Oh, I most certainly do, hence my comment about taking cultural treasures out of the Third World. But at the same time, the US forces ought to have posted guards at the museum and assumed the duties of a police forcxe. You don’t remove a government at every level and then fold your hands in the face of chaos.
Call me harsh, but it wouldn’t have bothered me to lose one life in order to protect those artifacts, even if it were my own.
I agree, the looters were wrong, but we should have been prepared to deal with this.
I hear you Trucido. This is a lose-lose situation. The same people who are asking for protection from this looting are also upset about the “occupation” of Iraq. It is unfortunate that these artifacts are currently unaccounted for, however I am hard pressed to believe that they have been destroyed. They were taken by people who clearly hope to gain from their possesion of said artifacts–they will be found.
Lissa, honestly, if you really were concerned about the artifacts and would lose your life for them, why are you not there with an M16 ensuring the artifacts safety? Talk is cheap.
I agree 100%. I woudln’t have any problem with a looter having been shot if it would have prevented a bunch of neanderthals from getting to this stuff.
Why should Brutus get all the fun? I want to play too.
I suppose Haliburton will get the contract to provide new cultural artifacts.
Okay, now we need a libertarian perspective on saying stupid things.
The arguments in this thread are eerily similar to the commentary I was listening to during the '92 LA Riots. Kinda creepy.
Blame the rioters, the LAPD, or the system?
What follows is half my belief and half a kind of devil’s advocate position:
Truly, what is the value of these artifacts? I certainly believe the addage that “those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it,” but were there wonderful lessons yet hidden in the old cuneiform tablets? Was there something imperative there that the subsequent thousands of years of history have not been able to teach us?
Why place such high importance on these items? It seems that the only real purpose is to appease those who feel the need for a physical connection to the past, or who persue a purely academic avenue of interest.
I, for one, am saddened about this because I think ancient artifacts are “cool”. I’m an avid history buff, and place a lot of personal value in artifacts (I also place a lot of personal value in Star Trek). I find universal value in them because I wish that other people had the same interest in history that I do, not because I deem that interest of paramount importance to society (in other words, I understand that this is just me projecting my interests onto others, not some absolute truth/necessity).
On the other hand, oil is at this moment integral to the proper functioning of Western society. I can’t and won’t speak to whether or not the Iraqi oil fields make that much of a difference, but to equate oil and artifacts as being equally important seems quite disingenuous.
Oh, and let me also add:
eternal perservation of old stuff (which is exactly what it is; Britteney Spears’ music will qualify as a cultural artifact some day) is hardly necessary to the survival or progress of the human race. Nothing lasts forever, and what would the continued existance of 5000 year old artifacts accomplish other than give PhD canidates something to write papers on? What about in another 1000 years, would these artifacts still have had the importance that they do today? Would their continued existance truly be that important?
Are you determined to portray yourself a complete and utter knuckle-dragger? 'Cuz you’re succeeding.
Fuck it, those things are irreplaceable. You cannot buy something back that has been destroyed. Ever.
Tell me, have you ever worked in a museum? I have. You have to be EXTREMELY careful with artifacts. You can’t even touch them without gloves. And the oldest thing I handled was a poke bonnet from the 1860s. We’re talking clay tablets that are thousands of years old. Those things are probably crumbled and damaged.
:rolleyes:
I can’t bring myself to blame the US troops for the Museum’s loss. After all, they weren’t the ones holding the gasoline-soaked rags and tearing shit up. I’d place the blame specifically at the feet of the fuckheads who picked those amazing cuneiform tablets up with their grubby little hands and smashed them to earth.
It still makes me nauseous to think of it, though. It’s kinda like losing the Alexandrian Library all over again.
Ugh.
You mean sort of like the lives of the soldiers who you so willingly offer up to protect these things? You must be very careful when you choose to dehumanize the military.
Education and culture are much much more valuable to civilization than oil, Eonwe. I see what you’re saying, but at the same time, what’s more important in the LONG run? We survived centuries without oil-eventually, we’ll find alternate sources of fuel.
It’s not even so much the objects themselves, as what they stand for.
(Sorry, I didn’t see your post until after I submitted. Don’t you hate it when that happens?) 
Hell, judging from the photos half of them are smashed to pieces on the museum floor.
And where oh where did I suggest that, hmm?
Yes, I am mightly pissed that they did not bother to protect the museum.
However, the looters are at fault, first and foremost.
I did not de-humanize the military in any way. However, I find it amusing that they’re willing to risk their lives to protect the oil fields-where the CASH is, but not places of culture and knowledge.
Yeah Guin, and on one hand I agree with you, but do you honestly feel that society will benefit more by them just being around? I imagine that if they’re exhibited in a museum that they have been catalogued and photographed and studied to some degree at least. Do they themselves serve any purpose other than to stand as a symbol of what was? I’ve got here a reproduction of the Mona Lisa. Does the original really serve any purpose as far as the bettering of humanity/civilization?
That’s kind of my question here. Remember those immense statues in Afghanistan (I think that’s where they were) that were blown up a few years ago? Very sad, but in what way would your/my/the rest of the world’s future be different if they were still around? Not very much different would be my guess. One more tourist attraction around is all.
The 1860s bonnet? It’s neat, and cool that we have it, but since we are already totally aware of what it is, how it was uses, how it was made, do we need it itself?
Oh, and another thought. If we were to cease having access to oil, or have its price go up even more dramatically (not that I’m at all suggesting this would necessarially happen), I think that we would be in serious trouble. Our country, for one, is not poised to maintain its economy or infrastructure without relatively easy and cheap oil. I wonder if American museums would fare much better if our economy tanked because of oil prices. I’m sure funding for the Smithsonian would not be top on the list of programs to keep.
Guin, you are aware that the burning of oil fields creates a hell of a lot of smoke that could make life difficult for our military, right?
I too wish that the artifacts were intact and this was not a concern, however these artifacts have been documented extensively and I would rather have my brother, sister, father or mother home than think that they were killed trying to defend artifacts that are not furthering our civilization. I agree with Eonwe, these artifacts will hardly be necessary for the success and survival of the human race, or our knowlege and evolution. You have worked in a museum, and know that things are documented to the tiniest detail. If they are destroyed (and I do not think they are), what difference does it make?
I’m confused…didn’t you write in a recent death penalty thread in Great Debates
And yet here, you advocate death for the crime of stealing / vandalism. We’re “decent and civilized” if we don’t execute our own criminals, but we should gun down those damn dirty Iraqi looters?
While I’m no fan of looting priceless historic treaures, I can’t get too worked up about it. How much of archaeology consists of what would be considered graverobbing if not for the fact that the graves are a few thousand years old?
It would not surprise me if many of these looters saw the museum as simply an extension of Saddam’s regime’s wealth, and thus saw it as fair game to pillage / plunder / destroy, just as they did to his palaces and government buildings.
Well, first of all, I’m not a soldier, and I’d have no idea how to fire an M-16. However, I pay tax dollars so that people can be well-trained to do so. I doubt if I could get a visa right now, anyway, and the museum at which I work might get a bit irritated if I were to take the time off.
Guin hit the nail on the head with this comment:
Comparing this tradgedy to the loss of the Library of Alexandria is very apt. The loss of human life is sad, but the loss of our cultural history is horrific.
Forgive me, artifacts do not further civilization, but your family members somehow do?
It makes a hell of a lot of difference. Since we have copies of the Constitution, why not just throw the original away? Why waste all the money in preservation? In fact, why not just take really good pictures and close down all of the museums in the country? No one really * cares, * right?
Yes, musuems do keep careful records, but it’s not the same as having the actual item, much the same as having a picture of your house wouldn’t replace it if there were a fire.
Art, music, love, and laughter are not essential for human survival, either, but life would hardly be worth living without them. Likewise, to have tangible reminders of our history is very important.
Many of these artifacts will be destroyed, despite what you think. Some of them are fragile, and without proper preservation and care can literally crumble into dust. If they are not returned within a generation, they could be thrown away or destroyed by their children who do not know the value of the artifact. Gold could be melted down, jewels pried away, and vases accidently knocked over and smashed.
Forcibly protecting property from immediate danger and ceremonially killing a person is not the same thing. If someone breaks into my house and I shoot him, I don’t necessarily consider that the “death penalty.”
I don’t really think much force would have been necessary in the first place, but I would have been prepared to accept it. Most likely, the presence of a handfull of troops would have been enough to prevent the looting. The Iraqis would have probably accepted it, and moved on to another minister’s house. (Much as I’ve heard we protected the oil offices.)
Ah, now here’s an interesting debate. I’ve struggled with this quandry myself, but have never truly resolved it in my own mind. It would make an interesting thread, in my opinion.
I think that it’s possible that the folks in charge of the military operation were caught totally off-guard by what happened. I think that they were expecting Baghdad to hold out longer than it did, so when the troops showed up, and essentially captured the city in a couple of days, they were left standing around saying, “Uh, now what?” In the meantime, the Iraqis, discovering the power vacuum, decided to lash out. Remember, Saddam felt that he was the reincarnation of Nebecanezzar (sorry I butchered the name Guin), so they probably saw the Babylonian relics as a symbol of Saddam, and not humanity’s first steps into civilization.
Additionally, I have to think that based on the expressions of horror here, that many of us might not think of protecting the museum, simply because we’d make the human mistake of assuming that because it’s so horrifying to us, that it’d be horrifying everyone else and until the accounts of the looting started coming in, we wouldn’t think that the museum needed to be protected.
Finally, it may be the lesser of two evils that the museum was looted. Imagine the reaction in the Arab world if the news from Iraq was suddenly filled with images of American soldiers shooting Iraqi civilians looting the museum. I don’t think for a moment that the Arab reaction would be one of, “Well, they had it coming to 'em.” No, they’d just see it as yet another example of the West’s “war” against Islam. (To be fair, there would be Arabs who realize that soldiers were doing the right thing, just as there would be Americans who’d screech even louder that Bush was a blood thirsty tyrant.)