11 ms·
Harvard University removes human skin binding from book
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y agoFascinating stuff. While I can understand the decision and defend it, how is it really any different from making mummies 'properly' buried according to our current rituals?
- coderpath 3y agoThere was no consent.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y agoBut why is the current value-set overriding historical curiosity owned by Harvard to the point that they effectively destroy some of its uniqueness due to current mores and focus on 'consent'. I guess the real question is 'why do you think consent overrides everything else and, more importantly, should we disassemble pyramids, because they were built without the consent of its slave labor?'
- 542458 3y agoI 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 been learned, they have returned the originals to the people they were taken from. I feel this is a similar story.
- xattt 3y agoA 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.
- torstenvl 3y agoThere is no such thing as a just society that does actions of this type. Destroying evidence of the past to fit your worldview is fundamentally unjust.
- plugin-baby 3y ago> This is similar to the recent case of a surgeon who branded a transplanted liver with his initials. It’s not that similar, is it? Most people would object to the doctor flaying grandma, but there are interviews with that surgeon’s former transplant patients who don’t seem too bothered they may have been branded.
- sam_lowry_ 3y ago> 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.
- kome 3y agothen put in a museum, solved.
- ameister14 3y agowho's museum? The British Museum?
- internetter 3y agoI mean, the fact students spent decades challenging each other to touch it (and the library did nothing to prevent it) might be a start
- teaearlgraycold 3y agoWere mummies not usually aware of, and presumably consented, to mummification before death? And then there’s the angle of sparing library staff from handling the human skin.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y agoI am not an Egypt buff, but that contradicts my understanding of that civilization so I apologize in advance if that is not accurate. Some pharaohs took their slaves to the other sides and as I understand, those slaves were mummified to travel to the next world. As for the anguish, is it any different really than holding any other significant artifact with a story behind it ( executioner's sword, kingdom's crown that changed hands often )? Is the issue that skin is just too visceral and it was easier for university to 'remove skin' than hire less squeamish help?
- rightbyte 3y agoI guess time passed? There are no potential relatives to Tutankhamen that might make claims. I would be rather pissed if there was a book with my great grandmas mentally ill sister's skin on it. In a similar vain, there are a lot of skeletons and organs collected from dead mental patients in universities that did not get proper consent.
- stetrain 3y agoAre mummies general kept in a general library where anyone can poke at it upon request?
- kome 3y agoI wish I could witness the dressing room discussions of the French authorities when they have to deal with these holier-than-thou Harvard "ethicists", while pretending to take them seriously so as not to upset them. edit: next step, harvard ppl studying the consent about random ossuaires in France https://www.cntraveler.com/galleries/2014-10-24/10-creepiest-catacombs-you-can-actually-visit https://www.cntraveler.com/galleries/2014-10-24/10-creepiest...
- dartos 3y ago[flagged]
- mjburgess 3y agoI fear we've elevated 'consent' to absurd proportions. Every country in the world was built by those who didn't consent to build it (by serfdom, slavery, ..). I hope this is preserved; what a pointless waste otherwise. How are we to imagine the deceased here? A person outraged at the insult, or one now doubly outraged at the waste?
- ethbr1 3y agoI 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.
- plugin-baby 3y agoYou could do both!
- ethbr1 3y agoThis made me laugh. Kudos on the quip.
- bxksnche 3y agoBut what about your family? How would they feel about your skin being used as a hazing ritual? If it hasn’t been donated by the family, what right does the university have over it?
- mjburgess 3y agoHow 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?
- chabes 3y agoBut that’s not what happened or is happening with the skin.
- stared 3y agoBy this reasoning, we should destroy all buildings that were constructed with slave labor; and all jewelry with gems acquired by similar means.
- devnullbrain 3y agoThat's not actually the reasoning given in TFA.
- stared 3y agoIt is a corollary. Still, if the human remains are an issue, well - in numerous ritual burials of rulers, there are remains of servants or concubines. In most cases, we can assume it was not consensual. In this case - should we cremate (or otherwise destroy, according to our contemporary customs) these human remains?
- torstenvl 3y agoAbsolutely 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.
- kome 3y agoI agree, destruction of important heritage with absolutely ridiculous claims. Taliban level shit.
- stetrain 3y agoIf one were to slice the ear off of a dead body, mount it, and frame it on their wall, at what point does it stop being gross evidence of a crime and start becoming an important historical artifact and part of our heritage? How many months, how many years? Does it matter if the person who did it is a respected scholar or a convicted serial killer?
- hwc 3y agothe book itself was re-bound.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- devnullbrain 3y agoAs a Marine, you are probably aware Marines assisted the toppling of the famous Saddam Hussein statue?
- itsthecourier 3y agoWas expecting a similar rebinding
- itsthecourier 3y agoBook photo and more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/literature/s/TdIZ4ONtB2 https://www.reddit.com/r/literature/s/TdIZ4ONtB2
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago[flagged]
- jwie 3y agoIt is a little curious that the skin was applied with consent, but not removed with it. I was lead to believe that Harvard was where smart people were. The simple thing to do would be to remove the book from circulation, not destroy the thing that made it interesting.
- mjburgess 3y agoI err towards saying that this isn't quite the full story, and the people involved are reasonable and sensitive to issues we aren't privy to. If not, then it seems that academia has jumped the shark. It was fine, in their own worlds, for academics to turn themselves into reverent peal-clutching guests of the King, pathologically afraid of disputation, insult and offence (or, how extreme: challenging students). But the world isnt theres...
- ethbr1 3y ago>> The volume’s first owner, French physician and bibliophile Dr. Ludovic Bouland (1839–1933), bound the book with skin he took without consent from the body of a deceased female patient in a hospital where he worked. That's... a thing you can do. Yeesh. Bet he was a Lovecraft fan in his final years.
- tgv 3y agoIt's a pity for preservation of history. The act was bizarre and probably incorrect, but it happened. Why not put the book on some museal status and restrict access to serious researchers?
- parasti 3y agoWhat a crazy story. The comments here are crazier, though.
- dist-epoch 3y ago[flagged]
- mjburgess 3y agoThe 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.
- dist-epoch 3y ago> defend the preservation of works to be studied If someone today makes a human-centipede, like in the movie, and declares it art, are academics supposed to advocate for preserving it for ever and study it just because it happened?
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoThe key to your example is, if they are alive. Cadavers are used in medical school. Where is the moral outrage.
- chottocharaii 3y agoI think it’s a reasonable explanation to a reasonable moral decision. Good for Harvard
- bxksnche 3y agoWe 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 woman, I.e. consent was not seen as important when do things to/with women’s bodies.
- stared 3y agoSo, 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.)
- devnullbrain 3y agoIt's a strange warping of preservation that means you'd rather the book be inaccessible but complete than accessible but complete in content.
- torstenvl 3y agoIt isn't a strange warping of preservation, it's EXACTLY what preservation means. Destruction is always and everywhere the opposite of preservation.
- Ekaros 3y agoEspecially 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.
- eli_gottlieb 3y agoI think it's pretty important that unholy grimoires remain bound in human skin as a warning to the fools who might read the book, thank you very much. Seriously, look up the book. It sounds like a polite description of a necromantic grimoire.
- everdrive 3y agoThis 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.
- notnaut 3y agoAgreed 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.
- Ekaros 3y agoThis is wrong approach. Correct would be to kick out and revoke degrees of anyone involved on hazing on both sides. And then limit the access to book. Set up some committee or something if you have trouble deciding who to allow access and who not.
- isodev 3y agoI 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 victim's remains to their descendants and trying to find more context on how their loved one perished is also absolutely the right decision.
- torstenvl 3y agoDon't make personal attacks on HN. If you have an argument, feel free to voice it, even strenuously, but it's considered gauche here to address people who disagree with you directly and comment on them or their personal motives.
- chabes 3y agoHow is the parent comment a “personal attack”?
- Bognar 3y agoWho is being personally attacked? The first owner who decided to flay a human corpse and wrap their personal items with it? I think "sick" is an appropriate adjective.
- astura 3y agoExpressing an opinion you disagree with isn't a "personal attack."
- torstenvl 3y ago"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?" Impugning the motives of people you disagree with is a personal attack, and it's unacceptable behavior.
- chasd00 3y ago[flagged]
- wrsh07 3y agoCertainly 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%20reliquary%20(also%20referred%20to,is%20a%20container%20for%20relics 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.
- wrsh07 3y agoWhile we're discussing flaying and I'm discussing catholicism, you all should look at the St Bartholomew statue: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_d%27Agrate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_d%27Agrate
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hilbert42 3y agoI find the notion of using human skin for a book binding horrible and macabre even if consent was given. One would have to question the mind of anyone who found the practice acceptable. Just reading the title alone heightened my sensibilities as it immediately reminded me of such Nazis atrocities where they made objects out of the skin of their victims. That was my emotional self talking and I'd expect it would always be my initial reaction, but when my rational self kicked in moments later I immediately asked what motivated these Harvard idiots to so act, was it out of some kind of perverse political correctness? If not, then what was their motivation? It seems to me these people are both unprofessional and irresponsible and should not be charged with the responsibility of housing and managing important historical items. The principal responsibilities of museums is to preserve historical artifacts in their original unaltered form as is best possible and keep them safely housed for posterity and for the benefit and education of future generations. It is not the job of museums to alter museum pieces because they don't like some aspect about them, and to do so clearly smacks of vandalism. If an institution is so offended by some object in its collection then it can either remove it from normal viewing and make it only available to researchers, or alternatively, give it to another museum that does not take offense (there'll always be others willing to take the object off their hands). Let's put this book into perspective. There are aspects about it that are deemed sordid by today's ethical standards but that does not devalue its historical significance, in fact a knowledge and understanding of how the object acquired these attributes make it all the more important from an historical perspective, ipso facto it will also be more valuable. Vandalizing it will make it less so on every account. Now let's compare the historical aspects of this book with other objects commonly found in many museums that also could be deemed to have 'sordid' backgrounds. If other museums similarly applied Harvard's sanctimonious ethical attitudes to this class of items in their collections then many thousands of objects would have to be withdrawn from display. For instance, modern and ancient weapons of war—guns, howitzers, Roman, Greek and Viking swords, and a myriad of other things whose very existence—their raison d'être—is based on ethical standards that many of us today would now consider abhorrent and repugnant but we don't alter or destroy them. Similarly, after WWII we didn't destroy hideous places such as Auschwitz and Buchenwald but kept them for their great historical significance and to remind present and future generations of the horrors that took place there. What I find outrageous is that these days many professionals find it acceptable to try to 'correct' history (as in the case of this Harvard book). Why they cannot see and just accept that ethical and societal values were very different in the past than now—and that every era had its own standards and ethical values, many of which were brutal. Over recent decades there's a collective lemming-like cultural attitude developed amongst many professionals who ought to know better, they refuse to criticize idiocy and outright hypocrisy even at the expense of both their professionalism and their professions, and they often so act out of fear of being labeled politically incorrect. I'm damned if I know how these people can ditch logic and reason and still live with their consciences.
- scoofy 3y agoI honestly think the reason why these stories get press is that we all get to have an opinion, but it ultimately doesn’t matter. It’s a historical artifact. The change adds a historical significance. The symbolic value is minimal vs the information. It’s a book.
- jareklupinski 3y agogee i wonder why aliens never visit