Gandhi's eyeglasses and other items up for bid
Tomorrow, Antiquorum Auctioneers will put some of Mahatma Gandhi's few personal possessions on the auction block, including his eyeglasses, pocket watch, and sandals. Naturally, India wants the items for public display and if eleventh-hour negotiations with the collector don't end well, the country might bid on the objects. From the AFP:
"Indian diplomats work to secure Gandhi auction items""We have asked our embassy in Washington and Consulate General of India in New York to do everything that is required through the bidding process or otherwise," junior foreign minister Anand Sharma said.
Antiquorum has insisted the sale will go ahead and put an estimate of 20,000 to 30,000 dollars on the items, which will sell as a single lot.
The final price is expected to be considerably higher, partly thanks to the publicity generated by the row in India over the sale.
the latest
latest episodes
It's generally considered bad strategy to publicly state you're willing to do "everything that is required" to win an item at auction.
A humorous observation on Fark I thought was priceless: "What a fraud--he claimed to be poor, yet could afford $20K sandals."
While it would be nice for the items to belong to the Indian government, where they'd likely be put on public display for everyone to enjoy rather than ending up in the hands of a private collector, they're going to go for a lot of money. India has a lot of poverty. The people of India would be better off to have that money spent on something that would help with their real needs rather than to buy some of Ghandi's belongings. And it seems to me that if they really wanted to honor Ghandi, they would spend the money helping the poor and the powerless rather than buying his items.
Hey redstar, all of the money you're not spending on minimal food and lodging? Send it to a charity. And when you're posting to boing boing, you could be working for the sake of others instead.
Please, don't respond. Get to work.
Don't bother looking for his loincloth.
I'm wearing it. It's my blogging suit.
@ Redstarr:
The U.S. government is pretty tight for cash right now too, but I'd be ticked off if the Smithsonian sold Lincoln's hat to another country just to make a few bucks.
Does the person who owns these items see no irony in profiting off of these possessions?
dammit, that should have been "see no irony".
Troofseeker@5: I nearly peed mine reading your comment! ;D
$20K?!? Hell, you can have the Birkies that I'm wearing right now for HALF that.
"Look, very rare...Hitler's pencil box!"
-- Richard Lee Sung as "Mr. Cho" in M*A*S*H: Dear Mildred
And to think that I used to live in a student housing co-op in Austin with the owner of the items... guess I should've been nicer to Jamie.
I'm not just wearing Gandi's loincloth.
I'm also wearing Lincoln's tophat.
It's magic.
Buying the items and walking a mile in Gandhis shoes would allow you to judge him. India is of course trying to evade this meme loophole.
$20-30,000 is not nearly enough money to do anything for India's poor. India could probably get more money in the long run by charging admission to tourists to see these items.
Monkeygirl- You may be right. Charging tourists to view the stuff might be more profitable than just using the cash directly instead.
Jjasper-If that's an attempt at trolling, it's a poor one. I give it a 2 out of 10.
If you're serious and you genuinely think that people should be spending all their time and money helping the less fortunate instead of on anything else and are doing that in your own life where did you find the time to read this thread? If you were as sincere about that lifestyle as you are encouraging me to be and you just happened to stumble across the thread and have a second to post in it between good deeds, well, I commend you. If you are (as Ghandi encouraged) "being the change you wish to see in the world", good for you. It's not something I'm realistically interested in doing to that extreme, but if you are, well, that's lovely.
I do what I can when I can while maintaining a reasonable comfortable lifestyle. I absolutely advocate that kind of responsible giving. If more people openly advocated doing a little here and there when they can, it would make the world a lot happier place. So many feel like they're not doing enough because of ideas like your post that make it sound like sharing is an all or nothing proposition, either you're all solution all the time or you're useless. So they give up on even easy giving. They miss out on the idea that you don't have to do it that way. You don't have to give up every extra penny that's not for basic food or shelter to the poor. You don't have to spend every waking hour outside of work volunteering. You don't have to give up on a modern American style life and live like a monk or a nun. And you don't have to feel guilty about it. You can give a little when your budget allows it. You can give a little time when you have a little. The little stuff adds up.
Or maybe you're confused and think that I'm saying that I live a self-less life. I don't. I'm not saying that I do. I most certainly am saying that if I had 20 or 30 thousand dollars entrusted to me by the people of my nation to spend in their best interests, I wouldn't be spending it on historical memorabilia while my people were impoverished. I wasn't talking about anyone's personal spending choices. I was talking about the spending choices of a government. And yes, goverments should be spending every dime and every second to make life better for their people.
"Walk A Mile In Gandhi's Shoes!" Of course! Now there's a business concept!
I'm gonna bid. I'm getting nothing from "Walk A Mile In Gandhi's Loincloth". d8^P
...except maybe a rash? ;p
I agree with #1: India is basically begging the seller to work in collusion with some "buyer" to drive up the price, since they can be sure that India will keep bidding higher.
sold for $1.8M to an Indian tycoon.