"I won't go there" - political reasons
 

Anyone here decide that there are places, not necessarily dangerous ones, that you won't visit for political reasons? For example - human rights violations (China), etc.

Do you ever think take this into consideration when planning a vacation - or does it not much matter? Have you been to a place like this and then reconsidered your choice once you experienced it. Conversely, you were not troubled by anything you saw/experienced there?

No

No

No

Even in France!

Doesn't bother me none, but I know a numer of folks here in our small town in rural GA who won't go to France.

Course, they all watch Fox News and vote Republican.

((I))

Here's the answer you expect :-) Yes, I'm still willing to visit the US.

I would never rule out going anywhere for political reasons. In fact, quite the opposite - I'd jump at the chance to go anyplace that might open my eyes to different ways of thinking and behaving.

Seeing how crowded Paris was in late March/early April, I don't think your neocon contingent accomplished much of anything. They should stay home, I don't think I'd like to be anywhere near 'em!

I fully agree with Logos answer.

>I'd jump at the chance to go anyplace that might open my eyes to different ways of thinking and behaving.<

So when are you going to Darfur?

((I))

If I had the opportunity to go to Darfur, I'd do it. Not as a tourist, of course...not much of a sightseeing venue.

If I thought the money I was spending in a particular place was contributing to human rights violations, etc., etc., it would give me pause.

Whether or not it is actually the case is sometimes hard to know since sometimes those kinds of activities go on in "unexpected" places.

If I had the opportunity to visit Cuba I would probably do it, despite the longstanding opposition to the government there.

Several of my neighbors that have never been more than 100 miles from home in their entire forty or fifty years of existence swear they will never go to France.

Mexico

Absolutely there are places I won't go because the countries in question (like TURKEY, and INDONESIA) have terrorist groups that carry out terrorist acts specifically targeting tourists. In the case of Turkey, throwing bombs in cafes in the heart of Sultanahmet, and placing bombs underneath the carriage of a tourist van in Kusadasi, killing a young Irish girl, is enough, along with their repeated declarations to target tourists, to keep me away until the situation there stabilizes. The same for Indonesia and Bali-a place that is magical, that I have great memories about-but until they get a handle on the very dangerous al-Qaeda faction operating in that part of the world, I won't be one to visit and take my chances of being blown to smithereens.

But now, many people won't go to Burma because of its "repressive" policies-I'm not one of those-I liked Burma (Myanmar) they are friendlier, and speak better English there (being a former English colony) than they do in Thailand. And let me hasten to add, English speaking is not a requirement of mine, given that I can manage a number of languages to a greater or lesser degree, however, I found Burma quite interesting-two historical enemies that share a border-one part of a colonialist empire, and the other never-colonized-Thailand).

The situation with Aung Suu Kyi, in my opinion, is rather exaggerated-the Burmese immigration authorities couldn't have cared less when I walked over the border a couple of years back; didn't even ask to see my passport, no one acted in any way other than friendly-it's a lovely country, and I recommend a visit.

Good one Ira! (smile)

I hesitated about going to Zimbabwe in 2005 (we were only there for a daytrip from Namibia) due to the political situation. This was before the bulldozers started tearing down people's houses mind you.
In the end I was glad I went as it was a real eye opener.

Isn't this what they call a troll?

Texas, for sure.

Aside from that, I try to keep my capacity for disapproval low.

Like several others here, there are places where I think safety, rather than politics, discourages planning a vacation, though not necessarily a visit for other purposes.

Lately too I've been thinking that there are places so dismal that it is simply inappropriate to visit as mere tourists. There was an article recently about a cruise ship stop in Haiti (they call it Hispaniola so as not to frighten the tourists), illustrated with a photo showing fat white people bobbing in the water on air mattresses, sipping gaudily festooned drinks It made a very negative impression on me. There are reasons to visit Haiti -- art, politics, following in the footsteps of Graham Greene and Malcolm Lowry, Voodoo rites -- but I think it would require some sort of charitable offset to make me feel comfortable. I don't think I'd ever feel comfortable bobbing around in the water pretending I was in a tropical paradise.

Back in the day, I didn't go to South Africa. I now think I was wrong. But I was sooooooo sure then...

I would never travel to North Korea, Burma, or Zimbabwe. But I'm not very likely to, even if the political situation changed 100%. I'll admit to second thoughts about South Dakota, though!

Pausanias,

I actually made a cruise ship stop in Haiti back in 1981..the place was, as I expected, poverty-stricken and parts of Port-au-Prince were very reminiscent of Saigon.

I didn't run into any fat white people sipping drinks from air mattresses in pools and I sure wich I had bough some of the local artworks.

I'll never regret that short visit although it didn;t so much change my expectations as it did reinforce them.