Updated: 7/7/2020 | July 7th, 2020 (Original post 4/28/16)
Years ago, Mississippi and North Carolina passed anti-LGBT laws and lots of tourists, bloggers, and celebrities immediately said, “As a sign of protest, I won’t check out because I don’t want to support a state whose laws I不同意！”
This reminded me of when people refused to go to Myanmar because of the junta, declined to check out the united states when George Bush was president, or refused to check out Cuba because of Fidel Castro. (There are dozens of examples of people boycotting destinations because of the government’s politics that could be listed.)
While people have the ideal to do whatever they want and take any personal stance they want, I think tourism-based economic protests are a mistake because they hit the wrong target, they aren’t effective, and that travel and human interaction can bring about a lot more and deeper change than a reflective boycott.
Here’s why.
Boycotts hit the wrong People
Governments can and do change: laws are passed and repealed, voters eject politicians and vote in new ones, and revolutions and sanctions topple dictators.
We might not agree with certain laws or a current government, but if traveling abroad and defending the united states during the Bush years has taught me anything, it is that people are not their governments, lumping everyone together is misguided, and you end up hurting the people who you agree with.
In fact, you might even weaken your allies by not showing support.
Like, for example, one of the bookstores I spoke at during my book tour.
This North Carolina store is suffering because authors are canceling the events this place needs in buy to stay in business. small independent bookstores are already suffering and this is just another nail in the coffin for this place. They are collateral damage to a law they do not agree with.
Governments don’t always reflect the will of all their people (or even a majority). but behind boycotts are real people and services who suffer. people struggling to put food on the table and meet payroll. They might not support their government or certain controversial laws yet we lump everyone together as if everyone in the destination is what we despise.
And, in doing so, those we agree with and want to support become collateral damage. We create pain for the people at the bottom, the people with the most to lose and, usually, the least say in things.
And, though the shouts of travel boycotters often add to the pressure on elected officials, I’ve yet to see one country or state reverse course simply because of this reason no matter how strong the plea.
I used to say, “I’m never going to Myanmar because I hate the government” and because I wanted to take a stand.
But, when I started traveling, I found it silly that people said, “I don’t like Bush, so I refuse to go to the United States,” as if this was enough to pressure Bush to change or that we were all die-hard Bushites.
It made me realize that a lot of citizens of Myanmar didn’t choose to live under a military dictatorship any a lot more than I chose Bush as President.
And all my protest was doing was denying people the money they needed to survive and the global perspective that could have added fuel to their desire for change.
They Don’t Do Enough
What caused Myanmar to change, Iran to open up, or South Africa to end apartheid? It wasn’t a drop in vacationer numbers. It was governmental and corporate sanctions on a enormous scale.
Indiana softened its anti-LGBT law when corporations and conferences pulled out en masse. The Apartheid government in South Arica collapsed when governments, major banks, and other corporations stopped doing service with it and loaning it money. Iran finally yielded under the weight of sanctions that drove it toward bankruptcy.
Those changes were a combination of domestic activism and international pressure not travel boycotts.
I think it’s foolish to think that somewhere there’s a government official enjoying reports of vacationer boycotts and declaring, “Tourist numbers are down 10%! We need to change!” If they cared about that, they would have done something different in the first place.
Governments care about big business, tax revenue, and those at the top. When you cause pain there, you cause change.
Travel CAN Bring Change
If you really want to do good, you can’t shut off people from the world — you need to embrace them and show them a better way. The way we affect change is by traveling and educating people about the broader world to change their minds.
Staying home isn’t going to effect change. It simply hurts those who might not have control over their government. travel opens people to new ideas, cultures, and ways of thinking. If you really want to bring about change, go there and kill them with kindness.
I indicate don’t we travel to see the world, learn, and help foster cultural underst安丁？您不能待在家裡做到這一點。您只能通過去目的地來做到這一點。
正如Maya Angelou所說：“也許旅行不能阻止偏執，但是通過證明所有人都會哭泣，笑，吃飯，擔心和死亡，它可以介紹這樣的想法，即如果我們嘗試互相理解，我們甚至可能成為朋友。”
***
我不支持這兩個州通過的法律。我不支持卡斯特羅政權。我當然不支持布什。
我也不支持泰國或埃及的現任政府或中國的審查法。
我是否同意許多阿拉伯國家對婦女的待遇，還是日本在第二次世界大戰期間“忘記”其在中國種族滅絕的政策？不。
但是我認為，由於一項法律或當前的領導者選擇而抵制前往國家旅行是被誤導的。如果我們要彙編我們不同意的一個政策或領導者的地點列表，我們將永遠不會去任何地方。總會有一條紅線讓我們回家。
許多抵制是關於我們作為人的身份以及我們的價值觀的信號。他們向我們的小組發出信號，我相信這一點，我與您同在。
但是，如果您真的想改變您的國家的行為，遊說本地服務以及您選擇改變的行為。確保您的錢流向人們，需要它。
如果您覺得有必要“立場”，請記住，人們並不總是是他們現任政府的政策。我認為，讓人們參與地面，改變意見並向您的政府或公司施加壓力要採取行動要好得多。
我們將以這種方式創造更大的改變，而不是我們坐在家裡。
如何以每天50美元的價格環遊世界
我的《紐約時報》最暢銷的《世界旅行》平裝本將向您展示如何掌握旅行藝術，以便您擺脫人跡罕至的道路，省錢並獲得更深入的旅行體驗。英國廣播公司（BBC）稱之為“預算旅行者聖經”是您的Z計劃指南。
單擊此處了解更多信息，並立即開始閱讀！
預訂您的旅行：後勤思想和技巧
預訂您的航班
使用Skyscanner找到低成本的飛行。這是我最喜歡的搜索引擎，因為它在全球範圍內搜索網站和航空公司，因此您總是不知道沒有石頭不會扭曲。
預訂您的住宿
您可以使用HostelWorld預訂旅館。如果您想住在旅館以外的地方，請使用booking.com，因為它們一直返回賓館和酒店的價格最低的價格。
不要忘記旅行保險
旅行保險將使您免受疾病，傷害，盜竊和取消的侵害。這是詳細的保護，以防萬一出現問題。我從來沒有旅行過，因為過去我不得不使用很多次。我最喜歡提供最佳服務和價值的公司是：
安全翼（最適合每個人）
確保我的旅行（對於70歲以上的人）
MEDJET（用於其他疏散覆蓋範圍）
準備預訂您的旅行了嗎？
查看我的資源頁面，以便您旅行時最適合使用的公司。我列出旅行時使用的所有使用。它們是課堂上最好的，您在旅途中使用它們不會出錯。
Leave a Reply