1、1THE POLITICS OF TRAVEL IS TOURISM JUST COLONIALISM IN ANOTHER GUISE? by DAVID NICHOLSON-LORD Tourism has seriously damaged fragile ecosystems like the Alps, the winter skiing playground of Europe, and the trekking areas of the Himalayas. Worldwide, it poses a serious threat to coastal habitats like
2、 dunes, mangrove forests and coral reefs.It fuels a booming and usually illegal trade in the products of threatened wildlife, from tortoiseshell and coral to ivory. Its “consumers“ inevitably bring their habits and expectations with them-whether its hot showers and flush toilets or well-watered gree
3、ns for golfers. In the Himalayas, showers for trekkers often mean firewood, which means deforestation. In Hawaii and Barbados, it was found that each tourist used between six and ten times as much water and electricity as a local. In Goa villagers forced to walk to wells for their water had to watch
4、 as a pipeline to a new luxury hotel was built through their land. Over the past decade golf, because of its appetite for land, water and herbicides, has emerged as one of the biggest culprits, so much so that “golf wars“ have broken out in parts of Southeast Asia; campaigners in Japan, one of the c
5、hief exponents of golf tourism, have launched an annual World No Golf Day.This is not to say tourism cant do some good-but the cost-benefit equation is complex. Historic monuments, houses and gardens thrive on visitors. Throughout much of the world, but notably in southern and eastern Africa, touris
6、m underpins the survival of wildlife. Why else would small farmers put up with elephants trampling their crops? Whale watching is now a bigger business than whaling. In the uplands of Rwanda, known to millions through the film Gorillas in the Mist, the mountain gorillas salvation lies partly in the
7、income and interest generated by tourists visiting in small groups. In Kenya a lions worth is estimated at $7,000 a year in tourist income-for an elephant herd the figure is $610,000. And if large animals, with large ranges, are protected, then so are their habitats-the national parks.Yet none of th
8、ese gains are unqualified. To get to see your whales and your gorillas, for example, you have to travel, by car, coach or plane. Each time you do so youre effectively setting fire to a small reservoir of gasoline-and releasing several roomfuls of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Transport is the
9、worlds fastest growing source of carbon dioxide emissions; leisure travel accounts for half of all transport; and Americans, the most peripatetic of the planets residents, are responsible for puffing more than five tons of carbon each into the atmosphere every year. Thats nearly 107.4 times the rate
10、 of the stay-at-home Bangladeshis. The cumulative result of such activity is one of the biggest disruptions in the Earths history-global warming, climate change and rising seas. And its the low-lying Bangladeshis who will suffer most from it.And then there are those “pristine“ habitats-the national
11、parks. In many cases, parks remain pristine because the people who used to live there have been thrown out-the Masai in Kenya are perhaps the best-known example, but there are many more, particularly in India and South Africa. Many important historic sites have also been irrevocably altered by the s
12、caleof human presence. In the fifties, for instance, during the full moon, it was possible to stroll around the Parthenon in Athens until midnight, with only a night watchman for company. Now, as in many other places-Stonehenge in Britain, for example-thats not allowed. In Venice, a city of 360,000,
13、 there are 100,000 daily visitors on average. Ten years ago, for the first time, the inevitable happened-the city became so crowded they had to close it to the mainland.2Such pressures breed a phenomenon, often referred to as “Disneyfication,“ in which culture and history are insensibly transformed
14、into “heritage,“ the authentic giving way to replicas and experience “themed“ before it can be understood. This comes in various guises. In Hawaii it is known as “Hula marketing“ or “Aloha for Sale.“ In Thailand, the remnants of primitive hunter-gatherer tribes, now mainly confined to squalid settle
15、ments in international resorts like Phuket, enact, for cash, elements of their traditional culture that they have long since been forced to abandon-killing pigs, diving for shells, shooting blowpipes. The tribespeople wear Western clothing nowadays-but for the performances, the old jungle g-strings
16、are often de rigueur. In the seventies, the American anthropologist Dean MacCannell coined the phrase “staged authenticity“ to describe such events and thereby opened up a rich new seam of research (see Graham Boynton, next page).Some observers now argue that tourism can strengthen local cultures by
17、 encouraging an awareness of tradition and the ceremonies and festivals that go with it. But whats the value of tradition if its kept alive self-consciously, for profit, and bears little relation to real life-which, today, across the world, grows ever more uniform? Hence the dismissive references to
18、 “human zoos,“ “airport art“ and the trinketization of cultures. These are questions that apply as much to fox hunting in Britain and Carnival in Rio de Janeiro as to so-called cannibal tours in Thailand. Whats undeniable is that tourism, in one way or another, changes tradition, and for many people
19、, particularly in the Third World, that change looks and feels like degradation.Part of the problem is that tourism is colonialism in another guise-economic rather than political. Hence it rubs hard against the growing worldwide movement for local or national self-determination. But there are also s
20、ome profound and often irreconcilable differences in perception.What makes people want to travel? The short answer centers on the concept of escape. According to Jost Krippendorf, the Swiss academic who is one of the leading authorities on modern tourism, people travel because “they no longer feel h
21、appy where they are-where they work, where they live. They feel the monotony of the daily routine, the cold rationality of factories, offices, apartment blocks and transport, shrinking human contact.the loss of nature and naturalness.“ MacCannell argues that mass tourism is a product of the “most de
22、personalized“ epoch in history.Well, maybe. Its true that people with gardens, or those who live in small towns, take fewer holidays than apartment-block residents or city dwellers. Its probably also true that what we casually refer to as the “pressures of daily life“-work, family, commuting-are mor
23、e intense, in some respects, than ever before. Yet people have always felt a desire for something more than their life routinely offers them-something, well, different. Its partly because humans are naturally inquisitive and exploratory but also, and more significant, because we need the unknown, wh
24、at historians of religion call “otherness,“ to lend our lives significance. So we conceive of ideal worlds-Paradise, the Golden Age, Heaven, Atlantis, Shangri-La-and dream, sometimes, of attaining them.Modern tourism routinely, and often shamelessly, exploits such myths, as the most casual glance th
25、rough just about any brochure will attest. It is ably assisted by the travel-writing business, which, while purporting to be independent, is actually part of the marketing operation, complete with writers who depend for their livelihoods on the tour or resort operators. Millions of people are thus l
26、aunched yearly on a quest for paradise, or a voyage of self-discovery, into the midst of millions of others going about their daily business. Visions of reality collide, often resoundingly, which helps to explain why tourists have been shot in Egypt and pelted with cow dung and rotten fish in Goa 3a
27、nd why many natives of Hawaii-one of the archetypal tropical island “paradises“-want a boycott of tourism, describing it as “the plague“ suffered by a “historically oppressed people.“Faced with such responses, and with evidence of growing dissatisfaction, and unease, from its most discerning markets
28、 at home, the tourist industry has in the nineties made some attempts at reform. Voluntary schemes such as Green Globe and the International Hotels Environment Initiative exhort us to shower rather than bathe, to confine ourselves to a single towel. Many tour operators have adopted environmental gui
29、delines. We now have green or “eco“ tourism, supposedly a small-scale, environmentally friendly alternative to the mass version. In 1995 the first U.N.-sponsored World Conference on Sustainable Tourism was staged; government and industry representatives from more than 150 countries turned up. More o
30、f us, it seems, are aware of the problem, and want to do the right thing. One poll by the World Trade Organization showed that 85 percent of German tourists want an “environmentally correct“ holiday. Forty percent of Americans are said to be interested in “life enhancing,“ as opposed to “sun seeking
31、,“ travel.By themselves, however, good intentions are not enough. Eco-tourism, for example, has been caricatured, with justice, as “ego-tourism“-a smug, up-market restyling of the same old model. Supposedly independent travelers, it is argued, priding themselves on their initiative and their individ
32、uality, are merely tourists in mufti-theyre still rich (relatively), alien and passing through. And why, when both have roughly similar effects, should “life enhancing“ travel be regarded as superior to the sun-seeking version? At least the latter is honest about its motives.In truth, there are no e
33、asy answers to the dilemmas posed by mass tourism. Awareness, certainly, is a step forward-the knowledge of what it means to be a tourist. With that comes the ability to make better choices, where and how and even whether to travel. An increasing number of nonprofit organizations offer working holid
34、ays, in which the economic and social asymmetries that lie at the heart of the holiday industry are somewhat redressed: The tourist takes but also gives. Among the best-known is the environmental research organization Earthwatch.Such initiatives are undoubtedly one of the ways forward for tourism. T
35、he world, clearly, is not going to stop taking holidays-but equally clearly we can no longer afford to ignore the consequences. And if one of the major culprits has been the industrialization of travel, a genuinely postindustrial tourism, with the emphasis on people and places rather than product and profits, could turn out to be significantly more planet-friendly.David Nicholson-Lord, who lives in England, is former environment editor of The Independent on Sunday and author of The Greening of the Cities (Routledge).
