Hello everyone,
I hope this email finds you mentally and physically healthy.
I came across an interesting article entitled ``Third World Tourism has a Harsh Political and Economic Undercurrent`` (check it out at http://www.guardian.co.uk) on the Guardian UK`s website. The author of the article claims that many people in the ``global south`` compare taking holiday in developing countries to acts of ``colonialism and cultural imperialism.`` I understand how the author can make a comparison like this as tourists often flaunt money on pricey food, accommodation, and silly, purely-picture-opportunity activities (15 minute elephant ride anyone?) when they visit ``exotic`` places, but I think it`s unfair to paint this type of international travel with such a grimy brush. Yes, I agree that when we pour money into tourist hot spots we also create tourism-based economies that run the risk of being affected by sudden changes in tourist behavior. When we visit Bali by the hundreds of thousands every year and then suddenly stop visiting with such frequency because of suicide bombings, we leave thousands of Balinese without sources of income. I wonder, however, if blaming tourism for this financial shortcoming is the right action to take after a turn in tourist trends. Why isn`t our knee-jerk response to changes in tourist behavior as a result of suicide bombings in tourist destinations like Bali and Egypt, ``What is going on in local political and/or religious climates that is forcing people to kill?`` I think pointing a finger at the tourism industry when the tourism cash flow slows to a trickle distracts us from the underlying message that is invariably attached to a suicide bomb blast: Dear world, certain stresses are affecting people in this area. Please take notice and help. I don`t condone this sort of violence but I do realize that every suicide bombing is an indicator, a needle past the red line on the gauges of our global Politics-and-Religion-O-Meters and ignoring such indicators or behaving in ways that inflame these indicators will only speed up the overheating of the engine set on ``Full Speed Ahead`` that is our world in 2005.
Regardless of where you chose to spend your money (whether it be in Cambodia or America) paying someone to do something that is embarrassingly degrading is still unethical. There is no difference between paying a poor person in Cambodia or America to fan me, feed me grapes, and bite the callouses off of my toes, because either way my demands are degrading. Obviously, when people visit developing countries they should refrain from obscenely exploiting the weight of their native currency and should avoid flaunting their wealth by staying in palatial rooms and feasting on meals comprised solely of local delicacies. I agree with the author of this article in regards to her point about people traveling while blinded by their own ignorance. To go to a developing country and assume a Western standard of living, one chock full of ``staff``waiting on you hand and foot like indentured servants, is just plain obnoxious and disrespectful. To say that one`s extravagant behavior advantageously lines the pockets of the local people is an attempt to justify tourist behavior without taking the humanity and pride of local peoples into account. If people from developed countries travel extravagantly and, in doing so, negatively affect the impressions impoverished local people have of the developed world, what is the alternative for travelers from the developed world? I don`t think people from developed countries should only travel to other developed areas because that would create a dangerously narrow world view for citizens of developed countries, citizens who, whether it is fair or not, often make decisions that affect the economies and futures of developing countries. Is it safe to have an American population who has never been to any impoverished country make decisions about trade agreements and AIDS epidemics? International travel is vital to the struggling emergence of international tolerance among peoples. I think a solution to this problem lies in changing the way people travel, not the destinations to which they travel. Imagine how drastically the perception of Western ideals would change if all Westerners traveling abroad avoided massive, all-inclusive sprawling palatial resorts (resorts that often restrict beach access to paying resort customers, effectively cutting off the beach to all local inhabitants) and instead stayed in locally owned and operated hotels/hostels, ate at reasonably priced restaurants, and showed a genuine interest in learning a thing or two about the local culture of a people. If people tried to blend in rather than stand out on their vacations, I have a feeling tourists would experience more genuine hospitality, would be shown parts of the world they never would have seen had they secluded themselves from local people, and would leave a country with a deeper respect for its people then if they had resorted to a vacation saturated with Western relaxation.
What do you think? Am I off on this? Should we, as people from a ``developed`` country (we are developed only in an economic sense of course, and even that could be seriously argued by a few displaced hurricane survivors, but I think we are in no way more morally developed than any other country--we Americans are just as fucked-up and just as ``civilized`` and just as value-bloated as every other group of people on the planet) avoid traveling to places like India and Nicaragua and Indonesia and Iran and Mongolia and Columbia and Panama and Thailand and Sierra Leone and Kenya and Romania and any other place that could be deemed less developed than the U.S.?
more to come as life unfolds,
andrew
To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited site, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/
No comments:
Post a Comment