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

Sandra PannellAt Suomenlinna the erasure of this less picturesque history is materially achieved by therestoration of the fortress complex itself. Ongoing restoration work at the fortress isundertaken to satisfy the authenticity and integrity requirements of the World HeritageConvention. As stated in the Convention’s operational guidelines, the “physical fabric” ofproperties nominated under the ‘cultural’ criteria (i) to (vi), “should be in good condition, andthe impact of deterioration processes controlled” (UNESCO 2005: 22). At Suomenlinnarestoring the fortifications in keeping with their current status as “monument, a culturalcentre, a borough and a tourist attraction” (The Estate of Olof af Hällstrom 2004: 49) haseffectively obliterated the material scars of more than three hundred years of warfare. In thisrespect, the Military Fortress of Suomenlinna is not alone. As Uzzell and Ballantyne pointout, there are “many museums around the world where the sartorial elegance of the soldieryand the impressiveness of the instruments of war assumes as much if not more significancethat their purpose and effect” (1998: 156-157). In these contexts, like Suomenlinna, war isreduced to a simple story about the application of military technology and industrialdevelopments to the slaughter of thousands, if not millions, of people. As Uzzell andBallantyne conclude, “as we go back in time we seem to be more willing to ignore sufferingand treat events in a more disinterested way as if they come from a ‘foreign country’” (1998:157). In part, this social ‘forgetting’ of temporally distant and shameful events is driven bythe transformation of sites associated with war and conflict from memorials and places ofremembrance to tourist attractions and day-trip destinations. However, battlefields,massacres sites, and the ground zero of mass destruction events, in which unspeakableatrocities, horror and tragedy are constitutive elements, do not readily provide visitors with an“entertaining day out for all the family” (Uzzell and Ballantyne 1998: 165). While ‘darktourism’ is identified as a “growing phenomenon in the late twentieth and early twenty-firstcenturies” (Lennon and Foley 2000: 3), it is apparent that heritage interpretation at these‘fatal attractions’ often presents “a sanitised form of truth which will not upset, offend orchallenge” (Uzzell and Ballantyne 1998: 165). This last point is particularly evident in theway that history is interpreted and presented at the Military Fortress of Suomenlinna.For all the talk of military engagements, there is little sense of the Suomenlinna site as acontested cultural domain in a presentation that largely celebrates Swedish and Russianmilitary history. Indeed, what is interesting about Suomenlinna is the way in which themilitary achievements of Sweden and Russia, and their varied historical occupation of theregion, have not been downplayed or rewritten to opportunistically serve the ends ofcontemporary Finnish nationalism. Perhaps, this says something about the uncertain andunfinished nature of Finnish nationalism or about the error of assuming the existence of anethnically independent and historically de-contextualised Finnish identity. Unlike the WorldHeritage site of Stonehenge, where there is no doubt about the fact that “it belongs to thenation and falls under the guardianship of English Heritage” (van der Aa et al. 2005: 18),Suomenlinna, while nominated by the Government of Finland, strongly points to its ‘sharedheritage’. And while the World Heritage site of the Tower of London monumentalises therock-solid stability of England’s constitutional monarchy, Suomenlinna points to the ebb andflow of power and illustrates the rise and fall of powerful empires and long-reigning kingdomsin this part of Europe.The identity of Suomenlinna as a pivotal focal point in the histories of at least three Europeannations raises some interesting questions about whose heritage it is, who should protect it,and if it is a ‘shared heritage’, to what extent does the Convention recognise multilateralnominations. As to the question of whose heritage it is and who should protect it, the WorldHeritage listed site of the Statue of Liberty and the associated immigration museum on EllisIsland provide us with some insights and possible answers. This site certainly representsone of the more iconic World Heritage properties to symbolise a multicultural heritage andtransnational citizenship. As a site associated with the entry of an estimated twelve millionmigrants into the United States of America, the Statue of Liberty site challenges the moresedentary and stable readings of history associated with so many of the cultural heritage50