Comment

Comment by John Kipper on July 6, 2010 at 4:34pm

I'm actually dating somebody from Arizona, AND she's Chicana. Born there, and so was her mom AND her grandma AND like 100 generations before them, because her family was in AZ BEFORE we stole the land from the Mexicans. And don't go telling me otherwise, that whole war was a land-grabbing sham.

So I'm telling her NOT to go back, and I personlly don't intend to go either. There's much better places to go spend my money. Why should a good, kind, wonderful person like Jessica expose herself to being picked up by some inbred sunbleached yahoo who thinks he has more right to be in AZ than the people his ancestors stole it from??

Sorry if I sound a little bitter, but this latest Republican-inspired idiocy hits a little too close to home.

Comment by David Lawrence on July 6, 2010 at 3:27pm

ACLU is exaggerating the danger to most people who visit Arizona's resorts. Because 99% of us golfers and tennis players are white, we aren't going to be profiled or arrested. At what price point do the deals at a resort look so tempting that you're willing to say "I can't resist, even if there is a boycott."

Comment by Tripatini on July 6, 2010 at 9:23am

Last Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union issued travel alerts for Arizona, warning potential visitors that the state's new law designed to crack down on illegal immigrants could result in racial profiling and warrantless arrests. On April 27th, the government of Mexico had warned its own citizens against travel to the state. The city of Boulder, Colorado called for a boycott on official travel to Arizona... whereupon the city of Colorado Springs called for a boycott of Boulder.

Where will the madness end?

Do you agree with the Arizona law? Or do you plan to stay away in protest? Is a boycott even the best or most effective way to influence change in a tourist destination? Please share your thoughts!

Comment by Darryl Musick on April 30, 2010 at 10:18am

We go to find the Govenator of Kahl-ee-for-nya and go on a long hike. Today's trip report is from capitol of the Golden State, Sacramento. See why it pays to find your duly elected representatives at The World on Wheels: http://tinyurl.com/2wyzzvq

Comment by Max Pesling on February 16, 2010 at 12:40pm

I came across this interesting piece by Jonathan Steele from the U.K. Guardian, on whether tourists should go back to Burma despite its horrendous regime. The upshot seems to yes. It's a long and fascinating piece, but here are the key bits. "

"The International Crisis Group, which often reflects the views of the liberal wing of the western diplomatic elite...suggests western governments suspend their travel bans on junta members, resume normal contact and push the message that political prisoners must be released and election campaigning be allowed to go ahead freely. The Obama administration has also announced a shift in US policy on Burma towards engagement rather than isolation, though without ­specifying any concrete steps.

According to articles on the online opposition website Irrawaddy, Aung San Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy, is involved in a tough internal debate over whether to take part in the elections. It might back certain candidates even if, as is ­assumed, it is barred from competing in its own right. Taking part would ­allow the party's supporters to revive their networks and contacts.

Meanwhile, the western investment boycott has left the field open to Chinese companies. They are especially visible in Mandalay, which has a large mall called the Great Wall Shopping Centre. "People respect the Chinese – they think they're cleverer than Burmese," said a young man who studied briefly in ­another Asean country. "They don't like Indians because Indians were the main agents of the British occupation. But the Chinese are taking over. They're close to the regime. Each side helps the other. It's like a mafia," he added.

Back, then, to the nagging question: should we have toured a country with so bad a regime and such little prospect of improvement? This young man had no doubt. "Bring in tourists who can spread the word from the outside world and also tell people in their own countries about Burma," he said.

In Britain, the Burma Campaign UK criticises tourism and investment and publishes a "dirty list" of firms that do business with Burma. This includes travel companies as well as the Lonely Planet guidebooks. The campaign's website contains a December 2002 quote from Aung San Suu Kyi: "We have not yet come to the point where we encourage people to come to Burma as tourists."

Two other exile lobbies, Voices for Burma and Free Burma Coalition, which used to support a tourism boycott now take the opposite view. Voices for Burma also enlists Aung San Suu Kyi, though its sourcing is flimsy. Its website says: "According to a close acquaintance, not yet identified but reportedly from her party, the National League of ­Democracy, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been quoted as saying that travel to her country can now be encouraged, provided arrangements are made through private organisations. She now believes that tourism might be beneficial, should the result of the visit draw attention to the oppression of the people by the military junta."

While favouring engagement, Voices for Burma and the Free Burma Coalition urge tourists to do as much as possible to help private Burmese citizens and not put money in the government's pocket, and in fact it is possible to do so now as a tourist. Some fees, such as the entrance ticket for the ruined city of Bagan, the visa charge and airport departure tax, cannot be escaped. But in 2003 the government dropped the requirement that every tourist change $200 at an official exchange place. ­Instead of going on a package or using a UK- or Bangkok-based tour company that inevitably has contacts with the Burmese government, visitors can travel on their own by picking one of the many family-owned Burmese travel agents that work from tiny ­offices in Rangoon. You make your ­arrangements either on the spot or by email in advance. There are also ­numerous family-owned guesthouses and restaurants and thousands of ­private souvenir-makers and sellers. Thanks to the web, details of how to plan your trip are readily available.

The big decision is whether to go at all. No one should imagine tourism is automatically going to make Burma a better place. But can anyone credibly argue the tourism boycott has made it better either?"

It's not so different from the argument re ending the U.S. travel embargo to Cuba. Any thoughts out there?

Comment by EnLinea Media on August 24, 2009 at 11:04am

Take this week's Go-Lo poll, which asks whether members agree or disagree with travel guru Arthur Frommer's stance against travel to Arizona, where unusually lax gun laws recently allowed gun-toting demonstrators to wield their weapons outside a building where Barack Obama was speaking.

Comment by David Paul Appell on April 16, 2009 at 10:08am

Here's a good piece on politics and tourism just out from the travel-trade-oriented Web site ETurboNews.com:

Tourism and Politics Collide in Thailand and Fiji
By David Beirman, eTN Special Correspondent | Apr 16, 2009
http://www.eturbonews.com/8828/tourism-and-politics-collide-thailand-and-fiji

Over the past week, travel professionals have encountered serious challenges to the viability of the tourism industry in Thailand and Fiji, two countries far apart in distance but facing a common perceptual and actual threat as a result of domestic political events which impact on the reputation of each country as tourist destinations.

The two protagonists of Thailand’s political conflict have committed acts that have seriously undermined confidence in tourism. The yellow shirts’ occupation of Bangkok’s international airport in December 2008 caused major disruption to tourism in Thailand and Thailand’s reputation as a transit point for international travelers and airline operators.

The Thai tourism industry was making headway in recovering from this event when the current opposition, red shirts, managed to up the political ante by storming the venue of the ASEAN heads of government conference this month in Pattaya which resulted in the rapid evacuation of 15 heads of state from most of Thailand’s major tourism source markets. Some of those heads of state never made it Thailand. The aircraft carrying Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd being forced to turn back to Australia while en route to Pattaya. If political activists want to guarantee that a country attracts negative travel advisories which will deter tourism, then disrupting a meeting of heads of state from your country’s main source markets will certainly do the trick. The red shirts’ actions were designed to undermine the authority of Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva but if this was the aim it has been a pyrrhic victory that has undermined Thailand’s national reputation.

Tourism in Thailand represents 6 percent of the nation’s GDP and the multiplier effect of tourism creates millions of jobs in Thailand, jobs that are now under threat. Although it appears that worst of the current round of political violence is over in Thailand and even the worst of the riots in Bangkok had relatively little impact on tourists in the country, perceptually, Thailand has sustained serious damage as a tourism destination.

The Thai Tourism Authority (TAT) to its credit has been quick to respond the developments, but it will take a great deal more than soothing words from TAT officials to bring the tourists back in a hurry. One of a range of strategic approaches is to bring media and tourism industry leaders from key source markets to see for themselves (as they did following the December 2004 tsunami) that Thailand is indeed a safe and tourist friendly destination. Indulging in spin won’t cut it for Thailand’s tourism industry right now.

The situation is Fiji is vastly different but has the potential to be equally threatening for tourism. Fiji’s “interim” prime minister, Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, was clearly upset that the Fijian Supreme Court declared his regime unconstitutional a week ago. So like any military ruler in a similar situation, he abolished the constitution and dismissed the judiciary. The Fijian military also took over the Central Reserve Bank, censored the local media and expelled all foreign journalists who have deigned to question these actions. Unlike Thailand, there have been no riots in Fijian streets, demonstrations at airports or meetings disrupted. Tourists are not in any apparent danger and, in fact, with Fijian hotels and resorts offering a wide range of deals, thousands of Australian and New Zealand tourists are taking advantage of Fiji’s travel bargains.

However, this may change. The Australian and New Zealand governments have expressed their intense opposition to political developments in Fiji and if there is one area in which Fiji is distinctly vulnerable to political pressure then tourism ranks number one. Tourism represents over 30 percent of Fiji’s GDP and is undeniably the largest employer. Almost half of Fiji’s inbound tourism comes from Australia and New Zealand. A government campaign of criticism directed at Fiji and supported by a media in both Australia and New Zealand which have a penchant for creating a crisis out of very little could lead to a very negative perception of Fiji. Australia’s Foreign Minister Stephen Smith recently stated on ABC radio that he has no desire to negatively impact on the livelihoods of ordinary Fijians but he would do all possible to pressure the current Fijian government to commit to a rapid return to parliamentary democracy.

During the abortive Speight coup attempt of 2000, the Australian government actually raised the security alert level of Australia’s travel advisory and did so again when Bainimarama staged his coup in December 2006. The Fijian tourism industry and its leadership have been at pains to make a distinction between Fiji’s internal political machinations and the positive overall image of destination Fiji. However, a campaign of political odium directed at Fiji could potentially result in travelers choosing a less “controversial” destination and the Pacific islands and Southeast Asia offer many alternatives.

The Fijian tourism industry has faced a range of similar dilemmas since the first major military coup in 1987. The Fijian tourism industry has proven itself to be highly resilient in response to political events that have caused perceptual damage to Fiji. In the wake of past Fiji’s tourism leadership has employed familiarization trips of media and travel industry leaders with considerable effect although for Fiji this is an expensive exercise.

It is to be hoped that tourism is not employed in the arsenal of political weaponry used against the Fijian regime by Australia, New Zealand and its allies but it may be hard for these governments to resist the temptation.

Currently, tourism worldwide is affected by the global economic slowdown that is developing into a global tourism crisis. The last thing any tourist destination needs, especially in countries with a high level of economic reliance on tourism on tourism, is a political issue that compromises its competitiveness. Thailand and Fiji join a long list of countries that have been perceptually damaged by internal political upheavals.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page