Oh, Really?
Germany finally saw its way clear to recognizing its moral responsibility to return properties confiscated from Jewish owners during the Second World War. Having done which, Germany now appears to be having second thoughts. Now, why would this be? After all, it is a moral and ethical imperative that one must right a wrong, and there is no dispute that material possessions taken by force from their Jewish owners should be restored to the owners or their descendants.
In many instances, the original owners were dead, either by having had their most precious possessions, their lives and those of their loved ones, taken from them following the confiscation of their mere material possessions, or the years took their toll, and the properties were transferred to heirs. If the original owners were prosperous in their assimilated lives as German Jews, there was no guarantee that their living family members' lives would parallel theirs in wealth.
So, properties were returned to those who could prove they had legal entitlement to artwork and other possessions through family ties. For under German law, items that were parted with under duress must be returned to their owners or their heirs. Now, however, a debate is underway as a result of a predictable situation: heirs seeking to dispose of the valuable objects through remunerative auction.
Well, what exactly is the problem? Legal owners of property of any description have a right to dispose of their property as they see fit. Should they wish to endow a work of art to a public institution they may do that; should they wish to sell a work of art for substantial financial gain they may do that too under the law. Germany, however, appears not to see the obvious in such black and white terms.
While valuable properties were confiscated from Jews under the Third Reich where Jews had no official status other than vermin to themselves be disposed of through mass gassing, there seems to be a bit of a hiccough here in official understanding of what the return of said property means. Ownership confers rights, and those rights are legally constructed as the legal entitlement to do as one wishes with one's legal property.
Did the German government think that by returning confiscated properties to rightful owners, and in the process salving a nation's conscience; more, appearing to the world at large to be behaving honourably, they should also have a say in the disposal/dispersal afterward of property no longer in their hands?
Is this an instance, another instance of mass hypocrisy, or just plain old stupidity/cupidity? Righteousness now? Over what, exactly?
In many instances, the original owners were dead, either by having had their most precious possessions, their lives and those of their loved ones, taken from them following the confiscation of their mere material possessions, or the years took their toll, and the properties were transferred to heirs. If the original owners were prosperous in their assimilated lives as German Jews, there was no guarantee that their living family members' lives would parallel theirs in wealth.
So, properties were returned to those who could prove they had legal entitlement to artwork and other possessions through family ties. For under German law, items that were parted with under duress must be returned to their owners or their heirs. Now, however, a debate is underway as a result of a predictable situation: heirs seeking to dispose of the valuable objects through remunerative auction.
Well, what exactly is the problem? Legal owners of property of any description have a right to dispose of their property as they see fit. Should they wish to endow a work of art to a public institution they may do that; should they wish to sell a work of art for substantial financial gain they may do that too under the law. Germany, however, appears not to see the obvious in such black and white terms.
While valuable properties were confiscated from Jews under the Third Reich where Jews had no official status other than vermin to themselves be disposed of through mass gassing, there seems to be a bit of a hiccough here in official understanding of what the return of said property means. Ownership confers rights, and those rights are legally constructed as the legal entitlement to do as one wishes with one's legal property.
Did the German government think that by returning confiscated properties to rightful owners, and in the process salving a nation's conscience; more, appearing to the world at large to be behaving honourably, they should also have a say in the disposal/dispersal afterward of property no longer in their hands?
Is this an instance, another instance of mass hypocrisy, or just plain old stupidity/cupidity? Righteousness now? Over what, exactly?
posted by Pieface | 5:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home