Should historical sites be preserved?

[Dr Mindbender]

Here in the UK and ireland, we have shitloads of unutilised land. Not always because it's all privately owned, but some areas are preserved by organisations like the national trust as historical landmarks, like castle ruins and old battlefields. Is there any justification, in either a scarcity or abundancy society from a materialist perspective for mantaining historical sites by way of not building on them or preventing people from using the land for reasons other than historical research and excavation?

[Angry Young Man]

Well, yea, if we're to preserve history.

[Dr Mindbender]

Well, yea, if we're to preserve history.

Some would argue that the written word is preservation enough.

[mykittyhasaboner]

A battlefield? Well unless we are going to preserve every piece of land, we definitely shoudn't take it into consideration. An old castle or house? Sure, that would make sense. Ultimately we should try and preserve history in anyway, but that shouldn't be given priority over potential benefits of using said land, or materials that are being preserved.

[pastradamus]

Absolutely Historical sites should be preserved. Thats something one cannot put a monetary capitalist price on and benefits education.

[Invariance]

Sure. A friend visited a concentration camp in Germany and she said it was one of the most moving experiences she had ever had. From what I understand, most of them have been turned into monuments/memorials/museums. I'd be questionable of the purpose behind wanting to eliminate them - I think they have great historical and educational value, and would be an insult to those murdered by eliminating, what is, a part of the history of that genocide.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Hell yes they should be preserved, if they are deemed to be of significant historical value.

I understand where Ulster may be coming from, if, say, there's a situation where people go batshit crazy and refuse to build something usefull because "Oh my freaking god this parking lot dates from 1934!!!" but I feel many things should be preserved. Not all because of some war happened or even because it's very old, for example Frederick Doglass' house has been preserved the way it was when he lived there and I feel that was an excellent decision.


A battlefield? Well unless we are going to preserve every piece of land, we definitely shoudn't take it into consideration.
Couldn't disagree more. I've only been able to visit several battlefields in the US, notably Gettysburg, and they're something I absolutely feel should be preserved if at all possible.

I've never been, but I very much plan on going to Verdun when I go on a trip to France (which I'm planning to have sometime between now and death). I like the memorial quite a bit:

http://www.webmatters.net/graphics/photos/verdun/thumbnails/verdun_mort_homme.jpg

[pastradamus]

The Verdun memorial is Spectacular. In my own home country I find the site of New grange to be remarkable.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I think they're something that should be preserved. To truly get a better understanding of the past I feel that we need to have primary sources, including the sites where various events took place. Besides, as somebody who has a great passion for history I wouldn't mind going to these places and being able to say "hey, this is where so and so happened!" Also, there are certain events that the sites should be preserved for anyway such as the Holocaust. We shouldn't just be tearing down the concentration camps. They need to be there so people can learn what actually happened. Without proper proof it's too easy to deny things(part of the reason i'm Atheist, but that's a whole other topic. hehe).

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Something else, too, may sound very, eh, cappie of me, But many local areas make money off of tourism to historical sites.

By preserving the Mayan temples, for example, Mexico has created a money source that trickles down in an area (southern mexico) via Hotels, restaurants, bars, tours, buses, etc that would otherwise probably not be there and creates dozens of employers at the same time. While of course that wouldn't be necessary in an ideal situation that does mean cash for people. Even more so than this, Egypt also has an economic boon left by its ancient ancestors.

And, of course, money from tourism is dependent of rich westerners, but it's still some revenue. And I'm not trying to suggest that's why Mexico preserved them, but one has to admit they do put those temples on a lot of postcards (Big Ben, the coliseum, and the aforementioned pyramids also come to mind in this regard). Also, I know that Vietnam has a similar industry to give tours of battlefields and tunnels and such.

Of course, money shouldn't be the determining factor and most of the time (like 99%) it's the preservationists fighting against the monied interests who want to rip down history for another strip mall.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The Verdun memorial is Spectacular. In my own home country I find the site of New grange to be remarkable.

Oh yes, Ireland is definitely also chalked up in the 'need to go' column, and newgrange will be on the list. Hopefully I'll be there during the solstice...so I can pray to the Gods and hope the next year will actually show up :)

[pastradamus]

Hopefully I'll be there during the solstice...
:)

Good Luck!
I signed up for it in 2007 and am still on the waiting list to view it!!!
They say Im a shoe-in for 2011 though! Fingers crossed!

[Cumannach]

The correct way to deal with a historical site is to build a motorway on it.

[ComradeOm]

Some would argue that the written word is preservation enough.Who would argue that reading about someone walking through a thousand year old cathedral is the same as actually walking through a thousand year old cathedral?

[Dimentio]

Here in the UK and ireland, we have shitloads of unutilised land. Not always because it's all privately owned, but some areas are preserved by organisations like the national trust as historical landmarks, like castle ruins and old battlefields. Is there any justification, in either a scarcity or abundancy society from a materialist perspective for mantaining historical sites by way of not building on them or preventing people from using the land for reasons other than historical research and excavation?

I think this would enrage a lot of people, who are sentimentally attached to their history. Only in a case when a new civilisation replaces an old, destruction of historical sites tend to be commonplace (like how the christians wiped out old pagan temples).

[Dr Mindbender]

I think this would enrage a lot of people, who are sentimentally attached to their history. Only in a case when a new civilisation replaces an old, destruction of historical sites tend to be commonplace (like how the christians wiped out old pagan temples).

Surely then, it would be hypocrisy for them to complain considering thats how they treated their predecessors.

[Killfacer]

I don't think that huge swathes of land should be owned by the national trust or anything, but i think it's important to look after our historical sites for future generations.

Here in the UK we do it pretty well, but when i went to spain for example they just had huge mosaics without any protection and they were just being warn down by the rain etc.

Obviously in many ex-roman countries they have these kind of things coming out of their ears but i still think the effort should be made to preserve them.

When they national trust find a single roman brick somewhere in england they build a huge museum over it and blow millions of pounds on recreations which is, in my opinion, a good thing.

[dez]

The correct way to deal with a historical site is to build a motorway on it.

I don't think you are serious, and if you are, that is sheer ignorance.




History is a science, folks, and we can't go around destroying proof/evidence.
If something is relevant enough for history (history of mankind, history that sometimes might not be pleasant for the establishment but that still must be preserved...), why, yes, we should preserve it if its the last thing we do.

If something is completely irrelevant and merely a token of sentimental attachment to the old ways (eg: a lot of what was destroyed in the cultural revolution in china), off with its "head".
:cool:

[Cumannach]

No I'm not being serious. But unfortunately this is often the view taken by the Government here, who dispose of taxpayers money by overpaying private contractors by the billions to build unneccesary motorways right beside or actually on top of historic sites and landscapes.

To be honest I don't really get the original question. Surely it goes without saying that historic sites should be preserved. It's certainly not a scarcity issue, they sum total of all historical sites and landscapes in Britain and Ireland or anywhere is an insignificant fraction of the country.

[Dóchas]

i have to say im in favour of keeping the sites there. they dont take up that much land but they mean so much to locals (most of the time). sure its grand looking at pictures of what used to be there but nothing can beat walking through the arch of titus in rome or standing in fornt of ulururu in australia. its a place to get away from the hustle and bustle of normal life and learn more about your past and heritage. i love history and to study something by looking at pictures and then going to see it in real life, well, there is no comparrison.

[Cymru]

Preserving History is essential in my opinion. Seeing all the castle ruins in my area is what originally inspired my interest in History as a child. I would like to think it will encourage an interest in History for my children and so forth.

[Dimentio]

Surely then, it would be hypocrisy for them to complain considering thats how they treated their predecessors.

The problem is, that if you want to strengthen faith in Christ, you should burn down churches. That would surely increase church militancy. A lot.

[Dr Mindbender]

The problem is, that if you want to strengthen faith in Christ, you should burn down churches. That would surely increase church militancy. A lot.


...despite the fact this in itself totally contradicts the teachings of christ. Fiendish.

[Dimentio]

...despite the fact this in itself totally contradicts the teachings of christ. Fiendish.

The christians never had any problems with that.

[al8]

As Mao said 'it good to have a clear enemy'. If the Christians don't attack you, your not doing it right. You are insignifficant.

[Bright Banana Beard]

If I don't to attack Christians but destroy their hierarchy, I'm doing it wrong.

[Invader Zim]

Having worked, at different times on the pay roll and at others as a volunteer, at a historical site I am in favour of their preservation.

[pastradamus]

The correct way to deal with a historical site is to build a motorway on it.

:lol: if only the hill of tara protesters were here!

[Cumannach]

ah but they are

[pastradamus]

ah but they are

Really? Where?

[YoungScouseRed]

Yes i think they should, anything that is productive to learning should be preserved!

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Good Luck!
I signed up for it in 2007 and am still on the waiting list to view it!!!
They say Im a shoe-in for 2011 though! Fingers crossed!

:confused: For the solstice or just to view it on any old day?

[pastradamus]

Oh for the Solstice of course. Though the farmer who owns the land is a bit of a prick, I cant imagine he'll have a problem with you seeing it.

[redSHARP]

historical sites is what keeps history alive!!!
historical sites need to be preserved in order to maintain the bond between past and present. documents and videos dont help!!

whats cooler? reading a book about Gettysburg? or going to Gettysburg and walking around the actual site?

[couch13]

We need historical sites so that we can remember the terrible events of the past. Go to a concentration camp and your hatered of Nazism will grow dramatically. Keeping these places also shows how the collective has grown over time. All of this is so important.

[Il Medico]

Historical site must be preserved! The assertion that written word will save history alone is foolhardy. Books are made of paper and they decay, archeology doesn't! Imagine what we would know if the ancients had preserved their historical sites, like Troy. The lack of written word's ability to safely preserve history is best shown in the lost knowledge of Alexandria.

[Revy]

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/egypt/giza-pyramids-pictures/pyramid-and-sphinx-and-pizza-hut-cc-scarletthreadphotography.jpg

[Il Medico]

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/egypt/giza-pyramids-pictures/pyramid-and-sphinx-and-pizza-hut-cc-scarletthreadphotography.jpg
Odd.

[Absolut]

If the land that Castle X was built on was specifically needed to grow crops or whatever because there were no other lands left, I can see the point in tearing it down, but I really dont understand why one would tear it down otherwise.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/egypt/giza-pyramids-pictures/pyramid-and-sphinx-and-pizza-hut-cc-scarletthreadphotography.jpg

Is that taken from inside a pizza hut looking through the window?

[Revy]

Is that taken from inside a pizza hut looking through the window?

Yes.

It's one of my favorite photos...

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yes.

It's one of my favorite photos...

That's horrible that there's a pizza hut there.

[Cumannach]

please tell me that image is a fake

[pastradamus]

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/egypt/giza-pyramids-pictures/pyramid-and-sphinx-and-pizza-hut-cc-scarletthreadphotography.jpg





I am appalled. This image represents everything that is wrong with the world.

[Revy]

I am appalled. This image represents everything that is wrong with the world.

It really puts things into perspective, doesn't it?
We have people arguing (or leaning toward ) the idea that society should just bulldoze over anything historically significant.

What about the pyramids then? The Sphinx? I mean that's all in the past, right?

[Magdalen]

Here in the UK and ireland, we have shitloads of unutilised land. Not always because it's all privately owned, but some areas are preserved by organisations like the national trust as historical landmarks, like castle ruins and old battlefields. Is there any justification, in either a scarcity or abundancy society from a materialist perspective for mantaining historical sites by way of not building on them or preventing people from using the land for reasons other than historical research and excavation?

I can't comment on the situation elsewhere but I know that in Scotland, a substantial proportion of agricultural land is left fallow as farmers, many of whom are on incomes of less than £20,000 a year, are no longer prepared to grow malting barley, as they price they are payed for this scarcely covers the cost of growing it. This problem was compounded by the recent Budget, which increased duty on beer and whisky, causing the breweries and distilleries to further slash the price paid to the farmers. Neither Edinburgh, London nor Brussels plan to compensate the farmers for the losses they would incur if they still produced the barley. I'm sure that far more food could be produced if farmers could afford to use the fallow land than could be produced if historical sites were used for farming.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Yes they should be preserved for environment and historical reasons.

[Coggeh]

I am appalled. This image represents everything that is wrong with the world.
Whats wrong with pizza :(

Seriously though , I agree fully that historical sites must be preseved , ones with real historical meanings that can educate people about a nations history and culture etc .

I don't see any problem with it whatsoever . Just because you want an industrialised modern nation doesn't mean you have to bulldoze every last inch of land .
For example their trying to build a motorway thats going to damage the historical nature of the hill of Tara when its easier , straighter and cheaper(yes cheaper) to build in 6km's west of Tara . This kind of shit just pisses me off and i'm not even an enviornmentalist , it seems like governments are just going out of their way to destroy things people find valuable .

[Cumannach]

Whats wrong with pizza :(

Seriously though , I agree fully that historical sites must be preseved , ones with real historical meanings that can educate people about a nations history and culture etc .

I don't see any problem with it whatsoever . Just because you want an industrialised modern nation doesn't mean you have to bulldoze every last inch of land .
For example their trying to build a motorway thats going to damage the historical nature of the hill of Tara when its easier , straighter and cheaper(yes cheaper) to build in 6km's west of Tara . This kind of shit just pisses me off and i'm not even an enviornmentalist , it seems like governments are just going out of their way to destroy things people find valuable .

It's the private road construction contractors, a vicious faction of big capital.