论文部分内容阅读
If you build it,they will come.——Theodore Roosevelt
In the United States, people generally do notreflect upon history unless a specific memory ormonument is about to be lost or forgotten. Aspectsof culture and history often become much moreimportant when an individual or group feels that they arein danger of being wiped out or replaced by somethingnew. However, the allure of profit and progress may betoo strong to protect historical sites. It is in this way thatmodem commercial venues and products can encroachupon or replace historical monuments--sometimes invery disruptive and artificial ways.
Is it a natural consequence of progress to throw outthe old and bring in the new? Does the encroachment ofretail and commercial establishments on historical venuesadd enjoyment to those visiting while excluding othersdue to financial limitations or overcrowding of facilities?I would argue that aggressive, unchecked progress mayharm historical buildings and structures all in the hopesof making a profit from tourism.
In my travels both in the United States and abroad, Ihave found one thing to be true--commerce and tourismoften walk hand-in-hand. In America, one is hard-pressedto go to any cultural performance or historical site withoutsome type of commercial enterprise present. One cannotgo to a movie or the museum, for example, withouthaving advertisements flashed on the screen or bulkingup the program. The same is true when visiting famoussites throughout the world. Almost without exception,certain American products are almost always available--for a price.
It seems that where there are tourists, thereis the opportunity to make money. Although !do not find fault with those who wish to make aliving through the tourist trade, it is through theaddition of products and services that can causedisruption or destruction of historical sites. Anexample of this is the infamous coffee kioskinside the walls of the Forbidden City in Beijing.
When I first visited the Forbidden Cityover twenty years ago, there was a charmingtea house inside one of the courtyards. Onecould almost step back in time while enjoyinga fragrant cup of tea. Now I have the luxury ofenjoying my favorite coffee drink at a cafe insidethe legendary walls. As a tourist, does this makemy experience visiting the Forbidden City betteror does it alter it into something that I couldexperience at home?
In my opinion, for American tourists there is a fine linebetween what is necessary to feel comfortable in a givencircumstance and what one requires to have an authenticexperience. This is where the dilemma lies, because notall tourists are the same and desire a similar experience.Some tourists demand a more authentic type of experiencewhile others want a more westernized version--or even acombination of both. Several years ago I went to Vietnamwith a group of men who had fought in the Vietnam War. One of the members of the group wanted to spend time in arural village and sleep out in the rice paddies. As we weretraveling as a group, we took a vote to decide what type ofaccommodation would best suit the group. Unfortunately formy friend, we ended up staying at a guest house in a localvillage as the majority of the group members didn't want tohave such an authentic experience!
It could be argued, however, that althoughcommercialization of a historical site can have negativeresults, tourism can also save sites from destruction andneglect. Tourism can function both as a savior and destroyerto historical sites. Take for example, the temples of AngkorWat in Cambodia. For many years, these temples sufferedfrom neglect and were inaccessible due to a highly unstablepolitical and economic situation. With peace and stabilitycame a renewed interest worldwide of the cultural andhistorical wonders of the Khmer civilization--with mixedresults.
Initially, many new hotels opened up and an abundanceof opportunities were created that spawned a higher level ofincome for a new generation of Cambodian entrepreneurs.Now, in 2008, it is felt by some restoration experts thatthe temples in Cambodia may not be able to physicallywithstand the increasing numbers of tourists who desire totouch them. In this instance the progress that brought thesetemples into public view may in fact harm them over time.
A further by-product of tourism on historical sites maybe to restrict local citizens from visiting their own culturalmonuments. Recently, the Indian Ministry ofTourism stated that the Taj Mahal ticket office wasno longer going to accept US Dollars and wouldonly take Indian Rupees. The Ministry furtherstated that a tiered pricing system was in placethat charged foreigners over 10 times the amountthat Indian nationals were charged--an amountthat still might prove to be too much for thosepoorer members of Indian society to afford.
Probably one of the most flagrant examples ofchoosing commerce over history in the United Stateshas been seen recently in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.The famed Civil War battlefield is becoming just one ofthe many attractions in the neighborhood as developersopen supermarkets, fast-food restaurants and seekpermission to build a casino, all in the hopes of cashingin on the two million visitors who visit annually. Itseems that historic preservation in the United States is astruggle to protect the treasures of our vast land againstthe almighty Dollar and the wrecking ball.
As the world continues to grow ever smallerthrough the Internet and exchanges of informationand ideas, I can’t help but wonder what will happenif we fail to understand ourselvesand where we came from. After all,culture and history are important waysto understand who we are and howwe view ourselves and the world.Without this kind of knowledge, in myopinion, we could be forced to repeat our mistakes of the past--mistakes wesimply can no longer make for the sakeof future generations and our planet.
栽下梧桐树，自有凤凰来。——西奥多·罗斯福历史遗迹有其自身无法用金钱衡量的价值，无论是中国的故宫、印度的泰姬陵，还是美国内战的战场遗址。在市场经济高度发展的今天，商业运作几乎无处不在，全世界很多著名的历史遗迹都被开发成旅游景点，成为所在国发展经济、提高收入的重要途径。旅游业的发展和历史遗迹的保护之间应该是一种什么样的关系呢？本文对此问题作了一些探讨……
在美国，除非某一处历史遗迹或纪念碑即将消失或被遗忘，人们一般不会思考历史。只有当某个个人或群体感觉到文化和历史的某些方面面临被消灭或被新事物取代的危险时，文化和历史才会变得重要起来。然而，商业利益和经济发展的诱惑总是太强，以致历史文化遗迹的保护受到忽视。正是在这种状况之下，现代商业场所和产品可以不断侵蚀并取代历史遗迹，有时侵蚀的方式甚至非常武断并极具破坏性。
人类发展进步的自然后果就是弃旧换新吗?零售商和商业企业入侵历史名胜古迹后，真的能给参观者带来乐趣吗?这种(商业与古迹的)结合必然会将一部分人拒之门外——有的人是因为经济实力有限，所以无力负担参观的费用；有的人则是由于该处(过度开发造成)设置容纳能力不足，所以无法前往。我的观点是，这种侵略性的毫无节制的发展只是为了从旅游业中牟取商业利益，会对历史建筑和遗迹造成破坏。
无论在美国国内还是国外旅行的经历都告诉我一个事实：商业和旅游业经常是密不可分的。在美国，你去任何一个文化表演场所或历史遗迹，都会发现有某种形式的商业活动存在。拿看电影和参观博物馆来说，总会有广告闪现在银幕上或充斥在参观活动中。世界各地的著名景点旅游都是如此。几乎无一例外的是，某些美国的产品无论在哪里总是可以花钱买到。
哪里有游客哪里就有赚钱的机会。我不想苛责那些希望通过旅游业谋生的人，但正是产品和服务的加入会导致历史遗迹被破坏。北京紫禁城内为人们所不齿的咖啡店便是一个很好的例子。
二十多年前我第一次参观紫禁城的时候，其中的一个院子里有家可爱的茶馆。品上一杯芬芳馥郁的茶仿佛可以把人带回到过去的时光中。而今天，就在这些充满传奇的城墙内，我竟然可以在一家咖啡馆里享受到自己平时最爱喝的咖啡。作为旅游者，这样会使我参观紫禁城的经历更加完美吗?抑或把它变成了一种不用出国即可获得的体验?
我认对于美国游客来说以下两种情况仅一线之隔，一是在特定环境中为游客创造更舒通的体验，一是让游客获得最地道真实的体验。这是一个进退两难的困境，因为每个游客的品味都不一样，不是所有游客都希望获得相似的经历。有些游客要求得到更真实的体验，而有些则希望得到更西方化的体验，更有甚者希望两者兼顾。几年前，我随同一群参加过越战的老兵去了一趟越南。团队里有一个老兵想要在一个村里呆上一段时间，并在稻田里过夜。因为我们是作为一个团体出游的，最终我们投票决定了最佳的住宿方式。很遗憾，那位朋友的要求没有得到满足，那天我们是住当地一个村子里的一所家庭旅馆里休息的，因为团里大部分人都不希望获得一次如此真实的体验!
但是有人会说，虽然历史遗迹的商业化可能带来负面影响，但旅游业本身是可以使历史遗迹免遭毁灭和冷落的。旅游业扮演的角色既可以是名胜古迹的拯救者也可以是破坏者。就拿柬埔寨的吴哥窟米蜕，曾经有很多年的时间，由于政治经济局势混乱，这里的寺庙遭到冷落，几乎与外界隔绝。当和平与稳定终于到来，全世界又重新燃起了关注柬埔寨高棉文明的文化历史奇观的热情，因此带来了令人喜忧参半的后果。
最初，新开张了很多宾馆酒店，涌现了大批机会，新一代的柬埔寨企业家们因此获得了丰厚的利润。如今，时间已经走到了2008年，一些重建专家开始觉得柬埔寨的座座庙宇可能会无法承受与日俱增的游客，这些游客往往喜欢用手去触摸它们。这个例子当中、随着时间的推移，将这些庙宇出现给游客的所谓“进步”实际上能会给它们带来危害。
在历史遗迹上发展旅游业的另外一个副产品或许就是限制当地人参观自己的文化遗产。最近，印度旅游部声明泰姬陵的售票处将不再接受美元而只接受印度卢比。旅游部还声称要实行分等级的门票价格体制，外国游客购买门票时要付出高于印度公民十几倍的价钱。而对于印度社会中的穷人来说，这样的低价门票仍过于昂贵。
说到商业利益优先于保护历史，最近美国一个臭名昭著的例子可能要算发生在宾夕法尼亚洲葛底斯堡的一件事了。为了从每年到葛底斯堡参观的200万游客身上赚更多的钱，开发商们在这里开办超市、快餐店、甚至还寻求政府许可要在这里开设赌场。这个著名的内战战场即将变成一个没有任何特色的景点。看来，在美国保护历史遗迹似乎就是一种为了保护广袤国土上的历史财富而与拜金主义和拆房子机器之间的斗争。
由于因特网的出现和信息思想的交流，世界正变得越来越小。我不禁要问，假如我们不能理解我们自身和我们自己的历史，会有什么后果?毕竟，文化和历史是我们了解自身以及确定我们的人生观和世界观的重要途径。在我看来，缺少了这些认识会使我们重犯过去的错误——那些为了子孙后代和我们这个星球的未来而决不能重演的错误。
In the United States, people generally do notreflect upon history unless a specific memory ormonument is about to be lost or forgotten. Aspectsof culture and history often become much moreimportant when an individual or group feels that they arein danger of being wiped out or replaced by somethingnew. However, the allure of profit and progress may betoo strong to protect historical sites. It is in this way thatmodem commercial venues and products can encroachupon or replace historical monuments--sometimes invery disruptive and artificial ways.
Is it a natural consequence of progress to throw outthe old and bring in the new? Does the encroachment ofretail and commercial establishments on historical venuesadd enjoyment to those visiting while excluding othersdue to financial limitations or overcrowding of facilities?I would argue that aggressive, unchecked progress mayharm historical buildings and structures all in the hopesof making a profit from tourism.
In my travels both in the United States and abroad, Ihave found one thing to be true--commerce and tourismoften walk hand-in-hand. In America, one is hard-pressedto go to any cultural performance or historical site withoutsome type of commercial enterprise present. One cannotgo to a movie or the museum, for example, withouthaving advertisements flashed on the screen or bulkingup the program. The same is true when visiting famoussites throughout the world. Almost without exception,certain American products are almost always available--for a price.
It seems that where there are tourists, thereis the opportunity to make money. Although !do not find fault with those who wish to make aliving through the tourist trade, it is through theaddition of products and services that can causedisruption or destruction of historical sites. Anexample of this is the infamous coffee kioskinside the walls of the Forbidden City in Beijing.
When I first visited the Forbidden Cityover twenty years ago, there was a charmingtea house inside one of the courtyards. Onecould almost step back in time while enjoyinga fragrant cup of tea. Now I have the luxury ofenjoying my favorite coffee drink at a cafe insidethe legendary walls. As a tourist, does this makemy experience visiting the Forbidden City betteror does it alter it into something that I couldexperience at home?
In my opinion, for American tourists there is a fine linebetween what is necessary to feel comfortable in a givencircumstance and what one requires to have an authenticexperience. This is where the dilemma lies, because notall tourists are the same and desire a similar experience.Some tourists demand a more authentic type of experiencewhile others want a more westernized version--or even acombination of both. Several years ago I went to Vietnamwith a group of men who had fought in the Vietnam War. One of the members of the group wanted to spend time in arural village and sleep out in the rice paddies. As we weretraveling as a group, we took a vote to decide what type ofaccommodation would best suit the group. Unfortunately formy friend, we ended up staying at a guest house in a localvillage as the majority of the group members didn't want tohave such an authentic experience!
It could be argued, however, that althoughcommercialization of a historical site can have negativeresults, tourism can also save sites from destruction andneglect. Tourism can function both as a savior and destroyerto historical sites. Take for example, the temples of AngkorWat in Cambodia. For many years, these temples sufferedfrom neglect and were inaccessible due to a highly unstablepolitical and economic situation. With peace and stabilitycame a renewed interest worldwide of the cultural andhistorical wonders of the Khmer civilization--with mixedresults.
Initially, many new hotels opened up and an abundanceof opportunities were created that spawned a higher level ofincome for a new generation of Cambodian entrepreneurs.Now, in 2008, it is felt by some restoration experts thatthe temples in Cambodia may not be able to physicallywithstand the increasing numbers of tourists who desire totouch them. In this instance the progress that brought thesetemples into public view may in fact harm them over time.
A further by-product of tourism on historical sites maybe to restrict local citizens from visiting their own culturalmonuments. Recently, the Indian Ministry ofTourism stated that the Taj Mahal ticket office wasno longer going to accept US Dollars and wouldonly take Indian Rupees. The Ministry furtherstated that a tiered pricing system was in placethat charged foreigners over 10 times the amountthat Indian nationals were charged--an amountthat still might prove to be too much for thosepoorer members of Indian society to afford.
Probably one of the most flagrant examples ofchoosing commerce over history in the United Stateshas been seen recently in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.The famed Civil War battlefield is becoming just one ofthe many attractions in the neighborhood as developersopen supermarkets, fast-food restaurants and seekpermission to build a casino, all in the hopes of cashingin on the two million visitors who visit annually. Itseems that historic preservation in the United States is astruggle to protect the treasures of our vast land againstthe almighty Dollar and the wrecking ball.
As the world continues to grow ever smallerthrough the Internet and exchanges of informationand ideas, I can’t help but wonder what will happenif we fail to understand ourselvesand where we came from. After all,culture and history are important waysto understand who we are and howwe view ourselves and the world.Without this kind of knowledge, in myopinion, we could be forced to repeat our mistakes of the past--mistakes wesimply can no longer make for the sakeof future generations and our planet.
栽下梧桐树，自有凤凰来。——西奥多·罗斯福历史遗迹有其自身无法用金钱衡量的价值，无论是中国的故宫、印度的泰姬陵，还是美国内战的战场遗址。在市场经济高度发展的今天，商业运作几乎无处不在，全世界很多著名的历史遗迹都被开发成旅游景点，成为所在国发展经济、提高收入的重要途径。旅游业的发展和历史遗迹的保护之间应该是一种什么样的关系呢？本文对此问题作了一些探讨……
在美国，除非某一处历史遗迹或纪念碑即将消失或被遗忘，人们一般不会思考历史。只有当某个个人或群体感觉到文化和历史的某些方面面临被消灭或被新事物取代的危险时，文化和历史才会变得重要起来。然而，商业利益和经济发展的诱惑总是太强，以致历史文化遗迹的保护受到忽视。正是在这种状况之下，现代商业场所和产品可以不断侵蚀并取代历史遗迹，有时侵蚀的方式甚至非常武断并极具破坏性。
人类发展进步的自然后果就是弃旧换新吗?零售商和商业企业入侵历史名胜古迹后，真的能给参观者带来乐趣吗?这种(商业与古迹的)结合必然会将一部分人拒之门外——有的人是因为经济实力有限，所以无力负担参观的费用；有的人则是由于该处(过度开发造成)设置容纳能力不足，所以无法前往。我的观点是，这种侵略性的毫无节制的发展只是为了从旅游业中牟取商业利益，会对历史建筑和遗迹造成破坏。
无论在美国国内还是国外旅行的经历都告诉我一个事实：商业和旅游业经常是密不可分的。在美国，你去任何一个文化表演场所或历史遗迹，都会发现有某种形式的商业活动存在。拿看电影和参观博物馆来说，总会有广告闪现在银幕上或充斥在参观活动中。世界各地的著名景点旅游都是如此。几乎无一例外的是，某些美国的产品无论在哪里总是可以花钱买到。
哪里有游客哪里就有赚钱的机会。我不想苛责那些希望通过旅游业谋生的人，但正是产品和服务的加入会导致历史遗迹被破坏。北京紫禁城内为人们所不齿的咖啡店便是一个很好的例子。
二十多年前我第一次参观紫禁城的时候，其中的一个院子里有家可爱的茶馆。品上一杯芬芳馥郁的茶仿佛可以把人带回到过去的时光中。而今天，就在这些充满传奇的城墙内，我竟然可以在一家咖啡馆里享受到自己平时最爱喝的咖啡。作为旅游者，这样会使我参观紫禁城的经历更加完美吗?抑或把它变成了一种不用出国即可获得的体验?
我认对于美国游客来说以下两种情况仅一线之隔，一是在特定环境中为游客创造更舒通的体验，一是让游客获得最地道真实的体验。这是一个进退两难的困境，因为每个游客的品味都不一样，不是所有游客都希望获得相似的经历。有些游客要求得到更真实的体验，而有些则希望得到更西方化的体验，更有甚者希望两者兼顾。几年前，我随同一群参加过越战的老兵去了一趟越南。团队里有一个老兵想要在一个村里呆上一段时间，并在稻田里过夜。因为我们是作为一个团体出游的，最终我们投票决定了最佳的住宿方式。很遗憾，那位朋友的要求没有得到满足，那天我们是住当地一个村子里的一所家庭旅馆里休息的，因为团里大部分人都不希望获得一次如此真实的体验!
但是有人会说，虽然历史遗迹的商业化可能带来负面影响，但旅游业本身是可以使历史遗迹免遭毁灭和冷落的。旅游业扮演的角色既可以是名胜古迹的拯救者也可以是破坏者。就拿柬埔寨的吴哥窟米蜕，曾经有很多年的时间，由于政治经济局势混乱，这里的寺庙遭到冷落，几乎与外界隔绝。当和平与稳定终于到来，全世界又重新燃起了关注柬埔寨高棉文明的文化历史奇观的热情，因此带来了令人喜忧参半的后果。
最初，新开张了很多宾馆酒店，涌现了大批机会，新一代的柬埔寨企业家们因此获得了丰厚的利润。如今，时间已经走到了2008年，一些重建专家开始觉得柬埔寨的座座庙宇可能会无法承受与日俱增的游客，这些游客往往喜欢用手去触摸它们。这个例子当中、随着时间的推移，将这些庙宇出现给游客的所谓“进步”实际上能会给它们带来危害。
在历史遗迹上发展旅游业的另外一个副产品或许就是限制当地人参观自己的文化遗产。最近，印度旅游部声明泰姬陵的售票处将不再接受美元而只接受印度卢比。旅游部还声称要实行分等级的门票价格体制，外国游客购买门票时要付出高于印度公民十几倍的价钱。而对于印度社会中的穷人来说，这样的低价门票仍过于昂贵。
说到商业利益优先于保护历史，最近美国一个臭名昭著的例子可能要算发生在宾夕法尼亚洲葛底斯堡的一件事了。为了从每年到葛底斯堡参观的200万游客身上赚更多的钱，开发商们在这里开办超市、快餐店、甚至还寻求政府许可要在这里开设赌场。这个著名的内战战场即将变成一个没有任何特色的景点。看来，在美国保护历史遗迹似乎就是一种为了保护广袤国土上的历史财富而与拜金主义和拆房子机器之间的斗争。
由于因特网的出现和信息思想的交流，世界正变得越来越小。我不禁要问，假如我们不能理解我们自身和我们自己的历史，会有什么后果?毕竟，文化和历史是我们了解自身以及确定我们的人生观和世界观的重要途径。在我看来，缺少了这些认识会使我们重犯过去的错误——那些为了子孙后代和我们这个星球的未来而决不能重演的错误。