|
British Mensa Travel Special Interest Group |
|
Home Copyright
© |
PC or not PC? A number of TravelSIG members have written in recent years about PC or "politically correct" tourism. Some of those articles are shown below, along with the original comments from David Gourley which sparked off the debate. David Gourley (issue 58, December 2004): I tend, when reading VISA, to be particularly interested in articles about places I have actually been to. It was with interest therefore that I read Tim Grimes’ piece about the Western Cape [issue 56], since Cathy and I have been there twice. On both occasions we visited Robben Island. We are not into political correctness. Yet the inference from Tim’s article is that he regards going to the Island as a PC thing to do. At any rate he writes: “eschewing political correctness, we found our trip was complete without a visit to Robben Island”. By no means would I argue that a visitor to Cape Town ought to do the trip there. Only go if you are interested. I think generally the expression “political correctness” has pejorative overtones, but there are forms of political correctness that are maddening. Whilst we should not use obviously offensive words, the flip side of the coin is excessive sensitivity and over-readiness to see racism or sexism where none is intended This is why,
with due respect to Tim, I found his use of the term, in an otherwise
good article, unfortunate. Apartheid was a brutal and morally indefensible
system. Cathy and I would never have gone to South Africa during the Apartheid
era. Nor did we ever knowingly buy South African produce. That may sound
PC but I would point out that we had the same attitude towards Soviet
Communism. When we began serious travel in the eighties, it was beyond
my wildest dreams that, in the nineties, we would go to a South Africa
whose president was Nelson Mandela and to a Czechoslovakia whose president
was Vaclav Havel. Robben Island has a terrible history, yet it is a place of beauty too. This is true in the literal sense: the views back to the mainland are stunning. And it is true in the metaphorical sense: because Nelson Mandela and his fellow prisoners never gave up, it is prized in the new South Africa as the place where Apartheid was defeated. I think that any visitor to Cape Town who doesn’t make it to Robben Island misses out on a fantastic experience which is grim in some respects, but spiritually uplifting. Tim Grimes's response (in the same issue): Dealing first with David’s comments about political correctness, I see that we are substantially in agreement. As he argues, by no means ought a visitor to Cape Town to go there - “only go if you are interested”, which I wasn’t. Several of my friends had been to Robben Island, considering a visit de rigeur. Eschewing this political correctness, my wife and I found our trip complete without a visit to Robben Island. I am flattered that any part of what I had written is considered good, but what is fascinating is that David elevates his opinion to an absolute, by which he then judges my “otherwise good” article. Could that be described as PC? Secondly, as to whether places like Robben Island should be tourist attractions, I suggest that one can distinguish between (i) places where visits are offered for the interest, or edification, or enlightenment, in a respectful and sympathetic way, and (ii) those which are used to exploit someone’s misery or suffering, for commercial gain. In the first category, I would cite the KGB’s detention cells, which I stumbled upon in Vilnius, and which I was shown around by a former inmate. The detention cells, torture rooms and execution chamber were chilling. It was an educating - even maturing - experience. I would place, in the second category, the site of the Twin Towers in New York. On my last visit to New York, I found a high perimeter fence completely blocked the sight - except from a viewing platform for which one could buy a ticket. If one accepts my distinction, a guide might be whether there is a souvenir shop on site. David Gourley may have a view as to which category Robben Island falls into. I have avoided Anne Frank’s house in Amsterdam, fearing (although not knowing) that it might fall into the second category and I have heard both points of view about the concentration camps. Thirdly, a separate area which you might want to explore arising from David’s comments is whether one should avoid countries whose regimes one may not support. David and his wife apparently have avoided such places. I think my only experience is a visit to East Berlin before the Wall fell. The contrasts between the way of life of two German peoples just yards apart was fascinating and not to have been missed. That apart, I cannot speak from much personal experience although, thinking about it now, would I have visited USSR, had I had the chance? Yes. Would I now visit Zimbabwe? Yes. Not because of any pious belief that, in some way, tourism helps the oppressed, but purely out of interest. In other words, I would not take into account my views towards a foreign government, when deciding where to travel. Some of your contributors may differ... John Keeble (issue 61, June 2005): One of the more dubious delights of foreign travel is that it throws you, head on, against all sorts of problems - not least, moral questions about whether you should go in the first place. If you care enough, you can probably find a good reason for boycotting every country in the world. And feel pretty uncomfortable staying at home in the UK too. It’s not about political correctness - that’s just a right-wing slur to drain moral power from people who care. It is about the caring, about the judgment of right and wrong, and about the feeling that we can and should do something about it.I still haven’t forgiven the French for bombing Rainbow Warrior and ruining our apple industry...or is it ruining our apple industry and bombing Rainbow Warrior? Anyway, the French make it very difficult for vegetarians and impossible for vegans. Enough said, in my view. Well, except for the images of heroic French armoured units saving civilians from massacre in Africa...and I was with them in objecting to the invasion of Iraq...and, well, I really love the work of post-(second) World War Paris photographers...And I wouldn’t go to America after what they have done in Iraq. And the mess they have left in South East Asia where people are dying now from their dreadful bombing and chemical warfare during the Vietnam War era. But they did come to help in the second world war...and I can’t recall meeting an American that I did not like. So maybe I could find some way of going off to Arizona, after all. But how would I forget about their plans to destroy vital wildlife areas in the arctic for a few months of oil? Canada is
a good, green land. Or maybe it is red - red with the blood of seal pups
slaughtered in the most appallingly callous way. No, definitely not going
there despite all the good they’ve done for their people and the
world in the past. Responsibletravel.com, backed by Anita Roddick and widely praised, says that until good policies are in place and being implemented “many mass tourism holidays will continue to erode fragile environments, trample local cultures, and exclude local people from a fair share of the profits”. That brings up the whole question of how we interact with the people, animals and environments of countries we visit. Virtual slave labour providing your comforts, strange social customs you photograph as colourful examples of local life, cruel policies to animals that end up on your plate, destruction of the environment for your pleasure...where do you fit into that lot when you sip your cocktails and peruse the menu?And let's stay away from any country that exploits child workers - exploitation is our term, which was not in use for this situation when Britain did the same during and after the industrial revolution - but can we really duck the difficult question of whether not allowing work by children will force them, starving, on to the streets? Is there any way of doing the right thing? We definitely won’t go to China, with its terrible human rights record. But, on the other hand, we’re all buying more and more Chinese goods sanitised when passing through our customs; but we will go to our North African and Middle East favourites where the subjugation of women can be routine and democracy is even less of a dream than in Myanmar, where we won't go because of the mistreatment of the would-be democratic population and the outrageous murder of journalists and others who oppose the state. So where is this all leading? Concisely, to three points: 1) Almost
every country has something, now or in the past, you can object to;
This brings us to another point. When you do come to your decisions, how can you justify them logically? Skim off the top, the headline ‘wrong’ to be addressed by your boycott? Unfortunately, it is often far less simple than that... Take Indonesia, for example - and why not, since it is often quoted in this kind of discussion. It is a repressive regime, criticised in many ways, with its recent history including the East Timor brutality. So that’s easy, then. We won’t go to Bali. Except that means that the poor people in Bali who depend on tourism to stay alive will be left with nothing. While the country’s leaders feast in Jakarta, they will go hungry and you will go to luxury in whale-killing Japan or corrupt East African idylls (for tourists, locals need not apply).A couple of years ago, we went to Myanmar at a time when the generals looked like moving towards handing over power to the democracy movement. In a two-week, 1,000-mile vox pop, we found some people were pleased we were there, some just wanted to tell us of the problems they faced and some, of the persecuted class like Orwell’s Winston Smith, said we should have stayed away in protest. Our next travels are likely to be to Greece, notorious for its bad treatment of animals, and Australia, where they used to like stuffing Aborigines and keeping them in museums. Then we’ll come back to Britain where we all love to massacre people in foreign wars, torture animals in laboratories and lock up more of our citizens, as a percentage of population, than the human rights ogres of the world. Oh, one last thing. Don’t fly. Or travel by anything that uses fossil fuel. It is irresponsible and it is leading to global warming and climate change that will swallow enormous areas where people live. And if you walk, remember that your shoes were made from the remains of a sentient creature cruelly killed for human use. And your clothes probably came from some sweatshop supplying your favourite chain store.It’s all a bit difficult, isn’t it? If you can find a way through this moral maze, please tell me. You can send a postcard from your hotel in the sun. I hope you won't be wearing sun cream that kills sea life. And the postcard material comes from a renewable forest. And the ink is vegetable based and rots down without damaging the environment. If not, I may not read it... |