Tourism - Good or Bad?

To what extent is Tourism good or bad?

On my recent trip to the Canaries, i saw something i had never seen before - cities, villages built up soley for tourists - nothing else. Beaches created out of nothing, sand imported. Purelly for leasure...
fake
http://www.vicsl.com/img/playa_amadores.jpg

Canaries is not designed for growing anything, it is associated with mars - the first people that came there where also tourists from colonised south america - now africans die on the sea in little boats to get there as the gateway to europe. Whilst mega yachts lie in the harbour.

SOUTH OF FRANCE - most of the houses owned there are by people from northern europe. The life in the winter belongs to the locals - in summer to those not from there. - the locals hate this rape of their heritage yet they need it.
AMSTERDAM - the drug culture and its myth of sex pulls in hoards of tourists everyday - it ads to the cosmopolitanism of the city - yet the dutch are are capable of being both outward and inward and regard it as interesting.
NEW YORK - it is difficult to know who is what.
OSLO - only tourists in summer in search of viking heritage which never existed - this town needs it - badly.
PHUKET and all those places - causes thai men to change sex so that they can make money

Easy cheap travel has its effects,
in some cases good maybe even elevating, aiding the economy, in others it overdoses and kills culture and even geography.

Of course you can always avoid the crowd by going away from the easy axessable sites, but as soon as say that this is a beautiful spot to others it will...

The park behind my house is quiet all year round

In the long run i think tourism rapes culture.

yet in some cases it is essential (not only for the ego)

To what extent is Tourism good or bad?

[img]http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/6834/fffff6kg.jpg[/img]

Good question.

The objectionable aspects of tourism are almost uniformly capitalist in nature, and devolve from that into the disrespect too often exhibited by the tourist.

There is a moneyed contempt which presents and offends.

The actual desire to see and experience new places and cultures cannot be faulted; it is the poor and boorish behavior of the tourist which begs mending.

The clash of a McDonalds against the backdrop of, say, Angkor Wat would easily serve to condemn the capitalist impulse.

Brilliant summary J2k4 - yes i kmow this topic is over debated but you got it in one shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The actual desire to see and experience new places and cultures cannot be faulted; it is the poor and boorish behavior of the tourist which begs mending.
.

---

"Experience new places and cultures" - hmmm yes to what level - more like "displays" of "different cultures" on *stage*

i would never dream of going to USA to sea a "real life western" *performed* just as much as i dislike watching any performance for the sake of performance. Wherever it is in the world.

It is the fault of the Naive tourists that kill authenticity.
Business men travell the world every second, yet see 0% of the locallife, yet need reliable sleeping stations.
Should we blame the naive*?

Spoiler: Show

http://thegrob.tripod.com/sitebuilde.../ausie0021.jpg

It is capitalism with indiscriminate emphasis on profit and indiscriminate tourism which over-emphasizes convenience.

The "intrepid traveller" is become a relic, and safari-suits are just for looks. ;)

We have higher water rates here in Plymouth because of the tourists. I don't pay the bills so I could care less.

You can make tourism work for you, or it can be a blight in your community.

Look at Dubai. Their goal is to be the #1 tourist destination in the world. They are literally creating a tourist paradise out of the desert and the sea.

Look at Las Vegas. Tourists bring in the money to make it all work.

Other places get messed up. Like Southend.

i hate tourism and love it :dabs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

i hate tourism and love it :dabs:

---

I both am offended by and admire you for your stance on this weighty subject.:frusty:


I agree with Barby, nee colinmacaroniandcheese, that if life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

There are people who tell you why something cannot be achieved, and there are those who achieve it anyway.

The downside is perhaps the cheapening of something of real historic importance. As inappropriate as Jerry Springer quoting Shakespeare, would be the conversion of Stonehenge into a minature golf course.

I dislike it. j2 summarized it fairly well.

Additionally, the area in which I live is (roughly) 80% tourism-based. The unemployment rate here skyrockets after the tourists leave, as there's no feasible way to keep people working. As a result, many are either unemployed or underemployed for aproximately 6 months of the year. Many decisions are made that are for the tourists, yet the locals that are forced to remain yearround are completely neglected. Two examples that come easily to my mind are the "no free parking" decision and the "total lack of affordable housing but we'll build condos, cabanas, and summer homes" decision.

:shuriken:

This whole subject takes me back to the question I asked way-back-when about how different the world would be if WWII had never happened.

How the realization of what is technically possible affects what actually happens; the way it skews what is considered practical.

For example, the overwhelming capacity for pure production that has gone begging in search of markets, and the creation of other-than-natural travel destinations.

I'm blathering. :huh: