Research Blog #9: Argument & Counter Argument
My argument for my paper is that:
Tourists are curious about the paranormal and want to investigate, so the tourist locations cater to this by making enjoyable and informative tourism destinations. The tourists tend to become more open to the paranormal and share their changed view with their peers, which leads to the peers touring for themselves and starting the cycle anew.
Robert Kruse argues differently in his journal, "Point Pleasant, West Virginia", where he discusses how tourism not only hides the "everyday-ness" of small towns like Point Pleasant, but also has a tendency to railroad a narrative of the area into a singular version as opposed to the nuances of life.
Timothy & Olsen argue against it in Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys, which was the topic of my third literature review, and claim that tourism is actually more beneficial then harmful.
“...the economic impacts associated with religious tourism are greater than those associated with other market segments, because pilgrims and other religious travelers are avid buyers of religious souvenirs.” (Timothy 11)
Not to mention that while tourist locations do often focus more on one narrative over a plethora, some locations do invite tourists to reach their own conclusions by exploring the town and surrounding areas, such as both Point Pleasant and Roswell. Point Pleasant has a tour of the TNT Plant for tourists during festival season, and also has the Mothman Museum open year round where they explicitly say on their website to come and, "Research and uncover the truth for yourself." Roswell has a similar situation, where they have an extensive museum related to UFOs where visitors can explore and draw their own conclusions, and the museum also points towards other local business and locations where people can further investigate the legend and experience the town.
Kruse, II, Robert J. “Point Pleasant, West Virginia.” Southeastern Geographer, vol. 55, no. 3, Fall 2015, pp. 313–337. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1353/sgo.2015.0026.
Comments
Post a Comment