During and following this summer’s class in Cultural & Heritage Tourism Development I learned a lot about tourism at World Heritage sites and did my final paper on  endangered world heritage. It’s a sad issue that, in my opinion, doesn’t get near the coverage that it should.

Although I’ve never been to Galápagos, it’s always interested me stemming from research I did as an undergrad about the economic situation in Ecuador (archive of an old tripod page that defies all laws of good design-sense). I think tourism is just one of the many ways that Ecuador can develop and recover, but at what expense?

Ecotourism  is a huge boon to some regions, but when a site is placed on the danger list, what’s the responsibility of tour operators and tourists?

It’s a good question that I’m not sure I know the answer to.

Newest Wonders  of the World Prompt More Than Wonder from today’s New York Times is an interesting article.

“We believe there is a risk that these sites will become tourist attractions like Disneyland,” said Sue Williams, a Unesco spokeswoman, adding, “The campaign seemed quite commercially driven and another way to lure in more tourist dollars.”

While I understand the risk that over-development and over-touristing can damage a destination, it’s not as if any of these wonders are new destinations. That’s not to say precautions shouldn’t be taken to ensure their continued viability, but I think there’s a huge difference between tourists choosing to visit a destination due to this designation and them turning into Disneyland.

Holland America’s cruises will provide increased access but some such as Petra Jordan and Maachu Pichu are still more of a challenge to access.  Significant time and money is required to visit all of the sites, with the possible exception of The Colosseum, and I’m not sure this new designation has/will receive enough attention in order to dramatically increase tourism in the manner in which UNESCO is worried.

Overall, I think this contest has created more controversy than I bet the creators imagined. Seems as if everyone has had something to say about the results, and it isn’t likely to end any time soon. Personally, I’m not that excited about the results – but I’m not as worried either. This summer’s class taught be more about the issues related to culture and heritage tourism, but I still am not convinced that increased visitors is necessarily always a bad thing.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, especially as they move forward with the nominations for the Natural Wonders.  At the very least, I’m getting lots of fodder for my C&HT paper.

I think the results are interesting but not particularly surprising. I’ve been to one (Rome) , and while I have an interest in the others, this designation isn’t going to make me any more or less likely to visit.  I’m not sure I could rank the others in terms of where I’m more likely to go than others…

I voted for Kiyomizdera in Kyoto because it’s one of my favourite places in Japan, if not the world, but I’m not surprised it didn’t win. Of course I completely forgot about the announcement: I spent 7/7/7 at Yankee Stadium.

I do think UNESCO’s comments are interesting: but they make their own rankings and designations as well. Of course theirs are more valid in their own eyes but really, any list is subjective. I think Hawass’ comments are sad:

“This contest will not detract from the value of the pyramids, which is the only real wonder of the world,” Egypt’s antiquities supremo Zahi Hawass said. “This competition has no value because it is not the masses who write history.”

Elitism drives me crazy. I agree that the pyramids are a wonder but they didn’t stand alone then and they don’t know. Sure, they’re a wonder for their architecture and ability to stand the test of time, but to say they’re the only real wonder….

And then of course, the Vatican has to get into it. My favourite:

” But according to Avvenire, the Italian Catholic daily, the Vatican believes that these have been selected as tourist attractions, rather than as Christian sites”

so wait, they not only have to be listed but also for precise reasons??? I’d hate to break it to the Cardinal, but I think many people see the Sistine Chapel as a tourist attraction as well. The two terms aren’t mutually exclusive.

“The history of our time is written in the life of Berlin.”

Somewhat frightening that I don’t think I could have said it better myself.

Today in class we had a discussion on what we’d done for the weekend and a discussion popped up on the relevance of The Wall and whether it will matter or not in 200 years. This class is actually an interesting group in that we range in age from 19-37. We have very different perspectives on world history, and two of the younger ones had no real memory of the Wall. I feel strongly that it will matter because the value in a united Europe via the EU (whether we’re talking about those currently in the Schengen area, the 27 current members or how the EU continues to evolve doesn’t matter) is lost if one doesn’t know/remember the fact that less than 20 years ago, freedom to travel was severely restricted.

While I know that history and time change people’s memories, I can’t imagine the legacy of communism fading. It already is though, one example being people’s reactions to Goodbye Lenin! I think you really have to remember a divided Berlin in order to ‘get’ the movie. I’m a history geek, I ‘get’ it (or suppose I would if I’d seen the movie), but I know not everyone sees things the same way. As a part of the class discussion we were talking about preservation v. moving on in the context of The Wall, 9/11 and even the Oklahoma City Bombing. That’s a subject for another post or five though.

Daniel Coats, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany hit on a lot of what I’ve been thinking since I first saw the Wall from the bus on Saturday afternoon:

That is why the lessons of the past are still so vitally important for our future and the future of our children. The Wall, the most prominent symbol of the Cold War and the division of Germany and Europe, has been torn down but it cannot be relegated to the past.

As a newcomer to Berlin, I myself often wonder where the Wall was exactly. Today it is hard to imagine the course of that gray concrete barrier and strip of barren no man’s land that once snaked its way 23 miles through the streets of one of Europe’s proudest cities.

When I was first at Brandenburg Gate, I completely missed the cobblestone path that marks the former path of the wall. It’s more visible on the steps to the Spree, but I wouldn’t say it’s hard to miss. As you draw closer to the Spree, it’s even marked with something I see as similar to a tombstone:

Here lies The Wall? But is it buried? Should it be?

It’s impossible to judge, as an outsider, what people should do with their own city. This is true especially since the people of Berlin had no say in it in the first place: their fate was controlled by the governing powers who ruled the city. In a sense, Berlin and Germany had lost their sovereignty following the defeat in WW II.

Pieces of the wall are still being removed, even officially. Yet the government felt that it had to be done as a “secretly engineered operation”, certainly that wouldn’t be the case if it were done with everyone’s best interests in mind. Even if it was something that was a governmental decision with no input from the public, it needn’t be done in secret. I don’t think anyone is claiming that the Wall needs to remain in its entirety, but I think the sections that have remained for 17 years should continue to serve as an education for locals and visitors.

Another area where this rears its head is in the context of ostalgia, which is a very real feeling among some people in Germany. Ampelmannchen are probably the most visible sign of Ostalgia, right down to a shop dedicated to them in Hackeschen Hofe. The author goes into much further detail about Ostalgia and its role in Berlin today but what struck me was the correlation to the author’s thoughts in Cafe Europa. In Cafe Europa she was speaking of the election of communist leaders in Romania and Serbia following the fall of Communism and the fact that it was what people knew, what they felt safe with. While traffic signals aren’t the same as a political leader, I think the roots are similar. People in East Germany grew up with the traffic signals. They lost so much in the political turmoil of the 80s and 90s that they wanted to cling to something familiar. At least that was how I understood it.

At the same time, I don’t think I can ever understand it. This was something else that Ute and I touched on. As someone born in America, I have no direct experience with communism. I read about it, I studied it, but it was always something that existed ‘over there’. It wasn’t a part of my world. While we were walking, Ute mentioned a discussion at university where she mentioned the falling of the Wall didn’t change her world drastically – the next day, for her in West Germany, nothing had changed in her day to day life. That struck me because learning about it, I’d always imagined the fall of the Wall was huge for Germans. I think I got a lot more out of Berlin visiting it with a German than I would have doing it alone, so thank you for that, Ute. Plus it was just great to see you again

On a lighter note, there was someone with the t-shirt that read “US Leaders on Berlin” – it included Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”, Bush Sr.’s “Hundreds of Berliners from East and West, standing atop the Wall, with chisels and hammers” and of course JFK’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” whether or not he actually called himself a doughnut. I so wish I’d gotten a photo.

I enjoy Cultural & Heritage Tourism (C&HT) but I don’t like mass tourism. It makes for some interesting discussions. At times I think that World Heritage listing creates more tourism than a destination can handle–and I wonder about the realistic nature of there being some 2.5m sites of interest in the EU (in the text, can’t find a source on line). At what point does that number dilute the value of being a historic site?

I think one of the most interesting discussions we’ve had in class has been on ‘sheeple’ – the people who give no thought to what they want to see and do rather let others do it for them. I can understand listening to recommendations, but I don’t think I’ll ever understand going somewhere just because it’s the done thing. Am I weird?

It’s been interesting to be among some non-travellers and mass tourists when I’m used to the independent nature of backpackers. It certainly makes me see travelling in another light–and then I proceed to hop on a train and do what I want o:)

I’m taking the camera tomorrow, will try to post pics otherwise when I get back from Berlin

~International Coalition of Historic Site Museums of Conscience

Well that sign on the walls of the “Small Fortress in Terezin was to be my only photo from the day, however it’s a devil to make a yellow text on blue sign photo legible. It’s not that I didn’t take any photos, I did. 26 to be precise, but I’m not happy with them. I’m a little unsettled about the whole Terezin experience, to be honest.

Some of it is left over feelings of unsettledness about Auschwitz this weekend, but some of it is completely different. In many ways, Terezin/Theresienstadt is completely different. I think this stems from the fact that Terezin was in use as a fortress/prison long before the Nazis. Unlike Oswiecim and other sites which might not be on world maps if not for WW II and the Holocaust, Terezin had a pre-existing place in Czech history. I think it’s safe to say though that the international interest stems from World War II when the small fortress became a Gestapo headquarters.

On a non-WW II basis, I was very intrigued. We were able to visit the cell in the small fortress where Gavrilo Princip, the assassin of Archduke Francis Ferdinand, was housed. One thing I have learned about the Czech Republic in my time here is how central the Czech Republic (in its various incarnations as Czechoslovakia, Bohemia and Moravia, etc.) has been to European history. Its role (along with battles here such as White Mountain) is certainly not something that comes up frequently in history classes in the US. Seeing the “Small Fortress” itself brought back memories of the Alamo, though I have no idea why.

Our tour actually started in the Ghetto Museum and then the Magdeburg Barracks. I admit, I’d mentally checked out of some of this. I found it heartwrenching to see the artwork, music, writings, etc of people who never made it out, especially children. I did buy the book relating to Hana’s Suitcase, but that was more for its Czech/Japanese tie than anything else. Both the Museum and Barracks were museums and not really reconstructions of any sort.

From there, the tour moved to the National Cemetery and Small Fortress. The National Cemetery is intriguing in that its allegedly one of the few places in the world where you can see a cross and Star of David side by side. When compared to Auschwitz/Birkenau, the reason Terezin bothered me was primarily superficial: there were food sales, souvenir shops and other current items within the grounds. To me, those belong outside a historic site. The cinema can be explained, it’s apparently where the SS guards would watch their movies, and the pool was built by the prisoners in preparation for the Red Cross visit in 1944, but there is no need for a souvenir shop and cafe within the grounds. Put them outside the gate, but they didn’t ask me. I’m sure there was some good reason, but the guide didn’t know.

So basically Terezin is a good place to learn about Czech history, and if you haven’t done anothr Holocaust site such as Auschwitz/Dachau (as a classmate said)/etc. it’s a good place to learn about the Holocaust.

I think where I’m still ‘unsettled’ re: Auschwitz (meaning the Auschwitz section of the camps not the whole compound) is the fact that apart from the famous sign, you could be anywhere. Even the barbed wire doesn’t ‘say’ Holocaust. The exhibits do, of course, however the exhibits aren’t that different from Holocaust exhibits elsewhere. That isn’t to say they’re not good, just that there’s no differentiation. Why do people go to Auschwitz? I personally think a big part of it is name association. In many cases, you say Holocaust and people think Auschwitz. I’d love to look further into the stats of who goes and why.

As for Terezin, the same question of ‘why’ applies. It doesn’t have the name association that Auschwitz does. It is however significantly closer to Prague than Auschwitz/Birkenau is to Krakow, which helps. I wonder how many people are aware of Terezin, or that it’s in the Czech Republic before coming to the area? Do they plan to go or are they enticed by the Prague tour companies ‘selling’ it that well? I’d definitely be interested in that.

I think I have my paper topic for Culture & Heritage Tourism.