251–260 of 281 posts
Back at home, Young had a problem: 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. “At that point, I realized I was probably going to need some help,” Young says. “I was probably going to need an attorney.” So she hired a lawyer in New York who specializes in international art law, Leila Amin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Declaring war? not a war crime >Making a plan for war? not a war crime >Deportation? war crime. >Blowing stuff up? depends on what you blow up. >Stealing art? war crime.
> Declaring war? > Making a plan for war? These two are, on the stipulation that it's a war of aggression and not a defensive one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I doubt the Germans paid anybody when they took it from Italy. Why? The museum was not built by nazis.
germans were invading and pillaging a long time before Nazi's came to power and that is not unique to Germany - think Napoleon, so it is more likely than not that it was simply stolen, perhaps repeatedly over a couple thousand years.
Ludwig I of Bavaria never invaded Italy but he did frequently travel there for pleasure, and was known for purchasing antiquities and art.
> so it is more likely than not that it was simply stolen
You really have little rational basis for this belief. Could it have been stolen? Sure, maybe by Ludwig or maybe by whichever Italian sold it to Ludwig, or maybe by the great-great-great-great-grandfather of whoever sold it to Ludwig. But "more likely than not" stolen by Ludwig? Such confidence is merely a reflection of your biases.
The Germans don't really have any more right to it than she does. The most likely story of this bust is from the 5th century until the 18th or 19th centuries, it was buried in the ground somewhere in Italy or former Roman empire. The person who dug it up and sold it didn't really have an inherent right to it. They just found it. I say all this not from a legal perspective but from an inheritors of history and culture…
> The person who dug it up and sold it didn't really have an inherent right to it. They just found it. I don't get it. Why wouldn't a person who found it have a right to it?
I'd assume other European countries have similar laws and processes.
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 art was looted far before it ever came into that museum's possession.
Here are some things you could know, if you bothered to read up on the matter: Ludwig I never invaded Italy, never sacked Rome, but did visit Italy as was the fashion of anybody in Europe who had the means to do so. He is known to have purchased numerous artifacts and works of art from wealthy Italian collectors and dealers, which might include this bust.
Back at home, Young had a problem: 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. “At that point, I realized I was probably going to need some help,” Young says. “I was probably going to need an attorney.” So she hired a lawyer in New York who specializes in international art law, Leila Amin…
"I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand international law, but despite that (lack of) knowledge I'm going to assume to assume this person was trying to do a bad thing"
But supposing she was looking for a payout in this instance, is it fair to characterize looking for a payout as "trying to do a bad thing"? I don't think so, no. She may well have been within her legal rights to seek a payout. It seems safe to presume she had at least some legal right to the bust, since the deal she came to with the German museum was not simply return it immediately.
The article claims "Young had a problem: She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. She couldn't sell it." But the article doesn't directly quote her saying this. It's conceivable she felt she was morally or ethically obliged to return it. Or maybe she incorrectly believed she was legally obliged to return it, and learned differently only after hiring the lawyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You generaly loot from occupied territories, not from peer nations. If Britain invades and occupies Egypt, and starts digging up artifacts that end up on a British museum, that's looting. If some Frenchman digs up some artifacts in France, and then sells/trades/gives them to a British museum, that's not looting. Because the sale/trade/gift is not done at gunpoint. In this case, if the artifact was not plundered from…
> If some Frenchman digs up some artifacts in France, and then sells/trades/gives them to a British museum, that's not looting According to French law, it is both looting and traficking ;) We have a different approach to it than the British.
Back at home, Young had a problem: 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. “At that point, I realized I was probably going to need some help,” Young says. “I was probably going to need an attorney.” So she hired a lawyer in New York who specializes in international art law, Leila Amin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sculpture is of a man named Drusus Germanicus. What do you think "Germanicus" means?
If the statue is the Drusus Germanicus I think it is, he was a Roman general and politician who earned the agnomen Germanicus for leading successful military campaigns in Germania. See also: Scipio Africanus; he got that name for conquering Carthage.
Romans were notorious for reusing names.
Even if it were the famous one, he was, in fact, in Germany, yes?
Back at home, Young had a problem: 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. “At that point, I realized I was probably going to need some help,” Young says. “I was probably going to need an attorney.” So she hired a lawyer in New York who specializes in international art law, Leila Amin…