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

Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

library.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#41

Post by plugin-baby »

xattt wrote: post #16
542458 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hazard a guess that the remains of a mummy still present interesting research opportunities, whereas the skin here is just skin, and there’s no real value in keeping it around other than the sensational. IIRC last time I was at the Museum of History in Ottawa they had noted that many of the indigenous artifacts on display are replicas - for many artifacts where they felt everything that they could learn had b…

A physician binding a book in the skin of his patient seems like a sick psychopathic power move. This is similar to the recent case of a surgeon who branded a transplanted liver with his initials. The removal of the skin binding is symbolic, and is a small initiative in the gestalt of righting historical wrongs and creating a just society.

> This is similar to the recent case of a surgeon who branded a transplanted liver with his initials.

It’s not that similar, is it? Most people would object to the doctor flaying grandma, but there are interviews with that surgeon’s former transplant patients who don’t seem too bothered they may have been branded.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#42

Post by stared »

bxksnche wrote: post #27

We are talking about human remains here. If this was the skin of your grandmother’s grandmother, how would your grandmother feel about it being used a hazing ritual? Using the balance of probabilities it is likely that the unidentified person’s family would not want that to happen and is likely they would want their grandmother back. This being a woman is only relevant because, in that era it was more likely to be a…

So, the solution is to remove it from public access so it cannot be used in disrespectful practices. Not to destroy the artifact. Especially not by a university or any institution supposedly preserving knowledge and culture. (And yes, most of human history is nasty.)

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#43

Post by devnullbrain »

torstenvl wrote: post #12

Absolutely indefensible position. Destroying artifacts and evidence of the past simply because we don't agree with what happened in the past is a vile sin that our descendants will never forgive us for.

As a Marine, you are probably aware Marines assisted the toppling of the famous Saddam Hussein statue?

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#45

Post by chabes »

torstenvl wrote: post #40
isodev wrote: post #39

I don't understand some of the comments wanting to preserve "history". If you read the post you will find that it was the book's first owner who decided to alter the book and it's not the original work. So what's your point, we should glorify some sick mind who thought it was a good idea to take and use human remains to decorate his library? Removing the binding from the book was the right decision. Returning the vic…

Don't make personal attacks on HN. If you have an argument, feel free to voice it, even strenuously, but it's considered gauche here to address people who disagree with you directly and comment on them or their personal motives.

How is the parent comment a “personal attack”?

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#47

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #6
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #2

Fascinating stuff. While I can understand the decision and defend it, how is it really any different from making mummies 'properly' buried according to our current rituals?

Were mummies not usually aware of, and presumably consented, to mummification before death? And then there’s the angle of sparing library staff from handling the human skin.

I am not an Egypt buff, but that contradicts my understanding of that civilization so I apologize in advance if that is not accurate.

Some pharaohs took their slaves to the other sides and as I understand, those slaves were mummified to travel to the next world.

As for the anguish, is it any different really than holding any other significant artifact with a story behind it ( executioner's sword, kingdom's crown that changed hands often )? Is the issue that skin is just too visceral and it was easier for university to 'remove skin' than hire less squeamish help?

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#48

Post by mc32 »

isodev wrote: post #39

I don't understand some of the comments wanting to preserve "history". If you read the post you will find that it was the book's first owner who decided to alter the book and it's not the original work. So what's your point, we should glorify some sick mind who thought it was a good idea to take and use human remains to decorate his library? Removing the binding from the book was the right decision. Returning the vic…

I'm willing to bet that if the skin weren't from a random hospital patient but instead of one of France's ex-colonies' subjects, the move to remove this binding from the book would be met more positively --but because it's an anonymous patient, they can't connect to, it's more acceptable.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#50

Post by Bognar »

torstenvl wrote: post #40
isodev wrote: post #39

I don't understand some of the comments wanting to preserve "history". If you read the post you will find that it was the book's first owner who decided to alter the book and it's not the original work. So what's your point, we should glorify some sick mind who thought it was a good idea to take and use human remains to decorate his library? Removing the binding from the book was the right decision. Returning the vic…

Don't make personal attacks on HN. If you have an argument, feel free to voice it, even strenuously, but it's considered gauche here to address people who disagree with you directly and comment on them or their personal motives.

Who is being personally attacked? The first owner who decided to flay a human corpse and wrap their personal items with it? I think "sick" is an appropriate adjective.
Post reply on HN