RSS
Home
Survey: what makes it right?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
Shawn Baldwin for The New York Times
This morning when I saw this article this about a golf course in the shadow of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, my first reaction was sadness mingled with seething anger. I come from the old-fashioned camp, or, for that matter, the new-fashioned camp: whichever camp it is that advocates allowing the wonders that we have to stay wonders, sans newfangled tourist traps or resorts meant to draw modernity.
To me, the Great Pyramid of Egypt should be the Great Pyramid of Egypt, just as Machu Picchu should not be tainted by a "Sanctuary Lodge" just because some rich people think they have to stay near the citadel instead of just seeing it.To me, modernity is great, but not when it compromises authenticity. My travel style is steadafstly anti the defiling of an anciet wonder for the simple cheap thrill of sleeping (of golfing) near it.
However, further on in the article I read that said golf course is in fact 109 years old. Somehow this made it easier for me to understand. Though the pyramid is unfathomably older than the course's young 109 years, the fact that the course and existed for more than a century made it more allowable to me. Was it because it was not in my lifetime that this historic treasure was modernized? Because the golf course itself could be considered historic? Or because, at just arount $15 for a round of golf this attraction is accessible to the common person (or common traveler, at least; the article goes on to say that in Egypt golf is luxury of the elite)? And then again, it just sounds really cool.
And so I'm left wondering: are these things okay? Or is one and not the other? Is this golf course easier to stomach because it is old? If you have thoughts, please share.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
