We Can't Save Everything (and we shouldn't)

 

"Heritage".  It's one of those words that is held to be "intrinsic to Britishness". It's what a wide range of people, from completely opposed parts of the socio-political spectrum, claim to be "passionate" about. Most recently, it's found itself caught up in increasingly unhinged screaming matches over "woke-ness." People cry that we're "losing our heritage" to building, including necessary infrastructure and future-resilient development. They react against "progress" as something that is inevitably and unavoidably worse than "our history!" Often, they feel very sensitive if that history doesn't show the communities and cultures they feel strongly connected with in a good light, or excludes them entirely. Yet volunteering is in sharp decline in the UK - and heritage has one of the largest draws on volunteer labour. Heritage is both criticised for being too narrow in its focus, but also aggressively reacted against - including with withdrawal of donation subscriptions, refusal to visit particular sites, and abuse of staff and volunteers - when it attempts to broaden that focus. People in the UK, of all backgrounds, believe that "British heritage" should centre around their experience of being British, or their views on Britain as a political and economic force. Heritage cannot be forced to encompass "old things we like looking at on Bank Holidays, if the weather's nice, after the shops have closed." It can't just be "things that tie neatly to our authorised lessons, but also shut the kids up while we're shepherding them round the museum or art gallery."

We can't just gather up every skeleton discovered during archaeological surveys and keep them in cardboard boxes in unvisited vaults just because they're "really old!" and were "people like us!" - for a start, it's not really any more respectful to keep ancient bones in sealed cardboard boxes than it is to allow them to become part of the foundation of a new version of the future. Britain has simply existed for too long, and seen too many people (most of them immigrants...) to never build anywhere there are dead people - people have been dying here for centuries. Populations have mostly increased significantly year on year, meaning more people dying every year. As the nationalistic rabble like to remind us, loudly, we're a small island - there's only a limited amount of space. And, harsh as it sounds, the living have to...live. The futures need to arrive, and be fully explored and engaged with. If we're not going to stop native Brits from having endless children (and we're not - the two-child benefit cap has been revealed to have been pretty much a failure, and the same people who insist that we "just can't keep taking in all these immigrants - it's about resources, not race!" would be smashing up bus stops and violently assaulting politicians - and potentially hanging flags off more things that aren't theirs than they currently are - at the mere idea that they should limit the resource-claimers they themselves bring in to the country), then we need to ensure there's housing, workplaces, and purveyors at least of essentials in reasonable proximity to every community, no matter how rural or otherwise remote. We have to have functional road networks and railways for them to travel on, because it will never be feasible to place all the amenities of an entire country into the space of a county. Equally, there is a very real need to keep some of the past in the present, even as we move towards a range of possible futures. So, what heritage should we save? Answering that question relies on understanding what heritage actually is. Not what we want it to be. Not what we believe it needs to be to "avoid becoming woke!" Heritage isn't just "really old stuff." Heritage isn't "what I, one individual, believe represents my Britain." Heritage isn't "what people I consider English built." (Seriously....most of what is now fawned over and celebrated as "real British heritage" was...not built by people who remotely considered themselves British, and, in fact, would be incensed at being called British or English. Heritage is something that gives us a strong story which holds a consistent narrative through, and reflects the modern reality of, both the present and the possible futures open to us. Heritage helps us understand the challenges we're facing, and the opportunities we're being presented with, because it gives us relatable, similar examples that people have faced, embraced, and overcome before us. Heritage helps us connect with people who are "us, but not like us". It helps us become confident in who we are, curious about who we could be, and interested in who others are. Not everything that previous civilisations and eras built or engaged with meets those requirements. Not every person who has ever died on these shores offers anything to those considerations. Some heritage which does meet the focus we need to take in relation to consideration of heritage will be what most people think of as heritage - castles, monuments, sacred landscapes, skeletons, jewellery, tools, and religious artefacts. Other heritage which meets this focus, however, will raise eyebrows, at the very least. - Historic venues with strong associations with LGBTQ+, specific ethnic, and disabled communities. - Landscapes and cityscapes which have consistently been lived in and worked by genuinely working-class communities. - Coastal and port towns, which combine both working class connections, and connections to ideas, insights, and opportunities beyond the UK. - Areas with a strong association to grassroots women's movements. - Areas which were directly hit by tragedies which led to actual change. Heritaretical combines "heritage" and "heretical" for a unique conversation about what heritage means, what it is, how it can lead us to the best future for everyone who wants to be included, and how we can ensure heritage is relevant, resilient, inclusive, accessible, and engaging.