment itself is what does that? What if viewing the artifact bores me to tears? No moral crime then?

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#98

Post by stormbrew »

Ansil849 wrote: post #95
dumpsterdiver wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? 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'…

> Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Yes. Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. Try personalizing this to see if it resonates. There's a quilt that has been in your family for centuries, with each family member adding a patch. At some point, your house is burglarized and the quilt is taken. Hundreds of ye…

And for that matter, if the people it was stolen from decided it wasn't worth preserving who are you to decide they're wrong? It's the height of colonial arrogance to assume we know better, that we can value the works of other cultures better than they can. That our enjoyment is more important than their history and self-determination.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#99

Post by freetime2 »

phil21 wrote: post #18
paulcole wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the hiring a lawyer thing is mind boggling. If that’s the only option, then just donate the stupid head back to Goodwill and be done with it. Goodwill even says they don’t keep records about who makes donations!

Why is it mind boggling? I'd hire a lawyer instantly if I became aware I was in possession of stolen war loot. It's a war crime, and things can get quite iffy really quickly - especially if somehow it goes viral. Much better to just CYA and spend $500 on a lawyer so you ensure you don't go to prison or be held liable for something silly. Call it a hard lesson I've learned multiple times over throughout my life. When…

> So she hired a lawyer in New York who specializes in international art law, Leila Amineddoleh.

> Negotiations began. It was complicated. It takes a long time to figure out all this stuff — even in the best of times. But the pandemic complicated things even further.

The article doesn't say what the legal fees were, but based on this description I could imagine scenarios where they were well in excess of $500.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#100

Post by nitrogen »

Ansil849 wrote: post #73
umvi wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's interesting that you refer to the thieves as 'ancestors', but yet refer to those who were stolen from only in terms of "country", which then conveniently allows you to dismiss restitution based on a technicality ('the country doesn't exist anymore). Do the people who had their possession stolen not have existing ancestors too?

Several years ago someone stole my former startup's first hardware prototype, along with a bunch of other stuff. In 300 years, should my descendents have a right to claim restitution from the descendents of whoever stole my things?

Do children inherit the sins of their parents?

Post reply on HN