bye bye, Nimrud, bye bye

[Guest]

I am absolutely not a supporter of IS (or of JS either) but, after a brief initial outraged shock, I am surprised to experience a feeling of liberation from the weight of the past in the mass purposeful destruction of all these World Heritage Sites.

Might people in the UK be free to be more creative and responsive to the needs of the present day if less attention were paid to preserving our local heritage?

[Richard Barrett]

a feeling of liberation from the weight of the past

One might ask, why does the past weigh so heavily on you that you (along indeed with the IS people) feel liberated when these remains of it are destroyed?

[Honoured Guest]

One might ask, why does the past weigh so heavily on you that you (along indeed with the IS people) feel liberated when these remains of it are destroyed?

That's not IS's reason, and I have no intention of commenting on IS beliefs.

For myself, the past weighs so heavily because there's so much of it, to the extent that it oppresses the present.

[Serial_Apologist]

And there's all that Georgian architecture in places like Bath and Bloomsbury, and the slavery that funded it...

[Richard Tarleton]

HS, just one thing to consider: since our historic heritage is the envy of the world and one of the main reasons so many people visit here each year, neglecting or destroying it might be considered a bit contrary to the national interest. The United Kingdom is the world's 8th biggest tourist destination, with 32 million visiting in 2013. US$17.2 billion was spent in the UK by foreign tourists. VisitBritain data shows that the US remains the most-valuable inbound market, with American visitors spending £2.1bn in 2010.

There are enough people in the UK to do both, I'd have thought - care for our heritage and be creative. Have a look at this.

[Richard Barrett]

the past weighs so heavily because there's so much of it, to the extent that it oppresses the present.

What does this mean, "oppresses the present"? Not everyone is as hung up on the past as you and IS.

[Honoured Guest]

RT, your linked Press release is about the economic impact of the creative industries, and not about the economic impact of the heritage industries.

[Bryn]

Never mind all this concern over ancient built artifacts. It is sure long overdue that all music dating from before 1908 is done away with, from wherever in the world it originates.

[Richard Tarleton]

Yes (HG) I know. I was picking up on your last sentence, and pointing out that the figures for the creative industries were quite good. I haven't had time to put a detailed response together yet.

[Honoured Guest]

What does this mean, "oppresses the present"? Not everyone is as hung up on the past as you and IS.

Again, I think you misrepresent IS.

As an example of what it means, public money spent on preserving listed property, which is inadequate for present usage, could instead be spent on repairing or constructing property to meet present needs.

[Richard Tarleton]

Again, I think you misrepresent IS.

As an example of what it means, public money spent on preserving listed property, which is inadequate for present usage,

Do you know how much this is, HG? I don't, just asking. Quite a lot is done by the owners of said property, or NGOs, surely?

[MrGongGong]

Never mind all this concern over ancient built artifacts. It is sure long overdue that all music dating from before 1908 is done away with, from wherever in the world it originates.

When was Nimrod written?

[teamsaint]

Again, I think you misrepresent IS.

As an example of what it means, public money spent on preserving listed property, which is inadequate for present usage, could instead be spent on repairing or constructing property to meet present needs.

well I'm no big fan of the heritage " industry", or at least certain aspects of it that I see in my work, but if keeping old building fabric in good nick so that tourists bring their bucks and keep the treasury coffers full, ( well sort of) doesn't that allow for more spending on, say so social housing? In theory, at least. So its a false dichotomy.

[Dave2002]

As an example of what it means, public money spent on preserving listed property, which is inadequate for present usage, could instead be spent on repairing or constructing property to meet present needs.

I'm not going there, but there is private money being spent to heat up some older listed property, because the bonkers people who police these things won't permit windows to modern standards to be fitted to replace old ones. I'm not talking about unique examples of rare houses or buildings, but buildings where there are many or at least a moderate number of buildings of similar type and vintage.

For unique examples I would perhaps side with the listings people.

[Serial_Apologist]

Would tourists still provide for UK plc if the Royal family were to be stuffed and exhibited in Madame Tussauds though?