PRESERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE
--------------------------
John Pazmino
nyskies@nyskies.org
www.nyskies.orrg
2017 April 22 initial
2017 August 13 current
Introduction
----------
For some time over a year I received no invitations for a United
Nations event. In years past I erraticly got invites to sit a this or
that show sponsored by a UN office. It was a different ones for each
instance.
This favor of invites, as best as I could figure out, was an
effort by the UN to ease the discomfort and annoyance to its
neighborhood induced by the massive reconstruction on its campus.
And, I suppose, also to show off the good and worthy programs it runs.
In almost all cases the invites were personal to me, among likely
hundreds of other 'civic and cultural leaders' in the City. No, I
never learned how or why I got into this scheme. And it seemed from
time to time that some how I ran out of invite chances.
In early April 2017 I spontaneously got an invite, from yet an
other UN office, to sit a conference about the current destruction of
cultural properties in the Middle East during the ongoing ideological
warfighting. Like for most previous invites I have no clue why I was
so favored since I do not go around destroying cultural sites.
This particular invite stipulated the meeting was open to the
public and suggested that the invite be passed along to other
interested parties.
I recall only one public meeting, a supper-music celebration of UN
Charter Day in 2015. I got that one only a day ahead, leaving no time
to circulate it to others.
The meeting was set for 3PM EDST on Wednesday 19 April 2017, about
a week after getting the invite. With this ample leadtime I circulated
the invite to NYSkies. A couple NYSkiers had questions about the
invite, which I answered from previous experience with UN events.
I sent back a reply, as instructed in the notice, to the
sponsoring office. One crucial next step was to print and bring the
acknowledgement of response to be let into the UN campus apart from
the tourist crowds.
Before the meeting
----------------
The full title of this event was 'Protecting cultural heritage in
times of conflict'. It recalled to me a similar event in the early 2-
thous concerning looting of antiquities in Iraq during warfighting
there. It was not a UN event and it was staged in a museum's, or other
large, auditorium.
I walked to 42nd St to get the 42nd St bus that goes right to the
United Nations campus. The day was chilly, a bit too much for the thin
jacket I wore. The bus came quickly, leaving me at the UN at about
2:30PM. The conference started at 3PM on this April 19th.
In follow up correspondence for the show advised the attendees
to muster up at the Visitors Entrance on 46 St.. I found a gaggle of
people huddled around two women with clipboards. Yes, this is the
gathering for the culture-conflict conference. I offered my name and
showed my acknowledgement printout.
Oops! I wasn't in the roster! And about a dozen others --
including one NYSkier -- were missing. The conference agents made many
calls by cell, speaking in some foreign language!, and got word that
we dozen were copassetic. The agents advised that an official from the
conference will come to bring us inside the campus as a group.
It took about 20 minutes for this official to show up. Soonest he
arrived he swiftly escorted us thru a simplified security check and
into the meeting hall. Along the way our group dispersed and I lost
track of the other NYSkier.
We entered the hall, somewhere inside the Sectretariat Building
during the opening remarks of the meeting. I later learned the meeting
started late, so our group didn't miss any substantial material.
Once in the hall we were left to sit any where. I picked a seat on
the main floor, where just about every one else was seated, a
comfortable distance in front of a large-screen wall display. The
speaker at the podium was televised in this screen. There were tow
screens with the same image facing into the left and right sides of
the auditorium.
The audience
----------
I noticed at this event a greater portion of 'outsiders' than at
previous UN events. The invite probably reached at least a slice of
the public. These folk were awed by the experience of being 'inside
the United nations'. Some played with the audio earpiece and
delegation sign panel. Every one was calm and well behaved.
We could sit any where in the hall. Almost all took seats on the
main floor, leaving the peanut gallery just about empty. Total
attendance, based on a capacity of 500 for this room, as i later
earned, was some 200.
The main floor had the classical curved rows of tables with the
sign panels and earpiece-microphone set out along them.
There was for this meeting no language interpretation. The
earpiece had amplification in case the room's audio was too low. It
was for me loud and clear enough to hear directly.
Clunky seats
----------
The seats against the tables were, uh, altogether awful.. They
were typical lounge chairs meant to stand in one place. They were far
too heavy to nudge by foot, they digged into the rug, and were
contoured with no grips to lift or pull them. I had to stand, shove
the chair into place, than step over and into it.
After the meeting I asked an usher about the chairs. He explained
they were not the standard ones for the delegatrs table. They were
moved to here from else where in the building as rooms were rebuilt.
A second tier of seats, far easier to muscle, was arrayed away
from the tables, being for support crew of each nation's delegation. I
saw no one using them. Maybe the large fraction of public in audience
felt the furniture belonged in place and should not be disturbed?
Presentations
-----------
The conference was a series of presentations by various officials
associated with looking after structures vulnerable to loss in
warfighting. Most merely spoke with their echo on the display screens.
One gave a slideshow, in place of his talking head, illustrating
buildings ruined by bombing or arson in the Middle East. I didn't find
a handout program for the meeting, S quick web search on following
days yielded no meeting program.
It seems there was a shuffle of speakers. The moderator at times
noted that so-and-so isn't here or that a so-and-so is added to the
slate. I put away the invite notice with its schedule of speakers.
Some speakers discussed specific instances of heritage loss.
Others stressed the general importance of protecting heritage. Some
wanted the traditional UN offices for heritage to act more
aggressively against heritage destruction.
All discussion was for loss of heritage thru an incoming society
displacing an existing one. The new society regards the older culture
as not suitable to maintain or preserve.
Loss from disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos were not
treated at this meeting. Nor were looses from decay, neglect,
abandonment. Modifying or replacement of heritage structures was also
off of the program.
Cultural heritage
---------------
The meeting treated only physical structures, like monuments,
churches, temples, public halls. Loss of cultural heritage can also be
removal or denial of printed or digital information, such as books,
Internet, pictures and posters, audio recordings, broadcast spectrum,
publishing facilities. props and tools. These other, 'softer', means
of eradicating heritage were not part of this session, altho in the
Middle East they are in wide practice by many parties in the region.
Now comes the 64-dollar question. What is 'cultural heritage'? Who
decides that a this or that building is part of a society's cultural
heritage?
Nominally the very society itself handles these questions thru its
cotidian life nd active history.
Many societies do not have so high a level of heritage concern.
They may never have been involved with keeping its history intact. Its
activity may maintain a short-term past and present, with no enduring
interest in a remote past.
In this meeting we saw that mostly it was an external society, not
part of the warfighting, that deems certain buildings to be heritage
sites within the enclosing society. This tactic is both good and bad.
On the down side it smells like a new empirialism, being told by an
outsider what is 'important' to keep and what to let go.
On the up side the external society may have properly and duly
assembled a competent history of the prevailing culture. it can make
useful and valuable selections for heritage preservation.
If the society is too weak or poor to maintain the structures, the
external one may offer labor,, skills, finance, tools as assistance.
Eradication methods
-----------------
In the theme of this conference there are three major eradication
methods. One is collateral destruction in warfighting. The building is
within the zone of combat and is struck by stray bombs. The
eradication is reckless and sometimes only partial.
An other method thru warfighting is targeting. One side uses the
building for military support. It attracts bombing to kill its
occupants and lay waste to their resources. In this case the ruin may
be complete, even excessive.
The third method is employed after the new culture supplants the
old. The new society deliberately demolishes the heritage structure
under a relatively peaceful setting. The ruin may be either partial or
compete according as the means of demolition. The intent is to make
the building useless and show the old culture that it is no longer
unworthy of history..
Deliberate eradication
--------------------
In the Middle East deliberate eradication is a significant means
of losing heritage. In this region several competing cultures adhaere
to ideologies that abhor other cultures. Given the power and chance
they smash the victim culture's heritage sites. The concept is that
because the incoming culture is the 'best' or 'only' proper way of
life, all previous cultures must be removed for being in the way.
This specially the case for buildings standing for values contrary
to those of the new society. The typical example is a temple of a
deity who is an enemy in the new society's folklore. Such buildings
are commonly the first ones to suffer.
Other structures in line for eradication are colleges, musea,
meeting halls, and institutes. They support values and ideals declared
'unacceptable' to the incoming culture.
This deliberate destruction is done in a calmer scene than that of
a war zone. There is no effective resistance from the old society.
Realization of the eradication is usually slower, like by looting,
vandalism, arson, staggered dynamiting. Sometimes it's part of a
public show to make the victim people 'know' that their culture is now
gone for good.
Intervention and protection
-------------------------
While all of the speakers gave woeful stories of destroyed
buildings and monuments,, NONE described positive effective means to
protect any structures. Several referred to UN declarations and
resolutions against eradicating cultural heritage. None of these are
honored by the warring parties. None are seriously enforced by the UN
or specific nations. I didn't keep track but there were probably a
dozen declarations and resolutions mentioned during this conference.
More than not showing current interventions, no speaker proposed
credible prospects for remediation of the heritage destruction
situation. They offered up bland tame 'should' programs with no
substance behind them.
Intervention by the victim society, in all fairness, is usually
not practical or possible. The victim may be in warfighting against
the incoming society. It may not have the capability and resources to
defend its heritage structures. it's the case of a stronger element
overpowering the weaker one.
Where was UNESCO?
---------------
A week or so after publishing this article, I got many comments
about it. Comments about my articles are most welcome and can lead to
revision of the piece. That's what the 'initial' and 'current' issue
date in many articles mean. Intermediate revisions rolled up into the
current date.
In this present case almost all comments included a question:
Where was UNESCO? UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization, is a major unit of the UN, set up when the UN
was founded. It, among other functions, catalogues and documents
'World Heritage Sites' as monuments to human civilization. They span
most of recorded history and are located in various sectors of the
world. it issues catalogues of special interest sites, such as for
astronomy, all available on the UNESCO web.
With the ongoing destruction of heritage buildings, why didn't I
mention UNESCO in the initial article? The answer is dead simple: No
where in the printed or vocal material for this conference included
UNESCO. It appears that it had no role, to sponsor, fund, endorse,
promote the meeting.
There is more, thanks to your comments and discourse with people
in the know. UNESCO probably did not take part in the conference from
ideological reasons. We would think UNESCO looks after heritage sites
and supports their host countries to maintain and protect them. UNESCO
activity in the past several years suggest an opposite program,
seeming to ensure eradication of many sites in the Middle East by
allowing antagonist parties to administer them.
These are sites in Israel, under Israeli curatorship and
protection, that UNESCO wants the Palestinian Authority to take care
of. These include, but likely are not all, Temple Mount, Western Wall,
Tomb of Joseph, Cave of Patriarchs & Matriarchs, jerusalem walls and
attached structures. UNESCO says these are really sacred holy places
only for Islam, with no Jewish history associated with them.
UNESCO also wants the sites to be known only by an Arabic name, no
longer a Western one. The Temple Mount, for example is carried in
UNESCO's books as, by one translitteration, ' Al-Aqsa Mosque'. Asking
UNESCO about the Temple Mount returns a 4'04' error.
Already as I learned, the Joseph Tomb is under Palestinian
operation and has been, erm, trashed to hell and apparently abandoned.
No Jews or any other religious visitors are allowed and, as far as I
could find out, there are no substantial visits by Islamic followers.
I emphasize the Israeli sites because they are highlighted in
American news media and political circles. One curious opponent of the
UNESCO action is the leftists, who agitate for a one-world domain.
UNESCO is locating the places from one jurisdiction to an other
against the concept of global collective management.
With such behavior from UNESCO -- it may not be limited to the
Middle East -- I appreciate why it stayed away from this conference.
Cultural heritage in America
--------------------------
We normally think of destruction of cultural heritage as a feature
of aggressive uncivilized societies. Not always. It is also a feature
in the United States during flare-ups of social or political tension.
Altho such incidents are temporary, the restoration and reparations
can come slowly.
One cycle we see in 2017 is the attempt to remove statues and
monuments of Confederate Civil War figures. There is a movement to
tear down thee structures as representing a history now unacceptable.
In this peculiar instance a counter-flow of opinion urges to keep
the monuments as rallying stations for the modern softer Confederacy.
Some states are rejecting federal authority, as was done in the Civil
War, by becoming 'sanctuary states'. They assert political autonomy
without actually leaving the United States..
An other, and this is hardly the end of the list, is the agitation
to rename schools and institutes away from their original ones. The
honored person no longer belongs in today's social theme. Two examples
are facilities named for Woodrow Wilson and the entire Stanford
University. Wilson's public service was modulated by his southern
upbringing under his father, a segregationist minister. Stanford,
founder of the college, was a frothing antagonist against nonwhite
peoples.
Conclusion
--------
Six or seven speakers gave their stories. After the presentations
the moderator gave closing remarks. She apparently was the director of
the roof org for the meeting, International Federation for Peace and
Sustainable Development. Because there seemed to a shuffle of
participants, I wasn't sure. In her remarks she thanked the assistance
from several UN countries. The invite notice didn't mention them,
which I found curious. Normally publicity is careful to give credit to
contributing parties. Among the countries i recall from her comments
were Iran, Yemen, and Syria.
No, I'm not making this up!
These countries are ruled by societies now engaged in vigorous
campaigns of cultural eradication against their enemies. I can't
imagine that they would have any sincere desire to join a heritage
protection and preservation project.
The meeting ended at about 5:30PM. There was no Q&A for the
audience. The moderator merely thanked us for attending and let us
leave. We departed quickly, guided by ushers.
I ran into two other NYSkiers whom I missed earlier. I waited
around for others who may have attended. By 6PM I left the UN campus.
I got a 42nd St bus toward Times Square, where I got my train to
my home in Brooklyn