4 ms·

> Just put it on some shock absorbers in a container and send it across the ocean, it's not going to be accumulating damage in shipping for decades as it is in

by dpark 9y ago

> Just put it on some shock absorbers in a container and send it across the ocean, it's not going to be accumulating damage in shipping for decades as it is in the museum. I agree it's a lame excuse. At some point they moved the headdress into the case they engineered so clearly it's possible to move the headdress without it instantly falling apart. Although I always find these requests to return artifacts a little odd anyway. On the one hand, yes, it's part of your heritage and I totally get why you want it returned. On the other hand, if ownership was transferred legally (gifted or sold rather than plundered), I don't see that you have any legitimate claim of ownership. Imagine if France asked for the Statue of Liberty back.

kobeya 9y ago
Moving it a few meters in a controlled environment is vastly different from moving it a few thousand kilometers though turbulent air, choppy sea, and stop-and-go city traffic.
LeifCarrotson 9y ago
> ownership was transferred legally (gifted or sold rather than plundered) A legal transfer between equals is one thing. I agree that should be permanently binding. Even if the depreciation of the funds used to purchase the asset and the appreciation of the asset itself make the transaction seem one-sided. But this headdress belonged at one time to the emperor who reigned between 1502 and 1520...in 1521 Cortes conquered the Azteks. Whether it was 'gifted' or 'purchased', it doesn't seem possible to have a particularly legitimate transaction in whatever exchange took place. Perhaps a fair transaction would involve comparing the cost of the actual purchase of the item (which may have involved a one-sided transfer) to a later transaction of a similar item between equals. If a settler purchased a hundred acres of land from a native for a string of beads valued at 9 cents, but settlers sold each other land for $1.25 an acre, and those hundred acres are now worth $300k then perhaps a court could agree that the original sale was invalid and offer to allow the land to be repurchased for somewhere between 300k and the equivalent transaction of 300,0000 x 9 / 1250 = $2,160. Or, in the case of this headdress, they could do a little reenactment. Give the Mexicans some canons, black-powder muskets, and chemical weapons, and the Austrians some flint knives, and set them on opposing sides of a remote rain forest. See what sort of price they can come to agree upon.

by dpark 9y ago

kobeya 9y ago

Moving it a few meters in a controlled environment is vastly different from moving it a few thousand kilometers though turbulent air, choppy sea, and stop-and-go city traffic.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago

> ownership was transferred legally (gifted or sold rather than plundered) A legal transfer between equals is one thing. I agree that should be permanently binding. Even if the depreciation of the funds used to purchase the asset and the appreciation of the asset itself make the transaction seem one-sided. But this headdress belonged at one time to the emperor who reigned between 1502 and 1520...in 1521 Cortes conquered the Azteks. Whether it was 'gifted' or 'purchased', it doesn't seem possible to have a particularly legitimate transaction in whatever exchange took place. Perhaps a fair transaction would involve comparing the cost of the actual purchase of the item (which may have involved a one-sided transfer) to a later transaction of a similar item between equals. If a settler purchased a hundred acres of land from a native for a string of beads valued at 9 cents, but settlers sold each other land for $1.25 an acre, and those hundred acres are now worth $300k then perhaps a court could agree that the original sale was invalid and offer to allow the land to be repurchased for somewhere between 300k and the equivalent transaction of 300,0000 x 9 / 1250 = $2,160. Or, in the case of this headdress, they could do a little reenactment. Give the Mexicans some canons, black-powder muskets, and chemical weapons, and the Austrians some flint knives, and set them on opposing sides of a remote rain forest. See what sort of price they can come to agree upon.