Global Tourism: A destination to bad dreams and social divisions

In an article titled: The Unbearable Whiteness Of Tourism: Tourism is Colonialism with Tips (7 January 2020), Sri Lankan Indi Samarijiva writer ranted, “They call tourism the hospitality industry, but it’s hardly hospitable. Hospitality is a welcome that goes both ways. You are welcome to my home, and I am welcome to yours. Tourism is hardly that. White people are welcome to the world. Brown people have to show receipts.”

In this piece, Samarijiva critiques the unequal power dynamics embedded in tourism, arguing it resembles modern-day colonialism. He further highlights the discriminatory visa processes that favour white travellers while making it difficult for people from brown countries to visit other countries.

Samarijiva criticises the hypocrisy of welcoming white tourists to enjoy former colonial lands while simultaneously making it difficult for people from those countries to visit the West. He also disapproves of the racialised language used for immigrants and expats in migration and how even dark-skinned elites, or the petit bourgeois, often prioritise Western validation over advocating for their people.

Samarijiva’s core message calls for a fairer system where visa restrictions do not disadvantage people based on their skin colour or origin. Understandably, he argues for a world where travel is accessible to everyone, regardless of background, and where the “unbearable whiteness of tourism” is replaced by a truly inclusive experience.

Inspired by Samarijiva’s critique, this article aims to prompt individuals in the Third World to reconsider tourism’s downsides, arguing that economic and political theories tailored for a Westernised world perpetuate exploitative dynamics established during colonial times. These theories overlook the realities and nuances of post-colonial contexts, exacerbating inequalities in popular tourism destinations such as South Africa, Mexico and Thailand.

• Mainstream economics approach to tourism – the poisoned chalice

In his ground-breaking work Orientalism (1995), Edward Said exposes how the West constructed the East as an ‘Other’, a fundamentally different and inferior entity solidifying its perceived superiority. This perspective, woven into academic discourse, commercial ventures, and even public policies, paints a specific and often judgmental picture of the Orient, its people and their cultures.

This creates a persistent hierarchy where the West occupies a dominant position while the East is relegated to a subordinate one. Notably, even seemingly innocuous figures like travellers contribute to this power dynamic. This dynamic, unfortunately, persists in modern tourism, reflecting the enduring impact of Orientalist perspectives on intercultural relations.

Therefore, Western epistemologies articulated as academic thought entrench Said’s Orientalist perspective by creating unequal relations between the North (colonial power) and the South (colonised territories, people and cultures). The mere existence of tourism as a subject of intellectual adventure is a problem because it feeds on the colonial impulse. Benign theories in economics and other disciplines perpetuate the dependency syndrome through a colonialism pose, which has consistently “shaped the engagement of nations of the Global South with the international tourism market”.

From a neoclassical economics view, the dominant approach to tourism for developing countries revolves around market efficiency, resource allocation and economic growth. This school of thought views tourism as a sector with significant potential for generating foreign exchange earnings, creating employment opportunities and stimulating economic development. Evidence suggests that for South Africa, international tourism revenue as a percentage of GDP only amounted to 0.8% between 1995 and 2020.

How tourism development in developing countries was built on colonial structures should be considered. For example, John Akama argues that “the initial development of tourism in Kenya was colonial in orientation and mainly served the social and economic interests of the expatriate community and international tourists”. Following independence, the Kenyan government actively sought foreign investments, leading to a trend of foreign control and management of the country’s tourism industry by multinational corporations.

According to neoclassical economists, developing countries are encouraged to prioritise tourism development to harness their comparative advantages, such as natural landscapes, cultural heritage and low-cost labour. They advocate for policies that promote investment in tourism infrastructure, deregulation of the industry and liberalisation of markets to attract FDI and increase tourist arrivals.

Researchers Kokel Melubo and Adam Doering explain how local dispossession plays a significant role in establishing well-known conservation areas that foreigners from developed countries exclusively enjoy. They note that “colonial and postcolonial governments have long advocated for the relocation of people from such areas, highlighting the privileged status of conservation and the tourism trade in Tanzanian politics.”

South Africa has numerous ‘magnificent’ conservation and tourism sites, such as Kruger National Park, Ukhahlamba, Isimangaliso and Addo. These sites are not only located on dispossessed lands but also cast a shadow over landless communities, who continue to be denied justice in the name of jobs and FDI. For instance, communities like eMamfemfetheni, AmaNgwe and EmaHlutshini cannot access Giants Castle and the Ukhahlamba nature reserves in the Drakensberg region.

Inasmuch as tourism disregards the pains of those who were disposed of by colonialism, it also subverts recognised political struggles for self-determination in many places around the globe. Kyle Kajihiro exposes the unjust incorporation of the occupied nation of Hawai’i into the international tourism system. Consequently, locals have taken matters into their own hands by resisting this second layer of occupation through “decolonising tours” to interrupt these forces.

Additionally, neoclassical theory claims that economic benefits from tourism are expected to ‘trickle down’ from businesses and workers in the tourism sector to the broader population, reducing poverty. These assertions leave more questions than answers as major tourism sites exist side-by-side with poverty in South Africa and other countries. Tourism promotion drains scarce resources that should be used to advance communities and individuals.

• Tolerance of exploitation and marginalisation through tourism

Deepening social, economic, and political divisions among communities in South Africa, particularly in the Western Cape, continue to draw attention. However, what remains unaddressed is how tourism exacerbates neo-apartheid in places like Cape Town, where the city deliberately pushes marginalised communities into mental and physical obscurity.

Not that Cape Town has ever been different, as the original site of the colonial conquest in South Africa, but the concern is how the process of gentrification of communities continues to be supported by apartheid spatial planning and systemic racism. Black and Coloured communities are denied access to housing and water as resources are pushed to beautifying tourist and white areas.

Furthermore, Cape Town is positioned as a white European enclave in the international tourism system. This strategy intentionally promotes a narrative that prioritises and caters to the interests, preferences and perspectives of white European visitors over those of other demographic groups, especially locals. This positioning reinforces historical power dynamics and colonial legacies, perpetuating inequalities and marginalisation within the tourism industry and broader society.

It is not a coincidence that ‘poverty tourism’ is growing in South Africa, an exercise involving foreign tourists “looking for a glimpse of South African poverty”. Tourist itineraries now include visits to townships such as Soweto between safaris and trips to the beach at Cape Town. Poverty and exploitation are a form of entertainment for the nobility of global travel and tourism.

• Excessive promotion of tourism in developing countries

The neoclassical approach to tourism for developing countries underscores the belief that free-market principles and competitive markets are essential drivers of sustainable economic growth and development in the tourism industry. This assertion then influences the public policy approach that unnecessarily favours excessive tourism promotion by developing countries to attract imperial cultural visitors.

Countries with predominantly non-white populations eagerly embrace tourism for economic benefits but rarely question why their citizens face barriers when travelling to other countries. This disparity often stems from unfair and skewed bilateral visa agreements with First World countries. While citizens from these countries freely enter on tourist visas, Third World citizens are subjected to strict visa requirements, including proof of departure funds, creating an atmosphere of unequal hospitality.

Compared to the rest of the world, passports from First World countries grant their holders extensive visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to numerous countries worldwide. According to the Henley Passport Index, a survey that ranks 199 passports against 227 destination countries, territories and micro-states, Australia, EU states and the US have accessibility rates ranging from 92.5% to 97.5%. South Africa’s accessibility rate is around 54%, Bangladesh (21%) and Azerbaijan (36%).

Countries also adhere to the biased language of international politics, separating ‘illegal immigrants’ or ‘refugees’ (Third World) and ‘tourists’ (First World). Public policy is about controlling the movement of Third World citizens and granting unhindered access to First World citizens as ‘investors’ and ‘expatriates’, who end up controlling all tourist resorts in the Global South.

The assertion about tourism bringing capital inflows is overstated as the money predominantly remains with countries where these visitors originate. Therefore, excessive promotion of tourism in developing countries places a heavy burden on local communities, and governments are complicit in the infantilisation of people and their cultures. Third World governments create departments of tourism and migration to cater mainly to the First World.

Under global tourism, the reality is that locals cannot compete with tourists from countries with stronger currencies, who drive up prices and hinder any potential economic growth and progress. In this scenario, they are relegated to supplying cheap labour and accepting low wages. This perpetuates a cycle of economic exploitation and reinforces global inequalities.

Tourism is responsible for more than just displacement and gentrification since it disrupts social structures and cultural heritage. As such, it is a continuing story of colonial conquest as it leaves locals with little control over their land and resources, leading to frustration and resentment. Agitation for land reform and justice is relegated to the dustbin as the illusion of tourism benefits is promoted as a solution to their problems.

The prioritisation of tourism often overlooks the violent histories of colonialism and imperialism. The influx of tourists displaces locals and disrupts community cohesion, making cities hollow and unsustainable. Since tourism violence has been normalised, it is impossible for everyone, including tourists, to acknowledge the harm they contribute to the local communities that they purportedly visit.

In summary, the Third World countries’ obsession with attracting tourists from affluent countries at all costs perpetuates a narrative of cultural superiority. It reinforces stereotypes that further marginalise indigenous cultures and communities. Hence, there is a growing call for ‘socialising tourism’, reflecting a desire to promote equity and justice for marginalised communities.