Reconciling Nature and Culture in a Global Context? - Rainforest ...

Reconciling Nature and Culture in a Global Context?Lessons from the World Heritage ListCHAPTER FOUR – THE CONVENTION AND WORLDHISTORYHeritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what wepass on to future generations – UNESCO World Heritage CentreOne of the commonly heard criticisms of World Heritage listing is that it sanitises the pastand museumifies social practices. Moreover, in attempting to protect heritage fromperceived damaging or threatening external forces, listing often overlooks or negates the factthat many heritage sites are the products of “local responses to and engagements withregional, national and global political, cultural and economic dynamics” (Adams 2005: 153).In the past five years or so, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of WorldHeritage sites listed which specifically allude to and identify the ‘fusion’, ‘interchange’,‘interaction’ or ‘integration’ of different values and cultures as justification for inscription.Some of these ‘encounters’ are further linked to ‘international trade’ (e.g. the Historic Centreof Macau listed in 2005) or are described as part of an early phase of ‘globalisation’ (e.g. theHistoric Quarter of the Seaport City of Valparaiso listed in 2003). While some of the‘heritage’ produced from these encounters – e.g. railways, villages, towns, cities – isidentified as ‘colonial’, rarely if at all, are the interactions between Europeans (mainly theBritish, Portuguese, and the Spanish) and locals characterised as such. Prior to 2000, itappears that former European colonies in South America, Africa, and Asia largely, thoughnot exclusively, nominated ‘natural’ properties, such as the Virunga National Park in theDemocratic Republic of the Congo (listed in 1979), pre-historic ‘cultural’ sites, such as theJoya de Ceren Archaeological Site in El Salvador (listed in 1993), or pre-colonialmonuments, such as the Taj Mahal in India (listed in 1983). As the example of the Taj Mahalillustrates, however, the advent of European colonialism in its various temporal and spatialmanifestations around the world did not signal the onset of a history of cultural interchanges.World Heritage sites, such as the Taj Mahal, the Borobudur Temple Compounds in Indonesiaand the Khami Ruins National Monument in Zimbabwe, point to a long history of culturalinteractions and exchanges between the local and the global. Indeed, while sometimes notofficially recognised in the listing process, many World Heritage properties are truly globalsites as a consequence of their placement within colonial and pre-colonial histories. AsMaddern argues with respect to Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island National Monument, these sitesare not just illustrative of important chapters in national histories, but they also represent a“defining moment in world history” (2005: 25).In this section of the report, I examine to what extent the World Heritage List has developedbeyond a representation of colonialism as a celebration of past glories or quaint oldbuildings. With particular reference to the World Heritage site of the Military Fortress ofSuomenlinna (listed in 1991) and one of the most recently listed properties, the HistoricCentre of Macau (listed in 2005) 50 , I report on two very different depictions of the ‘colonialexperience’. Focusing specifically on ‘colonial’ World Heritage sites raises some interestingquestions as to whose values and whose heritage is preserved and promoted at thesetransnational, multicultural locations. And, perhaps more importantly, particularly given thehistory of colonialism, it also queries who and which historical events are forgotten in thisprocess.50 As part of a comparative research project examining several World Heritage sites, I visited both ofthese properties in October and November 2005.47