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.
[dead]
Harvard University removes human skin binding from book
61–70 of 107 posts
Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book
#62We 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.)
Especially when it is not the content, but the nature of the object that make it unique and historic. I could understand if this was only copy in the world of the text inside, but that does not seem to be case.
Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book
#63What a crazy story. The comments here are crazier, though.
[flagged]
The issue is as much a diagnosis of the academic culture which came to this decision: it's quite alarming that academics are on the side of 'cultural sensitivities' rather than against them.
We have churches; we have political parties. What use is an academia that prays and "advocates for change" ?
Academia should, by any reasonable sense of its mission, defend the preservation of works to be studied; regardless of their historical origins. They should be dragged kicking and screaming into destroying anything.
Who, if not academics?
History cannot be made 'respectable' -- and what a nightmare if academia tries to make it so.
Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book
#64I 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…
[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book
#65Certainly 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 finger).
With that in mind, I understand these posts. Harvard: "whoa guys this is skin!" To "sorry we called you all guys [2], and sorry we were shocked and sensational in our discussion of this artifact"
What should they do? It makes sense to have human attendants manage the book if you want it to be accessible in the collection. At least then they can warn would-be viewers (since that's a thing they want to do)
They could just donate the book to a museum? Then nobody really touches it and it's probably well-preserved. They could remove (but preserve) the skin. I imagine that's what they've done, which seems ok. Anyone can use the book, researchers can study the skin
The book-skin combo artifact doesn't seem particularly special to me - is it worth preserving as a whole unit? I'm surprised so many others in the comments think so
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliquary#:~:text=A%20reliqu....
[2] this is a joke
[3] thinking about this, I can't imagine human skin is the best binding for a book, but I do appreciate that it would be possible to say "I really don't care what happens to my skin" or to otherwise be ok with this. It doesn't seem like this was the case for this book, though.
Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't consider myself much concerned with my body after death. But I'd feel some kind of way if someone flayed my skin off my cadaver to make a book cover. Even being a skeleton in an anatomy class seems more purposeful.
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?
Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book
#67Earlier 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.
> surgeon who branded a transplanted liver with his initials
If anything, I'd be happy if the surgeon engraved his initials on my liver. This likely means he was proud of his work.
OTOH, I've seen people evading any mention of their name in the public releases of software code of horrendous quality by institutions, so I can relate this to my profession. Anonymous work correlates with bad work.
Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book
#68This feels utterly symbolic and pointless, and part of a modern and misguided need to right the wrongs of the past (which is not actually possible to do) rather than just continuing to the make the present and future better.
Agreed that symbolic moves like this are often release valves for the pressure that ought to be applied to improving things really, but the pearl clenching about the loss of some remarkable piece of history in this thread is the hilarious mirror on the topic.
It’s certainly meaningful to acknowledge the past and alter the way we celebrate it, including by deciding the things we take forward with us.
Re: Harvard University removes human skin binding from book
#69I 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.
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 book binding should be removed). Even for those who have never visited any of these sites, probably every corner of the world has had its share of historical lessons that (should) reinforce this understanding.