As someone who has traveled extensively abroad, especially to many impoverished and/or developing nations, I can see potential benefits and damages depending upon the type of tourism.
A few months ago, The New York Times published an op-ed decrying tourists who visit slums (see link below). The author, a former citizen of Nairobi, claims those who wish to see firsthand the utter destitution and squalid conditions of others show a grave insensitivity, perhaps even act exploitively. He views that the temporary visit(s) exposes the embarrassing conditions others live with, albeit the tourists can quickly huddle back into their chartered buses/tours. He felt like he was on display, like an animal in a zoo.
While I sympathize with this man's perspective, I disagree with his opinion. While he's correct in the facts, many tourists do make an effort to socialize with the locals. Some go as far as volunteering or donating money. Additionally, young folks (like me) can make career altering decisions based upon reflecting on their experiences in places like Nairobi. An impetus to matriculate into the School of International Service was based greatly on my eye-openeing travel experiences. I hope to make an impact in towns like Nairobi someday, so although some tourists may disgustingly gawk, or ridicule, I walked away appreciative and motivated. Therefore, opening up greater access for tourism can have more than just immediate economic effects. It can be a form of long-term PD, hoping those who are witnesses return as activists.
No comments:
Post a Comment