Yesterday's interview on TravelBlogs was with the blogger behind Pickled Eel, who recently spent time in Iraq and Jordan on a business trip. The interview raised a few interesting questions about the appeal of travelling around dangerous places.
Yes, you read correctly. The appeal of dangerous places. Pickled Eel put it this way:
"An awareness of the risk (in Baghdad) means you are tuned into the way people live, how they are coping, who they are. And what is going on. I think it is hard being the average tourist if there is an element of risk. There is no question that Iraq is an edgy place but it is that which makes you feel very alive and tuned in to what the people around you are doing. As a result you can only come away with the most profound respect and admiration and awe for Mr Joe Iraqi Citizen for the life he is trying to recreate. You don’t feel that about the beached whales lying beside the pool in your four or five star resort. The afternoon I was back in Sydney from Iraq I was driving through pleasant leafy suburbs and found myself think how boring it all was. Nice. But boring."
An article in the Sydney Morning Herald travel blog describes a new breed of travellers who actively seek out dangerous places. While the rest of us might ask ourselves "How dangerous is too dangerous?", these travellers ask themselves the opposite question: "How dangerous is dangerous enough?"
What is your take on the concept of "danger tourism"? Have you ever travelled in a country experiencing violent conflict or war?