Greece sunk into debt in recent years. We hope to see a vicious Spartan fight against bankruptcy, but German politicians suggested a curt solution: sell the Parthenon, Acropolis and Aegean islands. Should the Greeks continue preserving the reminder of their history, or should they be smart to let go of the ancient sites for the sake of their economy?
Cling to the past or focus on the present? This is a countrywide scale of past-present dilemma.
Unstable economy is a peril to the historical sites of Greece. There are other factors that endanger historical sites.
In just one hour, Mali Islamists has destroyed three Mausolea in Timbuktu. All of it are U.N. World heritage sites and served as religious and historical landmarks. Rebellion seems to be a fast way to eradicate historic sites.
Visiting can harm too. Over a million tourists came to Machu Picchu in 2011. The ancient city that survives centuries of calamities and invasion is now an “endangered architectural site”; the influx of tourists contributing to its springing demise.
But Ecuador is on track of people coming to Galapagos Island. They are limiting the number of visitors and the length of stays. Fuel consumption and pollution are also regulated to maintain the pristine of the island. Many countries may find it hard to follow Ecuador’s steps since tourism is an industry that feeds economy. Historical sites are competing against money.
Political decisions can also affect the duration of historical sites. U.S. cuts funding for UNESCO, an organization that protects world’s heritage sites. Without the priority, historical sites won’t be secured.
If they do vanish, we only hope that the memory will remain.
What is your favorite historical site?