3 ms·

> Just because people are able to acknowledge that specific artifacts only exist because they were stolen, does not mean that they believe the original theft w

> Just because people are able to acknowledge that specific artifacts only exist because they were stolen, does not mean that they believe the original theft was "right or reasonable." I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? Yeah, if you hadn't burglarized my house yesterday, all my things would have burned up in the fire that happened there today. That's all well and good, except you still stole my shit. The fact that you inadvertently saved it from being burned is irrelevant to the action of the theft.

dumpsterdiver 4y ago
> I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? Why should anything beyond facile acknowledgement be expected from the average person when it comes to appreciating artifacts that still exist on our planet? Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Are people "justifying" that crime that happened before they were born, because they're glad that the painting still exists?
- Ansil849 4y ago
  > Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Yes. Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. Try personalizing this to see if it resonates. There's a quilt that has been in your family for centuries, with each family member adding a patch. At some point, your house is burglarized and the quilt is taken. Hundreds of years later, the quilt is around the world, being seen by people who have absolutely no connection to it, meanwhile your great^n children no longer have access to this piece of their cultural heritage.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. My enjoyment itself is what does that? What if viewing the artifact bores me to tears? No moral crime then?
    - Ansil849 4y ago
      The "moral crime" (a term the previous poster used, not me) is in knowingly patronizing something that houses stolen goods, not in whether you enjoyed them or not. 'Enjoyment' was just the example the previous poster used, the same would hold true if they had said 'hatred' instead of 'enjoyment'. If you come over to someone's house, and watch whatever is on their stolen TV, it doesn't matter if you're enjoying what's on the TV or if you hate the TV, by knowingly associating with the thief you're tacitly OKing their actions.
      - robonerd 4y ago
        Oh okay, I'm in the clear then. I only visit the museums on the days they're open for free to the public.
        Ansil849 4y ago
        > I only visit the museums on the days they're open for free to the public. Right on, I hear ya. If museums want my money, they can break into my house and steal it, like they stole their artefacts.
  - stormbrew 4y ago
    And for that matter, if the people it was stolen from decided it wasn't worth preserving who are you to decide they're wrong? It's the height of colonial arrogance to assume we know better, that we can value the works of other cultures better than they can. That our enjoyment is more important than their history and self-determination.
    - Ansil849 4y ago
      > if the people it was stolen from decided it wasn't worth preserving who are you to decide they're wrong? Huh? Where did I "decide they're wrong"? In this hypothetical you're concocting, you're saying someone "looted" something from someone's trash? That's not what looting typically means. Looting typically means taking things the people from whom they were taken from deemed valuable.
      - stormbrew 4y ago
        I'm agreeing with you ("and for that matter..." as in "yes, and..."). The 'you' is general, to the people arguing that enjoying the thing in the museum is a morally neutral thing, and I'm bringing it back to the broader topic where we're talking about looted goods.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - bawolff 4y ago
      What's the actual harm here? If one group doesn't want something and another group finds the item interesting, who is hurt by the second group valuing it? If nobody is hurt, then where is the sin?
      - stormbrew 4y ago
        the harm is that usually the decision about whether the "one group" wanted it was made by the "another group", probably without actually consulting with anyone in the first group. And you know what, maybe they don't in the moment. But essentially none of these things ever get repatriated even when the people they came from explicitly say they want them back. And you can see the logic that justifies this ongoing theft all over this comment thread: "the people who stole it are dead so it's ours now." This is the problem with all of these after-the-fact justifications. In order for them to exist, the things have to have been taken before the destruction. If I steal your TV and then your house burns down, have I "saved" your TV even though I still won't give it back? Am I now in the moral right? These small analogies are obviously not perfect, but I think they illustrate the order of causality when we talk about "harm".
  - dumpsterdiver 4y ago
    > Yes. Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. Try personalizing this to see if it resonates. There's a quilt that has been in your family for centuries, with each family member adding a patch. At some point, your house is burglarized and the quilt is taken. If my house was burglarized and a family quilt ended up in a museum after it was stolen, I certainly wouldn't blame the patrons of that museum for looking at it. My grievance would be with the current custodian of the quilt. It's reasonable to expect stolen property to be returned. It's not reasonable to expect people to know the history of every piece of property they look at in order to determine if it was stolen or not.

dumpsterdiver 4y ago

> I mean...sure, but then what's the point of this facile acknowledgement? Why should anything beyond facile acknowledgement be expected from the average person when it comes to appreciating artifacts that still exist on our planet? Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Are people "justifying" that crime that happened before they were born, because they're glad that the painting still exists?

Ansil849 4y ago
> Is it a moral crime to simply appreciate a painting, even though it was stolen hundreds of years ago? Yes. Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. Try personalizing this to see if it resonates. There's a quilt that has been in your family for centuries, with each family member adding a patch. At some point, your house is burglarized and the quilt is taken. Hundreds of years later, the quilt is around the world, being seen by people who have absolutely no connection to it, meanwhile your great^n children no longer have access to this piece of their cultural heritage.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. My enjoyment itself is what does that? What if viewing the artifact bores me to tears? No moral crime then?
  - Ansil849 4y ago
    The "moral crime" (a term the previous poster used, not me) is in knowingly patronizing something that houses stolen goods, not in whether you enjoyed them or not. 'Enjoyment' was just the example the previous poster used, the same would hold true if they had said 'hatred' instead of 'enjoyment'. If you come over to someone's house, and watch whatever is on their stolen TV, it doesn't matter if you're enjoying what's on the TV or if you hate the TV, by knowingly associating with the thief you're tacitly OKing their actions.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      Oh okay, I'm in the clear then. I only visit the museums on the days they're open for free to the public.
      - Ansil849 4y ago
        > I only visit the museums on the days they're open for free to the public. Right on, I hear ya. If museums want my money, they can break into my house and steal it, like they stole their artefacts.
- stormbrew 4y ago
  And for that matter, if the people it was stolen from decided it wasn't worth preserving who are you to decide they're wrong? It's the height of colonial arrogance to assume we know better, that we can value the works of other cultures better than they can. That our enjoyment is more important than their history and self-determination.
  - Ansil849 4y ago
    > if the people it was stolen from decided it wasn't worth preserving who are you to decide they're wrong? Huh? Where did I "decide they're wrong"? In this hypothetical you're concocting, you're saying someone "looted" something from someone's trash? That's not what looting typically means. Looting typically means taking things the people from whom they were taken from deemed valuable.
    - stormbrew 4y ago
      I'm agreeing with you ("and for that matter..." as in "yes, and..."). The 'you' is general, to the people arguing that enjoying the thing in the museum is a morally neutral thing, and I'm bringing it back to the broader topic where we're talking about looted goods.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bawolff 4y ago
    What's the actual harm here? If one group doesn't want something and another group finds the item interesting, who is hurt by the second group valuing it? If nobody is hurt, then where is the sin?
    - stormbrew 4y ago
      the harm is that usually the decision about whether the "one group" wanted it was made by the "another group", probably without actually consulting with anyone in the first group. And you know what, maybe they don't in the moment. But essentially none of these things ever get repatriated even when the people they came from explicitly say they want them back. And you can see the logic that justifies this ongoing theft all over this comment thread: "the people who stole it are dead so it's ours now." This is the problem with all of these after-the-fact justifications. In order for them to exist, the things have to have been taken before the destruction. If I steal your TV and then your house burns down, have I "saved" your TV even though I still won't give it back? Am I now in the moral right? These small analogies are obviously not perfect, but I think they illustrate the order of causality when we talk about "harm".
- dumpsterdiver 4y ago
  > Yes. Because your enjoyment deprives the ancestors of the people who actually created it. Try personalizing this to see if it resonates. There's a quilt that has been in your family for centuries, with each family member adding a patch. At some point, your house is burglarized and the quilt is taken. If my house was burglarized and a family quilt ended up in a museum after it was stolen, I certainly wouldn't blame the patrons of that museum for looking at it. My grievance would be with the current custodian of the quilt. It's reasonable to expect stolen property to be returned. It's not reasonable to expect people to know the history of every piece of property they look at in order to determine if it was stolen or not.