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

261–270 of 281 posts

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

#261

Post by robonerd »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #259
robonerd wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It didn't look like the famous one, at least to me. Romans were notorious for reusing names. Even if it were the famous one, he was, in fact, in Germany, yes?

> It didn't look like the famous one, at least to me.

You're not alone in thinking that. The article says the sculpture might actually be Pompey, not Drusus Germanicus. Evidently there's no name written on it, so it was probably catalogued as Drusus Germanicus because somebody thought it looked like the Drusus Germanicus, but they may well have been wrong.

> Even if it were the famous one, he was, in fact, in Germany, yes?

He certainly was. As far as I'm concerned, Germany is a perfectly fitting place for a sculpture of Drusus Germanicus.

My main point here is you can't assume a Roman was from the place they were named after. They might have been, or might not have been. Generally speaking, it's not even a given that a person named Germanicus was ever in Germania nor had any ancestry from Germania. The son of Drusus Germanicus was the Germanicus, the most famous Germanicus. The Germanicus to whom you can refer with the name Germanicus alone. The Germanicus inherited that name from his father Drusus. Complicating the matter, the Germanicus then went on to lead numerous military campaigns in Germania as his father did before him, but he already had the name Germanicus as a child, inherited from his father Drusus. There are actually a whole slew of Romans with the name Germanicus and many of them likely never set foot in Germania. Emperor Claudius (brother of the Germanicus and son of Drusus Germanicus) had the name Germanicus as well, but he was probably never in Germania. Nero and Caligula were also named Germanicus. A ton of Romans were.

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

#262

Post by robonerd »

m463 wrote: post #195

But how did the german museum get it?

The article doesn't say and I haven't been able to find any information about that online. However it seems likely that it was purchased in Italy by Ludwig I of Bavaria, sometime in the early 19th century. Ludwig I made the museum in 1840, and was known for buying art and antiquities in Italy.

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

#263

Post by robonerd »

DuckyC wrote: post #244
ginko wrote: post #223

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.

Deportation is a war crime?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

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

#264

Post by dreamcompiler »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #199
dreamcompiler wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If my email's hacked I have much bigger worries than a fake delivery pickup. That's a real stretch of a scenario.

I disagree that this scenario is far-fetched:

https://archive.ph/prAfe

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

#265

Post by stormbrew »

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #182
stormbrew wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

I have a hard time categorizing ISIS destroying thousands of years old ruins and artefacts as “self-determination”. If I had the choice between stealing these artefacts and putting them in a museum versus letting a radical group of religious fundamentalists destroy a valuable part of ancient history I would chose the former.

You can have a hard time categorizing it all you want, that's still what it is. People making choices and doing things that have consequences.

You just don't like it, and that's fine. I can't say I really like it either. But it doesn't mean it's your job to fix it or that you have a right to just take the things preemptively. Continuing to perpetuate colonial abuse is not going to somehow Magically Fix Everything This Time For Sure, it's just going to keep making things worse.

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

#266

Post by stormbrew »

bawolff wrote: post #158
stormbrew wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

What's the actual harm here? If one group doesn't want something and another group finds the item interesting, who is hurt by the second group valuing it? If nobody is hurt, then where is the sin?

the harm is that usually the decision about whether the "one group" wanted it was made by the "another group", probably without actually consulting with anyone in the first group.

And you know what, maybe they don't in the moment. But essentially none of these things ever get repatriated even when the people they came from explicitly say they want them back. And you can see the logic that justifies this ongoing theft all over this comment thread: "the people who stole it are dead so it's ours now."

This is the problem with all of these after-the-fact justifications. In order for them to exist, the things have to have been taken before the destruction. If I steal your TV and then your house burns down, have I "saved" your TV even though I still won't give it back? Am I now in the moral right?

These small analogies are obviously not perfect, but I think they illustrate the order of causality when we talk about "harm".

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

#267

Post by heleninboodler »

paulcole wrote: post #234
heleninboodler wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is that she placed a high value on trying to get an ancient piece of art back to its rightful owner without falling afoul of any laws governing possession of stolen art, and that hiring a lawyer is a pretty good way to deal with that situation. She could have saved herself a lot of trouble by chucking it in a lake, but something tells me that wouldn't have been a satisfying outcome to her. Everything humans…

Yeah, I guess I just don’t get placing a higher value on this thing than whoever it belonged to. If they want it back, just come get it. If I have to get a lawyer involved and beg them to take it off my hands, seems like they don’t really give a shit so why should I?

> I have to get a lawyer involved and beg them to take it off my hands

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from. I'm sure there were plenty of people willing to take it off her hands. The lawyer is there to help that happen in a legal way.

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

#268

Post by paulcole »

heleninboodler wrote: post #267
paulcole wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I guess I just don’t get placing a higher value on this thing than whoever it belonged to. If they want it back, just come get it. If I have to get a lawyer involved and beg them to take it off my hands, seems like they don’t really give a shit so why should I?

> I have to get a lawyer involved and beg them to take it off my hands I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from. I'm sure there were plenty of people willing to take it off her hands. The lawyer is there to help that happen in a legal way.

From rereading the article, it’s pretty clear that she got paid off. Sounds like that’s what the lawyer was for.

Because if I just want to be rid of the thing, I don’t need a JD to fire off an email that says, “Hey, I’ve got this thing. If somebody wants it, figure it out and let me know, otherwise it’s in the attic.”

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

#269

Post by TheCoelacanth »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #211
causality0 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting a payout seems fair. I doubt the Germans paid anybody when they took it from Italy.

You're assuming it was taken by force. What if... it was bought from an Italian goodwill in the 1800's?

The "King" in front of his name definitely proves that either it or the wealth that was used to acquire it was ill-gotten. All power and wealth of royalty was taken by force.

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

#270

Post by kbelder »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #269
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming it was taken by force. What if... it was bought from an Italian goodwill in the 1800's?

The "King" in front of his name definitely proves that either it or the wealth that was used to acquire it was ill-gotten. All power and wealth of royalty was taken by force.

By force, true, but not necessarily illegally.
Post reply on HN