Dark Tourism

I saw an article on the BBC earlier about a rise in what has been called Dark Tourism.

The following has been shamelessly lifted straight from wiki:

Dark tourism (also black tourism or grief tourism) is tourism involving travel to sites associated with death and tragedy. Thanatourism, derived from the Ancient Greek word thanatos for the personification of death, is associated with dark tourism but refers more specifically to violent death; it is used in fewer contexts than the terms dark tourism and grief tourism. The main draw however to these locations is mostly due to their historical value rather than their associations with death and suffering.

This includes castles and battlefields such as Culloden in Scotland and Bran Castle and Poienari Castle in Romania; sites of disaster, either natural or man made, such as Hiroshima in Japan, Chernobyl in Ukraine and the Ground Zero in New York; Auschwitz in Poland; prisons now open to the public such as Beaumaris Prison in Anglesey, Wales; and purpose built centers such as the London Dungeon. It also includes other sites of human atrocities and genocide, such as the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall in Nanjing and the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in Cambodia.

Have you ever been to any places that could fall under this banner? If you have, why did you go? And are there any places that you would like to go to? The word like somehow feels wrong in that sentence, but the increasing popularity in these places shows that it probably isn't. Why do you want to go there?

I could list The Killing Fields and S21 in Cambodia, the Cu Chi Tunnels in Vietnam, Chernobyl/Prypyat in Ukraine, Ground Zero and Alcatraz as Dark Tourism spots that I've been to.

Why did I go? Put simply... interest and respect. As mentioned with Rwanda in the BBC article, I wanted to show some respect to the terrible history of Cambodia while I was there and not just blank it while having a good time. I have to admit however that it wasn't purely about respect. There was also interest and curiosity. This curiosity led to a deep feeling of wanting to know more about something that I didn't hear much about before I left England.

Everyone knows about the Vietnam War. I went to Vietnam directly after Cambodia and was surprised to find myself still reading about Cambodia as I traversed the length of Vietnam.

The Cu Chi Tunnels, Chernobyl/Prypyat and Alcatraz were visited more out of interest than anything else.

Looking online, there seems to be a community of enthusiasts of abandoned places.

Link

Link

Looking at some of their pictures, I have to say this interests me greatly. But why is that? Is it simple human curiosity? Are people becoming bored with just sitting on a beach?

Are some Dark Tourism places more acceptable than others? Many people died in the Colosseum but I'm not sure people have too many qualms about going there. Perhaps time is an issue. Have some sites been opened before the wounds have had time to heal?

So, your thoughts. Do you enjoy going to these places? Is opening them up to tourists a way for people to show respect or just exploitation? Is there anywhere that you couldn't bring yourself to go to? And the questions from earlier, where have you been (and why) and where do you want to see (and why)?

Wow, an interesting thread.

I haven't been to any of those mentioned above, unfortunately, though I'd dearly love to.

Such sites do interest me greatly. I guess it is a sense of intrigue and curiosity as much as anything, and I also feel privileged to be stood on the same spot where great events in history have taken place.

Such a site I'd love to visit is the Badger's Mouth pass, not too far from Beijing, I believe. One of the bloodiest battles in history took place there when a Mongol army under Genghis Khan massacred a Chinese army. It'd be special, despite so many people losing their lives there in brutal fashion.

For me it's curiosity and an interest in history I guess. Ive also been to The Killing Fields and S21 in Cambodia and to the site of the Twin Towers, although the Towers was more because I was in New York than anything else. I was more moved in Cambodia and I think it was because it was almost like I wasn't sure what to expect (although I'd researched it beforehand) when I got to the sites where as of course thanks to modern media I knew all about the September 11th attacks and maybe knew what to expect. Please do not interpret that as thinking I was not deeply moved by the attacks themselves and the devastating loss of life - maybe I had just been able to process most things about the event before I visited New York.

I would like to see Chernobyl, something about the ghost town concept interests me greatly although I would like to do it properly with the radio-active pj`s and all that and really go to the center of where the explosion occurred. Thing is I have no desperate wish to visit the site of the Japanese nuclear disaster (and natural devastation) from last year.

Interesting thread. I don't think I'd organise a trip specifically to see a disaster site, but would probably visit if I was in the country to, as the OP says, show respect.

Been to Chernobyl, that's pretty dark. Missed out on the bone-church outside Prague when I visited which was annoying as I really wanted to see that. However we did get to a beautiful cemetary up on a hill-top.

Visited ground zero, twice, around September 11th (in 2004 and 2005 I think).

Robben Island is South Africa is a well recommended visit, not sure if it quite counts as dark as, equally, it's quite inspiring. But certainly a representation of a dark period in recent human history. A bit like the holocaust memorial in Berlin which is good. The museum is excellent too apparently however when we went back to visit it we got the wrong place and ended up in the Jewish museum which was utter rubbish.

Could also add the morbid fascination for thousands (millions?) in Dallas's Deeley Plaza.

never even heard it, what's the deal?

just googled it

I'm a tourism student, and have to say I'll be keeping tabs on this, as this is an area that interests me greatly.

I'd wager, though, that these areas are popular due to the historical backgrounds, people want to experience the sites of big historical events.

Unfortunately though, the OP's question about exploitation of these places is just the nature of the beast that is the tourism industry these days. Money talks, and if there's money to be made, the powers that be will look to make it. Which for me, is wrong on their part but I generally think that those that visit these sites, do so to show appreciation or just experience big parts of history.

I know that if I was to visit somewhere like Auschwitz (somewhere I do want to visit), it'd be out of curiosity and the want of gaining a feel for the area.

I don't see a problem here. I've been to Chernobyl last year as a tourist. Ukrainian tour agencies have such service "Chernobyl trip", I've used StayinKiev. I can say that it's absolutely safely for your health if you will do exactly what your guide will tell you. And it's really exciting to see "dead" city Pripyat. You will be like in a horro movie, the whole city is dead, without any movement.

Hi!
I just saw what you wrote about dark tourism and related sites, I was wondering whether it is possible to share your thought about Auschwitz as a dark tourism destination. Do you think it should be advetised as dark tourism site, historic or pilgrimage place.
I'm doing dissertation about the topic and it's very hard to find a people who are interested in the subject and can give me clarity of how the place is perceived from visitors (or potential visitors).

Welcome to 606 v2 Radostina

I don't think Auschwitz should be advertised as anything, people go because they know of its existence & of what happened - I don't think that it's a place where ignorance can be tolerable. I went last year, I suppose as a sort of pilgrimage but can't describe exactly why. Was in an organised tour party taken around by a young guide who was well-informed and respectful and who clearly felt affected by it but wasn't overly-emotional. I will probably go again eventually but will walk around it at my own pace. It was quite a smack in the face seeing the motto over the gate at Auschwitz and the railway lines leading through the main gate of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp, a bit like seeing the Eiffell Tower or Tower Bridge for the first time, but I needed a lot more time to absorb everything.

I took photos outdoors at both camps but it was quite an intrusion seeing photographs being taken indoors, photography was banned in the room where the hair to be used as wigs was on display but it should have been barred in all the rooms, especially the 'living' quarters at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Had seen a fair few documentaries about the camps and read about the holocaust but seeing it was a real choker - I was close to tears at the display of suitcases on which the victims' names were written as well as some of the other belongings, just seemed so pitiful.

I recently went to Dachau which was organised through work as part of a trip to Munich and I would throughly recommend it to anyone.
I find it hard to say why someone should go there and I imagine each and every person that does comes away with something different from it. I'd also recommend not to travel around in a group whilst in the grounds but to instead do it alone.

I am going to Auschwitz-Birkenau next month, as I am going to Krakow for a long weekend at the end of May.

I don't want to really go in the sense that is something I want to do, however I feel an obligation to go, as I feel I should try to see and get a ideal of what all those poor people were put through as a result of one right wing nut jobs heinous ideas and actions.

Good on you, James. I think it's something people should make the effort to see if they're in the area.

Hi guys,

Thank you so much for your opinion over the topic. Actually your answers help a lot now when I'm writing my findings.
Special thank to Galted, for the extensive replay!
One of the interviews, which I was supposed to conduct today regarding Auschwitz failed, because the guy was out of town and doesn't have access to internet, so I was hoping some of you can answer me the following questions instead of him:

1. Considering that there are more than 1 million people visiting Auschwitz every year, do you think that the site should be defined as a tourist destination?
2. What do you think are their motives for travelling there?
3. How do you feel about the term dark tourism site, as a way of describing Auschwitz? Do you think that is the most appropriate way for advertising such place?
4. Do you have any emotional involvement with that destination?
5. When visiting those types of places, is the emotional involvement playing big part, (is it prime or additional motive for travelling there)?
6. What do you think is the most accurate way of advertising Auschwitz?
7. As the camps touristic infrastructure is considerably low, do you recon that there is a place for improvement or that might affect the authenticity or the site?

I hope it is not to much to ask, but I really have faith in my project and believe that could help for places like Auschwitz to become more popular for what they are, not because some people describe and advertise them as a dark tourism destination.

Thank you very much in advance!

no worries, glad to help

1 – depends on your definition of "tourist destination". To me a tourist destination is a place where tourists would stay which Auschwitz is clearly not. "Place of (historical/humanitarian) interest" would be more accurate.
2 – sense of duty/curiosity/interest after learning about it/pilgrimage for descendants of people who were interred there
3 – the term cheapens it. Dark tourism makes me personally think of crap like London Dungeon
4 – yes, seeing iconic images from documentaries & history books in real life, seeing the possessions of the inmates knowing that probably every one of them was killed there, seeing the places they were held and the conditions under which they lived
5 – can't say, Auschwitz is the only one of "those places" I've visited, for the two people who went with me, for one I'd say emotional involvement, the other curiosity
6 – can't answer, the words "advertising" and "Auschwitz" don't fit easily together
7 – improving the infrastructure would hugely affect the authenticity of the site for the worse - when I went the entrances were packed and noisy and wherever you looked there were tourist groups who tended to be rushed through the various buildings. A better infrastructure would turn it into just another overcrowded European landmark full of pickpockets, tourists who see everything through their iPhone screens and vendors selling cheap souvenirs.

1. Considering that there are more than 1 million people visiting Auschwitz every year, do you think that the site should be defined as a tourist destination? - No, more a destination of great historical importance
2. What do you think are their motives for travelling there? - Hopefully to learn about this tragic piece of history, gain an understanding of the hell that those afflicted might have gone through and to ensure that such events are never forgotten.
3. How do you feel about the term dark tourism site, as a way of describing Auschwitz? Do you think that is the most appropriate way for advertising such place? - Not really. I understand the meaning behind dark tourism, but I feel it undermins the true purpose of the visit somewhat.
4. Do you have any emotional involvement with that destination? - massively so. Seeing the hair, shoes and other personal belongings evokes that human understanding and makes for incredible sorrow.
5. When visiting those types of places, is the emotional involvement playing big part, (is it prime or additional motive for travelling there)? - additional. Whilst it is good to understand what they went through, I feel the primary purpose is to learn and prevent such a thing ever happening again.
6. What do you think is the most accurate way of advertising Auschwitz? - I don't think it should be advertised. Education takes care of that.
7. As the camps touristic infrastructure is considerably low, do you recon that there is a place for improvement or that might affect the authenticity or the site? Would definitely affect it. Repair and restore where vitally necessary, but add nothing. It then becomes a tourist trap as opposed to site of great historical significance.

An article that's been doing the rounds on facebook a wee bit.

http://myscienceacademy.org/2013/04/14/the-33-most-beautiful-abandoned-places-in-the-world/

Some very good pictures there (some of them highly doctored too). I've been to a couple of these; Pripyat and Angkor (the photo is incorrectly labelled Angkor Wat. It's not Angkor Wat, altough it is in the Angkor complex). Would love to go to some of the others too. The theme parks in China and Japan stand out, as does the city in Taiwan and the hotel in Colombia. Would also love to walk down that bobsleigh track.

Really impressed by the Detroit train station too, mainly because of the size and the fact it's in a still living, breathing city.

Amazing stuff all round.

Thanks for that, Il Gia, fascinating photos there.

Something very creepy about abandoned man made objects/cities, isn't there? Not so much ancient things, but the more recent ones like Pripyat, Taiwan and the Detoit station.

Very impressive looking fort in India.

Could have had a photo of Coventry in there (if you ignore the "beautiful" bit).

A great thread Il Gia, that unfortunately I have only just found.

I have been to Ground Zero and Auschwitz-Birkenau. I've seen Alcatraz but due to the short time I was in SF I didn't have time to go on the island. I do however plan to go back.

As Ground Zero is more recent it is fresher in people's memories. As a result at the museum I felt I was intruding on people's grief as I was the only non American in my group.

I feel it is important that these places are available for people to view so these things are not forgotten. There are enough horrible things going on in the world as it is and a reminder of what mankind has been capable of needs to be kept at the forefront of peoples minds.

Auschwitz-Birkenau is a sole destroying place. The magnitude of it, the rooms of glasses, artificial limbs, photo's of adult victims, the photo's of child victims, the showers, the ovens. All of it just comes as a punch to the gut. When you get told that the guy in charge was put up against a wall and shot you finally get some relief. But with it this brings more questions. Being shot is obviously a far easier death but at the same time the end of any life should not be celebrated. You are just left hugely affected by the horrible side of man.

I'll just point out as well that neither of these place did I originally plan to go to but when you are in the area there is some sort of pull. As though I would have been being disrespectful to those that had lost their lives if I couldn't be bother to take the time out of my life to go along.

spencerclarke wrote:A great thread Il Gia, that unfortunately I have only just found.

But we are fortunate that you did. A very interesting post, spencer. All of it. And your poignant account of Auschwitz-Birkenau somehow makes me want to go there. For real emotion though, this stood out for me.

spencerclarke wrote:As Ground Zero is more recent it is fresher in people's memories.  As a result at the museum I felt I was intruding on people's grief as I was the only non American in my group.

Must have been hard to feel good about feeling bad, if you know what I mean? Without feeling 'who am I to feel bad?'

When I was in the museum at Ground Zero, I remember a wall covered in notes left by visitors. One that I'll always remember bore a Churchill quote: If you're going through hell, keep going.

Sound advice.

Thanks Il Gialloblu. Glad I could add something to an excellent and very different thread. Id love to hear from others about their take on such matters. Lets hope this thread livens up again.

A slightly left field one, but I visited the genocide museum (which used to be a KGB listening post, prison and execution chamber) in Vilnius, Lithuania. Had no plans to go there, in fact I had no knowledge of its existence prior to arriving in the capital, but as with anything that can be classified as dark tourism it was an instant draw.

It was fascinating to read about whilst strolling the very rooms in which such scheming and atrocities had taken place. The execution chamber itself, whilst very bare and understated, was particularly harrowing by virtue of knowing condemned (though they didn't know it, by all accounts) prisoners had met their grisly end in that very spot.

I had no idea that the KGB had ever maintained such a key presence in that location. I do now and it drives home the point of just how valuable freedom and human rights are, and that is surely the point of such historic places of death, suffering and incarceration being made available to the general public.

Must admit I've never heard of that place. Some of these places are so harrowing. It's a fascinating post fists. You just feel so important when you go to these places.

Got back from Cambodia a couple of weeks ok.

The holocaust musem (Tuol Sleng, a school converted into a prison/torture camp during the Khmer Rouge era) and main killing fields 'open museum' in PP were two of the most horrific and traumatising places/things I've ever visited.

Genuinely didn't expect to be choken up by what I saw/heard, had never understood the true horror and pure evil of what Pol Pot got up to during that time. Left me questioning humanity in general. Almost made me wonder whether, purely in comparison, the Jews of Germany and Eastern Europe got off lightly.

One of the most upsetting aspects being that because it was the Vietnamese who finally stepped up to the plate and got shot of Pol Pot, the UN refused to recognise the government as it had been installed by a foreign power and therefore for years after the UN still considered the Khmer Rouge the legitimate leaders of Cambodia INCLUDING giving them a seat at the UN and providing funding/support.

That should be a massive blot on the West's collective conscience.