Heritage: A Blurred Line
The concept of heritage can be a very unique definition to all who seek to understand it. Heritage can be thought of in a global sense, as significant sites or monuments, or it can be conceptualized on a more personal level in terms of cultural connections and traditions. What impact heritage has on each of us individually is specific to the personal connections we all feel, but the impact that it has on us as the human race is undeniable. We need heritage to ensure that the stories from our past societies live on through the stewardship of those who seek to preserve it. Heritage can help to form a sense of identity both individually and globally and acts as a connecting force to our cultures of the past and the future.
While we can clearly see how heritage can be an ultimately good force of human existence, it bears asking the question: Could heritage ever be a negative element? In many instances we can see how heritage can be used as a form of national and personal identity, but at what point can biased opinions of heritage be used as a catalyst for oppression of other groups?
In reference to globalization, nationalism and world heritage we have seen how issues have arisen between promoting ethnic diversity and creating a unified sense of nationalism. It can be a very positive element to use heritage to promote senses of national and cultural pride, however, we have also seen many examples where one group dominates others and lessens their stake in heritage stories of different groups of peoples inhabiting the same regions.
An example that quickly comes in mind in reference to heritage and nationalism as a negative driving force is the Holocaust. It was through Nazi Germany’s sense of national and cultural pride that brought about the merciless slaughtering of millions that did not share the same heritage elements within that society. So where is the line? The line between heritage being used as a unifying positive force, and heritage being used as an exclusive cultural boundary that separates groups into marginalization, is one that must be monitored carefully and taken very seriously.
It is essential to think of heritage in terms of a unifying force, but a force that should never neglect to remember that there is no scale of importance of heritage, and no elements of one group’s heritage should ever be viewed as more significant than another. In my opinion, while the definition of heritage may be open to interpretation, it should also be one that views differences in history, culture, and tradition, as beautiful variances on the cultural spectrum of the human race.
