Sale of Chinese bronze rat and rabbit by Christie

Closed Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile:
    ...
    I think Christies may find it difficult to comply with some laws in China when it wants to do business there.
    It's already happening.

    China punishes Christie's for auction of relics - International Herald Tribune

    "Border authorities will single out Christie's artifacts ..."

    One would sincerely hope that the result of this dispute is a new & improved international legal framework. However, I fear that the result will be more governmental bullying.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast Marina
    Posts
    17,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Safran:
    Indeed. But now we are in 2009, and I hope some things have changed...
    Change for current and future wars maybe, but not for past acts. Why should they return them? Ugly things that they are! Somebody has purchased them and paid for them, then they cannot just be taken away. It's not like YSL was the guy who grabbed them out of the palace in the first place. Sure, if you could prosecute him (the original thief), then fine, but I guess he's long dead now!

    How many of us own things that might, unbeknown to us, have been stolen in the past? Just about any antique is at risk I guess. How would you react if someone came knocking in the door and said "that table used to belong to my great great grandfather - hand it over!".

  3. #33

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    325
    "We continue to believe that sale by public auction offers the best opportunity for items to be repatriated as a result of worldwide exposure," the firm said in a statement.

    We continue to believe that ... [giving commission to Christies] ...offers the best opportunity

    Heh

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    27

    does it really matter what is right and what is wrong? Throughout history, it has always been the rich and powerful one to define the game rules. Back in old days it's by means of wars. Nowadays, more civilized methods like using treaties, WTO..etc.
    So now the french wants to use the bronze artefacts to gain political benefits in helping the dalai lama. On the other hand, china emphasizes of 'unspecified consequences' to Christie's.
    Would you say using something that was robbed to threat another person for benefits is correct? Or would you say hosting a private auction is wrong? I think it's hard to clearly define all right and wrong here. Simply the rich and powerful will win. i.e. if france is strong enough to endure a long and cold boycott of all french goods from the chinese community, then france wins and get to keep all the robbed artefacts in Louvre. If china is rich enough to gain control over some significant markets, and get other countries' support since they need the financial help, then eventually china win when no one stands in the french side. Again, game rules will change as power shifts...


  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    330

    I am not entirely sure what you are talking about, and whether you are joking or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by octarine:
    After WW2 instead of reparations, captial flowed the other way and has hanaged to build a world without major conflict for 60 years. Not too shabby when you think about it.
    No major conflict for 60 years?!?!?! Where??? In Europe? Granted. But not so in Africa or Asia. The cold war was played out in Africa and Asia, and was only cold in Europe.
    Vietnam? Cambodia? Rwanda? Burundi? Millions of people died. No major conflict???
    Simply the US and Russia made the locals kill each other, rather then openly have a war between themselves. Check KryssTal : Why The USA? to see all the conflicts, bombing, terrorism, overthrow of democracies and replacing with fascist dictators, etc. the US has been involved in.

    Capital flowed the other way???? What have you drank??? Third World countries are net senders of capital to First World countries, and so it has been for a few decades already.
    Quote Originally Posted by octarine:
    How far back would you like to go? Over the years pretty much every culture has done its fair share of looting, raping and pillaging.
    So? Is this a justification for something?

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast Marina
    Posts
    17,934
    Quote Originally Posted by nsym:
    does it really matter what is right and what is wrong? Throughout history, it has always been the rich and powerful one to define the game rules. Back in old days it's by means of wars. Nowadays, more civilized methods like using treaties, WTO..etc.
    So now the french wants to use the bronze artefacts to gain political benefits in helping the dalai lama. On the other hand, china emphasizes of 'unspecified consequences' to Christie's.
    Would you say using something that was robbed to threat another person for benefits is correct? Or would you say hosting a private auction is wrong? I think it's hard to clearly define all right and wrong here. Simply the rich and powerful will win. i.e. if france is strong enough to endure a long and cold boycott of all french goods from the chinese community, then france wins and get to keep all the robbed artefacts in Louvre. If china is rich enough to gain control over some significant markets, and get other countries' support since they need the financial help, then eventually china win when no one stands in the french side. Again, game rules will change as power shifts...
    Do you know anything about this story?

    It's got nothing to do with who is rich and powerful - it's mostly to do with political rhetoric vs a court ruling.

    "France" per se has nothing to do with it - an individual French person and a french court have been involved.

    " So now the french wants to use the bronze artefacts to gain political benefits in helping the dalai lama " - where on earth did you dig this up from? The guy selling the items made a (tongue in cheek?) comment that he would give them back to China if China freed Tibet (most likely to highlight more the hypocrasy of the chinese in their stance on the "stolen" country of Tibet than anything else and gain publicity for his sale) - "France" as in the GOvernment has made no statements let alone been using the artefacts for anything.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by MovingIn07:
    "France" per se has nothing to do with it - an individual French person and a french court have been involved.
    common, where were you during the olympics? or you are not aware of the news about French President Nicolas Sarkozy's meeting with the dalai lama? I cannot see how Berge's statement have no relationship with this at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by MovingIn07:
    The guy selling the items made a (tongue in cheek?) comment that he would give them back to China if China freed Tibet (most likely to highlight more the hypocrasy of the chinese in their stance on the "stolen" country of Tibet than anything else and gain publicity for his sale)
    well, not sure how clear you are on the tibet/china history either, but maybe you should read up on master/slave system that tibet used to run under the spiritual leadership of dalai lama, and gain a bit of understanding how much investment the chinese gov't had put into the place to help the tibetan.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Siu Sai Wan
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by nsym:
    ..{}.. and gain a bit of understanding how much investment the chinese gov't had put into the place to help the tibetan.
    We know which side of the argument you are coming from. Maybe one's view depends on the definitions of "investment" and "help".

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile:
    We know which side of the argument you are coming from. Maybe one's view depends on the definitions of "investment" and "help".
    True, I agree, it's very perspective dependent.
    The reason why I have this side is because back in those protest days, saw some news clips that are being broadcasted in other parts of the world are trimmed short. And when you watch another full version, story is different. There are also interviews with the local tibetans who really don't want the protests which makes me believe that the "help" is not the bad kind. But then, who knows, maybe the only way to find out is to go there in person to really know the true story behind...

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast Marina
    Posts
    17,934
    Quote Originally Posted by nsym:
    I cannot see how Berge's statement have no relationship with this at all.
    Do you really think that an off-the-cuff remark by an ordinary (if rich) citizen was something previous discussed with Sarkozy?

    I think you are chinese and do not really understand how the rest of the (Western world) works! That is, according to rule of law and separation of the legislative and judicial branches of Government (in simple English, just in case this is not your first language, this means that the Government cannot influence the courts).