"Ethnic Minority Tourism" and "Indigenous Tourism": The Critical Distinction

Abstract

There is confusion between the use of "ethnic minority tourism" and "Indigenous tourism" as concepts, both in practice as well as in tourism research. Since different tourism types occur in different communities in different geo-historical contexts, these two tourism concepts should be understood to be situated in a particular context. In order to enhance peoples' epistemological understanding of the two kinds of tourism phenomenon, this article aims to critically distinguish the concept of "ethnic minority tourism" and "Indigenous tourism" by highlighting commonalities and differences. The paradigm of critical realism, and a critical literature review method, are applied in this article. Commonly abstracted as types of "ethnic tourism," both "ethnic minority tourism" and "Indigenous tourism" can be understood as a form of interethnic interaction, a way of reconciliation and a model of community-based tourism that should emphasize local peoples' indigeneity in tourism. Differences of these two tourism types mainly exist in different official identities of local peoples. "Ethnic minority people" and "Indigenous People," as two different social identities, lead to different roles of local peoples in tourism practices and contribute to these two tourism types at different stages. For example, the understanding of Indigenous tourism has changed from "tourist-based economy" to "Indigenous-based tourism" based on the practice of Indigenous control in tourism. While ethnic minority tourism is still in the stage of "tourist-based economy," and current understandings are also at this stage. In addition, the sensitivity of the relationship between hosts and guests is different because of the colonial and intrusive experience emphasized in Indigenous identity that can make non-Indigenous tourists feel shame or guilt in a settler state.