Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, everyone. Welcome to WHIPIC Roundtable 2022. We are delighted to meet you all today. I’m your host, Sujin Heo, from International Centre for the Interpretation and Presentation of World Heritage Sites, in short, WHIPIC. Since we are officially established earlier this year, we have hosted diverse online meetings,
And events associated with Heritage Interpretation and Presentation. As one of them, we are happy to host this Roundtable event and invite you all today. Throughout the past project that WHIPIC has conducted during the last two years, we realized the inevitability of dissonance in heritage originating from different understanding and interpretation of heritage.
So in this roundtable, we will be trying to step forward to how we should deal with dissonance in heritage sites, including World Heritage. WHIPIC Roundtable 2022 comprises three presentations, and open discussion session, where we look into different heritage sites with diverse voices and narratives. Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention,
We expect this roundtable to provide good discussions for a better present and future for heritage and the people who appreciate heritage. Before beginning the roundtable, I would like to introduce two very special remarks. First, I would like to present the opening remarks from Mr. Jaesoon Lee, Deputy Director General of WHIPIC.
He has sent us the video of his opening remarks. Shall we? Thank you very much for your kind words, Mr. Lee. Now I would like to invite Dr. Sujeong Lee, Head of Research and Development Office at WHIPIC for welcoming remarks. Good morning and good afternoon all. I’m Sujeong Lee,
The Head of Research and Development Office of WHIPIC. I would like to thank you all to participate and contribute to this very important topic of our roundtable. Solidarity is a key factor in sharing heritage values and expanding the benefits of heritage by leading us to the inclusive interpretation.
I would like to thank all of you to participate in this meeting and we expect today’s valuable presentation and extensive discussions would enlighten our centre in setting out our future research topics as well. Thank you again for all presenters, discussants, and moderator, and all participants. Thank you, Dr. Lee, for your warm welcome.
Before we move on, I would like to announce that WHIPIC Roundtable 2022 is now being recorded and will be uploaded to our YouTube channel with English and Korean subtitles later. So please keep your eyes on our social media to check the update. Now I’m honored to introduce our moderator, Dr. Hyunkyung Lee.
Dr. Lee is an Assistant Professor at Critical Global Studies Institute at Sogang University in South Korea. Her research interests includes difficult heritage in East Asia, transnational heritage networking, heritage interpretation, and peace-building at UNESCO. Also, as a heritage professional, she’s an Expert Member of the Cultural Heritage Committee in Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea,
And a Member of the Korean Committee for UNESCO Memory of the World. Dr. Lee, I would like to invite you here. I’m so honored to participate in this meaningful, significant roundtable event as a moderator in order to discuss the solidarity in Heritage Interpretation and Presentation.
The WHIPIC Roundtable invites three presenters, and three discussants. Let me briefly introduce them to you. The first presenter is Dr. Višnja Kisić. She is the Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Sport and Tourism, and at UNESCO Chair Master Program in Cultural Policy and Management Belgrade.
As a researcher, educator, and practitioner in heritage and museum field, her work focuses on relations between heritage and politics, in particular, heritage dissonance, memory conflicts, and reconciliation. Next, our second presenter is Mrs. Gegê Leme Joseph. She is an architect and urbanist, set and production designer, and museologist. As a Senior Program Manager,
She oversees the Coalition’s activities in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Gegê also leads much of the Coalition’s global thematic work including the Migration Museums Network. Next, our third presenter is Dr. Ali Moussa Iye. He is a writer, researcher, and world-renowned heritage professional. Since he joined the UNESCO in 1996,
He has contributed to building up diverse African heritage programmes. He was the coordinator of the UNESCO Culture of Peace Programme in the Horn of Africa. And he also was the Head of the History and Memory for Dialogue Department, and directed two meaningful UNESCO programs, the Routes of Dialogue,
And the General and Regional Histories Project. Next, our first discussant is Mr. Jakub Nowakowski. He is the Director of the Galicia Jewish Museum in Kraków, Poland from 2010. From early years, he was compelled to research the history of his neighbourhood. And he graduated from the Department of Jewish Studies at the Jagiellonian University,
Where he wrote a thesis on Jewish resistance in Kraków during the Second World War. As a museum director, he endeavours to not only diversify the narratives of the Holocaust and the Jewish local history, but also foster intercultural dialogue and cultural education. Next, our second discussant is Dr. Shu-mei Huang.
She is the Associate Professor at the Graduate Institute of Building and Planning, National Taiwan University. Her research area intersects Recovery Planning, Indigenous Studies, and Heritage Studies in East Asia. She published several books related to difficult heritage in East Asia. For example, “Heritage, Memory, and Punishment” in 2019, and “Frontiers of Memory” in 2022.
Next, the last but not least, our third presenter is Dr. Stefanie Lotter. She is a social anthropologist and museum professional working at SOAS, University of London. She is a co-investigator in the project titled, “Heritage as Placemaking: The Politics of Solidarity and Erasure.” Dr. Lotter, whose research focus is on Nepal,
Is at the moment, co-organising a Summer School on “Urban Heritage Mining” in Kathmandu. Now, I’d like to invite Dr. Visnja Kisić as our first presenter. Dr. Kisić, it’s your floor. Thank you, Dr. Lee. Good day and good morning, and good evening, everyone, depending on where from you’re listening to us.
It is a great pleasure to be part of this panel and to actually be able to reflect on some of the experiences and projects that have been going on in the former and the post-Yugoslav context and in the Balkans, where I’m based
And where I’m doing most of my research and activist work as well. For this particular occasion, I’ve chosen to actually focus on very particular project, because in the context of former Yugoslavia, there’s actually numerous initiatives and kind of heritage dissonances and peace-building projects that could be a really good topic for today’s meeting.
But most of them have been led by civil society actors and non-state actors. So I wanted to focus on the one that succeeded in bringing official administrations, ministries of culture and cultural heritage, as well as institutes for heritage protection in the whole region
To do a common transnational nomination for UNESCO World Heritage Sites. And the object of this was the Medieval Monolithic Tombstones called Stećaks, which covered the span from 15th century, from 12th century to the 16th century. They are bound in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
But could also be found on the bordering territories, Serbia, Croatia, and Montenegro. There’s around 70,000 of them spread across more than 3,000 sites. Carved from limestone, featuring a very wide range of decorative motifs and inscriptions, interesting epitaphs, and featured in quite impressive natural surroundings. So not in the urban centres,
But actually very much outside of the urban centres. Offer us very interesting glimpses into medieval understanding of life and death in the region. So these monuments have been preserved both due to their monumentality, but also due to the fact that there’s a lot of folk superstition that surrounds them,
Folk stories and traditions that are connected to them. And they have also been continually an inspiration for artists and poets, especially from the 19th century onwards. But at the same time, despite being dispersed across four of the Balkan countries, they have been an object of dissonant discourses. And actually, discourses with ethnic prefixes.
And that is due mainly to the birth of 19th century idea of nation-states, different national historiographies that have produced different interpretation of Stećaks. Also in relation to the specific religions, specific ethnicities, namely, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian. And all those kind of confronting interpretations have been again reignited during the wars in the 1990s,
And following the breakup of Yugoslavia. We can move to the next slide. So the breakup of Yugoslavia is actually the context in which this whole transnational nomination takes place, because it is in this moment, that the dissonance of Stećaks and the contestations around it became, again, renewed
In the search for new, very clean ethnonational identities and new memory wars. So basically, Stećaks have, again, become quite dissonant and quite contested at that moment. And the very kind of process of the very idea of transnational nomination process that took place from 2012 to 2016,
Was to actually bridge again these four countries, previous warring states of Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia, in a cooperation that took more than five years, and that took quite a strong engagement from the UNESCO Antenna Office in Sarajevo, leading to successful inscription in 2016. We can move to the next slide.
So the nomination process itself had quite a heavy political support. It has been the first official state-run of cooperation since the wars, including both the ministry of each of the four states, as well as numerous heritage professionals. So the prospects of having a heritage inscribed
To the World Heritage List with all the recognition and prestige and tourism attracting powers had acted as quite a good incentive for all four states to cooperate and to somehow find a common ground on Stećaks. And for UNESCO, this transnational nomination has been really an exercise in sort of proving
That World Heritage List, and especially transnational nomination, can be a tool for heritage-led reconciliation, especially in moments where there have been wars or ongoing memory conflicts between different states and among different states. So instead of leaning to different contested national meanings of all four states,
The nomination process during these four years had succeeded in crafting this discourse of interrelations and hybridity. And we can move to the next slide. Yeah, sorry, to the previous one. Can we move back? Yeah, so as you see here, Stećaks are painted as being this monument that kind of transgresses
Both religious, class, and ethnic divisions, that are monuments of everyone and of all classes in the region. And somehow, these kind of dissonant and contested interpretations have been quite avoided and only mentioned in the nomination process. We can go to the next slide. In doing so, there’s been many achievements of this process
And we can discuss them later on. But the most important one was that Stećak’s really connected heritage professionals that were involved in the process itself, creating new trust, new links between them, new sort of solidarities. It also acted as a space for regional cooperation and really succeeded in kind of de-nationalizing
Or de-ethnicizing the contested discourses in the region. It also secured the long-term public protection for Stećaks, and these are all achievements to be applauded. But we can move to the next slide, and see some of the limitations. In the research that I’ve been doing, kind of extensively of this case,
It was seen that World Heritage as a framework itself, tried to lock one discourse. So it tried to reach a consensus that has been a false consensus and has silenced dissonances that still remain in the region, but are just not visible in the nomination itself. Therefore, it allowed for avoiding problematization
Of regional heritage conflicts and kind of trying to nudge them or hide them, at least, for the purposes of the nomination. It also focused a lot on materiality and objectivity and scientific issues related to heritage and downplayed the centrality of interpretations, and actually centrality of the meanings and values,
The different groups attached to these monuments. And in that manner, it also avoided the essence and the centrality of interpretation, and educational programmes further on in the management plan and in the ongoing cooperation between the states. So just to finally conclude with some of the lessons, we can go to the next slide.
So, on one hand, we can see that UNESCO World Heritage List can act as this kind of force to bring about the dialogue and cooperation and reconciliation, if it’s used in a good manner. And if there is time for the cooperation and negotiations to happen.
It also acted as a place in which recognizes, and working with dissonance would be much better than avoiding it, as was here in the case. So more entering into conversation, more dealing with de-naturalizing the basis of this cultural violence and contested interpretations and working towards new ways of understanding and plurality of understanding.
It also shows us that managing heritage sites and memory conflicts has to be done through much more focus on in heritage interpretation and much more focus on its presentation and education in the periods to come, in order to actually bring different actors together and build bridges and solidarity among the plurality of actors
And historic narratives, instead of silencing them. Thank you, that’s just a brief sketch of what was going on from my site. Thank you very much. It’s a very interesting case to show how the transnational nomination give us some ideas of a solidarity and also possibility and limitations, too. Thank you very much.
Our three discussants are also ready to give you some questions. So, Jakub? Thank you, Dr. Lee. Thank you, Dr. Kisić, it was very, very interesting. And then my question is actually something that all three of us discussants were interested in. I mean, what were the dissonances involved in that nomination?
In your opinion, the same process could be implemented in the context of, for example, Russian-Ukrainian conflict war or Palestinian-Israeli conflicts, or other situation, where, actually, national narratives do not agree on the meaning or managing of the site? Yeah, I would say it could actually have quite a big influence
On how we can deal with conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Palestine, at least, the much I know about the conflicts there. And as in many other cases, here, the issue was that medieval Balkans was territory of borders that have been shifting constantly and nation-states and ethnicities kind of living together,
Constantly rearranging their own practices, and rulers and so on. And suddenly, you get the 19th century in this idea of kind of clean ethnic state and ethnic nation-state, in which everyone wants to draw the borders and want to make their countries the biggest possible. So the disputes around heritage
And the meaning of heritage and who claims it to be theirs are actually connected to the fight for resources and more territories in the region, which is kind of very similar to what is going on between Russia and Ukraine at the moment, with loads and loads of different historical recollections
Being put in the dispute, and also what is going on with Israel and Palestine. So yeah, I could go into more details about what exactly were the dissonances, but the dissonances were not connected only to the historiographies of Serbian nation-state, Bosnian nation-state, and Croatian nation-state, in particular.
But actually, civil society actors, different interest groups, and so on, people in forums and medias were also having their own interpretations that kind of tweaked a little about Stećaks in this or that manner. And it’s interesting that Stećaks were actually promoted as this common South Slavic heritage during Yugoslav times,
And as soon as Yugoslavia dissolved the process of re-nationalizing and re-ethnicizing Stećaks was actually happening. Very interesting, thank you so much. Thank you so much. And Dr. Shu-mei Huang, are you ready? Thank you, Dr. Lee. And thank you, Dr. Kisić, for a great presentation. My question is about heritage interpretation.
What would be the reason to prevent the role of heritage interpretation to play out more in this particular case? And I’m curious, is there any ongoing effort to fill the gap? So I would say on one hand, discussing it openly has been seen as too risky, by all the member states.
There was one interpretation that was agreed upon in 2013. The nomination should have proceeded in 2014, and then one of the sides said, “No, it’s not Serbian enough.” Like, the Serbian side hasn’t been represented enough. And that was like, they were playing ping pongs, especially the national actors, and also the heritage professionals
That were put in the position of representing their own nation-state and their own national interests, even though that hasn’t been explicitly expected from them. But I think just the framework of UNESCO in which the public authorities and nation-states that are nominating the sites, and that should then negotiate their own dissonances,
Is the one that was kind of pushing both heritage professionals as well as UNESCO representatives to just avoid dealing with these dissonances. So dissonances are mentioned in one sentence, but then avoided altogether. And this kind of meaning of heritage being a bit of, Stećaks being a bit of heritage for everyone
Is actually serving the purpose of not bringing in the disputes and dissonance. What was interesting, I was getting these ideas from UNESCO representatives that actually, if they were to put heritage dissonance explicitly in the nomination, then this should have been seen as a risk that should be mitigated in the management plan
And also the risk to outstanding universal value, which expects you to valorize a kind of a single big narrative. So it is all a lot of things at the same time, but I would say, also the UNESCO discourse, which is still kind of this authorized heritage discourse, as we know it,
That wants to have these stable, fixed narratives that can be protected in the management plans. And I would say, this has to be changed and I hope this would be changed in the future as UNESCO’s kind of position on these issues is changing as well. But thank you for your inspiring question.
Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Dr. Višnja. I would like to listen to more about your responses, but shall we move to Stefanie’s question? Hello, yes, absolutely fascinating. And just following on what you’ve just started to explain, is peace a precondition for transnational identity-based heritage nomination? I would say, no.
And hopefully, no, because I think, in many cases, actually, heritage field and heritage professionals could be a head of the nation-state politics and conflicts, and actually trying to steer these common dialogues and mutual interpretations and work towards the heritage protection and mutual understanding.
But I think what is limiting in distance is that, actually, it is, again, nation-states, and ministries who should ratify the nomination process. And that, in many cases, impedes the proceeding of transnational nominations as such. So I think some other methods have been much quicker and much more agile to work with reconciliation,
Especially in the post-Yugoslavia context for example, and in the Balkan context. It had to do with civil society actors and many non-state initiatives or just single institution initiatives and networks. But hopefully, that can change. Thank you very much. Really important question. It’s very important question. And then, so there are lots of dimensions
And dynamics in the transnominations processes, but we can see how the UNESCO can work with the multiple, like agents and actors in the heritage interpretation. It’s a very significant matter. Thank you very much. Then shall we move to the second presentation now? So Mrs. Gegê Leme Joseph? So hello everyone, good morning.
My name is Gegê Leme Joseph, and I’m the Senior Program Manager for Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, with the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience. Thank you for having me here today to share our perspective about the important conversation. So for those of you who don’t know our work,
The International Coalition of Sites of Conscience is a global network of historic sites, museums, and memory initiatives connecting past struggles to today’s movements for human rights and social justice. We help sites around the world better engage their communities in building peaceful future by providing training, networking, and grants. Next slide, please.
And we are a global organization spread all around the world. So in order to best share Sites of Conscience’s lessons, challenges, and experiences of solidarity and participation in interpretation processes, I’d like to start with a reflection about the idea of solidarity in heritage interpretation
As a means to “overcome entailed dissonance of heritage sites.” So next slide, please. Overcoming dissonance can be seen as either the pursuit of a unison, or maybe alternatively, as the pursuit of a dynamic harmony of voices, experiences, and narratives. So Sites of Conscience strongly believes in building solidarity
Through multiplicity of perspectives and voices, cooperation, and power sharing. So I’m going to talk from this perspective today, which our expertise lies. So in a dynamic harmony of voices, dynamic, implies a non-static understanding of the past and how it impacts present and future. Harmony, implies equity and diversity within those narratives.
So this approach requires a fluid assessment of meaning-making, providing opportunities for this continued and constructive dialogue and negotiation between parties. So the goal from a Sites of Conscience’s perspective is not to meld all perspectives into one that can be seen as a singular,
But to lift the very diversity of these understandings and truths, in a way that reflects the complexity of these historical narratives and lived experiences. So this leaves room for them, the identification and amplification of shared understandings amongst the diversity of these perspectives and the process that then leads to bridging difference
And promoting solidarity and peace. But on the other hand, if the goal is to create a static unison, then we risk privileging one perspective over the other and endanger the sincere and sustainable engagement of community members and others. And it’s what Nigerian author, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie calls, “the single stories”
That we are talking about here as well. But they are simplistic, incomplete and often false narratives that exclude the experiences, needs, and voices of many groups, especially minority groups. And ultimately, contribute to divisive rhetoric, negative stereotype, discrimination, hatred, and violence. So that is something we need to start exploring more,
Maybe in interpretation in heritage and World Heritage Sites. So next slide, please. So we believe that this is a great moment to start evaluating or looking into how interpretation of World Heritage Sites has been done, if it’s been inclusive. We don’t think we can establish a true long-term relevance
And sustainability in a World Heritage Site without infusing this community ownership and meaning-making, decision-making, and the future plans of the site very early in the process of nomination. So by building this ground up process that is centered in cooperation and co-creation, then this can become early, a path that is a shared path,
And a blueprint for solidarity going forward. So on the other hand, our experience shows that when nomination processes are led from the top-down, disputes for narrative protagonism, quickly erode the ability to build harmony and to build solidarity. Moving from dissonance into a dynamic harmony is what we call, at Sites of Conscience,
It’s a path to becoming a Site of Conscience. This is not an easy or fast process, and we understand that our sites are at very different stages in this path. So a Site of Conscience doesn’t become a Site of Conscience because they are already, they have achieved this fully inclusive ground-up holistic approach,
But because they have a clear commitment to follow that path, hand in hand with their communities, as an ongoing process. And then they also want to develop these practices and it trickles down through organizational, technical practices for the benefit of everybody involved. So next slide, please.
So we have worked that over the last few years closely with some World Heritage Sites, which are Sites of Conscience. Maison des Esclaves in Senegal, is the first World Heritage Site in Africa as a founding member of the Coalition. And as a key site capturing the magnitude,
And the brutality of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, Maison des Esclaves was struggling to meet the needs of its growing visitors a few years ago. So in March 2015, the Coalition collaborated with Maison des Esclaves on a comprehensive needs assessment, resulting in this, kind of a multi-year plan
To support site’s development into a regional and global centre for excellence on visitor engagement on issues of freedom, migration, and slavery. So a multi-party team involving from government to academics and members of the community were working with Maison des Esclaves to support this process in this dynamic transformation.
And the project includes an update to the permanent exhibition that is based on recent research, reflects today’s understandings of the site, and of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. And at present, the exhibition of Maison des Esclaves do not incorporate the latest research on very nuanced understandings of the history
Of the house as it is understood today. So through this multi-perspective approach and Dialogue Methodology, we’re helping, We’re supporting Maison des Esclaves in interpreting the difficulty and emotionally charged nature of the exhibitions they have, and to also train the tour guides that work with them to connect scholarships,
Site content and the visitor personal experiences. Next slide, please. I also want to mention a project we launched in 2022 entitled “Correcting the Record.” And this project is aimed to document a one-of-a-kind methodology that will allow Sites of Conscience around the world to recalibrate their repositories, as we see, to amplify silenced voices
And promote more inclusive narratives, mitigating discrimination, and exclusion in the site. So this initiative will help address the issue of official historic narratives, the singular narratives, and foster new understandings in that place. So “Correcting the Record” invited six Sites of Conscience across the Global South to develop case studies
By revisiting their organizational practices and identifying gaps in their approaches to building these repositories in an inclusive manner. So after identifying underrepresented communities, and these sites are working with these communities to pilot Case Studies that they went through, which they will create blueprints on how to fill those gaps at the organization,
And how to work, learn to work, and cooperate with communities going forward. So this framework has been tested by these organizations and then we hope that it’ll bring important learnings on moving from dissonance to a dynamic harmony of voices, and then it can have important lessons also
In terms of solidarity for World Heritage Sites. Next slide, please. And one of these sites is the Intercontinental Slavery Museum, in Mauritius, which is developing a co-creation curatorial plan for an exhibition about marginalized Black Rastafari community in Mauritius. The museum is still in development implementation
And is premised on being fully inclusive of Mauritius’ histories and narratives of slavery and of the experience of the Afro-Malagasy community. But the museum team felt the need to open their practices while they’re still in development to transition from what they feel is a very academic-led moment of their development
To a community-focused organizational commitment. And that would start early in the process. So this project will help create a framework of co-creation, a co-creation for them for development of the museums, it could be exhibitions and programmes and management even, going forward. So in summary, Sites of Conscience believes that there is no fast,
No easy route for creating solidarity to move from dissonance towards a dynamic harmony of voices in heritage practices, nor in World Heritage nomination processes, or any other process. It requires flexibility while maintaining focus, it requires relinquishing power in favour of cooperation, negotiating perspectives towards a shared goal, moving away from Western-centric cultural perspectives,
Many times to embrace a diversity of perspectives, cultivating patience, endurance, and the willingness to live without definite answers to difficult questions without the single story in the long run. But we believe that the benefits of this process when it’s done collectively and in a sensitive manner, can yield unparalleled results.
That’s where we believe and how we work. So as the African Proverb says, “If you want to go fast, you go alone. And if you want to go far, you go together.” Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much.
Yes, your final remark is very encouraging and I firmly believe that the words, the solidarity and harmony is not static, but is a dynamic act and processes. Thank you very much. – Yes, thank you. – Shall we start our discussion with the three discussants?
Dr. Shu-mei Huang has the first, has a first question to Gegê. Thank you so much, that was really touching. So my question is about mechanism and founding. The kind of multi-year evaluation that the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience did for the Senegal case,
Indeed, is very important to the site as a site of dynamic interpretation. Nevertheless, many sites, as we know, may stop short advancing their practices after being listed as national nominants of World Heritage. And therefore, close the door for a more dynamic, diversified interpretation.
So how did that the kind of project come to being, and who should sponsor this kind of evaluation without too much intervention? It’s a very important question. In the specific case of Maison des Esclaves, there was a confluence of factors that led to the project.
So there were needs identified by Maison des Esclaves, we had discussed with them. Sites of Conscience, we have a very close relationship with them as a founding member. And then there was a visit by Mr. Darren Walker, the president of the Ford Foundation to Maison des Esclaves, and the Ford Foundation became interested
In supporting Maison des Esclaves in a process of upgrade and revitalization to attend these needs. So at that stage, the Maison des Esclaves and Site of Conscience collaborated in developing this needs assessment that could be quite broad and inclusive. It involves Sites of Conscience and Senegalese specialists, especially, and developed a comprehensive proposal,
And with the outcomes of these assessment for this project, this upgrade project. The project was jointly financed by the Ford Foundation and the Senegal government. And this was a very extremely important request by the Maison des Esclaves, and the Senegalese counterparts, to ensure the ownership and leadership of the revitalization project
To be with Senegal. In addition, most specialists involved were Senegalese, and we consider that the client is the Senegalese government. So that was a process that ended up bringing many of these parts together. But the leadership stayed very clearly with the Senegalese counterparts. And who should fund such projects?
I mean, ideally, those with a vested interest in the project should find, or involved in the management, should have the ability to fund them, especially local governments. But we know that governments do not always have those funds. So in that case, we need to make sure that whichever organization funds,
Or is interested in helping to fund, that they have to do it. They have to accept a mechanism of work within the project that doesn’t allow them to interfere with the views of the project, or we have to ensure that they don’t have any hidden agendas. So whoever the funder is,
Those involved in the manage interpretation of the site, as well as the relevant community, should be leading all decision-making in the process. In the case of Maison des Esclaves, they made very sure that their voice and the Senegalese government’s voice prevailed throughout all decisions in the project. Hmm. Thank you so much.
If you like the mechanics, and then funding is very important matter in heritage interpretation, too. Thank you very much to touch the practical matter. And shall we move to the second question by Dr. Stefanie Lotter? Yes, thank you very much for this wonderful presentation. I have a twofold question for you.
So, Mr. Nowakowski and I, we agree with the emphasis on the plurality of voices and the concept of dynamic harmony that the Coalition highlights. However, we would like to understand how the Coalition deals with A, narrations that are based on stereotypes and misconceptions, and B, with the co-curators, who co-oped and coerced.
So, in other words, how do you position the project in relation to the dangers of misrepresentation and censorship? Okay. Yes, it’s a very delicate work that needs to be done. In regards to that, we are fully cognizant of all those risks. So I think it’s important,
We need to highlight that the process of bringing a plurality of voices adopted by the Sites of Conscience framework is community-led. So this process, we’re working with them to build capacity and methodologies and frameworks, if they need to implement this ground-up participatory process and how to be truly inclusive and representative.
Also, this matters because they are, the stakeholders, local communities, are the ones who have the knowledge about this narrative. We try not, or we do not intervene or curate the process. We work and endeavor to give tools, every tool necessary for this to happen if they don’t have tools of their own.
So we work with them to sometimes develop new tools and from the tools they have, or they can learn from the tools that we can offer. So community members that are trained for this mediation or curatorial position, usually is also not one, it’s more than one person.
So you also have those many voices there, it’s a collective, that is looking into implementing this multi-perspective approach. So at the end of the day, it’s the plurality of voices themselves in this context that brings the necessary nuance of perspectives. And this, by having this nuance and this variety of perspectives and likes,
But per se, this sheds a light on the contrast between what is a legitimate and sincere account or lived experience that’s being narrated, and an incomplete or stereotypical narration. So from this multi-perspective approach, when it’s done also using dialogue, it accommodates the diversity and it singles out, and it’s easier to single out
The misconceived and stereotypical versions of this. So on the contrary, going back to Chimamanda’s response, is when you don’t have enough voices when you only have a singular voice, then any version is up for grabs. You don’t have the checks and balances.
And also lastly, I mean, any process of such type has to have checks and balances with the accuracy of historical events and facts and all the scientific processes that also go hand in hand with this. So there are checks and balances everywhere. It needs to be carefully done.
And in terms of the coercers, as supporters of the process, when we step, we do step in, in some points, when we see that it’s bluntly, there’s a blunt coercion out towards a certain point of view. But mostly, we try to keep a very keen eye and spot when that happens,
Discuss the behavior, talk to the group, ask them what they feel, how they feel about that, and try to help them redirect the process. So we don’t go and intervene either, it’s not our job to do that. We are there to support their process. So I think that’s basically my response.
Thank you very much for your details, like the answers responding to Dr. Stefanie Lotter’s question. And Jakub, if you don’t mind, could you please give a very quick question? And also, Gegê, could you please give a bit shorter answer to them, yeah? – Yeah. – Jakub? Yes, thank you.
I mean, again, your work is universal and relevant also in the context of where I’m coming from, with the Polish-Jewish relations and the post-Holocaust traumas. And I fully agree that communities participation is something that is extremely important. But sometimes, this community participation, inevitably risk reinforcing localism or tribalism.
And therefore, rejects, the voice of the different might challenge the boundary of the so-called Balkan community or pre-existing self ideas. And in other cases, the communities may not be at all interested in remembering or discussing the past either of their own or the others. So have you worked in such environments?
Yes, thank you for this question. I have worked in a project in Brazil before the Coalition, I was the coordinator of a collaboration between UNESCO and the city of Rio de Janeiro to develop a museum plan and interpretation plan for the Valongo Wharf with the surrounding neighborhood, Little Africa.
And in this project, we faced a series of situations. This project was built from the beginning, really community-driven. I was there as a facilitator, as a technician, similarly to how we operate the Sites of Conscience. And even with a fully representative staff, steering committee, scientific committee,
Entirely built around the Black Movement, around the local communities, and the communities of relevance for that project. There was intense competition for protagonism and whose story that was, who had the right to tell that story, who should be leading the entire project, even though the leaders
Up to the secretary of culture of Rio at the time, was a Black woman. So it was a fierce dispute that emerged, and it halted the project in many ways, and in many steps. But I saw this as a positive aspect. It was very difficult, but it was positive.
Because the conversations are reflective of the experiences they have, they live. There is no unified voice of the Black Movement or of Black people in Brazil and what they’ve been through. You can’t force that, but that was an opportunity to discuss this variety of experiences and where they wanted to come from,
In a project where these experiences could finally start breaking the denialism that Brazil has around the narratives stemming from enslavement of Africans. So this was like, it had disputes of who mattered, who didn’t matter, and also what needed to be said. A lot of them didn’t want to focus the project
On the aspect of what the Wharf symbolizes in terms of a disembarkment place of enslaved Africans. Actually, the part of the most disembarkments in the world, in the America, sorry. But they wanted to focus on the narratives of resistance, of the narratives of the achievements,
Of the contributions of Afro-Brazilians, to what Brazil is today. But this also was an interesting discussion that was a necessary one. So had we had more time, as the project got halted, in the current Brazilian political context, but had we had more time, I believe that time and patience would’ve created
An amazing result in this process. You have to navigate through it. We can meet corners and detours at every stop, at every point of the way, but you have to work around it, and find ways to carry on until you get the result that you’re supposed to try to achieve.
Thank you very much, Gegê. – Thank you. – Thank you. – Thank you, Jakub. – My pleasure, thank you. Yes, it’s like one more presentation is waiting for us. So Dr. Ali Moussa Iye, are you ready to give us your paper? Speaking about solidarity in relation to the heritage of slavery,
May be considered inappropriate and even a little bit provocative, given the fact that this history is precisely characterized by the most selfish, immoral and criminal pursuit of profit. Indeed, slavery was one of the greatest tragedy of humanity marked by barbaric mistreatment of human beings, including children, woman, elders.
And so the figure mentioned in the slide that I would like to show, give us an idea of the scope of this tragedy. Next slide, please. Yes, so as you can see, we have, I mean, in terms of numbers, 50 million Africans deported in different part of the world.
And we have 120 to 150 millions of what we can call a collateral death during the raid in the village, the serving during the long march, and the sea crossing, et cetera. So this crime against humanity was perpetuated generally with a general indifference. And I can even see the general support
Of the population in countries that benefited from it. So that’s why, to discourage any gesture and feeling of solidarity towards the enslaved people, the beneficiaries of these business have called upon religions, arts, sciences, law, to dehumanize the victim of their greed. And even especially vocabulary,
Has been invited to bestialize and to commodify them. For instance, in the Black Court developed by the Slave Nation, the enslaved people was called, “Moveable Property,” “Moveable Properties” or “ebony wood.” So, and many of the thinkers of the so-called Sanctuary of Enlightenment have not shown a particular solidarity with the victim of slavery.
Some of them even participated in the construction of this theory of the hierarchy of race and culture that served to justify this treatment. However, alongside the ethical and moral failure, there have been incredible expression of an act of solidarity towards the victim during the slavery time.
And could you please show the next slide? Yes. And here, I would like to mention the admirable work undertaken about the Abolitionist movement in the 18th and 19th century to denounce the barbarity of the slave system. I have to recall, I would like to recall the righteous activist
Who helped the enslaved African to escape the United States to Canada by inventing a very ingenious network of solidarity called, “The Underground Railroad.” But I especially would like to recall the exemplary action of the inhabitant of a small village in France called Champagney,
Who in 1789, decided to address a complaint to their king in which they respectfully asked him to abolish slavery. And the written plea that submit to the king is really very, very… I mean, moving and I just would like to mention they said, “The inhabitant and community of Champagney cannot think
Of the evils suffered by the Black in the colonies without being filled with the deepest sorrow when they imagine their fellow human beings, still united to them by the double bound of religious, being treated more harshly than the beast of Berlin.” So this is a very important quotation because mostly,
The common belief is that people are saying, “At that time, slavery was legally and morally accepted.” That was not true. And this is a concrete example that villages, there are people who really condemned that. So, but paradoxically, the expression of solidarity diminished and even disappeared after the abolition of slavery.
And that is the paradox of this history. The history of torture has been, I mean, has been disappeared. The site of memory has been devastated, violated and transformed. The archives have been hidden or destroyed to really organize the silence. Fortunately, the oral tradition, and the cultural expression of the enslaved people
Was the only that could survive this deliberate, I mean, organized strategy to destroy the memory and the history of the slavery. And the other paradox of this history is that it was this cultural expression that became now a marker of the post-slavery society, and even important feature of their soft power.
I mean, we all know how the United States has, was using jazz or blues or rock, to expand their influence across the world. And that was the production of the enslaved people who really helped them to do that. So, but since the 80s,
New waves of solidarity arose to come to term with this history. However, many of the concerned countries have chosen to promote only the achievement of the white abolitionist, ignoring the resistance and contribution of the enslaved people for their emancipation. For instance, the Haitian Revolution,
Which was the first and the only victory of enslaved people over their oppression, was completely silenced and concealed from history curriculum across the Western world. Therefore, one of the great obstacles for the consolidation of solidarity is the capacity and the willingness of the concerned country to change their national narratives,
To reconsider the historical figure and heroes and to revisit their museum and historical site. We have heard recently about the controversy around the removal of monument dedicated to historical figure, who advocated for slavery in the U.S., in the UK, in France, in Portugal, in Netherlands, and in different other countries.
So how do these countries prepare, How are these countries prepared to accommodate the rights to memory of a large portion of the citizens who are claiming to exercise in conformity of the principle of their democratic institution? How are they prepared to accommodate that claim?
How serious can policy for recognition of the concealment be taken, if public spaces continue to be overcrowded with monument and memorials dedicated to people who advocated and who promoted slavery? How museums, history curricula, site of memories can continue to display colonial mystification and representation, which constitute a denial of the past suffering
Of large part of the citizens? Those were the questions that UNESCO’s Slavery Route Project was confronted with from its inception. The project is now called, “Route of Enslaved People,” It was created and it was based of the fact that ignoring or obscuring major historical event constitute, in itself,
An obstacle to peace, reconciliation and cooperation. So I would like to conclude my intervention by calling how this project, which I had the honor to direct during 15 years, addressed the challenges of reconciliation and solidarity. Please, can you show the last slide? So from the beginning, the project has clearly posed the ethical
And moral stakes of the slavery to help the different stakeholders to understand that the remembrance of the slave trade is not intended to steer up a painful and traumatic past with the aim of producing guilt. It is a necessary move to recognize a common heritage that has determined us
And can allow us to better understand certain evils of today’s world such as discrimination and racism. So I think the project has succeeded to open up a project like that, the issue. The project also have, from the beginning, have put the issue of slave trade and slavery at the global level
And succeeded to impose it as an international issue. And this orientation has helped to de-racialize the slave trade and slavery and present it as a tragedy for the whole humanity, which has shaped our modern world. The “Enslaved Route” project also has always began. It is activity with the scientific approach
Because that is the approach that really helped us to distance from the emotion and perhaps to, and to recover and to transcend all the polemics about this history. The project also has developed a holistic perspective of this issue by also tackling the, I mean, the preservation of memory, the educational aspect,
The contribution of the enslaved people to the progress, et cetera. So it was really a holistic dimension that has been privileged. The project also contributed to the awareness about the necessity to engage dialogue, healing and reparation processes, that would facilitate recognition, reconciliation, social coalition, and living together in post-slavery society.
So I think, we can say that today there is more and more countries that are ready to open these tragic pages of their history and to try to consider this memory into their commemorative agenda. And I think that now, new pages are open.
And I think, and then we hope that these countries will really begin to write new books about this history, this particular history. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your very insightful presentation. And then that gives us some lesson to rethink how our attitude should be
To treat the difficult heritage and complex history. So we are going to have a very short discussion. So Dr. Stefanie Lotter, are you ready to give him the first question? Yes, thank you very much. That was a fantastic presentation and I wish we would have much more time to discuss this thoroughly.
The first question that I would ask you is, you’ve spoken to an add-on approach in interpretation and also, perhaps as a revolution. So taking the second approach in, I would like to ask you, as underrepresentation in material culture related to slavery is a problem in national collections,
Which goes hand in hand with the active concealment of dark history in national collections and archives, I would like to ask, how can we use national collections and colonial archives today to display the techniques of concealment and hiding historical truths? I think it’s very interesting to use the same colonial archives
And the same material that has been used to silence this history to be used to reveal this history. It’s very interesting. And I think, yes, there are many ways to do that. The first, one of the first would be, for instance, when there are permanent or even temporary exhibition
In museums inside of memory, the interpretation of the enslaved people or the descendant of the enslaved people be critically showcased next to the interpretation and the narratives of the dominant narratives. That is a way of showing an archive, saying what these archives… How these archives have been used to tell what the society,
The dominant society wants to tell, and then give the interpretation of the marginalized population, which have suffered from this history just next to that, so that the visitors can really compare. They have the middle of the archives, and then they have the different voices of the interpretation.
That is one way of doing any exhibition about slavery, because so far, when we have exhibition of slavery, it was the experts who do it. And sometimes, have this presentation of interpreting on behalf of the marginalized community, what should be there. And I think it’ll be good to go to the communities
To say what they want to see in this exhibition and what will be their feelings and interpretation of that particular archive. That’s one way to do it. Another way to do, is to have a kind of three dimension. You have the dominant interpretation. Of course, you have the archives and the material,
You have the dominant interpretation. You may have also an associate historian from the marginalized community and from the dominant group, to also, with the same historical fact, to show how they interpret. And I think that’s a way of creating what we are talking all this day. It’s the plural and pluralistic interpretation
And perspective of one clear particular historical fact, but giving the possibility to visitors, to make their own opinion about by having the different version. I think that’s a way of using the same colonial archives that have been used to conceal this truth, to reveal it in different manners. Thank you so much.
So we can see the, the power relations between the presentation and interpretation too, and the exhibition. And it’s very difficult to reach the good balance of the pluralistic voices in the exhibition. But we should make an effort. So, Jakub? Could you please unmute? Yeah, sorry.
Well, thank you for this excellent, and again, very relevant presentation. And those tensions that you’ve described are something that we’ve witnessed over the last few years across the world. And I was wondering, how does your project relate to those movements like Black Lives Matter or other social movements
That are bringing into light and challenge the systematic racism, discrimination, or inequality experience in the past, but also today, by the Black people. I mean, this is not only something that we witness in the U.S., but also in South Africa or across the Europe, the toppling of the statues across the cities. Yes.
Yes, I think from… Thank you for your question. From the beginning, I mean, the “Enslaved Route” project was linked to the movement, which tried to fault the social injustice inherited from the slavery, and then from the colonization, from the beginning. In fact, the project was created
Especially to study and to understand the root cause of racism and discrimination today. So from the beginning, the project has undertaken research. We produce a series of publication. We produce themes to really show that link between the racial prejudices, discrimination and racism, and the history of slavery, and of the slave trade.
More profoundly, the project tried to reflect on what we call the racial order that came out from this history. You know, this racial order was established in the 18th century, at the same moment of the capitalism system. So the project studied that, and I think it really give a lot of inspiration
To a lot of movements against racism and discrimination. In different countries, for instance, in the Latin America, and Gegê, she knows very well. In the Latin America, they call that the “pigmentocracy” The hierarchy that is built on the color of your skin. The lighter you are, the above you are.
So it is the whole pigmentocracy in these countries that the project has tried to fault. In South Africa, of course, we call it apartheid. In the French colony, they call it the “Code of the Indigénat.” In the U.S., it is segregation. So the project was really, from the beginning, created to get
A theoretical and scientific basis to understand all that kind of opinion. So it is very linked. And of course, even the fact that, to question the historical figure that are in the public space was one of the claim of the project
That the country is really serious with, this history should reconsider the statues, the name of roads, the street, that they are giving to enslavers. Because it is against their own constitution. They can’t valorize that kind of personality while those who fought for the freedom,
Who fought for the abolition, are not very sufficiently known, especially coming from the enslaved people. So there is a big debate now going on in the UK, in France, in Netherland, to really question what those modern society, what they want to showcase as a national narratives.
So this is a big issue, I think that is. And we hope that we can have other result, not only the crisis in the street, the protestation, but a real change in the policy-making and a real change in the national narratives. Thank you, thank you so much.
So because of the time limit, and then we’re going to, We are going to move to the next question. And Dr. Shu-mei Huang? Thank you, Dr. Lee. Thank you Dr. Ali, for the really interesting, important case sharing. My question is about remembering and living culture expressions among the descendants of the victims.
Assuming that there are partially those who may voluntarily remain silent due to long-existing trauma and fear. So I wonder: what would be the keys to facilitate their remembering? Yes, I don’t know if I really understood your question, but what I can say, in the case of the slavery,
Is that the victims have not only used their cultural expression to resist this de-humanization process, to which they were subjected, or even to survive spiritually, and physically in the very hardship of the slavery. But they used also this cultural expression as a mean to fight the slavery itself.
Because as you may know, through their cultural expression, they passed coded message for the Maroons about how to fight against slavery. For instance, the drums were forbidden by the enslavers. Do you know why? Because the enslaved people used the drums to pass message and to communicate about the position of the military,
To give information to the Maroons to attack. So it was forbidden by the enslavers. The gospels, you know, songs were also another way of really passing a coded message from plantation to plantation, from hill to hills to inform. So the cultural expression were not only cultural,
It has also this political and social aspect of it. And it happened that all these cultural heritage have become today a gift of the enslaved people to the slave societies. That is the paradox that I just mentioned. So it became now the common heritage of those societies.
And so it has, exactly, if the question was to the social aspect, definitely, this expression has that social and political dimension during the slavery time, and even now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much. It’s like, if only we had more time
And we should expand our roundtable to the next workshop. I should ask the WHIPIC to organize one more roundtable for the further discussion. We have only 10 minutes for the open discussion sessions, but we’ll just try to wrap up what we have learned, and also what we have discussed together.
And I’d like to give you one question. So I hope that all of you can share the very quick insights on the question. Our question is: not only inside the memory associated with a traumatic or a dark past, but also in every heritage site,
Diverse narratives and voices can emerge, which then produces dissonance in heritage. Could you share your opinion on how we should understand the relationship between dissonance and solidarity in heritage? Do diverse narratives and voices interrupt or contribute to solidarity in heritage? So we have already discussed some parts of this question,
But just like, that is a wrapping-up last question for our open discussion. So, Dr. Višnja Kisić, could you please respond to this wrapping-up last question? Yes, I would say that throughout my research and work, I’ve been advocating for this idea that we shouldn’t be dealing
With kind of dissonance heritage only as heritage of kind of war and trauma and heritage that is openly contested at the particular moment. But it actually, heritage in itself, as an act of remembering, and taking positions according to the past and building kind of future visions is this very dissonant endeavor.
And if we recognize it, there’s a diversity of voices, perspectives, and living experiences, in every kind of heritage. Even more so in the ones that sits very comfortably in heritage sites and museums being not disputed, because there is where we see a very kind of silenced marginalizations, oppressions and one-sided narratives.
So I would say, when working with heritage dissonance and bringing solidarity, what we have to be doing is seeing dissonance as a way to understand each other and each other’s perspectives that sometimes are not reconcilable in a particular moment, sometimes are not harmonious.
So it’s more the question of how we live with disagreements, how we can negotiate and share the same space and build relations even if we don’t agree on the historic perspectives, nor on the current, present interest and future visions. And I think this is probably the most difficult endeavor
That we have to be doing. It’s easy to be in solidarity with those that you agree with, and it’s easy to be in solidarity if you can find a common ground or harmonious way forward. But living in solidarity when you don’t agree,
I think this is the virtue that we should all build up. Oh, it’s very, I’m very touched. Yes, I totally agree that dissonance is a kind of a way to understand each other, so we shouldn’t avoid the dissonance. But sometimes, we need to welcome dissonance
And also disagreement, in between different stakeholders for the solidarity. Thank you. So, Gegê, could you please share your opinions with us? Please unmute your mic. Apologies. My opinion is very similar to Višnja’s and to what you were commenting. Dissonance is a reflection of, the collective is a reflection of society.
There is no homogeneity of feelings and perceptions and experiences in society. And the exercise to move from dissonance to harmony to build this path is the opportunity to build understanding, to agree to disagree, and to live, to learn to co-exist and build peace. So this should be the transformative role of heritage
Just provide exactly, along time, that opportunity for those dialogues that are constantly making people live in peace, agreeing to disagree, take place. And it’s not necessarily the same throughout time. So that’s why we can’t expect a monolithic version of history to prevail forever
Because also, the significance of sites, and of heritage, changes with time. or has nuances of the time So I am also supportive of the fact that dissonance is an opportunity, and we must be patient and work through it. And that’s the work that needs to be done. Thank you. Dr. Ali Moussa Iye?
Yes. Yes, thank you. Indeed, I agree with what Gegê has said. Dissonance is, I mean, dealing with the memory, history and heritage is always a challenging process. And because, why? Because it concerns the most intimate feelings and thinking of the people. I mean, it is the national identity, the personal identification.
So there is a kind of psychological, and even I can say, psychiatric dimension of this issue. So we need to learn how to address them with caution, with tact, and with a lot of listening. I think what is important here to manage the dissonance is to avoid,
To learn how to avoid the blame, what I call the “blame game.” That is the first, always. Because each communities want to express their complaint against the other. Because unfortunately, so far, national narratives are built against other narratives, not for, or infusing our narrative.
So this is the normal way of how narratives are built. So it’s always against something. So I think by bringing together in the discussion, scholars who can really help people acquire the capacity to dialogue and to discuss, I think it is a way to rediscover the common heritage.
From my experience of the Slave Route Project, what I learned is that any meeting became, turned out to become a therapy group. It began by anger, by shouts, and then people calmed down, and then they tried to understand each other.
And at the end, everybody agreed that we have to build our common future. We have to build a new way of living because, by the way, we could not separate our, we live in the same space. So what to do? To be fighting all the time, or to just try to live together?
I think people understand that kind of argument when you say, “Okay, the past is the past, we have to understand it, but we have to build a common future.” Then people say, “Yes,” and then they are ready to compromise and to discuss. And this is part also of the process of healing.
People need to be healed from the past, not only the people who suffered, but the people who are descendants of those who also, I mean, perpetuated suffering. It’s important. So that’s my response to this question. Yes, it’s just, Ali’s comment, this reminds me of the building.
We need to build up the ethics of heritage, and particular difficult process. We should approach dissonance with the very ethical manner. – Yes, it is. – And Jakub? Well, thank you. I mean, yes, I agree with everything that was already said. And the polyphony of voices,
Of experiences, is just something that we need to be. That is important, and we need to be aware of, and it’s possible to build a coherent narration that includes this polyphony. And I think, European Union as an entity, could be a good example of such a, a major process.
And again, we need to acknowledge the dissonance and always try to explain, where does it come from? I mean, how the same story is being told in different ways by different groups, to explain that is extremely important. But I think we shouldn’t be complied to accept those narration.
I mean, sometimes in those narrations, those opposing narrations are fueled by stereotypes, by misconceptions. And I think the next step for educators, for historians, for musicians, is to be challenging those narrations, which are hurting other, which are based on false, and false and wrong ideas. And that’s certainly the next step.
Yes, thank you very much. Education is also a very important matter to deal with the dissonance towards the solidarity. Dr. Shu-mei Huang? Thank you, I truly agree with previous comments about how dissonance should be seen as an opportunity. And particularly for me, it can be an opportunity for remaking identity,
Not necessarily giving up our own identity, but to embrace more fluid, diversified identity. Because a lot of dissonance that we can see from cases, actually have to do with our limit, our being limited by identities or associations themselves that might be products of historical violences and operation.
So dissonance, I think, offers ways for us to rework these identity and open up for new chances. Thank you very much. Wow, it’s like the dissonance also gives us some other opportunity to remake identity. It’s very beautiful, like the comments. Last but not least, Dr. Stefanie Lotter.
I was absolutely fascinated by the presentations. And I must say, those projects you’ve been working on were eye-opening. What remains for me a very big question, and I wish we could have had time to address this further, is basically, how do we coax out those silent voices, those who don’t speak up
And aren’t openly included in inclusivity projects that we are hosting? But I think that would be one for the next discussion. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, that is very important. We shouldn’t neglect the silenced voices, and also, we should think about how we can encourage them to speak out
As the member of community. Thank you very much for your insightful presentations, questions and discussions. We should organize another roundtable. On the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, this WHIPIC Roundtable reminds us of the value of UNESCO World Heritage as a shared heritage.
The UNESCO World Heritage programme helps us understand how heritage can be our heritage, and how we can protect and love them with our shared responsibility and accountability. For the last 50 years, while celebrating together the outstanding and magnificent and excellent beauty of the majority
Of the World Heritage Sites, we felt connected as a global community. Now, UNESCO World Heritage gives us full opportunities to share others’ pains, traumas, and difficulties with mutual understanding and empathy. To prepare for the next 50 years of the UNESCO World Heritage, we look forward to building up our new solidarity,
And we firmly believe that the WHIPIC will greatly contribute to it. Thanks for all your participations. Sujin? Thank you very much, Dr. Lee, for your full moderating and facilitating of the roundtable today. Of course, for our panels, Dr. Višnja, Ms. Gegê, Dr. Ali, Mr. Jakub, Dr. Shu-mei, and Dr. Stefanie.
I greatly appreciate your brilliant and considerate contribution to WHIPIC Roundtable 2022. And above all, I would like to thank all the audience who paid attention and listened to the whole session. I hope you all enjoyed it and got inspired by it. This is the end of WHIPIC Roundtable 2022,
But WHIPIC is now hosting online lecture and webinar series about the World Heritage Interpretation and Presentation. You may have missed the first one held last Thursday, but you can still join the second lecture in September. And also, I would like to apologize for a low resolution streaming via Zoom,
But as I announced earlier, this roundtable has been recorded and will be uploaded to WHIPIC’s YouTube channel, with Korean and English subtitles. It will be a clearer version with better resolution. Finally, I would like to hear your opinion on today’s sessions. So please send us your feedback via our social media or email.
Thank you again for joining us today, and we hope to see you at WHIPIC’s upcoming events. Thank you. Bye, everyone.
#WHIPIC #Roundtable #Solidarity #Heritage #Interpretation #Presentation
No comment yet, add your voice below!