There are some places around the world that carry significant meaning, not just for the local community, but for all humankind. These places are the stuff of bucket lists, the wonders of the world, marked for preservation and protection because they stand for our common humanity. Elizabeth Silkes, the Executive Director of the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience, argues for the importance of protecting cultural and historical sites in this January 10, 2020 TIME essay.
- In the first two paragraphs of her essay, Silkes quickly summarizes the debate she is entering, about whether cultural sites in Iran should be “legitimate military targets.” Whose voices and perspectives are included in this “they say, I say” opening conversation? Briefly explain the arguments she highlights here. Then, look at the quotations Silkes uses to represent these arguments. What do you notice about choices Silkes made in selecting quotes, framing quotes, and blending quotes with her own words? You can review Chapter 3 to see templates writers use to integrate quotations.
- Silkes identifies three bigger “so what” and “who cares” questions at the heart of the conversation she’s entering. Think about these questions, which she lists at the end of her third paragraph. Why do you think “threatening cultural and historic sites with attack strike[s] such a chord”? According to Silkes, what’s at stake if Iranian cultural sites are attacked in an act of war? Who will be affected if cultural sites are destroyed?
- Silkes names several cultural and historical sites throughout her essay, including places UNESCO has designated as World Heritage sites. Which sites, according to Silkes, are the most vulnerable? Check out the list of UNESCO World Heritage sites and the selection criteria for becoming a World Heritage site. What’s one site on this list that you recognize or have visited, and how does it meet the criteria listed? In her essay, Silkes also describes a growing movement to develop “Sites of Conscience.” What is a Site of Conscience? How is it similar to and different from a UNESCO World Heritage Site?
- Some argue there’s a larger problem underlying the media’s coverage of the most recent U.S.-Iran conflict, which is a lack of Iranian voices represented in the news. Joseph Darius Jaafari makes this point in his YES! Magazine essay, in which he claims, “There has been a noticeable void in the conversation: the voice of Iranians who could give historical and cultural perspectives of the conflict.” Read his take, and think about your response to his argument. Why is it important to have these voices informing current debates? What do you think the challenges are to getting Iranians and Iranian-Americans to participate in conversations (and be listened to)? What other voices are not well represented in U.S. media, in your opinion? Why do you think that is?
They Say I Blog 
Q2: If you threaten to attack cultural and historical sites, it shows that you don’t really care about the value of these things to people. Iranian people and the world as a whole benefit from the history of these sites. There’s a wealth of important information that can be gleaned from these places, so threatening to destroy them can be jarring. Silkes also says that destroying these sites can eradicate the history of a group of people. I think the people who will be affected by this isn’t just the people who the cites threatened have the most meaning to, but everyone as a whole. If these sites are destroyed than nobody who isn’t familiar with these places would never understand what happened there, and that’s detrimental to everyone.
LikeLike
Q1. In the very first sentence, Silkes provides President Donald Trump’s perspective, that is, essentially, comparing historic, cultural buildings/monuments with roads bombed in America. He does not hold much respect for Iran’s cultural monuments. She then gives an opposing view, providing this view via embedding the quote directly into her sentence (whereas with Trump’s quote, she does blend his words into hers). The only other sentence that is not embedded, is a quote in direct response to Trump’s quote, and it is an opposing view to his.
Q2. I think these threats “strike such a chord” because they’re threats against valuable irreplaceable monuments of history and culture for Iranians, that of which cannot be replaced or remodeled. These monuments are vital to keeping their culture alive. It is a part of who they are. If these monuments are destroyed, it will remove the history of the culture and could wipe out the culture itself, as there is nothing left to remember it by, once its generation of people have passed. The people who will be effected by the destruction of these cultural sites are the next generation, who will no longer have that history in their lives, as well as the world as a whole. It’s a culture that will be removed, or forgotten, and that effects everyone.
Q3. According to Silkes, one of the most valuable sites is the Masjed-e Jame. From the list of World Heritage sites one I recognized was the Notre Dame Cathedral in Belgium. It fits the criteria for selection in many ways: it is a beautiful, masoterfully created building of brilliance (i), has been a place of religious culture for a society long since past (iii) & (v), and represents greatly the history of Belgium (viii). The Sites of Conscience seem to be more dark and historic for negative reasons, mandatory to keep safe for their importance in history, but not positively. The World Heritage sites are more about culture, art, and beauty.
Q4. Minorities are often ignored or silenced in America. Muslims and Iranians, for example, are often treated differently, aren’t trusted, or their voices aren’t recognized. They are unfairly silenced by the majority. Other religions, ethnicities, and races are often silenced or treated differently too, and sometimes things that hold cultural significance for them are disrespected, insulted, and sometimes destroyed. These minorities may not have as large a voice in US media because they are feared or they are not respected, and despite America claiming to be a diverse and accepting country, they do not always accept other ethnicities/cultures/races simply because they are not like them.
LikeLike
The amount of importance history has in this world should always be protected Silkes stated “If our children and our children’s children cannot access the most fundamental aspects of our own histories and those of others, they will never be able to identify the common threads that bind us all. And it is only through this binding that we can tap into and act on our shared humanity.” We all share the history and we all should want to learn and value its purpose of why it is here in the first place not because it seems like a threat. In the first paragraph, Trump said “They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way.” The fact that Trump is hell-bent on causing such uproars about other countries proves he is careless and incapable of seeing how many unnecessary problems he can cause. I agree with Lindsey Graham that were not at war with Iran so why destroy such a place ” A “historical” one at that. The world is filled with so much history and Slikes right it will be what binds us all it very imperative to see the beauty and all its forms whether it’s in our country or others.
LikeLike