National Heritage.

[Chessman]

I'd like to know what your idea of our national heritage is, what it means to you, and going on some of the answers I read in another thread, in what way do you think its in danger. Thats quite a bit to be going on with, but please, and this is only meant fot a couple of people, keep it civil, its meant as a discussion.

[Ward-Minter]

Heritage is, I believe, a very subjective thing. No doubt it is also a class thing. That is, my view and opinions when I return to my public school and see my old Latin class is somewhat different to that of others.

Likewise coming from a very strict military background my opinion on British military history is somewhat tainted.

For me being British means more than a Frenchman being French or an an Aussie being Austrailian. I know that iit s an ethnocentric, possibly bigotted view point but hear me out. A sense of true "Britishness" can not be matched by other nations' 'ness.

Britain had one of the proudest and largest Empires in world history. Right or wrong, it is a fact. English, therefore is the dominant world language along with our legal system (yes I know it's Roman!).

Ultimately, we are a little island somewhere in the northern hemisphere. Our natural resources are not great nor are we particularly geographically desirable. However, we revolutionished the world with Industry and commerce.

The last Great War was fought and won by the British. Yes, there has been great loss of life in other worldly battles but WW2 was truly great on a global scale.

Linked to this is a very aging population who remembers this war. Their dignity should be honoured.

We are an Insular country in both senses of the definition.

Ol Blighty is simply magnificant. And it breaks my heart to see it eroding away.

[jacko50]

I agree with ward-minter,except i would say the world wars were won by brittain and her allies.

[jno]

Sometimes it seems those who hail the British empire are those who complain loudest when people from the former colonies want to live in the mother country. To me, Britain has always been a mongrel society - I don't mean that rudely - made up of successive hordes of invaders; the original Britons are I believe the Celts, driven out to the outer edges of the island. Since then, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and French have invaded and taken the place over; less violent and much smaller 'invasions' over the years have included Huguenots, West Indians (deliberately invited here to man the buses) and so on. Britain's strength has always been in assimilating them, which is why I'm surprised at how scared people now seem to be of foreigners. Their forefathers were braver.

WM, I don't think the legal system was Roman; it's a mixture of Anglo-Saxon and Norman in origin, much like the English language (which has also been a great accepter of words from abroad).

But I don't believe Britishness means very much these days, except in a purely negative, reactive sense - people don't see it as something positive and modern, only as something historical that's under threat from rapacious foreigners. By contrast, Frenchmen and Aussies are, by and large, actively proud of their countries.

[cherrybomb]

I agree with Ward-Minter, but would like to add why IMHO our heritage is in danger. We have compromised our position as an island by having a 26 mile (aprox) tunnel built under the only form of defence we have left and we are in danger of replacing our Monarchy with a parliament elected by a majority of voters.

I grieve un-ashamedly for our "sceptered Isle"

[jake-the-peg]

I think that a lot of people have had a sense of national pride instilled in them when young either at schools (if of an older generation) or at organisations like Scouts or even by family or friends through support for national teams.

Personally I dislike blind patriotism purely because it blinds people's logic and they go into a "my nation right or wrong" mode - Which has a nasty habit of ending up with corpses lying about.

This question is particularly tricky in the UK because of the fact that English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish people have their own heritage as well as a British heritage and this can conflict.

For example the Welsh language is an important part of Welsh heritage and that has come under great pressure from English as part of a "British" heritage - Scotland has already lost almost all Gaelic speakers and Cornish has been dead for 150 years.

Mass media has played a big part in this - We can now all gain common experience (from which heritage is formed) from watching the World cup finals in a way that just couldn't happen 100 years ago. In a sense "British" heritage has only been possible since there was a British mass media through which we could all get the same experiences.

Of course the trick in the tail here is that mass media has now gone global and these experiences are now shared worldwide - to a great extent we now have a culture that encompasses the whole English speaking world.

In retrospect British culture was born with the first issue of the Times and died with the Telstar and the first trans-atlantic broadcasts.

[january_bug]

It appears (on only being able to glance at the post above I confess) that I'm the only one so far who, on seeing the word "heritage" thought of the beautiful buildings and AONB (areas of outstanding natural beauty) beauty that we have in this country.

To me, keeping these things protected, and maintaining the fantastic museums that we have in this country and promoting historical celebration and reenactments, will preserve the true heritage of this country very well. In this sense, our national heritage is threatened by the usual environmental problems, the pressure on greenbelt land caused by a sweling population, a general lack of funding, and an incresed fascination (not with everybody, but over the country as a whole) with all things modern (e.g., cinema, laser questing etc) and decreasing visitor numbers at historical museums.

[jake-the-peg]

January_bug is of course refering to physical heritage as opposed to the cultural heritage to which I was giving the last rites.

Remember physical heritage can be bad as well as good - we are passing decaying nuclear reactors to our children too!

The idea of heritage in terms of architecture and rolling fields implies a value judgement of what is good. Nobody has an absolute monopoly on that. Remember those beautiful Cumbrian mountains and unspoilt lakes represented dangerous untamed wilderness and wasted wilderness lands to most of our ancestors two hundred years ago.

We hand what we value to our children - it's up to them whether they agree.

Bit like moving into a new house and ripping out the avocado bathroom suite

[january_bug]

I wasn't trying to impose my views on anyone. I thought we were asked to comment on our own perceptions, so I commented on what I would want to save. I was trying to be positive, so I didn't comment on the bad things we are leaving behind (for which I think the 1960s have a lot to answer for, architecturally!) although of course I recognise that there is bad in good in everything.

I also thought it went without saying that people have different opinions about what is aesthetically pleasing, and that this also changes over the generations.

[jake-the-peg]

Sorry if I was confusing what I meant was that generations have different opinions and that it's no good bemoaning the loss of heritage if the kids of today or for that matter our parents in the 60's (if you're my age) didn't see things the same.

[january_bug]

jake - forgive me for being simplistic, but are you saying that. to take an example, if the next generation (i.e., children born from 1995 onwards let's say, for arguments sake),. when they hit their 20s and 30s, don't feel the need to keep Stonehenge, then they should bring it down!?!

What about the generation AFTER next, and after THAT?

Also, I think it's perfectly legitimate (although perhaps slightly pointless) to bemoan the loss of buildings pulled down by our parents' generation, or bombed during the war in which our grandparents fought. The past, present and future all make mistakes, but that doesn't take away our right to regret their decisions, and wish that things had been different.

[Chessman]

Thanks everyone for taking the time and posting your views, they are all very interesting and diverse, as they were bound to be, and obviously there were bits I agreed with, and bits I disagreed with. My own view of 'National Heritage'. is,

1) Our Language, (2), Freedom of speech, (which is getting eroded day by day, 'I may not like what you say, but i'll defend to the death your right to say it), (3) Freedom of choice, (4), Our history and our historical buildings and gardens.

I've purosely not mentioned our military past, although a lot, good and bad can be said.

W-M, I couldn't agree more with the last part of your post.

jan-bug, I particularly liked the last part of your second post, so true.

[Chessman]

Sorry, I didn't quite finish, I do think that our National Heritages are in a very great danger at the present time, but thats going on to the political, so i'll keep quiet until I see a thread that'll let me give vent.