![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper presents a conceptual‐based discussion dealing with social and geo‐political concerns associated with the tourism experiences and travel encounters of ethnic minority citizens living in member‐states of the European Union (EU). Although EU legislation emphasises that its citizens have freedom of movement throughout member‐states, the prevalence of racialised situations transpiring within, across and beyond EU borders suggests that this commitment is socio‐politically ambiguous. The popular hysteria that has developed towards increased immigration from non‐EU countries extends to those minorities who have legal status of entry, residency and/or citizenship – as they too are visibly different from Europe's white majorities. The paper thus reflects on ways in which the 11 September 2001 attacks in America have had a detrimental impact on people's tourism and travel experiences, particularly in instances where individuals have been treated with high levels of suspicion from institutional bodies and ethnic (white) majorities. The work firmly emphasises that racial prejudice, institutional racism and xeno‐racist practices restrict ethnic minority citizens from appreciating cosmopolitan‐based tourism experiences and engaging in congenial exchanges with other European cultures and societies. One of the main contentions asserts that racialised movements limit ethnic minority citizens from achieving full rights to social and (multi)cultural forms of citizenship. The conclusion suggests ways in which researchers ought to respond to the study of tourism and racism within the EU.
Notes
1. The Schengen Agreement (1985), however, should be perceived as a ‘framework’ rather than an absolute set of rules for movement, particularly as nation‐states have some discretion in its application. This is exemplified by the opt‐out protocols added in the Amsterdam Treaty concerning provisions on the freedom of movement, which unfortunately dilutes the unity of the European Community and limits the rights of some citizens. See the work of Geddes (Citation2000) for a complete assessment of the freedom of movement framework.
2. This concept was perspicaciously employed by Hollinshead (Citation1992) in his study of native North Americans. Although his work largely contributed to the conventional study of ethnic tourism, his account concerns the ideological implications of the ‘white gaze’ and its critical importance to the study of tourism, race and ethnicity. Although it is acknowledged that white communities are in themselves ethnically diverse in Europe, especially given the diasporic complexities associated with Euro‐communities, the ‘white gaze’ arguably has the collective potential to single out blackness (advertently or inadvertently) thus distancing non‐whites from white communities.
3. Although the latter right implies that individuals are entitled to enter certain countries besides one's own, there are limitations relating to special arrangements established between countries (e.g. inter‐state visas, or such special agreements as the Schengen Agreement).
4. Although this term is commonly used in the sociological study of race and ethnicity, it is recognised that the term ‘ethnic minority’ is grammatically contentious as it implies that the minority is always described by ethnicity as opposed to the ethnicity being described as a minority. Therefore, the term ‘ethnic minority’ is utilised in this paper in a rather loose sense, as it is further noted that despite implicit reference to cultural differences entailed in the term ‘ethnic’, not every group having a distinctive culture and constituting a minority in European states are normally thought of as constituting ethnic minorities (e.g. Italians in Britain). Furthermore, although this term applies to those groups who are considered to be ‘racialised minorities’, their status and position as ethnic minority citizens arguably differs from one European state to another.
5. The strengthening of borders is also a reaction to deter what neo‐conservative Europeans would term ‘benefit tourists’ or ‘citizenship tourists’. Yet there are many other reasons for increasingly exclusive immigration restrictions, those relating to differences in types of mobility across borders, under different visa or work permit rules, not all of which are about ‘immigration’.