When King talked about the common myth that most Americans have about their heritage sites being protected, when that is in fact not the case, I have to say I was one of those Americans. I guess I just assumed that if a place was valuable(though on what scale?) it would just seem obvious it would remain protected. And I admit, I never thought about it much further than that. I guess I thought that unnamed “they” would take care of it. So the book scared me. It reminded me of a quote I heard someone say recently, and upon which there are thousands of variations, that a problem is only as important as the people who see it make it. A building, site, etc. is only as important as the community it resides in deems it. I think what is interesting is: as Americans do we pick too many or too few sites for our heritage? I heard once that to Europeans 100 miles is long, to Americans 100 years is long. I think it is interesting to see not only how the sites are protected, or not, but also how they are chosen- which might be a bit off topic.