3 ms·

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment and I'd like to expand on it. I think the DFW quote is actively damaging because it paints a picture of certain plac

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment and I'd like to expand on it. I think the DFW quote is actively damaging because it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism. I think it's only a very short distance from that kind of argument to the argument that many use to suggest that immigrants fleeing dangerous and awful places are an infestation to be eliminated. Both legally and practically speaking there are ample reasons both to limit tourism and to limit immigration in reasonable, fair, and thoughtful ways. Some resources are more limited than others. The fact that some groups of people find themselves in possession of a place or a resource that others appreciate or even covet does not convey on them some kind of moral superiority over the rest of humanity. Having an intelligent conversation about the practical limits of tourism and immigration is important and welcome. Demonizing those who want to experience different cultures, different climates, and different geography is completely unhelpful. I say this as someone who hates to travel and who cannot stand going to a tourist destination that's overflowing with people. But I refuse to demonize people that like or tolerate that kind of experience the same way I refuse to demonize people who are seeking a better life for themselves more permanently.

strken 7y ago
There's a pretty obvious difference between someone fleeing to live in another country because they're in danger, and someone using discretionary income to visit a tiny area because they want to check it off on their bucket list.
mattlutze 7y ago
> it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism It is a delicate and fragile thing to be sure. The culture of a place comes from the people born accidentally to it. The desire to see that culture drives people not of it to visit, and then maybe to relocate, but if they don't let go of their own cultures and assimilate, they will fundamentally change the culture that drew them there. Is this bad? It just means something changes -- it's up to the maintainers of the existing culture to decide how they want that culture to change. Free movement is beautiful, a border-less world idyllic, but it does mean abandoning regional differences as the world becomes one giant ice cream soup of Hard Rock Cafes and Le Pain Quotidien bakeries, Ei Group pubs and Wyndham hotels.
core-questions 7y ago
> it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism If my ancestors built a place, and raised their families there to continue taking care of it for generations, in what sense does it not belong to me and my extended family? Nothing about that process was "accidental", though it may have some factor of "randomness" about it depending on your personal epistemology. > I think it's only a very short distance from that kind of argument to the argument that many use to suggest that immigrants fleeing dangerous and awful places are an infestation to be eliminated. You've skipped a thousand steps. When the caretakers of a place welcome people in, and then discover they pose a problem, it's not unreasonable for them to wish to mitigate the issue. If this means that an unlimited number of refugees or immigrants cannot be accepted because maintaining the same standard of living would be impossible, it is not unreasonable to refuse new entrants. By no means are we beholden to support every other human being, even if we empathize for their plight. > The fact that some groups of people find themselves in possession of a place or a resource that others appreciate or even covet does not convey on them some kind of moral superiority over the rest of humanity. It's not moral superiority; it's moral duty, to understand and uphold the works of the past that have lead to greatness. Failure to do so could mean seeing beautiful things destroyed, replaced by the same chaos and fear that people are already fleeing. > I say this as someone who hates to travel Well, maybe if you saw more of the world, and saw what people are trying to protect (e.g. in Europe), and got a greater sense of what it means to be a people (as opposed to the atomized, decultured masses in North America)... maybe you might understand why someone would seek to preserve something. It makes sense that you don't care about preserving your local strip mall / walmart / home depot. It's quite another thing to care about preserving Notre Dame and such.
- closeparen 7y ago
  You do not get Paris or Amsterdam or Vienna from a static set of families iterating in isolation over thousands of years. These are global cities, deeply integrated with and shaped by trade, migration and conquest. It's not Amish country or quiet little fishing villages that are attracting all these tourists.
toast0 7y ago
> I think the DFW quote is actively damaging because it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism. I don't think it's about ownership of a place; it's that the wonder of the place is destroyed by observation; especially by bulk observation. The question becomes is it better for the wonderous place to exist for insiders only, or for everyone to be able to observe its destruction? Some places have become so far gone, that tourists come solely to observe tourists.
tlb 7y ago
Cosmopolitan cities are full of people coming from around the world and making something greater than the sum of its parts. Tourist destinations, though they're also full of people from around the world, make something less than the sum of its parts. Tourists in this mode don't bring their own culture to the place. I'm sure most of the tourists are interesting people back home, but for some reason they adopt a globalized extruded tourist persona on vacation. For example, parts of Bali are full of Australian tourists. Bali is interesting, and Australians are interesting. But mobs of Australians picking over the gift shops in Bali are ghastly.
- netsharc 7y ago
  I remember an FB contact bragging about staying in "the greatest hostel in Rome", at first I was jealous, but then I thought, what's the excitement, he's not going to meet authentic Romans, he was just going to meet cookie-cutter "Hey bro, I'm travelling, am I not awesome?" people.
coldtea 7y ago
>I think the DFW quote is actively damaging because it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism. Well, arriving could be accidental, but living there generation after generation, building the local culture, building the buildings, cultivating the land, etc, made it yours in a non "continent" but very real way. When you go to see e.g. Venice, you don't go to see some wildlife area that some people happened to arrive nearby recently and claim, but to experience the culture and building and legacy that people built (and built upon) over millennia. There's few things "contingent or accidental" about that. Perhaps difficult to explain this to Americans that are e.g. children of first generation immigrants, that live in a culture/city that others have built, and thus it's all the same to them. Though the Native Americans would beg to differ - but those were treated as an "infestation to be eliminated" by the new European arrivals at the time.

strken 7y ago

There's a pretty obvious difference between someone fleeing to live in another country because they're in danger, and someone using discretionary income to visit a tiny area because they want to check it off on their bucket list.

mattlutze 7y ago

> it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism It is a delicate and fragile thing to be sure. The culture of a place comes from the people born accidentally to it. The desire to see that culture drives people not of it to visit, and then maybe to relocate, but if they don't let go of their own cultures and assimilate, they will fundamentally change the culture that drew them there. Is this bad? It just means something changes -- it's up to the maintainers of the existing culture to decide how they want that culture to change. Free movement is beautiful, a border-less world idyllic, but it does mean abandoning regional differences as the world becomes one giant ice cream soup of Hard Rock Cafes and Le Pain Quotidien bakeries, Ei Group pubs and Wyndham hotels.

core-questions 7y ago

> it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism If my ancestors built a place, and raised their families there to continue taking care of it for generations, in what sense does it not belong to me and my extended family? Nothing about that process was "accidental", though it may have some factor of "randomness" about it depending on your personal epistemology. > I think it's only a very short distance from that kind of argument to the argument that many use to suggest that immigrants fleeing dangerous and awful places are an infestation to be eliminated. You've skipped a thousand steps. When the caretakers of a place welcome people in, and then discover they pose a problem, it's not unreasonable for them to wish to mitigate the issue. If this means that an unlimited number of refugees or immigrants cannot be accepted because maintaining the same standard of living would be impossible, it is not unreasonable to refuse new entrants. By no means are we beholden to support every other human being, even if we empathize for their plight. > The fact that some groups of people find themselves in possession of a place or a resource that others appreciate or even covet does not convey on them some kind of moral superiority over the rest of humanity. It's not moral superiority; it's moral duty, to understand and uphold the works of the past that have lead to greatness. Failure to do so could mean seeing beautiful things destroyed, replaced by the same chaos and fear that people are already fleeing. > I say this as someone who hates to travel Well, maybe if you saw more of the world, and saw what people are trying to protect (e.g. in Europe), and got a greater sense of what it means to be a people (as opposed to the atomized, decultured masses in North America)... maybe you might understand why someone would seek to preserve something. It makes sense that you don't care about preserving your local strip mall / walmart / home depot. It's quite another thing to care about preserving Notre Dame and such.

closeparen 7y ago
You do not get Paris or Amsterdam or Vienna from a static set of families iterating in isolation over thousands of years. These are global cities, deeply integrated with and shaped by trade, migration and conquest. It's not Amish country or quiet little fishing villages that are attracting all these tourists.

toast0 7y ago

> I think the DFW quote is actively damaging because it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism. I don't think it's about ownership of a place; it's that the wonder of the place is destroyed by observation; especially by bulk observation. The question becomes is it better for the wonderous place to exist for insiders only, or for everyone to be able to observe its destruction? Some places have become so far gone, that tourists come solely to observe tourists.

tlb 7y ago

Cosmopolitan cities are full of people coming from around the world and making something greater than the sum of its parts. Tourist destinations, though they're also full of people from around the world, make something less than the sum of its parts. Tourists in this mode don't bring their own culture to the place. I'm sure most of the tourists are interesting people back home, but for some reason they adopt a globalized extruded tourist persona on vacation. For example, parts of Bali are full of Australian tourists. Bali is interesting, and Australians are interesting. But mobs of Australians picking over the gift shops in Bali are ghastly.

netsharc 7y ago
I remember an FB contact bragging about staying in "the greatest hostel in Rome", at first I was jealous, but then I thought, what's the excitement, he's not going to meet authentic Romans, he was just going to meet cookie-cutter "Hey bro, I'm travelling, am I not awesome?" people.

coldtea 7y ago

>I think the DFW quote is actively damaging because it paints a picture of certain places as belonging to a certain group of people by natural right rather than by a more contingent or accidental mechanism. Well, arriving could be accidental, but living there generation after generation, building the local culture, building the buildings, cultivating the land, etc, made it yours in a non "continent" but very real way. When you go to see e.g. Venice, you don't go to see some wildlife area that some people happened to arrive nearby recently and claim, but to experience the culture and building and legacy that people built (and built upon) over millennia. There's few things "contingent or accidental" about that. Perhaps difficult to explain this to Americans that are e.g. children of first generation immigrants, that live in a culture/city that others have built, and thus it's all the same to them. Though the Native Americans would beg to differ - but those were treated as an "infestation to be eliminated" by the new European arrivals at the time.