That’s bullshit.
I don’t agree with all of what JunJun is planning in Intramuros, especially his connection between Clark Quay and Maestranza (instead I’ve offered San Antonio and San Sebastian as working models).
But her conclusion is complete and utter crap. Where do we start then? We need symbols of national unity, we need areas that make people proud to be Filipino. This reductive and simplistic ‘heritage is of the elites and the poor don’t have time for it’ attitude as got to go. Culture and history are the province of all Filipinos, without we don’t have a nation. Her reasoning, at least the underlying assumption, that we shouldn’t focus on heritage conservation while the country is impoverished is an intellectually bankrupt notion that foregoes the need for understanding context and history in reconstructing our country. Just because someone is poor we shouldn’t try and feed their souls? Feed their bodies, but ignore their hearts and minds? I don’t think so. We preserve what we have because it is who we are. Regardless of how impoverished the country is, regardless of how poor its people are. She raised some interesting points that were completely and totally discarded by that last paragraph.
More than that she completely misses the fact that redeveloping areas actually helps in urban renewable and redevelopment. I offer Bilbao as a prime example.
She completely misses the connection between rebuilding Intramuros and the work on the Pasig; she completely misunderstands what heritage tourism actually is. That is best illustrated by her comment about a ‘new grand mall.’ In what realm of common sense is a new mall heritage tourism? The idea of Maestranza (if that is what she is criticizing) is to turn it into a showplace for Filipiniana goods. That is what has been presented to me and that is what the discussions have centered around.
A hack job by someone who barely understands the intricacies of heritage conservation and preservation, much less its importance to urban renewal and redevelopment.
Point taken, though at least it opens up a small discussion on what the real essence of heritage tourism is. From my understanding of your response, we, I included, say the term “heritage tourism” without really knowing what it is and how it works. My opinion, and mine alone, is that we’re in love with the idea of heritage tourism while we hate the business of it, however others like both. Heritage tourism is a tricky business as those who are into it have to be totally mindful of the actions they do and the consequences these actions would entail. It involves several matters of importance to consider.
While she does have points to which I agree to, though all her ideas are unremarkable and a little shallow, she, as you’ve mentioned, kind of missed the point at the end. The whole realm of heritage preservation is our duty as it is our duty to make sure that we try to reduce, if not eradicate, widespread poverty, corruption and God knows what. The simple act of passing on what you know, like learning the whole process of balut-making is preserving heritage in itself. That’s what people don’t see… that they’re agents of heritage preservation. Not only the government, not only private companies or non-profit organizations, not only innovators or people with highfalutin or esoteric degrees from an esteemed university.
Well, we still have more to learn.
That is absolutely correct. I cannot believe people are missing the clear connection between heritage, tourism, and social and economic renewal.
The issue at hand is that she seems to separate urban renewal from heritage preservation and tourism; as if the two cannot coexist. This is patently false. More to the point, without heritage preservation a country loses its flavor; a locality becomes homogenous. I shudder to imagine a nation where Baguio looks the same as Manila, or Cebu City the same as Makati City.
Oh. Wait.
Heritage preservation for the sake of tourism seems to be the point of contention here. As if we should be preserving heritage just because we need to. That’s true, we should be. But in our milieu and our society, where we place such little importance on culture and history, tourism becomes the accessible hook to promote tourism. It’s a conscious decision. And it’s one that is actually supported by her last statement. She, and those who believe as she does, are quite willing to forgo supporting heritage efforts just because the country is poor.
Well, fuck that.
The end result is a culturally and economically impoverished nation; a country of people with little to no pride, absolutely lacking in a cultural backbone. If that is the case, then there is no reason to call ourselves Filipinos; because the word itself will have no meaning. The fact is heritage conservation and sustainable economic development can go hand in hand. Yes, there are issues that have to be addressed, but that is far better than leaving our heritage to die.
The vision of a nation of economically sustained people without a cultural soul is depressing to say the least.
(Source: galeriaderojo, via galeriaderojo)
