While history and cultural heritage seem inherently bound to each other, nothing is less true. History and cultural heritage seem to work together; one might even think history creates cultural heritage. However, the disconnection between history and cultural heritage is becoming increasingly large. One could argue that nowadays history is for all, while cultural heritage is for ourselves alone (Lowenthal, 1998, 128). What one might consider cultural heritage, could be of no interest to others. And this is where cultural heritage is on the verge of becoming a topic for heated discussion.
We can all think of present examples in which the notion of cultural heritage is being criticized and where it sometimes is even called racist. Recall the ‘Black Pete’ discussion here in the Netherlands for example. The one side to this discussion sees ‘Black Pete’ as an important part of Dutch cultural heritage and as intrinsically part of Dutch culture, without it, the Dutch would lose a part of their cultural identity. The other side of this discussion sees ‘Black Pete’ as a racist figure connected to slavery and therefore wishes not to celebrate this. As you may have already noticed in the news, it is extremely hard to say that one side is right and the other is wrong; subjectivity plays an enormous role when it comes to cultural heritage.
In this blog post, we will analyze two texts with regard to history and cultural heritage. We will also provide a local and current example of this topic and through that, we hope to evoke some more understanding of the fine line that lies between cultural heritage and history.
The purpose of heritage
According to Lowenthal (1998), ‘history is for all, heritage for ourselves alone’. Think of what this could mean for the experiences in your own life. For instance, as a Dutch citizen in the 21st century, you might be completely unaware of the terrible colonial history of your country. From primary education onwards, you are presented with a particular history of our nation, which has been preselected and filtered by others. In the case of the Dutch, the so-called sea heroes have been presented as crucial for the creation of the Dutch nation. Their names are even illustrated on street signs in many cities all over the country, representing them as national heroes. On the other hand, when doing our own research we usually find how we were deluded.
So, though the history itself can be seen as objective and true, the heritage which is transferred to the next generations is shaped in a certain way, with a certain purpose. Heritage assumes a certain essence, a tale of superiority and difference from others. Although it is not necessarily true, it has to be true, in order for the story to be credible. This is, for instance, very important to minorities, who need to have a basis of credibility in order to defend and promote their existence. All over the world, we implicitly tolerate old tales of heritage and create new ones in order to maintain or built our group identities.
We can become aware of these myths by looking into them in more detail. Cultural heritage is usually built on irrational arguments, which can easily be attacked. They consist of fictional creatures from a far-away past, instead of actual human beings of flesh and bone. Where history is keen on the details, heritage carefully presents the arguments to fit the picture.
Heritage pasts and heritage presents
The world is full of different societies, and all these societies have a relationship with the past, even the ones that choose to ignore the past. How people tell each other about the past shapes an understanding of its society according to David Harvey (2001).
In Harvey’s text about heritage pasts and heritage presents he talks about the contemporary views on cultural heritage. Especially how we pass our image of the past to the future, as this can shape our perspective of the past itself. One may even abandon a meaningful relationship with the past because heritage is connected to a threatening history. Others might destroy the ‘authentic version’ of the past, only to replace it with a representation of the past which is more pleasing.
According to David Harvey (2001) heritage is produced and shaped in the present, making the relationship we might have with the past to be understood in relation to our present experience. This brings heritage out of its historical context, making it problematic as we should apply heritage with a history of its own and examine it as an evolution of a process over a longer period of time. The definition of heritage as `a contemporary product shaped from history’, is thus giving a false sense of what heritage actually is.
One of the effects of this phenomenon is heritage issues. This means that the way heritage was treated in the past is seen as problematic in nowadays society, just as above mentioned examples of Black Pete and the Dutch sea heroes illustrate. This situation does not mean that people had no concern with heritage. People still had a relationship with the past, and they still preserved and managed aspects of that past., they were just nurtured into a different experience of this heritage. Another example can be the colonial past of many western societies, where people create a version of the past that is for them more fitting, even if this undermines the authentic version.
What is your perspective on the connection between cultural heritage and history and especially how does cultural heritage influence our historical consciousness regarding racial differences?
Authors: D v.d. K, J. G. and J.D.M
Bibliography
Harvey, David C. “Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 7, no. 4 (2001): 319-338.
Lowenthal, David. The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 6. 1998.
Nora, Pierre. “Between Memory and History.” Representations, no. 26 (1989): 7-24.
We can all think of present examples in which the notion of cultural heritage is being criticized and where it sometimes is even called racist. Recall the ‘Black Pete’ discussion here in the Netherlands for example. The one side to this discussion sees ‘Black Pete’ as an important part of Dutch cultural heritage and as intrinsically part of Dutch culture, without it, the Dutch would lose a part of their cultural identity. The other side of this discussion sees ‘Black Pete’ as a racist figure connected to slavery and therefore wishes not to celebrate this. As you may have already noticed in the news, it is extremely hard to say that one side is right and the other is wrong; subjectivity plays an enormous role when it comes to cultural heritage.
In this blog post, we will analyze two texts with regard to history and cultural heritage. We will also provide a local and current example of this topic and through that, we hope to evoke some more understanding of the fine line that lies between cultural heritage and history.
The purpose of heritage
According to Lowenthal (1998), ‘history is for all, heritage for ourselves alone’. Think of what this could mean for the experiences in your own life. For instance, as a Dutch citizen in the 21st century, you might be completely unaware of the terrible colonial history of your country. From primary education onwards, you are presented with a particular history of our nation, which has been preselected and filtered by others. In the case of the Dutch, the so-called sea heroes have been presented as crucial for the creation of the Dutch nation. Their names are even illustrated on street signs in many cities all over the country, representing them as national heroes. On the other hand, when doing our own research we usually find how we were deluded.
So, though the history itself can be seen as objective and true, the heritage which is transferred to the next generations is shaped in a certain way, with a certain purpose. Heritage assumes a certain essence, a tale of superiority and difference from others. Although it is not necessarily true, it has to be true, in order for the story to be credible. This is, for instance, very important to minorities, who need to have a basis of credibility in order to defend and promote their existence. All over the world, we implicitly tolerate old tales of heritage and create new ones in order to maintain or built our group identities.
We can become aware of these myths by looking into them in more detail. Cultural heritage is usually built on irrational arguments, which can easily be attacked. They consist of fictional creatures from a far-away past, instead of actual human beings of flesh and bone. Where history is keen on the details, heritage carefully presents the arguments to fit the picture.
Heritage pasts and heritage presents
The world is full of different societies, and all these societies have a relationship with the past, even the ones that choose to ignore the past. How people tell each other about the past shapes an understanding of its society according to David Harvey (2001).
In Harvey’s text about heritage pasts and heritage presents he talks about the contemporary views on cultural heritage. Especially how we pass our image of the past to the future, as this can shape our perspective of the past itself. One may even abandon a meaningful relationship with the past because heritage is connected to a threatening history. Others might destroy the ‘authentic version’ of the past, only to replace it with a representation of the past which is more pleasing.
According to David Harvey (2001) heritage is produced and shaped in the present, making the relationship we might have with the past to be understood in relation to our present experience. This brings heritage out of its historical context, making it problematic as we should apply heritage with a history of its own and examine it as an evolution of a process over a longer period of time. The definition of heritage as `a contemporary product shaped from history’, is thus giving a false sense of what heritage actually is.
One of the effects of this phenomenon is heritage issues. This means that the way heritage was treated in the past is seen as problematic in nowadays society, just as above mentioned examples of Black Pete and the Dutch sea heroes illustrate. This situation does not mean that people had no concern with heritage. People still had a relationship with the past, and they still preserved and managed aspects of that past., they were just nurtured into a different experience of this heritage. Another example can be the colonial past of many western societies, where people create a version of the past that is for them more fitting, even if this undermines the authentic version.
What is your perspective on the connection between cultural heritage and history and especially how does cultural heritage influence our historical consciousness regarding racial differences?
Authors: D v.d. K, J. G. and J.D.M
Harvey, David C. “Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 7, no. 4 (2001): 319-338.
Lowenthal, David. The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 6. 1998.
Nora, Pierre. “Between Memory and History.” Representations, no. 26 (1989): 7-24.
Tavares, Izalina. ‘’Black Pete: Analyzing a Racialized Dutch Tradition Through the History of Western Creations of Stereotypes of Black Peoples’’. Humanity in Action. Accessed on 13th of February 2018, https://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/255-black-pete-analyzing-a-racialized-dutch-tradition-through-the-history-of-western-creations-of-stereotypes-of-black-peoples
Great blogpost! In response to the question posed at the end, I would like to comment on the way our cultural heritage(s) influence historical consciousness. Coming back to the example used in your blogpost, i.e. Dutch colonial 'heroes', I think it is incredibly disturbing that history, in this case, is sometimes so twisted. When I think back to the History classes I followed in high school I don't remember spending a lot of time on the colonial attrocities commited by the Dutch, just a big focus on how the colonies and slave trade helped 'us' have a 'Golden Age'. It is very interesting to see how Lowenthal's (2003), 'aim of heritage', that being to endow a select group with prestige and common purpose (or identity), is very much visible in Dutch History education. I remember that in the decade my parents went to high school (80s), the 'bad things we did' in the 17th century were purposefully ignored in most cases. This is, of course, also visible in how we limitly (if it is even done) teach our students about Indonesia and how we racially subordinated the Indonesian people to our culture. Racism and violence was ignored for the sake of establishing and maintaining a proud Dutch collective memory, or heritage, of our Golden Age and Dutch heroes. What is most terrifying to me is the fact that this image is so ingrained in Dutch identity, for some reason, that even I, being more aware of our colonial past that the average Dutch citizen probably (without sounding too conceited), have a hard time disconnecting 'Dutch hero' from 'Michiel de Ruyter' for example. Cultural heritage is very powerful!
BeantwoordenVerwijderen(T.F.M. B.)
As far as I am concerned, cultural heritage is indeed shaped by history.
BeantwoordenVerwijderenIt is the heritage that is passed on from one generation to the next, which already implies a collective, historical bond, as well as the belonging to a certain culture/community. Moreover, I fully agree with the idea stated in the blog that cultural heritage is the result of a selection process, a development over time concerning what is worthy of being passed on to future generations and in what ways. Consequently, I think cultural heritage plays a role in how history is shaped and that this may not always correspond with reality.
The black Pete example is pertinent. When a group of people resists change with regard to cultural heritage when it is hurting others, cultural heritage can definitely hinder the historical consciousness and in turn promote selfing & othering as well as xenophobia. However, from my point of view, this is largely due to this group of people who oppose transformation rather than cultural heritage in general. Therefore, I actually think cultural heritage may influence our historical consciousness regarding cultural differences in a positive way. In the 21st century, an era of globalisation, I believe understanding cultural heritage (not limited to one's own) can foster the understanding of different cultures and evoke mutual respect.
One final comment is on the sentence "that nowadays history is for all, while cultural heritage is for ourselves alone". I do not fully understand the usage of 'nowadays' in this sentence. I believe that this phenomenon is not something solely of our time, and strongly depends on the culture in question. Cultural heritage, I think, can truly be of value for others outside this culture, such as the tangible cultural heritage site of Machu Picchu in Peru or the intangible cultural heritage of the beer culture in Belgium.
A.D.
Thanks for the post! I agree with Lowenthal's view on heritage as a selected "set" of mythologizied history pieces. Although, heritage is definitely a product of historcal development, not everything, which happened to a country is now pronounced as CH. However, nurchuring heroic myths out of truth might be a good idea if one wants to grow up patriotic, "nation-aware" citizens. On the contrary, I thing that it would be better to know the historical truth and accept the fact that those people we trust as heroes are not ideal or sinless. This is also true for an answer to the other question, about racism. I am not educated enough on the issue of Dutch sea heroes and the discussion around them but we have the same problem between Ukraine and Poland when people who are heroes for at least a significant part of Ukrainians are treated as war criminals in Poland (now officially) and vice versa. We may also come across (and there are a lot of examples) not at all ideal behaviour of politicians, writers, poets, warriors etc.., find stories about crimes conducted in castles, houses etc, who and which we now declare as CH. What I think on the issue is that we should not reject our past and our CH but rather educate people and tell them about both positive and negative features of a person or a place. And only with this knowledge we can share, as A. D. mentioned one culture with all the others.
BeantwoordenVerwijderenM. D.
Great post!
BeantwoordenVerwijderenIn my opinion, one nearly always feels somewhat connected to 'their' group of people; as essentialist as it may sound. Heritage is non-material and may differ from individual to individual even within a close-knit community. Heritage is what an individual regards as important to their culture and differences in opinion may occur.
This plays part when talking about racial consciousness. A privileged person may have not fully grasped the layered structural oppression, for it has not concerned them personally. Black Pete is exemplary of this. To the regular Dutch native, it is a jolly tradition that kids and adults alike look forward to every year, but to the outsider, it is offensively racist at worst, and questionable at best. Arguments in favour are strongly based on emotion, and that emotion derives from cultural heritage. The outsider will never fully understand the meaning of Black Pete as a tradition, nor will the Dutch uniformly agree on its problematic nature.