Thanks a lot for your thoughts, Alan!

Just a minor quibble:
Here again it is important to establish and continue to monitor which measures really work and which don't. For example, the death penalty has a bad track record to avoid murder - I rather doubt it will work any better in this context (actually, rangers already need to shoot encountered poachers to avoid being killed themselves).

Also keep in mind that poaching nowadays often takes place in the form of raids/operations by militia forces (including forced conscription of kids and teens).

Regards,
Kai

Kai, I agree wholeheartedly that the execution of a single killer does nothing at all to halt murder.

However, if the consequences of a risk are sufficiently severe to be avoided at all costs, then the penalties that apply to those who fail to observe the laws intended to prevent occurrence of that risk, must be so severe as to cause not mere disapproval, but horror and extreme fear.

My suggested penalty may not be the most desirable to achieve the required result, but I am certain that sufficiently horrific penalties could be implemented that would not just deter people who were so inclined, from killing elephants, but would cause such people to go into a state of mental collapse at the mere thought of a dead elephant laying at their feet.

Things that come to mind immediately are crucifixion, hang, draw and quarter, that wonderful old Dutch speciality, The Wheel. And applied to whole families, or villages, not just perpetrators.

Penalties just marginally more severe than a fine which equates to the cost a meal in a decent restaurant in a major city of a developed country.

That is of course only one way of looking at the problem.

As I wrote in my earlier post:-

"This whole thing is not about ivory, it is about a group of people who want to take everything of true value away from us."

If the supposed problem is really serious, then we must act in such a way that the risk of the problem becoming reality is forever avoided. This will cost enormous amounts of money, as well as immense human suffering.

However, if what we are looking at is something less than the End of the World, then let us consider what can be done about those people who want to rob us of those things which most of us cherish.

These people are the same ones who have generated this over-reaction to ivory.

Going on about law and justice is one thing. The main point is you should not vandalize the art. You could say yes it has lost value and yes that might hurt some more than others but do not deface the object. It is still worth something just the market has changed. Perhaps you just have to live with it.

I tend to disagree with you Tim.

At the beginning of my previous rather lengthy post I acknowledged that I was out of step with everybody else.

In my opinion this is not about art, nor ivory, its preservation or destruction.

It is about the destruction of core values of western society, and I only mention western society because that society is what most of the people here are members of.

This ivory thing is only a symptom of the illness that is affecting us all, but because the effect is cumulative, it goes unnoticed until some time that it affects something that one of us personally holds dear.

Clearly a lot of people in this discussion group are deeply affected by the attack on ivory, which some see as an attack on art. But the people who have generated this attack on ivory are the same ones who are attacking our very way of life and the core values of our society.

We must recognise this rottenness at the core of our society, identify the those who are eroding our values, and remove or destroy them.

Learn to live with it?

No thank you.

I've read too many history books.

Robert Shapiro, former O.J. Simpson lawyer, in a recent interview said: "There's two types of justice that we deal with in America: There's moral justice and there's legal justice". Simply put, legal justice is used here to stop the trend and ban the illegal substance. That said, I am with Alan in that it becomes witch hunt that affects innocent and items of historical significance. I hope more thoughtful and senseless controls will form in near future before people get hurt for owning camel bone pens and ivory colored ties.

I agree but it's not only about moral justice.
It's about society.
These people give moral lessons, they are ecologists, vegetarians and whatever...
They are against fur and they pretend to protect wildlife...
But they are also the same who wear fashonable leather shoes without thinking that leather comes from animal
or they are the same who wear trendy clothes made by little childrens in India or China...
as I said... disgusting...

What ever :shrug: just make sure however you deal with it, do not go through people who are vandal. The art must remain whole.

I suspect Alan's suggestion of death penalty for the perpetrators, their families, friends, neighbors, sheep and oxen was tongue in cheek:-)

On a larger scale, what we are witnessing is a pussification of Western societies.
It is incredibly gratifying to protect "weak and miserable", such as whales, elephants, owls and exotic fish. Just as much as granting asylums, vaporizing about genital mutilation, circumcisions, firearms, bladed objects, sugary drinks, carbon prints, halal slaughter of animals and electronic cigarettes.

Interestingly, all these governmental decisions come from people who are not going to be affected by the fruits of their bureaucratic frenzy.

Governments acquired unlimited and unchecked powers. Education of children became a province of ex-hippies of the lunatic left fringe. Future generations will be even more supine, because they were brainwashed from diaper age ( environmentally safe diapers, mind you!) and never ever asked themselves why fascist regimes always put the word "socialist" at the head of their party manifestos.

Our handwringings are impotent. We are going against the tide. Ivory is just a minor symptom, but 1984 is already 30 years old and going stronger.

Tim, I see a new market opening up for hilt and inlay replacement specialists, they will remove (hopefully undamaged) the offending "ivory" and "horn" and skillfully install new and legal high quality hilt and inlay material, life will go on for those that can afford it.

Arial, just begining to realize that we all in some way have been living in police states, some more disquised than others?

Change the things you can not accept and accept the things you can not change......knowing which situation you are in is the hard part.

The banning of ivory by the government has less to do with the saving of the elephant, but more to do with them exerting their control over people, without the " just consent of the governed."
The ivory question will allow them to obtain search warrants to enter your house, and if you have a gun, or more than one(because who would collect more than one), even though they may be pre-1898, seize them.It might be legal to own them, and with due process and thousands of dollars spent, you may even get them back and yourself out of jail before you are bankrupt !
Do not think that the government enforcers will be happy to stop at ivory ;horn handles are next, as well as bone weapons.Heaven forbid that in the raid, they find a Paleo point thousands of years old, that some tribe that has been on the land less than 300 years, claims.
The EPA and the IRS are two examples of government regulatory bodies that have never been accused of restraint and as such I see no reason to trust any government regulatory agency making a determination between old and new ivory.
Maybe governments should concentrate on saving the lives of their people and improving their quality of life with the same enthusiasm as that of endangered animals ; maybe start with something like the homicide rate in Chicago !

Ariel, I suspect you might be the only person who read what what I have written a really understood what I was saying.

Your post has touched on the roots of the illness, and it is an illness, that is destroying the very fabric of who we are.

As for "pussification", I love that word. It is Shakespearean in its thrust. It has been duly noted and is now a part of my vocabulary.

I was not so much tongue in cheek as I was using an example of, let us say: "overkill" , to demonstrate that extreme misuse of power can flow to both poles. Abuse of power in one direction almost invariably leads to counter abuse in the other direction and thus is the author of its own demise.

Alan,
There is a Talmudic statement that he who is merciful to the cruel will inevitably end up being cruel to the merciful.

As to " pussification", please feel free to recommend its inclusion into the OED. I insist on being credited:-)))

Estcrh,

I have known it for years. Depressingly, I see more and more how correct I was.....

Leviathans used to protect us from abuse. Now they are chocking us by their hugs.

Nice to hear you are taking credit for this vulgar term Ariel, but AFAIK George Carlin used the word in one of his routines about a decade ago.
I will now be accused as being overly PC in my approach, but i would surely hate to see anyone, Alan included, considering this a useful or admirable word to add to one's vocabulary. I have been raised to have nothing but the greatest respect for womankind. If you cannot see how this word is derived from the use of the word "pussy" as a derogative that refers to the female genitalia and is applied as an insult to men who are perceived to be acting "weak like a woman" then you have not been paying much attention to the etymology of slang. Those who believe women the weaker sex might want to try childbirth sometime. ;) I do realize that we are a bit of a boys club here, but i personally find the use of this word in this manner to be quite offensive. Since we are (mostly) men here i would ask that we conduct ourselves like gentlemen in this space. Perhaps try acting as if your mother, sister and wife are in the room listening. :)

David,
I always thought this word referred to a "little kitten":-)

:) men do have a rough equivalent to childbirth, bladder/kidney stones, supposedly almost as painful. operative word 'almost'. how true i do not know as i have not borne children.

i have passed a few kidney stones and had surgery to remove another bladder stone that was too big to pass normally. they did not need to cut a hole in me, used a telephone pole with a hydraulic stone crusher and camera on the end up one of my connected orifices that was not meant to be so treated. luckily done with me under anaesthesia. i wee'd red for a week after.

the kidney stones hurt worse as they scraped down my ureter, hospital thought i might be having a heart attack with referred pains. morphine didn't help much, but did keep me from caring :) my female friends of course commented on those occasions 'it's the closest you will get to childbirth'. women are of course more deadly than the male and forget less than elephants.

anyway, i have never used that word in anger to either a male or female human, maybe to a feline occasionally tho. with the -cat ending suffix. i prefer staying out of hospitals.

p.s. = i would have replaced 'pu?????????ion' with 'brainwashing'.

This is a "boys' club;" I thought it was a "sword Forum!" I will immediately send a letter to the justice department and request Loretta Lynch do a full investigation;next to transgender bathroom rights, this is the most important event attacking our nation.

we do have a few female members - you interfere with their hobbies at your peril. i am sure they are capable of explaining it to you. meanwhile we are again drifting off course.

Well, folks, you have convinced me: as soon as I am back home, I shall uproot my pussy willow.
If one needs to be politically correct, one should go all the way ( oh, drats, another expression with less than pure implications..... )

your tree is safe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_willow

i quote:
only male flowers have catkins. it's OK for males and females to make fun of our external appurtenances.many of us possess daggers whose suggestively shaped grips and guards are named after them.

QED, no mammalian genitalia references for your tree's moniker. ;)

You bet ... and not so constructively, i guess :shrug: .

the fickle finger of fate writes, and moves on.

i myself possess no ivory objects d'art, that's my story and i'm sticking to it.

I thank you for your explanation of the word "pussy" and "pussification", David.

When I complemented Ariel on his use of, and until you corrected my misunderstanding, his authorship of the word, I had taken its meaning to be something along the lines of "weak as a pussy is weak".

In the form of the English language that I have used in my day to day life, for all of my life, in polite conversation we understand the word pussy to mean a cat, most especially a young cat; the word "puss" preceded "pussy" in English usage, "pussy" is what we may think of as the diminutive of "puss". This usage dates back to the 16th century, and is still current usage.

But the word "pussy" has other very legitimate meanings as well. In the late 16th century it meant a girl or a woman --- and it was at that time not considered vulgar, but it did seem to have a sexual connotation, for example, one would not refer to an elderly dowager as a pussy, but would not hesitate to call an attractive girl or young woman a pussy.

In the 18th century it was understood as the proper name for a hare.

In the 19th century it was in common use in the lexicon of the nursery to refer to anything soft and furry. In fact, the term "pussy-cat" originated in nursery usage.

When I have problems in understanding the English Language, my habitual reference is The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, so after I read your explanation of the word "pussy", I turned to that source for clarification.

I could not find any entry that verified the use of this term to refer to a woman's genitals, so I turned to the on-line version of Oxford, which is about as up-to-date in terms of English usage as it is possible to get. What I found was this:-

noun (plural pussies)
1 informal A cat.
Example sentences
2 vulgar slang A woman’s genitals.
2.1 [mass noun] Women in general, considered sexually.
2.2North American informal A weak, cowardly, or effeminate man.


From this I can see that yes, when the word is used in a vulgar context, its meaning does agree with your explanation, however, in defence of Ariel's use of "pussification" I offer the opinion that at no time in this entire thread has anybody written in a way that could by any stretch of imagination be considered vulgar.

Thus, we must accept that Ariel was not writing in a vulgar way, rather, his use of language must be considered informal use, and once again, Oxford clarifies this position by telling us that in North America the word "pussy" means "A weak, cowardly, or effeminate man". Considered in the context of this discussion Ariel's use of the word "pussification" must be understood as informal English, and most certainly not vulgar English.

So words can be understood in different ways.

As Humpty Dumpty said:-
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."

I offer that the same is true of understanding the meaning of a word:- we all understand what we read or hear in our own way. To Ariel, and to me, the word "pussification" had the meaning of a weakening of society, but to you the word had an entirely different meaning.

As I have commented above, the way in which a word can be understood varies during the passage of time.

During the 17th and 18th centuries in England, the word "occupy" was avoided in polite conversation, especially if that conversation took place in public. This was because at that time the word "occupy" meant "to have sex with". It was avoided in public because if overheard by the wrong person it could get you time in the stocks for the use of obscene language.

In fact, that master of the English language, William Shakespeare only used the word twice in all his writing, I believe it was once in Romeo & Juliet, and once in Henry IV.

But today the word "occupy" is about as inoffensive as a word can get.

The impact any word has depends upon two factors:- the intent of the person using the word, and the understanding of the person hearing or reading it.

I maintain that Ariel is innocent of any vulgar use of language in his use of the word "pussification".

In websites with which I am familiar, the words "wuss", "wussie" and constructs such as "wussification" are used as a less gender-specific synonym for those of a spineless, lily-livered, milquetoast, pro-appeasement sort of bent.

(If I may further occupy your attention, the verb "to spend" has had, in past, a remarkable definition that perhaps reflects in Freudian fashion the gratification one might achieve through one's financial transactions. The connection between the definitions is somewhat uncomfortable to contemplate).

"Vulgar" is only truly pejorative when used to denigrate the common run of mankind, by those who deem themselves superior; today, they would be the ones who are in the process of ruining two thousand years of civilisation, so called, while those they look upon as vulgar are more frequently concerned with its preservation.

Thanks Alan,

As usually, you are not pussyfooting! :-)))))))


But let's go back to tusks and horns ( please, no arguments about derivatives of the later word!)

I just looked briefly at the recent Czerny's catalogue: plenty of ivory, openly defined as such. If our paranoia is so real, how will they send it to the overseas customers? Why were they braver ( or less prudent) than Bonhams?

Yes, and Big Brother is watching..(us?) yes; probably. :eek:

Hello Ariel,

International auction houses (including Bonhams) continue to offer ivory pieces; they follow CITES procedures and can legally send items with the necessary papers to overseas customers. However, auctioned/traded African elephants' ivory can't enter nor leave the US due to self-imposed current legislation; also Bonhams SF will probably have to stop auctioning it when California laws change in July AFAIK.

I don't think we can blame Bonhams UK: From what I understand (from admittedly very limited info), this vandalism happened in transit and Bonhams just received the pieces as auctioned; they maybe should have declined to auction them but that is probably asking too much of a commercial enterprise.

At the very least, transferring these pieces across state borders was a really bad decision of the consignee; since this appears to have been a professional, it's hard to conceive this as anything but blatant ignorance and possibly greed. Once held up in transit, I'm not sure wether there even was the alternative option of donating the pieces to a museum rather than mutilating them. Maybe even no-one cared to consider/suggest such a move. :mad: :( :mad:

Regards,
Kai

Just re-tweeting from page 1:
https://www.antiquestradegazette.com...ntiques-in-us/

Hello Alan,

I fully agree that preventive control is paramount and that one needs to stomp in strongly to prevent the extinction of rhinos, tigers, and - to a slightly lesser or more local extent - elephants.

Much easier to talk about than implement, of course. And we need to talk honestly about poverty and failing elites, for sure.


I did get the gist of your well-balanced proposal. ;)
I don't argue that it would have *some* deterrent effect... :)

However, I do hold that even severe penalties are a very inefficient tool: Even in the middle ages when the penalties mentioned by you were liberally applied (at least to the lower strata of society) it certainly did not *prevent* major offences from being perpetrated. While we certainly also need to talk about penalties if deemed too weak, I'd posit that we can have humane penalties and still achieve needed preventive measures (i. e. let's keep them mostly in the non-preventive realm - what you call detective control). IMNSHO penalties (as well as laws/legislation in general) need to be continuously monitored/evaluated if they really achieve their intended goals. As we have argued here, it's too easy to go overboard, even with good intentions!

Regards,
Kai

http://www.internationalivorysociety.org/
Godfrey Harris, chair of the International Ivory Society formed to challenge strict laws on ivory moving through the Californian legislature, has taken exception to the language used in the proposal.

“USFWS has made ivory sound like a toxic substance requiring special handling by bomb disposal squads. If you didn’t know better, you would think that the next generation of IEDs are being disguised in old ivory billiard balls.”

http://www.ivoryeducationinstitute.org/
IVORY’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PAST AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN THE FUTURE ECLIPSE ANY UNREASONABLE OR INEFFECTIVE RESTRAINTS ON ITS TRADE OR MOVEMENT.

Thank you for your ideas on crime and punishment Kai.

I've already used far too much space in this thread, so I'm going to make this post as direct as possible.

1) if elephants are truly in danger of extinction, and if it has been determined that this should not be permitted to occur under any circumstances, then the measures taken to prevent the extinction of elephants should be absolute measures. If this means removing all human presence from , let us say, Kenya, then so be it. Give Kenya back to the elephants.

2) however, if this supposed extinction of elephants is merely the quasi political invention of those people who treasure the "rights" of animals, the "rights" of trees, and the "rights" those human beings who behave in a manner contrary to nature and to the established belief systems that form the foundations of Western Societies, and of many other societies, then the measures taken to remove this plague, this very visitation of Satan Himself from our presence must be absolute. If this requires a mass extinction of these minions of the Evil One, then so be it.

3) but if the truth of the matter lays somewhere between these two extremes then those who most strongly support the concept of elephant preservation must contribute the vast sums of money, and the armies of adequately trained personnel to ensure this preservation.

4) perhaps after the elephants have been saved, we may be able to give some thought to how we can save our own societies, and our long established traditional values from the perversion of the Grand Corruptors who hide in our midst.

So we should not institute capital punishment to deter murder because it doesn't work, but we should destroy all ivory to save the elephants because this will work and we should save societies after we save the animals.
Is this the premise of your argument or did I misunderstand?

Though interesting to some ...may I suggest that this thread be moved to Ethnographic Miscellania since the so called Destruction of Artwork is not an ethnographic weapon...but is allowable in terms of that Forum...not this one.

but it DOES work. i've not heard of a single murderer who was executed ever doing it again. sure deters him & saves the state having to support him for decades at huge costs to us. i have however heard of murderers released on parole from life sentences who did kill, and soon after he was released. one who killed someone, a stranger at a bus stop, while waiting for the bus to take him away from the prison comes to mind. there are degrees of murder, some justified, some crimes of passion by basically good people, but there are some people who are just evil and eliminating them is best. does it deter others from copying - maybe not. we never hear about the ones it did deter based on someone else's execution, only the ones it did not. kinda skews the stats. and the liberals forcing the state thru endless apeals to make those who are on death row suffer for decades before executing them is cruel and unusual. arrest them on a monday, try them on tues., appeals on wed. and/or thu. and public execution on friday at noon works for me. justice must be swift and must be seen to have been done.

sounds like a plan. i agree. too generic and emotive.

The minimum required indeed.

:) feel free to delete the BS.

Criminal vandalism, within the auspices of the law, the consequence of accepting the rule of people who know what is good for us, and make it mandatory.

I see little difference between this sort of destruction, and the wholesale destruction of world heritage sites by ignorant fundamentalists. The world is permitting itself to be ruled by barbaric thugs on every side, and civilisation is the loser.

USFWS Perhaps Seeking an Appropriate Balance on Ivory
 

Agreed, both are guided by blind self righteousness. On the British Antiques Roadshow (recently in the US, last year in the UK) there was an especially acerebric representative from one such advocacy group arguing for the destruction of all ivory countered by a V&A curator with the more reasonable view that destroying antique cultural heritage was not the correct measure to save elephants.

Some possibly good news is that I just read in the Maine Antique Digest (July 2016, p 3-A) that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a final rule effective on June 6 that the paper describes as "... will make dealers and collectors jump through a lot of hoops, but in the current political climate I think it's the best result the trade could have hoped for ... burden will be on the seller to prove that objects qualify, but the rule does not require expensive forensic testing. A qualified appraisal, with strict guidelines, will suffice."

USFWS Final Rule Effective on July 16, 2016