Arranging re-enactments and commemorations doesn’t mean that they have the stance that opposes the reality that heritage changes
Maybe not but it does prove that people who believe in heritage will go out of their way to keep it alive and unchanged as much as possible.
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?
Progressives, who usually try to eliminate heritage by moving society to a new set of standards via legislation
which means there are groups without strong connections. So try entering that group. Is heritage immutable there?
It is but for a smaller proportion of the group. We see this among “white people” where a huge chunk of this crowd is moving towards culture while leaving it’s heritage behind. This has caused a huge stir in its most conservative representatives who are now fighting against this trend with all their forces (the so called war on the “woke agenda”). If heritage is naturally inclined to evolve can you explain all the efforts put up by conservative voices to avoid this natural process?
One counter example of heritage changing means that you are wrong. And I’ve repeatedly shown that your examples are not universal
Yet you fail to provide me with this example which would destroy my view while also taking a W because you showed me that the specific examples I used are not universal
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.
That’s not how heritage works: if these two people are casted out of their group they have ended their relationship with their heritages. They will have created a new heritage, related to just their family, the old ones will remain the unchanged in their original groups. So there’s no evolution in the original heritage as you can see
Yes, yes I am criticizing the substance of your definition.
No you are not
I am repeatedly telling you that your definition is wrong because you are repeatedly insisting that it is right.
That’s what you are doing by simply discarding my examples of application in real life of my definition. That’s not a substantial criticism but a straw man attack
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.
It’s called a paradox and it’s my way to show you that your reasoning has no logic ground
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.
If I disregard aspects of my heritage it doesn’t mean that my heritage has changed, it means that I, personally and alone, have moved away from my heritage to a more logical place. My heritage will remain unchanged and brought forward by those who accept it’s tenants
And like I was pointing out that’s the exact same thing that the people running those boarding schools were saying.
Nope, they were forcing themselves on defenceless children while taking advantage of their positions of power. May I add that these revolting facts were carried out by participants to another heritage, the catholic one in this specific case?
I might eventually give you my definition after being as round about as you were. Guess we’ll see.
Oh thank you for you kind consideration my master
Heritage can change. You’ve proven it yourself. Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo.
Repeating the same phrase over and over again won’t turn it’s contents into reality, despite all that Goebbels said about that