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: 24
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:58 am

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (101)Leeyerang »

I agree with your opinion that battlefields should not be a commercial place. I think that the battlefield should be a place that people could memorate and think about the braveness of the soldiers. However, if the battlefield becomes commercial it might lose it's real meaning of that place.

Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:11 am

Re: battle field tourism

Post by LOSTinsoo »

I agree with you. Making a battlefield a tourism spot does blur its original purpose. I think battlefields should remain in a way that everyone who visits there can have prolonged moments of reflection on why battles were fought, how many innocent lives were taken away and how to prevent them from happening again.
However, I think if a battlefield has already turned into a place for making money, then it should remain as such or authorities in charge of maintanence should make long-term plans to bring the place back to its original state. I mean, there are people who make their livings out of it. Short-term plans will most likely include expelling them without giving them some time to find other ways to make a living. Battlefield memorials are built to remind people of how bad wars are. I think extorting means of breadwinning from people is just as bad as wars.

(sixzero7)Songri Lee
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:04 am

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (sixzero7)Songri Lee »

I also think these days battlefield tourism became too commercial. What we call the true meaning of it is changed and also neglected. But I think not to lose more than it has right now, it should be commercial.
When people usually visit historical sites as their trips or travels. They barely visit there like taking a walk near the park. When we go on a trip, we need some convenient facilities like restaurant, accommodations, and stores to buy pamphlets and souvenirs because it might be strange places to tourists. And also basically without some commercial advertisement, it would be much harder to make people visit the places. It would be better if people come to visit the historical sites without any commercial things but they barely do thesedays.
The meaning of visiting historical sites has been changed into commercial, but it is indispensable these days.

Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:03 am

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (lab102)jounghwanpark »

I couldn't agree with you more on this!
The way of making battlefield tourism sites commercial to some extent in order to revitalize the place and get people to visit is acceptable in my view. However, if that extent of commercialization goes too far, then I think battlefield tourism sites would lose it's historic significance and just be remembered as a place for family outings.

102 Jun Kyoung Ah
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:51 am

Re: battle field tourism

Post by 102 Jun Kyoung Ah »

I don't agree with your opinion.
We don't need to understand in bad sight everything which is related to money.
I agree that the battle field where our ancestors died is sacred place.
But If we invest more money there, we can make that place more meaningful.
So I think It is worth investing some money for managing battlefield tourism.

Sun-Myung Ho Kim
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:42 am


Post by Sun-Myung Ho Kim »

I don't agree with your opinion a little.
I agree that we should remeber and honor the battle against foreign country.
But what about the domestic war, I mean, civil war?
Is it worth remembering?
If the civil war battle field tourism is held, it could remind a bad memory.

Sun-Juwon Lee
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: battle field tourism

Post by Sun-Juwon Lee »

I understand your saying that a battlefield should be a place worth visiting because of the meaning it holds in itself. I also agree with all the other opinions criticizing commercialism already overflowing in many battlefields and in Gettysburg, for one example.
Of course facilities or anything other than the battlefield itself should not be the main reason of visiting battlefields. However, I suppose that if a little bit of commercialism could do some good, we shall take the benefit. At least they (commercialized facilities) could attract tourists so that the authorities would not suffer from short budget, which also ensures the maintenance of battlefields. Plus, even people who were not that convinced to the 'sacredness' of battlefields could at least visit them. Who knows if that would be the first chance for him or her to think more about the true meaning of battlefields?
So what I'm saying is, that we shouldn't let commercialism to overwhelm the true meaning of battlefields, but not to the degree of 'exterminating' it.

Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:53 am

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (Aplus)LeeMinHyung »

Commercialism is inevitable in every field of industry, place, or whatever else. In my opinion, we could not root out becoming more and more commercial in battlefield because we do not live in a peaceful, agricultural, and underdeveloped world which put more importance on the relationship among the people than making money. The world had already changed a lot, and the tendency to prefer capitalism is already predominent in our society. It is quite useless to completely ban selling any items around the famous places like the battle field attractions. But, we could take some measures to prevent it from falling into the abyss. We need to keep looking into the extent of commercialization around the spots. If some items are to be sold in an exorbitant price, we should restrict such items. What matters is constant attention and our efforts to protect our historically precious sites.

Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (Aplus)SeungeunJeong »

Although I think that battlefields should not be used for just commercial purposes and shouldn't become symbols of commercialism,
but commercial ways are needed to attract tourists and keep battlefields well preserved.
And I think if battlefields do not really attract tourists, then its meanings won't be really memorized by people.
Used for commercial reasons is bad, but rather than being forgotten due to severe lack of visitors, attracting many people by commercial methods would be better.
Because its meanings and memories will be kept in many peoples' minds which they wouldn't have in their minds if they hadn't come. And the intrinsic meanings that battlefields contain won't disappear although commerce become flourish around and in that place.
Making people realizing the importance of battlefields is the most significant thing I think and if commercial ways are used for that, then it won't be that bad I think.

Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:37 pm

Re: battle field tourism

Post by sunsolmi »

I agree it, too. I think battlefields should not be used as a commercial purpose.
Though many people from all over the world including tourists should come to battlefields and get to know the importance of history, it should not be used as a commercial purpose.
Also, we should go to battlefields for learning and study our history.

(starbucks)Hong ji eun
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:14 am

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (starbucks)Hong ji eun »

i also agree with you.
battlefield should be appropriate level commercial place. too much becoming commercial place is not good.
battlefield have their own values. so we need to preserve it's values. furthermore i think that appropriate level is so abstract.
so government have to give concrete standard to merchant.

(102)SeongEun Park
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: battle field tourism

Post by (102)SeongEun Park »

I agree with your mention that battle field tourism is meaningfull. But It doesn't mean it is valuable when we preserve it through commecial ways.
We have to consider place value, respecting who fought each other in history.

Post Reply