pieli

顶一下,最近才看到这个新闻.个人对这种行为表示支持...其它的道理就不多说了,这论坛上能明白的已经明白了,不能明白的永远也不会明白,也不需要他们那波人明白...

bignose_mtl

人家法国人都支持归还毕竟人家也知道这东西来得不干不净的, 搞不明白某些人为啥如此上窜下跳的. 皇帝不急急太监的





调查称逾8成法国网民支持将兽首归还中国

                                http://www.sina.com.cn  2009年03月04日18:50  中国新闻网  
                                                                                                                                             

圆明园鼠兔首

                                            　　月4日电 圆明园鼠兔首拍卖成为近期中国网络上最热的话题之一，同时也引起了很多法国网民的关注。《费加罗》报网站的一项调查显示，有超过八成的法国网民认为，贝尔热应该将兽首铜像归还中国。
　　民意一边倒 逾八成法国网民认为兽首应该归还中国
　　据法国《欧洲时报》报道，佳士得公司拍卖圆明园兽首引起了法国民众的极大关注。3月2日，拍得两件兽首的中国收藏家蔡铭超拒付款的消息发出后，《费加罗》报网站当天就进行了一项问卷调查，题目是“圣罗兰-贝尔热拍卖：是否应该把铜器归还中国？”
　　这项网上调查的内容是：拍得两件铜器的中国买家，以“爱国主义”为名义，拒绝付款。皮埃尔·贝尔热表示将把两个兽首留在自己手中。您认为贝尔热是否应该像北京方面要求的那样，把这两件铜器归还给中国？
　　报道中称，截至当天晚上18点48分，已经有51680名法国网民回答了这份调查，并有183人发表了评论。调查结果显示，81.48%的网民回答“是”，认为贝尔热应该将铜器还给中国；另有18.52%的网民回答“不”。
　　有法国网民建议：贝尔热复制兽首 将原件归还给中国
　　报道中称，其中一位网民评论表示，“给贝尔热先生的建议：将这两个铜器进行复制(得让专家能够分辨出复制品和真品的区别)，然后把复制品留给自己，把两个原件还给中国人”。
　　还有一位网民说，“我们应明白为什么他们希望归还两件铜器……应该想想它们是怎么来到法国的。”
　　另外一名不同意让贝尔热将兽首归还给中国的网民则表示“如果我们按照大多数人的意见把铜器还给中国，我很好奇到时候卢浮宫会变成怎样的场景。协 和广场也将失去标志性的方尖碑，等待我们去参观的将是空空如也的凯布朗利博物馆(Musée du Quai Branly)。我认为应该通过一项以艺术为主题的合适的外交方式，让一个有资格拥有它的国家保留它，而我们并不非正义地占有它。”

helpwanted

http://findarticles.com/p/articl ... 1985_Nov/ai_4003606

The sack of the Summer Palace (by Victor Hugo)

To Captain Butler
Hauteville House,
25 November, 1861

You ask my opinion, Sir, about the China expedition. You consider this expedition to be honourable and glorious, and you have the kindness to attach some consideration to my feelings; according to you, the China expedition, carried out jointly under the flags of Queen Victoria and the Emperor Napoleon, is a glory to be shared between France and England, and you wish to know how much approval I feel I can give to this English and French victory.

Since you wish to know my opinion, here it is:
There was, in a corner of the world, a wonder of the world; this wonder was called the Summer Palace. Art has two principles, the Idea, which produces European art, and the Chimera, which produces oriental art. The Summer Palace was to chimerical art what the Parthenon is to ideal art. All that can be begotten of the imagination of an almost extra-human people was there. It was not a single, unique work like the Parthenon. It was a kind of enormous model of the chimera, if the chimera can have a model. Imagine some inexpressible construction, something like a lunar building, and you will have the Summer Palace. Build a dream with marble, jade, bronze and porcelain, frame it with cedar wood, cover it with precious stones, drape it with silk, make it here a sanctuary, there a harem, elsewhere a citadel, put gods there, and monsters, varnish it, enamel it, gild it, paint it, have architects who are poets build the thousand and one dreams of the thousand and one nights, add gardens, basins, gushing water and foam, swans, ibis, peacocks, suppose in a word a sort of dazzling cavern of human fantasy with the face of a temple and palace, such was this building. The slow work of generations had been necessary to create it. This edifice, as enormous as a city, had been built by the centuries, for whom? For the peoples. For the work of time belongs to man. Artists, poets and philosophers knew the Summer Palace; Voltaire talks of it. People spoke of the Parthenon in Greece, the pyramids in Egypt, the Coliseum in Rome, Notre-Dame in Paris, the Summer Palace in the Orient. If people did not see it they imagined it. It was a kind of tremendous unknown masterpiece, glimpsed from the distance in a kind of twilight, like a silhouette of the civilization of Asia on the horizon of the civilization of Europe.

This wonder has disappeared.

One day two bandits entered the Summer Palace. One plundered, the other burned. Victory can be a thieving woman, or so it seems. The devastation of the Summer Palace was accomplished by the two victors acting jointly. Mixed up in all this is the name of Elgin, which inevitably calls to mind the Parthenon. What was done to the Parthenon was done to the Summer Palace, more thoroughly and better, so that nothing of it should be left. All the treasures of all our cathedrals put together could not equal this formidable and splendid museum of the Orient. It contained not only masterpieces of art, but masses of jewelry. What a great exploit, what a windfall! One of the two victors filled his pockets; when the other saw this he filled his coffers. And back they came to Europe, arm in arm, laughing away. Such is the story of the two bandits.
We Europeans are the civilized ones, and for us the Chinese are the barbarians. This is what civilization has done to barbarism.

Before history, one of the two bandits will be called France; the other will be called England. But I protest, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity! the crimes of those who lead are not the fault of those who are led; Governments are sometimes bandits, peoples never.

The French empire has pocketed half of this victory, and today with a kind of proprietorial naivety it displays the splendid bric-a-brac of the Summer Palace. I hope that a day will come when France, delivered and cleansed, will return this booty to despoiled China.

Meanwhile, there is a theft and two thieves.

I take note.

This, Sir, is how much approval I give to the China expedition.

windman

其實最大的國恥就是糞青們的自曝其醜:

Post by windman;2169862

圓明園被劫的國恥是受人同情的，蔡銘超帶給自己祖國的國恥卻是自取其辱！

為什麼說他是惡意欺詐，當然要從法律上說所有權問題。

湘鄂之人不能同中國談荊楚故國，川陝之人不能同今日中國談秦地故國，時效問題也。與本題相牽連一點說，[color="Red"]愛新覺羅家族不能同中華人民共和國政府談紫禁城、頤和園的所有權問題，而本來他們是可以談的：頤和園是通過中華民國的國家條約(其效力由中華人民共和國繼承)留給愛氏家族的私產，馮玉祥的驅逐行為是不合法的——但他們未在一定時間內提起這件事，因舉世共通的法律時效問題，愛新覺羅氏不能談了。

[color="Red"]不少中國專家都引用1995年關於被盜或者非法出口文物的公約來說事兒。中國是在1996年簽署的，根據這份公約，有法律依據來索回流失的文物。但這些專家是中國的，中國專家有中國專家的特色，[color="Red"]他們有意地忘記告訴大家，這份公約，很多西方國家是沒有簽署的，至少法國沒有簽署，因此這份公約，在法國國境內，是無效的。

也有人批評，法律途徑不好解決，法國政府從法中友誼的角度應當負起責任，因而應當阻止佳士德的拍賣。但批評者忘了，佳士得不是國有企業，作為一家以營利為目標的公司，他所承擔的是法律和市場風險。法國法庭已經判決，在法國境內拍賣合法，法國政府不得阻止一家公司的符合法律的商業行為。佳士所應當承受的市場風險，它已經在承受，中國國家文物局的限制性通知，就是佳士得為自己的行為所付出的代價。今日蔡銘超宣布不付款，更使它的市場風險增加至萬分。法國政府無權使它在承擔市場風險之外，再承擔來自政府行政方面的風險，強而為之，法國政府是要吃官司的。

繼續從法律上分析，善意第三人，是法律上的一個重要名詞。它的基本概念是：一個人出賣的東西哪怕是搶來的，但購買者不知它的來源而購買了它，失主發現後不能向購買者追索所有權，它可以向出賣者請求賠償。獸首持有人貝爾熱正是這樣一位善意第三人，佳士德拍賣的正是這樣一種善意第三人所合法持有物品。

如此說來，無論從法律的任一角度說，兩只獸首的所有權中國政府、中國人民都已經喪失怠盡。或者通過市場流通形式，歸復祖上之物，或者通過道義的方式，吁請民間或國家間合作。除此之外，別無它途。前期律師追索努力，當作一種愛國宣傳是可以的，讓西方人自責自己的歷史過錯是可以的。中國人群聲謾罵也是可以的，因為只是一種情緒的渲泄，並不觸犯法律，也並未觸及道德的底線。

但蔡銘超的行為就不是這樣了，如果真誠競標，中標後卻又因某種原因掏不起錢，那是民事問題，依據合同承擔違約責任。但他是以愛國為由，故意欺騙佳士德拍賣行的，在如此重大的交易行為中，明知而故為，對他人經濟利益造成巨大損失,則是一種近於犯罪的行為了。這是從中國法律上解釋的，至於法國,據記者從巴黎發回的報導,法國法律界正在討論通過何種途徑追究他的刑事責任！

[color="Red"]蔡銘超的行為，無賴而且無恥，讓人不由得由人而想起國家，想起中國的文化大革命行為。由於蔡披著愛國的旗幟，被視作中國人的代表，他的可恥，使國家蒙羞，是實實在在的新的國恥。

今後的中國，如何混跡於WTO，如何再同世界做生意！難道：無賴的國家教育出無賴的愛國者，噫吁唏!
2009年3月2日