Battlefield Tourism (why?)

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.
Post Reply
Lost/Kim Jisoo
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:23 am

Battlefield Tourism (why?)

Post by Lost/Kim Jisoo » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:42 pm

Many people visit battlefield where violence was once rampant.
Why?
Why would they spend their time and money to visit the place many people died?

Some would visit battlefield to remeber the historic moment.
They probably want to see the historic place, because they love history and want to learn more.

Others would visit battlefield because it is famous place.
Even though they know so little about the battlefield, they'll go to see the battlefield because it's well-known place.
Famous battlefields are commercialized, so that many people know the place when they don't know any history related to that place.

I do not think commercializing battlefields is bad idea.
People probably visit battlefield just because it's famous, but they might get to know a little history about the battlefield.
And I think this is a good thing, because it is always better to know something than know nothing.

(sixzero7)JungKarim
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Battlefield Tourism (why?)

Post by (sixzero7)JungKarim » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:43 pm

You have various opinions on this topic. As you written, people have tendency to go to see places where lots of have been died. I think this is because they want to discover their identification by seeing their ancestors battlefield. Or just want to see places where was very dramatic fighting fields. Whatever the reasons could be, using these psychological attraction as commercial is not bad at all unless people damage battlefields. The more people regard battlefields as commercially valued place, the more people can pay attention to battlefields. But there is a prerequisite that people should remind is using battlefields just for commercial purpose is absolutely wrong.

Sun-Young hyeon-Ahn
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:43 am

Re: Battlefield Tourism (why?)

Post by Sun-Young hyeon-Ahn » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:41 am

I agree with you in some aspects but I don't think commercializing battlefield is not good.
Because attracting tourists with commercial things could damage the value of battlefield. For example, one of the KBS internet new articles (2012.2.9 reporter : kim joo young / from : http://news.kbs.co.kr/world/2012/02/09/2432592.html) said about destroyed "Shaolin of Temple" in China, one of the famous temples worldwide. "Saolin of Temple" is suffering serious side effects caused by commmercialization. If Battlefield is commercialized, this place will be in the same boat with "Shaolin of Temple" . So I think restricting the commercial stores rather than letting battlefield commercialized is much better.

(Aplus)kimyongsun
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:56 pm

Re: Battlefield Tourism (why?)

Post by (Aplus)kimyongsun » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:26 pm

I agree with you that it is always better to know something than know nothing, but I don't think that commercializing the battlefield is a good idea
because people might damage the battlefield. Also, I think that it is waste of time, when they do not really get a lot of information and realize the importance of
the presence of the battlefield. I think that government's aid to collect information and make smart applications is more efficient and reasonable. This is because this method can give people precious information and make them feel sublimity and also it can prevent people from damaging the battlefield. So, I believe that it is better not to commercialize the battlefield.

apple-parkgyuoh
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: Battlefield Tourism (why?)

Post by apple-parkgyuoh » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:26 pm

First, I want to say I don't agree with commecializing battlefield, but there are other things to say. Some of the repliances said, if battlefields are commecialized,then it will be damaged. I don't agree with that. It doesn't matter whether the place is commecialized or not. I think damaging is more related to how to managing that place and mindeset of visitors. Do you remember the incident that one old man made a big fire on 'Nam Dae Mun'? It was destroyed, and It having been restored. Visitors must be normal people... I hope they are, but we can not predict or stop abnomal person visiting battlefields. What we have to do is making safety systems on that place so that prevents unpredictable disaster. Remember, 'Nam Dae Mun' was destroyed by one insane old man, and It was not because of commercializing that place.

aaron ian
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Battlefield Tourism (why?)

Post by aaron ian » Wed May 30, 2012 4:28 am

I agree with you absolutely. There are many benefits of so called “Battlefield tourism”. To mention one example of them, I can think of educational effect of it as tourists can turn into history students on the exact spot where a particular historical event happened. This firsthand experience has a long lasting influence which is good because we easily forget our own history. It can also inspire the tourists in the long run. For example, S. Dali, one of the most well-known painters in the world was inspired by his childhood playground, the Spanish castles and ruins near his home. Although they were sad sceneries, he transformed them into art through his artistic career. Therefore, in my opinion, “Battlefield tourism” is a good move for our future generations.

Post Reply