5 ms·

I 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 alte

by isodev 3y ago

I 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 ago
Don'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 ago
  How is the parent comment a “personal attack”?
- Bognar 3y ago
  Who 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 ago
  Expressing 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.
    - astura 3y ago
      No it's not, dude.
      - torstenvl 3y ago
        Yes, it inarguably is. There is no room for reasonable disagreement on this issue of objective fact. Attacking something personal—such as motive—is a personal attack. "Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, MOTIVE, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (emphasis added) Arguing against preservation of an artifact—based on the the opponent's ostensible motive that "we should glorify some sick mind" who created the artifact—is a personal attack. It is unbecoming, and it is prohibited on HN.
        astura 3y ago
        Have you considered going outside?
mc32 3y ago
I'm willing to bet that if the skin weren't from a random hospital patient but instead of one of France's ex-colonies' subjects, the move to remove this binding from the book would be met more positively --but because it's an anonymous patient, they can't connect to, it's more acceptable.
- isodev 3y ago
  Numerous Holocaust museums and memorials are scattered across Europe, including former concentration camps, where high school students and adults visit to remember—and hopefully never forget—the lessons humanity learned during that period. It's a soul-crushing experience that offers both small and large lessons, which should suffice to help people distinguish between right and wrong (and dispel any doubt that the book binding should be removed). Even for those who have never visited any of these sites, probably every corner of the world has had its share of historical lessons that (should) reinforce this understanding.
  - mc32 3y ago
    Aren't you implicitly acknowledging this is violent in some way? Of course not at the level you're brining up, but given the comparison, it would seem you're implying some wrong where keeping this is a reminder of the wrong done to an anonymous patient by a doctor?
    - isodev 3y ago
      I think we can have the reminder without the binding actually hanging there? I don't know if was violent, it's not what I was trying to imply. In my mind it resonates with "this was a person and someone decided to use them for decoration". Knowing this happened is enough to take the appropriate action, there is no harm in documenting all this, of course.
kome 3y ago
Custodians are not supposed to destroy what is in their care. This is not about the book, this is about the artefact. The time, the reasons, the history behind it. If that is how it came to us, and that is how it has been preserved, then there is no point in changing it. They could have written their reservations, taken the opportunity to do some ethical pedagogy about it (by far not the only artefact made of human skin, by the way), contextualised it, explained it. But to destroy it? Totally unjustifiable decision.
password54321 3y ago
[flagged]
- imustbeevil 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - password54321 3y ago
    The very strange thing about your comment is that it doesn't even respond to my question of how anything was being glorified yet at the same time you accuse me of not reading the article with "you people".
mablopoule 3y ago
Because it's a fundamentally historicidal act, it's destroying some past artifact solely on the ground of contemporary morality. While not on the same level as, it's the same though process that leads to the destruction of budda statues by the talibans, or the sanding of 13-century religious engravelling by french revolutionary.
- stetrain 3y ago
  But there is some distinction in the world between things we treat as historical artifacts and those we don't. I haven't seen anyone make a compelling case for why this particular item is a significant historical artifact, other than that it was already in the collection of Harvard Library. We pass up things that could be preserved all the time. Curation is an intrinsic part of preservation.
  - mablopoule 3y ago
    Well, if it's not a significant item, does it need to be changed in the first place, then? I agree though about passing things that could be preserved, but it usually involves a tradeoff, when things are too costly to maintain, or old building needs to give place for new one. Even museums aren't the place for a collective diogen syndrom. The slightly heinous thing about this case though is that no tradeoff at all seemed to be involved for this book, no cost of preservation was cited, it's just modifying the past on the lights of very temporal values.
    - yowzadave 3y ago
      > it's just modifying the past I'm not sure what you mean by this; obviously the "history" of the book is known and not being suppressed. Nobody is denying the origin of the book; if it had been a significant historical artifact, I'm sure the judgment would have been different. "You're destroying history!" is a common refrain when Jim Crow-era statues commemorating confederate generals are removed, or when, e.g., the name of a military base is changed. This does not mean that history is being destroyed! Anyone is still welcome to learn anything they want about these historical figures & events.
almatabata 3y ago
Would you say the same thing about items donated to holocaust museums? (https://www.timesofisrael.com/researchers-find-nazi-photo-album-bound-with-human-skin/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/researchers-find-nazi-photo-al...) It is well known that the Nazis created items like lamps, books and other items from human remains. Should all of them be buried? Or should we keep them in museums to remember the crimes? I can see the justification for both sides, but I personally would prefer for the items to be preserved.

by isodev 3y ago

torstenvl 3y ago

Don'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 ago
How is the parent comment a “personal attack”?
Bognar 3y ago
Who 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 ago
Expressing 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.
  - astura 3y ago
    No it's not, dude.
    - torstenvl 3y ago
      Yes, it inarguably is. There is no room for reasonable disagreement on this issue of objective fact. Attacking something personal—such as motive—is a personal attack. "Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, MOTIVE, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (emphasis added) Arguing against preservation of an artifact—based on the the opponent's ostensible motive that "we should glorify some sick mind" who created the artifact—is a personal attack. It is unbecoming, and it is prohibited on HN.
      - astura 3y ago
        Have you considered going outside?

mc32 3y ago

I'm willing to bet that if the skin weren't from a random hospital patient but instead of one of France's ex-colonies' subjects, the move to remove this binding from the book would be met more positively --but because it's an anonymous patient, they can't connect to, it's more acceptable.

isodev 3y ago
Numerous Holocaust museums and memorials are scattered across Europe, including former concentration camps, where high school students and adults visit to remember—and hopefully never forget—the lessons humanity learned during that period. It's a soul-crushing experience that offers both small and large lessons, which should suffice to help people distinguish between right and wrong (and dispel any doubt that the book binding should be removed). Even for those who have never visited any of these sites, probably every corner of the world has had its share of historical lessons that (should) reinforce this understanding.
- mc32 3y ago
  Aren't you implicitly acknowledging this is violent in some way? Of course not at the level you're brining up, but given the comparison, it would seem you're implying some wrong where keeping this is a reminder of the wrong done to an anonymous patient by a doctor?
  - isodev 3y ago
    I think we can have the reminder without the binding actually hanging there? I don't know if was violent, it's not what I was trying to imply. In my mind it resonates with "this was a person and someone decided to use them for decoration". Knowing this happened is enough to take the appropriate action, there is no harm in documenting all this, of course.

kome 3y ago

Custodians are not supposed to destroy what is in their care. This is not about the book, this is about the artefact. The time, the reasons, the history behind it. If that is how it came to us, and that is how it has been preserved, then there is no point in changing it. They could have written their reservations, taken the opportunity to do some ethical pedagogy about it (by far not the only artefact made of human skin, by the way), contextualised it, explained it. But to destroy it? Totally unjustifiable decision.

password54321 3y ago

[flagged]

imustbeevil 3y ago
[flagged]
- password54321 3y ago
  The very strange thing about your comment is that it doesn't even respond to my question of how anything was being glorified yet at the same time you accuse me of not reading the article with "you people".

mablopoule 3y ago

Because it's a fundamentally historicidal act, it's destroying some past artifact solely on the ground of contemporary morality. While not on the same level as, it's the same though process that leads to the destruction of budda statues by the talibans, or the sanding of 13-century religious engravelling by french revolutionary.

stetrain 3y ago
But there is some distinction in the world between things we treat as historical artifacts and those we don't. I haven't seen anyone make a compelling case for why this particular item is a significant historical artifact, other than that it was already in the collection of Harvard Library. We pass up things that could be preserved all the time. Curation is an intrinsic part of preservation.
- mablopoule 3y ago
  Well, if it's not a significant item, does it need to be changed in the first place, then? I agree though about passing things that could be preserved, but it usually involves a tradeoff, when things are too costly to maintain, or old building needs to give place for new one. Even museums aren't the place for a collective diogen syndrom. The slightly heinous thing about this case though is that no tradeoff at all seemed to be involved for this book, no cost of preservation was cited, it's just modifying the past on the lights of very temporal values.
  - yowzadave 3y ago
    > it's just modifying the past I'm not sure what you mean by this; obviously the "history" of the book is known and not being suppressed. Nobody is denying the origin of the book; if it had been a significant historical artifact, I'm sure the judgment would have been different. "You're destroying history!" is a common refrain when Jim Crow-era statues commemorating confederate generals are removed, or when, e.g., the name of a military base is changed. This does not mean that history is being destroyed! Anyone is still welcome to learn anything they want about these historical figures & events.

almatabata 3y ago

Would you say the same thing about items donated to holocaust museums? (https://www.timesofisrael.com/researchers-find-nazi-photo-album-bound-with-human-skin/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/researchers-find-nazi-photo-al...) It is well known that the Nazis created items like lamps, books and other items from human remains. Should all of them be buried? Or should we keep them in museums to remember the crimes? I can see the justification for both sides, but I personally would prefer for the items to be preserved.