Fun Stuff > CHATTER
The most off-topic WCDT discussion ever
westrim:
I'm in agreement with Rimwolf; the artifact in question is not the point of the story, it's just a Macguffin. Getting upset at the author, especially this author considering his stated, prescient, and evolving opinion on the subject of race, for the historical background of the MacGuffin is a bit absurd.
Also in real history is the fact that a good chunk of Ming pottery was even at the time of their creation exported to Europe, and most that were obtained afterward were sold, not looted. There was a fair bit of looting, and a good bit of that went the the British trophy room museum, but it pales in comparison to the scale of ordinary commerce.
On the general issue of repatriation of artifacts, it's all about circumstance. Ones stolen or dug up with no or BS local government permission should be returned with free shipping, but ones that were just plain bought like any other item should be compensated or allowed to be kept.
On the general topic of China, I find outrage on behalf of historical artifacts taken from there to be laughable considering their perspective throughout history on the trappings of the past. From 1000 BCE and probably earlier, it was standard practice as part of the cycle of empires to get rid of the stuff from the previous one, and that carried through straight to the Cultural Revolution. The greatest damage to a society's past is usually self inflicted.
--- Quote from: Kugai on 10 May 2013, 21:38 ---And still want Paul Verhoven publicly flogged.
--- End quote ---
But he didn't make a Starship Troopers movie. He made a completely different movie form the book, which was then named Starship Troopers after most of the writing and preproduction was finished. I can forgive him due to that, and the shower scene, which as an 8 year old boy I immensely appreciated.
The people making World War Z and Enders Game have no excuses, though, so we'll see how that goes.
KOK:
I do not understand all this anger. What Westrim says is all correct. On a more basic level: Heinlein does not say that this is the propper way to treat such an artifact. To the contrary, that it is treated so is a sign of how desperate the situation is.
Akima:
--- Quote from: Westrim on 12 May 2013, 21:42 ---Also in real history is the fact that a good chunk of Ming pottery was even at the time of their creation exported to Europe, and most that were obtained afterward were sold, not looted. There was a fair bit of looting, and a good bit of that went the the British trophy room museum, but it pales in comparison to the scale of ordinary commerce.
--- End quote ---
The "Flower Of Forgetfulness" is presented as a one-off, unique artwork, not the simple run of "ordinary commerce". If it had been just another piece of commercially mass-produced Ming porcelain, the physicist would not have been so motivated to obtain it.
Many countries have gone through periods of vandalising or destroying their own cultural and historical artefacts. For example, religious extremists vandalised cathedrals and artworks during the English Civil Wars and Commonwealth period 1640–1660. Would that make it OK for a Chinese army to burn Buckingham Palace, and steal its contents? If not, how would the "burning of books and burying of scholars" ordered by Qin Shi Huang, for example, somehow excuse, or even mitigate, the actions of European imperialists in China?
On what basis do we decide whether an artefact was "just plain bought"? During the colonial era, artefacts were routinely "purchased" at gunpoint, or in situations where there was no legal equality between "purchaser" and "vendor" because the foreign "purchaser" had obtained, at gunpoint, special privileges over the local population, and over the local governing authorities, making it impossible for them to question the legal right of the "vendor" to make the sale. The determination of our museums to hang on to artefacts obtained in this manner makes them complicit in this. The fact that we permit it to continue makes us complicit too.
--- Quote from: KOK on 13 May 2013, 00:24 ---I do not understand all this anger. What Westrim says is all correct. On a more basic level: Heinlein does not say that this is the propper way to treat such an artifact. To the contrary, that it is treated so is a sign of how desperate the situation is.
--- End quote ---
The situation is not presented as desperate in any way. It's just an ambitious politician wanting to gain a diplomatic advantage, and the protagonists are in it for the money without even needing any knowledge of what the negotiations are about. At the end of the story, the protagonist characters demonstrate their full voluntary complicity in the situation by taking special steps to ensure their right to participate personally in the elitist private enjoyment of the artefact they have "acquired" without the slightest qualm. No, Heinlein quite obviously had no problems at all with the way the artefact is treated. If you don't either, we will just have to agree to differ.
GarandMarine:
Akima I confess I'm having a hard time following just what you're arguing for.
ZoeB:
--- Quote from: GarandMarine on 13 May 2013, 03:35 ---Akima I confess I'm having a hard time following just what you're arguing for.
--- End quote ---
I think... if a foreign army entered the US, burnt the last copy of the constitution just to keep warm, then decamped with the Liberty bell and a few other such items - and later refused to return them.. you might get the general idea.
She has a point. It says a lot for her character that she's not being rather more.. blunt.. about it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version