Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

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: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:56 pm

Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by Apple-GyeYeonCho »

I think battlefield tourism is not bad. I think even it is good. To the people, to the country. I will tell you my reasons why I think it is not that bad.
First, there are really many battlefields in Korea because of Korea's location. there were many battles in Korea since long long time ago, and still, we are under the war(it's not ended yet) now. So, if we except battlefields from our tour course, there're not enough places to visit for tour. May be some temples and big streets in the city will be the most of it. So in econimic view, battlefields are necessary in our tourism plan.
Second, It can teach children how the battle was and can make them to imagine it. Children can learn directly through their body senses not only depends on books. It can be great experiences to feel past years and grow pride about our ancestors. It means, it's good for education.
According to two reasons up there, I think battlefield tourism is necessary to us. What do you think about my opinion?

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

Re: Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by (Aplus)parkjaeheung »

It is reasonable that children can(have to) learn through direct experience. One picture is worth a thousand words, huh? We,adult, should make many good educational program to stir up kids' imagination. In that sense, battlefield tourism will be a good opportunity for our growing children.

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

Re: Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by (apple)phamchiduc »

What I don't really get is: did we fail to gain our generation's interests in history through battlefield tourism? And for that now people are always talking about how to involve the new younger generations, hence: small kids into learning history, using former battlefields.

Yes, I agree that it could be the most effective and interesting method to teach children about history. But is it worth it filling the souls of young innocent children with warzone violences and barbaric images? Respect those who passed away we should. But I think books are enough for young kids. No battlefield touring until they are older(or old enough) and truly interested in history. Some kids do get carried away with...other materials and facts.

(Starbucks)Young Il Seo
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:07 pm

Re: Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by (Starbucks)Young Il Seo »

I think your opinions are quite interesting. First of all, I think battlefield tourism is not bad,too. But I don't agree with your first reason partly. Against your first reason, Your idea that battlefield is necessary for tourism is what i think called 'commercialism'. Because I think it implys we should do develop the battlefield. But it may be harmful for battlefield's condition. I, However, think battlefield tour is quite instructive for young generation like your second reason. So, instead of making battlefield fall into commercialism, We just may keep battlefield in original condition as much as we can and take a few traveler restrictly. I think It will be helpful for battlefield.

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

Re: Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by (sixzero7)JungKarim »

You have strong reasons to support your ideas.In a nutshell, you are considering battlefieds' commercial and educative effect.
Partially, I can understand your suggestions and agree with it. However, as above peer SeoYoungil said, we have to regard our histories and traditional places as not means but ends. That is, battlefields have their original meaning, and there is some obligation for us to protect their essential meaning.
Therefore, I'd like to say battlefield tourism has to be only part of our tour industry, not all for commercial purpose.

Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:40 am

Re: Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by apple-anyumi »

Thank you for such an interesting opinion. I also think Battlefield Tourism is not bad but from the view which is slightly different from yours. It's obvious that we can not exclude battles when it comes to Korea's history and identity. Accordingly, battlefield that still make us remind of significant historic event also should be considered as where we have to care of and where we could learn some lessons. That's why I think battlefield tourism is not bad. Of course I can't deny its economical advantage, but that should be not the only reason. Moreover, you said Korea doesn't get much places worth touring without battlefields. I think this is totally not true. Throughout long history, our ancestors had accumulated a numbers of intellectual and cultural heritages and we can see them here and there in Korea. There are definitely as many (or even more) places deserving to be visited as battlefields in Korea. If you think battlefields are just all of Korea's cultural heritage, that would be so sad thing to me.

(lost) lee dae young
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:44 am

Re: Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by (lost) lee dae young »

I agree with your opinion that we all don't have to be sacred pilgrimage. It is our duty to be solemn and contemplate soldiers who died for one's cause in the semester or the museum. However, I suppose that the historical event is an object fact everyone can make use of whether it's tragic or not. we can see many cases in which people started their business with the material related to historical event easily. For example, there is a company which made a game with the material of Korean war, and lots of historical event movies whose major aim is to make money have been made, but we don't blame their morality except the case that they distorted severely the historical fact.

Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:12 pm

Re: Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by A+bakyeoeul »

With many respectable opinions above, I'd like to add some two small reasons why I could't favor your first view.. but I do appreciate the second one.

1. In terms of economic effects it may mean the dissipation of space to maintain the battlefield spots, therefore a loss not a profit.

2. We shouldn't be giving the impression to those who visit Korea that they are the only sightseeing-worthys, and which is not true, as mentioned in other replys..

(A plus) Lee hansol
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:13 am

Re: Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by (A plus) Lee hansol »

I agree with your idea that Battlefield tourism is not bad.
As you said, this tourism will contribute to our society very much in side of economic and educational. Also, I think, as we view it internationally, the tourism will promote the historical problem which Korea has had such as the Dockdo issue and the China’s northeast project. As we notify our gloomy history of war to many other nations, we can get some way to resolve these problems.
So I also want to support your idea.

Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:19 pm

Re: Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by 101Jungnuri »

I’m afraid to say that but I’m totally on the opposite side of your idea.
First, without battlefields we have looooooots of attractive places to visit: Olle Roads in Jeju-do, Green Tea farm in Bo Seong, Insa-dong, Andong Hahoe folk village, and Yeosu which is selected to host the 2012 World Expo. I can’t count them all. I think it’s too narrow view to consider only battlefields for Korea’s tourism places.
Second, have you ever visited battlefields in your childhood? How was it? What did you learn from that? What we should teach to children is how to honor our ancestors, not what was left in the battlefield.
In my opinion, we’d better to leave battlefields as they are and try not to be too commercialized.

Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:37 am

Re: Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by SUN-Yonghyun-Ryu »

When I think about battlefield tourism, I come up with positive images just like you did. When I was a elementary school student, I often went on a picnic to Jinju castle which is one of the battlefield tourism spots in Jinju-si. At that time, students including me did not seem to focus on educational aspect of the trip but had fun with our friends. Yes, it is right. Picnics have to be fun! I did enjoy picnics there and I still know what happened on the rock of NONGAE in Jinju castle. Probably teachers told us about NONGAE for a short time when we were there. Some of the students might listen to the teacher carefully but others maybe not. The students who paid attention to the teacher were not only having fun in the picnic but also learning a real education without many efforts. At least those students had benefits from a short storytelling by the teacher. Then I could say IT IS WORTH.
The castle is still a hot picnic spot for children, couples, and family. It doesn't look like so commercial nor artificial (many people worry about its preservation) Jinju-si tries to keep the castle as it was and hosts NONGAE festival once a year in May to honor the spirit of her who died protecting our homeland. I believe this is not so related to commercialism. I would rather say this is a good chance for us to rethink about tourism which has a lot of merits.

sun-hyoung seok
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:13 pm

Re: Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by sun-hyoung seok »

My opinion is similar with you.
When we visit battle field, we may be interested in history of the battle field naturally.
So battle field for commercial purpose will also attract many tourists and It will make commercial benefits and inform the history of the place.

Sun Jeon Jin-Ree
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:08 pm

Re: Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by Sun Jeon Jin-Ree »

I totally agree to your opinion that battlefield tourism is not bad. Do you know about Gettysburg? It's a battlefield which became too commercial after the battle. There may be some more examples showing that battlefield tourism is bad. I don't have any statistical evidence for my opinion but I think the number of battlefields that became too commercial is not that many and the case is too extreme. There are a lot more battlefields that are used genuinely for tour with a little commercialism. So I think the argument that battlefield tourism is bad is too much. And even though there might be commercialism in battlefield tourism, it is good because at least people GO there whatever their intention may be. They perceive that they are actually going to 'a battlefield' and because the commercial shops or centers offer souvenirs and activities related to that war, people are constantly reminded of the battle. It is good for education.

Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:56 pm

Re: Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by Apple-GyeYeonCho »

Thank you for your replies on my opinion. But I want to say something to fix your some distortion.

First, I didn't say battlefields are all. They are not all in tour courses. I just said, battlefields occupy much percentage in tour. And still, I think it is true.

Second, I didn't say that we should break and rebuild our beautiful spaces. I also oppose it. Because if so, It will lose its' own meaning.

I'm really happy to share my opinion with you:) and I also think it is kind of good chance to understand other's opinions!
Let's keep sharing :>

Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:14 pm

Re: Battlefield Tourism is not bad!!

Post by Sun-Yusun-Shul »

I understnad what you are talking about.
But for young kids I don't think it's appropriate.
I have a friend who have traveled through Korea's famous battlefields when she was young. She says that she doesn't remember much things from those tours.
For better battelefield tourism, one needs enough background to understand what the battle was about. To young kid's eyes, the whole battle thing is hard to understand although they visit the battlefield. When I was young, I used to be confused at some Korean history such as 5.18 and 4.19 before I specifically learned what it was about. After being able to identify what's what, I had different perspective towards history and the battlefields. Then I wanted to tour battlefields on my own although no one forced me to. I think it's important to teach young kids about what all those battle is. It's not late for one to tour those historically important places after they know enough informations about the history so they can learn more things from the battlefields.

Post Reply