# Travel Talk > The Travelers Conscience >  Poorism- good or bad?

## Traveler

I read an article in a Tanzanian newspaper that was talking about how popular "poorism" has become, that is touring the poorest areas of a country.  Unfortunately I couldn't find an on line version to link to. The article was focusing on $30 day trips through Nairobi's poorest slums and especially how many celebrities are wanting to travel to such places.  They were also questioning whether the area benefited from such tours or were exploited. There was also a topic here a few months ago about L. A. Gangland tours, pretty much an American version along the same lines. The reaction seems to be mostly how these areas should be left alone.  On the other hand, here in Tanzania, everybody wants to see the most remote tribes, the "real" Maasai and the Hadzabe ("bushmen") who hunt with poison arrows.  Isn't that really the same thing, only in a rural setting?  Should areas like those be left alone and untouched or do you think that they should be visited (therefore no longer being "real" and untouched.)  What are your opinions about this?

----------


## addypaul

I am not totally sure if its a good or bad thing... I do a lot of volunteer tourism which gets a lot of criticism. While I like to think I'm making a positive impact, it is cool to see different cultures and get out of the resort. People are naturally curious, and thats where people want to go. Tourism definitely brings a new level of globalisation to any area, so it probably affects its 'untouchedness'. Still, in 'exotic' areas i've visited, the locals need that tourism income and are working on ways to bring more $$$ into that area.

----------


## hotelmymood

I can say that I wanted, I had learned several languages, or a pilot!

----------


## justinthomsan

Gangland tours, pretty much an American version along the same lines. The reaction seems to be mostly how these areas should be left alone. On the other hand, here in Tanzania, everybody wants to see the most remote tribes, the "real" Maasai and the Hadzabe ("bushmen") who hunt with poison arrows. Isn't that really the same thing, only in a rural setting? Should areas like those be left alone and untouched or do you think that they should be visited (therefore no longer being "real" and untouched.)

----------


## davidsmith36

Gangland visits, practically an American form similarly. )I am not absolutely beyond any doubt if its a decent or awful thing... I do a ton of volunteer tourism which gets a considerable measure of feedback. While I jump at the chance to believe I'm having a beneficial outcome, it is cool to see distinctive societies and escape the resort. Individuals are actually inquisitive, and that is the place individuals need to go. Tourism unquestionably conveys another level of globalization to any territory, so it likely influences its 'untouchedness'. Still, in "fascinating" zones i've gone by, local people require that tourism salary and are taking a shot at approaches to bring more $$$ into that territory.

----------

