6 ms·

I don't know why but I really despise this article. It isn't journalism. You don't have cartoon recreations of the story in journalism. This is somebody's lit

by anm89 5y ago

I don't know why but I really despise this article. It isn't journalism. You don't have cartoon recreations of the story in journalism. This is somebody's lit journal piece covered in cartoons masquerading as journalism to grab some ad revenue by using the name Indiana Jones in the title for vanity fair. That probably seems like too much but something about this really rubs me the wrong way.

philliphaydon 5y ago
I stopped reading and decided to google Don Miller. https://www.sapiens.org/culture/fbi-repatriation/ https://www.sapiens.org/culture/fbi-repatriation/ This had a few photos and I found it quite interesting. Would love to find a photo dump of what he had!
- jterrys 5y ago
  Here are some better articles https://www.indystar.com/story/entertainment/arts/2019/02/27/what-happened-don-miller-artifacts-fbi-found-indiana-farm/2990542002/ https://www.indystar.com/story/entertainment/arts/2019/02/27... https://culturalpropertynews.org/plundered-artifacts-from-aged-missionarys-collection-go-to-colombia/ https://culturalpropertynews.org/plundered-artifacts-from-ag... The FBI seized his collection despite not being able to validate his authenticity of ownership. They couldn't actually prove he illegally obtained those items, in part because he collected these objects over the course of decades of his life (when and where laws he'd broken didn't even exist yet, and probably still don't), and because he also willingly gave up his collection.
  - distances 5y ago
    The Vanity Fair article said how FBI only seized human remains and those artifacts that were obviously illegally obtained. Miller got to keep majority of his collection and wasn't even prosecuted. No word in the article what happened to rest of the collection after his death.
    - IncRnd 5y ago
      > The Vanity Fair article said how FBI only seized human remains and those artifacts that were obviously illegally obtained. Miller got to keep majority of his collection and wasn't even prosecuted. No word in the article what happened to rest of the collection after his death. The VF article does not say "obviously illegally obtained" but that the FBI confiscated without a search warrant and against legal advice took more than just items they knew were illegally obtained. From the article: Some of the agency’s attorneys argued that Carpenter would need to establish probable cause on every single item, even though there were countless artifacts for which Carpenter hadn’t obtained evidence or even seen. Miller, for example, told Carpenter about an Anasazi pot Carpenter believed was illegal. But Miller had hundreds of Anasazi pots, and Carpenter didn’t have specific information on those, only the one. Establishing probable cause on each would be unreasonable and essentially impossible. Instead, Carpenter argued that Miller’s collection was “commingled,” meaning the FBI could seize a whole set of pots based on evidence of one. After back and forth with the Department of Justice, Carpenter won out. It also says they siezed a stack of his passports.
      - distances 5y ago
        I meant this part: > The agents believed they’d seized the majority of the obviously illicit items. So they dismantled their village, took down their tents, and packed up. They even took the items with Miller's consent. You seem to be saying FBI took too much, which is a bit baffling to me. Seems to me the whole collection should've been seized, but I guess it wasn't worth the effort as nobody was interested in prosecuting and even museums didn't want the stolen hoard. Passports and photos were taken as evidence of the crimes, right? Apparently he also committed extensive tax fraud with claiming his trips as travel expenses, but those crimes were surely expired already.
op00to 5y ago
… don’t read it then? Why do you need to tell the world reading that the article made you sad because it had cartoons in it?
Angostura 5y ago
I don't particular like the illustration style, which doesn't feel appropriate. But that doesn't make it 'not journalism'. It makes it 'not the art editor's finest hour'
kamranjon 5y ago
Strange I had the exact opposite reaction. This is the kind of journalism I wish there was more of, taking a dry chronological set of events and weaving it as best as possible into a riveting story that best evokes some of the excitement and feelings of those who participated in the effort. I also thought the artistic depictions were kinda cool, but really I didn't spend much time on them compared to the excellent story.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by anm89 5y ago

philliphaydon 5y ago

I stopped reading and decided to google Don Miller. https://www.sapiens.org/culture/fbi-repatriation/ https://www.sapiens.org/culture/fbi-repatriation/ This had a few photos and I found it quite interesting. Would love to find a photo dump of what he had!

jterrys 5y ago
Here are some better articles https://www.indystar.com/story/entertainment/arts/2019/02/27/what-happened-don-miller-artifacts-fbi-found-indiana-farm/2990542002/ https://www.indystar.com/story/entertainment/arts/2019/02/27... https://culturalpropertynews.org/plundered-artifacts-from-aged-missionarys-collection-go-to-colombia/ https://culturalpropertynews.org/plundered-artifacts-from-ag... The FBI seized his collection despite not being able to validate his authenticity of ownership. They couldn't actually prove he illegally obtained those items, in part because he collected these objects over the course of decades of his life (when and where laws he'd broken didn't even exist yet, and probably still don't), and because he also willingly gave up his collection.
- distances 5y ago
  The Vanity Fair article said how FBI only seized human remains and those artifacts that were obviously illegally obtained. Miller got to keep majority of his collection and wasn't even prosecuted. No word in the article what happened to rest of the collection after his death.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    > The Vanity Fair article said how FBI only seized human remains and those artifacts that were obviously illegally obtained. Miller got to keep majority of his collection and wasn't even prosecuted. No word in the article what happened to rest of the collection after his death. The VF article does not say "obviously illegally obtained" but that the FBI confiscated without a search warrant and against legal advice took more than just items they knew were illegally obtained. From the article: Some of the agency’s attorneys argued that Carpenter would need to establish probable cause on every single item, even though there were countless artifacts for which Carpenter hadn’t obtained evidence or even seen. Miller, for example, told Carpenter about an Anasazi pot Carpenter believed was illegal. But Miller had hundreds of Anasazi pots, and Carpenter didn’t have specific information on those, only the one. Establishing probable cause on each would be unreasonable and essentially impossible. Instead, Carpenter argued that Miller’s collection was “commingled,” meaning the FBI could seize a whole set of pots based on evidence of one. After back and forth with the Department of Justice, Carpenter won out. It also says they siezed a stack of his passports.
    - distances 5y ago
      I meant this part: > The agents believed they’d seized the majority of the obviously illicit items. So they dismantled their village, took down their tents, and packed up. They even took the items with Miller's consent. You seem to be saying FBI took too much, which is a bit baffling to me. Seems to me the whole collection should've been seized, but I guess it wasn't worth the effort as nobody was interested in prosecuting and even museums didn't want the stolen hoard. Passports and photos were taken as evidence of the crimes, right? Apparently he also committed extensive tax fraud with claiming his trips as travel expenses, but those crimes were surely expired already.

op00to 5y ago

… don’t read it then? Why do you need to tell the world reading that the article made you sad because it had cartoons in it?

Angostura 5y ago

I don't particular like the illustration style, which doesn't feel appropriate. But that doesn't make it 'not journalism'. It makes it 'not the art editor's finest hour'

kamranjon 5y ago

Strange I had the exact opposite reaction. This is the kind of journalism I wish there was more of, taking a dry chronological set of events and weaving it as best as possible into a riveting story that best evokes some of the excitement and feelings of those who participated in the effort. I also thought the artistic depictions were kinda cool, but really I didn't spend much time on them compared to the excellent story.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]