21–28 of 28 posts
The contents of the letter: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-02-02-07...
>I am My Dear Marquis with the truest affection Yr. Most Obedt What does Obedt mean here? Was Hamilton really literally a servant?
Note to self: don't steal stuff that will still be scorching hot 80 years later. Except kisses.
...dude if you ever get accused of some form of sexual assault or gender discrimination, you know this will probably be a part of the evidence. And on the other hand: that’s gross.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure that a lot of suitably ancient theft is shrugged off—I guess even that suitably ancient theft eventually becomes synonymous with possession—but the example of the Elgin marbles ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles ) shows that it's not always so.
A lot of these pieces, including the Elgin Marbles, weren't part of an ancient theft. Many of them weren't stolen until the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries. For example, the UK has also refused to return certain pieces of artwork that the Nazis stole from Holocaust victims. That theft occurred at roughly the same time this letter was stolen.
I'll grant that it's getting into terminological quibbles, but I'd call the 18th century (or the early 19th, as for the Elgin marbles) probably about as ancient as a theft can be while still allowing us to have some reasonable idea of who the 'true' owners are. Farther back than that, I imagine one gets into the mists of increasingly inaccurate histories, not to mention of mutually conflicting but equally viable claims on who is the rightful owner and who the thief.
Note to self: don't steal stuff that will still be scorching hot 80 years later. Except kisses.
...dude if you ever get accused of some form of sexual assault or gender discrimination, you know this will probably be a part of the evidence. And on the other hand: that’s gross.
The contents of the letter: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-02-02-07...
>I am My Dear Marquis with the truest affection Yr. Most Obedt What does Obedt mean here? Was Hamilton really literally a servant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...dude if you ever get accused of some form of sexual assault or gender discrimination, you know this will probably be a part of the evidence. And on the other hand: that’s gross.
Evidence of what? And kissing is “gross”? Try to keep your inane thought-policing to yourself.
Note to self: don't steal stuff that will still be scorching hot 80 years later. Except kisses.
...dude if you ever get accused of some form of sexual assault or gender discrimination, you know this will probably be a part of the evidence. And on the other hand: that’s gross.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of these pieces, including the Elgin Marbles, weren't part of an ancient theft. Many of them weren't stolen until the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries. For example, the UK has also refused to return certain pieces of artwork that the Nazis stole from Holocaust victims. That theft occurred at roughly the same time this letter was stolen.
> A lot of these pieces, including the Elgin Marbles, weren't part of an ancient theft. Many of them weren't stolen until the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries. I'll grant that it's getting into terminological quibbles, but I'd call the 18th century (or the early 19th, as for the Elgin marbles) probably about as ancient as a theft can be while still allowing us to have some reasonable idea of who the 'true' owners are. F…
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/aboriginal-m...
> An Aboriginal man demanding the return of an ancestral shield seized by James Cook in 1770 has become the first living member of his clan to hold it after being invited to a private viewing by the British Museum.
> Mr Kelly said repatriation was important in light of “all the stuff that’s happened in the past” and it would be a “huge moment in time to have the British Museum and others actually return things to the Aboriginal people because it would be a great step towards the healing process.”
> Mr Kelly’s claim to the artefacts has been backed by a motion passed in 2016 by New South Wales’ parliament, which acknowledged his clan as the shield’s rightful owners; Australia’s Senate followed suit two months later.
I would love to read how they came to that conclusion.