As someone who is constantly reassessing the notion of 'place' and what it means in the 21st Century Digital Age, I am intrigued by different interpretations of the word. For a few years now, the Oxford University Press, who publishes the annual Atlas of the World, has given their own take on the idea of 'place' with the 'Place of the Year' designation.
According to Michelle Rafferty, who is in charge of publicity for the 'Place of the Year' campaign, the selection criteria is not limited to any specific geographic entity-meaning it could be a country, city, or even a street (Michelle tells me that Wall Street made the shortlist last year). This year, the Place of the Year title goes to the country of South Africa.
I have never been to South Africa, nor is it a place that I am familiar with other than the common knowledge about it's modern history as a turbulent colonial state. It makes sense that South Africa wins the title this year as it anticipates the country's ascension to the international stage next year as host of the 2010 World Cup.
Choosing South Africa as 'Place of the Year' also speaks for the entire continent of Africa as it begs the question of if it is indeed a place we should be paying more attention to. There are arguments on both sides about whether hosting the World Cup is a good boost for the economy or a waste of resources that could be invested in more beneficial ventures for South Africa's people. Yet, one thing is clear, the publicity South Africa gets from this worldwide event will not hurt.
0 comments:
Post a Comment