Chinese Reactions To Auction Of Stolen Bronze Relics

chinese-bronze-heads-auctioned-by-french-yves-saint-laurent-preview

Christie’s auctioned two bronze statue heads taken from China’s Old Summer Palace by British and French army in 1860. The two heads were part of a fountain that featured the 12 animals of the Chinese zodiac. Some of the heads are still missing and some were purchased by rich Chinese and returned to China. These two heads were part of Yves Saint Laurent’s art collection and are being auctioned by his long-time partner, Pierre Berger.

chinese-rabbit-bronze-heads-auctioned-by-french-yves-saint-laurent chinese-rat-bronze-heads-auctioned-by-french-yves-saint-laurent

One chinaSMACK reader, Ted, emailed and asked me to translate some comments about this issue. Here are some comments and a poll from two big Chinese BBS.

From Sina:

What do you think of the French court approving the auction of the Yuan Ming Yuan [Old Summer Palace] bronze animal heads?

Total of 113,975 people participated [as of 2009 February 25, 23:36]

Oppose, this is China’s cultural relic, immediately issue an order to forbid the auction, use diplomatic channels to resolve.
89.3% (101,751)

Understandable, this is a legally legitimate auction, unable to be criticized, China can buy them back at a high price.
8.3% (9,453)

Hard to say.
2.4% (2,714)

Comments from Tianya:

ztelt:

What is the use of spending so much money to get these back? Aren’t they just copper faucets? With 200 million, we can make them in pure gold. There are so many national treasures out there, why just focus on these two?

watklcvbs:

Crazy, if they are in other people’s hands, then it is their’s. If they want to auction them, then let them auction them. If they want to sell them, then let them sell them. There is no need for China to approve it.

xzpost:

Foreigners are simply exploiting Chinese people’s so-called patriotism, intentionally raising the price, and everyone should just ignore them.

情缘梦里:

Ding, Chinese people’s things should definitely be returned to China.

joyface:

When did those things become China’s national treasures? Were it not for us buying a few of them a few years ago, who would care about this? Just look at how much the prices have grown over these past few years! They are just waiting for us to go waste our money! It would be better for us to care about those real national treasures that have been lost overseas!

扶桑丶:

I certainly oppose, but do not scream nonsense about boycotting French goods again, because it is our own countrymen who suffer.

柠檬棒冰:

As long as it is not Chinese (or people of Chinese origin) buying, these things would not have any value.

烂在天涯:

To give them up is also a kind of dignity.

Ailesetpartir:

I also do not support buying them back. I simply feel there is no need. This is the entire world’s wealth, not only China’s.

犬出没:

What Chinese people love is this, being elated when our nationality is brutalized. Now, the only thing that can touch the Chinese people’s G-spot probably is insulting the Chinese.
So if there is an insult to the Chinese, we climax.
If there is no insult to the Chinese, we will create an insult to the Chinese to climax.

紫水依依:

The government does not even make an appearance, what does that mean? The government is losing face for our countrymen, only issuing some useless statements, what good is it? That the people’s lawyers cannot even find a plaintiff, isn’t the government embarrassing the people?

zjg197613657:

I think that this time the government should stand up for the people, do something for the country, instead of depending on us to be a shield for the government, strongly condemning this and condemning that when something happens, always just jokes. The government needs to do something meaningful, at worst just sever relations.

我死也要活着:

Truly fucking nonsense…what do we want those two pieces of scrap metal for? What use would they serve? They are China’s disgrace. We should focus on developing the military, developing the economy, and if there is an opportunity, we can also invade them, take the Arc de Triomphe, Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty, etc., bring them all over to China, then ask a high price and just tell them to buy them back…I truly do not understand why China’s government is always acts so low-key, reserved, taciturn, silent in the international community…can they not be more arrogant???

Comments from Sina:

异能研修网:

My opinion is, however they took them, one day we  will use the same method to take them back.

贻笑大方所言不虚:

Seeing China’s plundered cultural relics being auctioned is as if I was painfully seeing the shadow of the time period our ancestors were killed, robbed, and pillaged!!! It cannot be like this!!! Now the French want to again hurt the Chinese people a second time!!!
French people, how can you be this way!!!
This is the benefit that the French people chase after??? What benefit can the French people get from hurting the Chinese people’s genuine feelings!!!
The Chinese people cannot agree to this!!!
Resolutely oppose!!

宇文苏州:

The French’s way of thinking is a little hard to understand.
If they consider the current economic situation,
they should be standing on the Chinese side.

格蕾的画像:

Getting angry with the French is to flatter them. The French treat politics like a toy, playing with it very happily.

杨苑:

We should keep going! Keep up our tough stance!
Go to hell, evil French creatures!

寻觅的豹子:

I really hope for the current China to truly become strong and powerful, and not return to the period when the Summer Palace was destroyed.

china加油2008:

They are always saying how civilized they are~~but actually they are not even fit to be human anymore~~They should just vanish from this world~~Our own things and we still need to listen to their commands?~~Sooner or later they will regret it~~sooner or later we will settle things with them~~make them pay us an even bigger price~~so us Chinese sons and daughters must all jia you~~and do our part for our motherland~~jia you, my motherland~~

xmz626:

When there are different positions and different ways to explain history, only by becoming powerful can you rewrite history.
The roar of the weak in a low moan not worth mentioning to the strong.
History cannot be forgotten, so use this as motivation, to speak with power/strength.

宝贝魏思齐:

Why should we go buy what belongs to us?
Just leave it with them, it is evidence of their crime.
There will come a day when they will unconditionally return them to us.
I believe that day will come soon.

山茶:

Chinese people’s artwork, to be known by the world, is also our contribution. Although this kind of process looks like there is a little humiliation, but in the midst of this process, what we need most is reflection rather than simply feeling aggrieved/wronged.

土匪哥哥:

French people are truly shameless!

处处闻啼鸟:

Do they still think China is the China of several decades ago?
If they want to talk about conditions, even one is unacceptable!

More English discussion about this issue can be found at Fool’s Mountain.

Share This Article

209 Comments

  • Some HTML can be used to format your comment.
  • Add a picture to your comments with Gravatar.
  • Our Comment Policy.
  1. I just like to go thru and vote the opposite way according to the way positives and negatives are going.

    “matt… you need to reread the above comment. You have it the opposite of what it really said”

    I mean someone voted negative on the above comment! Why? These thumbs up/down are really silly.

  2. I am silly too :P

  3. Anyone else noticed that Berge was YSL’s homosexual lover? He is referred as such in all articles on the subject in the West, but not in China, though this would be a nice angle to discredit him – if his idea to return Tibet to the US-sponsored Nazi-friendly slave-owners wasnt enough.

    • Are you seriously trying to imply that saying “He’s gay, too!” is a discredit? Modernize, son, learn to tolerate, and try to keep in mind not everyone is *like you* (thankfully for the rest of us) or at least claims to be. If I was near a gay friend (not many, but at least 2) and you said this kinda shit near him, I’d probably punch you in the mouth, you ignorant fucking twat, go back to westboro baptist church.

      (note: to curb the expected response in advance, I’m likely more alpha-hetero than you.)

  4. Based on his ID, fl1999 is probably 100% Chinese.

    The new Chinese Classification and Diagnostic Criteria of Mental Disorders removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses on April 20, 2001.

    Don’t expect too much from his “reality distorted brain”, he’s still living in North Korea or Iran, conceptually.

  5. Ugh, people get so worked up over these things. Disagreement isn’t bad, but when it gets like this…

    And no, petty retaliation doesn’t make things better. All it does is split people even further. Is it that hard to move on? Maybe bring it up after more pressing issues (like people dying here and now) are sorted, if need be?

  6. so let me guess this right for posterities sake.

    chinese people are complaining about LYING, CHEATING AND THIEVING by foreigners?

    ahahahahahahahahahhahaha

  7. Anybody any idea on who the winning bidder is?

    Someone told me it was jackie chan. LOL

    • rumor says an asian did but I really hope it’s not jackie chan coz he would be killing himself if he actually bought the shit, everyone is against buying it back now.

      well, if he really bought it, he better hide it forever.

    • Jackie was one of the guys on the phone, reportedly, but he was outbid by Chuck Norris in the end. Chuck said he was going to rebuild the summer palace throughout spring and re-enact the pillaging on his Texas ranch, and that the world can expect his return on his new YouTube channel of summer blockbuster madness.

      Not sure on the validity of these claims, but sounds reasonable to me.

  8. These statues should be returned to China because it’s rightfully theirs. Why shouldn’t it be returned? It was stolen from China for god’s sake. To all those against returning it, look at the matter from a clear point of view. It doesn’t matter that it’s exchanged owners all these years, or how much it’s worth; these are simply priceless artifacts that represent the Chinese culture and heritage.

    Don’t complicate the issue with politics, and human rights and b.s. like that. That’s just a cover up for France’s greed. From the comments I read, I can’t help but think that the Chinese are heavily discriminated. France should stop bullying China and hand back the statues.

    • @Melissa

      I am not sure if France is bullying China. If so, then China has only herself to blame. Why are you playing the victim’s card as if China is always the underdog. By the way, are you Chinese? This is the problem with the present generation of Chinese. They are like strawberries, weak, easily fractured, and quick to run to papa and mama whenever they think they are being “bullied” and of course, just as quick to divorce if their spouse did not treat them like a little emperor/empress. To all of you CHINESE: an overwhelming majority of you are soft and will never win any war. Forget about your display of military prowess. Wake up!

      You wrote:

      It doesn’t matter that it’s exchanged owners all these years,

      That’s the stupidest comment I’ve ever read. There is only one owner: China or you can say, the Chinese for all eternity, never mind if the Chinese today don’t live like those of the Qing Dynasty and that future generations will be far different from today’s. In trying to do China a favour with your two cents’ worth of shit, you actually did her a great disservice by saying that the relics “exchanged owners”

    • they clearly aren’t priceless…

  9. this just in:

    A mainland chinese collector won the bid, but said he won’t pay.

  10. I apologize to everyone. I am a complete asshole. I have a very very small penis and a really foul mouth. I also have bipolar disorder and like to have sex with cats, cause theyre the only pussy I can get.

    • I apologize to everyone. I am a complete asshole. I have a very very small penis and a really foul mouth. I also have bipolar disorder and like to have sex with cats, cause theyre the only pussy I can get.

      • @Smickno
        Thanks for once again proving my point that most people on the internet are immature imbeciles.

        • I apologize to everyone. I am a complete asshole. I have a very very small penis and a really foul mouth. I also have bipolar disorder and like to have sex with cats, cause theyre the only pussy I can get.

          • I apologize to everyone. I am a complete asshole. I have a very very small penis and a really foul mouth. I also have bipolar disorder and like to have sex with cats, cause theyre the only pussy I can get.

  11. So now the Chinese that won the bid said he will not pay for these things. He doesn’t even have the cash.

  12. Sooner or later, these pee-heads will find a new owner.

  13. Hey, if they feel they have kept face by pissing around like children let them, I dont think anyone cares that much anymore.

  14. “patriotic” act was the reason given for not paying.

    More like he came to his senses and realised he make a massive mistake.

    Jackie Chan may now get his second chance offer!

  15. To the victor go the spoils….

    Feudal China did not protect these “treasures”. These morbid bronze faucets were the loot of war, it simply angers the Chinese that the French and British conquered and succeeded.

    But, please note.. it is not the French trying to “embarrass” or anger the Chinese. It is simply European culture… the Louvre in Paris is full of art and artifacts the French have looted from other cultures…especially Italy, Greece and Turkey. That the French are auctioning these bronzes….should make the Chinese feel more relevant.

    At least the French are not ignoring you or trying to take back that little treaty port known as Shanghai.

    • Don’t presume to know what the French and Chinese feel about this auction and drop the last sentence, it makes you sound too insecure.

      • Oh My Goodness. I think a better statement is..Do not presume that OMG has a sense of humor. It is absurd to call Shanghai a treaty port. It is called humor.

        You might want to read a little Johnathan Swift… A Modest Proposal…. it is farce and humor.

        Never mind you would not get it.

        It sucks that some rich selfish Chinese guy ran up that bid and is now refusing to pay. It is called Fraud in the west.

  16. This whole thing is utter tripe, they cry about some little bronze tap heads saying that a whole country’s feelings are being hurt when the vast majority never knew they existed and in the meantime openly sell pirated movies and music, complete with everything else under the sun!

    Even if there’s been no interaction between china and some country or other, Chinese crooks will simply steal their stuff, copy then sell!

    That isn’t anti-china or bashing, its a plain fact, they aren’t respecting anyone else’s culture on a worldwide scale AT ALL.

    • Movies and music were ripped and uploaded to Internet first by people in the same countries where they were published. Chinese only got them after they propagated online for months. People who don’t respect their own culture AT ALL should not claim moral high ground.

      At least, the Chinese didn’t steal someone’s stuff and then try to sell it back.

    • mOngO, I understand what argument you’re trying to make, but just for fun, I do think these bronze statue heads were stolen LONG before there were movies and music to pirate. It is arguable that the Westerners “disrespected” Chinese culture long before the Chinese disrespected theirs simply by virtue of pirating goods, right? However, it is a little immature to argue this on a “well, they did it first!” basis.

      There’s a very high likelihood that you’ve downloaded an illegal mp3 before and the RIAA hates you. Whether you sell it or not doesn’t change the fact that you still violated someone else’s property rights and deprived them of financial compensation in doing so. In such a case, you’re not really any better than a “Chinese crook.” Wrong is wrong, right?

      …and two wrongs don’t make a right. I think we all need to accept that hypocrisy is something both sides and everyone is guilty of. If you want to make a good argument, don’t base your argument on characterizing the other party of something you’re guilty of as well. Base it on a principle both of you are compelled to agree to.

  17. The money was being donated to Charity, so not like a private person is being hurt by the actions of the Criminal Bidder who has brought GREAT SHAME to all citizens of China that support his deplorable actions, including your low life leader President Hu. If Christies is smart, they will melt these two relics down and have they cast into two twin bronze Donkeys (asses) and present them to China as a clear signal that the world has ways to SMACK DOWN those that act like spoiled rotten petulent children.

    May the world BOYCOTT China…we here on Main Street in America have already started…did you see our Buy American provisions in the Stimulus Bill signed by President Obama.

    • The man was making a statement, and of all people, Americans should be intimate with making statements that involve compromises and innocent people getting shafted.

      One example: The United States refusing to fund international organizations that offer advice on or perform abortions. Think of all the desperate mothers who couldn’t get more information or services because the organizations lacked more funding to persue their mission. Why? Because enough Americans in the United States decided they wanted to make a pro-life/anti-choice statement.

      Christie’s, in all likelihood, WILL be smart. They probably won’t sue the guy and create a bigger mess. They’ll also probably do what they usually do: sell the item to the underbidder. The charity will get a nice donation and Berge may enjoy a nice tax deduction or credit or whatever European equivalent he might enjoy. Many Chinese will still think this entire thing wasn’t very cool and many Westerners like you will still categorically hate the Chinese while the minority of the world who bothers to figure out how we can coexist more peacefully than the day before will continue to do their thing.

      P.S. It will be interesting to see when and where Americans will buy American when doing so costs more and most Americans right now are figuring out how to cut costs. Good luck, and don’t forget that it was the Americans who advocated Buy Chinese in the first place, whether by seeking profit margins or lower prices. I hope this realization will help you grow out of your elementary understanding of economics and the same simmering nationalism that afflicts the Chinese. Have a nice day Mr. Penstinger.

      • Kai

        This whole deal had nothing to do with Americans – why do you feel a need to rag on Americans for everything?

        • I don’t rag on the Americans for everything. Perhaps you’re taking an example, an illustration, personally? Examples involving Americans are useful because more people are familiar with such examples than they would be with an example involving a smaller, lesser known country. This example was used to highlight my point that the guy was simply making a statement, which is something many people do even at certain cost to themselves or others.

    • Royce,

      No need to boycott China over this matter – had nothing to do with America. No need to be so hateful either. I understand why the Chinese would be upset but as usual, their govt handled it pretty badly – with threats and bullying.

  18. So let me get this right? he was being patriotic when he drove the price up on any other [serious] Chinese bidders. Then refused to pay, even though the money is going to charity. So I guess Berge will either just keep it now or secretly give it to another bidder. which means its possible it will now be lost forever in someone elses private collection.
    Do the Chinese honestly think this childish behavior gets them anywhere?

    • as I said, it’s either out of spite, or part of a larger fight.

      guess we will have to wait and see.

    • He bid the highest price to make sure that no one else will spend money on something that’d rightfully theirs. Paying for the statues means that the French had the right to auction looted items.

      Do you honestly think that it’s right to sell stuff you steal? If you’re American, you should know that that would be illegal. Being condescending and haughty in your speech only makes you look like a retarded fool. It’s shameful America has people like you.

      By the way, it will get somewhere. It’s called raising awareness. It’s not like the French are doing well these days…

      • Firstly, America may have people like me, however I am not American and don’t live in America.
        Secondly, in the real world you get the respect you deserve. If a child throws a tantrum in a shop, lying on the floor kicking and screaming because he wants a chocolate bar, he is raising awareness about his cause. The parents might give him what he wants to shut him up but he can’t expect to be respected by the onlookers.
        So….since it would be very difficult for the Chinese to find the descendants of the diplomatic envoy that they tortured and murdered, and compensate them, I would say this is a fair trade.
        Anyway the French PERSON selling them says now he will just keep them. Woohoo what a victory.

  19. The point is not how much the statues are worth monetarily. It’s what they symbolize.

    THe fact that the French are auctioning relics they looted from another country is utterly shameless.

    No matter what China does, it cannot BUY them back. Paying a price for them means that it admits that the French had ownership.

    China is becoming powerful enough to take back what we lost. Sooner or later, the French will succumb to economic pressures and hand these national treasures over.

  20. fact of the matter is, it was his right to default the payment and do whatever jackass showoff he pleases, after all it is his money and credibility, but he shouldn’t have said “I did this on behalf of all Chinese”, that gives an impression that every Chinese would do the same thing.

    he was basically STICKING BAD TAGS TO EVERY CHINESE out there, and people have no choice but to carry that tag in their forehead for a very long time, if not forever.

  21. If China really cared about the heads, it would buy them and then take it out of France’s share of China trade. It doesn’t though because that would mean losing face (that’s a person’s overinflated impression of themselves, for those of you unfamiliar with the crippling concept)

    Kai…. if i catch those aliens and their probe things, there’s gonna be trouble!

  22. If the guy was really a patriot he’d have bought the artifacts and given them to a museum in China. All he accomplished was ruining reputation of Chinese buyers of art.

    By the way, China never informs its citizens of what brought on the looting of the Palace in the first place. It was retaliation for murdering a large diplomatic contingent from Europe.

  23. I wonder if any corporations thought about buying the statues and returning them to China. Could be a good PR campaign…

    “Here at Coca-cola, we care about increasing our market share… and the history thing too”

  24. Strikingly similar situation

    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/03/05/gandhi.auction/?iref=mpstoryview

    The difference is the ‘treasures’ weren’t taken during a war, but were potentially taken from the rightful owners according to a will. It’s interesting that they were offered to be donated should the gov’t give something to the ‘slumdogs’, and it’s also doubtful that Indians will be crying about hurt feelings. I like the fact that a businessman is about to solve the dispute by *winning the auction*, and *donating them to a museum*, instead of trying to make a farce out of the situation and demean not only himself, but his ‘people’, in the process.

    • Rick, did you read through the entire article?

      Let me copy and paste the article for everyone here:

      (CNN) — Indian-American hotelier Sant Singh Chatwal said Wednesday he plans to bid on several belongings of Mahatma Gandhi scheduled for auction in New York Thursday, with the goal of returning them to India.

      “The idea is to get them back as a community and donate [them] to India,” Chatwal told CNN, adding that he would welcome other members of the Indian community in the United States to join him in his auction effort.

      Chatwal said if he obtains the items, he plans to give them to the museum where some of Gandhi’s items are kept. Given Gandhi’s importance to India, Chatwal said he doesn’t want just anyone to get the items.

      Gandhi was a “great image of India,” and it was “real important” that his possessions belong to India, said Chatwal.

      Chatwal, who lives in New York, is the president and CEO of Hampshire Hotels and Resorts, a multi-national corporation based in New York. In the United States, he is a well-known supporter of Democratic Party causes and candidates. Former President Bill Clinton attended his son’s wedding in New Delhi, India, three years ago.

      A California-based collector, James Otis, is auctioning off the items and planned to meet with Indian government officials at the consulate in New York Wednesday to try to settle a row over ownership of the items.

      It was not clear Wednesday afternoon whether that meeting had taken place. Video Watch the controversy surrounding the auction »

      Otis said this week he would auction the items — which include Gandhi’s famous metal-rimmed glasses — on Thursday and donate the proceeds “to promote Gandhi’s great words and actions.”

      But he said the items would be donated to the Indian government if it was “willing to offer something very generous to India’s poorest in exchange.”

      The expected price of the items had skyrocketed to about $300,000 Wednesday, 10 times more than the estimated price on Tuesday, he added.

      “I will ask the Indian government if they would do a great gesture to the poorest of India, like those that we’ve all seen in ‘Slumdog Millionaire,’” Otis said, referring to the Academy Award-winning film.

      Gandhi, who waged a long struggle against British rule in India, was assassinated in New Delhi by a Hindu fanatic on January 30, 1948. He is still widely revered for his insistence on non-violent protest to achieve political and social progress.

      Otis said he did not fully understand the outrage over the planned auction because Gandhi was not interested in material possessions, many of his belongings are already in India’s museums, and Gandhi himself had often auctioned off gifts that he had received to raise money for the poor.

      The glasses are scheduled to be auctioned off at the Antiquorum auction house on New York’s Madison Avenue along with Gandhi’s pocketwatch, sandals, bowl, according to the Web site for Antiquorum, which specializes in watches.

      “This is a once in a lifetime opportunity and the people that want to acquire it, I think, basically will pay whatever it takes for them to get those objects” said Julien Schaerer, with Antiquorum Auctioneers.
      advertisement

      A court in New Delhi on Tuesday issued an injunction to stop the auction. India’s solicitor-general, Mohan Parasaran, said the ruling was based on a plea filed by a trust that he said cited itself as the “rightful beneficiary” of the articles under Gandhi’s will.

      He added that the order would be served to the auction house through the Indian consulate in New York.

      Emphases mine.

      Similarities:

      - Artifact with historical and emotional significance being auctioned.

      - Proceeds of auction to be “donated.”

      - Ownership of artifact in dispute.

      - There is popular “outrage” and “controversy” over this issue.

      - Current possessor makes public demand of the origin country to do some “good” in exchange for the the items for “free.” It is highly probable that neither current possessor actually knows much about either “good cause” they made token statements for.

      - Government entity in origin country officially tries to stop the sale through an injunction and appeals.

      Differences:

      - Ghandi’s items weren’t taken during a war. However, the bronze heads were taken in retribution of retribution of…

      - Ghandi’s glasses were expected to fetch 30k USD Tuesday and has now gone up to 300k USD. The Chinese bronze heads were expected to fetch 8-10 MILLION EUROS EACH and were then won at 14 MILLION EUROS EACH (18 MILLION USD), which is 60x more than the current expectation for the glasses! There’s a HUGE quantitative AND qualitative difference in how much money is in play here.

      - Haven’t heard the exact “hurt feelings” phrase from the Indians yet, but anyone who actually still takes China’s “hurt feelings” phrase seriously at this point is being intentionally ignorant and silly. Even the Chinese themselves mock the phrase and the Chinese government has used it for so many things as a catch-all “we disagree” signal that no one who means anything gives it any more weight than “yeah, it’s kinda lame.”

      Reminder:

      There are 12 heads. 2 remain with Berger, 5 have been PURCHASED and repatriated to China over history, and the remaining 5′s whereabouts are unknown.

      You’re being unfair. How were the previous 5 known bronze zodiac heads repatriated to China? By “businessmen” who “won the auction” and “donated them to a museum” just like this one guy you’re now holding up to “show the Chinese” how it “ought to be done.” That’s ridiculous, Rick. Don’t take ONE guy (Cai Ming-chao) and his ONE personal decision and PRETEND this is what ALL Chinese do and have done with regards to the repatriation of these bronze heads. Give credit where it is due, the Chinese HAVE bought these heads back in the past for large sums but maybe, just MAYBE, they don’t think its fair that the sums have BALLOONED to such a huge amount. Maybe, just MAYBE, they were willing to bite the bullet and drop a few million rather than argue about it, but maybe, just MAYBE, they couldn’t stomach 18 MILLION USD per head.

      There’s a line, Rick. Before that line, you may be willing to forgo principle and just solve a problem with money. Beyond that line, the principle becomes more important. Cai is beyond that line. He clearly thinks it is ludicrous to pay 18 MILLION USD per head and decided he’d rather renege to MAKE A STATEMENT about the ludicrosity of buying back what one believes to be rightfully their’s at an EXORBITANT price. This isn’t some FOREIGN and UNIMAGINABLE concept even to you, Rick.

      Your characterization and contrast of these two events (the auction of the bronze heads vs. the auction of Ghandi’s glasses/items) is misleading and inaccurate. You leave out and ignore BOTH the similarities AND differences that support the position of those who have an opinion opposing your’s. Of course, there’s no reason I should expect you to voluntarily offer information that diminishes and weakens the statement you’re trying to make and the opinion you’re trying to advance as “right” but I suppose I had hoped you’d approach this issue fairly and objectively.

      • *Sigh*

        Need I remind you, Kai, that an auction is precisely that – what they are worth is what people will pay. If they’re not worth the “MILLIONS”, nobody will bid that high.

        • Rick, you have selective reading, don’t you?

          If you’ve read the reports of Cai refusing to pay, you wouldn’t need me to remind you that Cai explicitly bid so high not because he felt they were worth the “millions” but because he was trying to prevent their sale. That was the coup of what he did. The bronze heads weren’t worth 18 million USD, but they were apparently worth him or his countrymen losing face for the audacity of his statement.

          Care to comment on any of the other similarities and differences you so conveniently forgot to take into account? Or is a “sigh” the best I can get out of you?

          • just delaying the inevitable. they will be sold at private auction to proven interested parties. pretty funny move though, give the guy credit.

        • It’s true Rick that “an auction is precisely that” – however, before very popular or famous items are auctioned off there’s always an “expected price” tagged to it (partially, I believe, in a an attempt to convince people how valuable the item(s) are and thus get them to spend more money). This expected price does give some estimation of what the object is worth. The “expected price” before the auction of the glasses was $300,000; for the heads (I think i remember seeing this on the news) it was in the tens (12? 13?) millions of euros. It is a HUGE difference.

  25. kai, You wrote out of point which is why Rick “selected” what was relevant enough to reply, and for the rest, he obliged you with a “sigh”

  26. Kai, Rick is right. Though the next highest bidder didn’t bid 18 million and was definately led up to a higher price by Cai, the next highest bidder obviously thought the heads were worth close to the 18 million final bid; unless however, Mr. Cai had an accomplice who was bidding the other side.

  27. THIS IS OUR CIVILIZATION! OURS!

    CAN’T YOU RETARDS SEE THE BRUTALITY BEHIND THIS LOOTING?

    SCREW YOU AND YOUR G7 BUNCH OF THUGS

    • When you say the brutality behind the looting are you refering to the torture and murder of the diplomatic envoy? I think you’re right, people should see the brutality behind the looting.

  28. It is very funny that suddenly Chinese people remind their past… If the Chinese government did not use nationalism to hide the countries’ problems, no chinese people would care about those relics…

    If I remember correctly, it happened during the emperor time, and chinese communist criticized that period of time, just to say after that it is important in their history…

  29. @ stolen art claimers
    What about Monna Lisa? She was panted in Italy (by Leonardo da Vinci)but, later, she became “french citizens” and now lives at the Louvre Museum in Paris!
    That’s another unjustified situation in the art world, and there are thousands more, unfortunately.

  30. The point often brought up in the West is that if left to the host nation (China) most of these “priceless relics of your national dignity” would have been destroyed by the very people who claim to cherish them as did many valuable works of cultural significance that the Chinese destroyed during the Cultural Revolution.
    Sometimes its better that a piece of a nations history ends up in a foreign museum then in the hands of natives who dont appreciate it until its gone.

  31. Ah the French, bless them. Anyone wanna go steal a part of the Eiffel Tower and maybe take a painting or two from La Louvre and auction it in China?

    Virginian does actually have a good point. These relics most likely would have been destroyed during the Cultural Revolution.

  32. China should think of it as a get out of jail free card or to use as a reason to shut the French up on any subject now. I mean a thief who gets caught with stolen goods but refuse to admit they are stolen can’t really tell anyone to be moral about anything can they?

    China doesn’t need to go do anything in France, China now as a “carte blanche” (oh the irony since this is a French term) to screw French companies in China over in anyway and just use this as the excuse. Personally I would much rather give them back the statues then the CCP the right to use this as reason for anything in the future.

  33. How many of your cultural artifacts were destroyed during the cultural revolution? Odds are Chinese historical items are safer abroad!

  34. If the bronze heads were still present in the Summer Palace in 1957, they might have been taken to be melted in some backyard steel furnace. If they survived the Great Leap Forward, they would certainly have been smashed to bits during the campaign to destroy the Four Olds.

  35. in fact, the nationalism has helped the auction house, one piece was only worth 1500 dollars, now its like 15 million.

    stupid netizens don’t never know how to fight the right way, the government should have intervened last year, and now its probably too late.

  36. To play fair, it’s one thing to do as you please with your own property (including destroying ti) and another thing for others to take your property and then resell it for profit.

    That said, I agree that the Cultural Revolution destroyed a lot of priceless historical artifacts and treasures, but people can make mistakes, regret them, and come to value and treasure their remaining artifacts, right?

    Also, I’m not really perturbed by some of the “nationalistic” comments. Most of it is all talk, similar to American rednecks suggesting the US nuke Iran or Iraq or whatever into oblivion. The scary nationalism is when it crosses from angry bitching to physical harassment.

  37. LOL! I thought so too! At first, I thought maybe the translation but the original Chinese is that way as well. There’s definitely some blatant bias in that poll option.

    Agreed about the spoils of war and that it would be a classy move by the owner to return them. The confounding legal factor here is that ownership has changed hands and the owners subsequent to the original looter all paid good money for them.

  38. people can’t take it to the streets so they rant online, if it ever crosses into physical harssment, there will be no bitching on the web, and vice versa.

    china just doesn’t have zealous activists like the west, thanks to the government’s control. the current nationalism is grieving, not agreesive, and it’s how the government wants it to be.

    thats why I’d rather not want china to be democratic and protest-free, or else people will basically vandalize the society.

    rights without responsibilities and tolerance is what I call scary.

  39. I understand what you’re saying and I think there’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem in there:

    Do people learn to be responsible and tolerant after getting rights? Or do people get rights after learning to be responsible and tolerant?

    A strong argument can be made that empowering people subsequently motivates, even forces, them to learn how to use that power responsibly. I’m not even breaching the question of who should be the one to decide when the people are responsible or tolerant enough to be given freedoms and rights.

    What do you think?

  40. best scenario is they go parallel with each other, at the same speed, to minimize cost of social transition. but I know I am extremely naive to say that, it sound like fairy tale, no nation has done things this even close to this perfect.

    the bottom line is, we want reform, not revolution, we don’t want our homes shattered and lives set astray, but then again I am naive, what makes me think the rulers are willing to give up their privileges so we don’t have to do it the harsh way?

    fuck the theory.

  41. @peter,

    why would any government willingly give up power? as kai has noted in another post, the chinese government’s main task is to ensure economic and social stability (not prosperity). the less people expect, the easier it is to meet their expectations. if a man is starving, he will be always be thankful when given a bowl of rice. if he always has access to a bowl of rice, he will soon want a piece of chicken. the chinese government has taken away the rice, keeping the chinese people in mental and physical bondage.

  42. you sir are an idiot.

  43. i completely agree with you kai.

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»