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

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#91

Post by mablopoule »

ethbr1 wrote: post #81
mablopoule wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 The tradeoff is that we have two potential futures here: Option A: Someone's skin non-consensually remains used as the cover of a book. Option B: Someone's skin is returned to their family or buried, and the book is re-covered. What is the benefit of Option A?

The binding of the book is part of it's value.

It's an almost 150-old piece of skin. Everyone who interacted with that poor woman is long since dead. Everyone who interacted with someone who interacted with that woman is either dead or in mid-to-late 70s, that's how far this is. I would be surprised if there was a 'family' who waited for this moment, and who would ask anything else than just to cremate the piece of skin.

I'm parisian, and part of my family is in the region for a long time, and yet it's not like I'm mourning every day because potentially some ancestor's tibia is being used as decoration in the catacombe.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#92

Post by almatabata »

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…

Would you say the same thing about items donated to holocaust museums? (https://www.timesofisrael.com/researchers-find-nazi-photo-al...)

It is well known that the Nazis created items like lamps, books and other items from human remains. Should all of them be buried? Or should we keep them in museums to remember the crimes?

I can see the justification for both sides, but I personally would prefer for the items to be preserved.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#93

Post by uaserussia »

notnaut wrote: post #66
mjburgess wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you feel if after a century of your skin being on a book, that was then 'disposed of'? This 'disposing' isnt being consented to either. Why should it be that non-consentual creation is a sin, but not non-consentual destruction?

“Disposed of” is what we do with corpses usually. Society tends to put quite a lot of weight on doing it the right way. If your home town was invaded tonight, everyone you know and love there killed, and their skin used to upholster the president’s favorite recliner, would that make their remains an artifact now? What more is there to learn in keeping a corpse unburied in this case?

[dead]

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#94

Post by ethbr1 »

mablopoule wrote: post #91
ethbr1 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 The tradeoff is that we have two potential futures here: Option A: Someone's skin non-consensually remains used as the cover of a book. Option B: Someone's skin is returned to their family or buried, and the book is re-covered. What is the benefit of Option A?

The binding of the book is part of it's value. It's an almost 150-old piece of skin. Everyone who interacted with that poor woman is long since dead. Everyone who interacted with someone who interacted with that woman is either dead or in mid-to-late 70s, that's how far this is. I would be surprised if there was a 'family' who waited for this moment, and who would ask anything else than just to cremate the piece of s…

It's balancing the value (of a human skin book cover) about substitution (a book cover of any other material).

It's not that human skin is being used for a purpose: it's that the purpose is trivial and provides no benefit above substitution.

The analogy would be if your great-great-grandfather's tibia were being used to hold a door open.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#95

Post by mablopoule »

ethbr1 wrote: post #94
mablopoule wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The binding of the book is part of it's value. It's an almost 150-old piece of skin. Everyone who interacted with that poor woman is long since dead. Everyone who interacted with someone who interacted with that woman is either dead or in mid-to-late 70s, that's how far this is. I would be surprised if there was a 'family' who waited for this moment, and who would ask anything else than just to cremate the piece of s…

It's balancing the value (of a human skin book cover) about substitution (a book cover of any other material). It's not that human skin is being used for a purpose: it's that the purpose is trivial and provides no benefit above substitution. The analogy would be if your great-great-grandfather's tibia were being used to hold a door open.

Well at least I would brag that I have a great-great-grandfather at Harvard :D.

Joke aside, I see your point.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#96

Post by scoofy »

I honestly think the reason why these stories get press is that we all get to have an opinion, but it ultimately doesn’t matter.

It’s a historical artifact. The change adds a historical significance. The symbolic value is minimal vs the information.

It’s a book.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#97

Post by torstenvl »

devnullbrain wrote: post #43
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?

And you are probably aware that Saddam was alive and had just been deposed at that time. It wasn't the past, nor was it an artifact. It wasn't in a museum or a library's special collection. And the Marines didn't destroy it (though the Iraqis appear to have).

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#98

Post by torstenvl »

astura wrote: post #57
torstenvl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Expressing an opinion you disagree with isn't a "personal attack."

"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?"

Impugning the motives of people you disagree with is a personal attack, and it's unacceptable behavior.

Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book

#99

Post by ethbr1 »

mablopoule wrote: post #95
ethbr1 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's balancing the value (of a human skin book cover) about substitution (a book cover of any other material). It's not that human skin is being used for a purpose: it's that the purpose is trivial and provides no benefit above substitution. The analogy would be if your great-great-grandfather's tibia were being used to hold a door open.

Well at least I would brag that I have a great-great-grandfather at Harvard :D. Joke aside, I see your point.

The one detail I was unable to find was "What is the book about?"

Ironically, I think I'd be okay with my skin adorning an anatomy textbook!

Post reply on HN