That unique experience is hard to find, though, especially as one gets older, I find. Once you've been to a handful of cities, you've kind of seen them all. If you live near a major city it's even worse because chances are you've seen most of what it has to offer, and if you visit another city somewhere else in the world it's like "Oh, yeah... more museums... more theme parks... more bars and clubs... another beach... some skyscrapers... street food... people who don't speak my language... I should have stayed home." I know it's not like that for everyone, but that's essentially why I don't always like traveling and why it annoys me when people tell me I should get out more and travel.
When I travel, either I want people or I want solitude. Most of my enjoyment from traveling comes from seeing family and friends, and it really doesn't matter that much where we're situated. But if I have neither, then being in a sea of people is really worse than just being at home. In that case, I want to be alone, and I can easily get that by driving 1.5 hours into the mountains where I live.
Travel isn't a bad thing, in fact it can be a great thing. My problem is that we've made travel out to be a grandiose life achievement. In the near past and for millennia, humans spent most if not their entire lives in one place, and there's nothing wrong with that.
As an avid traveler, I disagree with your assessment. Yes, there are definitely things that are very similar in all places, particularly as western companies take over the world (much to my disappointment).
However, if you get away from the "tourist" spots, every place is unique and does offer something interesting to experience.
My wife and I were driving back to our rental in France from someplace and stopped for lunch at the only restaurant we could find in the little town in the middle of I have no idea where we were. Very little English spoken (we don't speak French, but can manage with a few words and technology) and had a very enjoyable meal and a little sightseeing in this small town.
Not saying that everyone enjoys that kind of thing, but if someone travels to Paris, for example, and has their sights only set on the popular things, Eiffel Tower, Louvre, etc. They're missing so much more to the city. Yes, certainly plan on seeing what's popular because that's why you went there, but also spend at least half the time exploring the little gems that every city offers that unique to it.
And for the love of everything, don't eat at places you can eat at home every meal just because you know it.
I'd agree - once I get outside of a major US city, and get into Tier II and Tier III cities, and then into rural america with its small towns, I find a whole wealth of experiences that I just.. cant get otherwise.
Sometimes they're vibrant little untouched spots on the map - sometimes they're little dried up outposts of humanity, with some grand buildings left as testament that people once believed this place would prosper, and that there was money here at some point.
It's something I've always wondered at - you go out to rural america, there are a ton of small towns with really grand buildings in them, clear evidence that there was capital there at one point - and now its all gone - where and why did it go? The when is obvious usually, the other two, not as much. Thats an aside however.
I'll defend eating at the familiar when tired or worn out, but I do suggest trying the local color, you never know what you'll find out there - it might be good or bad, but it will almost certainly be memorable.
I'm not against eating at familiar places for the exact reason you give. Even to experience how a McDonald's, for example, makes cultural adjustments to their menu (ie Beer on the menu).
Of course, there was that time after a long drive, we stopped at KFC in France because my wife loves their mashed potatoes. KFC in France does not have mashed potatoes and I ate undercooked chicken which kept me in bed for almost a week (we were there for 5 weeks, so luckily were able to absorb that downtime).
Yes, I think so anyhow, a significant portion of rural america, particularly in the south is racially diverse - either with a significant minority population, or majority minority.
In the South, its (depending on where) Black folks, in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma, its Hispanic.
The fact that I see mexican/hispanic restaurants and groceries, in rural america (even in the south) tells me the world is changing.
Which, again, is another reason why I'm not exactly thrilled by most travel. So much of the world is evolving into a hodgepodge of various cultures. There's nothing wrong with this, of course. It's just that it's going to mean that, for me, going to experience cultures that already exist in my backyard really doesn't add much to my life. And maybe that's from my particular standpoint of living in Southern California, where we've got a little bit of Mexico, a little bit of Asia, a little bit of African American culture, a little Armenian... I'm sure I'm missing a few. And of course we've got our share of farmland and the ethnicity that are stereotypical with that.
So if rural America is gradually becoming that way, and thereby the rest of the world following suit, I guess the reason to travel would be to experience different cultures before they effectively come to us all (or disappear all together in some cases). But that's really more curiosity than anything else, like visiting a traveling museum exhibit that has a limited run.
If you're not actively in a sundown town, it's perfectly fine and safe to visit regardless of your ethnicity. The experience is often eye opening.
Imo there should be a cultural exchange program where you students in cities and send them to rural schools for a semester and vice versa via exchanges. It's important to the American experience to be able to understand both worlds if we are going to continue to coexist in a union.
I've long felt the same - the military used to be this, used to do this - its part of why we had such an era of tranquility politically post WWII - you had a large number people with a shared experience who came back from war, and who were willing to work together.
I've long believed in some form of mandatory national service, just to encourage this - it would also decrease the risk for military adventurism if the military was a broader cross-section of society.
There used to be something like that, and I'm not sure whether it still exists. My father's family housed an exchange student, a Black girl from another part of America, and later a girl from Norway (I think). Of course this wasn't specific to cultural exchange within America in particular, but it wasn't to the exclusion of American students.
However, I must admit I may be wrong in my interpretation of this, and now I want to ask my dad again next time I see him.
The way I interpreted their post was that yes, there are differences, but are they really that different when one takes a step back? The answer to that is going to be a deeply personal one, which is why I agree w/ both of you although my personal mentality is closer to the one they cite.
As an example, one thing I do enjoy is finding and visiting quirky little museums. The sort that might only be a couple of rooms worth of items. By nature each one is a new experience for me. But if I take a more abstract view I could say "I'm just looking at another quirky little museum".
Yes this is also my 'experience'. In my younger days I spend years backpacking on a budget with only a rough outline of where to go.
To me traveling isn't about visiting different places. It is about opening up to the unexpected. Something we don't do so easily when following an itinerary.
A bit hyperbolic, perhaps intentional, but I agree. It's compounded by the fact that I'm just not cut out for true adventure travel. Sorry, I need some modern conveniences. The result has been that over the years my travel preferences have become decidedly more milquetoast.
I think I might have somewhat similar requirements. I need a nice hotel room. Camping, tracking etc are completely off the table. I've never found that to restrict where I could visit. It does make everything more expensive though.
Be very careful, because hotels are where the tourists are, and the places where where the tourists are are the places with a repetitive international “tourist” vibe. If you only have a short time to travel then hotels are OK.
I originally learnt this while “backpacking”: backpackers travel options and staying in accomodation intended for backpackers leads to a kind of internationalised backpacking culture experience that is completely disconnected from the culture you are visiting. Many backpackers had time, but used it poorly: budget constraints ekeing out their money for a longer time with lower benefit.
Even travelling in my own country, the early AirBnB experience was meeting people from other paths in life than my own, which is wonderful if you have the ability to share.
My current style of travelling is more on the edges, disconnected from backpacker style travelling and from hotel travelling, and spending my time more randomly. Planning trips generally draws you towards tourism experiences, because the information directed at you will lead you down the path of least resistance.
Yep. If one wants to pay enough money you can get glamor versions of just about anything. Ignoring for the moment that I'm often not willing to "pay enough money" a big part of it for me is that it starts to homogenize the experience back towards that mean we're discussing. It loses some of the unique character.
Put another way, some of my travel fantasies are pretty out there, I just know I'll never do them. Even if I had the cash and was willing to spend it, at that point the experience would never match the fantasy.
Hah, yes, I get hyperbolic. But I did not mean to say that one shouldn't want or enjoy modern conveniences on their travels. When I travel, I always like to make sure my lodging is nearby a convenience store like 7-Eleven. If there's a 7-Eleven, I'm there! lol It's not always possible, but in no way am I saying that the only real travel experience is staying in a grass hut in the heart of Africa.
Bad phrasing on my part. I was referring to the part about cities all being more or less the same. I 100% agree and share the takeaway sentiment. What I was referring to with my hyperbolic comment was more an attempt to head off people thinking "Well, but that's not true! Paris has the Eiffel Tower and London has Big Ben!". Yes, they're not exactly the same but still it does get a bit blah over time.
Yeah, and that's the thing; I have nothing against visiting landmarks, but they blend together after a while and there are only so many of them.
I think the vividness of modern media also ruins things like the Eiffel Tower. It's one thing to see a photograph and aspire to one day visit Paris, but I'm pretty sure I've absorbed views of the Eiffel Tower from just about every angle in UHD drone and helicopter footage. In another era, I might be tempted to repeatedly visit it in my lifetime. As far as my brain can tell in this era, I've not only been to the Eiffel Tower but I've been higher than it. So biiiig deal.
What you are saying rings more true to me for domestic travel. Do you have this experience (or lack of it) for international travel as well? Even for countries that are more different from the one you live in?
> In the near past and for millennia, humans spent most if not their entire lives in one place, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't think that's true, maybe just leisure travel is cheaper in the last hundred years so its more common. There was movement to the americas, westward expansion in the us. Europe immigration movements. large wars. pilgrimages
Staying in a single location became possible for humanity only with the advent of agriculture.
Before domestication, they had to follow the game animals around on their migrations, travel to find the edible plants and fruits, etc.
Even once horse, goats, and cattle were domesticated for their meat, milk, and fur (note this is separate from agricultural cultivation), humans had to roam in really large areas, from winter grazing grounds to summer grazing grounds as still well as following the game animals around.
I think traveling is a very ingrained behavior in humanity.
> In the near past and for millennia, humans spent most if not their entire lives in one place, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Same can be said about slaves. What conclusion should I draw? Honestly, I think you should get off of Instagram if you think travel is about life achievement. If getting to know your fellow humans and expanding your understanding of why the world is the way it is is not interesting to you, stay home. But also don't be surprised if people call you a troglodyte. I agree with everything you said about the problems of modern day traveling, that it is incredibly geared towards empty experiences. However, I believe this is because people only have a few days to travel. What irks me is seeing "43 countries visited!" because, as you allude to, it is a vanity number. It takes months to fully immerse oneself in a culture or even be invited into local life. However, that's obviously out of reach for 99.99% of the population and so we have the current set of cookie cutter experiences. Of course, none of what I suggest is easy. I also classify myself as an introvert, which you don't say explicitly but is abundantly clear you are as well. Just make a new friend in the country you want to go to, just one. The emotional energy it takes upfront is paid tenfold in the experiences that come after. Oftentimes, you will discover that traveling with said friend brings them tons of joy because it gives them a reason to go do all the things in their backyard that they have never done because it is in their backyard.
> Same can be said about slaves. What conclusion should I draw?
Well damn, I guess breathing is in question since slaves can breath. /s
Honestly, I'm not sure the point you're trying to make with this.
> [Modern travel is] incredibly geared towards empty experiences. However, I believe this is because people only have a few days to travel. What irks me is seeing "43 countries visited!" because, as you allude to, it is a vanity number. It takes months to fully immerse oneself in a culture or even be invited into local life.
Maybe that's true, perhaps for many. To an extent I think it also is caused by a homogenization of global culture. In my case, it's that and the fact that once you've seen enough cities, enough forests, enough museums, enough shows, and eaten enough food... it all blends together and, after 30+ years of being on earth, as much as I cherish the existence of all of it, I don't necessarily find value in continually experiencing it all in order to cross them off the list of things to do. With the way so many of us are broadcasting our lives, we create this FOMO around travel that creates an illusion that we haven't truly lived unless we've been to all the major cities and historical ruins.
But yes, it's hard to live in the moment when you know you only have a handful of days to do what you want to do before you need to be back in the office, and the clock is ticking. Someone the other day was talking about the effect that meetings have on one's workday where, if the meeting is timed in the morning, you're less likely to get anything done before that meeting because the mind is anticipating having to switch gears for the meeting. If travel can only be done in a few days, the mind has to handle anticipating the travel and anticipating having to go back to work.
My point about slavery is that "humans have done this for a long time" is not an argument for anything. At best, we stay stuck in the past.
I think we are all saying the same thing. That, at some point, all humans get tired of the repetition. My main counter to all of this is that travel grants you an opportunity to experience things through a lens unachievable from your home. It does not matter how big your city's Chinatown (or choose your favorite ethnic center) is, it is merely a glimpse into that world. To me, travel is an incredibly long process of experiencing your life as it could have been. Almost like experiencing reincarnation while you are still alive. Obviously, your body is still the same but you go through many of the same stages of childhood when learning a new language. Frustration that no one can understand you, immense gratification of finally being able to convey your ideas, etc. In this sense,
> FOMO around travel that creates an illusion that we haven't truly lived unless we've been to all the major cities and historical ruins.
Is entirely wrong and you should just simply choose to not play. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Stop being a sheep and following the herd. Pave your own path. If you so happen to end up in one of these places, great. At the end of the day, traveling somewhere new is an amazing opportunity to grow as an individual and expand your mind.
I did not say it was a requirement but you must concede that cultural understanding is greatly expedited by actual experience. The best I can do to summarize my thoughts is this. If you can replace the verb travel with the verb go, you are missing the whole point. The point of traveling is not to go to museums in a different place. This correctly encompasses the feeling that business "travel" is not "traveling". No one cares for doing the same thing in merely a different physical location. Things get confusing when people use the word travel as a means of experiencing something new. For instance, "we traveled to Costa Rica and went ziplining. It was fun." The part about Costa Rica is irrelevant to the experience. While these uses of the word travel are grammatically correct, it lacks, in my opinion, what many proponents of travel mean as there is no single word that encompasses the emotion in English. It is a great shame that exchange students and spring breakers get clumped into the same bucket as the two could not be further apart in terms of motive and outcome. At the end of the day, traveling is a deeply personal experience and there is nothing wrong with these other forms of travel (Mexico has great beaches!) but if one finds traveling to be empty, stop treating travel as a commodity that one gains. I end with a quote from Good Will Hunting:
> So if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientations, the whole works, right? But I'll bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling; seen that.
When I travel, either I want people or I want solitude. Most of my enjoyment from traveling comes from seeing family and friends, and it really doesn't matter that much where we're situated. But if I have neither, then being in a sea of people is really worse than just being at home. In that case, I want to be alone, and I can easily get that by driving 1.5 hours into the mountains where I live.
Travel isn't a bad thing, in fact it can be a great thing. My problem is that we've made travel out to be a grandiose life achievement. In the near past and for millennia, humans spent most if not their entire lives in one place, and there's nothing wrong with that.