i can watch movies and listen to music recorded then. there’s objects and buildings that old all over. you can read what people back then wrote almost effortlessly. there’s millions of photographs!
That still doesent change the interternational definitions of a cultural property. I dont get why you are so stubborn about it. It is called cultural property, not ancient.
i don’t know why you chose to interpret ‘a century doesn’t feel that old to me’ comment as some kind of attack on the concept of protecting cultural objects, but here we are. i was never arguing with you
i can watch movies and listen to music recorded then. there’s objects and buildings that old all over. you can read what people back then wrote almost effortlessly. there’s millions of photographs!
That still doesent change the interternational definitions of a cultural property. I dont get why you are so stubborn about it. It is called cultural property, not ancient.
i don’t know why you chose to interpret ‘a century doesn’t feel that old to me’ comment as some kind of attack on the concept of protecting cultural objects, but here we are. i was never arguing with you
Your original comment seemed mildly insensitive to me