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

111–120 of 281 posts

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

#111

Post by Ansil849 »

teawrecks wrote: post #90
Ansil849 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one said it "justified" the theft. Nor did I say that anyone said that it "justified" the theft. What I said was that that line of argumentation "sounds like an a posteriori justification for stealing".

So to sum it up this exchange: Person1: A You: This sounds like B, which is fallacious. Person2: A You: Again...this sounds like B, which is fallacious. Me: No one is claiming B You: I never said anyone claimed B. I said this sounds like B. Sound about right?

> Sound about right?

Yup, with the added bit:

If you're not claiming that A is like B, then what's the point of you bringing up A to the discussion, at all?

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

#112

Post by renewiltord »

Ansil849 wrote: post #30

> She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. I don't understand. Museums in the West are full of looted ancient art [1]. Why are they allowed to keep it, but this woman cannot keep this one item? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/learning/should-museums-r...

The principle is quite old: its incarnation for normal individuals is called the “statute of limitations”.

This is true for many things: homes which people own taken from Japanese-Americans, wage theft discovered too late,…

If you only care about your children and you have an effective means of transmitting wealth gotten through evil means, you merely have to forgo the benefit yourself.

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

nitrogen wrote: post #100
Ansil849 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that you refer to the thieves as 'ancestors', but yet refer to those who were stolen from only in terms of "country", which then conveniently allows you to dismiss restitution based on a technicality ('the country doesn't exist anymore). Do the people who had their possession stolen not have existing ancestors too?

Several years ago someone stole my former startup's first hardware prototype, along with a bunch of other stuff. In 300 years, should my descendents have a right to claim restitution from the descendents of whoever stole my things? Do children inherit the sins of their parents?

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by jeromegv »

nitrogen wrote: post #100
Ansil849 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that you refer to the thieves as 'ancestors', but yet refer to those who were stolen from only in terms of "country", which then conveniently allows you to dismiss restitution based on a technicality ('the country doesn't exist anymore). Do the people who had their possession stolen not have existing ancestors too?

Several years ago someone stole my former startup's first hardware prototype, along with a bunch of other stuff. In 300 years, should my descendents have a right to claim restitution from the descendents of whoever stole my things? Do children inherit the sins of their parents?

Some pieces of art can be strongly tied to the history or culture of a nation/group. Is that really morally objectionable to give that back to the people that still strongly identify with it?

And using your bad example. If someone 300 years from now had an item of little sentimental value to them, but meant the world to another family that has a strong history tied with that company, wouldn’t you say that the moral thing is to give it to people that care about the object?

It’s not always about the law and giving legal responsibilities. It’s just about doing the decent and moral thing.

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

#115

Post by Turing_Machine »

jandrese wrote: post #110
Turing_Machine wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sculpture is of a man named Drusus Germanicus. What do you think "Germanicus" means?

It means he has an awfully Italian sounding name.

And? My FIL has an "Italian sounding name", but he's never been within 3,000 miles of Italy.

The Roman Empire covered a lot of territory.

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

#116

Post by stormbrew »

Ansil849 wrote: post #106
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 .

> if the people it was stolen from decided it wasn't worth preserving who are you to decide they're wrong? Huh? Where did I "decide they're wrong"? In this hypothetical you're concocting, you're saying someone "looted" something from someone's trash? That's not what looting typically means. Looting typically means taking things the people from whom they were taken from deemed valuable.

I'm agreeing with you ("and for that matter..." as in "yes, and..."). The 'you' is general, to the people arguing that enjoying the thing in the museum is a morally neutral thing, and I'm bringing it back to the broader topic where we're talking about looted goods.

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

#117

Post by onetimeusename »

Ansil849 wrote: post #63
MomoXenosaga wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Not committing theft, or returning shit you stole, is considered "woke" now?

It's because the demand for items being returned only goes in one direction which supports what can only be described as 'woke' beneficiaries of the pieces. It's also not clear who properly owns what or why but it suits a narrative.

For example, do the people who think art taken during the colonial era from Asia and brought to France or England should be returned also think that art taken from the Catholic Church should be returned to the Catholic Church? Probably not. Has this happened? Yes, absolutely.

In any event morally unscrupulous rich people in other parts of the world may have no problem buying or stealing these items once they have left western museums where they may disappear forever.

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

#118

Post by renewiltord »

nitrogen wrote: post #100
Ansil849 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that you refer to the thieves as 'ancestors', but yet refer to those who were stolen from only in terms of "country", which then conveniently allows you to dismiss restitution based on a technicality ('the country doesn't exist anymore). Do the people who had their possession stolen not have existing ancestors too?

Several years ago someone stole my former startup's first hardware prototype, along with a bunch of other stuff. In 300 years, should my descendents have a right to claim restitution from the descendents of whoever stole my things? Do children inherit the sins of their parents?

This one is hard to me. For instance, it’s obvious to me that you can’t pay interest on this thing but if it were an actual thing, surely one should give it back.

I mean, if I took a gold bar stamped with your name and authentically yours from you and decades pass and your son meets my son and my son shows off his gold bar, does your son not have a right to that bar?

Seems like straightforward theft. Intellectual property and imputed losses are hard but an item that is still itself? It feels different.

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

#119

Post by joshuaheard »

Ansil849 wrote: post #30

> She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. I don't understand. Museums in the West are full of looted ancient art [1]. Why are they allowed to keep it, but this woman cannot keep this one item? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/learning/should-museums-r...

The Louvre is basically all looted art from Napolean's wars.

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

#120

Post by dumpsterdiver »

Ansil849 wrote: post #95
dumpsterdiver wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? Why should anything beyond facile acknowledgement be expected from the average person when it comes to appreciating artifacts that still exist on our planet? Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Are people "justifying" that crime that happened before they were born, because they'…

> Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Yes. Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. Try personalizing this to see if it resonates. There's a quilt that has been in your family for centuries, with each family member adding a patch. At some point, your house is burglarized and the quilt is taken. Hundreds of ye…

> Yes. Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. Try personalizing this to see if it resonates. There's a quilt that has been in your family for centuries, with each family member adding a patch. At some point, your house is burglarized and the quilt is taken.

If my house was burglarized and a family quilt ended up in a museum after it was stolen, I certainly wouldn't blame the patrons of that museum for looking at it. My grievance would be with the current custodian of the quilt.

It's reasonable to expect stolen property to be returned. It's not reasonable to expect people to know the history of every piece of property they look at in order to determine if it was stolen or not.

Post reply on HN