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

71–80 of 107 posts

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#71

Post by stetrain »

mablopoule wrote: post #60
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…

Because it's a fundamentally historicidal act, it's destroying some past artifact solely on the ground of contemporary morality. While not on the same level as, it's the same though process that leads to the destruction of budda statues by the talibans, or the sanding of 13-century religious engravelling by french revolutionary.

But there is some distinction in the world between things we treat as historical artifacts and those we don't.

I haven't seen anyone make a compelling case for why this particular item is a significant historical artifact, other than that it was already in the collection of Harvard Library.

We pass up things that could be preserved all the time. Curation is an intrinsic part of preservation.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#72

Post by dbingham »

mablopoule wrote: post #60
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…

Because it's a fundamentally historicidal act, it's destroying some past artifact solely on the ground of contemporary morality. While not on the same level as, it's the same though process that leads to the destruction of budda statues by the talibans, or the sanding of 13-century religious engravelling by french revolutionary.

No, it's not. This was against contemporary morality in the society in which it was done as well.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#73

Post by wrsh07 »

wrsh07 wrote: post #65

Certainly one of the stranger parts (to me) of visiting old Catholic churches is seeing the reliquaries [1]. Since I'm an atheist, I don't really have particularly strong feelings about what happens after I die (ideally: reasonably green, so composting seems better than cremation). And yet, it is weird to imagine my doctor or mortician taking some part of my body for their personal collection (imagine a tooth or fing…

While we're discussing flaying and I'm discussing catholicism, you all should look at the St Bartholomew statue: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_d%27Agrate

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#74

Post by mc32 »

isodev wrote: post #69
mc32 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Numerous Holocaust museums and memorials are scattered across Europe, including former concentration camps, where high school students and adults visit to remember—and hopefully never forget—the lessons humanity learned during that period. It's a soul-crushing experience that offers both small and large lessons, which should suffice to help people distinguish between right and wrong (and dispel any doubt that the boo…

Aren't you implicitly acknowledging this is violent in some way? Of course not at the level you're brining up, but given the comparison, it would seem you're implying some wrong where keeping this is a reminder of the wrong done to an anonymous patient by a doctor?

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#76

Post by astura »

mablopoule wrote: post #60
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…

Because it's a fundamentally historicidal act, it's destroying some past artifact solely on the ground of contemporary morality. While not on the same level as, it's the same though process that leads to the destruction of budda statues by the talibans, or the sanding of 13-century religious engravelling by french revolutionary.

>it's the same though process that leads to the destruction of budda statues by the talibans

I disagree with this. The thought process is "return stolen items" not "destroy stolen items."

Harvard doesn't believe it owns the human remains because they were taken without consent (stolen) and wants to return them to the next of kin. This happened recently enough that there's a good chance there's close-ish relatives still living.

If the remains were donated willingly for bookbinding it would not be a problem.

So what's happening is Harvard is removing part of the book that it believes it doesn't rightfully own (and aren't even original to it!) and are trying returning that part to its rightful owner. They are rebinding the book, not destroying it.

>After careful study, stakeholder engagement, and consideration, Harvard Library and the Harvard Museum Collections Returns Committee concluded that the human remains used in the book’s binding no longer belong in the Harvard Library collections, due to the ethically fraught nature of the book’s origins and subsequent history. The Library is now in the process of conducting additional provenance and biographical research into the book, Bouland, and the anonymous female patient, as well as consulting with appropriate authorities at the University and in France to determine a final respectful disposition of these human remains.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#77

Post by isodev »

mc32 wrote: post #74
isodev wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Numerous Holocaust museums and memorials are scattered across Europe, including former concentration camps, where high school students and adults visit to remember—and hopefully never forget—the lessons humanity learned during that period. It's a soul-crushing experience that offers both small and large lessons, which should suffice to help people distinguish between right and wrong (and dispel any doubt that the boo…

Aren't you implicitly acknowledging this is violent in some way? Of course not at the level you're brining up, but given the comparison, it would seem you're implying some wrong where keeping this is a reminder of the wrong done to an anonymous patient by a doctor?

I think we can have the reminder without the binding actually hanging there?

I don't know if was violent, it's not what I was trying to imply. In my mind it resonates with "this was a person and someone decided to use them for decoration". Knowing this happened is enough to take the appropriate action, there is no harm in documenting all this, of course.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#78

Post by mablopoule »

stetrain wrote: post #71
mablopoule wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's a fundamentally historicidal act, it's destroying some past artifact solely on the ground of contemporary morality. While not on the same level as, it's the same though process that leads to the destruction of budda statues by the talibans, or the sanding of 13-century religious engravelling by french revolutionary.

But there is some distinction in the world between things we treat as historical artifacts and those we don't. I haven't seen anyone make a compelling case for why this particular item is a significant historical artifact, other than that it was already in the collection of Harvard Library. We pass up things that could be preserved all the time. Curation is an intrinsic part of preservation.

Well, if it's not a significant item, does it need to be changed in the first place, then?

I agree though about passing things that could be preserved, but it usually involves a tradeoff, when things are too costly to maintain, or old building needs to give place for new one. Even museums aren't the place for a collective diogen syndrom.

The slightly heinous thing about this case though is that no tradeoff at all seemed to be involved for this book, no cost of preservation was cited, it's just modifying the past on the lights of very temporal values.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#79

Post by stared »

devnullbrain wrote: post #49
stared wrote: post #10

By this reasoning, we should destroy all buildings that were constructed with slave labor; and all jewelry with gems acquired by similar means.

That's not actually the reasoning given in TFA.

It is a corollary.

Still, if the human remains are an issue, well - in numerous ritual burials of rulers, there are remains of servants or concubines. In most cases, we can assume it was not consensual.

In this case - should we cremate (or otherwise destroy, according to our contemporary customs) these human remains?

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#80

Post by yowzadave »

mablopoule wrote: post #78
stetrain wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is some distinction in the world between things we treat as historical artifacts and those we don't. I haven't seen anyone make a compelling case for why this particular item is a significant historical artifact, other than that it was already in the collection of Harvard Library. We pass up things that could be preserved all the time. Curation is an intrinsic part of preservation.

Well, if it's not a significant item, does it need to be changed in the first place, then? I agree though about passing things that could be preserved, but it usually involves a tradeoff, when things are too costly to maintain, or old building needs to give place for new one. Even museums aren't the place for a collective diogen syndrom. The slightly heinous thing about this case though is that no tradeoff at all see…

> it's just modifying the past

I'm not sure what you mean by this; obviously the "history" of the book is known and not being suppressed. Nobody is denying the origin of the book; if it had been a significant historical artifact, I'm sure the judgment would have been different. "You're destroying history!" is a common refrain when Jim Crow-era statues commemorating confederate generals are removed, or when, e.g., the name of a military base is changed. This does not mean that history is being destroyed! Anyone is still welcome to learn anything they want about these historical figures & events.

Post reply on HN