Some people believe that culture will be ruined if it is used to earn tourism, but others consider that tourism is the only way pf protecting a culture. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

Whilst many think that attracting more

tourism

is the only way through which the

culture

of a nation can be protected, I believe that over-

tourism

would only spoil the local

traditions

and practices of a country if a

culture

is used to lure more

tourists

.

To begin

with, the argument in favour of people who claim that

tourism

acts as a shield to protect the

culture

of a country thinks that, in countries where cultural norms and

traditions

are becoming eroded,

tourism

would rejuvenate and revolutionise those

traditions

.

Also

, money that would be generated from visitors can be utilised to re-invest in various cultural sites and

traditions

for their maintenance.

Moreover

, local communities would feel respect and pride among

tourists

, and

this

would assist cultural exchange and understanding globally.

On the contrary

, I believe that, if

culture

would act as a way to promote

tourism

,

then

it could result in over-

tourism

and

this

would lead to damage to cultural sites. Apart from that, the commercialisation of

culture

could

also

impact the authenticity of

traditions

, and

culture

would only become a mere source of entertainment.

Also

, locals have to maintain their different cultural sites in order to please

tourists

, and

this

could be actually the loss of the true essence of heritage.

Furthermore

,

tourism

can

also

dilute and disturb the lives of local residents as they have to perform practices as per

tourists

. In conclusion,

although

using

culture

can entice

tourists

across the world, and the money generated can be used to maintain tourist places and can

also

revitalize forgotten

traditions

, I still agree that the negative consequences like life degradation of locals and damage to cultural places cannot be ignored.