Cambodia

I have trouble reconciling my excitement with my guilt. On the one hand, I love being in new places and learning about new cultures, but on the other, it's almost impossible, knowing how fortunate you are for being able to travel to places of such economic and political ruin, to do so with a clean conscience. It's appropriate, then, that I see Siem Reap, Cambodia, as a place in the midst of a severe straddle: between the old, blatantly corrupt land of civil strife -- and the new, secretly (but not well disguised) corrupt land in the process of building up tourism.

It was dark when we landed in Siem Reap. Pang, our driver who is cartoonish in his enthusiasm and frequently laughs backward, told us it means "Thai defeated." He says everything with a smile and anticipation for a reaction, followed by another smile. Having just researched the history of the Khmer Rouge the night before (call me naive, but I had no idea), I am skeptical of this place. It was only thirty years ago, and it was bloody. Not to mention the current PM muscled his way in, and is an ex- Khmer Rouge guerrilla. The main strip (only strip?) consists of hotels and casinos, lit with cheap lights and flimsy flash, effectively distracting you from the side streets where most the locals live in poverty. Even in the dark, the carts selling food and trinkets clearly aren't the same as in other towns we've visited: they are run down, over stuffed with poor quality, and surrounded not with patrons but with kids selling more junk, and they all look hungry.

I observed, somewhat stupidly and aloud, that it's kinda like Back to the Future 2. Nobody argued. I think Biff would have gotten along with Pol Pot.

Hotel, hotel, hotel, casino, hotel/casino... built on Killing Fields. Pang tells us that the owner of one hotel is friends with the current PM. This is nothing like my beloved Laos. I wish Marty McFly were here.

Day 2: Temples. Angkor Thom, Ta Prohm, and Angkor Wat. The first two are beautiful, absolutely, but Angkor Wat is severely under maintained and in dire need of restoration. The other two will be too, I have a feeling, because there was absolutely no limits to what you could climb on, touch, take with you... plus only 10% of your entrance fee goes back into the temples, if at all -- they openly tell you the percentage, which leads me to believe it's even less.

The country does a nice job of assisting you in escapism: they have plenty of sights and shops and things to do, and look over here at this neat temple, and here are some things to keep you from thinking about the mass exodus that occurred not so long ago. It's just that I don't buy what the government is selling. Compared to the Laotians, who also were subjected to hardships during and after the Vietnam war, and even directly at the hands of the USA, the Cambodians just seem hardened. USA bombed little Laos more than anywhere else during Vietnam or World War II per capita, and 30% of bombs dropped remain unexploded in many regions of the countryside that are populated by hill tribes. But here much of the war was within. Laos could unify against the outside. As a result, I think, the people in Laos are so gentle, lovely, and easy going. The people here have been nothing but nice, but I just can't seem to get past the vibes here. Maybe it's spiritual, maybe I'm reading too deeply between the lines. I know absolutely it's unfair to compare Luang Prabang city to Siem Reap, or to let one city represent an entire country, but these two are all I have to go by, and by golly it's my blog and I'll compare if I want to.

Anyway. The place we are staying has a vibe all it's own, largely due to various community outreach programs the hotel funds and operates. It helps keep people off the streets by providing opportunities for education, then going a step further to employ many of the graduates. Begging is a huge problem, and tourists actually contribute and enable almost wholly, albeit unknowingly. Often times tourists will bring candy for the local children, with the best of intentions at heart. But when the children don't eat a balanced diet, or brush their teeth, or have regular doctors, it's extremely unhealthy. Seems obvious, I know... But it's not uncommon for children by the time they reach 6 or 7 to have lost all their baby teeth before they fall out naturally, from all the sugar they consume.

ALLRIGHT. I realize I went on a little rant there. It's tough though, not to get caught in this web of "where do I fit in?" You see the differences, separate the menial from the manageable, try to filter it into comprehension, but you never stop feeling like "your halo's pinching," as I liked to hear Connie say. Who am I to preach? I guess this is where the "it's my blog and I can rant if I want to" comes in, but even that emotion seems confusing. I *get* to sit here at a computer and talk about it. But what does that do? What am I even discussing that hasn't been said before?

Tomorrow I hit the market and try to ignore the signs of the Khmer, both hidden and blatant. Because I haven't reconciled with myself, I'll revert to habit. Cog in the machine, kind of thing. Will try to post more often, but it's been difficult -- by the time I feel comfortable enough to make observations, it's time to move on. It's like mom says Kesey used to say, that the hardest part about writing is the not living while you're doing the writing. Living in the past instead of making more memories to write about. I'll figure it out. But until then, enjoy the stocked up, only now published post below from the past.