Description
The purpose of this paper is to examine the omission of Indigenous narratives in battlefields
and sites of conflicts while also highlighting how certain battlefields and sites of conflicts have attempted
to address dissonant heritage by diversifying interpretation strategies and implementing elements of
collaborative management approaches, thereby addressing Indigenous erasure.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Conflicts, battlefields, indigenous peoples and tourism: addressing dissonant heritage in warfare tourism in Australia
and North America in the twenty-first century
Raynald Harvey Lemelin Kyle Powys Whyte Kelsey J ohansen Freya Higgins Desbiolles Christopher Wilson Steve Hemming
Article information:
To cite this document:
Raynald Harvey Lemelin Kyle Powys Whyte Kelsey J ohansen Freya Higgins Desbiolles Christopher Wilson Steve Hemming,
(2013),"Conflicts, battlefields, indigenous peoples and tourism: addressing dissonant heritage in warfare tourism in Australia and North
America in the twenty-first century", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 257 - 271
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0038
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:22 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 63 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1191 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Avital Biran, Kenneth F. Hyde, (2013),"New perspectives on dark tourism", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 191-198 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2013-0032
Rachael Raine, (2013),"A dark tourist spectrum", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 242-256
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0037
Anna Farmaki, (2013),"Dark tourism revisited: a supply/demand conceptualisation", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 281-292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0030
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Con?icts, battle?elds, indigenous peoples
and tourism: addressing dissonant heritage
in warfare tourism in Australia and North
America in the twenty-?rst century
Raynald Harvey Lemelin, Kyle Powys Whyte, Kelsey Johansen, Freya Higgins Desbiolles,
Christopher Wilson and Steve Hemming
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the omission of Indigenous narratives in battle?elds
and sites of con?icts while also highlighting howcertain battle?elds and sites of con?icts have attempted
to address dissonant heritage by diversifying interpretation strategies and implementing elements of
collaborative management approaches, thereby addressing Indigenous erasure.
Design/methodology/approach – The study uses a content analysis, ?eld studies and case studies to
examine dissonant heritage in warfare tourism sites involving Indigenous peoples in Australia and North
America.
Findings – The content analysis reveals that aboriginal erasure is still prevalent within the literature on
warfare and battle?eld tourism. However, the case studies suggest that dissonant heritage in warfare
tourism is being addressed through collaborative management strategies and culturally sensitive
interpretation strategies.
Research limitations/implications – The content analysis is limited to tourism journals. The case
studies highlight sites that are using adaptive management and integrating Indigenous peoples.
Practical implications – The study of dissonant heritage and warfare tourism, while relatively young, is
beginning to address aboriginal erasure and cultural dissonance; this study is a contribution to this area
of research.
Social implications – Addressing the impacts of aboriginal erasure and heritage dissonance in
colonial settings heals the hurts of the past, while empowering communities. It also provides Indigenous
communities with opportunities to diversify current tourism products.
Originality/value – This is a collaborative international paper involving Indigenous and non-Indigenous
scholars from Australia, Canada, and the USA.
Keywords Tourism, Warfare, Heritage, Australia, Canada, United States of America,
Emotional dissonance, Dark tourism, Warfare tourism, Indigenous peoples, Content analysis,
Battle?eld tourism
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Dark tourism, a concept ?rst proposed by Foley and Lennon (1996), is a form of tourism
pertaining speci?cally to death, disaster and atrocity (Skinner, 2012). Since human
fascination with fatality has existed across the ages, the allure of death is neither a result of
modern angst nor a post/modern phenomenon, argues Seaton (1999). By incorporating the
tourist in the mediation of death and suffering across various temporal and spatial settings,
thanatourism is better suited to explain the allure of atrocity heritage in tourism (Skinner,
2012). Because heritage interpretation is the selective understanding ‘‘of past events for
current commemorative and commodi?cation purposes, then all heritage is competing,
con?icting and dissonant’’ (p. 263), suggest Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996). Warfare
DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-05-2012-0038 VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013, pp. 257-271, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 257
Raynald Harvey Lemelin is
based at the School of
Outdoor Recreation, Parks
& Tourism, Lakehead
University, Thunder Bay,
Canada. Kyle Powys Whyte
is based at Michigan State
University, East Lansing,
Michigan, USA. Kelsey
Johansen is based at the
School of Outdoor
Recreation, Parks
& Tourism, Lakehead
University, Thunder Bay,
Canada. Freya Higgins
Desbiolles is based at the
Department of Tourism and
the School of Management,
University of Otago of the
University of South
Australia, Adelaide,
Australia. Christopher
Wilson is based at
Yunggorendi First Nations
Centre for Higher Education
and Research, Flinders
University, Adelaide,
Australia. Steve Hemming
is based at the Department
of English, Creative Writing
and Australian Studies,
Flinders University,
Adelaide, Australia.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
tourism (Diller and Sco?dio, 1994; Gordon, 1998; Lloyd, 1998; Smith, 1996), which is a
sub-component of dark tourism, thanatourism and dissonant heritage, incorporates
battle?elds, war memorials, cemeteries, burial sites of military leaders, war museums,
warships and aerial display of Second World War bombers, peace parks, battle
re-enactments and battle?eld tours (Dunkley et al., 2011). Since battle?elds and con?ict
sites are associated with death and atrocity, the debate regarding the promotion of these
sites as tourism attractions also makes them quintessential examples of dark tourism
(Baldwin and Sharpley, 2009).
From an Indigenous[1] perspective, warfare tourism includes a wide range of con?ict sites,
such as battle sites, areas where human remains are or have been wrongfully buried or
removed, areas where Indigenous peoples have been incarcerated and enslaved, locations
of frontier violence (e.g. in Ngarrindjeri Ruwe/Ruwar[2] in Australia; the Sand Creek
Massacre in the USA) (Hemming and Rigney, 2009), as well as issues around Indigenous
people’s involvement in the armed services, and in their struggles for self-governance and
self-determination in colonial and post-colonial contexts (Britten, 1997; Gordon, 1998;
Winegard, 2012). The absence of Indigenous men and women from these events has
resulted in narratives that are selective, partial, biased and distorted (Nasson, 2000;
Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996), and have contributed (either directly or indirectly) to the
erasure of these contributions from the experiences and knowledge transferred to visitors of
battle?eld sites (Hannam, 2006; Winter, 2011).
Many sites of con?icts involving Indigenous peoples trace their origins to the expansion of
colonial settlements across various continents, which initiated massacres (Myall Creek and
Rufus River in Australia, Wounded Knee, USA), and created numerous clashes between
colonial armies and Indigenous groups in Aotearoa/New Zealand (Ruapekapeka Pa on the
North Island), Canada (the Battle at Batoche), and South Africa (the Isandlwana and Rorke’s
Drift in Kwa Zulu Natal). The repercussions from some of these events have been the
reinforcement of cultural imperialism through the grand narratives of colonialism, where
hegemonic ideologies of progress and democracy and Indigenous erasure have remained,
until quite recently, virtually unchallenged (Lemelin and Baikie, 2012; Schwenkel, 2006). For
example, the defeats of colonial forces at the hands of Indigenous forces have often been
described as heroic stands, whereas the tactics of Indigenous forces have been described
as underhanded (Hannam, 2006). Other examples involve battle?elds where colonial
powers used expropriation and killing to achieve the extension of their empires (e.g. the
Battle of Windjana Gorge in Australia), and which have subsequently been downplayed or
interpreted as mere skirmishes between European settlers and Indigenous peoples
(Prideaux, 2007).
Indigenous peoples were actively recruited in various colonial and imperial con?icts (from
the American War of Independence, to the War of 1812, the American Civil War, the Great
War and the Second World War) across the North American, European and Australian
continents. For example, during the War of 1812, Indigenous forces helped British troops
and Canadian militia, in what would later become Canada, to repel invading American
forces. In the USA, Indigenous peoples fought in the American War of Independence, the US
Civil War, and the two World Wars (Hauptman, 1995). In Canada, more than 4,000
Indigenous men and 3,000 Indigenous women enlisted in both World Wars (Winegard,
2012). Irrespective of existing rules in Australia against their enrolment, over 3,000
Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander men and women are known to have enlisted in the
Second World War – with a further 400 (including 25 Ngarrindjeri men) serving in the First
World War (see Mattingley and Hampton, 1998; Kartinyeri, 1996). Additionally, Indigenous
men and women have fought in the Korean and Vietnam wars, have enlisted for
peacekeeping missions, and continue to enlist in the armed forces. As such, studies of
warfare tourism ought to pay greater attention to how Indigenous communities are involved
in managing the sites where their ancestors participated in historic events.
For the purpose of this paper, dissonant heritage is de?ned as the perpetuation of grand
colonial narratives in Australia, North America and elsewhere which have resulted in the
general omission of Indigenous narratives from discourse about, and interpretation and
PAGE 258
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
development at, many sites associated with battle?eld, dark or warfare tourism. The goal of
this paper is to examine the omission of Indigenous narratives in battle?elds and sites of
con?icts while also highlighting howcertain battle?elds and sites of con?icts have attempted
to address dissonant heritage by diversifying interpretation strategies and implementing
elements of collaborative management approaches, thereby addressing Indigenous
erasure. We do so through case studies, a content analysis and a series of
recommendations. By providing an Indigenous and post-colonial perspective of warfare
tourism we add to the discussion on dark tourism, dissonant heritage, and warfare tourism.
We also suggest that the management and interpretation strategies offered at these sites of
dark tourism create opportunities to increase tolerance and understanding (Stone, 2009).
Following the literature review are the case study descriptions of one battle?eld and one
con?ict site located in North America and Australia. The case studies illustrate how
Indigenous communities are striving for greater involvement in telling their stories and
engaging in their own management and site development strategies, something which is not
currently re?ected in academic literature further propagating Indigenous erasure. Building
on these ?ndings, a content analysis was used to determine the presence or absence of
Indigenous discourses within existing literature on dark tourism, dissonant heritage and
warfare tourism. The analysis shows that the involvement of Indigenous communities in
these sites receives limited attention in the literature on con?ict and warfare tourism. The
disjuncture between the applied and academic ?ndings reveals the relevance of utilizing
mixed-methods and interdisciplinary research. In the ensuing section, we articulate three
new theoretical concepts or views that illustrate how these cases are indicative of important
matters of fairness and self-determination for Indigenous communities. In particular, we
articulate a concept of transformation and reconciliation which af?rms the importance of
robust Indigenous involvement in site re-development, interpretation and tourism, including
cases of repatriation. The conclusion/discussion section stresses why tourism research has
an important responsibility to pay attention to processes of transformation.
Literature review
A general uneasiness associated with addressing issues such as slavery, warfare or
colonialism during one’s leisure experiences has resulted in some cases, tokenism, and/or
‘‘distory’’ (the distorted or partial interpretation of historical events), especially since the
concept of oppression may raise the issues of responsibility, complicity, and guilt for some
visitors (Fjellman, 1992; Graham and Howard, 2008; Lowenthal, 1993). In other situations
there is, despite the interest of visitors in seeing some sites, a tendency to exoticize,
sensationalize and ‘‘consume indigeneity’’ (Skinner and Theodossopoulos, 2011, p. 19), or
to seek remnants of cultures forever lost (Bunten, 2011; Peers, 2007).
Fortunately, as the world begins to demand more accurate and balanced depictions of
history, the request for such heritage interpretation and progressive management
approaches is growing (Dallen and Boyd, 2006). For Indigenous people, this willingness
to address past wrongdoings can be combined with the growing interest in Indigenous
cultures in Australia and North America in a tourism context, along with the rise of
collaborative management approaches in protected areas and historic sites (Butler and
Hinch, 2007; Ryan and Aicken, 2005; Zeppel, 2006). Fundamentally, such strategies can
‘‘lead to in?uence or control of the institutions themselves, through community involvement’’
(Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996, p. 40). That said, recognising and addressing the
challenges associated with dissonant heritage in warfare tourism involving Indigenous
peoples has, in some cases, remained a contentious issue (see the discussion by Whitacre
and Greene, 2003, of the Sand Creek National Historic Site, USA).
Researchers (see Dunkley et al., 2011; Lloyd, 1998) suggest that there are a number of
reasons why tourists visit these sites of con?icts, including commemoration, entertainment,
education, and pilgrimage. Since visitors to these sites also originate from many cultural and
ethnic groupings, including the descendants of the victims of these con?icts (for a
discussion of Indigenous Australians visiting sites of con?icts, see Peters and
Higgins-Desbioelles, 2012), these sites can also become contested terrains where grand
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 259
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
narratives are challenged and contested (Dunkley et al., 2011). Iles (2011) suggests that
touring battle?elds and sites of con?ict can also result in a desire to empathize with these
commemorative spaces or sacred landscapes. Battle?elds ‘‘are especially signi?cant as
memorial landscapes because they challenge us to recall basic realities of historical
experiences, especially those of death, suffering and sacri?ce’’ (Gough, 2008, p. 224).
Ideally these sites should provide opportunities for the living to learn from, commemorate,
mourn and heal (Gough, 2008; Hartmann, 2002; Hyde and Harman, 2011). In North
America, Canada and the USA, two countries who fought each other two centuries ago are
celebrating the bicentennial of the War of 1812. While discrepancies remain on who actually
won the war, what is not denied in the Canadian bicentennial celebrations is the role of
French-Canadian militia and the First Nation allies along with the British Army. For example, a
Commemorative Memorial Service recognising the 10,000 First Nations lives lost during the
War of 1812 was recently held in Toronto, Ontario (Canada Newswire, 2012).
Methods
As stated above, this analysis seeks to understand Indigenous erasure within the context of
battle?eld tourism site development, interpretation and management. To accomplish this, a
mixed-methods research approach was undertaken.
Through a comprehensive literature review, the researchers gained an understanding of the
historic involvement of Indigenous peoples in global military con?ict, the history behind the
sites visited, and the status of their inclusion in site development, interpretation and
management. Site visits, including discussions with site managers and park interpreters,
enabled the research team to document the relatively new incorporation of Indigenous
narratives/discourse into battle?eld tourism interpretation, and the implementation of
collaborative management strategies (or lack thereof), at battle?elds and sites of con?icts in
Australia and North America. The result of these site visits guided the development of codes
for use in content analysis of journal articles which sought to determine the degree of
inclusion and recognition of Indigenous narratives and discourse in the battle?eld, dark and
warfare tourism literature and the literature on battle?eld and con?ict site interpretation and
management. Lastly, a philosophical discussion around the potential real world implications
of the application of various forms of fairness to the inclusion of Indigenous narratives in site
development is put forward in an attempt to articulate an inclusive set of best practices
aimed at fostering self-determination in site development among site managers,
interpreters, and Indigenous communities.
The case studies
The Battle of Little Bighorn, 1876
On 25 June 1876, Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer and the 7th Calvary, aided by Arikara
and Crow scouts, attacked a large village located along the Little Bighorn River in what
would later become the state of Montana; the village was defended by Sioux and Cheyenne
warriors led by Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse (Buchholtz, 2012). ‘‘By the end of the day, the
Sioux and Cheyenne had defeated the 7th Calvary and all of the men under Custer’s
immediate command lay dead (approximately 263 soldiers and attached personnel)’’
(Buchholtz, 1998, p. 113). The site, ?rst protected as a US National Cemetery in 1879, was
later designated as the Custer Battle?eld National Monument. Growing interest in the site
throughout the twentieth century provided various opportunities for commemoration and
entertainment during its ?ftieth anniversary celebration in 1926.
Each year, 300,000 tourists visit the battle?eld grounds, which consist of a visitor centre, a
mass cavalry grave, additional cemeteries, monuments, seasonal guided tours by parks
staff and tour packages offered through Wind in Feather Tours given by the Crow Nation.
Battle re-enactments continue to attract thousands of visitors annually and generate millions
of dollars in revenue (Buchholtz, 1998, 2005).
PAGE 260
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
While concerns over the veneration of Custer were expressed by a number of Indigenous
and non-Indigenous scholars and National Park employees, it was only during the
centennial anniversary of the battle that ‘‘the American Indian Movement (AIM)
challenged the symbolic dominance of [the] George Amstrong Custer’’ narrative
(Linenthal, 1991, p. 141). After considerable debate, and in order to recognise all of the
actors involved in this battle, the site was renamed in 1991. Red granite makers, marking
the sites of fallen native warriors (see Figure 1), and three white granite makers identifying
the placement of three fallen Akira scouts and interpreters, were erected in 1999. These
delays in honouring the Indigenous involvement in this con?ict are similar to what Seaton
(2009) noted in the commemoration of British soldiers in the Zulu Wars of the late 1870s.
In this particular battle?eld, it would take over 120 years, explains Seaton (2009) to
recognise and ‘‘erect memorials for the Zulu dead’’ (p. 96). The Indian Memorial
dedicated to the Cheyenne, Sioux, Akira and Crow nations at the Battle of the Little
Bighorn was completed and dedicated in 2003 (Utley, 1998).
Today, citizens of the Crow, Cheyenne and Sioux nations are consulted on various aspects of
the battle?eld’s management. Additionally, the efforts of the National Park service and the
citizens of the Crow, Cheyenne and Sioux nations to recognise these other individuals is
commendable, as one park interpreter stated: ‘‘beyond every grave-marker red or white,
there is a person, there is a story, every one of these, deserving to be told’’ (personal
communication, Park Staff, June 2012).
This case study highlights how dissonant heritage began at the conclusion of the battle and
continued until Native Americans openly contested the interpretation and commemoration of
the site at the centennial anniversary (Buchholtz, 2012). Recent efforts to address these
issues and commemorate the Indigenous warriors and Nations involved in this battle
suggest a movement towards collaborative management strategies and willingness by the
management agency to provide a fuller history of the battle?eld (see Figure 2). Most of this,
however, would not have been possible without Indigenous people contesting the
management approaches previously upheld at this battle?eld.
Figure 1 Granite marker marking the location of fallen Cheyenne warrior
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 261
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The Myall Creek Massacre of 1838
As indicated in the previous discussion, colonial and postcolonial history is marked by
battles, resistance and the perseverance of Indigenous peoples. But Australia’s legacy has
been marked by what has been called ‘‘the Great Australian Silence’’, where ‘‘talk of frontier
war [. . .] is absurd’’ (McKenna, 2002, p. 32). It is only with the work of Indigenous scholars
and leaders and non-Indigenous historians, such as Henry Reynolds, exposing the nature of
the violence of invasion and documenting the frontier wars, that the silence has been broken
(see Mattingley and Hampton, 1998; Reynolds, 1981; Attwood and Foster, 2003).
It is through the 1988 bicentenary of Australia’s establishment and the 2001 bicentenary of
Australia’s Federation that the Myall Creek Massacre site was commemorated in Northern
New South Wales in 2000 (see Figure 3). The massacre of 28 innocent Wirrayaraay people
who had been peacefully camping near the Myall Creek station, by 12 white settlers,
occurred on 10 June 1838, and is one of the rare atrocities widely known in Australia
because its perpetrators were charged with murder and put on trial in the Supreme Court in
Sydney on 15 November 1838, amid public controversy (Elder, 1998). When the jury found
the eleven accused men not guilty, the judge ordered a re-trial which sawseven of the eleven
tried again on 27 November. This resulted in a guilty verdict and the seven men were hanged
on 18 December 1838.
Instead of ensuring respect for law and order on Australia’s frontiers and the safety of
Indigenous people, the lesson learned by settlers was to in?ict ‘‘death by stealth’’ (Rose,
2004, p. 94). These events are the roots of Australia’s discordant history where a myth of
‘‘benign’’ colonisation is unsettled by faint whispers of violence, death and dispossession.
Anthropologist Deborah Bird Rose (2004), in speaking on the battle?elds of Australian
history, claims ‘‘struggles for agency and power in a ?eld of violence and dishonour bring us
face to face with the past in the present in ways that numbers simply cannot’’ (p. 95). The
effort to create a memorial at Myall Creek represents one such struggle for agency and
power and an effort to bring a reconciled past into the present.
In 1998, Sue Blacklock, a descendant of one of the survivors of the massacre, and others
formed a Memorial Committee to see the Myall Creek massacre commemorated. In 2000,
the Myall Creek Massacre Memorial was opened and attended by descendants of the
victims, survivors and perpetrators of the massacre. The memorial consists of a bronze
plaque mounted on a large boulder which reads:
Figure 2 The Indian Memorial at the Battle of Little Bighorn
PAGE 262
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In memory of the Wirrayaraay people who were murdered on the slopes of this ridge in an
unprovoked but premeditated act in the late afternoon of 10 June 1838. Erected on 10 June 2000
by a group of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians in an act of reconciliation, and in
acknowledgment of the truth of our shared history. We Remember them (Ngiyani winangay
ganunga).
Since its opening, the memorial has become a site for annual remembrance ceremonies.
The Memorial Committee has expressed the hope that the site will be one of reconciliation
and national pilgrimage.
The placement of the Myall Creek Massacre and Memorial Site on the National Heritage List
in 2008 seems a positive indication that the site may be on the way to ful?lling the
Committee’s hopes. Since the commemoration of Myall Creek involved descendants of the
victims and perpetrators, the site also suggest that healing ceremonies, although wrought
with emotion, can also heal social rifts. Whether it can ful?l the committee’s more utopian
ambition to ‘‘become as popular as the Stockman’s Hall of Fame’’ (Cheshire, 2001) is less
likely. The Stockman’s Hall of Fame, with its glori?cation of Australia’s settlement, represents
a rival site jockeying for the conscience of the nation. In order to address these con?icts, we
envision an Australia where Myall Creek, or a USA where the Battle of the Little Bighorn,
become places of pilgrimage where the ambiguities of nationhood are re?ected upon and
the discordant histories are addressed through inclusive and progressive management
strategies.
Content analysis
In order to explore the status of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous sites in con?ict and
warfare tourism, an inventory of tourism journal articles was conducted in a multi-phased
process, including a review of leading tourism journals. The review encompassed articles
from Annals of Tourism Research, International Journal of Tourism Research, Journal of
Heritage Tourism, Journal of Travel Research and Tourism Management covering the period
from 1999 (when the term ‘‘battle?eld tourism’’ began to be widely used in tourism literature)
to 2011. Journals were identi?ed for the content analysis based on the researchers’
knowledge of battle?eld tourism (Lemelin et al., 2013; Peters and Higgins-Desbioelles,
2012). Additional relevant journal articles fromthe same time frame were identi?ed through a
Google Scholar search in order to allow for the inclusion of peer-reviewed articles from
Figure 3 Myall Creek Memorial
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 263
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
diverse social science and interdisciplinary ?elds, including history and heritage studies.
While the authors acknowledge that considerable research has been published on these
topics within scholarly books, the scope of this content analysis focused on articles
published within peer-reviewed journals.
An inventory of journal articles was developed and individual journal articles were identi?ed
and selected for the content analysis based on their inclusion and discussion of key concepts
associated with warfare tourismincluding battle?eld tourism, dark tourism, dissonant heritage,
and thanatourism. Key terms were identi?ed through the literature review, and based on the
researchers’ knowledge of battle?eld tourism. Articles were then analysed through a content
analysis to identify references (if any) to Indigenous, Amerindian/Indian, and Native peoples
(using a variety of general and speci?c terms) as well as instances of Indigenous erasure
within the dialogue surrounding touristic activities at sites where these People(s) were involved
in historic con?icts. The inventory identi?ed 38 potential articles pertaining to battle?eld,
warfare, thanatourism, dark tourism and dissonant heritage. However, of the total literature
reviewed, only 21 concerned events or sites relevant to Indigenous peoples.
Seven of these 21 articles recognised the role of Indigenous peoples in the commemorated
events or sites; while 14 failed to include the role of Indigenous peoples (see Table I). One of
the most salient articles, published in Journal of Heritage Tourism, and written by Wall
(2011), goes so far as to address the issue of Indigenous erasure as well as recurring issues
around historical authenticity, local perceptions of legitimacy and the economic challenges
associated with operating the Fort Edmonton Park (FEP) living history museum, in Alberta,
Canada.
The failure of the remaining 14 articles to discuss the contributions of Indigenous peoples at
battle?eld and con?ict sights highlights a disjunction between the literature and interpretive
practices observed at sites. Furthermore, despite the growth of dark and battle?eld tourism
in recent years, the recognition that other factors in?uence visitation of battle?eld sites (Biran
et al., 2011; Dunkley et al., 2011) and the fact the study of dark tourism is only two decades
old, the relative absence of Indigenous peoples narratives in most of this academic material
is symptomatic of aboriginal erasure and is an issue of concern for the ?eld. These ?ndings
illustrate the need for mixed-methods research featuring both academic and ?eld
components, so that reconciliation strategies can be properly identi?ed and addressed.
Views of fairness and self-determination in site development
Whether battle?elds or dark tourism sites can become places of pilgrimage or tourism
destinations that respect history often comes down to what viewof fairness is adopted by the
parties responsible for managing the site, and whose ancestors participated in the battle but
are not part of the site’s formal management process. In general, fairness is the issue of how
the touristic design and management of battle?eld sites prevent unnecessary harm to the
descendants of battle participants and helps to address the current needs of the
communities for whom the site remains a signi?cant part of their heritage. Prevention of
harm, for example, and as the Myall case study illustrates, includes protecting Indigenous
community members from demeaning or exclusionary colonial narratives.
Addressing current needs may include Indigenous peoples’ ability to cultivate the site
according to the way(s) their communities value it. This idea refers to self-determination,
which is the ability of a community to determine its own destiny on its own terms and
according to its own experiences. The ability of tribal communities to contest the way the
Little Bighorn Battle?eld is being managed is an example of self-determination. Despite the
obviousness of fairness in terms of avoidance of harm, there are important differences in
how fairness and self-determination may be viewed by various parties. The discussion that
follows contrasts three such views:
1. the equality of representation view;
2. the consent view; and
3. the transformative view.
PAGE 264
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
T
a
b
l
e
I
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
T
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
n
g
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
n
g
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
u
s
i
n
g
b
a
t
t
l
e
?
e
l
d
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
u
s
i
n
g
w
a
r
f
a
r
e
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
a
n
a
-
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
u
s
i
n
g
d
a
r
k
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
u
s
i
n
g
d
i
s
s
o
n
a
n
t
h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
A
b
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
p
e
o
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
F
i
r
s
t
N
a
t
i
o
n
s
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
i
n
d
i
g
e
n
o
u
s
p
e
o
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
I
n
d
i
a
n
s
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
N
a
t
i
v
e
P
e
o
p
l
e
s
A
n
n
a
l
s
o
f
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
1
7
6
1
5
3
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
7
3
1
2
1
1
0
0
3
1
1
1
2
2
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
4
3
0
3
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
T
r
a
v
e
l
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
4
3
0
3
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
o
o
g
l
e
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
4
4
4
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
3
8
2
1
7
1
4
1
2
3
4
3
5
3
1
3
2
3
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 265
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The equality of representation view
The ?rst view of fairness is a matter of representing equally all historic participants of the
battle site (the equality of representation view). It is based on the assumption that there is
one historic narrative of what happened at the battle sites. In the case of Little Bighorn, the
narrative is that on 25 June 1876, the 7th Calvary, Arikara and Crow attacked a large village
defended by Sioux and Cheyenne warriors. The Sioux and Cheyenne warriors won the
battle. Equality of representation requires that touristic development of the site prevent
exclusion of the Sioux, Cheyenne, Crow and Arikara participants, both ?ghters and victims.
Moreover, it appears that the actions of these people after a lengthy delay are being given
the same moral appraisal, for example valour and heroism, as the American ?ghters.
Equality of representation, then, challenges tourism agencies to remain true to what actually
happened at the sites by showing all participants in the battle due respect. That is, if
American soldiers are considered heroes, Cheyenne warriors and Crow scouts should be
considered the same. Contemporary tourism materials have begun to re?ect equality of
representation in order to achieve fairness according to this view.
This viewhas problems because it is silent on the question of who gets to decide howhistoric
participants are portrayed to contemporary tourists. Equality of representation implies that it
is morally acceptable for non-Indigenous tourism managers to decide how the groups
present at the battle are portrayed as long as they stick with the hegemonic narrative of what
happened. But this narrative may be disputed. For example, members of the Indigenous
communities may not want to see these battle?eld sites expressing Australian or North
American conceptions of the appraisal of military deeds (e.g. heroism); rather, they may
have their own beliefs about how to appraise the con?ict, and its participants, which they
wish to see expressed or even censored from the touristic aspects of the site.
The consent view
Any touristic development of a battle site must involve a process by which the contemporary
groups for whom the site remains signi?cant can give their consent to any plans for the
evolution of the battle site (the consent view).
The consent viewis an attractive viewof fairness because it asserts the possibility of multiple
historic narratives of what happened at the battle site. It is a stronger standard of inclusion
than the equality of representation view. Yet the consent view may not fully capture the social
complexity of sites because it focuses only on the needs of members of contemporary
communities to have their own histories validated in the ways that they wish them to be. The
consent view does not articulate the current needs of these communities as they have come
to be derived through historic processes of colonisation into which the historic events ?gure
as single events.
The reconciliation or transformative view
The contemporary needs of a community include self-determination, which is an ongoing
process of building a community’s capacities to dictate its own future according to terms
and in respect to experiences that its members are familiar with and honour. A general
example of this which applies to many Indigenous peoples concerns political
independence. Many Indigenous communities seek to grow their own governmental
institutions as politically independent nations. Building strong Indigenous political systems is
important because they are the ones that community members see as historically and
contemporaneously legitimate. Tourismdevelopments at battle and massacre sites are often
an opportunity for Indigenous communities to develop new economic opportunities and
strengthen their political systems by playing an active governmental role in their design and
management. Based on this consideration, the touristic presentation of these con?ict sites
ought to re?ect the political independence of the Indigenous groups for whom the sites are
signi?cant. In other words, Indigenous involvement in the site should not only be as
stakeholders; rather, their role should be appropriate to their status as Nations for whom the
site is part of their own national narratives.
PAGE 266
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The corresponding view of fairness can be called the reconciliation or transformative view.
Transformative fairness sees tourism management of con?ict sites as a dialogue. The
dialogue takes on the characteristic of transformation insofar as it disrupts American or
Australian and other colonisation nation’s assumptions about being the only nation with
sovereignty over these continents and lands. Such a disruption – if it ?ts within the
Indigenous community’s goals for tourism – can build public awareness of their national
presence and nationhood.
Establishing a transformative view of fairness
The nuances of these sites, as suggested by Lemelin et al. (2013) and Lee et al. (2012),
need to be clari?ed further into the grammar of a transformative view of fairness. To begin,
the transformative view will be contrasted with the ?rst two views. The transformative view is
more attractive than the equality of representation and consent views. First, the
transformative view places a premium on the active participation of the parties for whom
the site is signi?cant. Second, the transformative view goes further than the consent view
because it opens space for the expression of the different social realities experienced by
Indigenous communities. The social realities are likely associated with projects that address
cultural and Indigenous national needs.
The transformative view calls for transformation, then, in two ways, though the second way is
optional, depending on the nuances and complexity of the situation. First, the view is always
transformative because, whatever role they decide to play in the touristic aspects of the site,
Indigenous descendants as Bunten (2011) suggests are accorded the status proper to their
being Nations for whom the site is part of their national heritage. Second, the view asserts
that it is acceptable for Indigenous peoples to tailor the touristic aspects of the site to
challenge and disrupt (if need be) colonial narratives.
In addition to the problems of competing local cultural legacy and commercial development
noted by Wall (2011), the decreasing emphasis on local heritage and presentation of
accurate historic experiences at these sites has implications for Indigenous erasure and
heritage dissonance and may encourage the omission of opportunities for reconciliation.
Instead of seeking to bolster admissions and visitor numbers through the provision of
unrelated modern entertainment, and commodi?ed cultural experiences that ‘‘historicize
[Native peoples] as dangerous’’ (Wall, 2011, p. 115), these sites should look to develop
opportunities and partnerships aimed at promoting reconciliation. These partnerships could
then provide alternative locally meaningful experiences which are in line with the
reconciliation or transformative view such as those described in the Myall Creek
Massacre Memorial Site and Little Big Horn battle?eld examples above.
Conclusion
Much like Bunten (2011), Skinner (2012) and Skinner and Theodossopoulos (2011)
examinations of Indigenous and battle?eld tourism, this article provides an overview of case
studies featuring site observations and discussions with key informants, and a content
analysis; that said, it also includes the voice of Indigenous scholars, Euro-Canadian and
Euro-American-Australian researchers addressing the strengths and limitations of heritage
dissonance and dark and warfare tourism through mixed and interdisciplinary research. In
addition, while we are not the ?rst to examine and compare the relations between
colonialism, Indigenous peoples in Australia and North America and heritage dissonance in
battle?elds and con?ict sites (Buchholtz, 2005, 2012; Bunten, 2011; Ryan, 2007; Tunbridge
and Ashworth, 1996), this analysis also provides an overview of dissonant heritage and sites
of con?icts involving Indigenous peoples from Indigenous, tourism, and philosophical
perspectives. This particular analysis suggests that the appeal of Indigenous cultures can
also be combined with the interests of dark and warfare tourism to expand and diversify new
tourism sites. It also demonstrates that these sites do attract visitors (both Indigenous and
non-Indigenous) to rural regions of Australia and North America, thereby adding the layer of
rurality and economic diversi?cation to our discussion of dissonant heritage within warfare
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 267
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
tourism. However, a better understanding of the attraction of these sites of warfare for both
national and international visitors is required.
The case studies and content analysis illustrate that battle?eld, dark and warfare tourism,
much like the examination of war and con?ict by historians, post-colonial, and Indigenous
researchers have many similarities. In many of these cases, colonial discourses are, or
have been, given priority over others. Even the victors (i.e. the combined forces of the
Sioux, Cheyenne, Akira) in the case of the Battle of Little Bighorn were initially overlooked.
From this perspective, the intention of the 7th Cavalry – to attack a village housing many
unarmed women and children – is overlooked, while the rout and destruction of the
colonial forces by the allied Indigenous forces similarly was, and remains to some,
associated with subterfuge. While many still ascribe to the notion that it is ‘‘the victors who
write history’’, the Battle of Little Bighorn suggests that in this case (as with many others),
historians, researchers and historical presenters/interpreters have preferred to focus the
narrative on the colonial ‘‘victims’’ or ‘‘victors’’, thus propagating the dominant cultural
narrative.
Yet what the case studies and content analysis demonstrate is that both the literature on
dissonant heritage and warfare tourism ‘‘in non-western cultures remains a much neglected
area worthy of further research’’ (Hannam, 2006, p. 211). One such study, attempting to
address the gap between dissonant heritage and warfare was conducted by Lee et al.
(2012). Similar to our ?ndings, Lee et al.’s (2012) description of the various meanings
associated with the Mt Kumgang resort located in North Korea, highlights the multivocality of
places and critiques Western hegemonic constructions by suggesting that dark tourism and
its typologies ‘‘must incorporate indigenous perspectives into the politics of remembrance
for global relevance’’ (p. 88).
In light of the current bicentennial commemoration of the War of 1812 between the USA and
Canada and the upcoming centennial of the Great War in Europe from 2014 to 2018 (this
includes the centennial of Gallipoli in 2015 and Vimy Ridge in 2017), we believe that a
discussion of dissonant heritage and warfare sites from Indigenous perspectives is timely
and necessary, for as noted in this article, and by the authors, despite centuries of colonial
injustices, Indigenous citizens from various nations have participated in most wars
throughout the twentieth century, including the Boer War, the First World War and the Second
World War. Further, as Peters and Higgins-Desboilles (2012) highlight and as ?eld
observations attest, Indigenous peoples are not only visiting sites of con?icts within Australia
and Canada but also First World War sites in Turkey, France and Belgium. This suggests that
the need to address dissonant heritage and dark tourism, whether it be at speci?c
battle?elds or during annual or centennial commemorations, extends far beyond particular
geopolitical or spatial boundaries and can, when properly developed, create opportunities
that increase awareness, tolerance and understanding (Stone, 2009).
Notes
1. While the term ‘‘Native American’’ is often used in the USA, we use the term ‘‘Indigenous peoples’’
throughout the text. In the Canadian context, when referring to a speci?c Indigenous group (Indian,
Inuit and Me´ tis) we will use ‘‘First Nation’’, ‘‘Inuit’’, and ‘‘Me´ tis’’ to denote this group. ‘‘Ngarrindjeri’’ is
used in the Australian case study.
2. Indigenous Australian philosophies of being are based on an interconnection between country,
body and spirit. This interconnection is fundamental to wellbeing. The Ngarrindjeri nation in
Southern South Australia use the term‘‘Ruwe/Ruwar’’ to encapsulate this concept and argue healthy
lands and waters are critical to healthy Ngarrindjeri people and culture.
References
Attwood, B. and Foster, S. (Eds) (2003), Frontier Con?ict: The Australian Experience, National Museum
of Australia, Canberra.
PAGE 268
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Baldwin, F. and Sharpley, R. (2009), ‘‘Battle?eld tourism: bringing organised violence back to life’’,
in Sharpley, R. and Stone, P. (Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism,
Channel View Publications, Toronto, pp. 186-206.
Batten, B. (2009), ‘‘The Myall Creek Memorial: history, identity and reconciliation’’, in Logan, W. and
Reeves, K. (Eds), Places of Pain and Shame: Dealing with ‘‘Dif?cult Heritage’’, Routledge, NewYork, NY,
pp. 82-96.
Britten, T.A. (1997), American Indians in the First World War: At Home and At War, University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.
Buchholtz, D. (1998), ‘‘The Battle of the Little Bighorn: history, identity, and tourismin the 1990s’’, Tourism
and Gaming on American Indian Lands, Cognizant Communication Corporation, pp. 113-127.
Buchholtz, D. (2005), ‘‘Cultural politics or critical public history? Battling on the Little Bighorn’’, Journal of
Tourism and Cultural Change, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 18-35.
Buchholtz, D. (2012), The Battle of the Greasy Grass/Little Bighorn: Custer’s Last Stand in Memory,
History and Popular Culture, Routledge, New York, NY.
Bunten, A.C. (2011), ‘‘The paradox of gaze and resistance in Native American cultural tourism:
an Alaskan case study’’, in Skinner, J. and Theodossopoulos, D. (Eds), Great Expectation: Imagination
and Anticipation in Tourism, Berghahn Books, New York, NY, pp. 61-81.
Butler, R. and Hinch, T. (Eds) (2007), Tourismand Indigenous Peoples: Issues and Implications, 2nd ed.,
Butterworth-Heinnemann, London.
Canada Newswire (2012), ‘‘Assembly of First Nations National Chief recognizes War of 1812
bicentennial, honours ?rst nation contributions’’, available at: www.newswire.ca/en/story/1007227/
assembly-of-?rst-nations-national-chief-recognizes-war-of-1812-bicentennial-honours-?rst-nation-
contributions (accessed 8 August 2012).
Cheshire, B. (2001), ‘‘Bridge over Myall Creek. Australian story’’, available at: www.abc.net.au/austory/
transcripts/s332825.htm (accessed 16 April 2012).
Dallen, J.T. and Boyd, S.W. (2006), ‘‘Heritage tourism in the 21st century: valued traditions and new
perspectives’’, Journal of Heritage Tourism, Vol. 1, pp. 1-16.
Dann, G. (1998), ‘‘The dark side of tourism’’, E
´
tudes et Rapports, Se´ rie L, Centre International de
Recherches et d’Etudes Touristiques, Aix-en-Provence.
Department of Environment (n.d.), ‘‘Myall Creek massacre and memorial site’’, available at: www.
environment.gov.au/heritage/places/national/myall-creek/information.html (accessed 3 December
2011).
Diller, E. and Sco?dio, R. (1994), Back to the Front: Tourisms of War, FRAC, Basse-Normandie.
Dunkley, R., Morgan, N. and Westwood, S. (2011), ‘‘Visiting the trenches: exploring meanings and
motivations in battle?eld tourism’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 32, pp. 860-868.
Elder, B. (1998), Blood on the Wattle: Massacres and Maltreatment of Australian Aborigines since 1788,
New Holland, Frenchs Forest.
Fjellman, S. (1992), Vinyl Leaves: Walt Disney World and America, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Foley, M. and Lennon, J. (1996), ‘‘JFK and dark tourism: heart of darkness’’, Journal of International
Heritage Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 195-197.
Gordon, B.M. (1998), ‘‘Warfare and tourism: Paris in World War II’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 616-638.
Gough, P. (2008), ‘‘Commemoration of war’’, in Graham, B. and Howard, P. (Eds), The Ashgate Research
Companion to Heritage and Id, Ashgate, Burlington, VT, pp. 215-230.
Graham, B. (2002), ‘‘Heritage as knowledge: capital or culture?’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 Nos 5/6,
pp. 1003-1017.
Graham, B. and Howard, P. (Eds) (2008), The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity,
Ashgate, Burlington, VT.
Graham, M., Dann, S. and Seaton, A.V. (2001), ‘‘Slavery, contested heritage and thanatourism’’,
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, Vol. 2 Nos 3/4, pp. 1-29.
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 269
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Hannam, K. (2006), ‘‘Contested representations of war and heritage at the Residency, Lucknow, India’’,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 199-212.
Hartmann, R. (2002), ‘‘‘Places of horror we should never forget’ – approaches to teaching the holocaust,
atrocity sites and pariah landscapes in the geography classroom’’, International Research in
Geographical and Environmental Education, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 354-358.
Hauptman, L.M. (1995), Between Two Fires: American Indians and the Civil War, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Hemming, S. and Rigney, D. (2009), ‘‘Encountering the Common Knobby Club Rush: reconciliation,
public art and whiteness’’, in Hosking, S., Hosking, R., Pannell, R. and Beirbaum, N. (Eds), Something
Rich and Strange: Sea Changes, Beaches and the Littoral in the Antipodes, Wake?eld Press, Kent Town,
pp. 264-277.
Hyde, K. and Harman, S. (2011), ‘‘Motives for a secular pilgrimage to the Gallipoli battle?elds’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 1343-1351.
Iles, J. (2011), ‘‘Going on holiday to imagine war: the western battle?elds as sites of commemoration and
contestation’’, in Skinner, J. and Theodossopoulos, D. (Eds), Great Expectation: Imagination and
Anticipation in Tourism, Berghahn Books, New York, NY, pp. 155-173.
Jackson, D. (1985), The Shaping of Our World – A Human and Cultural Geography, Wiley, New York, NY.
Kartinyeri, D. (1996), Ngarrindjeri Anzacs, Aboriginal Family History Project, SA Museum and Raukkan
Council, Adelaide.
Lee, C.K., Bendle, L.J., Yoon, Y.S. and Kim, M.J. (2012), ‘‘Thanatourism or peace tourism: perceived
value at a North Korean resort from an indigenous perspective’’, International Journal of Tourism
Research, Vol. 14, pp. 71-90.
Lemelin, R.H., Thompson-Carr, A., Johnston, M., Stewart, E. and Dawson, J. (2013), ‘‘Indigenous
people: discussing the forgotten dimension of dark tourism and battle?eld tourism’’, in Mu¨ ller, D.M.,
Lundmark, L. and Lemelin, R.H. (Eds), New Issues in Polar Tourism: Communities, Environments,
Politics, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 205-216.
Lennon, J. and Foley, M. (2000), Dark Tourism: The Attraction of Death and Disaster, Continuum,
London.
Linenthal, E.T. (1991), Sacred Ground: Americans and their Battle?elds, University of Illinois Press,
Urbana, IL.
Lloyd, D. (1998), Battle?eld Tourism: Pilgrimage and the Commemoration of the Great War in Britain,
Australia and Canada, 1919-1939, Berg, New York, NY.
Lowenthal, D. (1993), The Past is A Foreign Country, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
McKenna, M. (2002), Looking for Blackfellas’ Point: An Australian History of Place, UNSWPress, Sydney.
Mattingley, C. and Hampton, K. (1998), Survival in Our Own Land: ‘‘Aboriginal’’ Experiences in ‘‘South
Australia’’ since 1836, Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne.
Nasson, B. (2000), ‘‘Commemorating the Anglo-Boer in post-apartheid Africa’’, Radical History Review,
Vol. 78, pp. 149-165.
Peers, L. (2007), Playing Ourselves: Interpreting Native Histories at Historic Reconstructions, Rowman
& Little?eld, Toronto.
Peters, A. and Higgins-Desbioelles, F. (2012), ‘‘De-marginalising tourism research: indigenous
Australians as tourists’’, Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 19, pp. 1-9.
Prideaux, B. (2007), ‘‘Echoes of war: battle?eld tourism’’, in Ryan, C. (Ed.), Battle?eld Tourism: History,
Place and Interpretation, Elsevier, New York, NY, pp. 17-27.
Richards, S.L. (2002), ‘‘Cultural travel to Ghana’s slave castles: a commentary’’, International Research
in Geographical and Environmental Education, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 372-375.
Rose, D.B. (2004), Reports from a Wild Country: Ethics for Decolonisation, UNSW Press, Sydney.
Ryan, C. (2007), ‘‘The battles of Rangiriri and Batoche: amnesia and memory’’, in Ryan, C. (Ed.),
Battle?eld Tourism: History, Place and Interpretation, Elsevier, New York, NY, pp. 87-97.
PAGE 270
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Ryan, C. and Aicken, M. (2005), Indigenous Tourism: The Commodi?cation and Management of Culture,
Elsevier, New York, NY.
Schwenkel, C. (2006), ‘‘Recombinant history: transnational practices of memory and knowledge
production in contemporary Vietnam’’, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
Seaton, A.V. (1999), ‘‘War and tanatourism: Waterloo 1815-1914’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26,
pp. 130-158.
Seaton, T. (2009), ‘‘Purposeful otherness: approaches to the management of thanatourism’’, in Sharpley, R.
and Stone, P. (Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View
Publications, Toronto, pp. 75-108.
Sharpley, R. (2009a), ‘‘Shedding light on dark tourism: an introduction’’, in Sharpley, R. and Stone, P.
(Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View Publications,
Toronto, pp. 3-22.
Sharpley, R. (2009b), ‘‘Dark tourism and political ideology: towards a governance model’’, in Sharpley,
R. and Stone, P. (Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View
Publications, Toronto, pp. 145-163.
Skinner, J. (Ed.) (2012), Writing the Dark Side of Travel, Berghahn Books, New York, NY.
Skinner, J. andTheodossopoulos, D. (2011), ‘‘Introduction: the play of expectation in tourism’’, in Skinner,
J. and Theodossopoulos, D. (Eds), Great Expectation: Imagination and Anticipation in Tourism,
Berghahn Books, New York, NY, pp. 1-26.
Smith, V.L. (1996), ‘‘War and its tourist attractions’’, in Pizam, A. and Mansfeld, Y. (Eds), Tourism, Crime
and International Security Issues, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 247-264.
Stone, P.R. (2009), ‘‘Making absent death present: consuming dark tourism in contemporary society’’,
in Sharpley, R. and Stone, P.R. (Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark
Tourism, Channel View Publications, Bristol, pp. 23-38.
Tunbridge, J.E. and Ashworth, G.J. (1996), Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a
Resource in Con?ict, Wiley, New York, NY.
Utley, R.M. (1998), Little Bighorn Battle?eld: A History and Guide to the Battle of the Little Bighorn,
Handbook/Division of Publications National Park Service, Washington, DC.
Wall, K. (2011), ‘‘‘A sliver of the true fort’: imagining Fort Edmonton, 1911-2011’’, Journal of Heritage
Tourism, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 109-128.
Winegard, T.C. (2012), For King and Kanata: Canadian Indians and the First World War, University of
Manitoba Press, Winnipeg.
Whitacre, C. and Greene, J.A. (2003), ‘‘From tragedy to symbol: the efforts to designate the Sand Creek
massacre site as a National Historic Site’’, in Ashworth, G. and Hartmann, R. (Eds), Horror and Human
Tragedy Revisited: The Management of Sites of Atrocities for Tourism, Cognizant Communication
Corporation, New York, NY, pp. 60-69.
Zeppel, H. (2006), Indigenous Ecotourism: Sustainable Development and Management., CABI,
Wallingford.
Corresponding author
Raynald Harvey Lemelin can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 271
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Nien-Te Kuo, Kuo-Chien Chang, Yi-Sung Cheng, Jui-Chou Lin. 2015. Effects of Tour Guide Interpretation and Tourist
Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty in Taiwan’s Kinmen Battlefield Tourism: Perceived Playfulness and Perceived Flow as
Moderators. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 1-20. [CrossRef]
2. Raynald Harvey Lemelin, Rhonda Koster, Nicholina Youroukos. 2015. Tangible and intangible indicators of successful
aboriginal tourism initiatives: A case study of two successful aboriginal tourism lodges in Northern Canada. Tourism
Management 47, 318-328. [CrossRef]
3. R. H. Lemelin, Kelsey Johansen. 2014. The Canadian National Vimy Memorial: remembrance, dissonance and resonance.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 8:2, 203-218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Avital Biran, Kenneth F. Hyde. 2013. New perspectives on dark tourism. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research 7:3, 191-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_610766583.pdf
The purpose of this paper is to examine the omission of Indigenous narratives in battlefields
and sites of conflicts while also highlighting how certain battlefields and sites of conflicts have attempted
to address dissonant heritage by diversifying interpretation strategies and implementing elements of
collaborative management approaches, thereby addressing Indigenous erasure.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Conflicts, battlefields, indigenous peoples and tourism: addressing dissonant heritage in warfare tourism in Australia
and North America in the twenty-first century
Raynald Harvey Lemelin Kyle Powys Whyte Kelsey J ohansen Freya Higgins Desbiolles Christopher Wilson Steve Hemming
Article information:
To cite this document:
Raynald Harvey Lemelin Kyle Powys Whyte Kelsey J ohansen Freya Higgins Desbiolles Christopher Wilson Steve Hemming,
(2013),"Conflicts, battlefields, indigenous peoples and tourism: addressing dissonant heritage in warfare tourism in Australia and North
America in the twenty-first century", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 257 - 271
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0038
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:22 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 63 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1191 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Avital Biran, Kenneth F. Hyde, (2013),"New perspectives on dark tourism", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 191-198 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2013-0032
Rachael Raine, (2013),"A dark tourist spectrum", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 242-256
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0037
Anna Farmaki, (2013),"Dark tourism revisited: a supply/demand conceptualisation", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 281-292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0030
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Con?icts, battle?elds, indigenous peoples
and tourism: addressing dissonant heritage
in warfare tourism in Australia and North
America in the twenty-?rst century
Raynald Harvey Lemelin, Kyle Powys Whyte, Kelsey Johansen, Freya Higgins Desbiolles,
Christopher Wilson and Steve Hemming
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the omission of Indigenous narratives in battle?elds
and sites of con?icts while also highlighting howcertain battle?elds and sites of con?icts have attempted
to address dissonant heritage by diversifying interpretation strategies and implementing elements of
collaborative management approaches, thereby addressing Indigenous erasure.
Design/methodology/approach – The study uses a content analysis, ?eld studies and case studies to
examine dissonant heritage in warfare tourism sites involving Indigenous peoples in Australia and North
America.
Findings – The content analysis reveals that aboriginal erasure is still prevalent within the literature on
warfare and battle?eld tourism. However, the case studies suggest that dissonant heritage in warfare
tourism is being addressed through collaborative management strategies and culturally sensitive
interpretation strategies.
Research limitations/implications – The content analysis is limited to tourism journals. The case
studies highlight sites that are using adaptive management and integrating Indigenous peoples.
Practical implications – The study of dissonant heritage and warfare tourism, while relatively young, is
beginning to address aboriginal erasure and cultural dissonance; this study is a contribution to this area
of research.
Social implications – Addressing the impacts of aboriginal erasure and heritage dissonance in
colonial settings heals the hurts of the past, while empowering communities. It also provides Indigenous
communities with opportunities to diversify current tourism products.
Originality/value – This is a collaborative international paper involving Indigenous and non-Indigenous
scholars from Australia, Canada, and the USA.
Keywords Tourism, Warfare, Heritage, Australia, Canada, United States of America,
Emotional dissonance, Dark tourism, Warfare tourism, Indigenous peoples, Content analysis,
Battle?eld tourism
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Dark tourism, a concept ?rst proposed by Foley and Lennon (1996), is a form of tourism
pertaining speci?cally to death, disaster and atrocity (Skinner, 2012). Since human
fascination with fatality has existed across the ages, the allure of death is neither a result of
modern angst nor a post/modern phenomenon, argues Seaton (1999). By incorporating the
tourist in the mediation of death and suffering across various temporal and spatial settings,
thanatourism is better suited to explain the allure of atrocity heritage in tourism (Skinner,
2012). Because heritage interpretation is the selective understanding ‘‘of past events for
current commemorative and commodi?cation purposes, then all heritage is competing,
con?icting and dissonant’’ (p. 263), suggest Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996). Warfare
DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-05-2012-0038 VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013, pp. 257-271, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 257
Raynald Harvey Lemelin is
based at the School of
Outdoor Recreation, Parks
& Tourism, Lakehead
University, Thunder Bay,
Canada. Kyle Powys Whyte
is based at Michigan State
University, East Lansing,
Michigan, USA. Kelsey
Johansen is based at the
School of Outdoor
Recreation, Parks
& Tourism, Lakehead
University, Thunder Bay,
Canada. Freya Higgins
Desbiolles is based at the
Department of Tourism and
the School of Management,
University of Otago of the
University of South
Australia, Adelaide,
Australia. Christopher
Wilson is based at
Yunggorendi First Nations
Centre for Higher Education
and Research, Flinders
University, Adelaide,
Australia. Steve Hemming
is based at the Department
of English, Creative Writing
and Australian Studies,
Flinders University,
Adelaide, Australia.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
tourism (Diller and Sco?dio, 1994; Gordon, 1998; Lloyd, 1998; Smith, 1996), which is a
sub-component of dark tourism, thanatourism and dissonant heritage, incorporates
battle?elds, war memorials, cemeteries, burial sites of military leaders, war museums,
warships and aerial display of Second World War bombers, peace parks, battle
re-enactments and battle?eld tours (Dunkley et al., 2011). Since battle?elds and con?ict
sites are associated with death and atrocity, the debate regarding the promotion of these
sites as tourism attractions also makes them quintessential examples of dark tourism
(Baldwin and Sharpley, 2009).
From an Indigenous[1] perspective, warfare tourism includes a wide range of con?ict sites,
such as battle sites, areas where human remains are or have been wrongfully buried or
removed, areas where Indigenous peoples have been incarcerated and enslaved, locations
of frontier violence (e.g. in Ngarrindjeri Ruwe/Ruwar[2] in Australia; the Sand Creek
Massacre in the USA) (Hemming and Rigney, 2009), as well as issues around Indigenous
people’s involvement in the armed services, and in their struggles for self-governance and
self-determination in colonial and post-colonial contexts (Britten, 1997; Gordon, 1998;
Winegard, 2012). The absence of Indigenous men and women from these events has
resulted in narratives that are selective, partial, biased and distorted (Nasson, 2000;
Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996), and have contributed (either directly or indirectly) to the
erasure of these contributions from the experiences and knowledge transferred to visitors of
battle?eld sites (Hannam, 2006; Winter, 2011).
Many sites of con?icts involving Indigenous peoples trace their origins to the expansion of
colonial settlements across various continents, which initiated massacres (Myall Creek and
Rufus River in Australia, Wounded Knee, USA), and created numerous clashes between
colonial armies and Indigenous groups in Aotearoa/New Zealand (Ruapekapeka Pa on the
North Island), Canada (the Battle at Batoche), and South Africa (the Isandlwana and Rorke’s
Drift in Kwa Zulu Natal). The repercussions from some of these events have been the
reinforcement of cultural imperialism through the grand narratives of colonialism, where
hegemonic ideologies of progress and democracy and Indigenous erasure have remained,
until quite recently, virtually unchallenged (Lemelin and Baikie, 2012; Schwenkel, 2006). For
example, the defeats of colonial forces at the hands of Indigenous forces have often been
described as heroic stands, whereas the tactics of Indigenous forces have been described
as underhanded (Hannam, 2006). Other examples involve battle?elds where colonial
powers used expropriation and killing to achieve the extension of their empires (e.g. the
Battle of Windjana Gorge in Australia), and which have subsequently been downplayed or
interpreted as mere skirmishes between European settlers and Indigenous peoples
(Prideaux, 2007).
Indigenous peoples were actively recruited in various colonial and imperial con?icts (from
the American War of Independence, to the War of 1812, the American Civil War, the Great
War and the Second World War) across the North American, European and Australian
continents. For example, during the War of 1812, Indigenous forces helped British troops
and Canadian militia, in what would later become Canada, to repel invading American
forces. In the USA, Indigenous peoples fought in the American War of Independence, the US
Civil War, and the two World Wars (Hauptman, 1995). In Canada, more than 4,000
Indigenous men and 3,000 Indigenous women enlisted in both World Wars (Winegard,
2012). Irrespective of existing rules in Australia against their enrolment, over 3,000
Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander men and women are known to have enlisted in the
Second World War – with a further 400 (including 25 Ngarrindjeri men) serving in the First
World War (see Mattingley and Hampton, 1998; Kartinyeri, 1996). Additionally, Indigenous
men and women have fought in the Korean and Vietnam wars, have enlisted for
peacekeeping missions, and continue to enlist in the armed forces. As such, studies of
warfare tourism ought to pay greater attention to how Indigenous communities are involved
in managing the sites where their ancestors participated in historic events.
For the purpose of this paper, dissonant heritage is de?ned as the perpetuation of grand
colonial narratives in Australia, North America and elsewhere which have resulted in the
general omission of Indigenous narratives from discourse about, and interpretation and
PAGE 258
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
development at, many sites associated with battle?eld, dark or warfare tourism. The goal of
this paper is to examine the omission of Indigenous narratives in battle?elds and sites of
con?icts while also highlighting howcertain battle?elds and sites of con?icts have attempted
to address dissonant heritage by diversifying interpretation strategies and implementing
elements of collaborative management approaches, thereby addressing Indigenous
erasure. We do so through case studies, a content analysis and a series of
recommendations. By providing an Indigenous and post-colonial perspective of warfare
tourism we add to the discussion on dark tourism, dissonant heritage, and warfare tourism.
We also suggest that the management and interpretation strategies offered at these sites of
dark tourism create opportunities to increase tolerance and understanding (Stone, 2009).
Following the literature review are the case study descriptions of one battle?eld and one
con?ict site located in North America and Australia. The case studies illustrate how
Indigenous communities are striving for greater involvement in telling their stories and
engaging in their own management and site development strategies, something which is not
currently re?ected in academic literature further propagating Indigenous erasure. Building
on these ?ndings, a content analysis was used to determine the presence or absence of
Indigenous discourses within existing literature on dark tourism, dissonant heritage and
warfare tourism. The analysis shows that the involvement of Indigenous communities in
these sites receives limited attention in the literature on con?ict and warfare tourism. The
disjuncture between the applied and academic ?ndings reveals the relevance of utilizing
mixed-methods and interdisciplinary research. In the ensuing section, we articulate three
new theoretical concepts or views that illustrate how these cases are indicative of important
matters of fairness and self-determination for Indigenous communities. In particular, we
articulate a concept of transformation and reconciliation which af?rms the importance of
robust Indigenous involvement in site re-development, interpretation and tourism, including
cases of repatriation. The conclusion/discussion section stresses why tourism research has
an important responsibility to pay attention to processes of transformation.
Literature review
A general uneasiness associated with addressing issues such as slavery, warfare or
colonialism during one’s leisure experiences has resulted in some cases, tokenism, and/or
‘‘distory’’ (the distorted or partial interpretation of historical events), especially since the
concept of oppression may raise the issues of responsibility, complicity, and guilt for some
visitors (Fjellman, 1992; Graham and Howard, 2008; Lowenthal, 1993). In other situations
there is, despite the interest of visitors in seeing some sites, a tendency to exoticize,
sensationalize and ‘‘consume indigeneity’’ (Skinner and Theodossopoulos, 2011, p. 19), or
to seek remnants of cultures forever lost (Bunten, 2011; Peers, 2007).
Fortunately, as the world begins to demand more accurate and balanced depictions of
history, the request for such heritage interpretation and progressive management
approaches is growing (Dallen and Boyd, 2006). For Indigenous people, this willingness
to address past wrongdoings can be combined with the growing interest in Indigenous
cultures in Australia and North America in a tourism context, along with the rise of
collaborative management approaches in protected areas and historic sites (Butler and
Hinch, 2007; Ryan and Aicken, 2005; Zeppel, 2006). Fundamentally, such strategies can
‘‘lead to in?uence or control of the institutions themselves, through community involvement’’
(Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996, p. 40). That said, recognising and addressing the
challenges associated with dissonant heritage in warfare tourism involving Indigenous
peoples has, in some cases, remained a contentious issue (see the discussion by Whitacre
and Greene, 2003, of the Sand Creek National Historic Site, USA).
Researchers (see Dunkley et al., 2011; Lloyd, 1998) suggest that there are a number of
reasons why tourists visit these sites of con?icts, including commemoration, entertainment,
education, and pilgrimage. Since visitors to these sites also originate from many cultural and
ethnic groupings, including the descendants of the victims of these con?icts (for a
discussion of Indigenous Australians visiting sites of con?icts, see Peters and
Higgins-Desbioelles, 2012), these sites can also become contested terrains where grand
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 259
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
narratives are challenged and contested (Dunkley et al., 2011). Iles (2011) suggests that
touring battle?elds and sites of con?ict can also result in a desire to empathize with these
commemorative spaces or sacred landscapes. Battle?elds ‘‘are especially signi?cant as
memorial landscapes because they challenge us to recall basic realities of historical
experiences, especially those of death, suffering and sacri?ce’’ (Gough, 2008, p. 224).
Ideally these sites should provide opportunities for the living to learn from, commemorate,
mourn and heal (Gough, 2008; Hartmann, 2002; Hyde and Harman, 2011). In North
America, Canada and the USA, two countries who fought each other two centuries ago are
celebrating the bicentennial of the War of 1812. While discrepancies remain on who actually
won the war, what is not denied in the Canadian bicentennial celebrations is the role of
French-Canadian militia and the First Nation allies along with the British Army. For example, a
Commemorative Memorial Service recognising the 10,000 First Nations lives lost during the
War of 1812 was recently held in Toronto, Ontario (Canada Newswire, 2012).
Methods
As stated above, this analysis seeks to understand Indigenous erasure within the context of
battle?eld tourism site development, interpretation and management. To accomplish this, a
mixed-methods research approach was undertaken.
Through a comprehensive literature review, the researchers gained an understanding of the
historic involvement of Indigenous peoples in global military con?ict, the history behind the
sites visited, and the status of their inclusion in site development, interpretation and
management. Site visits, including discussions with site managers and park interpreters,
enabled the research team to document the relatively new incorporation of Indigenous
narratives/discourse into battle?eld tourism interpretation, and the implementation of
collaborative management strategies (or lack thereof), at battle?elds and sites of con?icts in
Australia and North America. The result of these site visits guided the development of codes
for use in content analysis of journal articles which sought to determine the degree of
inclusion and recognition of Indigenous narratives and discourse in the battle?eld, dark and
warfare tourism literature and the literature on battle?eld and con?ict site interpretation and
management. Lastly, a philosophical discussion around the potential real world implications
of the application of various forms of fairness to the inclusion of Indigenous narratives in site
development is put forward in an attempt to articulate an inclusive set of best practices
aimed at fostering self-determination in site development among site managers,
interpreters, and Indigenous communities.
The case studies
The Battle of Little Bighorn, 1876
On 25 June 1876, Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer and the 7th Calvary, aided by Arikara
and Crow scouts, attacked a large village located along the Little Bighorn River in what
would later become the state of Montana; the village was defended by Sioux and Cheyenne
warriors led by Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse (Buchholtz, 2012). ‘‘By the end of the day, the
Sioux and Cheyenne had defeated the 7th Calvary and all of the men under Custer’s
immediate command lay dead (approximately 263 soldiers and attached personnel)’’
(Buchholtz, 1998, p. 113). The site, ?rst protected as a US National Cemetery in 1879, was
later designated as the Custer Battle?eld National Monument. Growing interest in the site
throughout the twentieth century provided various opportunities for commemoration and
entertainment during its ?ftieth anniversary celebration in 1926.
Each year, 300,000 tourists visit the battle?eld grounds, which consist of a visitor centre, a
mass cavalry grave, additional cemeteries, monuments, seasonal guided tours by parks
staff and tour packages offered through Wind in Feather Tours given by the Crow Nation.
Battle re-enactments continue to attract thousands of visitors annually and generate millions
of dollars in revenue (Buchholtz, 1998, 2005).
PAGE 260
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
While concerns over the veneration of Custer were expressed by a number of Indigenous
and non-Indigenous scholars and National Park employees, it was only during the
centennial anniversary of the battle that ‘‘the American Indian Movement (AIM)
challenged the symbolic dominance of [the] George Amstrong Custer’’ narrative
(Linenthal, 1991, p. 141). After considerable debate, and in order to recognise all of the
actors involved in this battle, the site was renamed in 1991. Red granite makers, marking
the sites of fallen native warriors (see Figure 1), and three white granite makers identifying
the placement of three fallen Akira scouts and interpreters, were erected in 1999. These
delays in honouring the Indigenous involvement in this con?ict are similar to what Seaton
(2009) noted in the commemoration of British soldiers in the Zulu Wars of the late 1870s.
In this particular battle?eld, it would take over 120 years, explains Seaton (2009) to
recognise and ‘‘erect memorials for the Zulu dead’’ (p. 96). The Indian Memorial
dedicated to the Cheyenne, Sioux, Akira and Crow nations at the Battle of the Little
Bighorn was completed and dedicated in 2003 (Utley, 1998).
Today, citizens of the Crow, Cheyenne and Sioux nations are consulted on various aspects of
the battle?eld’s management. Additionally, the efforts of the National Park service and the
citizens of the Crow, Cheyenne and Sioux nations to recognise these other individuals is
commendable, as one park interpreter stated: ‘‘beyond every grave-marker red or white,
there is a person, there is a story, every one of these, deserving to be told’’ (personal
communication, Park Staff, June 2012).
This case study highlights how dissonant heritage began at the conclusion of the battle and
continued until Native Americans openly contested the interpretation and commemoration of
the site at the centennial anniversary (Buchholtz, 2012). Recent efforts to address these
issues and commemorate the Indigenous warriors and Nations involved in this battle
suggest a movement towards collaborative management strategies and willingness by the
management agency to provide a fuller history of the battle?eld (see Figure 2). Most of this,
however, would not have been possible without Indigenous people contesting the
management approaches previously upheld at this battle?eld.
Figure 1 Granite marker marking the location of fallen Cheyenne warrior
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 261
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The Myall Creek Massacre of 1838
As indicated in the previous discussion, colonial and postcolonial history is marked by
battles, resistance and the perseverance of Indigenous peoples. But Australia’s legacy has
been marked by what has been called ‘‘the Great Australian Silence’’, where ‘‘talk of frontier
war [. . .] is absurd’’ (McKenna, 2002, p. 32). It is only with the work of Indigenous scholars
and leaders and non-Indigenous historians, such as Henry Reynolds, exposing the nature of
the violence of invasion and documenting the frontier wars, that the silence has been broken
(see Mattingley and Hampton, 1998; Reynolds, 1981; Attwood and Foster, 2003).
It is through the 1988 bicentenary of Australia’s establishment and the 2001 bicentenary of
Australia’s Federation that the Myall Creek Massacre site was commemorated in Northern
New South Wales in 2000 (see Figure 3). The massacre of 28 innocent Wirrayaraay people
who had been peacefully camping near the Myall Creek station, by 12 white settlers,
occurred on 10 June 1838, and is one of the rare atrocities widely known in Australia
because its perpetrators were charged with murder and put on trial in the Supreme Court in
Sydney on 15 November 1838, amid public controversy (Elder, 1998). When the jury found
the eleven accused men not guilty, the judge ordered a re-trial which sawseven of the eleven
tried again on 27 November. This resulted in a guilty verdict and the seven men were hanged
on 18 December 1838.
Instead of ensuring respect for law and order on Australia’s frontiers and the safety of
Indigenous people, the lesson learned by settlers was to in?ict ‘‘death by stealth’’ (Rose,
2004, p. 94). These events are the roots of Australia’s discordant history where a myth of
‘‘benign’’ colonisation is unsettled by faint whispers of violence, death and dispossession.
Anthropologist Deborah Bird Rose (2004), in speaking on the battle?elds of Australian
history, claims ‘‘struggles for agency and power in a ?eld of violence and dishonour bring us
face to face with the past in the present in ways that numbers simply cannot’’ (p. 95). The
effort to create a memorial at Myall Creek represents one such struggle for agency and
power and an effort to bring a reconciled past into the present.
In 1998, Sue Blacklock, a descendant of one of the survivors of the massacre, and others
formed a Memorial Committee to see the Myall Creek massacre commemorated. In 2000,
the Myall Creek Massacre Memorial was opened and attended by descendants of the
victims, survivors and perpetrators of the massacre. The memorial consists of a bronze
plaque mounted on a large boulder which reads:
Figure 2 The Indian Memorial at the Battle of Little Bighorn
PAGE 262
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In memory of the Wirrayaraay people who were murdered on the slopes of this ridge in an
unprovoked but premeditated act in the late afternoon of 10 June 1838. Erected on 10 June 2000
by a group of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians in an act of reconciliation, and in
acknowledgment of the truth of our shared history. We Remember them (Ngiyani winangay
ganunga).
Since its opening, the memorial has become a site for annual remembrance ceremonies.
The Memorial Committee has expressed the hope that the site will be one of reconciliation
and national pilgrimage.
The placement of the Myall Creek Massacre and Memorial Site on the National Heritage List
in 2008 seems a positive indication that the site may be on the way to ful?lling the
Committee’s hopes. Since the commemoration of Myall Creek involved descendants of the
victims and perpetrators, the site also suggest that healing ceremonies, although wrought
with emotion, can also heal social rifts. Whether it can ful?l the committee’s more utopian
ambition to ‘‘become as popular as the Stockman’s Hall of Fame’’ (Cheshire, 2001) is less
likely. The Stockman’s Hall of Fame, with its glori?cation of Australia’s settlement, represents
a rival site jockeying for the conscience of the nation. In order to address these con?icts, we
envision an Australia where Myall Creek, or a USA where the Battle of the Little Bighorn,
become places of pilgrimage where the ambiguities of nationhood are re?ected upon and
the discordant histories are addressed through inclusive and progressive management
strategies.
Content analysis
In order to explore the status of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous sites in con?ict and
warfare tourism, an inventory of tourism journal articles was conducted in a multi-phased
process, including a review of leading tourism journals. The review encompassed articles
from Annals of Tourism Research, International Journal of Tourism Research, Journal of
Heritage Tourism, Journal of Travel Research and Tourism Management covering the period
from 1999 (when the term ‘‘battle?eld tourism’’ began to be widely used in tourism literature)
to 2011. Journals were identi?ed for the content analysis based on the researchers’
knowledge of battle?eld tourism (Lemelin et al., 2013; Peters and Higgins-Desbioelles,
2012). Additional relevant journal articles fromthe same time frame were identi?ed through a
Google Scholar search in order to allow for the inclusion of peer-reviewed articles from
Figure 3 Myall Creek Memorial
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 263
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
diverse social science and interdisciplinary ?elds, including history and heritage studies.
While the authors acknowledge that considerable research has been published on these
topics within scholarly books, the scope of this content analysis focused on articles
published within peer-reviewed journals.
An inventory of journal articles was developed and individual journal articles were identi?ed
and selected for the content analysis based on their inclusion and discussion of key concepts
associated with warfare tourismincluding battle?eld tourism, dark tourism, dissonant heritage,
and thanatourism. Key terms were identi?ed through the literature review, and based on the
researchers’ knowledge of battle?eld tourism. Articles were then analysed through a content
analysis to identify references (if any) to Indigenous, Amerindian/Indian, and Native peoples
(using a variety of general and speci?c terms) as well as instances of Indigenous erasure
within the dialogue surrounding touristic activities at sites where these People(s) were involved
in historic con?icts. The inventory identi?ed 38 potential articles pertaining to battle?eld,
warfare, thanatourism, dark tourism and dissonant heritage. However, of the total literature
reviewed, only 21 concerned events or sites relevant to Indigenous peoples.
Seven of these 21 articles recognised the role of Indigenous peoples in the commemorated
events or sites; while 14 failed to include the role of Indigenous peoples (see Table I). One of
the most salient articles, published in Journal of Heritage Tourism, and written by Wall
(2011), goes so far as to address the issue of Indigenous erasure as well as recurring issues
around historical authenticity, local perceptions of legitimacy and the economic challenges
associated with operating the Fort Edmonton Park (FEP) living history museum, in Alberta,
Canada.
The failure of the remaining 14 articles to discuss the contributions of Indigenous peoples at
battle?eld and con?ict sights highlights a disjunction between the literature and interpretive
practices observed at sites. Furthermore, despite the growth of dark and battle?eld tourism
in recent years, the recognition that other factors in?uence visitation of battle?eld sites (Biran
et al., 2011; Dunkley et al., 2011) and the fact the study of dark tourism is only two decades
old, the relative absence of Indigenous peoples narratives in most of this academic material
is symptomatic of aboriginal erasure and is an issue of concern for the ?eld. These ?ndings
illustrate the need for mixed-methods research featuring both academic and ?eld
components, so that reconciliation strategies can be properly identi?ed and addressed.
Views of fairness and self-determination in site development
Whether battle?elds or dark tourism sites can become places of pilgrimage or tourism
destinations that respect history often comes down to what viewof fairness is adopted by the
parties responsible for managing the site, and whose ancestors participated in the battle but
are not part of the site’s formal management process. In general, fairness is the issue of how
the touristic design and management of battle?eld sites prevent unnecessary harm to the
descendants of battle participants and helps to address the current needs of the
communities for whom the site remains a signi?cant part of their heritage. Prevention of
harm, for example, and as the Myall case study illustrates, includes protecting Indigenous
community members from demeaning or exclusionary colonial narratives.
Addressing current needs may include Indigenous peoples’ ability to cultivate the site
according to the way(s) their communities value it. This idea refers to self-determination,
which is the ability of a community to determine its own destiny on its own terms and
according to its own experiences. The ability of tribal communities to contest the way the
Little Bighorn Battle?eld is being managed is an example of self-determination. Despite the
obviousness of fairness in terms of avoidance of harm, there are important differences in
how fairness and self-determination may be viewed by various parties. The discussion that
follows contrasts three such views:
1. the equality of representation view;
2. the consent view; and
3. the transformative view.
PAGE 264
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
T
a
b
l
e
I
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
T
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
n
g
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
n
g
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
u
s
i
n
g
b
a
t
t
l
e
?
e
l
d
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
u
s
i
n
g
w
a
r
f
a
r
e
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
a
n
a
-
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
u
s
i
n
g
d
a
r
k
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
u
s
i
n
g
d
i
s
s
o
n
a
n
t
h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
A
b
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
p
e
o
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
F
i
r
s
t
N
a
t
i
o
n
s
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
i
n
d
i
g
e
n
o
u
s
p
e
o
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
I
n
d
i
a
n
s
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
N
a
t
i
v
e
P
e
o
p
l
e
s
A
n
n
a
l
s
o
f
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
1
7
6
1
5
3
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
7
3
1
2
1
1
0
0
3
1
1
1
2
2
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
4
3
0
3
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
T
r
a
v
e
l
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
4
3
0
3
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
o
o
g
l
e
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
4
4
4
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
3
8
2
1
7
1
4
1
2
3
4
3
5
3
1
3
2
3
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 265
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The equality of representation view
The ?rst view of fairness is a matter of representing equally all historic participants of the
battle site (the equality of representation view). It is based on the assumption that there is
one historic narrative of what happened at the battle sites. In the case of Little Bighorn, the
narrative is that on 25 June 1876, the 7th Calvary, Arikara and Crow attacked a large village
defended by Sioux and Cheyenne warriors. The Sioux and Cheyenne warriors won the
battle. Equality of representation requires that touristic development of the site prevent
exclusion of the Sioux, Cheyenne, Crow and Arikara participants, both ?ghters and victims.
Moreover, it appears that the actions of these people after a lengthy delay are being given
the same moral appraisal, for example valour and heroism, as the American ?ghters.
Equality of representation, then, challenges tourism agencies to remain true to what actually
happened at the sites by showing all participants in the battle due respect. That is, if
American soldiers are considered heroes, Cheyenne warriors and Crow scouts should be
considered the same. Contemporary tourism materials have begun to re?ect equality of
representation in order to achieve fairness according to this view.
This viewhas problems because it is silent on the question of who gets to decide howhistoric
participants are portrayed to contemporary tourists. Equality of representation implies that it
is morally acceptable for non-Indigenous tourism managers to decide how the groups
present at the battle are portrayed as long as they stick with the hegemonic narrative of what
happened. But this narrative may be disputed. For example, members of the Indigenous
communities may not want to see these battle?eld sites expressing Australian or North
American conceptions of the appraisal of military deeds (e.g. heroism); rather, they may
have their own beliefs about how to appraise the con?ict, and its participants, which they
wish to see expressed or even censored from the touristic aspects of the site.
The consent view
Any touristic development of a battle site must involve a process by which the contemporary
groups for whom the site remains signi?cant can give their consent to any plans for the
evolution of the battle site (the consent view).
The consent viewis an attractive viewof fairness because it asserts the possibility of multiple
historic narratives of what happened at the battle site. It is a stronger standard of inclusion
than the equality of representation view. Yet the consent view may not fully capture the social
complexity of sites because it focuses only on the needs of members of contemporary
communities to have their own histories validated in the ways that they wish them to be. The
consent view does not articulate the current needs of these communities as they have come
to be derived through historic processes of colonisation into which the historic events ?gure
as single events.
The reconciliation or transformative view
The contemporary needs of a community include self-determination, which is an ongoing
process of building a community’s capacities to dictate its own future according to terms
and in respect to experiences that its members are familiar with and honour. A general
example of this which applies to many Indigenous peoples concerns political
independence. Many Indigenous communities seek to grow their own governmental
institutions as politically independent nations. Building strong Indigenous political systems is
important because they are the ones that community members see as historically and
contemporaneously legitimate. Tourismdevelopments at battle and massacre sites are often
an opportunity for Indigenous communities to develop new economic opportunities and
strengthen their political systems by playing an active governmental role in their design and
management. Based on this consideration, the touristic presentation of these con?ict sites
ought to re?ect the political independence of the Indigenous groups for whom the sites are
signi?cant. In other words, Indigenous involvement in the site should not only be as
stakeholders; rather, their role should be appropriate to their status as Nations for whom the
site is part of their own national narratives.
PAGE 266
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The corresponding view of fairness can be called the reconciliation or transformative view.
Transformative fairness sees tourism management of con?ict sites as a dialogue. The
dialogue takes on the characteristic of transformation insofar as it disrupts American or
Australian and other colonisation nation’s assumptions about being the only nation with
sovereignty over these continents and lands. Such a disruption – if it ?ts within the
Indigenous community’s goals for tourism – can build public awareness of their national
presence and nationhood.
Establishing a transformative view of fairness
The nuances of these sites, as suggested by Lemelin et al. (2013) and Lee et al. (2012),
need to be clari?ed further into the grammar of a transformative view of fairness. To begin,
the transformative view will be contrasted with the ?rst two views. The transformative view is
more attractive than the equality of representation and consent views. First, the
transformative view places a premium on the active participation of the parties for whom
the site is signi?cant. Second, the transformative view goes further than the consent view
because it opens space for the expression of the different social realities experienced by
Indigenous communities. The social realities are likely associated with projects that address
cultural and Indigenous national needs.
The transformative view calls for transformation, then, in two ways, though the second way is
optional, depending on the nuances and complexity of the situation. First, the view is always
transformative because, whatever role they decide to play in the touristic aspects of the site,
Indigenous descendants as Bunten (2011) suggests are accorded the status proper to their
being Nations for whom the site is part of their national heritage. Second, the view asserts
that it is acceptable for Indigenous peoples to tailor the touristic aspects of the site to
challenge and disrupt (if need be) colonial narratives.
In addition to the problems of competing local cultural legacy and commercial development
noted by Wall (2011), the decreasing emphasis on local heritage and presentation of
accurate historic experiences at these sites has implications for Indigenous erasure and
heritage dissonance and may encourage the omission of opportunities for reconciliation.
Instead of seeking to bolster admissions and visitor numbers through the provision of
unrelated modern entertainment, and commodi?ed cultural experiences that ‘‘historicize
[Native peoples] as dangerous’’ (Wall, 2011, p. 115), these sites should look to develop
opportunities and partnerships aimed at promoting reconciliation. These partnerships could
then provide alternative locally meaningful experiences which are in line with the
reconciliation or transformative view such as those described in the Myall Creek
Massacre Memorial Site and Little Big Horn battle?eld examples above.
Conclusion
Much like Bunten (2011), Skinner (2012) and Skinner and Theodossopoulos (2011)
examinations of Indigenous and battle?eld tourism, this article provides an overview of case
studies featuring site observations and discussions with key informants, and a content
analysis; that said, it also includes the voice of Indigenous scholars, Euro-Canadian and
Euro-American-Australian researchers addressing the strengths and limitations of heritage
dissonance and dark and warfare tourism through mixed and interdisciplinary research. In
addition, while we are not the ?rst to examine and compare the relations between
colonialism, Indigenous peoples in Australia and North America and heritage dissonance in
battle?elds and con?ict sites (Buchholtz, 2005, 2012; Bunten, 2011; Ryan, 2007; Tunbridge
and Ashworth, 1996), this analysis also provides an overview of dissonant heritage and sites
of con?icts involving Indigenous peoples from Indigenous, tourism, and philosophical
perspectives. This particular analysis suggests that the appeal of Indigenous cultures can
also be combined with the interests of dark and warfare tourism to expand and diversify new
tourism sites. It also demonstrates that these sites do attract visitors (both Indigenous and
non-Indigenous) to rural regions of Australia and North America, thereby adding the layer of
rurality and economic diversi?cation to our discussion of dissonant heritage within warfare
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 267
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
tourism. However, a better understanding of the attraction of these sites of warfare for both
national and international visitors is required.
The case studies and content analysis illustrate that battle?eld, dark and warfare tourism,
much like the examination of war and con?ict by historians, post-colonial, and Indigenous
researchers have many similarities. In many of these cases, colonial discourses are, or
have been, given priority over others. Even the victors (i.e. the combined forces of the
Sioux, Cheyenne, Akira) in the case of the Battle of Little Bighorn were initially overlooked.
From this perspective, the intention of the 7th Cavalry – to attack a village housing many
unarmed women and children – is overlooked, while the rout and destruction of the
colonial forces by the allied Indigenous forces similarly was, and remains to some,
associated with subterfuge. While many still ascribe to the notion that it is ‘‘the victors who
write history’’, the Battle of Little Bighorn suggests that in this case (as with many others),
historians, researchers and historical presenters/interpreters have preferred to focus the
narrative on the colonial ‘‘victims’’ or ‘‘victors’’, thus propagating the dominant cultural
narrative.
Yet what the case studies and content analysis demonstrate is that both the literature on
dissonant heritage and warfare tourism ‘‘in non-western cultures remains a much neglected
area worthy of further research’’ (Hannam, 2006, p. 211). One such study, attempting to
address the gap between dissonant heritage and warfare was conducted by Lee et al.
(2012). Similar to our ?ndings, Lee et al.’s (2012) description of the various meanings
associated with the Mt Kumgang resort located in North Korea, highlights the multivocality of
places and critiques Western hegemonic constructions by suggesting that dark tourism and
its typologies ‘‘must incorporate indigenous perspectives into the politics of remembrance
for global relevance’’ (p. 88).
In light of the current bicentennial commemoration of the War of 1812 between the USA and
Canada and the upcoming centennial of the Great War in Europe from 2014 to 2018 (this
includes the centennial of Gallipoli in 2015 and Vimy Ridge in 2017), we believe that a
discussion of dissonant heritage and warfare sites from Indigenous perspectives is timely
and necessary, for as noted in this article, and by the authors, despite centuries of colonial
injustices, Indigenous citizens from various nations have participated in most wars
throughout the twentieth century, including the Boer War, the First World War and the Second
World War. Further, as Peters and Higgins-Desboilles (2012) highlight and as ?eld
observations attest, Indigenous peoples are not only visiting sites of con?icts within Australia
and Canada but also First World War sites in Turkey, France and Belgium. This suggests that
the need to address dissonant heritage and dark tourism, whether it be at speci?c
battle?elds or during annual or centennial commemorations, extends far beyond particular
geopolitical or spatial boundaries and can, when properly developed, create opportunities
that increase awareness, tolerance and understanding (Stone, 2009).
Notes
1. While the term ‘‘Native American’’ is often used in the USA, we use the term ‘‘Indigenous peoples’’
throughout the text. In the Canadian context, when referring to a speci?c Indigenous group (Indian,
Inuit and Me´ tis) we will use ‘‘First Nation’’, ‘‘Inuit’’, and ‘‘Me´ tis’’ to denote this group. ‘‘Ngarrindjeri’’ is
used in the Australian case study.
2. Indigenous Australian philosophies of being are based on an interconnection between country,
body and spirit. This interconnection is fundamental to wellbeing. The Ngarrindjeri nation in
Southern South Australia use the term‘‘Ruwe/Ruwar’’ to encapsulate this concept and argue healthy
lands and waters are critical to healthy Ngarrindjeri people and culture.
References
Attwood, B. and Foster, S. (Eds) (2003), Frontier Con?ict: The Australian Experience, National Museum
of Australia, Canberra.
PAGE 268
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Baldwin, F. and Sharpley, R. (2009), ‘‘Battle?eld tourism: bringing organised violence back to life’’,
in Sharpley, R. and Stone, P. (Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism,
Channel View Publications, Toronto, pp. 186-206.
Batten, B. (2009), ‘‘The Myall Creek Memorial: history, identity and reconciliation’’, in Logan, W. and
Reeves, K. (Eds), Places of Pain and Shame: Dealing with ‘‘Dif?cult Heritage’’, Routledge, NewYork, NY,
pp. 82-96.
Britten, T.A. (1997), American Indians in the First World War: At Home and At War, University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.
Buchholtz, D. (1998), ‘‘The Battle of the Little Bighorn: history, identity, and tourismin the 1990s’’, Tourism
and Gaming on American Indian Lands, Cognizant Communication Corporation, pp. 113-127.
Buchholtz, D. (2005), ‘‘Cultural politics or critical public history? Battling on the Little Bighorn’’, Journal of
Tourism and Cultural Change, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 18-35.
Buchholtz, D. (2012), The Battle of the Greasy Grass/Little Bighorn: Custer’s Last Stand in Memory,
History and Popular Culture, Routledge, New York, NY.
Bunten, A.C. (2011), ‘‘The paradox of gaze and resistance in Native American cultural tourism:
an Alaskan case study’’, in Skinner, J. and Theodossopoulos, D. (Eds), Great Expectation: Imagination
and Anticipation in Tourism, Berghahn Books, New York, NY, pp. 61-81.
Butler, R. and Hinch, T. (Eds) (2007), Tourismand Indigenous Peoples: Issues and Implications, 2nd ed.,
Butterworth-Heinnemann, London.
Canada Newswire (2012), ‘‘Assembly of First Nations National Chief recognizes War of 1812
bicentennial, honours ?rst nation contributions’’, available at: www.newswire.ca/en/story/1007227/
assembly-of-?rst-nations-national-chief-recognizes-war-of-1812-bicentennial-honours-?rst-nation-
contributions (accessed 8 August 2012).
Cheshire, B. (2001), ‘‘Bridge over Myall Creek. Australian story’’, available at: www.abc.net.au/austory/
transcripts/s332825.htm (accessed 16 April 2012).
Dallen, J.T. and Boyd, S.W. (2006), ‘‘Heritage tourism in the 21st century: valued traditions and new
perspectives’’, Journal of Heritage Tourism, Vol. 1, pp. 1-16.
Dann, G. (1998), ‘‘The dark side of tourism’’, E
´
tudes et Rapports, Se´ rie L, Centre International de
Recherches et d’Etudes Touristiques, Aix-en-Provence.
Department of Environment (n.d.), ‘‘Myall Creek massacre and memorial site’’, available at: www.
environment.gov.au/heritage/places/national/myall-creek/information.html (accessed 3 December
2011).
Diller, E. and Sco?dio, R. (1994), Back to the Front: Tourisms of War, FRAC, Basse-Normandie.
Dunkley, R., Morgan, N. and Westwood, S. (2011), ‘‘Visiting the trenches: exploring meanings and
motivations in battle?eld tourism’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 32, pp. 860-868.
Elder, B. (1998), Blood on the Wattle: Massacres and Maltreatment of Australian Aborigines since 1788,
New Holland, Frenchs Forest.
Fjellman, S. (1992), Vinyl Leaves: Walt Disney World and America, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Foley, M. and Lennon, J. (1996), ‘‘JFK and dark tourism: heart of darkness’’, Journal of International
Heritage Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 195-197.
Gordon, B.M. (1998), ‘‘Warfare and tourism: Paris in World War II’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 616-638.
Gough, P. (2008), ‘‘Commemoration of war’’, in Graham, B. and Howard, P. (Eds), The Ashgate Research
Companion to Heritage and Id, Ashgate, Burlington, VT, pp. 215-230.
Graham, B. (2002), ‘‘Heritage as knowledge: capital or culture?’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 39 Nos 5/6,
pp. 1003-1017.
Graham, B. and Howard, P. (Eds) (2008), The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity,
Ashgate, Burlington, VT.
Graham, M., Dann, S. and Seaton, A.V. (2001), ‘‘Slavery, contested heritage and thanatourism’’,
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, Vol. 2 Nos 3/4, pp. 1-29.
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 269
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Hannam, K. (2006), ‘‘Contested representations of war and heritage at the Residency, Lucknow, India’’,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 199-212.
Hartmann, R. (2002), ‘‘‘Places of horror we should never forget’ – approaches to teaching the holocaust,
atrocity sites and pariah landscapes in the geography classroom’’, International Research in
Geographical and Environmental Education, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 354-358.
Hauptman, L.M. (1995), Between Two Fires: American Indians and the Civil War, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Hemming, S. and Rigney, D. (2009), ‘‘Encountering the Common Knobby Club Rush: reconciliation,
public art and whiteness’’, in Hosking, S., Hosking, R., Pannell, R. and Beirbaum, N. (Eds), Something
Rich and Strange: Sea Changes, Beaches and the Littoral in the Antipodes, Wake?eld Press, Kent Town,
pp. 264-277.
Hyde, K. and Harman, S. (2011), ‘‘Motives for a secular pilgrimage to the Gallipoli battle?elds’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 1343-1351.
Iles, J. (2011), ‘‘Going on holiday to imagine war: the western battle?elds as sites of commemoration and
contestation’’, in Skinner, J. and Theodossopoulos, D. (Eds), Great Expectation: Imagination and
Anticipation in Tourism, Berghahn Books, New York, NY, pp. 155-173.
Jackson, D. (1985), The Shaping of Our World – A Human and Cultural Geography, Wiley, New York, NY.
Kartinyeri, D. (1996), Ngarrindjeri Anzacs, Aboriginal Family History Project, SA Museum and Raukkan
Council, Adelaide.
Lee, C.K., Bendle, L.J., Yoon, Y.S. and Kim, M.J. (2012), ‘‘Thanatourism or peace tourism: perceived
value at a North Korean resort from an indigenous perspective’’, International Journal of Tourism
Research, Vol. 14, pp. 71-90.
Lemelin, R.H., Thompson-Carr, A., Johnston, M., Stewart, E. and Dawson, J. (2013), ‘‘Indigenous
people: discussing the forgotten dimension of dark tourism and battle?eld tourism’’, in Mu¨ ller, D.M.,
Lundmark, L. and Lemelin, R.H. (Eds), New Issues in Polar Tourism: Communities, Environments,
Politics, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 205-216.
Lennon, J. and Foley, M. (2000), Dark Tourism: The Attraction of Death and Disaster, Continuum,
London.
Linenthal, E.T. (1991), Sacred Ground: Americans and their Battle?elds, University of Illinois Press,
Urbana, IL.
Lloyd, D. (1998), Battle?eld Tourism: Pilgrimage and the Commemoration of the Great War in Britain,
Australia and Canada, 1919-1939, Berg, New York, NY.
Lowenthal, D. (1993), The Past is A Foreign Country, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
McKenna, M. (2002), Looking for Blackfellas’ Point: An Australian History of Place, UNSWPress, Sydney.
Mattingley, C. and Hampton, K. (1998), Survival in Our Own Land: ‘‘Aboriginal’’ Experiences in ‘‘South
Australia’’ since 1836, Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne.
Nasson, B. (2000), ‘‘Commemorating the Anglo-Boer in post-apartheid Africa’’, Radical History Review,
Vol. 78, pp. 149-165.
Peers, L. (2007), Playing Ourselves: Interpreting Native Histories at Historic Reconstructions, Rowman
& Little?eld, Toronto.
Peters, A. and Higgins-Desbioelles, F. (2012), ‘‘De-marginalising tourism research: indigenous
Australians as tourists’’, Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 19, pp. 1-9.
Prideaux, B. (2007), ‘‘Echoes of war: battle?eld tourism’’, in Ryan, C. (Ed.), Battle?eld Tourism: History,
Place and Interpretation, Elsevier, New York, NY, pp. 17-27.
Richards, S.L. (2002), ‘‘Cultural travel to Ghana’s slave castles: a commentary’’, International Research
in Geographical and Environmental Education, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 372-375.
Rose, D.B. (2004), Reports from a Wild Country: Ethics for Decolonisation, UNSW Press, Sydney.
Ryan, C. (2007), ‘‘The battles of Rangiriri and Batoche: amnesia and memory’’, in Ryan, C. (Ed.),
Battle?eld Tourism: History, Place and Interpretation, Elsevier, New York, NY, pp. 87-97.
PAGE 270
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Ryan, C. and Aicken, M. (2005), Indigenous Tourism: The Commodi?cation and Management of Culture,
Elsevier, New York, NY.
Schwenkel, C. (2006), ‘‘Recombinant history: transnational practices of memory and knowledge
production in contemporary Vietnam’’, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
Seaton, A.V. (1999), ‘‘War and tanatourism: Waterloo 1815-1914’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26,
pp. 130-158.
Seaton, T. (2009), ‘‘Purposeful otherness: approaches to the management of thanatourism’’, in Sharpley, R.
and Stone, P. (Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View
Publications, Toronto, pp. 75-108.
Sharpley, R. (2009a), ‘‘Shedding light on dark tourism: an introduction’’, in Sharpley, R. and Stone, P.
(Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View Publications,
Toronto, pp. 3-22.
Sharpley, R. (2009b), ‘‘Dark tourism and political ideology: towards a governance model’’, in Sharpley,
R. and Stone, P. (Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View
Publications, Toronto, pp. 145-163.
Skinner, J. (Ed.) (2012), Writing the Dark Side of Travel, Berghahn Books, New York, NY.
Skinner, J. andTheodossopoulos, D. (2011), ‘‘Introduction: the play of expectation in tourism’’, in Skinner,
J. and Theodossopoulos, D. (Eds), Great Expectation: Imagination and Anticipation in Tourism,
Berghahn Books, New York, NY, pp. 1-26.
Smith, V.L. (1996), ‘‘War and its tourist attractions’’, in Pizam, A. and Mansfeld, Y. (Eds), Tourism, Crime
and International Security Issues, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 247-264.
Stone, P.R. (2009), ‘‘Making absent death present: consuming dark tourism in contemporary society’’,
in Sharpley, R. and Stone, P.R. (Eds), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark
Tourism, Channel View Publications, Bristol, pp. 23-38.
Tunbridge, J.E. and Ashworth, G.J. (1996), Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a
Resource in Con?ict, Wiley, New York, NY.
Utley, R.M. (1998), Little Bighorn Battle?eld: A History and Guide to the Battle of the Little Bighorn,
Handbook/Division of Publications National Park Service, Washington, DC.
Wall, K. (2011), ‘‘‘A sliver of the true fort’: imagining Fort Edmonton, 1911-2011’’, Journal of Heritage
Tourism, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 109-128.
Winegard, T.C. (2012), For King and Kanata: Canadian Indians and the First World War, University of
Manitoba Press, Winnipeg.
Whitacre, C. and Greene, J.A. (2003), ‘‘From tragedy to symbol: the efforts to designate the Sand Creek
massacre site as a National Historic Site’’, in Ashworth, G. and Hartmann, R. (Eds), Horror and Human
Tragedy Revisited: The Management of Sites of Atrocities for Tourism, Cognizant Communication
Corporation, New York, NY, pp. 60-69.
Zeppel, H. (2006), Indigenous Ecotourism: Sustainable Development and Management., CABI,
Wallingford.
Corresponding author
Raynald Harvey Lemelin can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 7 NO. 3 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 271
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Nien-Te Kuo, Kuo-Chien Chang, Yi-Sung Cheng, Jui-Chou Lin. 2015. Effects of Tour Guide Interpretation and Tourist
Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty in Taiwan’s Kinmen Battlefield Tourism: Perceived Playfulness and Perceived Flow as
Moderators. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 1-20. [CrossRef]
2. Raynald Harvey Lemelin, Rhonda Koster, Nicholina Youroukos. 2015. Tangible and intangible indicators of successful
aboriginal tourism initiatives: A case study of two successful aboriginal tourism lodges in Northern Canada. Tourism
Management 47, 318-328. [CrossRef]
3. R. H. Lemelin, Kelsey Johansen. 2014. The Canadian National Vimy Memorial: remembrance, dissonance and resonance.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 8:2, 203-218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Avital Biran, Kenneth F. Hyde. 2013. New perspectives on dark tourism. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research 7:3, 191-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
2
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_610766583.pdf