I just saw an article in the New York Times Travel section (thanks, Jim, for sending me the link) that got me thinking. Here's the train of thought that ensued.
I'm currently reading, "Long Way Round," by Ewan McGregor & Charley Boorman, the companion book to the excellent television series. Ewan & Charley, both motorcycle buffs, decide to ride around the world in as straight a line as they can manage. In order to pay for this expedition, they get sponsors and turn it into a documentary - complete with cameras in their helmets.
(One small digression - the program had been playing on Bravo, for what I think is the second time, and we'd been recording the 4am showings and enjoying them thoroughly. It's a six-part series, and we'd gotten to the end of episode four when Bravo unexpectedly - and for no good reason whatsoever - decided to stop airing them. So, we were left with a cliffhanger and no resolution in sight. There's no VHS copy of the program, and there isn't currently a DVD that's formatted for American players. I borrowed the book from the library, so I'll get the story eventually, but we're still ticked at Bravo for pulling the plug so uncerimoniously. Buggers.)
At any rate, I've just gotten past the part in the book where they visited Kiev, and Ewan commented that the feeling in the city was that it was what Prague was like before it became over-touristy. Then I see the New York Times article, saying it feels like Kiev is the new Prague. Ewan was cautious about the comparison, saying he wanted to return to Kiev with his wife sooner rather than later - before Kiev turns into the tourist destination Prague has become.
So, after reading these two things, I'm confronted by a dilemma I've been thinking about quite a bit lately - do we rush to see things before other tourists, deriding the tour-bussed-in masses carrying their guidebooks and instamatics? Or do we acknowledge that we are, to some extent, the same kind of folks in different clothes?
I have to admit, when I read Ewan's diary entry about Kiev, I immediately thought, "Oh, we must go there, and soon! For it will shortly be overrun by Americans who wear Bermuda shorts and wonder why they can't enter the cathedral, yell in English in the hopes that they'll be understood, and complain when they can't get American food!" (Okay, I'm exaggerating for effect. Did it work?) Then I had an immediate follow-up thought that went something like this, "Wait, amn't I a tourist, too?" So, this is my dilemma. How does one 'tour' without being a 'tourist?'
I want to see the world - as much of it as I can - and I think that's a good thing. I think travel makes us smarter, both about our own country and the places we go to see. Travel enhances our ability to make broad decisions that we now understand will affect people on a grander scale than just our city or our neighborhood. Travel teaches us that really, at the heart of it, we're all the same. These are good things. Very good things. So why is the word "tourist" such a dirty word? Why do so many people who travel aspire to be something else? It reminds me of the word "liberal" - no one wants to claim it because of the perceived negative connotations, despite the fact that it's probably an accurate description of quite a few people. (Another small digression - you may have noticed from the link list that I'm a liberal, and I'm one of the ones who actually likes the word.)
This is my dilemma. I'm pretty sure there isn't a right or wrong answer, it's just my new issue du jour.
2 comments:
I was thinking about this "tourist" vs. "traveller" issue, and decided to share my opinion. It seems that the word tourist does evoke negativity, and I think it is because of the image it conjures. The word always makes me think of a person outside their own living space with rudeness as thier number one characteristic. Rudeness meaning, no respect for the place they are in, the language that is spoken, or the customs of this new region or place.
But, I also think of crowds in a place where you want to be with less people. It is easy to say, " oh, darn these tourists", but they are enjoying the same thing you are enjoying. And probably helping the economy and learning something too.
Good question to ponder, especially when you feel yourself annoyed when "tourists" are on your turf, along with the times you are on someone else's turf.
Thanks for your comment.
I agree, it's a conundrum. Certainly, we all (or at least those of us who travel) generally express a desire to see things or places before they're "overrun by tourists," even though we'll be tourists when we're there as well.
You also raise another point I've often thought about - after a place has become a tourist destination, you can't "un-ring the bell" and then tell people not to go there, because by that point the locals are relying on the income those tourists generate.
I think it's one of those things where being aware of the potential problem is a really good start. Perhaps we can reclaim the word "tourist" to mean something positive again.
Post a Comment