africa.chinadaily.com.cn
China Expands National Cultural Ecology Protection Zones to Preserve Intangible Heritage
China recently established seven new national cultural ecology protection zones, bringing the total to 24, to systematically preserve diverse cultural heritages including ethnic and intangible cultural heritages such as the Baofeng rap culture, showcasing a unique approach to ICH conservation integrating culture with its environment.
- What is the immediate impact of establishing seven new national-level cultural ecology protection zones in China?
- China has established seven new national-level cultural ecology protection zones, bringing the total to 24, aiming to preserve diverse cultural heritages, including ethnic and intangible cultural heritage (ICH) projects like the Baofeng rap culture in Henan. This systematic approach, mandated since 2019, integrates cultural preservation with its ecological context.
- How does China's approach to ICH protection differ from previous methods, and what factors contribute to its current success?
- This expansion builds upon China's 24-year journey of ICH protection, evolving from prioritizing endangered projects to systematic preservation within designated zones. The initiative fosters a national atmosphere for preservation and leverages government funding, exceeding billions of yuan, alongside over 210 provincial-level zones.
- What are the long-term implications of China's systematic approach to ICH preservation, and how might this model influence global conservation efforts?
- The success of this model, evident in the revitalization of the Gesar epic and Baofeng rap, demonstrates the effectiveness of integrating ICH preservation with its cultural and ecological environment. Future implications include further expansion of the program and potentially informing global ICH preservation strategies.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing consistently highlights the positive aspects of the national cultural ecology protection zones. The headline (not provided, but inferred from the text) would likely emphasize the success of the program. The introduction focuses on the positive announcement of new zones and the overall positive impact on cultural preservation. The sequencing of information prioritizes success stories and expert opinions that support the program's effectiveness. This creates a narrative that strongly favors the program's benefits.
Language Bias
The language used is largely positive and celebratory, emphasizing the success and positive impact of the cultural ecology protection zones. Words and phrases like "successfully fostered," "strong atmosphere," "thrived to this day," and "unique exploration" convey a sense of achievement and effectiveness. While this language is not inherently biased, it lacks the neutrality needed for objective reporting. More neutral alternatives could be: 'resulted in,' 'demonstrates,' 'has shown progress,' etc.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the success of the national cultural ecology protection zones and the positive impact on preserving intangible cultural heritage. While it mentions challenges faced by some traditions in the past (like the Gesar epic), it doesn't delve into potential criticisms or limitations of the program itself. There is no mention of funding allocation issues, potential conflicts of interest, or any negative consequences that may have arisen from the program's implementation. This omission might leave the reader with an overly optimistic view of the initiative's overall effectiveness.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a largely positive picture of the impact of the national cultural ecology protection zones, without acknowledging potential alternative perspectives or nuanced challenges. It doesn't explore potential drawbacks or trade-offs associated with this approach to cultural preservation.