Hacker News Reader

Comment by ConfusedDog | Hacker News Reader

Causality and morality are operating separately. Because of the Old China's Empirical Close Door Policy, they got invaded by Europeans. Because of the invasion, art works were robbed, the Old China fell and the New China was born. Because of the New China's destruction of the Four Olds, some art works were destroyed. Because of many art works were stolen, they got preserved and being stolen back to the New China gradually. Like clock work.

In morality, Who has the right to those art works? Invader robbers who unintentional preserved the art works or the new generation of descendants who are stealing the art works back? People can argue all day. It's much more difficult to see the result from a morality perspective...

View on HN

Agreed. During the 1950s/60s/70s the amount of precious art and historic artifacts lost is just staggering, it makes one sick everytime thinking about it.

Whats been done from 1800-1900 by non-Chinese forces are many orders magnitude worse than what happened during 50/60/70s.

You've been doing nationalistic flamewar on HN recently. We ban accounts that do that, so please stop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

how do you figure?

From history book.

> Because of the Old China's Empirical Close Door Policy, they got invaded by Europeans. Because of the invasion, art works were robbed, the Old China fell and the New China was born.

By Close Door Policy, are you including making opium illegal and trying to enforce that law within the borders until the drug cartel showed up with a navy behind it? Are you familiar with the Opium War?

People of my grandparents generation were born into a lot of trauma. My grandfather was sold by his own parents into indentured servitude to support their opium habit for which they had already sold their farmland. (Those were desperate times when people decided to follow a populist leader who didn't know how to govern, and who, though vilified by the West, can be more described as a combination of the positive attributes of Bernie Sanders and the negative attributes of Donald Trump.)

Rich people had a lot of privilege and on the receiving end of a lot of anger from poor people, once there weren't many foreigners around to be mad at any more, and some of the aristocrats really were jerks. But some wealthy people were just idealistic and trying to fix the country instead of fleeing to other parts of Southeast Asia (a mistake made by other parts of my family), and were in for a world of hurt.

So, in your opinion ... if European soldiers looted my home and stole works of art (which actually did happen to my family), and later on, other works of art were destroyed by mobs of poor people who attacked my family, you're saying that it makes what the European looters did totally ok and they can keep their loot?

I don't understand the downvotes. I'm describing the personal experience of my own family, and trying to relate it to this audience.

Sometimes, people like to lump all Chinese people together as a monolith without any nuance, as though the crimes that angry mobs of poor people visited upon my family justifies the crimes committed by foreigners against my family just a little bit earlier.

There is no rhyme or reason to the suffering visited upon us by either party.

Can you tell me how to downvote. I’ve been on HN for years and never seen a downvote button.

Accumulate 500+ karma.

Ah, that’s fine then.

To be clear, the issue being raised here is the manner in which some of the pieces are being returned: through theft. Regardless of morality, past deeds, and rightful ownership, it’s unacceptable to take matters like this into one’s own hands. Keep in mind that cars were lit on fire as a distraction: innocent people who had nothing to do with the original lootings were harmed.

If we’re going to avoid grouping the Chinese together as a giant monolith, then we must do the same for the West: it’s not acceptable to set fire to cars so you can reclaim art.

No I don’t think she’s saying that.

I'm disinclined to respect property ownership claims over significant cultural artifacts to someone that has intentionally destroyed one.

The current government of China is a direct descendant of the one that tried to burn history in the Cultural Revolution. Subsequent regret and contrition notwithstanding, I think any claim that PRC might have had over the stolen artifacts was forfeited the instant they started smashing and burning similar artifacts still under their control.

The art thief implicitly respects that the artifact has cultural value--value that they intend to capture and exploit. The art destroyer does not. I'd prefer to award curation privileges to the person or institution that has respected the cultural value for the longest continuous interval. The PRC can only realistically claim that respect since 1976. You can't put a chair out with the trash and then take it back when you find out someone pulled it out of your garbage and restored it.

> they got preserved...

the best joke in this thread, open your browser then search for the artworks "protected" by the European thieves, for instance, why The British Museum cut Admonitions Scroll?

It’s a lot more definitive than you make it out to be. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Ten wrongs don’t make a right. This is why wars continue for generations: peoples hold grudges against each other.

In no reality is it morally acceptable to go around setting cars belonging to innocent people ablaze because you’re upset with violence carried out by other people.

I am strongly opposed to the concept of inherited grudges and misdeeds. Children are not responsible for the decisions of their parents.

If China wants to reclaim the art, they should attempt to do so diplomatically. If they are denied, tough cookies: it’s not worth endangering lives to reclaim historical artifacts. I would sooner see the artifacts destroyed than lives put at risk as countries steal from each other. I would personally burn all of my family heirlooms if it meant protecting people who are alive today. I am honoring my ancestors more by preserving the lives they’ve created than by protecting their former belongings, no matter how sentimental they may be. And I am certain generations of ancestors would agree with me on that.

There were people who wronged my ancestors. We’ve all been wronged in one way or another. I forgive them. I don’t forgive their descendants, as their descendants have done nothing wrong, and I can’t forgive if nothing has been done wrong. I hold no grudges for the misdeeds of past generations.

This is nothing more than virtue signaling. No one was hurt. This is the same argument used by people that think reparations are stupid and yet refuse to stop benefiting from the violence that created the wealth they benefit from to this day. It's hypocritical.

Whose life has been endangered by this? Art heists are many things, but they rarely seem to be very dangerous except in movies

Reply on news.ycombinator.com