Why I Won’t Go To China (AKA Scapegoat Ethics)
Posted: August 26th, 2010 | Author: Shawn | Filed under: blah blah blah | 6 Comments »
China and I are not cool. Or more accurately, China is the current scapegoat for my travel conscience. I firmly believe that how I spend my money needs to try and match my ethical standards. Really, the only feedback you have into products or places is your money. No corporation or government goes on to Facebook and randomly checks how many members the anti-whoever groups have. Why would they care? The only statistic they want or need to know is money. All of the rhetoric and slogans in the world are barely a murmur compared to the sound of cash. So when you choose to travel to a country, you contribute your money to their community and government, and in turn you’re endorsing them and their policies. That is why I will not visit China — I strongly disagree with the Chinese government’s policies and tactics and will not support them with my hard earned money. Things are always a bit more complicated though, aren’t they?
I’m not so certain that my China boycott really stands up to logical analysis. When you start thinking of countries that have what we’ll call “issues” then you start getting a pretty lengthy list. I’ll save you the rhetoric on their various malignancies. Suffice to say that I believe a government has the obligation to conduct themselves responsibly regardless of their culture or political system. Do I intend to boycott every country that makes that list? Honestly, no I don’t. Hell, even my beloved Canada is far from earning an ethical gold star. Which leaves me with a lot of questions. If I can’t stick to all my ethics, then why bother with any of them? Is there any redeeming value in boycotting one or two locations if I can’t do them all? I suppose my current stance is hypocritical, but what is the acceptable alternative? Surely it must be better to take some stances rather than none. Finding a balance that works is something I struggle with, and haven’t really figured out yet.
Perhaps I’m just becoming older and crankier, but it seems at times that few folks think beyond their own self when the wallet comes out. How many animal lovers do you know that use products that are tested on animals? How many people praise Amnesty International while wearing diamond rings and sweatshop made shoes? How many people at the Earth Day rally drove there alone in their SUV with an imported bottle of water resting comfortably in the drink holder? I’m not trying to harp on the negative, but the whole lack of individual conscience is just so damn frustrating sometimes. It’s much like stubbing your toe then proceeding to bang the same toe on every corner for the next two days. When it’s already bugging you, then you notice it a lot more.
Were I able to make one cohesive point out of all this it would be to please consider what you are telling the world when you spend your money. What are you really supporting? Take that one extra moment to think about the bigger picture. Does that tourist attraction you’re about to visit exploit someone or something? Having worked for major corporations I can assure you that no one goes over the “monthly protest letters summary” in the shareholders meeting. It’s all just dollars. So until the flow of money mirrors your beliefs, nothing will change. Think of it like you’re voting with your money, or for that matter, your passport.
.
//shawn
ps: Scapegoat is a strange word. I mean, I like goats, so I don’t see why we should blame them for stuff. And where does the scape come into it? Strange.
Some interesting questions you raise. The challenge for me is always where to draw the line. As you say, virtually all governments have ethical issues – some greater than others of course.
I definitely don’t spend money with companies that openly support domestic issues I disagree with, but I find it a tougher line to draw with travel.
I agree with your points, but playing devil’s advocate, if I travel to China and am buying food, lodging, etc. from the people there, am I not helping citizens who are the ones who are hurt most by the government’s policies? There’s also an argument that the more China sees how much they can make by being open to visitors and international business, the more they’ll adapt their policies to keep growing. One can hope, anyway.
Arguments on both sides (as there always are), so I agree – you have to let your own conscience decide what’s right for you.
[Reply]
Shawn Reply:
August 26th, 2010 at 12:55
I definitely agree, Joel. There’s multiple ways to look at and handle situations, and your example of spending in China is spot on. Whichever way people decide to handle stuff is cool with me, as long as they think before they do it. Informed decisions and all that.
It’s not a matter of black and white decisions with some grey areas. It’s all grey, and if you’re lucky you might spot some specks of black and white :)
[Reply]
Very thoughtful, insightful post on very touchy subject.
I guess many of us have our “scape-countries”. I have a few places I’ve struck off my list; for the time being at least. Sometimes I can separate what I find ethically questionable from the place I’m visiting, sometimes I can’t.
Like Joel says, where does one draw the line with travel? I question the assumption that more tourism always leads to positive change. Though on the flip side, tourism boycotts seldom effect much change save imposing economic hardship.
Totally agree with information, knowledge being key. Being aware about the current politics and economics of a destination and history help. There’s not lack of resources out there if one takes the time to research. Sadly, garden variety travel guidebooks and most travel sites seldom go into that level of detail.
But then again, does the average tourist really want to be aware of the less positive aspects and impacts of their travel choices? The cranky, cynical genX’er in me says no, though I hope I’m wrong on that.
[Reply]
“does the average tourist really want to be aware of the less positive aspects and impacts of their travel choices?”
Well they should be :) It’s just obnoxious to putter about in a clueless cloud of selfish indulgence. I don’t think it’s too much to expect people to have a clue about their impact. Like you, I’m cynical on the whole topic though.
[Reply]
Hi Shawn,
In theory, I agree with you. I genuinely do believe that we have a responsibility as travelers to make the world suck less if we can, and though I absolutely loved my time in China I fully respect your choice not to travel there.
I do want to throw one additional thing into the discussion: the ability to help via connection with local people. I’m citing my time in Burma as backup, because it remains a contentious place to visit and I am sure many people are concerned about putting money into the military gov’t's coffers. I was curious about how I’d feel in visiting and while I only spent 6 weeks there, I found the people incredibly thirsty to interact. As a result, I do try and encourage independent travelers to visit in part because of the government’s stranglehold on its citizens. I tried to stay away from gov’t sponsored anything – no planes, no government hotels, etc. But in the end, the government is fully funded via sale of its natural resources (China and Thailand have each spent millions and millions) and almost everyone I talked to complained that sanctions and a tourism boycott merely hurt them (the Burmese) more than anyone else, especially the minorities who are not customarily permitted to travel.
For what it’s worth, I think the ethics equations for some countries are more complicated than others, and Burma is one of them.
Thought provoking post, thanks.
-Jodi
[Reply]
Long live goats, and other furry animals for that matter…oh wait yeah, China.
Besides visas and traveling fees I just assume the big corporations or government won’t see much of my money. Since I’m a budget traveler most of my spending goes to locals who are probably more against the government/corporations than we are because they battle with them every day. But then, I see your logic because it all does eventually trickle upward.
[Reply]