What do you think?
Rate this book
50 Dark Destinations: Crime and Contemporary Tourism
From the Alcatraz East Crime Museum and Jack the Ripper guided tours to the Phnom Penh killing fields, ‘dark tourism’ is now a multi-million-pound global industry. Even in the most pleasant tourist destinations, underlying harms are constantly perpetuated, affecting both consumers and those who work or live around such tourist hotspots. Highlighting 50 travel destinations across six continents, expert criminologists, psychologists and historians explore the past and contemporary issues which we often disregard during our everyday leisure. This captivating book is the ‘go-to’ guide for anyone interested in crime and deviance-related tourism. Accessible and digestible, it exposes a worrying trend in contemporary consumer culture, in which many of us partake.
- GenresNonfiction
424 pages, Paperback
Published March 14, 2023
3 people are currently reading
31 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 21, 2023
This popped up at my local bookshop, and places that have a macabre or sinister history appeal to my dark side (which is down neoliberalism capitalism if that’s one takeaway from this book), so naturally I thought this would be a good, fun read with a load of weird and spooky facts about unusual places people visit or go on holiday to. Like the Netflix show Dark Tourist, that the book itself references at the start.
No, it isn’t one of those books, though it's look and blurb sort of trick you into think it's going to be one of those books. This book is a mix of academic theory by lecturers on the appeal of sites that could be classed as dark tourist destination and what I found it to be; a guilt trip of western people in the most part of either wallowing in violence in their own countries or travelling to other parts of the world, making them dark tourist destinations by acts of colonialism. Marketing towards a more academic audience might be more relevant or towards the current issue of colonial guilt and exploitation, so white middle class Europeans can talk about feelings of guilt after returning from an expensive holiday in the Maldives or skiing in the Alps before booking another expensive holiday.
Some of these places would fit most people’s idea of dark tourism, places like Auschwitz, the Jack the ripper and Kray twin’s tours and the killing fields in Cambodia. But there are some that either seem a stretch to fit that role or added more to make a point about something else but needed it to be classified as dark tourism to be in this book, like Qatar, the Royal Armouries museum or Middlesbrough’s Boho economic zone.
There are over thirty locations visited in this book, from all over the world, where we learn a bit of history and cultural background before we pack our bags and go on a guilt trip.
The look into the Jack the ripper tours– seemed a bit judgy. A lot of seems very judgy holier than thou. The Jack the Ripper case is famous for being the first documented case of a serial killer, add to the fact he was never found and the Victorian atmosphere of the time, it has a unique appeal. Is it a little in bad taste? Kind of, but the deaths are over 130 years ago and a human trait, unfortunately is that we separated from this horror to view it more as a curiosity. I mean, ok buying a Ted Bundy t-shirt even I think is bad taste. People have a morbid curiosity about stuff, maybe a prehistoric thing, about being aware of danger. I mean there are people with ‘too’ much of an interest in stuff like that, but the book doesn't examine people who send fan mail to serial killers or women who fall in love with them, like they did with Ted Bundy. No, just people with a little curiosity are slammed.
A lot of blame is laid at the feet of neoliberalism capitalism, like commercialisation of death and tragedy, when people are naturally drawn to this anyway, whether some is trying to sell a t-shirt of it. But the Royal Armouries get a critical eye? Like I said, people, like me are drawn to history, especially the more violent parts. That's just human nature, good or bad. Kids play soldiers, war, pirates with sticks and their hands without ‘neoliberalism capitalism’ selling them nerf guns and have done for all of history. Perhaps we are more self aware today of the consequences to culture, politics etc which is a good thing, but people (boys and men particularly) enjoy this kind of stuff, and it wasn't ‘neoliberal capitalism’ that caused it. All that made was a ticket booth.
People stealing artifacts from Auschwitz or pouting for Instagram selfies are deplorable anyway, but I don’t think the free market is solely to blame for that. Greed, fascist sickos and stupid people trying to get likes by posing at one of the worst tragedies in history.
In the Auschwitz section it says about genocide ‘there is no denying the holocaust was abhorrent and should never be repeated; but it’s certainly not unique nor is it an aberration of western civilised values or unlikely to happen again. Such suppositions merely ignore the million who have died and will continue to die as part of capitalist globalisation and its inherent violence.’ What? This smacks of both what aboutism, anticapitalism ignorance. You are one hand saying because there has been other large scale ethnic cleansing the holocaust gets too much attention. Then saying that millions have died or will die in genocides by capitalism, ignoring the massive murder campaigns by the Soviets, Saddam Hussein, the Serb forces, or China even now accused of genocide by the Uyghurs Muslims.
I’m sure non capitalist countries, if in name only, showcase western acts of aggression or war crimes on tourist trails like Vietnam, I’m sure US actions are on full show while Vietnamese ones, like the Hotel Hilton prison camp aren’t.
In the section on the Cambodian Killing Fields, the writers for the chapter, talks about the only killing field that is open to the public, had to mention tourists from ‘capitalist’ countries. Why is that important? A sense of exploitation? Perhaps people want to learn about this horrible event. Perhaps tourists from socialist countries should visit more, as it would seem more relevant to them. Then the go on about tuk tuk drivers and that they can have a tough time in the quiet months, and many have high rents. Is this an examination into people who take part in dark tourism (or anybody that goes to a museum or location according to this book) or just a lefties whinge.
The use of blue light instead of red in Amsterdam for transgender sex workers, may see to be othering them, but to protect them from men going in being confronted and attacking. Doesn’t talk about female sex workers, just trans ones, or the whole thing of Amsterdam as a dark tourist place for people on countries with more strict laws using it as a naughty place. Just basically trying to guilt trip people who go to Amsterdam that trans people might have so few opportunities that sex work might be the only option, which unfortunately may be true, buts that probably true of loads of sex workers man and women in general.
A decidedly leftwing piece that tries to guilt trip people that going to museums or battlefield, or prisons might be bad and corrosive and an indictment of capitalism. People are interested in history. Even more if gory. People have been drawn to dark themes since prehistory.
Trophy hunting, while I err on the side its wrong, trophy hunting has been a thing for human societies for millennium. While the idea of rich westerns doing it now for some kind of personal revelation/bragging rights especially in the face of endangered species, other humans have hunted across the globe throughout history for furs, heads, and antlers of animals to showcase, before western Liberal capitalism was a thing. Killing a lion for Instagram bragging maybe tasteless, but when the whole idea of ‘cultural’ is removed is a tribe leader killing a lion and wearing its skin any different? Perhaps killing a lion might have more of an impact as it maybe killing livestock or people, so a more ‘traditional’ hunt in a way, but I sure many are a trophy for ‘becoming a man’ than the business like killing of a leopard because it was killing your goats.
Visiting Qatar during the World Cup casting as dark tourism seems a stretch. Unlike ‘most’ of the other places in this book, visitors aren’t seeing or enjoying an activity or place that has a bloody history or violence. The conditions workers have in Qatar are atrocious, and its policies on gay rights also, but to say visiting a place with a poor human rights record classes as dark tourism is very iffy. Does visiting Russia count? Or China? Does visiting the great Wall of China class as dark tourism due to the treatment of Uyghur Muslims by China?
Again, on the Kray twins tour ‘late capitalism fetishism with violence.’ Really? Or as people ls lives today are much less violent, there is an attraction maybe even fetishism towards it, but to lay the blame on capitalism seems another big stretch. What of North Korea’s military parades showcasing nuclear missiles. Does this not count? Of working-class men drawn to the Kray tours due to capitalisms addiction to power and money. Or young men have always been drawn to hard tough men, even if they shouldn’t. Only the stupid become gangsters based off the Krays tour. Trying to link the Krays violence and people going on the tours with capitalism commodification of violence, the book seems to ignore the mausoleum of Lenin and Mao, who killed 100’000 and millions yet have tourist shrines to see their bodies. Does this not count? Book like to have its cake and eat it to. Things like the Kray tours was seen as revelling in harmful criminal activity shaped by capitalisms evils of greed, yet Biggie Smalls’ mural, another person who both engaged in harmful criminal activity and more than likely inspires criminality or pardons it is seen as more positive figure. (Also, I think he needs to check the meaning of diverse.)
Backpacking in the outbreak takes some big leaps. From talking about the serial killer Ivan Milat who killed 7 young people, despite these aren’t said to be backpackers, and the communitas that backpackers have for being more adventurous and more trusting to some how linking this to Australian colonisation and the danger that backpackers face, isn’t mass murderers but their own cultural vandalism of native spaces.
The Hippie Trail in Nepal? Don’t go to visit these places like this as you might like the culture then buy/steal all the objects or exploit Nepal’s beauty and culture. Even just liking the place and wanting a bit for yourself (legally) seems to be exploitative.
The museum of confiscated art in Belarus? Is troublesome because its more a museum of crime rather than art, and museums are bad because the hold stolen artifacts from colonialism (because everything in this book is either the result of capitalism and/or colonialism) and even if items are returned to their country of origin, those museums then become museums of crime rather than art. So, everybody is wrong.
The souks in Tunisia and places like Turkey, which sell counterfeit goods, guess why? Of course, its capitalism and colonial legacy. Not that everybody in the world wants something on the cheap, even if it’s a copy to make them look better. I don’t think the markets of the middle east and Africa selling counterfeit goods are there solely to sell cheap knockoff Armani to western tourists, no matter what narrative the writer is making. These markets have existed for centuries, and selling knockoff goods then also, mainly to locals.
The Mezhyhirya residence museum, the Palace of former Ukrainian president Yanukovych, built from corruption, ‘The function of luxury as a quest for secular immortality one the fuels consumer capitalism with all its powers of destruction.’ Yeah, because only capitalist counties have corrupt leaders that spend billions of siphoned off money to build mansions and yacht, not those good socialist leaders from Cuba, China, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and a bunch of African presidents.
Or UK holiday towns, as a hot bed of racism aims to rebuild Britain’s colonial ambitions (even the most Brexit voter has no real aims of rebuilding the British empire, a leftist bedtime scary story they tell themselves to feel better), not largely abandoned towns that have seen the same middle class that stop going on favour of foreign travel (which they should read in this book when taking part in their culture is exploitative) demonise them as backward places were they send drug addicts to.
People have always been fascinated by the macabre and dark. It might shock our more modern sensibilities but people who live safer, less deadly lives now than ever before in history, maybe are drawn to a sense of danger as excitement rather than what would have been fear as its safer. Capitalism might help make a few quid off catering to that odd need, but capitalism didn’t create that need. People go to the suicide forest in Japan out of humanities weird fascination with stuff like that. Capitalism only made the tours and t-shirts. Add in a bit of the supernatural.
I’m fairly sure people don’t travel all that way to the Pitcairn Island for dark tourism, walking through a village worth of paedophile doesn’t seem to have that appeal.
Favela tours in Rio de Janeiro, might be poverty porn, but the favelas aren’t a product of colonialism, Brazil was colonised and most of the people are descended from them. Colonialism has a greater effect of the natives, but I doubt there are many in the favelas. It might be wrong to use other people’s poverty and situations as a sightseeing tour to point, but again the view of danger and a life you don't have is a human trait, good or bad.
Seriously overthinking done here. The chapter on the death road in Bolivia, a road 37km long that descends over 3500m, with cliff edges on the side, about how many deaths occur and thrill seekers from around the world go there to ride down it. There isn't some deep meaning to this about the deprived areas, and lack of respect for Bolivian death rites. It’s people wanting to do something dangerous that has killed other people as some life affirming event or photo/bragging rights, like mountain climbers, surfers, cave divers. That’s it. Maybe if they disrespect the locals, but to guilt trip them over this? Calm down. Somehow linking it to globalised economics environmentalism and social harm seem over the top.
The Maldives. Its sells itself as an environmental considerate location for holiday makers. The rubbish is mainly due to neighbouring countries and their own bad practices. If tourism stopped fine, but what would fill that economy need?
The South Africa muthi markets, dealing in African tribal medicine has a very tenous link to dark tourism, in the illegal trade in vultures (where their brains are smoked for a high and future seeing). Do tourist visit these places? probably. But even without tourists they markets would still be there with the vulture being killed off. Linking those seems a big stretch to say the least and seems more trying to lay the blame at ‘visiting others’ rather than old practices that don’t fit today.
Viewing alpine skiers as terrorist seems a bit incendiary but comes off that the writer wants to go skiing but with fewer people there to bother him. Is the effect of skiing having a bad environmental impact, defiantly. But dark tourism and ecocide?
The Boho zone in Middlesbrough, an attempt to revitalise the local economy by opening an area of the city to newer tech-based industries, might not be seen as a dark destination (because it isn’t except for socialist minded middle class lecturers), might not be exactly what is needed but it’s description oozes contempt here. Of course, its Thatcher’s fault I rolled my eyes even when the writer said the zone hadn't created other economic opportunities like microbreweries. Economic issues in these types if towns are hard to grasp, but Rose-tinted glasses of 1960s factories and communities is just as unhelpful as they weren’t like that either. It felt like the writer had no idea on local/national or international economics. Opening a ton of factories to replay 1950s Middlesbrough without a plan to actually make money isn’t going to work, but I think that’s what you get with a book like this; written by a bunch of lecturers who probably haven’t worked in a private sector job in their life.
While work practices at both Amazon and Disney can be disgusting, they seem to be different beasts. Amazon see to be people are job insecure that put up with the conditions for a wage while Disney seem to be people who are desperate to work there despite the conditions. While they have bad practices that need to, he addressed (Amazon more than Disney anyway), amazon fulfilment centres (warehouses) don’t have suicide nets outside their windows, but like the rest of this book, socialist countries seem to be ignored for some reason.
I didn't really enjoy this book. I don't think I was the intended audience, but the book cover and blurb pulled a few tricks to draw me in. I don't think everything is down to “neoliberalism colonial capitalism” that people in the western hemisphere like or do, and if it is, is so ingrained into our psyche that is never coming out. While commercialisation of some of these places can leave a sour taste, but despite what the writer thinks, neoliberal capitalism didn’t give people this taste or interest in the dark edges of our history or nature. It just sold us the tickets.
Perhaps drawing examples of ‘idyllic’ holiday locations that hide their dark underbelly from the tourists like Qatar might have had more of a stance or point.
This book just comes across as left=wing guilt tripping to assuage some kind of inherited shame or culpability. The example of feeling guilty of visiting the museum of confiscated items and carrying that guilt if it returned just boggles my mind. Like you cannot enjoy or appreciate something for its cultural life, historical or artistic value, its got to be because of some dark tale behind it. The general guilt over museums here from academics I think is shocking when, museums can do more to educate and entertain and inspire than we give them credit for.
Perhaps I’m too stupid or middle of the road politically to get the feel of this book. Perhaps it was my own expectations of what this book might be.
No, it isn’t one of those books, though it's look and blurb sort of trick you into think it's going to be one of those books. This book is a mix of academic theory by lecturers on the appeal of sites that could be classed as dark tourist destination and what I found it to be; a guilt trip of western people in the most part of either wallowing in violence in their own countries or travelling to other parts of the world, making them dark tourist destinations by acts of colonialism. Marketing towards a more academic audience might be more relevant or towards the current issue of colonial guilt and exploitation, so white middle class Europeans can talk about feelings of guilt after returning from an expensive holiday in the Maldives or skiing in the Alps before booking another expensive holiday.
Some of these places would fit most people’s idea of dark tourism, places like Auschwitz, the Jack the ripper and Kray twin’s tours and the killing fields in Cambodia. But there are some that either seem a stretch to fit that role or added more to make a point about something else but needed it to be classified as dark tourism to be in this book, like Qatar, the Royal Armouries museum or Middlesbrough’s Boho economic zone.
There are over thirty locations visited in this book, from all over the world, where we learn a bit of history and cultural background before we pack our bags and go on a guilt trip.
The look into the Jack the ripper tours– seemed a bit judgy. A lot of seems very judgy holier than thou. The Jack the Ripper case is famous for being the first documented case of a serial killer, add to the fact he was never found and the Victorian atmosphere of the time, it has a unique appeal. Is it a little in bad taste? Kind of, but the deaths are over 130 years ago and a human trait, unfortunately is that we separated from this horror to view it more as a curiosity. I mean, ok buying a Ted Bundy t-shirt even I think is bad taste. People have a morbid curiosity about stuff, maybe a prehistoric thing, about being aware of danger. I mean there are people with ‘too’ much of an interest in stuff like that, but the book doesn't examine people who send fan mail to serial killers or women who fall in love with them, like they did with Ted Bundy. No, just people with a little curiosity are slammed.
A lot of blame is laid at the feet of neoliberalism capitalism, like commercialisation of death and tragedy, when people are naturally drawn to this anyway, whether some is trying to sell a t-shirt of it. But the Royal Armouries get a critical eye? Like I said, people, like me are drawn to history, especially the more violent parts. That's just human nature, good or bad. Kids play soldiers, war, pirates with sticks and their hands without ‘neoliberalism capitalism’ selling them nerf guns and have done for all of history. Perhaps we are more self aware today of the consequences to culture, politics etc which is a good thing, but people (boys and men particularly) enjoy this kind of stuff, and it wasn't ‘neoliberal capitalism’ that caused it. All that made was a ticket booth.
People stealing artifacts from Auschwitz or pouting for Instagram selfies are deplorable anyway, but I don’t think the free market is solely to blame for that. Greed, fascist sickos and stupid people trying to get likes by posing at one of the worst tragedies in history.
In the Auschwitz section it says about genocide ‘there is no denying the holocaust was abhorrent and should never be repeated; but it’s certainly not unique nor is it an aberration of western civilised values or unlikely to happen again. Such suppositions merely ignore the million who have died and will continue to die as part of capitalist globalisation and its inherent violence.’ What? This smacks of both what aboutism, anticapitalism ignorance. You are one hand saying because there has been other large scale ethnic cleansing the holocaust gets too much attention. Then saying that millions have died or will die in genocides by capitalism, ignoring the massive murder campaigns by the Soviets, Saddam Hussein, the Serb forces, or China even now accused of genocide by the Uyghurs Muslims.
I’m sure non capitalist countries, if in name only, showcase western acts of aggression or war crimes on tourist trails like Vietnam, I’m sure US actions are on full show while Vietnamese ones, like the Hotel Hilton prison camp aren’t.
In the section on the Cambodian Killing Fields, the writers for the chapter, talks about the only killing field that is open to the public, had to mention tourists from ‘capitalist’ countries. Why is that important? A sense of exploitation? Perhaps people want to learn about this horrible event. Perhaps tourists from socialist countries should visit more, as it would seem more relevant to them. Then the go on about tuk tuk drivers and that they can have a tough time in the quiet months, and many have high rents. Is this an examination into people who take part in dark tourism (or anybody that goes to a museum or location according to this book) or just a lefties whinge.
The use of blue light instead of red in Amsterdam for transgender sex workers, may see to be othering them, but to protect them from men going in being confronted and attacking. Doesn’t talk about female sex workers, just trans ones, or the whole thing of Amsterdam as a dark tourist place for people on countries with more strict laws using it as a naughty place. Just basically trying to guilt trip people who go to Amsterdam that trans people might have so few opportunities that sex work might be the only option, which unfortunately may be true, buts that probably true of loads of sex workers man and women in general.
A decidedly leftwing piece that tries to guilt trip people that going to museums or battlefield, or prisons might be bad and corrosive and an indictment of capitalism. People are interested in history. Even more if gory. People have been drawn to dark themes since prehistory.
Trophy hunting, while I err on the side its wrong, trophy hunting has been a thing for human societies for millennium. While the idea of rich westerns doing it now for some kind of personal revelation/bragging rights especially in the face of endangered species, other humans have hunted across the globe throughout history for furs, heads, and antlers of animals to showcase, before western Liberal capitalism was a thing. Killing a lion for Instagram bragging maybe tasteless, but when the whole idea of ‘cultural’ is removed is a tribe leader killing a lion and wearing its skin any different? Perhaps killing a lion might have more of an impact as it maybe killing livestock or people, so a more ‘traditional’ hunt in a way, but I sure many are a trophy for ‘becoming a man’ than the business like killing of a leopard because it was killing your goats.
Visiting Qatar during the World Cup casting as dark tourism seems a stretch. Unlike ‘most’ of the other places in this book, visitors aren’t seeing or enjoying an activity or place that has a bloody history or violence. The conditions workers have in Qatar are atrocious, and its policies on gay rights also, but to say visiting a place with a poor human rights record classes as dark tourism is very iffy. Does visiting Russia count? Or China? Does visiting the great Wall of China class as dark tourism due to the treatment of Uyghur Muslims by China?
Again, on the Kray twins tour ‘late capitalism fetishism with violence.’ Really? Or as people ls lives today are much less violent, there is an attraction maybe even fetishism towards it, but to lay the blame on capitalism seems another big stretch. What of North Korea’s military parades showcasing nuclear missiles. Does this not count? Of working-class men drawn to the Kray tours due to capitalisms addiction to power and money. Or young men have always been drawn to hard tough men, even if they shouldn’t. Only the stupid become gangsters based off the Krays tour. Trying to link the Krays violence and people going on the tours with capitalism commodification of violence, the book seems to ignore the mausoleum of Lenin and Mao, who killed 100’000 and millions yet have tourist shrines to see their bodies. Does this not count? Book like to have its cake and eat it to. Things like the Kray tours was seen as revelling in harmful criminal activity shaped by capitalisms evils of greed, yet Biggie Smalls’ mural, another person who both engaged in harmful criminal activity and more than likely inspires criminality or pardons it is seen as more positive figure. (Also, I think he needs to check the meaning of diverse.)
Backpacking in the outbreak takes some big leaps. From talking about the serial killer Ivan Milat who killed 7 young people, despite these aren’t said to be backpackers, and the communitas that backpackers have for being more adventurous and more trusting to some how linking this to Australian colonisation and the danger that backpackers face, isn’t mass murderers but their own cultural vandalism of native spaces.
The Hippie Trail in Nepal? Don’t go to visit these places like this as you might like the culture then buy/steal all the objects or exploit Nepal’s beauty and culture. Even just liking the place and wanting a bit for yourself (legally) seems to be exploitative.
The museum of confiscated art in Belarus? Is troublesome because its more a museum of crime rather than art, and museums are bad because the hold stolen artifacts from colonialism (because everything in this book is either the result of capitalism and/or colonialism) and even if items are returned to their country of origin, those museums then become museums of crime rather than art. So, everybody is wrong.
The souks in Tunisia and places like Turkey, which sell counterfeit goods, guess why? Of course, its capitalism and colonial legacy. Not that everybody in the world wants something on the cheap, even if it’s a copy to make them look better. I don’t think the markets of the middle east and Africa selling counterfeit goods are there solely to sell cheap knockoff Armani to western tourists, no matter what narrative the writer is making. These markets have existed for centuries, and selling knockoff goods then also, mainly to locals.
The Mezhyhirya residence museum, the Palace of former Ukrainian president Yanukovych, built from corruption, ‘The function of luxury as a quest for secular immortality one the fuels consumer capitalism with all its powers of destruction.’ Yeah, because only capitalist counties have corrupt leaders that spend billions of siphoned off money to build mansions and yacht, not those good socialist leaders from Cuba, China, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and a bunch of African presidents.
Or UK holiday towns, as a hot bed of racism aims to rebuild Britain’s colonial ambitions (even the most Brexit voter has no real aims of rebuilding the British empire, a leftist bedtime scary story they tell themselves to feel better), not largely abandoned towns that have seen the same middle class that stop going on favour of foreign travel (which they should read in this book when taking part in their culture is exploitative) demonise them as backward places were they send drug addicts to.
People have always been fascinated by the macabre and dark. It might shock our more modern sensibilities but people who live safer, less deadly lives now than ever before in history, maybe are drawn to a sense of danger as excitement rather than what would have been fear as its safer. Capitalism might help make a few quid off catering to that odd need, but capitalism didn’t create that need. People go to the suicide forest in Japan out of humanities weird fascination with stuff like that. Capitalism only made the tours and t-shirts. Add in a bit of the supernatural.
I’m fairly sure people don’t travel all that way to the Pitcairn Island for dark tourism, walking through a village worth of paedophile doesn’t seem to have that appeal.
Favela tours in Rio de Janeiro, might be poverty porn, but the favelas aren’t a product of colonialism, Brazil was colonised and most of the people are descended from them. Colonialism has a greater effect of the natives, but I doubt there are many in the favelas. It might be wrong to use other people’s poverty and situations as a sightseeing tour to point, but again the view of danger and a life you don't have is a human trait, good or bad.
Seriously overthinking done here. The chapter on the death road in Bolivia, a road 37km long that descends over 3500m, with cliff edges on the side, about how many deaths occur and thrill seekers from around the world go there to ride down it. There isn't some deep meaning to this about the deprived areas, and lack of respect for Bolivian death rites. It’s people wanting to do something dangerous that has killed other people as some life affirming event or photo/bragging rights, like mountain climbers, surfers, cave divers. That’s it. Maybe if they disrespect the locals, but to guilt trip them over this? Calm down. Somehow linking it to globalised economics environmentalism and social harm seem over the top.
The Maldives. Its sells itself as an environmental considerate location for holiday makers. The rubbish is mainly due to neighbouring countries and their own bad practices. If tourism stopped fine, but what would fill that economy need?
The South Africa muthi markets, dealing in African tribal medicine has a very tenous link to dark tourism, in the illegal trade in vultures (where their brains are smoked for a high and future seeing). Do tourist visit these places? probably. But even without tourists they markets would still be there with the vulture being killed off. Linking those seems a big stretch to say the least and seems more trying to lay the blame at ‘visiting others’ rather than old practices that don’t fit today.
Viewing alpine skiers as terrorist seems a bit incendiary but comes off that the writer wants to go skiing but with fewer people there to bother him. Is the effect of skiing having a bad environmental impact, defiantly. But dark tourism and ecocide?
The Boho zone in Middlesbrough, an attempt to revitalise the local economy by opening an area of the city to newer tech-based industries, might not be seen as a dark destination (because it isn’t except for socialist minded middle class lecturers), might not be exactly what is needed but it’s description oozes contempt here. Of course, its Thatcher’s fault I rolled my eyes even when the writer said the zone hadn't created other economic opportunities like microbreweries. Economic issues in these types if towns are hard to grasp, but Rose-tinted glasses of 1960s factories and communities is just as unhelpful as they weren’t like that either. It felt like the writer had no idea on local/national or international economics. Opening a ton of factories to replay 1950s Middlesbrough without a plan to actually make money isn’t going to work, but I think that’s what you get with a book like this; written by a bunch of lecturers who probably haven’t worked in a private sector job in their life.
While work practices at both Amazon and Disney can be disgusting, they seem to be different beasts. Amazon see to be people are job insecure that put up with the conditions for a wage while Disney seem to be people who are desperate to work there despite the conditions. While they have bad practices that need to, he addressed (Amazon more than Disney anyway), amazon fulfilment centres (warehouses) don’t have suicide nets outside their windows, but like the rest of this book, socialist countries seem to be ignored for some reason.
I didn't really enjoy this book. I don't think I was the intended audience, but the book cover and blurb pulled a few tricks to draw me in. I don't think everything is down to “neoliberalism colonial capitalism” that people in the western hemisphere like or do, and if it is, is so ingrained into our psyche that is never coming out. While commercialisation of some of these places can leave a sour taste, but despite what the writer thinks, neoliberal capitalism didn’t give people this taste or interest in the dark edges of our history or nature. It just sold us the tickets.
Perhaps drawing examples of ‘idyllic’ holiday locations that hide their dark underbelly from the tourists like Qatar might have had more of a stance or point.
This book just comes across as left=wing guilt tripping to assuage some kind of inherited shame or culpability. The example of feeling guilty of visiting the museum of confiscated items and carrying that guilt if it returned just boggles my mind. Like you cannot enjoy or appreciate something for its cultural life, historical or artistic value, its got to be because of some dark tale behind it. The general guilt over museums here from academics I think is shocking when, museums can do more to educate and entertain and inspire than we give them credit for.
Perhaps I’m too stupid or middle of the road politically to get the feel of this book. Perhaps it was my own expectations of what this book might be.
September 23, 2023
Extremely interesting and modern take on dark tourism. Each chapter covers a different topic, spanning many centuries and almost all the continents. Authors discuss many places where they find dark tourism: for example, the dark side of travelling in South America, such as The Road of Death in Bolivia and favela tours in Rio de Janeiro; they critique the neoliberal- driven working conditions in places such as Amazon warehouses and Disneyland parks; and teach us the history of the Suicide forest in Japan, or about the massacres in Tuol Sleng, Cambodia. They also look at steroid holidays in Egypt, and the darkness surrounding prison and plantation tours. Genuinely, there must be something of interest or recognition for everyone in this book, as chapters are very diverse.
This book taught me a lot about historical things I had not known about, and while some chapter used fairly pretentious language, I found it generally accessible and thoroughly entertaining. One could say that reading this book can count as a form of dark tourism around the globe, from the safety of a screen…
This book taught me a lot about historical things I had not known about, and while some chapter used fairly pretentious language, I found it generally accessible and thoroughly entertaining. One could say that reading this book can count as a form of dark tourism around the globe, from the safety of a screen…
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews