4 ms·

Yes, antiquities from this part of the world that are sold on the black market have higher stakes. The DOJ makes it clear Hobby Lobby acted very suspiciously/ma

Yes, antiquities from this part of the world that are sold on the black market have higher stakes. The DOJ makes it clear Hobby Lobby acted very suspiciously/maliciously. If you're at a yard sale where you're asked to meet the seller at the back to see the "real goods" and pay in unusual ways, you're exposing yourself. Let's not forget, the president of Hobby Lobby isn't naive when it comes to the law... he navigated a lawsuit to the Supreme Court. Source: "Further, when the Artifacts were presented for inspection to Hobby Lobby’s president and consultant in July 2010, they were displayed informally. In addition, Hobby Lobby representatives had not met or communicated with the dealer who purportedly owned the Artifacts, nor did they pay him for the Artifacts. Rather, following instructions from another dealer, Hobby Lobby wired payment for the Artifacts to seven personal bank accounts held in the names of other individuals." https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/united-states-files-civil-action-forfeit-thousands-ancient-iraqi-artifacts-imported https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/united-states-files-civ...

Brendinooo 9y ago
The DOJ makes it clear that they broke laws. I'm not disputing that. Clearly they did something wrong, and are paying a pretty penny for it (pocket change for the CEO, but almost twice what they paid overall). And as I said, I'd like to think I'd have acted better. People are making good points in this thread. I'm not blindly trying to defend a company I know very little about; just trying to poke some holes in the groupthink here. A few more points: 1. The BBC article says that they purchased 5,500 artifacts, and the original article says that they forfeited 144 items. So what's the story here - they took some calculated risks and ended up functionally paying 4.6 million for 5,356 items? Or, they were actually careful but unfortunately a little under 3% of the items were bad? Could be either, or neither. 2. Are there any comparable companies/cases? I have no reference point for this story. When someone else bought a bunch of history, what did their buying practices look like, and have they ever been in trouble? 3. Does anyone here know what it's like to buy antiquities? I'd imagine most people who do it legally will have a more rigorous process, but I have to believe that in some cases it's not as clean as going to a Sotheby's auction. 4. Do we know who was responsible for what here? Obviously the buck stops with the CEO so he deserves to be the face of the criticism here, but is it possible that, since this was a process that probably spanned multiple transactions and weeks, he had some help that was less than competent? Doesn't absolve him of anything, and it didn't! His company was fined. But it pokes a hole in the "mustache-twirling" narrative.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"is it possible that, since this was a process that probably spanned multiple transactions and weeks, he had some help that was less than competent? Doesn't absolve him of anything, and it didn't! His company was fined. But it pokes a hole in the "mustache-twirling" narrative. From a 2015 article in the Guardian: "Patty Gerstenblith, a professor of law at DePaul University who is an expert in cultural heritage, confirmed to the Guardian that she was asked by the Green family to explain to them how import controls for ancient antiquities worked in 2010 – a year before the tablets arrived in Memphis. Gerstenblith said that she went to some lengths to set out for them the potential pitfalls. “I read them the riot act,” she told the Guardian. “I explained to them how the system worked in the interest of trying to discourage them from doing anything illegal. I knew they were building a collection, so I was concerned they might be doing something they shouldn’t, even out of ignorance of the law.”[1] The "moustache twirling narrative" goes something like this: "The reason that he thinks the Green family might have broken international law or avoided ethical standards in the antiquities trade is to promote their overtly Christian beliefs — beliefs they fought for and won at the Supreme Court last year in their landmark case on the religious freedom of employers with regards to government mandates on healthcare. “In their hearts, [I think] they think they’re doing the right thing,” Al-Azm said. “They look at this cultural heritage and they have a close affinity to it. They feel that this is something that touches their deep core beliefs, and they see it in an area or a place that is dangerous or unstable. So they can justify this sort of activity by saying I’m doing something good for posterity.”[2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/28/hobby-lobby-investigated-ancient-artifacts-iraq https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/28/hobby-lobby-... [2] https://thinkprogress.org/experts-believe-hobby-lobby-stole-biblical-antiquities-from-iraq-heres-why-d4dde5855481 https://thinkprogress.org/experts-believe-hobby-lobby-stole-...
  - Brendinooo 9y ago
    That Think Progress piece was an interesting read, thanks for sharing and giving some more context to this story.
- hsod 9y ago
  When does skepticism become solipsism?

Brendinooo 9y ago

The DOJ makes it clear that they broke laws. I'm not disputing that. Clearly they did something wrong, and are paying a pretty penny for it (pocket change for the CEO, but almost twice what they paid overall). And as I said, I'd like to think I'd have acted better. People are making good points in this thread. I'm not blindly trying to defend a company I know very little about; just trying to poke some holes in the groupthink here. A few more points: 1. The BBC article says that they purchased 5,500 artifacts, and the original article says that they forfeited 144 items. So what's the story here - they took some calculated risks and ended up functionally paying 4.6 million for 5,356 items? Or, they were actually careful but unfortunately a little under 3% of the items were bad? Could be either, or neither. 2. Are there any comparable companies/cases? I have no reference point for this story. When someone else bought a bunch of history, what did their buying practices look like, and have they ever been in trouble? 3. Does anyone here know what it's like to buy antiquities? I'd imagine most people who do it legally will have a more rigorous process, but I have to believe that in some cases it's not as clean as going to a Sotheby's auction. 4. Do we know who was responsible for what here? Obviously the buck stops with the CEO so he deserves to be the face of the criticism here, but is it possible that, since this was a process that probably spanned multiple transactions and weeks, he had some help that was less than competent? Doesn't absolve him of anything, and it didn't! His company was fined. But it pokes a hole in the "mustache-twirling" narrative.

bogomipz 9y ago
>"is it possible that, since this was a process that probably spanned multiple transactions and weeks, he had some help that was less than competent? Doesn't absolve him of anything, and it didn't! His company was fined. But it pokes a hole in the "mustache-twirling" narrative. From a 2015 article in the Guardian: "Patty Gerstenblith, a professor of law at DePaul University who is an expert in cultural heritage, confirmed to the Guardian that she was asked by the Green family to explain to them how import controls for ancient antiquities worked in 2010 – a year before the tablets arrived in Memphis. Gerstenblith said that she went to some lengths to set out for them the potential pitfalls. “I read them the riot act,” she told the Guardian. “I explained to them how the system worked in the interest of trying to discourage them from doing anything illegal. I knew they were building a collection, so I was concerned they might be doing something they shouldn’t, even out of ignorance of the law.”[1] The "moustache twirling narrative" goes something like this: "The reason that he thinks the Green family might have broken international law or avoided ethical standards in the antiquities trade is to promote their overtly Christian beliefs — beliefs they fought for and won at the Supreme Court last year in their landmark case on the religious freedom of employers with regards to government mandates on healthcare. “In their hearts, [I think] they think they’re doing the right thing,” Al-Azm said. “They look at this cultural heritage and they have a close affinity to it. They feel that this is something that touches their deep core beliefs, and they see it in an area or a place that is dangerous or unstable. So they can justify this sort of activity by saying I’m doing something good for posterity.”[2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/28/hobby-lobby-investigated-ancient-artifacts-iraq https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/28/hobby-lobby-... [2] https://thinkprogress.org/experts-believe-hobby-lobby-stole-biblical-antiquities-from-iraq-heres-why-d4dde5855481 https://thinkprogress.org/experts-believe-hobby-lobby-stole-...
- Brendinooo 9y ago
  That Think Progress piece was an interesting read, thanks for sharing and giving some more context to this story.
hsod 9y ago
When does skepticism become solipsism?