Taking a trip to the dark side of history's harrowing haunts

Even the murders.

Especially the murders.

Ammunition was expensive and in short supply during Pol Pot's genocidal regime in the late 1970s, so the people killed here by the Khmer Rouge were normally hacked to death with tools like spades, machetes, or even the spiked plants that grew nearby. To the murderers, their victims were not even worth the price of a bullet.

These days, it's still rather rudimentary at the Choeung Ek Killing Fields, with little infrastructure other than the modern memorial building holding the bones of thousands of victims. Most of the site consists of pits from which bodies have been exhumed, still with tatters of clothing visible amongst the soil. And around them stand the tourists, often listening to the interesting but distressing audio guide included with the entry fee.

Those who visit these shadows of horrors tend to be silent - not just because of the signs requesting respect, but because it's a place where the natural instinct is to reflect, rather than project. However, the night before my visit, it was disconcerting to overhear other travellers discussing their plans to visit as though it was a trip to the beach, drinking beers while suggesting they'll "do the Killing Fields then grab lunch at that cute cafe".

History has always attracted travellers, but history can often be harrowing. When the awesome and the awful intersect, it raises the question of whether it really is appropriate to visit. The concept of "dark tourism" has become more prevalent in recent years, but does it need some kind of ethical regulation?

The main argument for allowing visitation of these controversial sites is education, and one of the most prominent examples of this is at the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland. Advocates believe the museum will help the world remember the atrocities that took place here so they never happen again. Much like the Killing Fields in Cambodia, often tourists arrive with a general understanding of the historical events but leave with a much more detailed and emotional insight. Even though it's been quite a few years now, I can still clearly remember some of the most basic features being some of the most poignant.

Around the world, there is probably a justification for the educational benefits at many of these contentious landmarks. But raising awareness also relies on the intention of the visitor. If they come wanting to learn, it will achieve its goal. What about if they're coming for some kind of ghoulish curiosity? That was likely the motivation for many of the 100,000 tourists who visited Chernobyl each year before Russia's invasion of Ukraine closed the area, especially considering a tour came with a potential health risk from the radiation!

Beyond the most obvious examples, there's a large range of locations that might be considered dark tourism, from an ancient site like the Roman city of Pompeii, to the 18th-century catacombs of Paris holding the remains of millions of people, or the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository from which JFK was assassinated.

And there's a large range of reasons why people might visit. Perhaps to learn, to feel connected to the stories of history, for remembrance, or, yes, perhaps just simply for voyeurism.

It does seem as though the motivation is somewhat related to the age of the site - it's called education at the once blood-soaked Colosseum in Rome, it's deemed a memorial at the Genbaku Dome in Hiroshima where the atomic bomb exploded, but it is considered crass to drive through the neighbourhoods of New Orleans affected by Hurricane Katrina (there are still tours that do that, by the way).

Looking at all these examples, I think the term "dark tourism" is perhaps a misnomer because there's a whole spectrum of shades, from the convict-era Hyde Park Barracks in Sydney (yes, they could count) right up to organised trips into Ukraine's warzone (unfortunately, it's a thing). Each destination is unique, presenting its own tableau of tragedy or trauma. The constant through all of them is you, the tourist.

MORE GREAT READS:

So, the issue here is perhaps not whether you should go to these places, but why and how. If it's to learn, understand, or memorialise, then it's likely your visit is a small step towards making the world a better place. If it's for a thrill or a gory titillation, then it may be worth questioning your motivation and thinking about how the people affected by the site's events would react.

More importantly, though, is how you behave when you visit these locations. I've been to quite a few that have signs requesting silence and respect - yet you would be astonished at the number of tourists I've seen taking selfies in front of graves or sitting on a memorial for a rest. Although most people act appropriately, there often seems to be one group chatting loudly or making no effort to hide their boredom.

Thankfully, most people who visit these sites are interested in discovering more about the world and its history and come to see things for themselves. Even those travellers in Phnom Penh flippantly making plans to visit the Killing Fields were struck by the gravity of what they saw. As much as I remember the discomfort of overhearing their conversation, I also remember how moved they were the next day when we were all there together. This is the power of travel - and dark tourism - when it's used for good.