Page 42 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 42
Dark Tourism Theory and Discourse
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Figure 2.4 Total Number of Visitors to the Former Auschwitz i and Auschwitz
i i-Birkenau Concentration Camps (2001–2019, in thousand;
adapted from Bartyzel & Sawicki, 2020, p. 25)
sions between history or historical reality on one side and memory or
imaginary construction on the other (Chronis, 2012, p. 1798). Moreover,
many warfare sites interesting for tourist visits are very demanding and
sensitive to (tourist) interpretation. The main reason lies in the possi-
bilities/opportunities to write (make) history, historical revision or po-
litical descriptions of people’s lives, suffering and deaths (Ashworth &
Hartmann, 2005b; Goulding & Domic, 2009; Henderson, 2000; Wight &
Lennon, 2007). In addition, those sites may be used as a tool for the pro-
paganda of the achievements of the regime, e.g. the communist regime
(Caraba, 2011; Ivanov, 2009), or to create a greater sense of national-
ism and social bonding, e.g. in Croatia (Goulding & Domic, 2009, p. 99;
Rivera, 2008); a higher influence of politics and ideology on the dark-
est examples is shown in ‘Stone’s dark tourism spectrum’ (Figure 2.2).
From this description we can conclude that, besides the rational, humane
and compassionate meaning and purposes of warfare sites (and warfare
tourism), many deviant social phenomena accompany this specific type
of tourism. These phenomena should not be relevant reasons for war-
fare tourism development. If the first are oriented towards the preven-
tion/avoidance of conflicts, and thus the preservation of peace and har-
42
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Figure 2.4 Total Number of Visitors to the Former Auschwitz i and Auschwitz
i i-Birkenau Concentration Camps (2001–2019, in thousand;
adapted from Bartyzel & Sawicki, 2020, p. 25)
sions between history or historical reality on one side and memory or
imaginary construction on the other (Chronis, 2012, p. 1798). Moreover,
many warfare sites interesting for tourist visits are very demanding and
sensitive to (tourist) interpretation. The main reason lies in the possi-
bilities/opportunities to write (make) history, historical revision or po-
litical descriptions of people’s lives, suffering and deaths (Ashworth &
Hartmann, 2005b; Goulding & Domic, 2009; Henderson, 2000; Wight &
Lennon, 2007). In addition, those sites may be used as a tool for the pro-
paganda of the achievements of the regime, e.g. the communist regime
(Caraba, 2011; Ivanov, 2009), or to create a greater sense of national-
ism and social bonding, e.g. in Croatia (Goulding & Domic, 2009, p. 99;
Rivera, 2008); a higher influence of politics and ideology on the dark-
est examples is shown in ‘Stone’s dark tourism spectrum’ (Figure 2.2).
From this description we can conclude that, besides the rational, humane
and compassionate meaning and purposes of warfare sites (and warfare
tourism), many deviant social phenomena accompany this specific type
of tourism. These phenomena should not be relevant reasons for war-
fare tourism development. If the first are oriented towards the preven-
tion/avoidance of conflicts, and thus the preservation of peace and har-
42
