I just read an article off of someone's facebook page about "dark tourism" in Mexico (if you click the link, it's in Spanish...all you English speakers are forewarned). I had never heard of such a thing (well, ok, I had, but not by that name). It evokes such an interesting image, this idea of dark, or morbid, tourism. The article talks about "narco" culture, tourists visiting the sites of famous massacres or going into the northern border towns to look for a little peek at something dangerous. On top of this macabre search for the sensationalized, glorified trappings of the drug cartels, tourists are also looking to experience the darker side of poverty and oppression. The article describes organized groups heading to Chiapas to visit the poor indigenous regions famous for the Zapatista uprising and a tour in an ecological park in central Mexico that simulates the experiences of illegal immigrants crossing the desert to get into the US.
On the one hand, you have people looking for adventure, something dangerous, a glimpse of a life that they can only see in the movies, a way to satiate their morbid curiosity. On the other hand, you have people who are traveling to educate themselves (or at least they are trying to convince themselves of this), people who want to see first hand how the world really works, how those less fortunate suffer. It is perhaps a way that some feel they can show compassion for their fellow humans. But I am not convinced that this type of tourism is any different than the first kind, no less motivated by morbid curiosity, no less voyeuristic. I have a hard time wrapping my head around foreign tourists paying for the privilege to suffer dehydration and exhaustion in the desert and humiliation at the hands of fake border patrol officers in an attempt to understand what it is like to be an illegal immigrant. Is this really how we can find compassion? It reminds me somewhat of the slum tours offered in places like Rio de Janeiro or Mumbai. Tourists, often very well-meaning tourists, want to get a real life glimpse of the infamous shanty towns, perhaps in an attempt to put a human face on poverty. But can we really understand life in a favela by going on a tour? Are we not, by the very act of observing, of "touring," changing the slum? I have great respect for those who commit their lives to working with people living in slums and shanty towns, but I have no desire to go on a tour there. It feels too much like voyeurism.
Of course, dark tourism is not a new phenomenon. Think back, for example, to the wagons full of spectators at the battle of Bull Run during the US Civil War. And the category of dark tourism should not be limited to witnessing dark acts as they are happening. We can also include visiting areas that have suffered war or tragedy long after the actual events occurred. We could include here Revolutionary War reenactment, visiting Ground Zero in New York City, making pilgrimages to Civil War battlegrounds, or walking the grounds of Auschwitz. This is not to say that there are not other reasons to visit these sites (if you'll forgive the double negative). I do not want to discount those who visit such places as an act of respect for the dead. But there is still this fascination with the gruesome, the awful, the brutal, acts of war and crime and mass murder, that pulls us in, a motivation that lies beyond the idea that we should witness depravity in order to prevent it in the future. Please do not think that I am advocating here that we forget the victims of the Holocaust or of the 9/11 attacks or of any civil war. There is truth to the cliche that when we forget the past we are doomed to repeat it. But I think it is important to question the motives behind any kind of dark tourism, to be aware of the aspects of sensationalism and spectacle embedded in it.
You should google "dark tourism" and see what comes up. One site promotes a Charlie Manson tour of LA (visiting the places his "family" committed those infamous murders). You can visit the "killing fields" in Cambodia or tour the war-torn cities in Bosnia. One article divides dark tourism into five subcategories: grief tourism, disaster tourism, suicide tourism, poverty tourism, and doomsday tourism. It's a fascinating topic (perhaps morbidly fascinating?).
http://www.bbc.com/travel/blog/20110210-travelwise-touring-historys-dark-side
ReplyDeleteJust saw this related article... quite an interesting topic!
Greetings from Black Cat in Antigua :)
When I was in London I did a Jack the Ripper tour- which took you to places where his victims were found,a pub he supposedly or might have stopped in while lying in wait- and that was in 2000. I can't explain why I wanted to do this when I got to London- but I thought it would be a cool way to see London and it had that feeling of mystery and forensic interest which also must be why people watch CSI.
ReplyDeleteThroughout history there has always been the idea of leaving things untouched for people to see later so that events are remembered. For instance, the Nazi's destroyed the town of Oradour-sur-Glane, France in June of 1944 (Oradour-sur-Glane)- and later the French government decided to leave it as it was to be remembered. They removed the bodies, but left the town as a memorial (http://www.oradour.info/). There are also sites like this in Hiroshima and other places.
I think what's different is if people are actually putting themselves in danger. But there is a reason why you hear about tourists being taken hostage or dying in volcanic eruptions- because this concept isn't new- people are attracted to the danger and the unknown.I would even say that's how anthropology began- the first anthropologist to visit a tribe in Afica must have been surrounded by 100 people telling him not to go- that it will be dangerous. While he must have had some curiosity to learn about the culture, he also had to have the desire to live on the wild side.
I can only imagine that it's good for people to see real life somewhere else- countries viewed from a resort aren't really seen.
Thanks for the insightful comment! That is a good point. And there is something to be said about memory. It is, perhaps, setting up a paper tiger to criticize those who pay to enroll in a fake border crossing, or who troll the dangerous parts of foreign towns looking for a glimpse of a drug kingpin. I am sure some of my opinion on this subject came from listening to too many self-righteous backpackers criticizing their fellow travelers for not seeing the "real" life of a country because they are not out in the mountains living in indigenous villages. Not that all backpackers are self-righteous, or that travelers are seeing everything by staying in a hotel with a pool in a tourist town. I agree that countries viewed from a resort aren't really seen. But I also think that we have to be at least aware of the morbid curiosity driving some of our decisions in how we travel, not just in terms of wanting to see something cool, but also in how we can do these types of things in a way that at least mitigates to some extent the voyeurism that I think is inherent in all forms of tourism (to some extent). Or perhaps I'm just channeling the ghosts of too many sociology classes.
ReplyDelete