Talk:Grief tourism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Where do we draw the line on this, for example, if I were to visit Normandy or Arlington Cemetery would I be considered a "grief tourist?" Jsonitsac (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to say that GT is more about "individuals one does not actually know", emphasis on "individuals". I suppose in your examples it would depend on the tourist's mindset? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
People go to Arlington to visit the tomb of the Unknowns and the Kennedy brothers. Jsonitsac (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you're talking about soldiers there. Now, while you may not personally know those people, you understand why they died and may well owe your current existence to them - the connection is there. Therefore respect and grief is sort of understandable. Scarlet A.pngsshole 12:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
This aspect may warrant a section in the article. Presidential gravesites, war memorials and such, and one could include things like the Holocaust museum and Oklahoma bombing memorial, are grief tourism, officially promoted by the state and something a lot of people don't dare criticize the way they might criticize those who visit Jim Morrison's grave. Secret Squirrel (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, it could probably do with some expansion and re-writing. I think I was just in a pissy/ranty mood when I started this one. Scarlet A.pngsshole 05:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You'd definitely be the first person on RW to ever do that! Still, the article is a great idea, even if no fleshed out properly yet. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Human. Visiting a concentration camp is not grief tourism in a way even remotely similar to people going to MJ's funeral. I don't think visiting historic sites should be included in the list; even if you don't know holocaust victims personally, the history is part of the culture's collective conscience and should not be conflated with apathetic grief tourism.Klaus Vos (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Visiting Concentration Camps[edit]

It isn't grief tourism because it's not the fact that someone died there that really attracts people; it is the enormous amount of history associated with the places themselves. As described in the article, grief tourism deals with people acting like they really care about victim x despite never meeting victim x and caring more about them than they would victim y, who got no media coverage. Because visits to former concentration camps are not motivated by a need to show (false) support and touchy-feely bullshit and more for a desire to understand and experience history and the darkest side of humanity, they cannot be put in the same category as visiting celebrity grave-sites. Klaus Vos (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say that some people go to visit former concentration camps are specifically "motivated by a need to show (false) support and touchy-feely bullshit" as you put it. Not everyone, but many will. I am keen to hear some other views on this. --DamoHi 01:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but is it the main reason? Think of the average person who would bother to go to a funeral for a murdered child, an example provided in the article. Most are going to be going for precisely for the touchy feely BS. They are not really interested in the causes of the murder beyond the superficial "child murdering is a bad thing," they only care because it is fashionable and they saw it on the news, and few will walk away with any significant difference in their mindset.
Now think of a concentration camp visitor. They aren't going to "show support" for the victims. They are going there to learn about the history behind it, they aren't paying to fly to Poland or Germany because it's fashionable, and they may very well walk away with a different mindset or at least a better understanding of the societal forces involved.
I also point to the attitudes expressed. A celebrity funeral attendee wont feel true sorrow or even momentarily lose faith in humanity, and even child funerals can be boisterous (remember Tuscon and the girl's funeral?). In contrast, a concentration camp will be dead silent and people will mull about in deep thought for the entire day.
And finally, most concentration camps are also museums or sorts, and thus have a draw other than their dark nature. Klaus Vos (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that they are a different class of grief tourism, but I think they should still be included. If I was to go to a concentration camp, part of my motivation would certainly be to "show support" for those that died. Certainly I would also be interested in understanding the history behind it, but allowing myself to be touched by the sheer horror and depravity of the place is important also. I think this should be included within the definition.
Not that it is conclusive, but I not that wikipedia uses the terms "dark tourism" and "grief tourism" interchangeably and its definition includes the wider definition I am advocating. [1] DamoHi 01:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
In that case, the article should be rewritten to distinguish the two varieties. Do you agree? Klaus Vos (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes I think that would be a good idea. Go for it and I will chip in where I can. DamoHi 01:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
{ec}I agree with the concentration camps, perhaps we can place holocaust memorials instead of that? Particularly holocaust memorials in places that have no connection to the holocaust whatsoever. The WTC, however, has little history behind it other than some planes crashing into it. I don't see what people would get by visiting ground zero if they had no involvement in the tragedy.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
You're probably right about that. To be honest, I only included WTC for effect, which was shit anyway. Klaus Vos (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Jade Goody[edit]

Is she not 'too obscure' now? (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)