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

Reconciling Nature and Culture in a Global Context?Lessons from the World Heritage ListSuomenlinna (in the Finnish language, ‘Fort of Finland’), and was briefly used as a prisoncamp to hold some of the 80,000 prisoners of war resulting from the civil war of 1918 (TheEstate of Olof af Hällstrom 2004: 49). In the period 1919-1973, Suomenlinna was a Finnishgarrison town.The year 1973 marked the end of a 225-year long military epoch as administration of thefortress was handed over to the civil Governing Body of Suomenlinna. This body has beenresponsible for the restoration work and developments at the fortress site to the present date.Today, Suomenlinna is identified as “a monument, a cultural centre, a borough and a touristattraction” (The Estate of Olof af Hällstrom 2004: 49). As a borough, Suomenlinna is theyear-round home to a population of approximately 850 people and contains a “kindergarten,primary school, shop and library” (The Estate of Olof af Hällstrom 2004: 50). The fortresscomplex also operates as a ‘labour colony’ with 80 or so inmates, who carry out most of therestoration work at the site (The Estate of Olof af Hällstrom 2004: 50). The military traditionof Suomenlinna, however, still continues at the site as part of the fortress houses the FinnishNaval Academy.As this brief account illustrates, the history of the fortress is inextricably tied to the history ofEurope and the geo-political battles for power between Sweden and Russia, and laterbetween Russia, France and Great Britain. In this respect, the region that became Finland in1917 is presented as the geo-political borderlands and expendable stage upon which thesebattles for European supremacy were sometimes fought. This history of military dominationand defeat involving Europe’s super-powers of the day is also presented at the sea-fortressof Suomenlinna as ‘Finland’s history’. This said, little information is provided about the roleof local people in this history of colonisation and counter-occupation. Indeed, given theemphasis upon the military achievements of Sweden and Russia, the fortress can be readilyinterpreted by visitors as a monument to Finnish oppression and their marginal role in theregion’s political history.As a monument to Finland’s history, the fortress is also made to stand as a visual marker ofthe beginning of this history. There is no information presented at the visitor centre about theidentity of those people occupying the area prior to Swedish control some 600 years prior tothe establishment of the fortress, or any sense that a local history existed prior to theconstruction itself. While more than 2,000 men were involved in the original building of thefortress, making it the “biggest construction project ever undertaken by the Swedish realm”(The Estate of Olof af Hällstrom 2004: 36), their identities are not revealed in the displays atthe visitor centre. With its emphasis upon the technicalities and principles of fortification ofthe day, and its presentation of history as the story of kings and queens and their variouspolitical machinations on the chessboard of Europe, the World Heritage site glorifies one ofthe more monumental expressions of the ‘colonial experience’. In doing so, the WorldHeritage site conceals some of more shameful episodes associated with the expansion ofempires and kingdom building.As the historian Simon Schama reminds us, not all landscapes are “places of delight”, norare all memories “pastoral picnics” (1995: 18). Yet, notwithstanding the brutal nature ofSuomenlinna history, little of the horror and suffering that Schama alludes to is depicted inthis sanitised vision of Finland’s past. Indeed, there is little suggestion that the historicaloccupation of Finland by Sweden and Russia is a colonising act. In this sense,Suomenlinna, as a World Heritage cultural property, is not alone. The World Heritage List isreplete with properties that celebrate and protect colonial monuments, but not necessarily thepained memories associated with the production of these architectural glories. As Fowlerpoints out (2003: 53), while the World Heritage List acknowledges the incidence of globalwarfare in the form of fortifications, urban defences and naval ports, it has yet to recognise‘war landscapes’. And, I would add, truly depict the other, less picturesque, legacies of acolonial heritage.49