China wants sculptures from Saint Laurent auction (Yves Saint Laurent)

[Coventina]

Source: Associated Press

BEIJING (AP) — China has demanded the return of looted imperial bronzes scheduled to be sold in Paris as part of the estate auction of the late French fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent.

The sculptures of a rat head and rabbit disappeared in 1860, when French and British forces sacked the former summer palace on the outskirts of Beijing at the close of the second Opium War, according to China's official Xinhua News Agency.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a regularly scheduled news conference Thursday that the pieces were "stolen and taken away by intruders," and "should be returned to China."

The issue threatens to further strain tensions with France that have led to protests and calls from the Chinese public to boycott French goods. China canceled a December summit with the European Union to protest talks between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the Dalai Lama, whom the Chinese accuse of supporting Tibetan separatism.



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4Q5ccwzWkEFQz62VAMal7h_QHeQD96A2CQG1

[acmavm]

1. I agree. And the Brits need to give back the Elgin marbles too.

[nyy1998]

4. it would be great if te brits gave back

the crown jewels of india, they stole it when they defeated the mughals and the queen still wears it, as if the royal crown wasn't arrogant enough to begin

[Coventina]

5. The Mughals were invaders as well. n/t

[nyy1998]

7. true

but they stayed in india and didn't loot anything to afghanistan unlike the british

[Coventina]

8. But they did destroy many Hindu monuments and oppressed

the Hindu majority.

In this world, nobody's hands are clean.

I'm not saying I'm against the repatriation of artifacts, but I acknowledge that it's a very sticky problem (in many cases) with no clear "right or wrong" answer.

The one I'm currently wrestling with personally is over Egypt. Should all of Egypt's treasures be returned to where they came from? In a perfect world, yes. However, the Islamic fundamentalists have threatened to destroy them if they are returned. I certainly don't want to see that. I'd rather see the Rosetta stone stay in London.

[nyy1998]

9. Well I'm Hindu, and I have plenty to complain about the

Mughals, post Shah Jahan-era especially as an Hindu Rajput who's ancestors were routed from their own kingdom and forced to flee while their own kingdom burned down...

But with that said, do you really think the India would have the same problems as say Egypt or China would? Granted, they have their own religious problems, but the Indians have done a good job trying to preserve their history(with the only exception being Ayodhya). Hell, that might be one of the few things that Indians are good at is perserving key artifacts of their history. It seems like every year to excavating some sort of new piece of ancient history and for the most part, it is a piece of pride for Indians.

Point is, India is not Egypt or China when it comes to these things.

[Coventina]

16. No I wasn't trying to say the Indians would destroy their artifacts.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression, I didn't intend that at all.

[Blue_Tires]

19. it would also be nice if the brits (and americans) would give back a fraction

of the toys taken from Egypt...but i know that ain't ever happening

[Runcible Spoon]

2. All cultural artifacts that can be provenienced like that should be repatriated

I think it's downright evil how much loot sits i private collections; you shouldn't be able to inherit something that was acquired by theft or looting. I know, boohoo rich people. :eyes:

[Romulox]

12. Pssst. The control of the Chinese government itself can be "provenienced" in the same manner

But the CCCP isn't giving up control...

[Runcible Spoon]

13. You don't have to love their government to agree that repatriating their cultural artifacts is the

right thing to do. We bombed the fuck out of lots of countries; Iraq's cultural heritage is in tatters. We have no high ground for arguments denying another culture its history.

[Romulox]

17. So whomever takes control of a government by force "owns" its culture and history?

If so, these artifacts were stolen fair and square. If not, what difference?

[Runcible Spoon]

18. ummm, I'm arguing quite the opposite actually.

Repatriation is a painstakingly complex and researched process when done properly. It's necessary to separate the citizens' best interests from governments' will. That's why organizations like UNESCO exist, to help broker universal standards for heritage preservation, especially in politically vulnerable regions.

[Romulox]

20. I don't see a guiding principle here.

If the principle is that whomever controls a government has a right to its culture and artifacts, then there is little room to argue for repatriation. (The current Chinese government is not excluded from this category.)

If there is some other guiding principle, I fail to see it.

[Runcible Spoon]

21. I never said that and I would appreciate your not putting words in my mouth.

What "should" be done obviously varies from situation to situation. I have no special love for Chinese authoritarianism but their government is certainly stable enough to deal with its own brokering of repatriation. Actually, China has a LOT of excellent museums, and they don't function under the iron thumb of the Party.

A nation like Iraq would need to aid of UNESCO or some other organization to keep the artifacts secure. That the Chinese people don't have a right to their cultural heritage because their government practices unethical trade is a canard. My main point is that the WORST place for artifacts to remain is in private collections where they accumulate monetary value separate from their value as pieces of living history. It's not very controversial in the anthropology world to feel that artifacts are better off destroyed than they are in some rich person's private stash. Of course, the best possible situation is for them to be repatriated and used for education and research.

[Romulox]

22. Beginning a statement with the word "if" means that it is conditional...

I think the problem with your post is that you assume there are one Chinese people, and that by some mechanism (genetic?) they have a claim on all "Chinese" artifacts.

But the problem with this is manifest: for example, should all Tibetan artifacts be "repatriated" into the hands of the Chinese government simply because they occupy Tibet? I think not.

Therefore, there must be some guiding principle in these cases beyond "well, this government occupies the territory in question at the moment."

"That the Chinese people don't have a right to their cultural heritage because their government practices unethical trade is a canard."

Now who's putting words into who's mouth? :hi:

[Runcible Spoon]

26. you said that below.

I am perfectly aware of the many peoples of China; for the sake of brevity I made the simple distinction between the government and the citizens. As I said before, these cases must be decided on a case by case basis.

[Romulox]

23. Similarly, should all **Taiwanese** artifacts be "repatriated" to the PRC?

I think this issue is much more complex than you make it out to be!

[Runcible Spoon]

27. again, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH/

All I am arguing for is that the Chinese have a right to argue for repatriation, and they have excellent museums and heritage organizations to help broker that. EVERY REPATRIATION CASE IS UNIQUE and is dealt with on a case by case basis. I am not arguing for outright repatriatation of every fucking thing so stop accusing me of that.

[Coventina]

25. Artifacts are never "better off destroyed"!

If they do languish in a private collection there is always hope that it will resurface again. Nobody lives forever and heirs often put things back on the market (not knowing if it was obtained unethically), where they can be reclaimed. It might take a generation or two, but it happens.

Destroyed is gone forever.

Please show me where anthropologists have said artifacts are better off destroyed. That sounds :crazy:

[Runcible Spoon]

28. I'm an anthropologist and I'm saying it.

You might not hear "official" statements on this but I can guarantee you that in the field, the most loathed creature is a private collector. The artifacts are usually worthless from a research point of view once in private collections since the details of their provenience are most usually lost. As such, they are only valuable in terms of their collectibility, NOT their value to knowledge. It might surprise you that a LOT of repatriated items are often buried, burned, or destroyed by those who receive them back since their value as heritage is so great that to lose them again would be heartbreaking.

[Coventina]

30. Well, that's an incredibly short-sighted view

Many Olmec artifacts were floating around in various collections as objects of curiosity, before the existence of the civilization was known. After some of the major excavations identified the Olmecs as a unique civilzation, those artifacts could be identified as Olmec, and provided additional information about their crafts and tools.

This is just one example.

I'm not defending private collectors, I'm well aware of the destruction and heartache that they cause. But an artifact destroyed is a loss of knowledge and culture and ultimately is a loss to all of humanity.

[kitfalbo]

3. BS

I say NO. Sorry to play the devils advocate, but if they had the items who is to say they wouldn't have been destroyed during the cultural revolution. The government of china now and the one in the 1860's are completely different.

Maybe if they can trace down the individual who would "cough" retain the item though family lineage. Which I don't think would happen in this government anyway. Then it should be returned.

Maybe Mexico should ask for Texas back now?

[Doremus]

6. I agree. We'd have to empty out a lot of museums in this country.

[Runcible Spoon]

14. there is a difference between museum curatorship and private collections.

Special deals are brokered for museum artifacts, such as traveling exhibits although disputes certainly arise. Almost anyone involved in this field, regardless of their native country, recognizes the value of public exhibition over the exploitation of private collectors who merely hoard for value.

[Doremus]

24. Sorry, there's no difference between museum ownership and private collections.

A great deal of museum holdings are not on public display. Additionally, deassessions (sp), selling of museum holdings to highest bidder to raise funds, are commonplace.

Many, many museums are merely a collective of private individuals, i.e. not funded with tax dollars. Just some of the potentially bothersome artifacts in American museums that come to mind include those taken from American Indians anywhere from 150 years ago to present day burial mounds. There are frequent showdowns between tribe leadership and various institutions as to rightful ownership, with mixed results.

There's no concrete answer to this as you imply.

[Runcible Spoon]

29. There is still a difference.

Museums are not perfect and I'm not even that big of a fan, and yes as you pointed out there are many types of museums. However, my original point related to this thread is that the Chinese people ARE entitled to argue for repatriation of their artifacts, and there ARE Chinese museums and other curation organizations that hold high ethical standards for the handling of these issues.

I worked with a public museum in NY and the care and effort put into fostering a good relationship with the tribe with which the artifacts were affiliated was commendable.

I still stand by my statement that languishing in private collections for personal financial gain and selfish, colonialistic hording is the WORST thing that can happen to these items, and a lot of my colleagues in anthropology and friends in tribes agree with this. As I said to the poster above, many repatriated items are burned or re-interred anyway, for any reason the group chooses.

[TheLastMohican]

15. What are you talking about, people?

These are stolen cultural artifacts, for christ sake!

I say close the museums which display artifacts obtained through invasion and theft.


Next step, each thief may be entitled to show all the "loot" that he got robbing someone's houses in a nice little "exhibition".

[acmavm]

10. I don't know if the SHOULD, but it would sure solve a lot of

problems if they did and we let 'em have it.

[Romulox]

11. They can have them back when we get back our manufacturing base. nt

[christx30]

31. China wants the stuff back

And those kids in Tienniman square wanted an end to the oppressive government they were under. A little freedom.
The Chinese authorities gave a very polite no.

Oh... wait... they didn't. They just went in and slaughtered many of them and arrested the rest.
Who cares what the government of China wants? I say keep the stuff until China decides it can handle people with unfettered access to the Internet and allowing people to speak out against their government.

[beefy85]

32. Don't try and take the moral high ground

You think invading another country, looting, subjugating innocent people (which is still going on *cough**cough*) makes you any better? The question is not whether China 'deserves' these artifacts, which up to neither you nor I to decide, but whether the said items should ever have been taken from China in the first place. And if not, then why can a simple act of reconciliation not be performed by returning them? If I stole something from your house, does this rightfully make it mine? And if I put it up for sale, would I not be arrested if found out? Or are you suggesting I simply wait for 100 years and it will all be fine and dandy?

[Robb]

33. High ground: if I steal from your house

and you slaughter everyone in your neighborhood while they sleep, don't expect me to return your TV.

[beefy85]

34. LOL and this somehow relates to China because...?

Please don't throw in bland statements without providing some kind of explanation. Unless you're suggesting of course that the Chinese 'slaughtered' the British and French 'while they slept' in retaliation for the looting of the Old Summer Palace? In which case that would make a very interesting read. My dear friend, may I suggest that the reverse was more likely to happen.
And in any case you think that stealing a TV from anyone's home is particularly honorable, if not comparable to murder... perhaps just a poor reflection of character then.

[beefy85]

35. Oh one more thing...

Please don't try to pull an irrelevant issue into this agenda. What happened in Tiananmen Square is not even vaguely related to the relics. What is the justification for blackmail and extortion to 'change human rights'? You steal something and then hold it ransom, and feel you can then comment on other people's problems. Sometimes it's best to examine one's own sins before judging others. Personal reflection seems to be something lacking in people these days...

[christx30]

36. well,

I have never oppressed anyone. But I will never forgive China for Tibet or the treatment of Falun Gong or Christians in China or the millions that were killed in the Cultural Revolution, or the fear that ordinary Chinese people feel in criticizing their government.
I'm not saying that these actions justify the theft of the artifacts. But as long as China continues to oppress it's people, this is a good way to stick it to them.
It might be an affront to their culture, but they are guilty of even worse crimes against the people of Tibet.
And as for using "blackmail" and "extortion" to change human rights, you might not feel that way if you were one of the people that were being abused by them. If your baby daughter was taken away from you and murdered because having her was against the "one child" law, would you show the normal human emotion of anger toward her murderers, or would you just accept it and say "It was wrong of me to have the child. Our Dear Leader is doing what is right for China."
The artifacts are just things. I'm talking about people's lives.

[zoossh]

37. There will be no win win situation.

The differences in the stance lies in whether one thinks returning tibet to the tibetan people is more important or whether returning the artefacts to China which now rules over its Manchurian counterparts is more important, and whether the two should be absolutely separated. The only win-win situation would be for both correct things to be done, but since it is almost impossible for the former, the question would lie solely on whether to do the latter.

Is it wrong to blackmail someone who is accused of killing but who himself denies killing? That is the exact situation. Nobody will be on the moral highground in the conflict. There is so many ways of interpreting it, but generally if the status quo and current law and regulation, rather than moral liability, decides on the Tibetan issue, so be it the same for the artefacts. Let the law and the powerful decides.

The interesting thing is that China is probably more enraged by the Tibetan issue more than anything else, as the territory and the enlarged size of the country pertaining to Tibet is definitely seen more important over the two artefacts. Likewise, some would see the human rights issue pertaining to Tibet is obviously more important than mere artefacts. That is the similarity between the two, yet also the exact opposing stance between the two.

There will be no win win situation. The only thing is the lesser wrong worthy of the sole purpose of provocation of someone who is insistent on what they are doing, but would not stop him from doing that?

[christx30]

38. There is going to be no win-win situation

But the people are suffering. And it's not just Tibet that is the problem. China is guilty of a multitude of crimes. Crackdowns on dissent happen way too often. The leadership has absolutely no regard for the lives of dissents that are destroyed.
It's just hard to have sympathy toward the Chinese government with regards to things when it so routinely executes people. I mean... what happened to the guy that stood in front of the tanks on June 5th? The rumors I've heard say he is either living in hiding, or he was executed by the authorities soon after the incident. I hate totalitarianism. Whether it is a right-wing regime, or a leftist one, I don't care. Unless dissent is allowed to happen, there is no justice. So I want to stick it to those people as much as possible. I want the US to stop buying their poisonous toys and pet food. I want the US to facilitate the escape of their political prisoners and allow them to speak out against Chinese authority. I'm not in favor of regime change or anything like that. But someone needs to speak for those people.

[zoossh]

41. But the people are suffering.

One who seriously think about the long term benefits for tibetans will have to think about how bad and most likely the futile situation is. It may feel good to "teach them a lesson" but generally it will not change the situation for China will see no compelling factors to bulge.

There is only two ways out. One is a military resistance that will cause a lot of bloodshed and may turn out a cherchyna rather than a vietnam. The other is to continue peaceful means outside of a popular culture and to maintain integrity that hopefully can stand against malice and doubts, and hopefully one day it will be sufficiently solid to convince more people. Any questionable practices from inaccurate news reporting to the body contact with a disabled torch-holder down to this event invites discreditation. I think this current act set the goal back.

[JCMach1]

39. France should give them back when they free Tibet

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Chinese statues buyer won't pay

A Chinese man who won a high profile auction for two bronze artworks claimed by China says he will not pay for them.

The sculptures, which sold for 15m euros ($19m; £13m) each in Paris last week, were originally looted from Beijing in 1860.

Cai Mingchao, who has identified himself as the bidder, is an adviser to China's National Treasures Fund, which seeks to retrieve looted treasures.

He said his decision to bid for the bronzes had been a "patriotic" act.

"What I want to stress is that this money cannot be paid," Mr Cai told a news conference.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7918128.stm