Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Samakomlao -> Samakomlao Main -> Travel -> Luang Prabang is losing its way ?
Post Info TOPIC: Luang Prabang is losing its way ?
Anonymous

Date:
Luang Prabang is losing its way ?
Permalink   



Some say Luang Prabang is losing its way; that it is no longer what it was -Is that necessarily a bad thing?

As Yeoh Siew Hoon writes, most heritage towns in Europe or Asia struggle to remain real. What they are not defined by though, is poverty. Luang Prabang is a place that is close to my heart.

Hence, when I read the headline, ‘Luang Prabang now just a replica of itself’, I had to not only read it but digest it.In the article in the IHT, Seth Mydans says that Luang Prabang today “displays the paradox of preservation, saved from modern development by packaging itself for tourists but in the process losing much of its character, authenticity and cultural significance”.

In some ways, I agree with him – the Luang Prabang today is not the same Luang Prabang of 15 years ago when I first visited it. No place in the developing world should be, really – who would wish such a fate on any place?

Then, it was itself – no electricity, few tourists, a culture not preserved (preservation only comes in the picture when there is prospect of progress) but as it is, as it was.

Today, the town has become a tourist attraction in itself with most of the businesses there totally geared towards tourism – it cannot be helped; in a place like Laos, there is no other alternative income but tourism.

The World Heritage Site status by UNESCO in 1995 saved Luang Prabang in look and feel – small streets, small structures, little traffic – but, if the article is to be agreed with, that may have become the town’s worst enemy.

It quotes Gilles Vautrin, a restaurant owner from France, as saying, “The city is being gentrified. It will be a museum city. It will be a hotel city. Maybe the tourists will like it, but it won’t be the same Luang Prabang.”

Indeed, what’s the alternative? Imagine if there had been no UNESCO bestowment, what would have happened to Luang Prabang? Would all the small buildings have been destroyed? Would locals have moved out to seek employment? What kind of tourism would there have been?

The road of “what ifs” always leads nowhere so let’s get back to the road Luang Prabang had to choose.

The article quotes a Lao artist as saying, “Now we see the safari. They come in buses. They look at the monks the same way as a monkey, a buffalo. It is theatre.”

Over the years, I’ve visited many medieval towns and historical attractions in Europe and often, I’ve wondered too other than the shops, cafes and restaurants all catering to tourists, where’s the authenticity and cultural significance?

Other than Windsor Castle, what is Windsor but a place of soggy fish and chips, bad coffee and tacky souvenirs? We go to Buckingham Palace and we gawp at the palace guards like they were show ponies in a circus.

I’ve walked up Mont St Michel, outside Paris, and I saw nothing but hordes of tourists fighting for space on the steps, in the cafes and within the castle to get a sneak glimpse at artifacts from a bygone era. I even saw two French families and their dogs fight over a table. “Your dog smells,” one said. “You stink,” said the other.

I’ve been to Carnac in Brittany, France, which is described as an ancient place of megaliths – France’s answer to Stonehenge. As ancient and mysterious as they are, they are but a sideshow to the real reason the French and other tourists go there – the pseudo (to me, that is) beach lifestyle that Carnac offers.

And don’t even get me started on Stonehenge which is probably the most over-hyped attraction in the UK, other than Brighton.

I’ve been to traditional market towns in south-west France and I’ve heard more British accents than I have French.

So back to Luang Prabang. I must confess I felt a bit queasy the last time I visited a year ago when I saw groups of tourists lining the streets fighting for space to feed alms to the monks and take photographs. It’s a natural human instinct to shudder when you see something you’ve been brought up to believe as sacred become a public spectacle.

It’s the same thing that goes on in hill tribe villages in Thailand where foreigners scramble to shoot natives in costumes.

I am as guilty of it as the next tourist. On beaches in France, I love to take photos of natives sunning themselves till they turn beetroot red. On ranches in Arizona, I love to take photos of cowboys line-dancing. There’s something inherently paradoxical about men in big hats and heavy boots kicking their heels and mincing their steps.

In small towns in Switzerland or Germany, I look out for men dressed in leder hosen, playing accordions.

Indeed, isn’t most tourism that is packaged and that somehow preserves an imagined way of life “theatre” in some form or other? It’s the myth tourists buy into.

The article also suggests that Luang Prabang is more vulnerable because it does not have a single monument that draws – unlike Angkor Wat or Bagan or Windsor.

With this town, it’s the whole thing – the look, feel and sense of it. It loses that, and it loses it.

I agree. It’s the intangibles that make Luang Prabang so attractive to tourists – not one thing you can put your finger on but the sum of its many parts.

The river that flows past it, the surrounding landscapes, the sense of history of its location, the ancient capital of a once-great kingdom, the old villas, the small streets, the monks, the people …

I don’t think it was the poverty that defined Luang Prabang though, as another quote in the IHT article implied. “The paradox is that Unesco gives out the Heritage Site label partly to reduce poverty, but reducing poverty is reducing heritage. If you want to preserve heritage, you must keep poverty.”

I don’t see many heritage sites in Europe that are well-preserved but poor, do you? I think there is something inherently flawed in the thinking that to be authentic in Asia, there has to be poverty.

I remember an American friend of mine once asking me why I liked travelling to places like Laos. “Why do you want to go see how poor people live?”

When I first visited Luang Prabang, I did not see the poverty but felt the richness of a proud, gentle people who, of course like all of us, wanted a better life for their children.

I think it is the fact that Luang Prabang is the sum of its parts that will save it. But only if we travellers give it a chance, and don’t go expecting it to fit into our own preset notions of the way it should be. Instead, just try seeing it with new eyes, each new visit.

Actually, that’s the way we ought to travel anywhere.



Source: http://www.4hoteliers.com/4hots_fshw.php?mwi=2986

__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

Anonymous wrote:

Some say Luang Prabang is losing its way; that it is no longer what it was -Is that necessarily a bad thing?

I agree. It’s the intangibles that make Luang Prabang so attractive to tourists – not one thing you can put your finger on but the sum of its many parts.

The river that flows past it, the surrounding landscapes, the sense of history of its location, the ancient capital of a once-great kingdom, the old villas, the small streets, the monks, the people …

I don’t think it was the poverty that defined Luang Prabang though, as another quote in the IHT article implied. “The paradox is that Unesco gives out the Heritage Site label partly to reduce poverty, but reducing poverty is reducing heritage. If you want to preserve heritage, you must keep poverty.”

I don’t see many heritage sites in Europe that are well-preserved but poor, do you? I think there is something inherently flawed in the thinking that to be authentic in Asia, there has to be poverty.

I remember an American friend of mine once asking me why I liked travelling to places like Laos. “Why do you want to go see how poor people live?”

When I first visited Luang Prabang, I did not see the poverty but felt the richness of a proud, gentle people who, of course like all of us, wanted a better life for their children.

I think it is the fact that Luang Prabang is the sum of its parts that will save it. But only if we travellers give it a chance, and don’t go expecting it to fit into our own preset notions of the way it should be. Instead, just try seeing it with new eyes, each new visit.

Actually, that’s the way we ought to travel anywhere.



Source: http://www.4hoteliers.com/4hots_fshw.php?mwi=2986
Well said!!! Thanks so much.


__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

I like te article. it's well written with lots of comparisons and many dimensions of how we can see tourism in places around the world.

should Laos remain poor to attract more tourists? or should/how Laos develop the country and get rid of poverty but still attracting toursts?

I think it depends on the mind set of visitors  and  tourism  business people.

Anyway, I want to see this city developed and  at the same time the carrying capacity of  tourism should be considered and actions taken accordingly.

__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

Luang prabang may lost its status as the world heritage city in the near future.
Very touristy.



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

Luang Prabang will lose its charm of old town of attraction when it allows to have too much development around itself. Ir must not change to suit the tourists liking.

__________________
LAO SPY


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 150
Date:
Permalink   

I do agree with the author of this article.

I don't think that if we want to preserve heritage, we have to keep Luang Prabang people poor. Probably, only those who have less knowledge would say like that.

If we are smart enough, everything can be manageable. Why in the developed country where there is no poverty, they can preserve their heritage?    

__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

LAO SPY wrote:

Why in the developed country where there is no poverty, they can preserve their heritage?    


The developed country still has poverty.

If you took any small town in the developed countries and turned half the houses into hotels and restaurants and filled them with people from the other side of the world then yes, things would be different.



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Samakomlao -> Samakomlao Main -> Travel -> Luang Prabang is losing its way ?
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard