Cultural sensitivity and inclusivity form key parts of the Lonely Planet philosophy, and avoiding harm and offence is enshrined in Lonely Planet’s Editorial Guidelines. It is imperative our content reflect these values.
Inclusive language is language that is respectful and promotes the acceptance and value of all people. It is language which is free from words, phrases or tones that demean, insult, exclude, stereotype, infantilise or trivialise people on the basis of their membership of a certain group or because of a particular attribute.
It is not about impinging on free speech or political correctness; rather it is about communicating in a way that is accessible and respectful, and values, includes and empowers all LP travellers.
In its simplest (and perhaps most effective) form, this means we do not make assumptions about our audience: LP travellers comprise people from many nations and cultural backgrounds, and include people of various ages, faiths, political affiliations, abilities, sexual identities, gender identities etc. When we unconsciously assume we are writing for people ‘like us’ (whatever that may look like to you), we run the risk of inadvertently excluding, and even offending, some LP travellers.
It is important to understand that travel writing in part came from a tradition of colonial exploitation for the use of imperial institutions. It is crucial that we avoid the type of language that was used in these earlier texts and offer a sensitive and diverse view of destinations through a lens other than a colonial one.
The most obvious examples of this issue can be found in History sections or narratives recounting periods in a country’s history. For instance, some narratives may tell of the ‘discoveries’ of figures like Christopher Columbus.
It is important also to ensure that there are no positive connotations behind these colonial exploits; avoid any romanticisation of relationships between indigenous peoples and colonial figures; on the whole, these people, along with their land, were exploited and often murdered.
An active acknowledgement of the trauma involved in colonialism should be considered.
Discussion of European ‘adventurers,’ ‘explorers,’ ‘missionaries’ -- These terms frequently do not reflect the fact that these individuals were agents of colonialism, frequently with hugely problematic views that caused long-term issues and violence. Remove these euphemisms and make sure coverage of these individuals accurately represents their actions and the cultural fallout they caused. Instead of using ‘discovered’, ‘landed on’, ‘happened upon’, ‘settled in’, be factually straightforward and say ‘colonised’.
Individual figures, such as Columbus and Pedro Álvares Cabral, and imperial governments, such as the British, French, Dutch, Belgian, Spanish and Portuguese (among others), should feature, where relevant, a discussion or mention of the impact of their colonial histories.
For instance, in a guide to Spain that covers sights concerning Columbus, or text in an England guide that concerns Cromwell, it is imperative that their status and fame be questioned and acknowledged in the context of their colonial pursuits.
If no text exists about their colonial impacts, suggest adding in a few sentences to give context, or to give a more balanced view that acknowledges the trauma that their pursuits created.
It’s common to think of colonialism as a historical period rather than a system of domination. We see works of art (namely, architecture) as ‘colonial,’ but this strips the word of its meaning as a system of oppression. ‘Colonial’ isn’t ‘the Renaissance;’ it’s the practice of control by one people over another. In architecture, the colonizer not only occupies a territory, but also its three-dimensional space, its aesthetic, and the mind of the colonised people
Avoid the romanticisation of architecture that is built in the coloniser nation’s style. ‘Colonial architecture’ is not a specific style and should be contextualised. For instance, use terms like ‘Victorian’, ‘Queen Anne’, ‘neoclassical’, or ‘Spanish Viceregal’ architecture.
Avoid overly positive descriptions that imply a superiority in hierarchy over the indigenous architecture and frame architectural aesthetics from a western point of view.
As a general rule, we use people-centric language, which focuses on the person and reflects the individuality of people. People-centric language doesn’t classify or stereotype people based on their association or identity with a group or culture; people should only be referred to by a category when it is relevant or necessary to the discussion at hand. That is, people should be viewed as individuals, and their race, gender or other status should not be mentioned unless it is pertinent.
A key part of the travel experience is the understanding that each individual is living their own life as vivid and complex as one’s own. Stereotypes and generalisations reduce individual experiences, even if they are deemed harmless or 'positive' stereotypes. When writing about destinations, we should avoid ascribing certain qualities to whole groups of people.
The problem of stereotyping is multifaceted. Here are a few common tropes:
'Smiling locals' - A common travel writing trope. It's clichéd, unhelpful and is an overly simplistic view of the vast variety of experiences local people encounter. Traditions of hospitality are very complex. If people aren’t friendly, that’s okay too.
'The noble savage' - Look out for text that portrays Indigenous peoples as symbolizing 'purity' or humanity’s innate goodness. This is based on a long-held trope from a European viewpoint that Indigenous peoples live in a pre-civilised state that is uncorrupted by 'civilisation.' The trope sets Indigenous peoples up to an impossible standard and is otherwise unhelpful for travellers. Please recast or remove overly idealised generalisations of Indigenous peoples.
Words likely to offend should be treated with caution. Swear words can be appropriate, but the stronger the word the harder we should think about using it. We do not ‘disguise’ a swear word with asterisks. Any proposal to use the most offensive language (‘cunt’ and ‘fuck’ and their derivatives) must be approved by a senior member of editorial staff.
Avoid overly British/American/Australian slang (eg ‘nutter’, ‘kip’). Also be on the lookout for terms that mean something different/negative in other English-speaking cultures, eg ‘dinky’ means puny and lame in the US, but it means cute, dainty in the UK. We are aiming for an accessible, friendly tone (an exclusive ‘in-the-know’ tone is off-putting) and clear definitions for any terminology that may be unfamiliar outside of local markets.