Post #14, Comments on “Devil’s Bargains”
Post #14, Comments on “Devil’s Bargains” (for 5 Dec seminar)
I also commented on Carrie’s site and Dan's site .
Just flew in from Germany, and boy are my…oh, you’ve heard that one? Well, it is 4am on my biological clock, so it seemed like a humorous blog opening.
I finished up Devil’s Bargains on the flight back tonight, and I’m sorry to say that I’m unimpressed. I agree with the bulk of this week’s blog comments (too long, excessively ornate word selections, no real thesis, repetitive, etc.) so I’ll just comment on what I liked about the book.
Rothman’s statement (receiving the “duh” award from Dan) is that the initial development of a tourist destination is soon taken over by “outsiders” who push the locals aside, fabricate a reality to support the myth, and essentially sell visitors a bill of goods in the guise of an authentic experience. The interesting statement was that the locals “always” end up the worse for the bargain. I disagree, but I’m alright with that. I think he did a good job of illustrating just how the locals, at least in the cases he chose to discuss, ended up trapped in dead-end jobs, living in an altered town and subject to the decisions of outsiders.
I disagree because I can offer examples where the results were less dire, even possibly—dare I say (gasp)—positive? But I’m way too tired to type it up now, it’ll keep for tomorrow night’s session.
I also commented on Carrie’s site and Dan's site .
Just flew in from Germany, and boy are my…oh, you’ve heard that one? Well, it is 4am on my biological clock, so it seemed like a humorous blog opening.
I finished up Devil’s Bargains on the flight back tonight, and I’m sorry to say that I’m unimpressed. I agree with the bulk of this week’s blog comments (too long, excessively ornate word selections, no real thesis, repetitive, etc.) so I’ll just comment on what I liked about the book.
Rothman’s statement (receiving the “duh” award from Dan) is that the initial development of a tourist destination is soon taken over by “outsiders” who push the locals aside, fabricate a reality to support the myth, and essentially sell visitors a bill of goods in the guise of an authentic experience. The interesting statement was that the locals “always” end up the worse for the bargain. I disagree, but I’m alright with that. I think he did a good job of illustrating just how the locals, at least in the cases he chose to discuss, ended up trapped in dead-end jobs, living in an altered town and subject to the decisions of outsiders.
I disagree because I can offer examples where the results were less dire, even possibly—dare I say (gasp)—positive? But I’m way too tired to type it up now, it’ll keep for tomorrow night’s session.
posted by john | 7:11 PM
1 Comments:
I agree that Rothman's argument does leave little room for the positive effects that tourism has on communities. In class you mentioned the positive benefits of tourism you expereinced in your community near Monterey. I also lived in a community that experiences these positive effects as tourists come in once a year and leave behind valuable income that benefits the community. While I would argue that it most cases the negetive influence of tourism increases as a communities reliance upon that industry increases, Rothman is too quick to dismiss its positives entirely.
Post a Comment
<< Home