This thesis focuses on the way nationalism has influenced the development of heritage politics in South Korea during the presidency of Park Chŏng Hŭi, Kim Yŏng Sam, and Lee Myŭng Bak, and how...Show moreThis thesis focuses on the way nationalism has influenced the development of heritage politics in South Korea during the presidency of Park Chŏng Hŭi, Kim Yŏng Sam, and Lee Myŭng Bak, and how nationalism in heritage politics has affected the Kyŏngbok palace.Show less
This thesis studies the impact of shared heritage practices on local, non-Western, communities by means of a comparison between the Dutch Shared Cultural Heritage (GCE-) policy and the UNESCO 1972...Show moreThis thesis studies the impact of shared heritage practices on local, non-Western, communities by means of a comparison between the Dutch Shared Cultural Heritage (GCE-) policy and the UNESCO 1972 World Heritage Convention. Specific emphasis is put on the local views regarding these practices, in an attempt to move beyond the Western and neocolonial discourse that has dominated the field for the past decades. Through the execution of an in depth literature study on the history and rationale of both the GCE-policy and the UNESCO Convention, and through the assessment of a never before published comprehensive study on the functioning and effects on the local communities of the GCE-policy, and the execution of an original study on the local views of (designation of) World Heritage Sites through the case study of Stone Town of Zanzibar, Tanzania, it can be said that in order for the shared heritage policies and practices to become more successful, they need to start taking local communities into account. At the moment the cooperation in most cases only runs through local authorities or one or two local heritage specialists, but the rest of the community is not truly taken into account. As such, their ideas, wishes, and most importantly needs are not implemented in the projects and heritage practices, which as a result struggle to survive without the initiating party’s continuous efforts and money. The Dutch and UNESCO strife to make the local communities see the intrinsic value of the heritage concerned, that they feel is so important themselves, but fail to see that all parties value specific heritage differently or for very differing reasons. For the partner countries, the main incentive to join the shared heritage practices is an economic one. Instead of judging this, both UNESCO and the Dutch heritage organizations should appreciate that this is the reality that their local counterpart organizations have to deal with, and as such they should carefully listen to the local demands in order to come to a mutually agreed solution to any problems regarding the heritage. Only if local communities are taken into account in the implementation of shared heritage projects and policies, can they become sustainable and self-sufficient. What is important in shared heritage practices are not shared values regarding the heritage, but a shared understanding of all the disparate values concerned.Show less
