Does the low number of US UNESCO Cultural Heritage Sites embarrass you?

[Storebought]

Background on UNESCO: UNESCO
Background on World Heritage Sites: World Heritage Site
List of US World Heritage Sites.

The US has twenty four World Heritage sites. Of these, 12 are natural sites and 11 are cultural sites. That sounds like a fair number until you inspect the sites that are listed:

1. Mesa Verde
2. Independence Hall
3. Cahokia mounds
4. Forts of San Juan PR
5. Statue of Liberty
6. Chaco Canyon
7. Thomas Jefferson buildings (Monticello and UVA)
8. Taos Pueblo
9. Poverty Point mounds
10. San Antonio Missions
11. Frank Lloyd Wright buildings

Indigenous buildings are in normal font. In italics, structures dating from the European colonial period that the US didn't deign to demolish. Among these, only one of them was in any of the thirteen colonies. The structures in boldface were constructed during and after the point the US became a country. Yes, only four of them! And one of them, the Statue of Liberty, was engineered in Europe, so that makes only three genuine US cultural artifacts in 200+ years of existence.

Compare that to the UK. There are 32 WH sites, of which 27 are cultural heritage monuments. London alone has four of them. The UK also includes 13 industrial age and modern heritage sites dating from the 18th century onward (14 if you include the rebuilt Palace of Westminster), so it's not like they've just nominated every ruined castle in the country to inflate their significance.

Does this not disturb you? Does this not suggest that the arguments that the US levies about UNESCO being "Cultural Marxists" and the repeated threats (sometimes carried through) about defunding UNESCO (see background lit) are themselves a tacit recognition that the US has not created monuments -- culture -- worth identifying or preserving?

[NewYorkExpress]

Unless you can nominate Corn Dogs, Apple Pie, Ice Cream cones and foods made in America, I don't think we have anything that would be worth it.

[Storebought]

The tentative list -- all proposed World Heritage sites must be drawn from a pre-approved list -- of US sites shows, though, that I have not been the only one embarrassed at having a paltry three cultural sites for the third largest nation on the planet. These is the state as of 2017:

1. Brooklyn Bridge
2. Central Park
3. Civil rights movement sites in AL
4. Dayton Aviation sites
5. Early Chicago Skyscrapers
6. Ellis Island
7. Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks
8. Moravian Church Settlements in PA
9. Mount Vernon
10. Serpent Mound
11. Thomas Jefferson Buildings

This list, similar to the UK list, shows a trend away from nominating "yet another ruined castle" to bump up the number of world heritage sites. More importantly, typical world heritage cultural sites were places of oppression and cultural hegemony. The list of Mexico's WH sites is illustrative:

1. Traditional agave harvesting
2. Aqueducts of Hidalgo
3. Xochicalco
4. Paquime
5. El Camino Real (the road that connected Mexico City to Santa Fe)
6. El Tajin
7. UNAM Frescoes
8. Monasteries of Popocatepetl
9. Franciscan Missions of Queretaro
10. Monte Alban
11. Old city Pueblo, Zacatecas, Campeche, Queretaro, Guanajuato,
16. Tlacotalpan
17. The hospital of Guadelajara
18. Luis Barragan studios
19. Ruins of Palenque, Chichen-Itza, Teotihuacan, Uxmal
24. Caves of Oaxaca
25. San Miguel de Allende
26. Rock paintings of Baja California
27. Calakmul

The listing in italics is a traditional indigenous activity and is part of the living heritage category. The two bold listings are monuments dating after Mexican independence. The remainder are abandoned Mayan or destroyed Aztec monuments and old colonial zocalos.

In that sense, it is for the better that the US simply does not have so many cultural artifacts of this nature about it. But in one sense it does: the old plantations and slave trading ports of the south. The slave ports of the Caribbean and Brazil have already been so designated, so it stands that those in the US would have been designated before the change in understanding.

Still, I can't fault Mexico for designated so many of their old colonial town centers. Just like the case with Quebec City (the only walled city in North America north of Mexico, incidentally), Mexico did a better job of preserving them from ruin than the US would have done in the circumstances.

[Storebought]

Unless you can nominate Corn Dogs, Apple Pie, Ice Cream cones and foods made in America, I don't think we have anything that would be worth it.

I thought that the UNESCO World Heritage program is so popular and so successful (as far as UN initiatives go) precisely because it was a way for other nations to escape US cultural hegemony.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I live in the country with the most UNESCO Heritage Sites in the world - 55. Only two of them were built after 1861 (that is after the unification of Italy) and one of the two is primarily in Switzerland.

The United States have probably the most diverse natural landscape of any nation in the world. They should just stuff the tentative list with natural sites like the Joshua Tree National Park or the Great Salt Lake or even things like the Missouri Rhineland.

[Storebought]

I live in the country with the most UNESCO Heritage Sites in the world - 55. Only two of them were built after 1861 (that is after the unification of Italy) and one of the two is primarily in Switzerland.

The United States have probably the most diverse natural landscape of any nation in the world. They should just stuff the tentative list with natural sites like the Joshua Tree National Park or the Great Salt Lake or even things like the Missouri Rhineland.

I looked at the tentative list of Italy, and you're right -- not one of the proposals is from modern Italy, but there are including a few more natural sites.

The US is adding the natural monuments
1. Big Bend National Park
2. California coast line (this will make NIMBYs upset)
3. Marianas Trench
4. Reefs of American Samoa
5. Okefenokee Swamp
6. Remote Pacific Islands
7. Petrified Forest
8. White Sands

Three of them are in remote Oceania, and three more are in deserts. Okefenokee Swamp is interesting, but if the Everglades are an endangered site, then this one will be another.

Those other sites have too much mining potential or are already used as testing facilities and will not be considered. Just like how the US unlike Europe won't declare usable agricultural lands or prairies as site, either.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I live in the country with the most UNESCO Heritage Sites in the world - 55. Only two of them were built after 1861 (that is after the unification of Italy) and one of the two is primarily in Switzerland.

The United States have probably the most diverse natural landscape of any nation in the world. They should just stuff the tentative list with natural sites like the Joshua Tree National Park or the Great Salt Lake or even things like the Missouri Rhineland.

I looked at the tentative list of Italy, and you're right -- not one of the proposals is from modern Italy, but there are including a few more natural sites.

The US is adding the natural monuments
1. Big Bend National Park
2. California coast line (this will make NIMBYs upset)
3. Marianas Trench
4. Reefs of American Samoa
5. Okefenokee Swamp
6. Remote Pacific Islands
7. Petrified Forest
8. White Sands

Three of them are in remote Oceania, and three more are in deserts. Okefenokee Swamp is interesting, but if the Everglades are an endangered site, then this one will be another.

Those other sites have too much mining potential or are already used as testing facilities and will not be considered. Just like how the US unlike Europe won't declare usable agricultural lands or prairies as site, either.

That's unfortunate. I literally live beside a UNESCO Heritage Site which is (among other things) usable - and used - agricultural lands (albeit very hilly and difficult).

[Santander]

America's core value is the destruction and annihilation of culture, so this should be a source of pride.

[dead0man]

Does the low number of US UNESCO Cultural Heritage Sites embarrass you?

no, why would it?  America has plenty of interesting things to see, we don't need to have more than our share just because we're awesome.

[WD]

America's core value is the destruction and annihilation of culture, so this should be a source of pride.

What? Why?

[RINO Tom]

Not really ... our base culture is that of New World Europeans who left our home continent ... notice that that means it's plural, and there has never been one dominant ethnicity or specific set of cultural values that have defined us, past maybe the very early years of the English colonies.  That carries with it plenty of advantages, like how we have led the world in many areas of technological advancement, creation of entertainment and economic advancement/innovation over the last century or two, but it will naturally carry with it the consequence that we won't have some universally agreed upon shared "English" past or "German" past or "Italian" past.  This country was almost purposefully set up to be a "New Europe," and you aren't going to have these cool historical sites in such a place.  That is why a lot of our sites are from the indigenous Americans who already lived here.

[John Dule]

It's the Natives' fault for not building enough permanent structures. They should be embarrassed, but I'm not.

[Kingpoleon]

I would propose the following:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoma_Pueblo
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocmulgee_Mounds_National_Historical_Park
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Palace
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Taga
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toltec_Mounds
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Mounds
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_Creek_Mound

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_José_Church
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_the_Governors
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Christian
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Tavern_(Newport,_Rhode_Island)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Light

[It’s so Joever]

No, and way more sites should be considered. I could write literally hundreds of places that could count, but it doesn’t matter. That being said, the US should create an “American Cultural Heritage Zone” list.

[It’s so Joever]

I would propose the following:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoma_Pueblo
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocmulgee_Mounds_National_Historical_Park
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Palace
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Taga
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toltec_Mounds
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Mounds
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_Creek_Mound

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_José_Church
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_the_Governors
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Christian
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Tavern_(Newport,_Rhode_Island)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Light

I saw the Ocmulgee mounds on a road trip in Georgia! They definitely belong on the UNESCO list.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think I share the feelings most many Usonians on this: "Who cares about UNESCO?"

What I don't share is the question "What the frack is UNESCO?"

For many years, the U.S. wasn't even part of UNESCO, and except when used as a way for conservatives to complain about UN excesses, UNESCO hasn't been a priority for quite some time here. Frankly, if anything, I'm shocked as many U.S. sites are listed as there have been, thanks to the almost total disinterest here in things such as this promulgated by the UN.

[Storebought]

I think I share the feelings most many Usonians on this: "Who cares about UNESCO?"

What I don't share is the question "What the frack is UNESCO?"

For many years, the U.S. wasn't even part of UNESCO, and except when used as a way for conservatives to complain about UN excesses, UNESCO hasn't been a priority for quite some time here. Frankly, if anything, I'm shocked as many U.S. sites are listed as there have been, thanks to the almost total disinterest here in things such as this promulgated by the UN.

Yes, a basic purpose of the World Heritage program is to bring attention and interest to the educational and literacy functions of UNESCO itself. Nations wouldn't support UNESCO to the same extent if its sole purpose was expanding female literacy in Africa or its other "worthy" tasks.

There is no secret why US conservatives complain about the WH program itself: it intentionally limits the type and extent of development of a declared site, natural or cultural. The Everglades is already a threatened because of too much South Florida suburban runoff contaminating it. Dresden/Elbe Valley was delisted because a new autobahn was built through it.

You can argue that the most (in)famous places in the US like the NOLA French Quarter don't need any more attention, but if a heritage listing keeps a less well known site (like those Moravian churches in PA) from being demolished, then why not add it. Even if USians aren't impressed with a UNESCO designation, foreign visitors are.

[Storebought]

It's the Natives' fault for not building enough permanent structures. They should be embarrassed, but I'm not.

Possibly, but English/Dutch built permanent structures in the thirteen colonies, and we don't care for those, either. Old City Quebec would not have survived 1950s "urban renewal" in the US.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think I share the feelings most many Usonians on this: "Who cares about UNESCO?"

What I don't share is the question "What the frack is UNESCO?"

For many years, the U.S. wasn't even part of UNESCO, and except when used as a way for conservatives to complain about UN excesses, UNESCO hasn't been a priority for quite some time here. Frankly, if anything, I'm shocked as many U.S. sites are listed as there have been, thanks to the almost total disinterest here in things such as this promulgated by the UN.

Yes, a basic purpose of the World Heritage program is to bring attention and interest to the educational and literacy functions of UNESCO itself. Nations wouldn't support UNESCO to the same extent if its sole purpose was expanding female literacy in Africa or its other "worthy" tasks.

There is no secret why US conservatives complain about the WH program itself: it intentionally limits the type and extent of development of a declared site, natural or cultural. The Everglades is already a threatened because of too much South Florida suburban runoff contaminating it. Dresden/Elbe Valley was delisted because a new autobahn was built through it.

You can argue that the most (in)famous places in the US like the NOLA French Quarter don't need any more attention, but if a heritage listing keeps a less well known site (like those Moravian churches in PA) from being demolished, then why not add it. Even if USians aren't impressed with a UNESCO designation, foreign visitors are.

The WH program is not what attracts the ire of those few U.S. conservatives who even know about UNESCO. After all, as you pointed out, the WH is so toothless as to not impede development, so why should they care about it? Actually, it was those education functions you mentioned and how they often acted as if the 3 R's were reading, 'ritin', and revolution.

[Storebought]

The US was caught between Israel and the Arab states (ab)using UNESCO for purposes of cultural chauvinism: Israel nominating sites in Palestine that it didn't directly control, while the Arab states filibustering Israel for nominating sites located within Israel itself. (Imagine if Russia attempted to include the Orthodox churches of Sitka and Ft Ross in California as new entries of Russia's tentative list of sites). The US backed Israel and left -- again -- in 2018.

It is a shame that the US remove itself from an organization it created. UNESCO, besides the African literacy initiatives, was the organization that saved Abu Simbel from being flooded by the Aswan Dam. Among rational people this is not a controversial mission.

I hope one of the things a Biden administration does it to readmit the US into UNESCO -- for the third time -- because its mission is one of the only laudable ones that the UN has.

[American2020]

Look at the statistics about tourists coming to the US.

https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284419876

The US is the third destination worldwide (before covid-19), tough it has less cultural sites than some countries. Marvellous natural sites are the main reason.

[Former President tack50]

For the US the thing is that it is a young country that has not had enough time to get cultural heritage sites.

Being from the country with the 3rd largest number of UNESCO world heritage sites (42 cultural ones); I will say that only 3 were built before the US were even settled by Europeans, let alone from the US independence or the US Civil War:

The Vizcaya Bridge (1893)
Palau de la Musica Catalana (1908)
"The works of Antoni Gaudi" (late 19th and early 20th century)

Everything else dates back to the 16th century at most.

It should be self-explainatory that you will not find any Roman Aqueducts (like the Segovia Aqueduct) or medieval cathedrals (like the Burgos Cathedral) in the United States.

[Santander]

Look at the statistics about tourists coming to the US.

https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284419876

The US is the third destination worldwide (before covid-19), tough it has less cultural sites than some countries. Marvellous natural sites are the main reason.

The vast majority of international tourists are visiting places like Hawaii, New York, Miami, or Las Vegas. So unless you count beaches as nature, the main draw is usually neither culture nor nature. (I guess Hawaii is debatable)

[lfromnj]

If UNESCO doesn't want to keep stuff like the Empire State building as part of our cultural heritage then thats up to them.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

who care

A place being a UNESCO heritage site is nothing more than a rubber stamp in the grand scheme of things. Just because UNESCO thinks a place is "culturally, historically, or scientifically significant" doesn't make it any less arbitrary than any other jackass' opinion. Sure, I can see how such a project can be beneficial in creating world peace and preserving cultural integrity and yadda yadda yadda, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the United States has 4, 24, or 204. Don't let international bureaucracy tell you what world landmarks should and shouldn't be appreciated.