The delicate situation of how to handle a historical item associated with the German Third Reich and the Nazi Party has made headlines before. This week, The New York Times weighed in on its approach to the possession and possible sale of what might be viewed as a morally tainted object.
The April 3 edition of “The Ethicist” Times newsletter began with a widow asking what to do with the Nazi helmet inherited from her deceased husband, who received it from his father. She felt that it was wrong to sell the antique, writing that she was at the same time “very uncomfortable” owning it, given “the resurgence in white supremacy, neo-fascism and antisemitism.”
Kwame Anthony Appiah, a professor of philosophy and law at New York University, responded to her dilemma.
Appiah dismissed the likelihood that a neo-Nazi would buy the helmet—most collectors are military enthusiasts indifferent to the ideologies behind their pieces, he said—and the item in question, he added, is not uncommon on the market.
Further, Appiah rejected the idea that because some antisemite might appreciate the helmet meant that the item was somehow tainted and unethical for someone else to purchase.
“Keep it, donate it, sell it—just don’t endow the helmet with talismanic powers,” he wrote.