Newsgroup: it.sport.calcio.roma
Titolo: Articolo illuminante sul perchè del mio no a Flick

Scusate se apro un altro thread, ma non avrei saputo dove postarlo 
altrimenti.
Linko un articolo. Si riferisce alle opere d'arte, ma per me rappresenta 
anche il pensiero sulla Roma.
Sottolineo solo un passaggio, poi il resto chi lo vuole se lo legge e per me 
la questione finisce qui.
*Flick was convicted of all charges except confiscation, which was not 
considered a crime against humanity
[...]
After serving three years of his seven-year sentence, Friedrich Flick was 
released and was able to rebuild his fortune with relative ease. The Allies 
had allowed him to keep a third of his industrial holdings and he had 
transferred 90% of the ownership of Flick KG to his sons so that the laws 
requiring reorganization of conglomerates did not apply to him. Flick KG 
remained in existence and the Flick family retained control of its steel 
works, blast furnace operations, Ruhr coal operations, and more.*
Prima della fine della guerra aveva trasferito il controllo del 90% al 
figlio, del 10% rimanente cmq gli venne restituito 1/3.
Link all'articolo: (è il primo della lista) 
http://www.textezurkunst.de/58/defacing-flick-collection/
Rosalyn Deutsche
Benjamin and I organized today's panel in order to report on and discuss a 
debate taking place in Germany. The topic of the debate is the exhibition in 
Berlin of the Friedrich Christian Flick Collection of Art at the Hamburger 
Bahnhof, the State Museum for Contemporary Art, an institution financed by 
taxpayers. Flick bought his collection with money inherited from his 
grandfather, an arms manufacturer and steel magnate, who was convicted at 
Nuremberg of crimes against humanity committed during the Nazi period. The 
crimes included the use of slave labor in his armaments factories. Flick, 
the grandson and owner of the art collection, has refused to contribute to a 
fund that was recently established to pay long-overdue reparations to the 
surviving slave laborers. These are the most salient facts; I'll expand on 
them in a moment.
There have been a few articles about the Flick controversy in the US 
press-last year, for example., Michael Kimmelman and Alan Riding wrote about 
it in the New York Times-but coverage has been limited. Yet the controversy 
has special relevance here since American art institutions have borrowed 
from Flick, and there are many rumors that they are interested in buying 
works. I became convinced of the need for a public discussion in New York of 
the Flick Collection when I read a comment made by Michael Govan, director 
of the Dia Center for the Arts, in 2003, prior to the opening of Dia's new 
facility in Beacon. Dia was considering borrowing several works by Bruce 
Nauman from Flick and, according to some reports, was hoping for a permanent 
loan. Asked his opinion about the German controversy, Dia's director 
answered that the institution was not qualified to pass judgment on the 
reparations issue. "That's between Flick and his government," he said. I 
think that the aesthetic, ethical, and political questions raised by Flick's 
collection are far too pressing for the art world to remain ignorant of and 
dismiss. Stuart Eisenstadt, US negotiator for Holocaust reparations, reminds 
us that the Bible says that the sins of the father should not be visited 
upon the son. But, he asks, what if the sons-and grandsons-have prospered 
from crimes against humanity-in Flick's case, the use of slave labor? Are 
the beneficiaries accountable to the victims? What role does accountability 
play in coming to terms with historical atrocities and preventing the 
repetition of past injustices? What does it mean to suggest that art 
patronage can substitute for paying reparations? I hope that today's 
discussion of these and other questions will help qualify art institutions, 
their representatives, and other individuals in the art world to express 
informed opinions about these issues and make considered, ethical decisions 
about their relationship to the Flick Collection. Friedrich Christian Flick 
is a multi-millionaire who used his inheritance from his Nazi grandfather to 
amass a collection of 2,500 modern and contemporary artworks, which, as I 
said earlier, he loaned to the Hamburger Bahnhof, the State Museum for 
contemporary art in Berlin. The Flick Collection opened there on September 
21, 2004, after a great deal of controversy, and will remain on display for 
seven years in a series of rotating exhibitions. Before Peter-Klaus 
Schuster, the director of the State Museums of Berlin, agreed to give 
Flick's collection a temporary home, Flick had tried to set up a museum for 
his collection in Zurich and to display it in Munich, but his efforts were 
blocked by public outcry. The main points of contention were the purchase of 
the collection with money made from slave labor and Flick's refusal to pay 
into the reparations fund for the victims of slave labor. Another important 
concern was the fact that Flick's collection is owned by a holding company 
on the island of Guernsey, a popular tax haven in the English Channel, where 
it is sheltered not only from taxes but from investigation.
Flick inherited a fortune from his grandfather, Friedrich Flick, a prominent 
armaments manufacturer and principal shareholder of the German industrial 
conglomerate Flick KG. In 1947, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg tried 
the elder Flick on several charges: using forced labor, plundering occupied 
countries, confiscating Jewish property, supporting SS organizations, and 
membership in the SS. Flick was convicted of all charges except 
confiscation, which was not considered a crime against humanity. The 
Nuremberg prosecutor, Benjamin Ferencz, describes Flick as one of "a small 
group of hand-picked industrial barons" [1]. who met regularly with Himmler 
and other SS leaders to review Germany's economic situation. He was "high on 
the distribution list of a secret report dated November 19, 1941," 
describing the elimination of all of the Jews of Kiev, Krivoy Rog, and other 
towns. He accompanied Himmler on a tour of concentration camps. And, in 
addition to using the forced labor of about 48,000 workers, several of the 
Flick group's plants located around Berlin exploited approximately 2000 
slave laborers obtained from various concentration camps.
Slave labor was part of the Nazi's final solution-the destruction of the 
Jews of Europe. It was a way of combining the goal of eliminating Jews with 
Germany's pressing need for wartime labor to produce munitions and arms. In 
September 1942 Albert Speer realized that it wasn't feasible to continuing 
manufacturing these goods inside concentration camps because of lack of 
space and machinery. Speer proposed that these obstacles could be overcome 
if private companies were allowed to use concentration camp inmates outside 
the camps. Companies clamored for the concentration camp labor, using all 
their influence to get it from the government. Leading German 
industrialists, such as Flick, who contributed heavily to Himmler were 
assured of cooperation from the SS. They had to provide adequate security 
arrangements, such as guards and barbed wire enclosures, within which 
inmates were literally worked to death. [2]. It's estimated that four out of 
five slave laborers died as a result of their brutal treatment.
After serving three years of his seven-year sentence, Friedrich Flick was 
released and was able to rebuild his fortune with relative ease. The Allies 
had allowed him to keep a third of his industrial holdings and he had 
transferred 90% of the ownership of Flick KG to his sons so that the laws 
requiring reorganization of conglomerates did not apply to him. Flick KG 
remained in existence and the Flick family retained control of its steel 
works, blast furnace operations, Ruhr coal operations, and more. Also, Flick 
bought interest in other firms, including Dynamit Nobel and Daimler Benz, 
which had also used war-time slave labor from Buchenwald and Dachau. 
According to historian L.M. Stallbaumer, when the U.S. High Commissioner of 
Germany granted clemency in 1951 to German industrialists still in prison, 
the actions of these industrialists had been reduced to nothing more than 
"white collar crimes." Not only was Germany eager to forget the past, but US 
cold-war policies depended on a restored German economy as a barrier against 
the spread of communism. Flick died the fifth richest man in the world, 
never expressing remorse or paying reparations to surviving slave laborers 
at either his wartime factories or others in which he became a major 
shareholder. He had been approached by the Conference of Jewish Materials 
Claims on behalf of 1300 claimants.
In 1998, when Gerhard Schroeder ousted Helmut Kohl as chancellor of Germany, 
the government began for the first time to resolve class-action lawsuits 
mounted by former slave-laborers. About 130,000 Jewish slave laborers 
survived at that time, and in 2001, after long, complex negotiations, 
industry and government began financially compensating them. The amount of 
the fund is insufficient and cannot possibly do justice to their 
suffering-Professor Thomas Kuczinsky recently calculated that 180 billion DM 
would be needed for adequate compensation in financial terms. Still, says 
Stuart Eizenstat, who helped negotiate the fund, reparations are important 
for other than material reasons: "The slave laborers got $7500," says 
Eizenstat, "and the forced laborers, who lived under somewhat less harsh 
conditions, $2500-hardly a king's ransom. But they all have the knowledge 
that someone at the end of the day was held accountable, and this to me-and 
this is what they tell me-is more important than those small amounts of 
money." [3]. Eizenstat also argues that the reparations negotiations "spoke 
volumes about the capacity of the countries with whom we were dealing to 
come to terms with the past." As "the civil equivalent of Nuremberg's 
criminal responsibility," the negotiations may also advance the cause of 
human rights by holding private companies accountable for violations. Some, 
therefore, see reparations as reconciliation measures, since, as Michael 
Ignatieff writes, reconciliation depends on the belief in "a shared truth 
about the past."
Friedrich Christian Flick, the art collector, followed in his grandfather's 
and father's footsteps in refusing to pay restitutions. His brother and 
sister, who oppose the exhibition, have paid into the fund. After his 
collection was turned down in Zurich and Munich and, according to some 
reports, after he was already in negotiations with Berlin to accept it, 
Flick paid $5 million dollars to set up his own Foundation against Racism 
and Intolerance in Potsdam.
In May 2004, four months before the opening of the Flick Collection in 
Berlin, where it will be maintained by German taxpayers, Salomon Korn, vice 
president of Germany's Central Council of Jews brought to light the 
controversy over the Flick family history. While the Jewish community is 
divided on the issue, and the Council's board had previously chosen not to 
take a position, Korn broke the silence when he wrote in the newspaper 
Handelsblatt: "We are dealing with a kind of whitewashing of blood money 
into a socially accepted form of art property, and it is more than 
questionable why the federal government is supporting this." "Will there 
soon be a 'Göring Collection' in Berlin?" asked Korn in a letter to 
Süddeutsche Zeitung. Another member of the Council of Jews added that the 
exhibition of the Collection would represent "an unbearable provocation to 
all those who suffered hunger, humiliation and torture in his grandfather's 
business."
However, officials on local and national levels supported the Collection. 
Christina Weiss, State Secretary for Media and Culture, calls it "an art 
historical sensation," saying that "Art can't be held liable for the actions 
of the family." Klaus-Dieter Lehmann, president of the Prussian Cultural 
Heritage Foundation recalled that when he interviewed Flick, "I saw he had 
no sympathy for things that happened in his family and that he created a 
foundation to fight racism. I also saw that collecting art is his life." 
And, to the astonishment and dismay of many, Chancellor Schroeder, who not 
too long ago called for the social ostracism of tax fugitives and who 
prepared the ground for the reparations fund, opened the Flick exhibition 
with a speech lauding "the idea of patronage that stands behind [Flick's] 
loan" and "the personal sense of responsibility" of private collectors. 
"[Flick] personally has nothing to do with his family's war crimes," 
Schroeder said. Flick himself believes that he has inherited responsibility. 
"But in the end," he says, "the decision as to what I do to live up to my 
responsibility must ultimately be left up to me. I mean that nobody else can 
decide how to interpret my sense of responsibility for me."
The debate over the Flick Collection is one and the same as the longstanding 
debate about memory of and responsibility for the Nazi past. Flick's defense 
of himself-of the self-doesn't seem to me to conform to any ethical 
conception of responsibility; it may exemplify what ethical responsibility 
is not. I use the term ethical by contrast with moral. Morality is a 
discourse of certainty concerned with the laying down of laws, while ethical 
responsibility refers to the ability to respond to an obligation imposed by 
others and, in particular, by the suffering of others. Responding calls the 
self into question. Such self-questioning seems urgent when, as with Flick, 
one benefits from the suffering. Ethical obligation is always present, 
implicit in our relationships with others, but in the case before us, those 
who suffered from slave labor imposed an obligation on perpetrators and 
beneficiaries, when they brought class action suits that finally, after more 
than half a century, resulted in reparations. To fail to respond, to refuse 
to answer the call for reparations, is to forget to whom one must respond. 
It is to forget history and evade responsibility.
The suggestion that responsibility for the injustice of slave labor can be 
discharged through art patronage suffers from the same problems. To whom 
does the art collection make restitution? What is more, it ignores the fact 
that cultural patronage frequently serves as an alibi for individuals and 
corporations to disavow involvement in historical crimes, as the work of one 
of our panelists, the artist Hans Haacke, has demonstrated for about 
thirty-five years. Responsibility through art patronage rests on the 
presumption that art's function is redemptive, that it compensates in an 
imaginary world for suffering caused by injustices in the social world, 
which it exonerates from responsibility for change. This notion of art as a 
compensatory mechanism has been widely contested in contemporary times, 
especially in the wake of the Holocaust.
Notes
[1] Benjamin B. Ferencz, Less Than Slaves: Jewish Forced Labor and the Quest 
for Compensation, Bloomington and Indiana, Indiana University Press, 1979, 
26.
[2] Ibid., 23.
[3] Stuart E. Eizenstat, talk delivered at the "Beyond History and Memory" 
seminar, a series sponsored by the Carnegie Council on Ethics and Internal 
Affairs and Columbia University, May 6, 2003.

 me la questione finisce qui.
Si, probabilmente hai ragione, i sospetti sono quasi certamente giusti e
fondati ed oltre.
Quello che non mi spiego č come mai nessuno mai ha detto qualcosa sulla
Mercedes fino ad oggi.
-- 
"ma io sono fiero del mio sognare, di questo eterno mio incespicare
e rido in faccia a quello che cerchi e che mai avrai!" 
Nico
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 contratto polvere era e polvere diventerà.....
ma per cortesia....


 ma per cortesia....
Per cortesia ti avevo chiesto di imparare a quotare.
Diventa difficile leggere i tuoi post fino a che non avrai imparato a
farlo, ci risentiamo.


 ma per cortesia....
Il ritorno dell'australopiteco.
-- 



Questo non è un buon motivo per chiudere gli occhi adesso....

 Scusate se apro un altro thread, ma non avrei saputo dove postarlo altrimenti.
ma non s'era deciso per una pizza :)
-- 
mayfly

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:gsq3g2$gqj$4...@nnrp-beta.newsland.it...

Beh, però ho detto che era l'ultimo e sono finora riuscito a rispettare 
quanto detto.
E poi tu stai troppo lontano... ma di preciso 'ndove, visto che viaggio 
spesso?
Ciao,
Alessio (a.k.a. Kinglion Il Meticcio) 

 Alessio (a.k.a. Kinglion Il Meticcio)
sabina, ma stò spesso a Rm, la mia email è valida, magari ci andiamo a 
prendere una birra dalle tue parti.
-- 
mayfly

 farlo, ci risentiamo.
Battaglia persa in partenza.
-- 
E quanno more er prete
sonano le campane
piangono le puttante
e i loro protettori
ma quanno moro io
non voglio gesù cristi
ma solo gagliardetti
dei Fedayn teppisti
lalala .... Fe-Fe-Fedayn
ROSELLA STAFFOLI INDEGNA VATTENE

 altrimenti.
Ma l'articolo è illuminante perchè scritto con inchiostro fluorescente?


 Questo non č un buon motivo per chiudere gli occhi adesso....
Appunto, č un buon motivo per porsi delle domande, per avere dubbi; non
per avere certezze basate su 2-3 articoli trovati su internet.
