141–150 of 281 posts
> 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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting a payout seems fair. I doubt the Germans paid anybody when they took it from Italy.
Like all of Europa, Germany and Italy have thousands of years of history together. You are using nationalist terminology that is not even 200 years old to try to grasp 2000 years of history. At the time king Ludwig I of Bavaria acquired that bust, the nation you identify as "Italy" didn't yet exist. And that was in the early modern. For most of the medieval age, the small territories that today are within southern ge…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The article wasn't written by her, that isn't a statement from her. That is the journalist's statement, Matt Largey. It may or may not be completely accurate. What does "couldn't keep it" mean anyway? That she felt morally obliged to return it? Or legally obliged? The article doesn't say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Kids these days. If they’re not addicted to novelty and the social media algorithm, they’re freebasing historical preservation. I’m honestly not sure how you square the circle between obviously consumerist trends like fast fashion and mass-produced “collectibles” with fetishization of preservation and franchise-based popular culture. It kind of seems like different people like different stuff? Of course if you’re tal…
But really I'm talking about broader social trends and what we do at the society level. Yes, architecture. Mustn't tear down that building that no one has been able to live in for 20 years, it's sacred. But also relics, ideas, monuments to even monumentally stupid and awful things, etc.
> 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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The German people stole it from someone else so why does it matter
The sculpture is of a man named Drusus Germanicus. What do you think "Germanicus" means?
See also: Scipio Africanus; he got that name for conquering Carthage.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask them to pick it up.
So maybe she emails the museum and says "pick it up." And then a week later a guy shows up on her doorstep and says "I'm here to pick it up." How does she know the guy really works for the museum and is not some criminal who hacked into her email? She's never met him, and he's not going to be carrying an FBI badge after all. If she gives the bust to the wrong guy, maybe the museum sues her because it was their proper…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The article wasn't written by her, that isn't a statement from her. That is the journalist's statement, Matt Largey. It may or may not be completely accurate. What does "couldn't keep it" mean anyway? That she felt morally obliged to return it? Or legally obliged? The article doesn't say.
Everyone here is discussing the situation, given the story reported. What else do we, armchair critics, have to go on?