10 ms·

Something I can relate to, having "done" 85 countries myself (yes, I'm one of those 'shallow' travelers who counts countries). This article is right in some wa

Something I can relate to, having "done" 85 countries myself (yes, I'm one of those 'shallow' travelers who counts countries). This article is right in some ways. It's right in that deep travel experiences are almost always more memorable than shallow ones; that traveling by hitchhike will get you more face time with locals than traveling by rent-a-car. If you travel to truly understand a place, you need to spend real time there (I define 'real time' as at least 2-3 weeks, which is an eternity in travel world, since you really fully immerse yourself in the place during that time). But it's wrong to try to define a right way to travel, as if there is some authentic travel nirvana that all travelers could or should reach. First of all, it depends on what kind of traveler you are, and why you travel. If you travel to learn about as many places as possible, because you crave exposure to new experiences and cultures, and you know that every time you go someplace new you learn something new that you never would have known if you hadn't gone, travel has to be somewhat of a quantity game--unless you are a full-time traveller and have the luxury (or the tolerance for nomadship) to live on the road. But most of all, there really is no 'wrong' way to travel. There will always be people who criticize Club Med-goers and cruise-takers for only dabbling in 'tourist traps', glampers for not doing 'real' camping, backpackers for living like 'hippies' without jobs and 'vacationing' in other peoples' poverty, hostel-stayers for hanging out too much with other tourists, expats for isolating themselves from the countries they live in, students abroad for not making friends with locals, homestayers for not learning the language, peace corps volunteers for being neocolonial, missionary trips for dressing a vacation as charity...at the end of the day, every traveler is trying to explore their horizons at their comfort level, and no one who travels is truly ever "authentic" in their experience, no matter how many chickens they pluck themselves or squat toilets they use. All travelers are just visitors, and before long they will leave, and everyone who knows them on their journey knows that their stay is temporary, whether it is 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months or 3 years. The best you can do is learn as much as you can in the time you have, be open minded, and take your lessons with you when you go home, or to the next place. Unless you're moving to a place permanently, starting a family and plan to die there, you're a transient, and you have no right to criticize how other people choose to be transients in their own way. Every traveler is better off for the experience and the world is better off for the cultural exchange and greater global understanding facilitated by travelers.

thewisestmatt 8y ago
Very well said.
darrenf 8y ago
Came here to post a much less eloquent version of the same thing. Any proclamation that one way of travelling is objectively better or more worthy (of... what?) than another leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I've visited between 61 and 66 countries depending on how you want to measure it, and frankly I don't believe this to say anything deep or shallow about me - it's just a number, a score in the game I've chosen to play given the privilege to do so. From the article: > Yes, you have been to 30 countries in 5 years, but have you really “been” there? How many places do you really know and understand? Perhaps my purpose or desire isn't to "really know and understand"? Some of us like to dip our toe in, or just take an experiential snapshot. And on the flip side, I don't consider anyone who stays in London for 6 months or even 6 years to "really know and understand" the place. I've lived here for my entire 45 years and wouldn't make the claim for myself, such are the new things I keep discovering on a monthly basis. > I do not intend to criticize entirely the people for traveling this way. Society does sometimes pressure us to spend holidays abroad to look and sound more “well-cultivated” I have felt absolutely no societal pressure to travel, only self-imposed. I absolutely do not feel, look, sound, or claim to be "well-cultivated". I've just visited lots of places, that's all. Travel for me doesn't have to be, and in the main is not, intrinsically profound or romantic - but it's fun, and collecting countries on lightning trips makes me extraordinarily happy, and that's my primary objective. Perhaps there's some profundity in that?
- rypskar 8y ago
  I did come here to post a much less eloquent version of what you both did say. For me the problem is someone telling me how I should experience something. I travel and experience countries and cultures the way I do it, bringing with me who I am and my whole past. Some times I plan a lot about where to go and what to do and other times I travel to a place and then find what is to do and see there, or even walk around to see if I find something interesting. I like to do it my way, but someone telling me that I need to do it this or that way will not make my experience any better. I like reading about others experiences, but even if I did travel to the same place, did the same things, and talked with the same persons as I was reading about, it would not be the same experience because with me is I, not that person that had the other experience.

thewisestmatt 8y ago

Very well said.

darrenf 8y ago

Came here to post a much less eloquent version of the same thing. Any proclamation that one way of travelling is objectively better or more worthy (of... what?) than another leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I've visited between 61 and 66 countries depending on how you want to measure it, and frankly I don't believe this to say anything deep or shallow about me - it's just a number, a score in the game I've chosen to play given the privilege to do so. From the article: > Yes, you have been to 30 countries in 5 years, but have you really “been” there? How many places do you really know and understand? Perhaps my purpose or desire isn't to "really know and understand"? Some of us like to dip our toe in, or just take an experiential snapshot. And on the flip side, I don't consider anyone who stays in London for 6 months or even 6 years to "really know and understand" the place. I've lived here for my entire 45 years and wouldn't make the claim for myself, such are the new things I keep discovering on a monthly basis. > I do not intend to criticize entirely the people for traveling this way. Society does sometimes pressure us to spend holidays abroad to look and sound more “well-cultivated” I have felt absolutely no societal pressure to travel, only self-imposed. I absolutely do not feel, look, sound, or claim to be "well-cultivated". I've just visited lots of places, that's all. Travel for me doesn't have to be, and in the main is not, intrinsically profound or romantic - but it's fun, and collecting countries on lightning trips makes me extraordinarily happy, and that's my primary objective. Perhaps there's some profundity in that?

rypskar 8y ago
I did come here to post a much less eloquent version of what you both did say. For me the problem is someone telling me how I should experience something. I travel and experience countries and cultures the way I do it, bringing with me who I am and my whole past. Some times I plan a lot about where to go and what to do and other times I travel to a place and then find what is to do and see there, or even walk around to see if I find something interesting. I like to do it my way, but someone telling me that I need to do it this or that way will not make my experience any better. I like reading about others experiences, but even if I did travel to the same place, did the same things, and talked with the same persons as I was reading about, it would not be the same experience because with me is I, not that person that had the other experience.