Battle of Britain Bunker: Uxbridge

This post has been reviewed and approved.

Can you tell us what "dark tourism" is? That is a new term for me. Thanks.

It was a new term to me too, but here is what Wikipedia says:
"Dark tourism (also thanatourism, black tourism, morbid tourism, or grief tourism) has been defined as tourism involving travel to places historically associated with death and tragedy. .. . Academic attention to the subject originated in Glasgow, Scotland: The term 'dark tourism' was coined in 1996 by Lennon and Foley, two faculty members of the Department of Hospitality, Tourism & Leisure Management at Glasgow Caledonian University and the term 'thanatourism' was first mentioned by A. V. Seaton in 1996, then Professor of Tourism Marketing at the University of Strathclyde."
So it's some kind of odd British academic thing, and using that term for the Battle of Britain bunker is weird, and frankly, I find it rather offensive. To put it another way, if that is "dark tourism", then so too are many, many other sites in the UK or everywhere else for that matter, because British history, in common with other countries, is one war, conquest, rebellion, exploitation etc. after another for centuries. All the castles, the Tower of London, most of the palaces, the museums filled with plundered objects and/or military items, and so on.

wow, if that is the slant this is taking I don't really accept it. And my family lived through both world wars, even being bombed out three times in a provincial town. I certainly don't recognise visiting and understanding our history as "dark".

I too find it very odd and a bit remarkable to see this site described as dark tourism.
Looking at the definition given above this feels like a fundamental mismatch of terminology.
I'm actually looking at the IWM records of the three (?) memorials on site, or the three I can immediately trace late at night. None are remotely dark in any meaning of the word, they are commemorations, even possibly celebrations of extreme heroism and sacrifice.
I'm not sure how visiting the bunker is different to visiting any of the other 74 war memorials in Uxbridge.
I haven't been to the bunker, but if I did would not in the slightest see it as tourism.
I work on recording war memorials 365 days a year (even Christmas Day), I don't remotely see it as dark. If I went to the WW1 trenches in France/Belgium that would neither be dark nor tourism to me- only tourism in the technical concept that I am a visitor to those countries.

I agree, having been to the Battle of Britain bunker and much appreciated it. Samantha’s post is a bit of juvenile nonsense, whether “approved” by Rick or not (which I think just means they don’t think it is for commercial purposes).

And I didn’t mean to offend any of our British friends — just meant to say that any country’s history, including our own in the the US, is “dark”, and that that is a silly way to look at it in terms of what to visit.

And I didn’t mean to offend any of our British friends

Apart from Samantha, obviously :)

It just looks like a regular survey to me. The OP could have put "dark tourism" in quotations and explained what they mean. It's not a particularly common term (unless it is amongst those studying travel and tourism) and a little explanation would have gone a long way. Roughly what they meant was pretty obvious to me by the context. Maybe you're just old as dirt (no offense!) :P

As far as war tourism being "dark" it's easy for me to see that. I'm not big on celebrating war in any way, and I definitely have a threshold where I feel comfortable with remembering war. Of course it's important to remember so we don't repeat, (though that rarely seems to work) but I don't want to normalise war through museums.

I've never been to The Battle of Britain Bunker, but it may well slip under the threshold of where I'd be comfortable visiting. There's several places I can think of off the top of my head that are too dark in terms of their WWI or WWII history that I'd have no desire to visit. War is dark by its nature.

Anyway, yes just a philosophical thought from my outlook.

"Dark Tourist" by David Farrier was a documentary show on Netflix in 2018 that explored locations with uncomfortable or melancholy histories that attract tourists. Battlefields and Cemeteries are common "Dark Tourist" locations. As an amateur genealogist I visit graveyards and cemeteries that often make me shed a tear.

I’m much too young to remember WW II, but old enough to have known some who fought in it. I revere the British people who held the line against Naziism, and our people who, later, gave their lives to liberate Europe. So yes, having someone speak of their memorials and historic sites as “dark tourism” does anger me.

I'm too young to remember WWII too, but my dad served in The Royal Navy. He decided fighting wars was largely a load of rubbish after he'd been involved in it and I think I picked up some of his ideas.

It's a tricky one. I like war history and know a reasonable amount about the details of WWII, but sometimes that leaves me conflicted with pacifist ideals.

One the other hand, being up close to big shiny aeroplanes excites me and may attract me to visit The Battle of Britain Bunker. I deal with some paradoxes when it comes to my attitude to visiting places because of war.

Slate, you are right that any country has an often difficult war history.

One of my *tasks", I'm really not sure of the word, in WA will be visiting the Japanese Internment memorial on Bainbridge Island. I certainly won't be a tourist that day, and my motives can best be summarised as solemn remembrance of how certain American citizens were treated , "lest we forget" . I expect it will be a complex and difficult visit, but not "dark". I kind of have a "duty" to go there.

If I went to Samantha's university exploring its WW1 history, which is part of the complex story of how returning WW1 heroes were treated, that would be interesting, but is neither dark nor you in my eyes.

I'm not sure it is academic, but I'm fascinated by how the Cabinet war rooms in London seems to be a "must do" but HMS Belfast is competitively rarely visited.

I think people here are getting a little too caught up on the term "dark" and perhaps becoming a bit overly judgemental of a university student who is just trying to do some basic research for her dissertation. Some sites you visit and happily take in all the history (say, Westminster Abbey). Some you may visit just for fun, like those "illusion museums" that seem to be popping up in every major city. Some you visit solemnly to respect and remember (somewhere like Auschwitz or Anne Frank's house being very obvious examples). Hopefully you also learn and take something away with you. We all have our own reasons for visiting these places. As long as it is done respectfully, I don't really see what the issue is or why it matters what you call it.

Samantha, apologies I cannot take your survey as I have not yet visited this site, tho you have reminded me it is on my list. Good luck with your dissertation!

I definitely feel that some sites are good for learning but not really fun because of what they were, so thus "dark". In the US, plantations would fit this, as would Native American sites, 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Fort Sumter, the Hunley Museum in North Charleston. I 've been to Ypres and definitely would include that as "dark"-soldiers drowning in the mud! This contrasts with the Victoria and Albert Museum, art museums, Bath, cathedrals, gardens and national parks. Although the British Museum was established with plunder from other countries, I would not classify it as dark because it is a record of many civilizations.

As the person who first whipped this up, I have been thinking about it, and appreciate the thoughtful replies. Admittedly I have been a bit harsh on young Samantha. Having been to the Uxbridge bunker and found it very moving, I did have a viscerally very negative reaction to a description of it as “dark tourism”, in a way I would not have to, say, a survey about Jack the Ripper walking tours. But I suppose that one had already been the subject of a paper. When you set up your research survey in that way, describing people’s reason for visiting already pejoratively, you have influenced the results in a way that negates their validity. How you describe things does matter. A rookie mistake, but if you’re a university dissertation student, you should not make such mistakes, and if you do, the response should be to correct them rather than just say she’s a kid, do whatever. Otherwise you won’t learn.