National Geographic has published its 2019 “Cool List” of recommended destinations for travelers. Ever since NatGeo began producing Alaska State Troopers in lieu of insightful earth documentaries I’ve relegated it to the Fox category. My opinion now is now only massively reenforced.
The Cool List is one of the worst travelers’ lists I’ve ever seen. I’ll critique the African entries.
Number 9 on its list of 19 global picks is Africa’s highest recommendation, Zimbabwe. Number 12 is Eritrea. 13 is Kwa-Zulu Natal and the only other African entry is Uganda coming in at 16.
Kwa-Zulu Natal is cool. The other three are horrid, dangerous, morally despicable and probably physically unsafe.
Many of the citizens of Zimbabwe, Eritrea and Uganda, by the way, are some of the most progressive and courageous on the continent. In the case of Zim and Eritrea, their relentless protests have actually moved their governments in positive directions.
So I’m not discouraging the curious traveler from discovering this herself, if that’s her goal. I’m using NatGeo’s own standards of “cool” used in the Alaskan vernacular as something sweet and unusual … but easily and safely doable.
Anything but.
The reporting on Zimbabwe is voluminous including my own blogs. The country has a tortured history that a few years ago seemed on the brink of finally righting itself. It didn’t. One ruthless dictatorship has been replaced by another. What does that mean for tourists?
First, it means that the tourist facilities were not refurbished and improved as was the hype hardly two years ago: The once so famous Victoria Falls Hotel is a mess. I’m told by friends that nearly a third of its rooms are locked shut for lack of maintenance.
It means that supplies of normal things like food and fuel can be problematic. So there’s a chance if you fly into Victoria Falls that you won’t be able to take a taxi to your hotel because there are days without available petrol.
Not to mention the growing civil demonstrations protesting the lack of change that many Zimbabweans had expected with the new regime.
Eritrea is a bombshell. Literally. The country is littered with IEDs. It’s wonderfully true that the new Ethiopian government ended years of hostilities with this, its arch enemy for generations, and that the peace between the two countries creates enormous promise.
But the country vies with North Korea as the most closed and dangerous society on earth. If you’ve ever flown into Tibet and were politely told not to talk politics, you won’t find politeness in Eritrea. You’ll just be deported or thrown in jail if you utter the wrong word.
There is no tourist infrastructure here. There is very little of anything but a run down isolated society that has been warring for two generations. “Beyond Asmara, Eritrea has intriguing towns and wilderness regions to discover,” NatGeo claims. There are no wilderness regions in little Eritrea. One wonders who wrote this.
And then Uganda. I’m most likely to be criticized for criticizing Uganda. I have good friends who very recently traveled there and considered it one of their finest journeys. Soon I’ll post a blog on why I feel Rwanda is OK and Uganda is not, since the two countries share a similar politics.
The primate experience in Uganda is compelling. It remains the best place on earth to view chimps. Mountain gorillas are also available, but this not the place to do that – Rwanda is. Uganda’s gorilla conservation is corrupt and misdirected. As a sensitive tourist seeking conservation experiences, you need not support this. Rwanda is right next door.
But the greatest danger to travelers is the extremely xenophobic and homophobic public attitudes regularly displayed and legislated by the government. Gay women will manage unmolested, but gay men will not.
Worse, gay men endanger the people who serve them their vacation. Hotel clerks and drivers are required by law to report gay travelers to the police.
So if you’re not LGBT then why not? Because the antiquated homophobic and xenophobic attitudes have infected the rural population to the point of dangerous brainwashing. An important constituency is building in the country of blind, angry, intentionally uneducated followers of the President-for-Life. This constituency prevails in the once better tourists areas. I worry how this will manifest on travelers.
I just can’t imagine who created this for NatGeo. About its only value is the type of reactionary shock that a shoot-out with Alaskan State Troopers conveys. Is that the intention?
Jim, your reaction seems a tad extreme. First, National Geographic Traveller is not to be confused with National Geographic. It’s a travel magazine, published under license from National Geographic Partners.
You ask who wrote this “cool list” – well their names are at the bottom of the list, and the entries you take such exception to were written by the highly regarded Africa travel journalist Emma Gregg, and another, equally esteemed travel writer (and the publisher of Bradt Travel Guides), Adrian Phillips.
I’m not sure why you think Zimbabwe, Uganda and Eritrea are such terrible destinations for travellers in Africa to consider. They can all be terrible places for their citizens – but that sadly applies across much of the continent and doesn’t intrinsically indicate a lack of travel allure.
Zimbabweans may be no better off under their new government, but tourist visitors are still travelling there, and having great safaris, as they did under Mugabe, and hopefully spreading some money around rather than shrinking in the face of scarce stories. Uganda’s foul anti-gay laws seem no more of a threat to gay visitors than similar laws (and recent rhetoric) in Tanzania, and many other countries across the continent for that matter. I’m not aware of the corruption and misdirection of gorilla conservation in Uganda that you refer to – but it sounds like I should be, so please summarise the problem in a response. Rwanda of course is also run by a ruthless, elected dictator and for better or worse, gorilla tourists are increasingly voting with their credit cards and choosing Uganda’s fee of $600 per person per trek rather than Rwanda’s fee of $1500 per person per trek. As for poor, repressed Eritrea, give the people there a break, please. Far from “little”, Eritrea covers 47,000 square miles (bigger than Pennsylvania) and its 5 million people desperately need visitors and income and a chance for their nascent tourist industry to blossom – not your baseless scaremongering.
But as you know well, such lists are published to generate comment and discussion, so… that’s been achieved. (Please do remember to let your readers have your take on gorilla conservation and corruption in Uganda.)
Richard, Thanks for your remarks taken with great respect. But many of your questions are answered in the original post, such as the important distinction between the people of these countries and their tourist services. I went at some length to explain the LGBT problem in Uganda, so I am left with the impression that my answers to your embedded questions are already answered.
Jim – I take exception to your “horrid and dangerous” comment about ZImbabwe (I can’t comment about the other two countries). Once again you create fear and controversy without necessity. I feel terrible for my friends who live in ZImbabwe and are suffering, yet again, under this new administration. But safari tourism in Zim is wonderful. Earlier this year, I was in beautiful Mana Pools and also Hwange at the magical African Bush Camps’ property Somalisa, one my my favorite camps – I’ve been there three years in a row now). Camps and guides and camp staff and management are doing a great job and are welcoming and professional. I never felt in any danger at any time. I wish you wouldn’t try to scare people away; the last thing they need is fewer guests.
Hi Jim,
Thanks for linking to our feature in National Geographic Traveller (UK).
As Richard Trillo quite rightly points out, its main purpose is to generate comment and discussion.
Cool is one of those words that has many meanings and in this case I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood ours. We definitely don’t intend it to mean “sweet and unusual … but easily and safely doable”
We don’t even mean “most stable” or “least corrupt”.
By cool, we mean “newsworthy and interesting as travel destinations”.
Places on our list are typically chosen because they’re going through a process of positive change or are about to host an interesting event.
We deliberately include some places that travellers may never have considered before.
We strongly believe that well-managed tourism in little-known areas has the power to lift communities out of poverty and safeguard wildlife and landscapes.
While I agree with some of your comments about Zimbabwe, Uganda and Eritrea, they mostly miss the purpose of our list.
Zimbabwe
It’s true that Zimbabwe has a lot of catching up to do, facilities-wise and conservation-wise. Nonetheless, it has beautiful parks and camps which provide a far better tourist experience than your comments imply. I’m happy to recommend them.
Eritrea
I’m glad you agree with our main point – which is that Eritrea has entered a new era of peace. That’s what earned it a place on our list. But your point “there are no wilderness regions in little Eritrea” is simply wrong. The Dahlak archipelago, Danakil desert, Semenawai Bahri, canyons of Debub etc are not dominated by cities or agriculture and are therefore quite definitely wilderness.
Uganda
Like Richard, I’d be interested to hear what you mean when you say “Uganda’s gorilla conservation is corrupt and misdirected”. In confidence, if you like.
I agree that Rwanda has taken a strong stand against corruption, but unfortunately its decision to focus on high-spending tourists means its mountain gorilla habitats are out of reach of most of our readers. I will be examining this – and why you might like to visit Rwanda if you can afford it – in a full-length feature for NatGeoTraveller next year.
I agree that xenophobia and homophobia and “brainwashing” are unacceptable under any circumstances but I don’t think boycotting Uganda is a sensible solution. Chances are, this would simply be ignored.
Hi Jim – I won’t comment on the selections of other contributors to the Cool List article, but where Zimbabwe is concerned I think you’ve overlooked the caveats in my piece. That might be because you’ve seen the abridged, online version rather than the printed article itself. In the latter, I state clearly that fuel shortages and empty ATMs make independent travel difficult, and that I’m instead recommending a visit organised through a tour operator. Established operators are well used to such problems, and it’s scaremongering to suggest a tourist would have an issue as soon as they landed at the airport. It’s also plain wrong to suggest that the country is ‘dangerous…and physically unsafe’ for travellers – the safety of tourists hasn’t come into question. Would you also argue that people should avoid travel to France because of the threat to safety represented by the recent civil demonstrations in Paris?
It seems to me that your judgement of the politics and ethics of a country’s leadership is causing you to overstate the practical risks to a traveller. The question of whether tourists should politicise their travel choices is a valid one, with strong arguments on both sides, but that wasn’t the focus of this particular piece.
On a different note, I’d echo Richard’s request for details of your claim about corruption attached to Uganda’s gorilla conservation efforts. I don’t think your original post answers that query. I’m the MD of Bradt, and we do of course have a longstanding guide to Uganda, so I’d very much like to feed back any evidence of this to the author. Can you elaborate?