Several years ago, a Swiss man started a campaign to name the new Seven Wonders of the World along the lines of the ancient seven wonders, of which only one remains.
On Saturday, the new Seven Wonders of the World were named. Although the Eiffel Tower in Paris and the Neuschwanstein Castle in Germany were in the running, neither were named to the list. It’s being reported that about 100 million people voted for the new Seven Wonders, which are:
1. Great Wall of China
2. Chichen Itza pyramid in Mexico
3. Colosseum in Rome
4. Machu Picchu in Peru
5. Jordan’s ancient city of Petra
6. Tah Mahal in India
7. Statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Controversy is surrounding the naming of the new Seven Wonders. First, Egyptians were upset because they felt that the Great Pyramids of Giza, which is the only one of the original seven ancient wonders still surviving, should not have to compete. The founder of the project, Bernard Weber, agreed and left the pyramids alone.
Then, people took issue with the method of the project. The seven ancient wonders were chosen by a few; the new Seven Wonders have been chosen by the masses, albeit the masses with Internet access or texting capabilities.
UNESCO, the United Nations body for culture, also publicly criticized the project.
“This campaign responds to other criteria and objectives than that of UNESCO in the field of heritage,” said Sue Williams, the spokeswoman for UNESCO. “We have a much broader vision.”
On July 9, the UNESCO World Heritage site explains how it is not in any way associated with the Seven Wonders initiative by Weber, despite his repeated attempts to involve UNESCO.
“Acknowledging the sentimental or emblematic value of sites and inscribing them on a new list is not enough,” UNESCO’s Web site says. “Scientific criteria must be defined, the quality of candidates evaluated, and legislative and management frameworks set up.”
UNESCO goes on to say: “There is no comparison between Mr Weber's mediatised campaign and the scientific and educational work resulting from the inscription of sites on UNESCO's World Heritage List. The list of the "7 New Wonders of the World" will be the result of a private undertaking, reflecting only the opinions of those with access to the internet and not the entire world. This initiative cannot, in any significant and sustainable manner, contribute to the preservation of sites elected by this public.”
Obviously, UNESCO, with its 851 World Heritage sites, including the recently inducted Port of the Moon in Bordeaux and the Lavaux Vineyards in Switzerland, has a slightly different goal. Also, a former UNESCO Director General, Federico Mayor, was president of the initiative's expert panel.
But isn’t preservation of these interesting, significant, culturally important sites the goal of each? Just seems that some people are getting a little upset over politics and who’s getting the credit and publicity rather than realizing this could be beneficial to the sites.
