.
Over on the Museum security Network, the posting of SAFE's remarks endorsing the renewal of the US/China MOU (there was a CPAC meeting today) was followed by a rather notable reply by one Beth McGraw (no idea who she is in the US Museums world):
Is that NOT what the US said it agreed with in becoming (rather belatedly considering it is a huge market for such things) a state party of the 1970 UNESCO Convention?
In fact, Beth, why do you need an "MOU" anyway (with a CPAC meeting to see if the US is condescending to renew it) to do what in signing the Convention the US said it would do ?
The third question is rhetorical.
The US put its name under this: "Article 3 The import, export or transfer of ownership of cultural property effected contrary to the provisions adopted under this Convention by the States Parties thereto, shall be illicit". Did it mean it?
As for the captain America attitude, "it is always up to the United States to be the world's protector", I think there are many all over the world whose citizens would be inclined to say they'd be only too happy to be protected FROM the United States of America, the ambitions of its leaders and its influences.
Frankly, I think in its current state the US antiquities market is one of the largest avoidable threats to large chunks of the world's archaeological heritage (and by that I mean the digging-over of sites for collectable and sellable artefacts rather than the carting-off of the "portable - and not-so-portable antiquities" themselves).
Vignette: Steve Rogers (Marvel Comics) would not buy smuggled artefacts, why should you? Of course Rogers is only a comic-book character, real Americans have just been campaigning to keep the smuggled stuff coming in unchecked.
Over on the Museum security Network, the posting of SAFE's remarks endorsing the renewal of the US/China MOU (there was a CPAC meeting today) was followed by a rather notable reply by one Beth McGraw (no idea who she is in the US Museums world):Although I agree that cultural heritage belongs to all of us and must be preserved, I don't understand why it is always up to the United States to be the world's protector; we're a bit overextended at the moment, haven't you noticed?So, why not we stop at expecting US dealers, private collectors and museums to AGREE to avoid buying antiquities not exported by the legitimate route?
Is that NOT what the US said it agreed with in becoming (rather belatedly considering it is a huge market for such things) a state party of the 1970 UNESCO Convention?
In fact, Beth, why do you need an "MOU" anyway (with a CPAC meeting to see if the US is condescending to renew it) to do what in signing the Convention the US said it would do ?
The third question is rhetorical.
The US put its name under this: "Article 3 The import, export or transfer of ownership of cultural property effected contrary to the provisions adopted under this Convention by the States Parties thereto, shall be illicit". Did it mean it?
As for the captain America attitude, "it is always up to the United States to be the world's protector", I think there are many all over the world whose citizens would be inclined to say they'd be only too happy to be protected FROM the United States of America, the ambitions of its leaders and its influences.
Frankly, I think in its current state the US antiquities market is one of the largest avoidable threats to large chunks of the world's archaeological heritage (and by that I mean the digging-over of sites for collectable and sellable artefacts rather than the carting-off of the "portable - and not-so-portable antiquities" themselves).
Vignette: Steve Rogers (Marvel Comics) would not buy smuggled artefacts, why should you? Of course Rogers is only a comic-book character, real Americans have just been campaigning to keep the smuggled stuff coming in unchecked.
.jpg)
3 comments:
No, Beth McGraw has it absolutely right. Why should the US put import restrictions on Chinese artifacts, particularly when China allows and even encourages its own citizens to purchase the same sorts of artifacts?
It is odd you are so obsessed about America, sitting as you do in far off Poland. I think you should try your hand at examining collecting issues in your native country. It would be interesting to see some posts where you take on local collectors and metal detectorists.
"Far off" enough for your CIA to have secret prisons and torture centres in MY country. If you try to make the rest of the world into your Guantanamo, then do not be in the least surprised that all your country's fine words and pretence are taken for precisely that. I really do not think any of us can turn our backs to what is awfully awfully wrong and bad in your society, bearing in mind the influence that it exerts and in many ways on the rest of us. And that goes equally for your parasitic and damaging antiquities market, which is what I write about here.
I think there is a fair chance that the woman had in mind precisely what she said, she apparently imagines the rest of us are holding out our hands begging to be "saved" by America. Apparently she has little proper contact with the real world outside the US of A.
Why should the US put import restrictions on Chinese artifacts, particularly when China allows and even encourages its own citizens to purchase the same sorts of artifacts?
What part of the word "exportlicence" do you not understand?
You understand, don't you that it regulates the passage of items from an INternal market to an EXternal one?
Can you then reformulate your question in terms of what the 1970 UNESCO Convention ACTUALLY covers, not what your US inventions and fantasies would make it?
There IS a world outside the USA you know, and it is that world that created the Convention, why do you try to force the rest of us to accept your (US) interpretation of it, and ONLY the US interpretation of it? That may seem perfectly reasonable to you, it takes on a different light when seen from this side of the Atlantic. But, I really do not expect you ever to understand that. "Observer".
Post a Comment