What if you inherited something from a deceased relative that was stolen from another family. Something priceless, perhaps, like a particular work of art by a legendary artist. It came into your family by means of a theft, and you are made aware of this fact. The descendents of the original owner come and ask you if they can have it back. You didn't steal it, and the original owner is no longer alive. Is it yours, or theirs? I think I have to give it back. In the inheriting of the item it is implied that I was given it by my dead relative. If they did not own a right to give it to me, I reject the right to take ownership. I would give it back with an apology. Something more than that might even be agreeable. I say this not just because I reject my right to ownership, but to right the wrong done by my ancestor. To "clear the family name," I suppose. Besides, if I've only just received it myself, I suppose it shouldn't be too hard to part with something I've not had any time to get attached to. What do you think of this hypothetical situation? Do you keep the stolen painting, or return it?
It depends, if it is truly a work of art by a great artist I wouldn't give it back, I'd donate it to an art museum. Now if it was anything less than a Monet I'd give it back to the family.
So if it's a matter of history, you would contend that the ownership of the work is public, which sounds reasonable since the owner no longer lives. That's a good answer. I have some questions though: Do you claim the right to own it? If so, why would you return it in after deciding it's not a historical treasure? If not, do you have the right to decide who should own it?
I would be the douche who would probably keep it especially if I like that artist. You really don't come across really good art often and it is always nice to have an emergency back up should your family end up in a financial rut. Technically I did not get it via illegal means. My career of choice in the future is really not that financially stable so back up plans are important. I just don't feel the moral obligation for things that last generation does. If the original owner is still alive I would probably feel really bad and return it. But if he is already dead? Meh. What luxury item they never had should not hurt them to not get it. Unless that family could REALLY use it then I might return it. If they are obviously rich still(to own that piece in the first place...) then... I am keeping it for good. Yes I am a douche.
Sounds kind of like you'd keep it, but you still acknowledge there is something wrong about it. You seem to be saying you might need it. Suppose you were doing just fine for the forseeable future. Does that change your answer any?
Then I would probably return it(unless it is a Michelangelo cos I worship that guy). Sadly I always like to have a plan B lol
just so I don't need to feel bad over anything even though I know technically it was not my fault. Thing is, if it is in my living room or something every time I see it I would be reminded. It would be the annoying nagging feeling even though I don't really THINK I did anything wrong. I guess it is more for a peace of mind. It is the kind of thing that you won't give a damn if you did not know it was stolen goods but once you know it it just feels a little dirty.
I think there is no doubt you did nothing wrong when all you've done is accept an object that was given to you. You didn't steal it. But it seems clear that you have the feeling that it's wrong for you to have it. You did nothing wrong in acquiring it, but perhaps you don't feel you deserve to have it. Obviously, none of this would be a problem if you were not made aware of how it was originally acquired by its previous owner(s). Would it be safe to say that you might reject the right to own it in the light of this? Why else would you feel the need to return it?
Mostly because of upbringing telling me that I should. If I did not have that bit drilled into me as a kid I would not give a damn lol The selfish factor is not taught by my parents but the good moral to return what you find is. Things that were drilled in as a child tend to stick. (and that my mom is a master of guilt tripping) If you get say, 20 acre of land from your great grand uncle, you probably won't call the nearest native american conservation to tell them that you want to return their land even though you know that your ancestors robbed them of it. Feel bad? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it is all how many generation ago that the deed happened that makes a difference in a person's mind. Or perhaps it is due to the item is easily returned and technically you don't gain directly(it can be $ but it is not land you can farm and live on immediately) from it that makes one have that feeling that they should return it. If the feeling that you need the item is strong enough I doubt returning it would be on the mind at all.
I want to thank you for humoring me. You're raising some very good issues and it's exactly the kind of stuff I'm thinking about. I was not thinking of the natives, but you're very astute to bring this up. I was actually thinking of slaves and had not thought much about what happened with the natives. I suppose I am inclined to think that at least natives had some ability to contest their ownership to the land they fought to keep. In the case of the land we claim, it was claimed by some kind of military action. I don't really feel this entitles us to it, but the precedent of human conquest does feel undeniable here. That's how land has historically been won. I'm certainly happy to have had this question raised. You've already contributed far more than I'd ask of anyone, and I appreciate that. I am conflicted now, and I'm really enjoying it. If I could justify the conquest of land, then surely a theft such as this is analogous. Either I must rethink the notion that military conquest entitles the victor to the conquered land, or I must accept that the theft of this property represents merely a different kind of conquest. I'll have to go back to the drawing board for the moment. I was planning to expand my inquiry to a modest request for rent of the stolen art. It seems somewhat pointless now. You've created a compelling argument for the notion that you might indeed possess a right to own the art in question. Although it does leave the question of why you felt "dirty" about owning it. Perhaps the focus needs to change now. Does our ancestor's aggression entitle us to the ownership of the land originally owned by others? If you think it does, might you have some reasons why?
[quote name='"Postal Blowfish"']I want to thank you for humoring me. You're raising some very good issues and it's exactly the kind of stuff I'm thinking about. I was not thinking of the natives, but you're very astute to bring this up. I was actually thinking of slaves and had not thought much about what happened with the natives. I suppose I am inclined to think that at least natives had some ability to contest their ownership to the land they fought to keep. In the case of the land we claim, it was claimed by some kind of military action. I don't really feel this entitles us to it, but the precedent of human conquest does feel undeniable here. That's how land has historically been won. I'm certainly happy to have had this question raised. You've already contributed far more than I'd ask of anyone, and I appreciate that. I am conflicted now, and I'm really enjoying it. If I could justify the conquest of land, then surely a theft such as this is analogous. Either I must rethink the notion that military conquest entitles the victor to the conquered land, or I must accept that the theft of this property represents merely a different kind of conquest. I'll have to go back to the drawing board for the moment. I was planning to expand my inquiry to a modest request for rent of the stolen art. It seems somewhat pointless now. You've created a compelling argument for the notion that you might indeed possess a right to own the art in question. Although it does leave the question of why you felt "dirty" about owning it. Perhaps the focus needs to change now. Does our ancestor's aggression entitle us to the ownership of the land originally owned by others? If you think it does, might you have some reasons why?[/quote] I would have returned it without a doubt until i read the example of the native americans' land. Now i'm slightly boggled as well.. I wouldn't necessarily reach out and return the item/land, but if i was approached by the rightful heirs and asked in a reasonable way, then without a doubt i would return it. Of course in a reasonable way being a way where they consider my family's situation (if we live on the land). If the person is genuine then they won't screw you over to gain something physical. Ever. Because we can't change the past or what those before us did, but we can try to make it right, and like you said clean the family name. Military conquest? Fuck wars, anything taken with violence isn't rightfully yours anyways.. Shit, nothing really belongs to you technically, so if you think of it like that i don't see why you should have trouble giving away a material object.
If it was a piece of stolen art, I would return it without question. However, the question of the native american land is slightly more difficult. If the rightful heirs were to come to me and could prove the property I owned was theirs, I think the only fair thing to do would be to sell the property and split it 50/50, or just give them half of the land. However it's also worthy to note that the native american's themselves most likely won that land by warring with other tribes in the first place. This goes back to what you said about land being claimed militarily throughout history. Honestly, the notion that one person "owns" a certain piece of the earth is ridiculous. It's my belief that a true lover of art does not hoard certain pieces and lock them away only to be enjoyed by that person alone, but shared publicly as a couple others have said. However I would like to say that the notion that we should pay reparations to the ancestors of slaves is RIDICULOUS beyond belief. Some could argue that being a slave on a wealthy plantation was actually much better than living in the war-strewn African countries they came from, sleeping on the ground in huts, with little to nothing to eat, always worrying about being attacked and taken away in the middle of the night by neighboring tribes (this is of course how they were sold into slavery in the first place). At least on a plantation they always had a roof over their head, food to eat, and knew that they were safe. Being a slave was pretty much just being a farmer, although of course some were mistreated but most were taken good care of and considered friends of the family. They were after all, an "investment". It would make no sense whatsoever for white people to have to pay black people because their ancestors were owned by our ancestors. They want "reparation"? How about the fact that they now get to enjoy the same freedom and equality that we do? If that's not enough for them, then quite frankly, they can go fuck themselves.
I'll be honest. If it was worth a lot and the laws decided the choice was mine then they wouldn't be getting the art. If it wasn't worth much and I had no emotional attachment to it then they can have it. I don't think we're responsible for anything our ancestors have done, nor do I think anyone is due apologies or compensation for things that were done to their ancestors. Anyone can fake sincerity with "I'm sorry someone who wasn't me done something to someone who isn't you." is impressive.
[quote name='"gedio"']I'll be honest. If it was worth a lot and the laws decided the choice was mine then they wouldn't be getting the art. If it wasn't worth much and I had no emotional attachment to it then they can have it. I don't think we're responsible for anything our ancestors have done, nor do I think anyone is due apologies or compensation for things that were done to their ancestors. Anyone can fake sincerity with "I'm sorry someone who wasn't me done something to someone who isn't you." is impressive.[/quote] For the sake of not typing the exact same thing... I agree with this.
It's just like black people trying to guilt me for being white. I didn't have anything to do with slavery and neither did my ancestors. (Northern European))