At what point do important memory sites become sights, places to pose for pictures instead of pause for reflection? Is it even fair to draw a distinction between the two? Somehow, a historic site must accommodate the well-read experts and the uninformed sightseers; the latter in particular are critical to connect with, so that a connection might be forged allowing for deeper study and reflection later. The point is, there might be a purpose served by turning a place of trauma into a place of tourism. However, the manner in which that has been accomplished at Robben Island is deeply unsatisfying; only when we returned to the mainland did we begin to appreciate the tragedy inflicted there.