Heritage Tourism is a fast-growing, multi-billion dollar industry. In 2010, heritage tourism provided 192.3 billion dollars of the total 213.6 billion dollars leisurely travel economic impact in California (1). In response, Californian municipalities and counties are increasingly turning to heritage tourism as a means to promote economic growth and revitalize local communities. In order to do this, many counties are using tourism websites to invoke the area’s Native American roots as a means of promoting heritage tourism in the area. In 
Siskiyou County, for example, a sizable description of the area’s Native American history is used to provide tourists with added information (2), while in San Juan Capistrano, reference to Native American culture is being used to publicly establish Heritage Tourism in the area (3). The fact that Native American cultural heritage is being used to promote heritage tourism, however, raises ethical concerns that cause me to wonder if Native American cultures aren’t being exploited for economic gain. Add to this the fact that many of these counties and municipalities are predominately white raises concerns about whose culture is being promoted, for whose benefit, and to what cost to the authenticity of the local Native American cultures.
A perfect case study to examine these concerns further is that of Palm Spring’s Bureau of Tourism website (4). As part of an effort to promote Cultural Heritage Tourism, the website devotes a page describing the cultural history of the Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI). In doing so, the Bureau attempts to incorporate the cultural heritage of the ACBCI within the cultural heritage of the larger region. What’s troubling about this, however, is that a large majority of people living in the Palm Springs area are white. In fact, 78% of Palm Springs residents identify themselves as ‘white’, while less than 1% claim to be Native American (5). Therefore, it would seem that the Bureau of Tourism is using the heritage of the ACBCI as a means to attract tourists to the area. Now it’s impossible to tell whether or not the ACBCI were consulted on this website or if they approved it simply by looking at the website. It could be that both the ACBCI and local governments and businesses are working together to help bolster the tourism industry in their area. However, the situation of one culture using the heritage of another to serve its own needs reeks of exploitation and raises concerns about the ethical viability of such a practice.
An additional area of ethical concern has to do with the content on their webpage. While there is some information about the early history of the ACBCI, a large portion is dedicated to more recent times, from the government’s establishment of a reservation in the area to a description of tribal assets, including “two hotels, two casinos, a golf resort, and entertainment venue”. Unfortunately this has two adverse effects. First, because most of the focus is on the cultural heritage after the establishment of the reservation, the authentic cultural heritage of the ACBCI is diminished. Secondly, and perhaps most disturbingly, the webpage follows a brief history of the reservations (itself depicted as an amicable event) with a description of the prosperity of the ACBCI in regards to casinos and spas. In my view, what this does is leave readers with a false perception that ‘alls well that ends well’. While it may be true that the ACBCI are prospering on their reservations, it does not make up for their forced removal onto reservation land, nor the danger posed to their indigenous culture. In both instances, because the actual cultural heritage of the ACBCI has been diminished and displaced by the content on their webpage, the Bureau of Tourism, inadvertently or not, has reduced the authenticity of what their heritage actually is.
I am not arguing that there aren’t many benefits of heritage tourism because there are. It has been shown time and time again that cultural heritage tourism provides new business opportunities and more jobs, and the resulting revenues and attention is oftentimes used to preserve the cultural heritage that tourists are going to see in the first place. However, it seems to me that sometimes the rising economic fortunes promised by increased tourism are gained at the very cultural authenticity that the heritage site is trying to promote. I don’t have any solution, nor is there any. There isn’t anyone who can truly say that the line between cultural authenticity and economic windfall begins or ends at a specific spot. I believe that the best we can do is to err on the side of the cultural heritage we are sometimes quick to exploit and to foster collaboration between local businesses, the local population and local cultures in order to maintain authentic cultural heritage sites.
(1) Susan Wilcox, “Discovering the Economic Advantage of Heritage Tourism” presented in the Outlook Forum 2015, California’s Premiere Travel Marketing Conference, 2015
(2) “Native American Heritage”, accessed February 22nd, 2015, http://visitsiskiyou.org/what-to-do/culturalhistorical/native-american-heritage/
(3) Penny Arevalo, “Mission Launches ‘Heritage Tourism’ Association”, San Juan Capistrano Patch, 2014, accessed on February 22nd, 2015, http://patch.com/california/sanjuancapistrano/mission-launches-heritage-tourism-association
(4) Palm Springs Bureau of Tourism, Cultural Heritage, accessed February 22nd, 2015.
(5) Demographics, accessed on February 22nd, 2015, http://palmsprings.com/demograf.html