I feel rather mixed about this. They're not going the national archives or anything, but into the private collection of some dude whose ancestor happened to be king.
I have no idea if this actually benefits the people or just the dude.
News and information from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @[email protected]
I feel rather mixed about this. They're not going the national archives or anything, but into the private collection of some dude whose ancestor happened to be king.
I have no idea if this actually benefits the people or just the dude.
Should art stolen by the Nazi also not return to the heirs of the rightful owner?
For art owned by individuals, it's easy. Yes, absolutely.
But imagine Amsterdam gets ransacked and they steal the Nighwatch. A hundred and fifty years from now, the painting gets returned to the great grandson of Femke Halsema, the last mayor of Amsterdam.
Is that right? Should it go to the grandnephew of the king? Or the son of the last museumdirector, who had it under permanent loan? Or the granddaughter of the final prime minister? Should it be donated the the people of Nova Hollandia (the fictional successor state)?
There are no easy answers here