the nazi/art/jewish news story from yesterday
cst
is in regards to is below.
My biggest motivation in this, is my anger over the media, special interest
groups, minoritys, religions, etc. and how they seem to pull offense out of
everything possible. How can you talk about gays or gay issues without
saying something that could possibly be pulled out of context, and turned
into some sort of bigotous statement. The same goes for any topic... And
especially for members of government, judiciary, education, and celebrities.
They have to watch their backs even more than the rest of us. If you mention
any moment in history your words usually can be twisted to offend anyone.
Yeah, there are some people out there who are bigots, racist, or otherwise
rude to someone else.Of course usually those people are quite open and proud
that they do intend offense. But so often it seems that people who do not
mean any offense are attacked publicly by these organizations. And then when
any sane person listens to the actual statements, in complete, if they
happened to have been caught on video, it is plain to see that they are not
evil people trying to offend anyone.
It is just kind of sad when we have to be scared of possibly saying or doing
the wrong thing... Without the least bit of involvement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I am writing this message in regards to a news story I read today in
regards to recent comments made regarding art that was stolen by the
nazis.... (the story is enclosed at the end of the message).
I think that perhaps everyone is over-reacting, and
over-sensationalizing the comments made by Ian Lumsden. If he had intended
to mean that any acts committed by the Nazi's were justified simply due to
having positive consequences, or some positives in the midst of negatives,
then yes, that would be a rather harsh statement, and would be in a way
supporting the actions...
However, I believe what the intent was simply to say that this was one
of the many side effects of those actions that most everybody certainly
agrees to be atrocious and horrible, and this one tiny outcome was positive.
Without making judgements on the actions that caused it, you have to see
that the factual history is that if the art had been left in the homes, it
would have been destroyed with everything else. Instead it was stolen, thus
preserved for mankind. I do not believe he was justifying in any way the
actions, but simply stating the fact, that because it was stolen, it was not
destroyed, thus preserved. And in the great scheme of life, in this world,
from a historical point of view, one persons possessions are trivial, but
the actual preservation of the great physical pieces of history are far more
important. To give an example of way further back in history, we could think
of an item like Noah's Ark. If we assume that it was real, and did exist,
then simply the ability to have a piece of that left and preserved
throughout time would be an important thing for man's history. But if we
were to have to worry about whether Noah was the one to preserve it, or if
we worried that perhaps Jonas stole it from Noah's descendant Philip, and
then preserved it, it would not matter so much now, thousands upon thousands
of years later - but for mankind, we would benefit. Of course this issue is
a little more current, so we have the luxury of being able to still
determine who it was that owned it, and now that "Jonas" has been overthrown
we can attempt to return any of "Philip's" belongings... But in a thousand
years, when mankind looks at any of these pieces of art, and feels the
history, and feels enlightened, I think humankind will be more thankful
simply that they still exist, and will not worry about the details on how it
came to stay through time. And if perchance they do think about the details,
it will only serve to remind them of this time in history, and of whatever
else may come between now and then... and that will be a reminder of the
atrocities, and perhaps will help to prevent them from ever repeating, which
is as I understand, one of the goals of the jewish community, and that is
rememberance, so that we will never repeat.
So I don't think anyone can argue that it was wrong in how this
happened, and I also do think that if it can be done, then perhaps we should
return any stolen property to those who originally owned it. But I do also
think that perhaps the media, and the world, needs to stop their nit-picking
on every comment, trying to extract any possible harm or disrespect -
especially if there was none originally intended. And especially in this
case, where Ian Lumsden voiced that his personal opinion is that no work of
art should be owned by personal estates, and that it should all be public in
the interest of mankind. That says that he wants all art to be public, no
matter who the owner is or was.
A
----------------------------------------------
NEWS
Gallery Director Says Nazis Did Art World A Favour
Comments Outrage Canadian Jewish Congress
FREDERICTON, N.B., Updated 1:46 p.m. EST January 4, 2001 -- The head of a
prestigious Canadian art gallery says the Nazis might have unwittingly
benefited humanity by stealing art from Jews, thus protecting it from the
ravages of war.
"I think the greater good of mankind might have been served inadvertently
by the Nazis by virtue of the fact that, possibly, if some of these works
had been left in homes in Amsterdam and God knows where, they'd have been
bombed and the works might have been destroyed," Ian Lumsden, executive
director of the Beaverbrook Art Gallery in Fredericton, N.B., said yesterday
in an interview.
"That would be much more heinous than actually having these things surface
in major collections like the National Gallery in Washington or the British
Museum or where have you. I think that regardless of who owns it, the
important thing is that it exists for the edification of mankind.
"I don't think it's as negative as people feel. At least by having the Nazis
remove them, they've protected them from that kind of fate. And that's an
argument that's quite legitimate."
And, he added, "it's not the worst thing in the world" that some art works
stolen from European Jews have ended up in galleries and museums around the
world.
"I don't really believe that people have (the) right to ownership of a major
work of art."
Lumsden's comments have outraged the Canadian Jewish Congress, part of a
growing global effort to return Nazi-looted art to their original owners and
descendants.
"It is a perverse comment - and I find it an incredibly unacceptable
comment - by anyone who would think, in any way, that looting, theft and
murder would be a route to saving or popularizing art or putting art in the
public domain, inadvertently or otherwise," said Jack Silverstone, the
organization's national executive vice-president.
He said Lumsden's comments remind him of the supposed benefits of Nazi
medical experiments on Jews in concentration camps.
"Responsible physicians and medical researchers recognize the immorality of
(those) experiments. We're not interested in the results, regardless of the
inadvertent benefits - if there were any."
Lumsden's remarks came during an interview about his gallery's need for
funds to more fully research the provenance, or history of ownership, of
about 20 to 25 European works purchased after 1933.
He said it is unlikely that any were stolen by the Nazis.
"If I thought that we were sitting on a lot of hot works of art, we'd have
made it a priority."
Still, he called on the federal Department of Canadian Heritage to give
smaller museums like his the money to research their entire collections.
"There are so many more fundamental reasons why research should be conducted
on a collection," he said, "than merely to find a few stolen works that have
entered the public domain."
He said the power, wealth and sophistication of the Jewish congress has
helped attract considerable attention to the issue.
"But I think we've got a much more fundamental concern with what we've done,
the spoliation of native works into non-native collections.
"That's on our doorstep, not a handful of central European families,"
Lumsden said.
"I think we really, really should have done a lot more work on - it's
started now, but very slowly - the repatriation of works to First Nations
communities in this country that have been totally wrongfully expropriated."
Since early December, when it was revealed that the National Gallery of
Canada has identified 110 works in its European collection with gaps in
provenance between 1933 and 1945, the issue of stolen art in Canadian
museums has attracted wide attention.
Silverstone called Lumsden's remarks deeply misguided.
"`This is an individual who seems to think that the end justifies the means,
no matter how evil."
Copyright 2001 by The Ottawa Citizen. All rights reserved. This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
=n=e=v=i=n=s=@===========
snip
>
> However, I believe what the intent was simply to say that this was one
>of the many side effects of those actions that most everybody certainly
>agrees to be atrocious and horrible, and this one tiny outcome was positive.
>Without making judgements on the actions that caused it, you have to see
>that the factual history is that if the art had been left in the homes, it
>would have been destroyed with everything else. Instead it was stolen, thus
>preserved for mankind. I do not believe he was justifying in any way the
>actions, but simply stating the fact, that because it was stolen, it was not
>destroyed, thus preserved.
snip
By the same token had not the Nazi's waged war the same works of art
would not have been destroyed either. To show them in any kind of
favourable light is a fallacy.
Mark
anyone be so stupid. What's obvious about WWII is that it should
not have happened in the first place.
The Nazi's didn't do anyone a favour by saving the art from the mayhem
that they were the cause of in the first place.
Mark
cst <c...@powersurfr.com> wrote in message
news:eej56.1291$705....@news-rep.ab.videon.ca...
Trill
This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Without war, art, or ANY
physical objects, tend to have a longer life span. Period.
NightSky 421
I just wanted to say that with regards to your above statements, truer words
could not have been spoken. I'm glad you said it. Many a time when someone
brings up some of the above topics, someone else takes the cheap-shot
opportunity to accuse the original person of saying things which they were
not. One person in this very newsgroup once said to me "don't read what is
not there" and then on a later occasion in a different debate tried to
accuse me of saying things which I didn't. Is that hypocritical or what?
But the same sort of thing has happened to many people in this newsgroup in
the past on a number of occasions and I don't expect to see much of a change
anytime soon. People making assumptions about someone else's belief system
does no one any good.
cst
What I am trying to point out is that we are speaking of historical facts. I
am not trying to put Nazis in a favourable light, I am trying to simply
state the facts.
Fact- The Nazis stole the art.
Fact- The Nazis destroyed the buildings and houses.
Fact- The Nazis removing the art resulted in the art not being destroyed
with the houses.
And another way of even thinking about it, is perhaps to mention that the
Allied forces destroyed many buildings and other structures when they
attacked the Nazis.
Fact- The allied forces also bombed many areas in Europe.
Fact- The allied forces would not have been bombing if the Nazis hadnt have
started the war.
Fact- The Nazis committed many atrocious crimes.
No one is disputing any facts, no one is trying to defend actions... We are
stating *HISTORICAL FACTS*.... Ignoring any such facts because we assume
that they intend to offend people, or defend the Nazis is as wrong as denial
of any atrocities committed against humans during WW2... Because that is an
attempt to deny honest history. If the person had've said a great big speech
stating all of the bad things that happened during and after the war, and
included the little bit about how one positive outcome was the preservation
of art, would he have been attacked for his speech? (if he said something
like: "Nazis were horrible, they did __ and __ and __, and these were all
unforgiveable heinous acts.. Oh and they also were horrible mean thieves and
stole - which resulted in preservation of art... But that in no way
excuses.. etc.. etc.. etc..) Would that have been better? Perhaps next time
we discuss any sort of North American history from the moment of Chris
Columbus's landing until 1900, we should also have to include a disclaimer
outlining how we think it was so wrong for any of the persecution of the
Natives? Liek with every sentence.. ?! Seriously... get real..
Oh, and thank you for the support from the one person who gave it...
--
"cst" <c...@powersurfr.com> wrote in message
news:eej56.1291$705....@news-rep.ab.videon.ca...