China relics buyer refuses to pay

Link
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China relics buyer refuses to pay

As the two statues in question were looted from Bejing in 1860 why would the French courts not consider them to be the property of the Chinese State?
Objects that were looted from many EU Nations by the Germans were sent back to their legal owners.
I would have thought that the same would apply to these objects.
Comments?

jujuman13 said:

Link
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China relics buyer refuses to pay

As the two statues in question were looted from Bejing in 1860 why would the French courts not consider them to be the property of the Chinese State?
Objects that were looted from many EU Nations by the Germans were sent back to their legal owners.
I would have thought that the same would apply to these objects.
Comments?

Click to expand...

I am not surprised at all, given France's history in this department. It has also retained precious Egyptian artifacts that made their way into its borders during colonialism, ones that the Egyptian cultural authority has been constantly asking for. Unlike Britain, France has few qualms about its imperial past. It has done some reparations in the form of money, but I doubt it will ever acknowledge claims to stolen cultural relics.

Considering that these two relics were looted during the attack on and destruction of the Summer Palace, one of imperial China's most loved and celebrated sites, it is a double slap indeed.

jujuman13 said:

Link
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China relics buyer refuses to pay

As the two statues in question were looted from Bejing in 1860 why would the French courts not consider them to be the property of the Chinese State?
Objects that were looted from many EU Nations by the Germans were sent back to their legal owners.
I would have thought that the same would apply to these objects.
Comments?

Click to expand...

Note: Germany LOSt that war, which is why it was forced to return the property.

The fact that China is ticked off about this and is threatening Christies operations in China delights me to no end. Funny thing is, if those treasures weren't "looted" in the first place, there is a good chance they would not exist in as good a condition as they are right now.

ludahai said:

Note: Germany LOSt that war, which is why it was forced to return the property.

The fact that China is ticked off about this and is threatening Christies operations in China delights me to no end. Funny thing is, if those treasures weren't "looted" in the first place, there is a good chance they would not exist in as good a condition as they are right now.

Click to expand...

No one can deny history, but that was the Cultural Revolution era, and this is now. China has a newfound appreciation for the past, and I think their claim to it is fair. You can't use China's past domestic conflicts to deny its right to its own relics.

Orius said:

I am not surprised at all, given France's history in this department. It has also retained precious Egyptian artifacts that made their way into its borders during colonialism, ones that the Egyptian cultural authority has been constantly asking for. Unlike Britain, France has few qualms about its imperial past. It has done some reparations in the form of money, but I doubt it will ever acknowledge claims to stolen cultural relics.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that the British are still holding most of the Parthenon's sculpture. Don't know if that was resolved, but I don't believe it has.

I remember reading the explanation a few years ago. It was like: "Those sculptures belong to humanity. Since more people can view them in Britain, we're keeping them."

I agree with you concerning the imperial history though. The British get an unfair share of crap compared to the French (not to mention that Belge Leopold II)....I guess that's what they get for gloating about how the sun never sets for all those years :lol:

The fact that China is ticked off about this and is threatening Christies operations in China delights me to no end. Funny thing is, if those treasures weren't "looted" in the first place, there is a good chance they would not exist in as good a condition as they are right now.

Click to expand...

That's a great point, I didn't think of that beforehand.

t :werd

jujuman13 said:

Link
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China relics buyer refuses to pay

As the two statues in question were looted from Bejing in 1860 why would the French courts not consider them to be the property of the Chinese State?
Objects that were looted from many EU Nations by the Germans were sent back to their legal owners.
I would have thought that the same would apply to these objects.
Comments?

Click to expand...

I dislike stolen artwork from being sold; however, what China is doing is illegal.

Two wrongs don't make a right (three lefts do... but that is a different story entirely) ... as such ... those responsible need to be banned from further bidding and China needs to be officialy sanctioned for allowing this action.

HannaForman said:

Click to expand...

Great. We have another one.

Orius said:

No one can deny history, but that was the Cultural Revolution era, and this is now. China has a newfound appreciation for the past, and I think their claim to it is fair. You can't use China's past domestic conflicts to deny its right to its own relics.

Click to expand...

While it may have a "moral" claim to the relics, there is no legal claim to them.

ludahai said:

While it may have a "moral" claim to the relics, there is no legal claim to them.

Click to expand...

Your point being...?

That China doesn't deserve to get back a piece of its cultural heritage?

Ok.

Orius said:

Your point being...?

That China doesn't deserve to get back a piece of its cultural heritage?

Ok.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that. However, the current owners of those relics paid in many cases a pretty penny for those pieces. You expect them to give those up without compensation?

At some point there probably needs to be a statute of limitations on these things. As Sydney Greenstreet said of the Maltese Falcon: "You might as well say it belongs to the King of Spain. I don't see how you can honestly grant it to anyone else, except by right of possession."

How far back can nations go to reclaim things that someone stole from them?

Vader said:

Two wrongs don't make a right (three lefts do... but that is a different story entirely) ... as such ... those responsible need to be banned from further bidding and China needs to be officialy sanctioned for allowing this action.

Click to expand...

I don't think China exactly "allowed" this action. It's just some random guy doing what he thinks is right, and making a political statement. To "officially sanction" China for this would be the equivalent of other nations sanctioning the United States for the actions of Cindy Sheehan or Pat Robertson.

Kandahar said:

At some point there probably needs to be a statute of limitations on these things. As Sydney Greenstreet said of the Maltese Falcon: "You might as well say it belongs to the King of Spain. I don't see how you can honestly grant it to anyone else, except by right of possession."

Click to expand...

Right. I am also of the understanding that the Chinese government was not involved and that it was the actions of a person acting alone. That person should be sanctioned, but not the government in Beiping.

ludahai said:

I didn't say that. However, the current owners of those relics paid in many cases a pretty penny for those pieces. You expect them to give those up without compensation?

Click to expand...

I'm not the least bit surprised. Because according to you, China never has the legal right to anything.
So who cares if it was stolen from China illegally to begin with right? China is afterall a backwards communist country and that's all that matters.
Someone stole from China before? Great, steal some more.:roll:

jfuh said:

I'm not the least bit surprised. Because according to you, China never has the legal right to anything.
So who cares if it was stolen from China illegally to begin with right? China is afterall a backwards communist country and that's all that matters.
Someone stole from China before? Great, steal some more.:roll:

Click to expand...

Well...that's not what he said. That's not what he said at all.

When the KMT fled to Taiwan, they took a lot of relics with them at the time. Now, in the post-Cultural Revolution world, Taiwan has more of China's "original works" preserved than China itself, but China doesn't make claim to Taiwan's treasures because those relics are guarded by Chinese people.

France is another story. France, along with Britain, pillaged China, and burned down the Summer Palace as retribution for the Qian Long Emperor refusing to heed to Western powers. Regardless of whether or not the Cultural Revolution happened later, France's actions were the result of its own misdeeds. No one in China gave them permission to take the relics or to hold onto them. If someone went to the Palace of Versailles and stole a painting or gold embroidery and fled to their country, France would demand its return. (And probably get their way.)

There are tonnes of relic dealers in the world, most of them underground, and if they are caught by their governments, the governments take possession of the relics. But then what happens to them? The governments keep them or auction them off "legally". So why is it not okay for black market dealers to have them, but it's okay for the French government to permit their reselling? It's one big hypocrisy.

Franco-Chinese relations are not top priority though. The French President voted to veto the Olympics, Chinese economic trade is not that big of a deal, and they are both oil competitors in the Middle East and Africa. There is no reason why France would be obliged to grant this request... but its government should still do it out of goodness.

Kandahar said:

At some point there probably needs to be a statute of limitations on these things. As Sydney Greenstreet said of the Maltese Falcon: "You might as well say it belongs to the King of Spain. I don't see how you can honestly grant it to anyone else, except by right of possession."

How far back can nations go to reclaim things that someone stole from them?



I don't think China exactly "allowed" this action. It's just some random guy doing what he thinks is right, and making a political statement. To "officially sanction" China for this would be the equivalent of other nations sanctioning the United States for the actions of Cindy Sheehan or Pat Robertson.

Click to expand...

Yeah ... I suppose so.

All his accounts need to be closed and he needs to be denied access to all further actions.

There is no excuse for why thieves stole property from another nation. This is all that is happening... thieves trying to justify their behaviour. If it were petty theft, people would be saying there is no excuse for why you shoplifted... but a grand cultural larseny is okay. The same sense of entitlement that France and England had when they invaded China and made the Qing sign the Treaty of Nanjing is the same sense of imperialist entitlement that they have to cultural relics stolen during that time. These countries never learn.

Orius said:

There is no excuse for why thieves stole property from another nation. This is all that is happening... thieves trying to justify their behaviour. If it were petty theft, people would be saying there is no excuse for why you shoplifted... but a grand cultural larseny is okay. The same sense of entitlement that France and England had when they invaded China and made the Qing sign the Treaty of Nanjing is the same sense of imperialist entitlement that they have to cultural relics stolen during that time. These countries never learn.

Click to expand...

Well, if China were stronger, it could have prevented it. Funny how just a few decades earlier, the Chinese were calling the Europeans barbarians, and then they were getting their butts kicked. They should have abided by previous agreements and not executed a French missionary.

As for the taking of cultural treasures, back in the 19th century, that was a consequence of losing a war. Again, as I said before, it is a GOOD thing they were taken. They would have been destroyed in the 1960s had they NOT been. If CHina wants them back, they will have to negotiate for them. The behavior of this bogus bidder to disrupt the auction was illegal and unethical.

Orius said:

There is no excuse for why thieves stole property from another nation. This is all that is happening... thieves trying to justify their behaviour. If it were petty theft, people would be saying there is no excuse for why you shoplifted... but a grand cultural larseny is okay. The same sense of entitlement that France and England had when they invaded China and made the Qing sign the Treaty of Nanjing is the same sense of imperialist entitlement that they have to cultural relics stolen during that time. These countries never learn.

Click to expand...

Oh get over yourself.

We're talking about property that was taken in war centuries ago. Quit with your "they shouldn't have stolen it" rhetoric.

:mrgreen:

jallman said:

Well...that's not what he said. That's not what he said at all.

Click to expand...

Except :

ludahai said:

While it may have a "moral" claim to the relics, there is no legal claim to them.

Click to expand...

If somebody steals my car and police find it a year after do I no longer have a claim to such a car even if it was sold to somebody else? Seriously saying that China no longer has a legal claim to an object which was not only stolen from China but also that it's present owner knew was stolen from China is ridiculous.

Hatuey said:

Except :



If somebody steals my car and police find it a year after do I no longer have a claim to such a car even if it was sold to somebody else? Seriously saying that China no longer has a legal claim to an object which was not only stolen from China but also that it's present owner knew was stolen from China is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

If you find your car 150 years later in France, then I'd say you no longer have any claim to it.

Kandahar said:

If you find your car 150 years later in France, then I'd say you no longer have any claim to it.

Click to expand...

Under what law, rule or logic do stolen items stop belonging to the person they were stolen from over time? Get serious.

Hatuey said:

Under what law, rule or logic do stolen items stop belonging to the person they were stolen from over time? Get serious.

Click to expand...

There really are no laws that are internationally recognized (and followed) to stop people from looting during a war. And even if there are now, there certainly weren't any such laws 150 years ago.

As for what logic they stop belonging to the person...because at a certain point, it becomes damn near impossible to track down the original owner. Is the French government today (much less the private investor who actually owns it) the same French government that stole the property? Is the Chinese government today the same Chinese government from whom it was stolen?

If we're going to start going back 150 years to address grievances, then the US government needs to give most of its land back to Native American tribes. In fact, they have MORE of a claim to it than the parties in this case...because it actually WAS the same United States government that stole their land.