RG 21 Steel

1) How does Steel define heritage? What, in his argument, distinguishes a bad
heritage from another kind of heritage? In other words, what is so bad about the
particular heritages attached to the French towns name, the Confederate flag, and
the Kensington Runestone?
Steel defines heritage as a set of beliefs or ideas that stem from ones family roots or
ancestry. In his argument some qualities that normally distinguish a bad heritage
include the lack of authenticity, antiqueness, or historical distance. The reason the
French towns name, the Confederate flag, and the Kensington Runestone are all
considered so bad is because they are labeling these instances as acts of heritage to
justify their ridiculous actions.
2) At the top of the second page, Steel writes, heritage identification therefore requires
purification. (Steel, 2) What do you think he means by this?
I think this statement by Steel ties in with the authentication necessary when
defining heritage and the amount of credibility ones heritage has due to the amount
of genuine support it has.
3) Paraphrase Steels four proposals on problematic aspects of heritage sites. Why are
each of these four things troublesomewhat is the consequence of each one? (Hint:
it might help to think of historys losers [itself a somewhat fraught term] to come
up with the consequence.)
Steels four proposals including associating your heritage with a specific date and
location, rightfully justifying your heritage with antiqueness, having a heritage with
an inseparable connection to its historical impact and chronological distance, and
identifying your heritage as a non-reproducible set of beliefs. The consequences of

not associating your heritage with a specific date in the past includes the harm to its
credibility. The consequences of not rightfully justifying your heritage with
antiqueness includes to inability to gain respect for your heritage due to the abuse of
its influence. The consequences of not associating your heritage with a connection to
its historical value could include losing credibility as well as making your heritage
seem as more of a current set of beliefs rather than something that derived from the
past. Finally, the consequences of not identifying your heritage as non-reproducible
includes taking away from the individuality of the heritage and making it easy for
others to replicate and falsely claim your heritage.
4) Think more about the Kensington Runestone or about the Lanse aux Meadows
sites. What sort of historical narrative do they promote? How can a rock in the
middle of a Minnesota cornfield be the cornerstone of a certain identity?
They promote historical narratives of outstanding universal value and strong
tradition. A rock in the middle of Minnesota cornfield can act as the cornerstone of a
certain identity due to the heritage associated with it and its historical value within
the beliefs of that heritage.
5) Think about Vikings, a show that promotes itself as somehow showing Vikings as
they really were. Do you notice any oversimplifications in the shows
representation? Any modern cultural biases or other anachronism? What rhetorical
purpose could these serve?
One main oversimplification I have noticed in the shows representation is how
repetitive their lives are as the show mainly focuses on alternating cycle between
raiding and farming. A few instances of modern cultural biases include its use of
mainly white males as characters, as well as its inaccurate representation of norse
language along with other faulty portrayals of Viking history. This could serve as a

rhetorical purpose to add a more entertaining or exciting perspective to the show as a

whole, to attract audiences.

My Story
LinkedIn
About.me