(originally written and posted on Nov. 20, 2008)
Last year, the final list of the world’s seven wonders came out. It consists of the Great Wall of China, the Egyptian Pyramids, the Taj Mahal in India, the Roman Colosseum, the statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, the Mayan city of Chichen Itza and the hidden Inca city of Machu Picchu in Peru.
This list is the product of an effort started in 2001 by a Swiss organization. It began with a list of several hundred famous historical monuments in all six continents, and this list was gradually culled down through repeated voting by some world-wide public. Same method as American Idol.
This experiment is a failure. The final selections make no sense.
I will not quibble about which specific monuments should or should not have been included, but to suggest a few examples:
(1) The Brazilian statue of Christ the Redeemer clearly does not belong on the list - it is an early 20th century statue which measures about 100 feet and reminds one of the neo-realist monstrosities produced in Russia under Stalin. While I would not have included our Statue of Liberty either, that monument is certainly more deserving than the Rio statue.
(2) While Chichen Itza is nice, the Mayan site at Tikal is more beautiful.
(3) There are many other sites around the world which were more or equally deserving, for example Angkor Wat in Cambodia and several sites in Japan.
(4) Since my expertise is Europe, let me just suggest a few of the hundreds of magnificent historical sites on that Continent which deserved at least as much consideration as the final seven:
(a)The entire city of Venice, (b) the Parthenon in Athens, (c) prehistoric Stonehenge in England, (d) the prehistoric cave paintings of Lascaux, France, (e) the city of Pompeii in Southern Italy, (f) the Alhambra in Grenada, (g)the Mont Saint Michel in Normandy, (h) the palace of Versailles, (I) the Vatican, (j) Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, etc, etc.
Here is what happened: The vote was a compendium of nationalisms, combined with an anti-European bias. It reflects demography and politics. What happened to the European entries is revealing: Europe’s representation on the original list was large, because Europe has the richest history of any continent. However, due to the world’s hostility to Western civilization and to the sin of “Eurocentrism,” most of the European entries were gradually eliminated. In the end, Europe squeezed by with ONE of its monuments left on the final list - not even Europe’s most impressive historical site. Meanwhile, Latin America has three.
It was a close call for Europe, which could have ended up with ZERO entries. Had this happened, the absurd outcome of this experiment would have been even clearer since - to repeat myself - no other continent’s history is as rich as Europe’s, no other continent is as rich in historical treasures. Then, even more obviously than now, the entire experiment should deserve to be junked as an utter failure.
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
agree with most of what you said here. Hard to believe that a large statue would win over sites like Venice, Pompeii, or the Vatican. By looking at the New7Wonders website under their Voting Analysis, they say that more voters were from the "more enthusiastic developing world" rather that the "more lethargic developed world." They also allowed children to vote who primarily use the internet. With this kind of voting you could almost believe that Cloris Leachman could win on Dancing with the Stars.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at their latest on-going contest for New7Wonders of Nature, you will notice that the first U.S. entry, the Grand Canyon, is currently at #27. Most of the top vote-getters are in Asia and unknown to me.
A minor correction to your opening paragraph: The Egyptian pyramids are the only remaining Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The new substitute is Petra in Jordan.
Happy blogging!
Nov. 25, 2008
thanks for your comments, and your correction. Where are the 7 most lethargic sites of the world?
ReplyDeleteNov. 25, 2008