Prince William orders destruction of Buckingham Palace ivory as part of conservation campaign

[The Straight Story]

Sources reported on Monday that the Duke of Cambridge wants all ivory in the Royal Collection at Buckingham Palace removed and destroyed.

Primatologist Jane Goodall told the Independent on Sunday (IoS) that Prince William told her that he would "like to see all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace destroyed."

Goodall added that the announcement was made only days after the Duke gave his backing to a campaign against elephant poaching.

It is worth noting that the Royal Collection contains some 1,200 artifacts containing ivory, dating back hundreds of years, and William's father, the Prince of Wales, had reportedly asked for all ivory items at his Clarence House and Highgrove homes be removed from sight during the last few years.

On Thursday William, Charles, Prince Harry and Prime Minister David Cameron attended the world's largest conference on the illegal trade in wildlife, held in London during which William leant his influence to a campaign against elephant poaching.

http://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/140303/1402171234-lbci-news

[CBGLuthier]

1. What a stupid fucking idea.

Will not bring one god damned elephant back to life. I imagine next the widdle pwince will want to destroy all old pianos too.

Clueless ravings from the royals.

[DetlefK]

2. Tell that a vegetarian: "The animal is dead. You might as well eat it."

Will recycling paper bring one felled tree back to life?
Will cutting back on gas remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?
Will saving money undo that stupid, useless thing you bought?

[exboyfil]

4. Actually he is following the policy

being adopted by lots of countries:

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/William+Hague+Prince+Charles+warn+wildlife+poaching+crisis/9502976/story.html

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/11/19/why-the-u-s-destroyed-its-ivory-stockpile/

I think I could following one line of reasoning. Possession of something, especially by an elite, is a motivator for others to desire that same thing. The willingness to do without it is a signal that it is wrong to have it as well as eliminating any envy that may exist by someone who does not have it.

On the other hand the ivory can also represent past historical and artistic culture. Some of these works may be appreciated by that fact.

I thought the destruction was foolish myself, but I can see the motivation behind it. The goal should be to make having ivory not cool for everyone especially for those who can afford it. It seems destroying it might cater to another motivation (just like book burning and album crushing). Not to mention that it is already harvested ivory and selling it on the other hand to generate big dollars to protect the elephants remaining might be a better option. Somehow if it is identified as "humane" ivory which, like organic produce and dolphin free tuna, may be difficult to verify and easy to falsify.

[RKP5637]

12. I wonder if destruction of ivory will make ivory more sought after as it becomes more rare and

the $$$$$ soars. I have no idea, was just wondering when I heard it on NPR this morning.

[WinkyDink]

14. No. The rarity in the wild is the reason.

[RKP5637]

16. Ah, I see. Thanks! n/t

[WinkyDink]

13. 1. There has been no destruction; thus, no "was." 2. The monarchy is not about to conduct an auction

[marions ghost]

3. Would be better to

display it as a group, to SHOW what was done to elephants, and tell the story of ivory.

I don't like erasure, because it hides things. Though I think the prince is probably well-meaning, it's not a creative solution.

[Adrahil]

7. This is a great idea. NT

[Adrahil]

5. I oppose the destruction of irreplaceable cultural artifacts.

I strongly support efforts to halt poaching and the wanton destruction of animals for their ivory. I also strongly oppose destruction all cultural artifacts. This smacks a bit of those Taliban jokers who destroyed those ancient Buddhist monuments because they found them offensive.

No. Don't do that.

[WinkyDink]

9. Not really analogous. But he is being a bit rash in this regard.

[Adrahil]

11. Ancient monuments can NEVER be replaced. Not unless you have a time machine.

Likewise, a cultural artifact, especially an historical one is gone forever once you destroy it. Don't do that. Put them in a museum. Talk about the horrors of poaching, but do NOT destroy history and art!

[WinkyDink]

15. I get that; I still mourn the Library of Alexandria. But artifacts are not living species, which is

William's focus, not the "artistic" results of their deaths.

[Adrahil]

20. And I get that. But we must not let outrage over such things TODAY

destroy our cultural and artistic record of the past. What would be next? Destroying all the medieval manuscripts becuase they are written on vellum, made from animal skins?

How does destroying artifacts in any way help animals TODAY.

[Javaman]

33. On the Library at Alexandria...

here's an interesting read in regards to that...

The Great Library at Alexandria was destroyed by budget cuts, not fire.

http://io9.com/the-great-library-at-alexandria-was-destroyed-by-budget-1442659066

[thecrow]

19. As an artist, I agree with you

Much better to put them in a museum and tell the story of how the elephants were decimated because of ivory. Perhaps the admission fees could raise money to protect the elephants and further educate people.

[siligut]

31. Yes, thank you. nt

[marions ghost]

35. I tend to agree

You can't make the point about ivory without looking at the artifacts and trying to fathom a world in which animals are sacrificed only for their bones. It is history. Cultural artifacts need to be saved. They provoke thought and dialogue.

[dipsydoodle]

6. He didnt order anything

He said he would like to see.......

[WinkyDink]

8. He's not even Heir Apparent. Can't "order" anything except a burger.

[Shankapotomus]

10. Resigning the contraband to the back room

of a museum or archive would seem to be the better option to me than destroying it. You never know when you are going to want to examine something for historical or scientific purposes somewhere down the line.

[WinkyDink]

17. It isn't contraband.

[Shankapotomus]

22. And yet try to decorate your bathroom

with another person's stolen teeth and they call you a criminal. How many bathrooms would be finished if it weren't for this double standard?

http://m.

&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCj1wcs7SZj0

[Baitball Blogger]

21. Or he can donate it and help flood the market?

[Marrah_G]

23. He just said he would like to see it destroyed

He did not order anything and probably doesn't have that authority.

[eShirl]

24. Orders? What does his Grammie have to say about that?

[n2doc]

25. Since they aren't buying any, and haven't for some time, this means nothing

It won't do anything to stop the problem, which is driven by asian consumers for the most part. Stupid move. Hide them if you want to, but destroying them is akin to smashing the diamonds on the Queen's crown to stop the 'blood diamond' trade.

[hrmjustin]

26. He doesn't have the power to order anything like that.

[Paper Roses]

27. I don't agree with this move.

What exists is part of history. I see no merit in the destruction of these historic items.

[Crepuscular]

28. Ridiculous

I can't see any useful purpose being served by peeling the ivories off of my wife's baby grand. Symbolism over substance.

[Orrex]

29. I hear that it's 99 44/100% pure.

[Prophet 451]

30. I would prefer to see them placed on display

and the money from exhibiting them used to fund elephant preservation projects. The Prince obviously means well but these things are historic artifacts.

[anasv]

32. Way to go, Prince William.

For people who object to this, are you busy dusting your lampshades made of human skin? Because, after all, the owners are dead.

[JoeyT]

34. Dead or not isn't the objection.

Wiping out a bunch of cultural artifacts to show how special he is won't do a goddamned bit of good. I suppose it will make people that are shortsighted or attach absolutely no value to the culture of others feel better. What it won't do is a single thing to stop the ivory trade or the poachers that feed it.

The person upthread that suggested displaying them and using the funds to pay for anti-poaching efforts has the right idea.

[marions ghost]

37. Right

well said

Erasure doesn't work. And misses the opportunity to help.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

36. Destroying old ivory artifacts will not save a single elephant. nt

[blackspade]

38. As an archaeologist and historian, I find this problematic

I can't see the use of destroying artistic and cultural materials from the royal collections as a viable political and ecological statement.

Now if we are talking about stocks of raw ivory, I can get behind this.
Artistic and cultural material can have a wide range of provenances that may or may not have been exploitative in the modern sense.

Was the ivory used in a 200 year old artifact collected from a dead animal? was the rest of the carcass used by local groups as food and resources? Is the ivory from a mammoth? A walrus?
Making blanket statements like this without including nuance is just setting William up as an unthinking fool.