Arranging re-enactments and commemorations doesn’t mean that they have the stance that opposes the reality that heritage changes. Conservative political parties and religious groups would actually likely agree that heritage can change which is why they need to put such effort into preserving heritage. Because if heritage can’t change then there is nothing to preserve. It will always be there. If heritage can’t change then who is their opposition? Not that their opposition’s opinions count in your book.
“That’s absolutely not the case. Try entering a social group with a strong connection to its heritage (such as for example a southern Italian family) and you’ll see that you are faced with two options: assimilate or be cast out from the group”
You mean that’s absolutely not always the case. You had to add the condition of entering a social group with a strong connection to its heritage in order to narrow the discussion to the scenario that fits your broken definition. You’ve made a point against yourself here because all we have to do is consider the alternative that has to exist based on your wording. You specified a social group with a strong connection to its heritage which means there are groups without strong connections. So try entering that group. Is heritage immutable there? If not then low and behold heritage can change. Also even your example doesn’t make sense because regardless of the reaction of the extended family the married couple’s family unit’s heritage has changed and if they have children those children will have a blend of the two heritages. Unless you are going to make the looney claim that no one ever marries into a social group with a strong connection to its heritage unless they also share that same heritage. I wouldn’t put that past you.
Yes, yes I am criticizing the substance of your definition. I am repeatedly telling you that your definition is wrong because you are repeatedly insisting that it is right. You don’t seem to get that your claim that heritage can’t change means it has to never change in every single case. One counter example of heritage changing means that you are wrong. And I’ve repeatedly shown that your examples are not universal. I’ve pointed out that you keep using conditionals to limit the scope of considering heritage and that as soon as we drop those conditionals or even consider the implications of needing to include them in the first place we see that heritage isn’t even close to being universally unchangeable.
" a compelling example of an heritage which was changed from within and survived unscathed" See this is an example of what I’m talking about. Provide an example of something changing but oh yeah let me add the condition that in the example the thing is unscathed. That the heritage can be scathed means it can change. That you keep trying to narrow the scope makes me really suspicious about your honesty. This is more insisting that weather is only when its raining.
“That’s exactly why I am for the destitution of heritages in favour of cultures” not sure what you mean by that. Not a phrase or idiom that I’m familiar with. I suspect you mean that you are in favor of replacing heritages in favor of cultures. That’s not a thing that can be done. Just by existing you have a heritage. If you disregard all elements of that heritage, well that would mean that heritage can change which is a contradiction yet again, and replace it with “culture” then that becomes heritage.
“Oh no, I ear you say, you want to strip poor children of their heritage. Yes, I do. Their heritage is the cause of a unmeasurable amount of problems both locally and internationally, erasing it would only improve the lives of everyone involve.” And like I was pointing out that’s the exact same thing that the people running those boarding schools were saying.
I might eventually give you my definition after being as round about as you were. Guess we’ll see.
Heritage can change. You’ve proven it yourself. Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo.