If I wanted to go to Disney Land, I'd book a Trip.

October 1, 2009

It seems that most tourist sites have somewhat of a “Mickey Mouse” spin on them in order to gain more tourists and in turn, more funding. After visiting Turkey this summer, I can see how that could happen. It is not so much that the sites were parodies of themselves, but they seemed to play into the Western conception of the Great Classical period, where everything was clean, crisp and white – while the history recorded after the fall of the Roman empire seems to be swept under the rug, because really, who cares what happened in Greece after the 5^th century C.E., right?

It seems like these sites become glorified, and in that the average tourist loses the real meaning of the society because through all the sensationalism context is lost. Tourists see what the tour guides and the government want them to; it is less an endeavor in education and more so how to make a quick buck from the visiting tour group and present them with the most interesting information, not the most accurate. On a side note, I also find that this is a problem with the history network – they will show the viewer the most interesting theory about some ‘mystery’ when really it is an outdated theory that has been dismissed by most modern historians… but I digress.

Who gets to decide which “history” the public sees? When I was in Turkey, I had been really looking forward to going to the Crusader Castle of St. Peter and the Knights of St. John – and it was lovely, it really was. But it was really saddening to me that a 14^th century chapel had been gutted to exhibit somewhat of a “Disney” display of underwater archaeology finds. My problem with this is – who got to decide that this chapel wasn’t good enough to be preserved? Sure the display is nice, but I mean – as archaeologists or curators, shouldn’t there be some interest in preserving things even if they aren’t classical?