Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 17th August 2014, 06:18 PM   #1
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default

Good question David, in truth I don't know...

But here's some photos of the USA ivory crush last November...

Hopefully its all modern crap carved with electrical power tools, but I cant tell.

They would certainly have to build one or two very large dedicated ivory museums I think though.... Which sounds good to me, but of course would also helps popularise ivory, which doesn't seem to be what there doing.

spiral
Attached Images
     

Last edited by spiral; 17th August 2014 at 06:39 PM.
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2014, 06:42 PM   #2
David
Keris forum moderator
 
David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,211
Default

Thanks Spiral. Yeah, even if newly carved i'm not sure i really approve of the destruction of art, though i do understand how new ivory carvings and the demand for them drive the ivory trade. I certainly can't find any reason to approve the destruction of antique ivory objects though. Of course the problem officials face is determining what is actually old and what has been artificially aged. The whole thing really is quite an unfortunate mess all around.
David is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2014, 07:55 PM   #3
drac2k
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,255
Default

WOW...............your picture pretty much tells the whole story! It reminds me of the Taliban blowing up those ancient Stone Buddhas with the exception that they probably did it in a much more cost effective manner.I wonder how many agencies we had to create and bureaucrats we had to hire to destroy the ivory?
Maybe we could call the Agency "The Peoples Cultural Ivory Reclamation Bureau,"and the agents in charge of the confiscation, the Red Guard .
drac2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2014, 08:07 PM   #4
VANDOO
(deceased)
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: OKLAHOMA, USA
Posts: 3,138
Unhappy

FROM WHAT I SEE IN THE PICTURES MOST OF THIS IS LIKELY PRE-BAN IVORY PERHAPS NOT 100 YEARS OLD BUT MOST LIKELY QUITE A BIT BEFORE THE FIRST IVORY LAWS CAME INTO BEING AND LONG BEFORE THE CURRENT LAW.
THE PROBLEM IS MOST OF THE ENFORCEMENT AGENTS HIRED WILL NOT BE TRAINED TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND WITH THE NEW LAW WHY SHOULD THEY CARE. SO IF ITS IVORY IT NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED AND THE OWNER TAUGHT A LESSON AND MADE AN EXAMPLE OF TO COW ALL OTHER CITIZENS DOWN BEFORE THEM. THAT IS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF SUCH LAWS NOT THE SALVATION OF THE ELEPHANTS. DESTRUCTION OF ART AND HISTORY DOESN'T MATTER TO SUCH PEOPLE ITS ALL ABOUT POWER OVER OTHERS.
TO PROUDLY GRIND UP A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF IVORY AND THEN ASK FOR DONATIONS TO SAVE THE ELEPHANTS MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO THE SENS-LESS.
VANDOO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2014, 10:19 PM   #5
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Thanks Spiral. Yeah, even if newly carved i'm not sure i really approve of the destruction of art, though i do understand how new ivory carvings and the demand for them drive the ivory trade. I certainly can't find any reason to approve the destruction of antique ivory objects though. Of course the problem officials face is determining what is actually old and what has been artificially aged. The whole thing really is quite an unfortunate mess all around.

I know what you mean David, but for me the post ww2 electrical tool work is not the same as the old chisel carving , when it comes to art, indeed for the last 30 years the generic conveyer belt art from Chinese sweat shop production lines has been the major consumer of illegal ivory. And to me is not truly gallery quality never mind museum?


I dare say border officials will do a 2 hour course to make them think there experts! But fear the powers that be wont care whether old or new.... The concept as Tim earlier said to to make ivory be seen like something you accidently stepped in a park...



Quote:
Originally Posted by drac2k
WOW...............your picture pretty much tells the whole story! It reminds me of the Taliban blowing up those ancient Stone Buddhas with the exception that they probably did it in a much more cost effective manner.I wonder how many agencies we had to create and bureaucrats we had to hire to destroy the ivory?
Maybe we could call the Agency "The Peoples Cultural Ivory Reclamation Bureau,"and the agents in charge of the confiscation, the Red Guard .

I understand your reaction & anger Drac2k, but personaly don't see those pieces in the same way as the ancient stone buddhas, there not as old or as skilled & such ivory carvings can be found all over the place still. {The net is full of them for sale...}{Probably because most are not that old?} I also think its worth remembering its not just communists who behave in a fascist manner perhaps?



Quote:
Originally Posted by VANDOO
FROM WHAT I SEE IN THE PICTURES MOST OF THIS IS LIKELY PRE-BAN IVORY PERHAPS NOT 100 YEARS OLD BUT MOST LIKELY QUITE A BIT BEFORE THE FIRST IVORY LAWS CAME INTO BEING AND LONG BEFORE THE CURRENT LAW.
THE PROBLEM IS MOST OF THE ENFORCEMENT AGENTS HIRED WILL NOT BE TRAINED TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND WITH THE NEW LAW WHY SHOULD THEY CARE. SO IF ITS IVORY IT NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED AND THE OWNER TAUGHT A LESSON AND MADE AN EXAMPLE OF TO COW ALL OTHER CITIZENS DOWN BEFORE THEM. THAT IS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF SUCH LAWS NOT THE SALVATION OF THE ELEPHANTS. DESTRUCTION OF ART AND HISTORY DOESN'T MATTER TO SUCH PEOPLE ITS ALL ABOUT POWER OVER OTHERS.
TO PROUDLY GRIND UP A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF IVORY AND THEN ASK FOR DONATIONS TO SAVE THE ELEPHANTS MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO THE SENS-LESS.

Interesting Vandoo, I guess that depends on which ban your talking about... the artefacts & tusks crushed where all seized for illegal importation {smuggled.} since 1990 either without paperwork or with false paperwork, thus breaking USA law leading to their siezure. I expect a few pieces may be pre.ww2 but most of the Chinese stuff seems to have bad proportions re.hand versus skull sizes etc..to my eye? So probably by Chinese art standards not particularly old or good?


The African stuff I cant tell, I've seen stuff from the 1930s that looks the same. But without a good loupe & in hand its hard to be sure?


I agree many laws are about subjugation from our "rulers" & whatever games they may play for whatever ulterior motives that drive them..


The people who crushed the ivory probably do nothing to help elephants or rhinos from their likely extinction , nor care less I agree, & if they did sadley even in the animal rescue trade , there probably only a few idealists who initially set it up who do genuinely care, then if they employ rangers, they will by necessity be ex.soldier,guerrilla, bush hunter types... who will also make a few pounds on the side when occasion arises..., its human nature, also in much of Africa corruption is the given as well. {not saying its not the same in the western world either, our politician's & police just try to hide it a little more, perhaps?.}


What can I say: I personaly don't mind a ban on post 1947 ivory & rhino horn, myself... & that cut of age date can be proved.. {at great cost...} But the destruction of items before that date seem nothing but vandalism to me.

The workmanship quality also drastically fell during & post ww2 to my perception as well. In most crafts in most country's.

But The idea that a chair like this can be be crushed.. Or a rhino horn statue like this appals me.

They are true pieces of art, there also historical & can hardly encourage the modern fake trade because their quality is superlative to a degree not viable or probably even possible to manufacture today.

As David rightly pointed out...

"The whole thing really is quite an unfortunate mess all around."

spiral
Attached Images
   

Last edited by spiral; 17th August 2014 at 10:45 PM.
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2014, 11:09 PM   #6
drac2k
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,255
Default

Yes, I agree that Fascists and Nazis do behave very badly, however they tend to confiscate and preserve the artwork, i.e. the Kunstschutz,(even if it is only for themselves), and it is eventually recovered whereas the Chinese tended to destroy it, i.e. the "Cultural Revolution."It appears, they have learned from their mistakes, as evidenced by their attempts to recover it, however it seems that democracies will need to learn the same hard lesson !
drac2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2014, 07:57 AM   #7
spiral
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
Default

I see your point...drac2k .& think its mostly true. I think stuff containing precious metals was often melted down in europe though? & some Chinese art was also kept stored & displayed? Much Russian certainly was.

But such discussion normally leads to closing of threads as political. So perhaps we shouldn't continue? If that's ok with you?

It was about the changes in US wildlife laws law & has encompassed many sides of the debate about ivory, without rancour, & is hopefully both informative & thought provoking for as all.as much as it is contentious & concerning.

All the best.
spiral
spiral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2014, 01:38 PM   #8
David
Keris forum moderator
 
David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drac2k
Yes, I agree that Fascists and Nazis do behave very badly, however they tend to confiscate and preserve the artwork, i.e. the Kunstschutz,(even if it is only for themselves), and it is eventually recovered whereas the Chinese tended to destroy it, i.e. the "Cultural Revolution."It appears, they have learned from their mistakes, as evidenced by their attempts to recover it, however it seems that democracies will need to learn the same hard lesson !
As Spiral rightly points out, if you guys don't want to see this thread closed quickly all discussion of politics needs to end now.
I also agree with Spiral that the pieces he showed being lined up for destruction can in no way be compared to the destruction of ancient stone Buddhas or true historically valuable antiques. I still see it as a shame once material has been shaped into art, but such hyperbole is not really helpful to this discussion.
David is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2014, 02:40 PM   #9
drac2k
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,255
Default

First, we must thank Spiral for bringing this situation to the forefront and it is noted that all parties have made valid points, however one common argument that I have a problem with is the assertion, that it is of recent manufacture and as such, not worthy of protection.
I am unable to determine by those pictures what is being destroyed ;I can not determine the age, the artistry or the total scope of the items that are to be crushed.
Next, I have a problem with the implied notion that something has to be thousands of years old to be art or valuable.Hawaii, Fiji, Samoa, and many other pre-European contact societies throughout the world that were unknown to us before the 18th century, certainly have valuable and beautiful artifacts.Is a Albrecht Durer more valuable than a Van Gogh, because it is older ?
In conclusion, I don't want us to go down the slippery path of saying "well ,it's only 100 years old, so it is not as bad as destroying something older."The perimeters are constantly closing.

Last edited by drac2k; 18th August 2014 at 04:37 PM.
drac2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.