Yale Daily News

I'm not sure how nationalization is theft, legally speaking. (Morally speaking, of course, I do.) But on what grounds is Yale filing suit before Konowaloff does?

"Konowaloff contends that the Soviet nationalization of property was illegal and, therefore, the painting should be returned to him, Morozov’s rightful heir."

The Soviets' actions were legal. Atrocious, but legal. Sorry, Pierre.

Funny how relativism goes out the window when dollars (or art, in this case) are at stake. Where are all the Yalies--of the type who demand that S&B "return" Geronimo's skull--protesting in favor of the suffering Russian?

If the guy wanted to, couldn't he just walk into the art gallery and take the painting back? Happens all the time around here.

@#3 / @ Hieronymous

I always love your candid, idiotic takes on every topic. Perhaps you dont understand the difference between a historic art piece and human remains?

I agree with #5.
Perhaps you also don't understand the difference between breaking in to a tomb and accepting a piece donated to you by someone who bought it from a government that acquired it legally. Nationalization is a power that a lot of states have - you may not like it, but it remains legal. Tomb-robbing is illegal. Anywhere.

The repossession was only legal if you recognize Lenin, Stalin, and their ilk as something other than authoritarian dictators.

I fail to see what "relativism" has to do with anything. It's the new buzzword for every stance you dislike, I guess?

It seems unnecessary to post a comment like this for Yale students who presumably are intelligent to figure this out for themselves but either some of the other posters are dense or are intentionally trying to obfuscate.

I would imagine that what #3 is suggesting is that theft is theft irrespective of whether it is "illegal grave robbing" or cloaked as "legal nationalization". I believe #3 is also saying that theft is theft whether the object in question has emotional/spiritual value or simply monetary value.

I believe #3 would also be saying that individuals who defend the theft of property by the Soviet government as OK because it was "legal" (e.g. #6 and, maybe #5) would, in other cases protest things that are (or were) similarly "legal" as indefensible, but for some inexplicable reason think this particular "legality" is OK.

#3 may also be questioning how someone can generally advocate for return of antiquities/artwork to certain groups (who may or may not be lineal descendants of the creators) as rightful owners but not artwork to its literal lineal descendant owner (who. by the way, may also have emotional and/or spiritual attachment to the art).

At the end, of course, in this and other posts, #3 is probably attempting to point out the lack of internal consistency among those who appear to be able to rationalize any activity as long as it is consistent with their personal views, while dismissing anything that isn't, I suppose in the hope that it will make them step back and consider their illogic. Actually, I suspect #3 believes that many who do so know exactly what it is they are doing, but hopes that the posts will make those that they are trying to influence with smooth talk or seemingly rational arguments will step back and consider things more objectively or rationally.

Or maybe I've completely missed #3's point.

Wondering if Geronimo's skull was no less legally acquired under an act of state, within its borders, called Manifest Destiny, which would seem to have ordained formal as well as a privagte sense of entitlement to Indian land and culture. Hmm. Maybe Konowaloff's attorney, Gerson, should take that case when he is done with this one. He'd probably get more support for it -- everyone is sick of S&B's drag on Yale's good name over those remains. A DNA test is needed.