i dont agree especially the christ redeemer and the colleseum. the pyramid of giza is standing wonder and angkor wat and stonehenge deserves better
2007-07-09 00:45:34 · 13 answers · asked by miv farizzet 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
even unesco didnt agree with the new installment of the 7 wonders. it shouldnt voted by popularity.
2007-07-09 01:09:27 · update #1
I can't decide. I guess it's a hard list to try and compile, there are so many amazing structures out there that have been around for ages. I agree that perhaps Christ the Redeemer probably wasn't as a deserving addition as some that were left off the list. I was surprised that the sphinx and the pyramids of Giza were left off, and now you mention it, definitely Angkor Wat and Stonehenge should have been included. I was pleased however to see the rose city of Petra, and Machu Pichu included. I guess it's just hard with so many world heritage places around the globe from so many different cultures and countries to include all that are deserving, and get a good mix. I've rambled on there a bit. . . It's still a contentious list to try and put together. It's never going to get the thumbs up from everyone.
2007-07-09 00:55:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm going to offer a very politically incorrect answer: Since popular vote selected "the New and Improved" Seven Wonders in an Internet contest that wasn't publicized equally across the globe, they don't necessarily represent a truly representative sampling of sites everyone should see before they die. Nevertheless, they will help draw tourists to some countries where comparatively few travelers have gone before, and the local economies can truly benefit from the travel industry: the Christ the Redeemer Statue outside of Rio de Janeiro (admittedly already a popular destination for its beaches), Manchu Picchu, Peru, Chichen Itza, Mexico, and Petra, Jordan (as promoted on CNN).
I doubt that anyone will argue with the inclusion of the Great Wall of China (which can be seen from space), India's Taj Mahal, or the Roman Colosseum. What's more, not being placed on the Seven Wonders list will stop few tourists from seeing the already much publicized Acropolis (Greece), Eiffel Tower (France), Stonehenge (England), Statue of Liberty (USA), the Alhambra (if Spain is a destination), or the Pyramids of Egypt. What's more, few tourists travel to England, France, or the United States just to see the aforementioned monuments, although they quite possibly do travel to Greece and Egypt to see archeaological sites. On the other hand, Angkor Wat, in Cambodia, and Easter Island, off the coast of Chile, will forever be off the beaten path for most tourists.
2007-07-09 02:52:45 · answer #2 · answered by Ellie Evans-Thyme 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All of them I think are suitable except Christ the Redeemer. It's too modern, and definitely not an architectural or engineering marvel.
I feel Angkor or Stonehenge should have been in that place instead, but what are you gonna do. That's the sad aspect of democratic voting. Sometimes the bad choices are made rather than the good.
2007-07-09 02:45:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
not really...there's definitely something strange about 3 of the 7 all being located in South America...that can't be honest. Chichen Itza definitely deserved it, but Machu Pichu isn't even standing and Christ Redeemer? I was glad to see Petra make it, it had my vote, but I was certainly surprised by it's popularity. it would have been nice to see some diversity in there, though atleast one from Africa (either the Pyramids or Timbuktu), and certainly Angor Wat from Aisa. I also would have probably picked Hagia Sophia over the Taj Mahal. It was built a millenium before, and any religious building that can be both used and resepcted by Muslims and Christians without being destroyed is certainly a wonder.
2007-07-09 01:19:03 · answer #4 · answered by just an inkling 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First of all i too am against the entire idea of replacing the 7 wonders, if that is the point. But i believe it isn't, the list is the 7 NEW wonders it seems
and as can be seen by many replies, people want to show "diversity" etc. in the wonders proving why this should not be done by vote. That's all we need, "affirmative action" for wonders..
It's either a wonder or it isn't it does not matter where it is or the religious or political aspects of it.
2007-07-09 01:52:01 · answer #5 · answered by rbenne 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No... They arent worth it, save only the TAj.
I think only Taj Mahal and the Great Wall are perfectly placed.
Pyramids needed to be ther definetly and Timbuktu was far better than Christ Redeemer. Sophia was good too but what about Machu Pitsu? NO NO...
TW K
2007-07-09 01:41:46 · answer #6 · answered by TW K 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
form of, some I enjoyed that have been chosen, yet i spotted that none of them have been from america or incredibly different locations around the globe. Plus, i became stunned some thing like the Eiffel Tower wasn't chosen or our Statue of Liberty, interior the object I study it reported maximum have been from Latin u . s . a .. I agreed with the Taj Mahal and the large Wall of China, yet that became incredibly a lot it for me.
2016-09-29 08:54:11 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the seven wonders should change - they should be permanent. I think this ruins the authenticity. They should remain the same. For example, how can one monument (or whatever) be a wonder one year, but not the next.
2007-07-09 01:00:01 · answer #8 · answered by Melissa R 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Effiel Is Better then Christ the redeemer!
2007-07-09 21:30:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are right. The pyramid is a long standing monument.
2007-07-09 00:48:34 · answer #10 · answered by Eternity 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋