Hi winterkjm - I hadn't commented on this observation you made above.

We may be a lot smaller geographically than the US but I suspect that the general awareness among the population of the country's WHS is not significantly different from that of the average US person -though it may be true that such awareness as there is doesn't contain the same degree of "anti-UNESCO" feeling as in the US.

Ask the average UK citizen about Neollithic Orkney (even if you talk about the individual sites) or Pontcycyllte Aqueduct (let alone Henderson Island and Gough/Inaccessible!!) and you would get the same reaction as you suggest you would re Cahokia in the US.

Even a site like Saltaire has very little visibility except "north of Watford" (the classic UK way of describing the "wilds" of the country north of London beyond which much of the population never ventures and knows/cares very little about!!)

Your Statue of Liberty and Yellowstone are our Stonehenge, Tower of London and Canterbury. Everyone (or nearly!!!) knows about them even if they have never been there but the fact that they are WHS is less common knowledge, albeit reasonably widespread among those whose interests stretch beyond last night's "Strictly Come Dancing" and which C grade personality is "bonking" which other C grade personality!.

I would clarify on this. Very few Americans know of UNESCO at all. The general feeling for some Americans is a more negative view of the UN overall, and in some cases a more pronounced anti-UN stance.

Indeed, I forgot about some of the UK's more remote sites on Orkney and other isles. Perhaps, the similarities you mention between the US and the UK "awareness" help explain their similar approach in their respective tentative lists?

*13-14 tentative nominations
*10-11 nominations (cultural)
*2-3 sites each that are located in oversea territories
*1-2 modern nominations (Post-WWI)
*1-2 science and innovation nominations
*2-3 Pre-historic nominatons

Just a quick question, I get Fagatele Bay (Samoa) but what is the other one? Just trying to work out if my map is up to date.

In terms of awareness of WHS in the UK I would say it was generally pretty low.
In my office people are aware of the concept of WHS but naming the 4 in London is seen as specialist knowledge. To put that in context I work for a Heritage organisation based in London, so if my colleagues don't know then understanding in the general population is likely to be much lower.

I guess there are a fair few sites that are widely known but people would be unaware of their WH status (Kew Gardens being one example).

I included the now inscribed Papahânaumokuâkea Marine National Monument because it was part of the US 2008 tentative list. True, it is not really a "territory" site, but it is certainly way off the main islands of Hawaii.

Fair enough I can understand that.

The seemingly endless misunderstandings of UNESCO designation in the United States. Watch the video to hear the most absurd concerns. Note how everything is about the ALAMO, little is said about the other missions.

http://www.kens5.com/news/Alamo-takeover-Bexar-Co-seeks-World-Heritage-designation-fr om-UN-229939711.html

I note that the video clarifies the "$100 million" from tourism discussed above as being
a. Per Annum
b. From "International visitors"
But it doesn't clarify how much might be from International visitors who have come to the US just because the Alamo etc were inscribed, stayed longer to see it than they would have if it had not been inscribed and thereby spent more or were coming anyway and oriented their trip to take in San Antonio rather than somewhere else in the US. In any case it seems a surprisingly large figure - but maybe all those free-spending nouveau riche middle class Chinese tourists now fanning our across the world really will go to see the Alamo and spend all that "new" money!

On another matter - Whilst understanding the significance of the Alamo to Texans - and, by transference, to US citizens generally, one wonders about the OUV of it and its fellow missions.
a. The Alamo's iconic status is more due to its "role" in the Texas Revolution (1836) than from its "Mission" role which had been abandoned around 1793. It occurs to me that yet again (after Independence Hall, Statue of Liberty and Mt Vernon) the US could be seen to be presenting a site with National rather than international/universal significance. It got away with it in the case of thE first 2 but times were different then and a good case could be made out for their OUV in international as well as nationalistic terms. It will be interesting to see how much mention is made of the Battle compared with the earlier mission aspects in the nomination.This could be yet another WHS which is inscribed for one reason but is really more famous for another!
b. There are already a fair number of Latin American missions on the list including 2 sets from Mexico (which is what the Texas missions are historically). Do they add much to these? But I think of all those wooden churches from Central Europe!

That is brilliant, the bottom half of the internet is so much more enjoyable on US websites. I was exceedingly happy to see Alex Jones' Info Wars in that video.

It seems the Alamo is just the latest target of Agenda 21 from the child sacrificing New World Order Elite a their shape-shifting Alien ways, the comments section is rather enlightening, I was going to quote some of it here, but it isn't really the place.

I must admit I agree with Solivagant in terms of the US pursuing national symbols as WHS. There is so much more that could be put forward but it seems to be pushed aside for the current sites with a bigger national cache.
Having said that I don't know if this collective group of Mexican missions is as significant as those already inscribed or not. A few weeks ago I visited San Juan Capistrano Mission near LA. I must admit I rather enjoyed it and thought that if combined with the 20 other missions on the Californian Camino Real it could make a viable WHS, not one that would really add much to the list or set the world alight, but certainly of equal quality to many already inscribed sites. So maybe the San Antonio missions are just fulfilling the same area but have tacked on a national symbol as well.

San Juan Capistrano and 2-3 other California missions are certainly of equal quality to some of the missions already inscribed. However, I do not think all 21 California missions could be inscribed, nearly all of them were so heavily damaged by earthquakes, that many are much more recent constructions. The oldest California missions were originally built in the late 18th century. Several of the missions have been rebuilt in the early 20th century.

The missions around San Antonio are some of the oldest and best preserved of any of the Spanish missions in the United States. The Alamo is actually one of the least impressive of the group in San Antonio, but it does have a national cache that was probably too hard to ignore. Remember that the US does rely partially on public comment alongside expert suggestions on world heritage.

There really are a series of (5) separate regions of Spanish missions in the US.

- 21 Missions in California (Late 18th century)
- 5-6 Missions in the Sonoran Desert near Tucson, Arizona (Including the beautiful San Xavier de Bac Mission, previously a US tentative nomination) (17th century)
- 17 Missions in New Mexico (Many located near Native American Pueblo's) (17th century)
- 18 Missions in Texas (Best preserved sites are in and around San Antonio) (17th century)

* There are numerous missions constructed in the Southeast United States (particularly in Florida) Most of these missions no longer exist or are completely rebuilt.

So if the US is going to nominate any missions the string of missions around San Antonio is probably the best choice. Otherwise a potential extension could be considered with some of the best examples in California, Arizona, or New Mexico.

The Franciscan Missions in the Sierra Gorda of Querétaro have a direct connection with the Spanish Missions in California because of Father Junipero Serra who helped establish both groups.

US and Israel lose voting rights at UNESCO, effective today November 8th, 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/08/us-unesco-voting-funds-palestine-decisio n

Is the US World Heritage program in shambles?

- Loss of voting rights
- Tea Party trying to derail San Antonio Missions nomination
- Frank Lloyd Wright Building nomination delays
- 2 US nominations in potential jeopardy with no payment of membership dues

And it never ends....

http://www.inquisitr.com/1031947/un-world-heritage-site/

The Tea Party will from now on actively oppose world heritage inscription. There is a reason there is no world heritage sites in Texas.

Frustrated.

:)
Well it is scant conciliation but at least you can start to build a reason for not having as many WHS within a drive of you.

It pre-dates the Tea Party as well as was the case with the (Carizo Plane).

Whilst I can understand apprehension about buffer zone issues from an external perspective. The very worst thing that can happen is that the restrictions aren't enforced and eventually UNESCO will kick the site off the list that people apparently don't want to be part of anyway. Seems odd to me, but it does provide some highly enjoyable 'wingnuttery'.

Hey ho.

This "wingnuttery" is so prevalent in American society when it comes to the United Nations. It is completely beyond any logic or sense, but these groups/organizations like the Tea Party or the Heritage Foundation, have an engrained mistrust of the UN. It has come to the point that it makes no difference what anyone one else says.

UNESCO is part of the UN, period. In their view, there is no reason to get involved, and they don't give a damn what anyone says to persuade them. This is also not limited to UNESCO, these same organizations also advocate to prevent the creations of National Monuments and National Parks. They view most federal designations as "land grabs" that hurt businesses, restrict land-use, and transfer land into the hands of the federal government.

I just hope this nonsense can one day end.

This seems a reasonably objective/factual statement of the history of issues between USA and UNESCO up to and including this November's General Conference
http://culturalheritagelawyer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/no-money-no-vote-closer-look-at. html

I wasn't aware of the Che Guevara writings issue - this sort of thing is of course all grist to the anti-UNESCO mill in US!

San Antonio Missions (350 page) dossier has been officially submitted to UNESCO for evaluation in 2015. The United States is essentially processing (1) nomination per year for the next several WHC (all cultural). No natural site has been given approval for drafting a nomination. Poverty Point 14' - San Antonio Missions 15' - Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings 16'- Hopewell Earthworks/Serpent Mound 17'

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/San-Antonio-s-missions-inch-closer-to- World-5153155.php