Tourist Experiences of Genocide Sites: the Case of Rwanda

No 13, June 2014 61

Richard Sharpley University of Central Lancashire, UK Innocent Gahigana Rwanda Tourism University College, Rwanda UDC: 338.48-6:343.285(675.98) ; 341.485(675.98)”1994”

TOURIST EXPERIENCES OF GENOCIDE SITES: THE CASE OF RWANDA

Abstract: Dark tourism is not a new phe- the context of dark tourism more generally, it nomenon. As long as people have been able to reviews briefly how the Rwandan genocide is travel they have visited places associated with presented / memorialised before considering death, disaster and suffering. However, not research into how tourists experience genocide only has the provision and consumption of memorial sites in Rwanda. Specifically, build- dark tourism experiences become increasingly ing on an earlier study that explored visitor evident in recent years; so too has the academic experiences of genocide sites in Rwanda as de- study of the phenomenon. Nevertheless, despite scribed in travel blogs, it considers the results of the increasing attention paid to the subject, un- an exploratory survey into tourists’ experiences derstanding of dark tourism remains relatively of the Kigali Genocide Memorial, the country’s limited and theoretically fragile whilst, specifi- principal memorial site. The results indicate cally, the significance of the consumption of or unequivocally that tourists undertake their vis- demand for dark tourism has enjoyed limited its with positive, meaningful intent (albeit with academic scrutiny. This is particularly the case trepidation) and that, almost without excep- with so-called ‘genocide tourism’ (visiting places tion, find it a challenging, powerfully emotion- of, or associated with, genocide), a form of dark al yet, ultimately, rewarding experience in that tourism that is increasingly in evidence but the they begin to grasp the horror and suffering of consumption of which is often misunderstood the genocide and, indeed, leave with the desire and, typically, considered to display voyeuris- to learn more about it. tic tendencies on the part of tourists. Focusing on the Rwandan genocide, this paper addresses Key words: dark tourism, genocide tourism, this issue. Locating genocide tourism within Rwanda, tourist experience

Introduction 100 days and although the precise number remains unknown, more than a million Twenty years ago, on 6 April 1994, the people lost their lives (KGM, 2004: 22). The small East African state of Rwanda wit- great majority of victims were Tutsis who at nessed the beginning of ‘one of the most that time collectively represented just 14% coldblooded attempts to annihilate a people’ of the country’s population of seven million, in recent history (Cook, 2006; Friedrich & whilst the perpetrators were mostly Hutus Johnston, 2013). Triggered by the death of (Alluri, 2009; Melvern, 2009; Prunier, 2008). the country’s then President, Juvenal Hab- The violence came to an end only when the yarimana, when the aeroplane in which Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), he was travelling was shot down as it ap- led by the country’s current President, Paul proached Kigali airport, the genocide lasted Kagame, captured Kigali, the capital, and 62 The Business of Tourism established a multi-ethnic government. As hills, gardens and tea plantations’ and ‘the a result of the genocide, approximately 75% Land of a Thousand Hills (RDBb 2014), of the Tutsi minority had been killed, more these memorials, often located on the site of than 300,000 children were orphaned and massacres and mass graves, not only reflect some two million Hutus, fearing retaliation, survivors’ determination that the atrocities fled into neighbouring countries. of 1994 should not be forgotten but also act Since then, Rwanda has remained rela- as a ‘constant reminder of the tragic events tively peaceful and has made significant which transpired at countless sites of vio- developmental progress. The economy has lence throughout the country’ (Friedrich & grown at an annual average rate of 7%-8%, Johnston, 2013). developmental targets for education and At the same time, these sites have be- health are being met whilst the incidence come ‘dark’ tourism attractions. They are of poverty has been reduced (AEO, 2014). frequently listed in contemporary tourist However, 44.9% of the population still live guides along with the country’s national below the poverty line and small-scale sub- parks and other natural and cultural sites sistence farming remains the principal eco- as ‘things to see’ and many local tour opera- nomic activity, accounting for 73% of em- tors include a visit to genocide memorials ployment but 36% of output. Coffee and tea in their tours (Schaller, 2007). In particular, have long been important export products the Kigali Genocide Memorial, the coun- but, significantly, since 2011 tourism has try’s principal memorial to the events of become the top source of foreign exchange 1994 and the focus of the research in this earnings. Prior to the events of 1994 Rwanda paper, is not only an established feature of had been an established international tour- Kigali city tours but, according to Friedrich ist destination, but the sector was devastated & Johnston (2013), attracted more than by the genocide. However, in the years that 42,000 international visitors in 2011, more followed tourism grew rapidly; latest avail- than double the number of local visitors. It able data suggest that, in 2010, the country has, in effect, become a ‘must see’ for visitors attracted 660,000 international visitors who to Rwanda. However, although it undoubt- generated some US$200 million in rev- edly represents the tragedy of the genocide enues, although it must be noted that 80% and, semiotically, is symbolic of contempo- were from neighbouring countries whilst rary Rwanda, the reasons for its popularity just 38,136, or 5.8%, were non-African lei- amongst tourists remain unclear. sure visitors (RDBa, 2014). For the latter, the Indeed, significant debate surrounds principal attraction is the country’s wildlife the memorialisation and representation of in general and, as prior to the genocide, the genocide, both in Rwanda and elsewhere, mountain gorillas in particular. for tourist consumption or the develop- However, the 1994 genocide itself has, in ment of what some refer to more generally a sense, become a tourist attraction. That is, as ‘genocide tourism’ (Beech, 2009). More not only is contemporary Rwanda defined specifically, genocide memorial sites (and by the genocide and its aftermath, remain- other sites memorialising death and suffering as it does in the living memory of many ing on a large scale) fulfil a variety of vital Rwandans, but a number of the four hun- purposes, including not only remembrance dred or so genocide memorials around the but also education and, in the case of geno- country have become tourist sites. Standing cide, war and other violent conflict, recon- in stark contrast to the vision of the coun- ciliation (Cohen 2011; Sharpley, 2009a; Wil- try described by the national tourism au- liams, 2004; 2007). However, the promotion, thority as ‘a green undulating landscape of exploitation and commoditisation of geno- No 13, June 2014 63 cide sites / memorials as tourist attractions 2009b). Moreover, there is little doubt that, is controversial both from an ethical point of over the last half century or so and com- view and, in particular, with respect to tour- mensurate with the remarkable growth in ists’ motivations. As Schaller (2007: 514) tourism more generally, dark tourism has observes, ‘it is, after all, the great demand become both widespread and diverse. Not for trips to former concentration camps and only has there been a rapid increase in the killing fields that makes genocide tourism provision of such attractions and experi- possible in the first place’. Many, including ences, including genocide sites, but there Schaller, consider genocide tourism to be lit- is also evidence of a greater willingness or tle more than voyeurism, a label applied by desire on the part of tourists to visit dark at- some to dark tourism more generally (Buda tractions and, in particular, the sites of dark & McIntosh, 2013; Lisle, 2004, 2007) yet, in events. As Stone (2013: 307) notes in a re- reality, relatively little research has been un- cent review, ‘the commodification of death dertaken into how and why tourists experi- for popular touristic consumption, whether ence genocide sites. in the guise of memorials and museums, The purpose of this paper is to address visitor attractions, special events and exhibi- this gap in the literature. Drawing on ex- tions or specific tours, has become a focus ploratory research amongst international for mainstream tourism providers’. visitors to the Kigali Genocide Memorial, At the same time, the academic study it builds on an earlier study of tourists’ re- of dark tourism can also no longer be con- ported experience of genocide memorial sidered a new phenomenon. The term ‘dark sites in Rwanda (Sharpley, 2012). In so do- tourism’ itself was coined almost two dec- ing, it seeks to enhance knowledge and un- ades ago (Foley & Lennon, 1996), although derstanding of how tourists experience such the relationship between tourism and places sites, thereby contributing to the dark tour- of death and suffering had been the focus ism literature more generally. The first task, of earlier work, such as the interpretation however, is to consider the concept of geno- of war sites (Uzell, 1989) and Rojek’s (1993) cide tourism within the broader context of conceptualisation of ‘Black Spots’, whilst a the now established field of dark tourism be- major theme in Tunbridge and Ashworth’s fore introducing the memorialisation of the (1996) exploration of dissonant heritage is Rwandan genocide in general and the Kigali the interpretation of the Holocaust at the Genocide Memorial in particular. concentration camps. Since then, and reflecting perhaps an alleged wider societal interest or fascination in death (Howarth, 2007; Wal- Dark tourism and genocide ter, 2009), the increase in academic attention memorial sites paid the concept of dark tourism has been such that it has become, in all likelihood one As is now widely recognised, and contra- of the more popular fields of study within dicting Lennon & Foley’s (2000: 11) assertion the tourism academy. Nevertheless, despite that it is an ‘intimation of postmodernity’, the greater scope and depth of research into travel to and visiting ‘dark sites’, or so-called the phenomenon, understanding of dark dark tourism, is by no means a new phe- tourism remains relatively limited and theo- nomenon. As long as people have been able retically fragile (Biran and Hyde, 2013: 191). to travel, they have been drawn, purpose- Undoubtedly, this is due in part to the fact fully or otherwise, towards places or events that dark tourism, typically defined as the that are associated in one way or another ‘act of travel to sites associated with death, with death, disaster and suffering (Sharpley, suffering and the seemingly macabre’ (Stone, 64 The Business of Tourism

2006), is a broad ‘umbrella’ concept that em- it should be seen as a context for exploring braces an infinite variety of sites, attractions the relationship between the tourist and the and experiences. Consequently, much at- (dark) site and, hence, for exploring how the tention has been devoted to the identifica- tourist understands or confronts the death tion, labelling and management of different and suffering that the site signifies, repre- categories of dark attractions (that is, the sents or memorialises. Thus, as noted in the research has predominantly adopted a sup- introduction to this paper, genocide sites in ply perspective) whilst, until more recently, particular not only fulfil a variety of func- the significance of the consumption of (or tions, from memorialisation / remembrance demand for) dark tourism has enjoyed more to education and reconciliation; a number limited academic scrutiny (but, see Raine, have also become popular tourism desti- 2013; Stone & Sharpley, 2008). nations, including those in Rwanda. How- At the same time, the term dark tourism ever, as the following section now considers itself can be thought of as being ‘unhelpful’ briefly, with the exception of the Holocaust (Sharpley & Stone, 2009: 249). Not only has there is a paucity of research into tourism to it become a product brand (Stone, 2013) genocide sites in general, and into the moti- exploited by the tourism industry and the vations and experiences of tourists who visit popular media alike, but also from a con- such sites in particular. sumption or behavioural perspective it may be considered a subjective, pejorative term, ‘Genocide tourism’ generalising ‘dark’ tourists as possessing a morbid fascination or curiosity in death, In his editorial on genocide tourism, or engaging in voyeurism or schadenfreude. Schaller (2007: 513) expresses surprise that This may sometimes be the case; as Cole an organised form of tourism based on gen- (1999: 114) argues, for example, ‘there can ocide could exist: ‘the idea seemed just too be little doubt that an element of voyeurism bizarre and macabre to be true’. Similarly, is central to Holocaust tourism’. Yet, there Beech (2009: 207) observes that the pair- are evidently numerous instances where an ing of the words ‘tourism’ (usually signify- interest in death may be minimal or non-ex- ing fun, escape, holidays and hedonism) and istent, or the association with death may be ‘genocide’ may seem unlikely. Nevertheless, of little relevance. Raine (2013), for example, what may be referred to as genocide tour- in her study of visitors to burial grounds, ism – that is, travel to and the experience of identifies a continuum of purposes from sites of or associated with genocide – is an ‘devotion’ (mourning / pilgrims), through identifiable (and flourishing) sector of the ‘experience’ (morbid curiosity) and ‘discov- overall tourism market. For example, the ery’ (information seekers / hobbyists) to ‘in- site of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentra- cidental’ (sightseers / recreationists). Thus, it tion camp in Poland, one of numerous sites has been suggested that the term ‘dark tour- associated directly or indirectly with the ism’ should be abandoned as it ‘may present Holocaust, attracted 1.43 million visitors in an impediment to detailed and circumstan- 2012, a record number (Auschwitz-Birkenau tial analyses of tourist sites and performanc- 2014). In this case at least, therefore, it is also es’ Bowman and Pezzullo (2009: 199). big business. It is not the purpose here to contribute The Holocaust also features predomi- to this debate. It suffices to suggest that dark nantly in the relevant literature. As Friedrich tourism should be thought of not as a catego- & Johnston (2013) observe, research into the ry of tourism site or attraction, nor as a spe- relationship between tourism and genocide cific form of tourism consumption. Rather, focuses ‘more on European events in the No 13, June 2014 65

Second World War Jewish Holocaust than during the Stalinist era in Russia (1929- other acts of genocide’, though not typically 1953) or the Cultural Revolution in China under the specific heading of ‘genocide tour- (1966-1971), are not formally recognised ism’ and more usually in the context of the as genocides. Nevertheless, the systematic management, development and interpreta- destruction of the Armenian population in tion of sites associated with the Holocaust. the then Ottoman Empire is widely consid- For example, a major theme in Tunbridge ered to be the first modern genocide. Also and Ashworth’s (1996) exploration of dis- missing from the official list, though again sonant heritage is the interpretation of the widely thought of as genocide, is the death Holocaust at the concentration camps whilst of over two million Cambodians during the Ashworth and Hartmann (2005) subse- four-year Khmer Rouge period in that coun- quently devote significant attention to the try that was brought to wider public atten- development of Holocaust related sites. Sim- tion by the 1984 movie, The Killing Fields. ilarly, much of Lennon and Foley’s (2000) Nevertheless, both Armenia and Cambodia seminal text focuses on sites related to the have, according to Beech (2009), become Holocaust, whilst Auschwitz in particular genocide tourism destinations. In particular, has proved to be a fruitful topic for academ- the Tuol Sleng Museum of Genocide and the ic research (Biran, Poria & Oren, 2011; Cole Cheung Ek Genocidal Centre in Cambodia 1999; Miles, 2002; Poria, 2007). are becoming increasingly popular attrac- The Holocaust was also, of course, the tions amongst the rapidly growing number first ‘official’ genocide. Although there is -evi of international tourists to that country. dence throughout history of mass violence Genocide tourism in Cambodia has against particular groups, the term ‘geno- also attracted increasing academic inter- cide’ is relatively recent. It was first coined est (Hughes, 2008; Williams, 2004), as have in 1944 by the Polish-Jewish lawyer, Raphael such sites related to the Balkan conflict Lemkin, to describe the systematic destruc- (Johnston, 2011; Simic, 2008). However, in tion of European Jews and in 1948 was sub- contrast to the relatively extensive literature sequently adopted and formally recognised on Holocaust tourism, research into tourism as an international crime by the United Na- related to other more recent genocides is, as tions Convention on the Prevention and noted previously, limited. Moreover, in the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CP- case of both Holocaust tourism and tourism PCGG). Article 2 of this Convention defines to other genocide sites more generally, little genocide as ‘... acts committed with intent to attention has been paid to the consumption destroy, in whole or in part, a national, eth- of genocide tourism, or how tourists experi- nical, racial or religious group’. This defini- ence such places. Therefore, this paper now tion remains contentious, however, not least turns to genocide tourism in Rwanda, a sub- because it is not applied to the mass killing of ject which, with a few notable exceptions people on either social or political grounds. (Alluri, 2009; Friedrich & Johnston, 2013; Perhaps as a consequence, the Convention Grosspietsch, 2006; Hohenhaus, 2013) has has been applied in only two cases since been largely overlooked. 1948: the Rwandan genocide in 1994 and the Srebrenica massacre of 1995. This arguably restricted definition of Rwanda: the genocide genocide means that many events through- and its memorialisation out history, from the mass killings of Arme- nians by Turkey during and after the First Although it was the shooting down of World War to the mass deaths that occurred the President’s aeroplane as it approached 66 The Business of Tourism

Kigali airport on the evening 6 April 1994 complex, contested and beyond the scope that sparked the Rwandan genocide, the of this paper (see Melvern, 2009; Prunier, subsequent horror and violence that was to 2008). However, following the end of the engulf the country for one hundred days was violence, numerous memorial sites were es- not, as might be imagined, the spontaneous tablished around the country, usually on the manifestation of tribal conflict. Rather, the site of mass graves and / or mass killings. Of roots of the genocide lay in the historic so- these, four have been proposed by the Rwan- cio-economic distinctions between the ma- dan authorities for UNESCO World Herit- jority Hutus and the minority Tutsis. Over age Site Status: the Kigali Genocide Memori- centuries, the word ‘Hutu’ had evolved to al, and the Nyamata, Murambi and Bisesero describe farmers, servants or, more general- memorials (de la Croix Tabaro, 2012). These ly, those ‘who did not come from an illustri- are also amongst those memorials most ous lineage’ (Melvern 2009: 10). Conversely, commonly visited by international tourists, Tutsis were the ruling elite; by the late 19th being significant for both the nature and century, the monarchy and the King’s army representation of the atrocities they com- were predominantly Tutsi. Thus, as Melvern memorate. (2009: 12) summarises, ‘In Rwanda, the For example, The Murambi Memorial words Hutu and Tutsi came to be used to Centre is located in what was once a tech- define two groups linked through common nical school near the town of Gikongoro, experiences. The word Hutu would come to close to Butare in southern Rwanda. When denote a peasant population, and the word the killing commenced in April 1994 over Tutsi to denote overlords’. 65,000 Tutsis had fled to the school, believ- This distinction was formalised by the ing they would be safe as French troops were Belgian colonial administration which intro- stationed there. However, the troops alleg- duced identity cards in 1932, an individual’s edly left the Tutsis to defend themselves and, classification often being based on wealth in the space of just three days, over 40,000 rather than on ethnicity or physical appear- people were slaughtered. ance. Consequently, some were identified The school has been developed as a me- as Tutsi simply on the basis of owning more morial to the victims of the massacre and as than ten cows (KGM, 2004: 6). However, fol- a permanent exhibition of the genocide. Vis- lowing the death of the king in 1959 and the itors to the Centre follow a pathway which subsequent election of the Parmehutu, a po- leads them first to an exhibition describing litical party which sought the emancipation of the context of the genocide, then into so- the Hutu majority, ’Tutsis were increasingly called burial rooms. Here, the preserved harassed or killed and others were forced into bodies of some 800 victims, men, women exile’ (Friedrich & Johnston, 2013), whilst and children, are laid out on tables for visi- many joined the RFP based in neighbouring tors to gaze upon. Uganda. Consequently, fearing a political and Similarly, at the outbreak of the genocide military challenge, from the 1970s the Hab- many people from surrounding areas came yarimana regime fostered an anti-Tutsi ‘geno- to gather in the town of Nyamata, about 35 cidal ideology’ (KGM, 2004: 10) supported by kilometres south of the capital, Kigali. The the establishment of the Interahamwe, a na- church and nearby houses belonging to the tion-wide militia group, leading most to con- priests and sisters became havens for the clude that the 1994 genocide was deliberate, frightened people who fled there hoping organised and rehearsed (Prunier, 2008). to escape death. They used the church as a The events leading up to the genocide, refuge, thinking the militia would not enter both within Rwanda and internationally, are and kill them in a place usually thought of according to the testimonies given by survivors, about 10,000 people were killed in and around the area of the church; though they had locked the iron door with a padlock to protect themselves, the door was broken down and all those in the church were massacred. Today in the church itself, bloodstains can be seen on the walls and the altar cloth, bullet holes can still be seen in the roof and the pews are strewn with the bloodied clothing of many of the victims No 13, June 2014 67 In the crypt are bones and skulls of some of those in died in the massacre, whilst outside the churchas a visitors sanctuary. are However,able to enter according mass graves to the where those they can who view fell the victim remains to the of hundreds genocide of and testimonies given by survivors, about 10,000 serves as a place for people to grieve those victims.people were killed in and around the area of they lost’ (KGM, 2010), although it also the church; However, though Rwanda’s they had main locked memorial the iron site isfunctions the Kigali as Geno a centrecide for Memorial promoting (KGM). peace door with a padlock to protect themselves, and reconciliation more generally. There are Located in the Gisozi district of the capital, the KGM is a joint venture between Kigali City the door was broken down and all those in three permanent exhibitions, the principal Councilthe church and the were UK-based massacred. Aegis Today Trust that in the campa oneigns documentingagainst genocide the and 1994 crimes genocide against but, church itself, bloodstains can be seen on the in addition, there is a children’s memorial humanity. Constructed on the site where more than 250,000 victims of the genocide are walls and the altar cloth, bullet holes can still and an exhibition on the history of genocide buried,be seen it was in the opened roof inand April the 2004pews onare the strewn tenth anniversaryworldwide. of Thethe Rwandan memorial genocide, gardens and include is thewith best the kn own bloodied and most clothing visited of many memorial of the si te inmass Rwanda, graves primarilyand a wall because of names. of Whilst its easy in - victims. In the crypt are bones and skulls of tended primarily as a memorial, the centre accessibility.some of those It is in primarily died in the intended massacre, as a whilst‘permanent also memorial focuses onto those education: who fell victim to the genocideoutside an thed serveschurch as visitors a place are for able people to enterto grieve those‘One they oflost’ the (KGM principal 2010), reasons although for it mass graves where they can view the remains the Centre’s existence is to provide also functions as a centre for promoting peace and reconciliation more generally. There are of hundreds of victims. educational‘One of the principal facilities. reasons These for the are Cent forre's existencea is to provide educational three permanent exhibitions, the principal one documentingyoungerfacilities. Thesegeneration the are 1994 for a of younger genocide Rwandan generati but, chilon of- in Rwandan children some of whom Figure 1: Entrance to the KGM may not remember the genocide, but whose lives are profoundly affected by it’. addition, there is a children’s memorial and an exhibitidren someon on of whom the history may not of remem genocide- (Photo: R. Sharpley) ber(KGMC the genocide,2010). but whose lives are worldwide.profoundly The memorial affected gardensby it’. (KGMC, include Thus, the KMG acts as a focus for commemorating and recognising the significance of the mass 2010). graves and a wall of names. Whilst genocide to contemporary Rwanda, and is often visited by groups of school children (See intendedFigureFigure 2). However,primarily 2: School it has as also achildren memorial, become one at ofthe the Rwanda’s KGM centre more visited tourist alsoattractions focuses yet, on as(Photo: education: suggested R. above,Sharpley) little is known about the ways in which tourists experience the KGM or make sense of the event it commemorates, hence the exploratory research now discussed below.

THE RESEARCH Figure 1: Entrance to the KGM As noted in the (Photo:However, R. Sharpley) Rwanda’s main memorial site introduction, the research is the Kigali Genocide Memorial (KGM). Figure 2: School children at the KGM in this paper builds upon (Photo: R. Sharpley) Located in the Gisozi district of the capital, Thus, the KMG acts as a focus for com- an earlier study of tourists’ the KGM is a joint venture between Kigali reportedmemorating experience and of recognising genocide memorial the sitesignificances in Rwanda, the purpose being to enhance City Council and the UK-based Aegis Trust knowledgeof the genocide and understanding to contemporary of the meaning and Rwanda, significance of such experiences. Indeed, that campaigns against genocide and crimes theand earlier is often research visited identified by how groups tourists reactedof school to the chil sites- and, in particular, to the often against humanity. Constructed on the site graphicdren and (See shocking Figure ways 2). in which However, they repres it ent has the alsogenocide. However, as a desk-based where more than 250,000 victims of the gen- become one of Rwanda’s more visited tour- study an analysis of travel blogs, it was unable to elicit a more nuanced understanding of ocide are buried, it was opened in April 2004 ist attractions yet, as suggested above, little tourists’ motives, expectations and response. Hence, further research, informed by the first on the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan is known about the ways in which tourists genocide, and is the best known and most study,experience was deemed the necessary. KGM Therefore, or make it senseis useful ofhere the to review briefly the outcomes of visited memorial site in Rwanda, primarily thatevent study it as commemorates, background to the present hence research the (for explora more detail,- see Sharpley 2012). because of its easy accessibility. It is prima- tory research now discussed below. rily intended as a ‘permanent memorial to Initial research: tourists’ reported experiences of genocide sites The initial study of international tourists’ experiences of genocide sites in Rwanda drew on an analysis of a total thirty-five travel blogs posted by tourists who had visited on or more of four such sites: the Kigali Genocide Memorial, Murambi, Nyamata (all described above) and Ntarama, a church close to Nyamata that similarly witnessed the slaughter of some 5000 68 The Business of Tourism

The research share hope in humanity. One blog implied it is, in a sense, a tourist’s duty to visit the As noted in the introduction, the research sites: for one tourist, somehow you can’t (and in this paper builds upon an earlier study of shouldn’t) forget what happened here in 1994 tourists’ reported experience of genocide whilst, for another, there are tourist attrac- memorial sites in Rwanda, the purpose be- tion sites such as the Kigali memorial centre ing to enhance knowledge and understand- that is a must-visit for insights into the worst ing of the meaning and significance of such genocide in history. experiences. Indeed, the earlier research Site experience: unsurprisingly, tourists’ identified how tourists reacted to the sites accounts of their visits to the genocide sites and, in particular, to the often graphic and were both factual and emotional, with par- shocking ways in which they represent the ticular emphasis placed on their reactions genocide. However, as a desk-based study an to the graphic, uncompromising displays analysis of travel blogs, it was unable to elicit of victims’ remains and belongings. Thus, a more nuanced understanding of tourists’ a dominant theme was the intense feeling motives, expectations and response. Hence, of shock, horror and revulsion experienced further research, informed by the first study, and described by most visitors to the geno- was deemed necessary. Therefore, it is useful cide sites, not at the scale and inhumanity here to review briefly the outcomes of that of the genocide but as a response to being study as background to the present research confronted by innumerable bodies in mass (for more detail, see Sharpley 2012). graves, the preserved corpses laid out on tables, the piles of human bones and skulls and the bloodstained clothes of victims: When I Initial research: tourists’ reported reached the doorway, my entire body went experiences of genocide sites cold. I froze, a few steps from the entrance. I The initial study of international tourists’ could see, along the back wall of the church, experiences of genocide sites in Rwanda drew stacks upon stacks of human skulls... I felt a on an analysis of a total thirty-five travel blogs wave of nausea come over me. Indeed, the posted by tourists who had visited on or more sheer volume of skulls and bones on display of four such sites: the Kigali Genocide Memo- had a dehumanising effect; the evident scale rial, Murambi, Nyamata (all described above) of the tragedy depersonalised it and the re- and Ntarama, a church close to Nyamata that mains of any single person lost their indi- similarly witnessed the slaughter of some 5000 viduality. As one blogger wrote: It is clear people. From the experiences reported in the that the memorial has the intent to shock. It travel blogs, a number of themes emerged does. But at the same time, it is so macabre under two distinct headings: that it was hard to feel any grief when see- Motives: although the genocide sites have ing the bodies. For another, the shock value become an integral element of many tours was too great: it didn’t make me reflect on the to Rwanda, rather than visiting them simply genocide as much as it made me offended by ‘because they are there’ the majority of travel the showing of these bodies. blogs implicitly revealed a positive desire on Consequently, a number of visitors re- the part of tourists to experience the geno- vealed that they experienced greater emo- cide sites to learn, to try to understand, to tion when viewing victims’ personal items, assuage guilt (that the rest of the world let such as clothing or children’s schoolbooks: it happen), but perhaps also to satisfy a per- having the colourful but mouldy cloth of the sonal need to be shocked, to be horrified, to victims hang over their bones increased the be shaken out of complacency or to feel and intensity of the grief and despair we felt for No 13, June 2014 69 these people we had never met. More specifi- Tourists’ experiences of the Kigali cally, the images and stories of young victims Genocide Memorial Study methods on display in the KGM’s children’s gallery had the most powerful effect on tourists. The KGM was selected as an appropriate In addition, the experience of the sites left site for the research not only because it is the many visitors feeling unable to comprehend main (and most visited) memorial to the gen- the genocide whilst, for one, I felt like I didn’t ocide but also because it offers a more diverse have the right to understand what I had seen, yet less morally challenging visitor experience because there were stories that were being than other genocide sites in Rwanda. In other told that were not mine – and never will be words, although the KGM is located on the mine, thus hinting at an inherent dilemma site of mass graves, visitors are not confronted in genocide tourism more generally: whilst with the bones, preserved remains or person- the victims of genocide may benefit from al belongings of victims as at, for example, having their story told, what right do outsid- Murambi or Nyamata. Rather, although the ers have to share that story with the victims? scale of the violence is evident from the size of Nevertheless, many suggested that their visit the concrete- covered mass graves, the visitor to the genocide sites was a positive experi- experience is constructed around the three ence inasmuch as it engendered a feeling of permanent exhibitions described earlier in hope: I have never felt such shame and an- this paper: a self- (audio) guided tour around ger... Yet, seeing how far the Rwandan people the story of the 1994 genocide, the history of have come, I have never felt so much hope. genocide worldwide and the children’s me- Overall, then, the initial research dem- morial. Thus, visitors are able to contemplate onstrated that, far from being motivated by the genocide within a moral/ethical ‘comfort a voyeuristic desire to gaze on the tragedy of zone’ through reading narratives and gazing the genocide, not only do tourists visit the on (still often shocking) images, focusing Rwandan sites for more positive reasons but their thoughts on the genocide as a whole also their responses to what they encounter rather than on their reactions to graphic col- point to a deeper emotional engagement lections of human remains. Moreover, the with the sites. Nevertheless, much of the KGM is, implicitly, as much about the present narrative in the travel blogs focused (per- and future of Rwanda as it is about the events haps unsurprisingly) on tourists’ responses of 1994. to the actual sites and, in particular, the of- The research was based upon a self-com- ten stark and shocking displays of human re- pletion questionnaire distributed to ran- mains they were confronted with. Converse- domly selected international visitors to the ly, less was revealed about why and how they KGM. As previously noted, the overall pur- engaged with and responded to the event pose of the research was explicitly to elicit represented by the sites; that is, why they felt tourists’ reasons for and responses to visiting compelled to visit the sites and the extent to the Memorial and the extent to which these which they were able to confront not the vic- reflect its objectives; implicitly, its purpose tims’ remains but the cause and manner of was to further challenge the claim that ‘gen- their violent death. Hence, further research ocide’ tourists are little more than voyeurs by was undertaken amongst international visi- exploring how the KGM, as a dark tourism tors to the KGM in order to address some of site, mediates between the event it portrays these unanswered questions. and the tourist’s own social reality. Thus, the questionnaire was constructed primarily It should be noted that, at the time of writing, around a 22-item, 5-point Likert scale which this research is ongoing. Hence, only prelimi- addresses a number of themes, including: nary results are discussed in this paper. 70 The Business of Tourism

• Reasons /motives for visiting the KGM half of the respondents also claimed that • Perceived role / significance of the KGM one of the main reasons for visiting Rwanda, • Understanding / knowledge of the geno- including a number of those on business cide trips, was to enhance their knowledge and • Experiences of / responses to the KGM understanding of the genocide. Whilst no itself firm conclusions can be drawn from this given the relatively small sample, it suggests • Outcomes of the visit not only that, far from being an ‘add on’, a The questionnaire also included a num- visit to the KGM has become a fundamen- ber of descriptive / categorisation questions tal element or primary attraction of a visit to as well as an open ended question offering Rwanda, but also that the genocide is a defin- respondents the opportunity to expand on ing characteristic of contemporary Rwanda. their feelings / emotions having visited the Conversely, just eight respondents indicated Memorial. that they planned to visit the more ‘tradi- tional’ attractions of Rwanda, specifically the country’s national parks and the moun- Research outcomes tain gorillas. Again, no firm conclusions can be drawn from this – indeed, it is likely that Of the thirty respondents completing in a larger sample with a higher proportion the questionnaire in this initial phase of the of western leisure visitors, different results research, all of whom were international would emerge. Nevertheless, from this study visitors (ten were from the region, ten from it would appear not only do visitors travel to north America, five from Europe and four Rwanda with the intent to experience at least from India), twelve were travelling for busi- one of the country’s genocide memorial sites ness purposes, four were visiting friends and (typically the KGM), but also that doing so relatives and fourteen were on holiday; it has become fundamental or essential to ex- was the first time in Rwanda for eleven re- periencing and engaging with contemporary spondents, including all those on holiday, Rwanda. Indeed, as now discussed, the re- whilst the remainder had previously visited sults from the attitudinal survey of tourists’ between two and four times, including those experiences of and responses to the KGM travelling for business purposes. Two thirds reveal positive motives and outcomes that of respondents, including both business and challenge pejorative assumptions with re- leisure travellers, were on extended visits to spect to the consumption of dark / genocide East Africa and were planning to visit, or had tourism consumption. visited, other countries in the region, includ- As indicated above, the principal means ing Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya and Burundi, of exploring visitors’ perceptions and experi- whilst the remaining ten were visiting only ences of the KGM was a 22-item Likert scale Rwanda on this trip. This was the first visit based on five key themes. For convenience, to the KGM for nineteen respondents whilst the research outcomes are considered under the remaining eleven had previously visited each of these headings. the Memorial on at least one occasion. In response to specific questions regard- i. Reasons /motives for visiting the KGM ing intentions to visit other sites, sixteen respondents expressed the desire to also visit The purpose of this theme was to iden- other genocide memorials (though the re- tify the extent to which tourists are positive- maining fourteen did not wish to do so), re- ly motivated to visit the KGM as opposed flecting the unexpected finding that almost to visiting it incidentally, ‘just because it is No 13, June 2014 71 there’. As can be seen from Table 1 below, 24 decided to visit the KGN just because it was respondents (80%) agreed / strongly agreed there – or ‘famous for being famous’ (Urry, that they had decided prior to their trip to 2002). However, in response to the state- Rwanda that they would visit the KGM, in- ment I wanted to visit Kigali Genocide Me- dicating both knowledge of the Memorial’s morial to learn about the 1994 genocide, the existence and a positive desire to do. The results are unequivocal with all respondents remaining six disagreed, suggesting either agreeing or strongly agreeing. When asked a more spontaneous decision to visit having if they visited the KGM because of fascina- arrived in Rwanda (reflecting Lennon and tion in the genocide (a statement implying Foley’s (2000) claim that most visits to dark a more ghoulish / voyeuristic motive), fewer tourism sites are likely to be serendipitous) than half of respondents disagreed and ten or, perhaps, simply because it is included in a confirmed that they were ‘fascinated’, though city tour. Indeed, eight respondents indicat- these results may reflect a less nuanced un- ed that they visited the KGM ‘just because it derstanding of the word. Despite some in- is here’, contradicting to an extent the previ- consistencies within these results, however, ous finding, though twenty (66%) disagreed this theme reveals overall a positive picture / strongly disagreed with this statement. of tourists proactively deciding to visit the Nevertheless, some ambivalence is in evi- KGM primarily for learning about the geno- dence, suggesting that some had previously cide.

Table 1: Reasons / motives for visiting the KGM (n=30)

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree agree nor agree disagree Before coming to Rwanda, I had decided that I would visit the Kigali 6 8 16 Genocide Memorial I visited Kigali Genocide Memorial 12 8 2 8 Centre just because it is here I wanted to visit Kigali Genocide Memorial to learn about the 1994 10 20 genocide I wanted to visit the Kigali Genocide Memorial as the Genocide fascinates 14 6 4 6 me 72 The Business of Tourism ii. Perceived role / significance of the KGM modern history, a statement strongly agreed with by almost two thirds of respondents. In this theme, the statements sought to Similarly, most agreed that the Memorial identify the importance or significance of plays an important role in promoting peace the KGM as perceived by tourists, pointing and reconciliation, though some ambiva- perhaps to their own reasons for visiting (see lence is in evidence. Nevertheless, attitudes Table 2). The results are unsurprising and about the contemporary significance of the clear; not only did all respondents agree / KGM are clearly evident; the genocide de- strongly agree that all tourists should visit the fines contemporary Rwanda and, hence, Kigali Genocide Memorial whilst in Rwanda, tourists should visit it to understand con- but that they should do so because the geno- temporary Rwanda. cide is considered to be part of Rwanda’s

Table 2: Perceived role / significance of the KGM

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree agree nor agree disagree I think all tourists should visit the Kigali Genocide Memorial whilst 14 16 in Rwanda It’s important to visit Kigali Geno- cide Memorial as the Genocide is 11 19 part of Rwanda’s modern history The Kigali Genocide Memorial plays an important role in promo- 4 10 16 ting peace and reconciliation in Rwanda

iii. Understanding / knowledge of the genocide agreed that, prior to travelling to the country, they had little or no understanding of In the initial (travel blog) research, a how or why the genocide occurred; moreo- number of the narratives expressed difficulty ver, even though the official narrative of in understanding how or why the genocide events attempts to explain it based upon the could have happened, particularly how such ‘genocidal ideology’ thesis, this only points violence and cruelty could occur on such a to the deliberate campaign of ‘ethnic cleans- scale. It is, perhaps, too much to expect any- ing’. For all respondents, the human scale of one to ‘understand’ genocide, beyond the the genocide and all that implies remains political or social forces described briefly too large to understand. In this respect, per- earlier in this paper. Nevertheless, the state- haps, the KGM does not provide the answers ments this theme sought to address the is- that visitors seek; all respondents agreed that sue of understanding, generating results that they wanted to or, indeed, needed to find out were undoubtedly predictable. Specifically, more about how and why the genocide oc- all but three respondents agreed / strongly curred. At the same time, however, the ma- No 13, June 2014 73 jority of respondents also felt that they were Tourists are drawn there for a variety of rea- intruding on the tragedy of the genocide. In sons and, indeed, the KGM seeks to convey other words, the Rwandan genocide was a the message of the genocide to as wide an Rwandan tragedy for which outsiders have audience as possible yet, once they have ex- no right of understanding or explanation, perienced the memorial, tourists feel that pointing to an inherent contradiction with they have intruded, that perhaps they should respect to the KGM as a tourist attraction. not have been there.

Table 3: Understanding / knowledge of the genocide

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree agree nor agree disagree Before coming to Rwanda, I didn’t really understand how 3 11 16 or why the genocide happened The scale of the genocide is too 12 18 big to understand Having visited the Kigali Ge- nocide Memorial, I want / 13 17 need to understand more about it. I feel I am intruding on the tra- 4 4 10 12 gedy of the genocide iv. Experiences of / responses to the KGM itself agreed / agreed strongly that the story of the genocide at the Memorial is too graphic As noted earlier, a limitation of the initial / too shocking for tourists, though just six re- study was that it focused primarily on tour- spondents strongly agreed; twelve disagreed ists’ reactions to the often horrific and chal- or were ambivalent, perhaps because the lenging way in which some genocide sites are very purpose of the KGM is to raise aware- presented as memorials, particularly where ness of the horror of the genocide. Neverthe- large quantities of human remains are on less, all respondents agreed / agreed strongly display. Hence, the KGM was selected as an that My visit to the Kigali Memorial centre appropriate location for this research given has shocked me; assuming that it is the story, its more ‘benign’ and, from a moral/ethical rather than the manner in which it present- perspective, acceptable methods of repre- ed, that is found to be shocking, this differs sentation and interpretation. Thus, the pur- from the earlier study in which it was the pose of this theme was to reveal how tourists displays of bones / human remains that were responded to the KGM as a memorial. Most so distressing for visitors. surprisingly, perhaps, eighteen respondents 74 The Business of Tourism

Table 4: Experiences of / responses to the KGM itself

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree agree nor agree disagree I was nervous about visiting the Kigali Genocide Memorial 4 2 16 8 because of what I might see The Kigali Genocide Memorial powerfully conveys the horror 8 22 of the genocide My visit to the Kigali Memori- 12 18 al centre has shocked me Having visited the Kigali Gen- ocide Memorial, I feel guilty 2 4 4 20 that the West allowed the genocide to happen It is the individual stories of children that most convey the 3 3 10 14 horror of the genocide The story of the genocide at the Memorial is too graphic / too 8 4 12 6 shocking for tourists

The great majority (twenty-two respond- begun to understand the horror of the geno- ents) strongly agreed that the KGM conveys cide, particularly when conveyed through the horror of the genocide powerfully and graphic descriptions of the violence against effectively whilst, confirming the results of young children. For some, it was too shock- the earlier study, it was the individual stories ing, as revealed in responses to the open of children that most convey the horror of the ended question. For example, one respond- genocide for twenty-four respondents. How- ent, encapsulating the views of a number of ever, three disagreed or were ambivalent others, wrote: about this statement. Similarly, the agree- Too shocked. I would not have be- ment of twenty-four respondents to the lieved that human beings can be this statement Having visited the Kigali Genocide brutal to their own brothers and sis- Memorial, I feel guilty that the West allowed ters. Can anyone do this/ Are we hu- the genocide to happen also reflected the man? Even animals will not behave some of the narratives analysed in the earlier this way. I would like to know how study. Thus, overall visitors were evidently the killers think about what they did justified in their majority agreement that twenty years ago… they felt nervous about what they might encounter at the KGM; they found the story to be shocking but, at the same time, they had No 13, June 2014 75

At the same time, many respondents rec- v. Outcomes of the visit ognised the message that is conveyed by the The final theme in the questionnaire horrific story of the genocide: focused on the attitudes of tourists with re- It is hard to see all these stories and gards to their visit to the KGM overall; spe- bad things, but it… sometimes helps us cifically, it sought to identify whether it had to understand how we are responsible been a positive or negative experience. The for everything that happens around results suggest that the KGM is achieving its us. And: objectives inasmuch as the great majority of [We] should hope that more people respondents (twenty-seven) agree / strongly from other countries can visit this site. agree that their visit had made the horror They would learn a lesson to avoid a of the Genocide more real to me; that is, al- repeat of such in future. though all visitors would have been aware In other words, a number of respondents of the genocide and, perhaps, even remem- responded to their visit to the KGM by feel- bered witnessing it at the time through im- ing a sense of guilt at the inaction of the rest ages on television or in newspaper reports, of the world to prevent the genocide: visiting the KGM had rendered the genocide I was saddened by the fact that the more ‘real’ to them. It was no longer some- UN, the western countries did nothing thing viewed from a distance through a TV to prevent or stop this awful event. I screen. am shocked that some countries actu- ally contributed to this horror.

Table 5: Outcomes of the visit

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree agree nor agree disagree My visit to the Genocide Me- morial Centre has helped me 11 19 to understand what Rwanda is today My visit to the Kigali Genocide Memorial has made the hor- 3 7 20 ror of the Genocide more real to me I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to visit the Ki- 1 10 19 gali Genocide Memorial Visiting the Kigali Genocide Memorial has been a positive 1 3 3 9 14 experience Following my visit, my main feeling is one of hope for the 3 27 future of Rwanda 76 The Business of Tourism

Moreover, all respondents indicated that its with positive, meaningful intent (albeit their experience of the KGM helped them to with trepidation) and that, almost without understand contemporary Rwanda, how the exception, find it a challenging, powerfully genocide had shaped the country as it is to- emotional yet, ultimately, rewarding experi- day, whilst with one exception, all respond- ence in that they begin to grasp the horror ents were also pleased that they had had the and suffering of the genocide and, indeed, opportunity to visit the memorial. Never- leave with the desire to learn more about it. theless, some were uncertain whether their Specifically, whilst the initial study revealed experience of the KGM had been a positive some confusion on the part of tourists, their one; four disagreed that it had been positive focus on or contemplation of the genocide whilst one neither agreed nor disagreed. The being blurred by the graphic display of hu- reason for this is unclear, though it is likely man remains and belongings at some sites, that the knowledge they had gained of the the follow up survey, though limited in genocide had left them with negative feel- terms of numbers of respondents, revealed ings. A minority of respondents (three) also clear outcomes: premeditated desires to did not feel hopeful for the future of Rwan- visit the KGM founded on a need to learn da, perhaps reflecting the view that tensions about the genocide; a belief that all tourists between social groups in Rwanda remained, in Rwanda should visit the KGM, suggest- albeit hidden by an apparent national unity. ing it is the most important experience to be Conversely, he remaining twenty-seven re- had in the country; a sense of horror about spondents all strongly agreed that, follow- the genocide combined with guilt that the ing their visit to the KGM, their main feel- world stood by and watched; the belief that ing was one of hope for the future of Rwanda. the genocide was too big to understand; and, They thus confirmed the same sense of hope that visiting the KGM left them with a sense for the county as reported in the narrative of hope, that Rwanda had not only survived analysed in the initial research. but will continue to survive and move on. Thus, it is evident that the KGM, as a ‘dark’ tourism site, mediates between the events it Conclusion represents and commemorates and this who visit, whether Rwandans or international As noted in the introduction, this paper tourists. As such, as reinforces the conclu- set out to enhance knowledge and under- sion, stated elsewhere, that dark tourism standing of how tourists experience geno- is as much about life and the living as it is cide sites in Rwanda and, in particular, to about death (Sharpley & Stone 2009). identify the extent to which they engage at an emotional level with sites that represent, interpret and commemorate violent References death on a mass scale. In so doing, it sought to challenge the (unsubstantiated) claim AEO (2014) Rwanda. African Economic Out- by some that tourists, as outsiders, cannot look. Available at: http://www.africaneco- begin to understand such events or take nomicoutlook.org/en/countries/east-af- positive meaning from visiting genocide rica/rwanda/ (Accessed 10 January 2014) memorial sites and, therefore cannot be Alluri, R. (2009) The Role of Tourism in Post- considered to be anything but voyeurs. The Conflict Peacebuilding in Rwanda. Working evidence from both studies reported here Paper. Bern, Switzerland: Swisspeace. demonstrates unequivocally that this is not Auschwitz-Birkenau (2014) Auschwitz Memo- the case, that tourists undertake their vis- rial in 2012: Undiminished Interest of the No 13, June 2014 77

World. Available at: http://en.auschwitz. Grosspietsch, M. (2006) Perceived and project- org/m/index.php?option=com_content& ed images of Rwanda: Visitor and interna- task=view&id=1073&Itemid=8 (Accessed tional tour operator perspectives. Tourism 20 January 2014) Management 27(2), 225-234. Beech, J. (2009) Genocide tourism. In R. Shar- Hohenhaus, P. (2013) Commemorating and pley & P. Stone (Eds.), The Darker Side of commodifying the Rwandan genocide: Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Memorial sites in a politically difficult con- Tourism. Bristol: Channel View Publica- text. In E. Frew & L. White (Eds.), Dark tions, 207-223. Tourism and Place Identity. Abingdon: Bowman, M. & Pezzullo, P. (2009) What’s so Routledge, 142-155. ‘dark’ about ‘dark tourism’?: Death, tours, Howarth, G. (2007) Death and Dying: A So- and performance. Tourist Studies 9(3), ciological Introduction. Cambridge: Polity 187–202. Press. Biran, A. & Hyde, K. (2013) New perspectives Hughes, R. (2008) Dutiful tourism: Encoun- on dark tourism. International Journal of tering the Cambodian genocide. Asia Pa- Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research cific Viewpoint 49(3), 318-330. 7(3), 191-198. Johnston, T. (2011) Thanatourism and com- Buda, D. & McIntosh, A. (2013) Dark tourism modification of space in post-war Croatia and voyeurism: tourist arrested for ‘spying’ and Bosnia. In R. Sharpley and P. Stone in Iran. International Journal of Culture, (eds) Tourist Experience: Contemporary Tourism and Hospitality Research 7(3), Perspectives. London: Routledge, 43-55. 214-226. KGM (2004) Jenoside: Kigali Memorial Centre. Cohen, E. (2011). Educational dark tourism Kigali Genocide Memorial / Aegis Trust. at an populo site: The holocaust museum Lennon, J & Foley, M. (2000) Dark Tourism: in Jerusalem. Annals of Tourism Research, the attraction of death and disaster. Lon- 38(1), 193–209. don: Continuum. Cole, T. (1999) Selling the Holocaust. From Lisle, D. (2004) Gazing at Ground Zero: tour- Auschwitz to Schindler: How history is ism, voyeurism and spectacle. Journal for Bought, Packaged and Sold. New York: Cultural Research 8(1), 3-21. Routledge. Lisle, D. (2007) Defending voyeurism: dark Cook, S. (2006). Genocide in Cambodia and tourism and the problem of global security. Rwanda: New Perspectives. New Bruns- In P. Burns & M. Novelli (Eds.), Tourism wick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. and Politics: Global Frameworks and Local de la Croix Tabaro, J. (2012) Rwanda: Genocide Realities. Oxford: Elsevier, 336-346. memorials proposed as world heritage. Melvern, L. (2009) A People Betrayed: The role http://focus.rw/wp/2012/07/genocide-me- of the West in Rwanda’s Genocide. London: morials-proposed-as-world-heritage (Ac- Zed Books. cessed 22 January 2014) Prunier, G. (2008) The Rwandan Crisis: His- Foley, M. & Lennon, J. (1996) JFK and dark tory of a Genocide (2nd Edn). London: C. tourism: A fascination with assassination. Hurst & Co. International Journal of Heritage Studies Raine, R. (2013) A dark tourist spectrum. . In- 2(4), 198-211. ternational Journal of Culture, Tourism and Friedrich, M. & Johnston , T. (2013) Beauty ver- Hospitality Research 7(3), 242-256. sus tragedy: thanatourism and the memo- RDB (2014a) Highlights of tourist arrivals in rialisation of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. Rwanda: 2010. Rwanda Development Board. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change. http://www.rdb.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/ DOI: 10.1080/14766825.2013.852565. Documents/tourism%20conservation/Ar- 78 The Business of Tourism

rival_Statistics_2010_Jan-Dec.pdf (accessed nal of International Women’s Studies 9(3), 10 January 2014) 320-330. RDB (2014b) Welcome to Rwanda. Rwanda Stone, P. (2006) A dark tourism spectrum; Development Board. http://www.rwanda- towards a typology of death and macabre tourism.com/ (accessed 10 January 2014). related tourist sites, attractions and exhibi- Rojek, C. (1993) Ways of Escape. Basingstoke: tions. Tourism: An Interdisciplinary Journal Macmillan. 54(2), 145-160. Schaller, D. (2007) From the editors: genocide Stone, P. (2013) Dark tourism scholarship: tourism: educational value or voyeurism? a critical review. International Journal of Journal of Genocide Research 9(4), 513-515. Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research Sharpley, R. (2009a) Dark tourism and political 7(3), 307-318. ideology: towards a governance model. In Stone, P. & Sharpley, R. (2008) Consuming R. Sharpley & P. Stone (Eds.), The Darker dark tourism: a thanatological perspective. Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Annals of Tourism Research 35(2), 574- Dark Tourism. Bristol: Channel View Pub- 595. lications, 145-163. Tunbridge, J. and Ashworth, G. (1996) Disso- Sharpley, R. (2009b) Shedding light on dark nant Heritage: Managing the Past as a Re- tourism. In R. Sharpley and P. Stone (Eds.), source in Conflict. Chichester: John Wiley The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and & Sons. Practice of Dark Tourism. Bristol: Channel Uzzell, D. (1989) The hot interpretation of war View Publications, 3-22. and conflict. In D. Uzell (ed) Heritage In- Sharpley, R. (2012) Towards an understand- terpretation, Vol. I. The Natural and Built ing ‘genocide tourism’: an analysis of visi- Environment. London: Bellhaven Press, tors’ accounts of their experience of recent 33-47. genocide sites. In R. Sharpley & P. Stone Walter, T. (2009) Dark tourism: Mediating be- (Eds.), The Contemporary Tourist Experi- tween the dead and the living. In R. Shar- ence: Concepts & Consequences. Abingdon: pley & P.Stone (Eds.), The Darker Side of Routledge, 95-109. Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Sharpley, R. & Stone, P. (2009) Life, death and Tourism. Bristol: Channel View Publica- dark tourism: future research directions tions, 39-55. and concluding comments. In In R. Shar- Williams, P. (2004) Witnessing genocide: vigi- pley and P. Stone (Eds.), The Darker Side lance and remembrance at Tuol Sleng and of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Choeng Ek. Holocaust and Genocide Stud- Tourism. Bristol: Channel View Publica- ies 18(2), 234-255. tions, 247-251. Williams, P. (2007) Memorial Museums: The Simic, O. (2008) A tour to the site of geno- Global Rush to Commemorate Atrocities. cide: Mothers, bones and borders. Jour- Oxford: Berg.