battle field tourism

Where have you been? Where are you going? This is the place for talking about chapters 1. 3, & 7 of Authentic English Readings for Advanced Students.
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:23 am

battle field tourism

Post by (607)leejonghyeon »

in my opinion

battlefield is meaningful place itself.

if battlefield were used for commercial purpose, it causes a consequence that fade out battlefield meaning.

Therefore battlefield should be appropriate level commercial place.

Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:21 am

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (apple)phamchiduc »

I agree that former battlefields shouldn't be used as a kind of business. I'm sure that battlefield tourism started out as a good idea with good intentions, for foreigners and young people could learn more about its historical values. I'm not really sure why they've increased commercial. Two thoughts on my mind, the first is to attract more visitors, making the battlefields widely known for their existances. Meant for studying and learning. The second, for profits. Or maybe to be frank its both, but i personally think it should be more about the historical events and meanings itself, than the profits. It's just not right somehow making benefits from places where people fought and died.

Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:19 am

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (Aplus)parkjaeheung »

I totally agree with it. Conservation of battlefield is for teaching lessons, NOT rip-off.

(Starbucks)Cho Yoon Jeong
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:06 pm

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (Starbucks)Cho Yoon Jeong »

I think it is okay for battlefields to be used as commercial purpose unless it fades out the battlefields' origin meaning. Today, many governments use battlefields to attract tourists. It surely is using battlefields as commercial purpose, but it does not impair nor fades out the spirit of the ancestors. Rather, when this kinda behavior forms attration among various people; when the battlefield becomes the issue, it can be a good chance to let many people know about the history when the battlefield took place.

Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: battle field tourism

Post by parkboin »

I think using battlefield as a source of tourism is accepted only conditional way. To be frank, many modern people don't have time and interest for historical events and sites. Considering this situation, trip to historical battle fields may be one of helpful ways to attract people to those places. But, there's appropriate level of this commercialization. The purpose of this commercial-tourism(in the context, not too commercial) lies in attracting more people and promoting the site. Then, we could educate people about meaning of sites and urge them to reflect. Unless this is done at proper level, there can be no education and reflection. So it is necessary and highly recommended to allow making battlefield tourism to some level.
But , I think it is difficult at what level battlefield tourism do good in one word. I want to listen to others' opinion

Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:51 pm

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (lab102)songminjung »

I agree with it. If historic places be used for comercial purposes, I will be disappointed and not try to visit another places in the future. HIstoric places should be remained as it is.

Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:10 pm

Re: battle field tourism

Post by choyongbin »

I also agree with your opinion. Battle fields should not be used to make money but to show tourists the history of what event took place and how it came to be.

Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:45 pm

Re: battle field tourism

Post by lab102-Shim,Sojeong »

I agree with your opinion. As you mentioned, battlefields have somewhat ruined by commercial purposes.
Battlefields in korea had lost it's own meaning to remain. which is, to remind next generation what happened and how it occured in the place.
besides, remaining of battlefields alerts next generation to a battle itself.
In my point of view, two important changes might be helpful to maintain battlefields' honor.
preferentially, government has to demonstrate keen interest to battlefields and supervises to maintaining battlefields strictly.
secondly, people's attitudes to battlefields have to be more respectful.
I'm pretty sure there will occur some positive changes if these two things are realized!
Last edited by lab102-Shim,Sojeong on Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ban Hye Jin
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:11 pm

Re: battle field tourism

Post by Ban Hye Jin »

You're right.But in the indusrial age, battlefield is difficult to see just have historical mean.
Everything that is being used in industrial situations,battlefield can be one of the major cultural industries.For example,battlefield has been used important in the tourism industry.We visit battlefield just to delight eyes and choose that place to play only rather than to feel historical significance.Therefore I think battlefield stand a commercial nature is inevitable.

Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:11 am

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (sixzero7)kimsongmi »

i agree in part with you.
your opinion that the battlefield should be maintained for its historical meaning is right.
but because today's society is capitalistic society, i think that it is necessary to produce profit from the battle field tourism.
but there are the point to be considered in my opinion.
producing profit from battle field tourism is limited to the extent that cultural heritage isn't ruined.
if this point were implemented well, we would gain the effect of killing two birds with one stone.

(starbucks)Tae-Hun, Gu
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:03 am

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (starbucks)Tae-Hun, Gu »

Visiting battlefields is for education for sure, but if there isn't enough commercialism, people wouldn't be willing to visit those places. Let's suppose that parents are planning to take their children to the battlefield. Would children learn a lot and get deeply absorbed in watching those sights if there's nothing but battlefield? I doubt it. There should be some refreshments(adequate amount) for visitors so that they could both enjoy and learn.

Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:32 pm

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (sixzero7)Leekwanhee »

I agree with your idea that battle field is meaningful place itself.
So, I think battle field should not be a commercial place too.
But I also think battle field should be managed.
For example, being cleaned or no being corroded, etc.
It costs many money to manage the battle field.
I think management is more important than the battle field's meaning.
So, it is inevitable to charge the money for admission.

Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:19 am

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (starbucks)leehyeonsoo »

I'm not sure what's an appropriate level.
In my case, if people can recognize the fact that the place was a battlefield, I think that level of commercialization of a battlefield is fine.

I wanna know what other students think.

Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (sixzero7)JungKarim »

In my opinion, of course, final purpose of the battlefield should not be commercialism.
However, I cast dout that If battlefields are left without any commercial management, rather battlefields could be avoided from people's concern.
So making battlefields as sacred place extermely could be partially brings bad efferct.

Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:23 am

Re: battle field tourism

Post by Sun-SooKyungLee »

I agree with your opinion in the fact that a battlefield is considered to be meaningful and memorable to many people.
Also, i do agree with the fact that it is not ok to use the battlefield for commercial purposes that take away the real meaning of it.

Post Reply