There are those who believe that tourist should adhere to the culture of the country visited while the alternate stance is that the visited state should accept cultural diversity. This essay will discuss both sides of the contentious argument and I will give my own perspective to be that welcoming region should tolerate the diversity in people's way of life.
The tradition of a host state should be practiced by incomers as this will lead to a peaceful stay without harassment. Foreigners who maintain the practices of host nations are viewed as people who have regards for the native tradition, thus improves their relationship with the dwellers. Also, these tourists will not be viewed as people with deviant behaviour. Therefore, they will not be maltreated. Abiding to the nation's culture will make their stay enjoyable and can be aided by the inhabitants since they will be regarded as responsible individuals. For instance, studies show that 70% of immigrants who act accordingly to the expectations of the visited country always enjoy a trouble free stay. This portrays the saying that when you are in Rome you act like the Romans.
Recipient economy should accommodate differences in the incomers way of life. As this will make them maintain a reputable name. Countries that are perceived as welcoming and non hostile are seen as ideal. Reason being that they acknowledge the individual's own pattern and does not expect them to relegate their culture in the host tradition. This singular act increases the number of immigrants in such regions. Thereby, causing a rise in the number of their workforce and in returns, improves their productivity. For instance, The United Kingdom is viewed as the most accommodating countries since it does not have rigid rules that deprives its visitors the opportunity to practice the believe that they have been used to. This has lead to the influx of a lot of immigrants to their society increasing their production rate.
In conclusion, I believe both view has its merit. However, on balance I believe that it is essential that native land allow foreigners to practice their known lifestyle. This will enhance patronage and increase number of visitors to such nations. It is recommended that people should be allowed to live freely where ever they are than to be restricted with the introduction of the new way of life.
There are those
who
believe
that tourist should adhere to the culture of the
country
visited while the alternate stance is that the visited state should accept cultural diversity. This essay will discuss both sides of the contentious argument and I will give my
own
perspective to be that welcoming region should tolerate the diversity in
people
's way of life.
The tradition of a host state should
be practiced
by incomers as this will lead to a peaceful stay without harassment. Foreigners
who
maintain the practices of host nations
are viewed
as
people
who
have regards for the native tradition,
thus
improves
their relationship with the dwellers.
Also
, these tourists will not
be viewed
as
people
with deviant
behaviour
.
Therefore
, they will not
be maltreated
. Abiding to the nation's culture will
make
their stay enjoyable and can
be aided
by the inhabitants since they will
be regarded
as responsible individuals.
For instance
, studies
show
that 70% of immigrants
who
act
accordingly
to the expectations of the visited
country
always enjoy a trouble free stay. This portrays the saying that when you are in Rome you act like the Romans.
Recipient economy should accommodate differences in the incomers way of life.
As
this will
make
them maintain a reputable name.
Countries
that
are perceived
as welcoming and
non hostile
are
seen
as ideal. Reason being that they acknowledge the individual's
own
pattern and does not
expect
them to relegate their culture in the host tradition. This singular act increases the number of immigrants in such regions. Thereby, causing a rise in the number of their workforce and in returns,
improves
their productivity.
For instance
, The United Kingdom
is viewed
as the most accommodating
countries
since it does not have rigid
rules
that deprives its visitors the opportunity to practice the
believe
that they have been
used
to. This has lead to the influx of
a lot of
immigrants to their society increasing their production rate.
In conclusion
, I
believe
both view has its merit.
However
, on balance I
believe
that it is essential that native land
allow
foreigners to practice their known lifestyle. This will enhance patronage and increase number of visitors to such nations. It
is recommended
that
people
should be
allowed
to
live
freely
where ever they are than to
be restricted
with the introduction of the new way of life.