Is "tourist" a bad word?
So, I got to thinking today, and then posted a longish tirade on my newish blog. Then I thought I'd post the tirade here so y'all could comment. Just please don't yell at me - I'm fragile. No, really - I'm just raising a question I've started thinking about lately, and I really don't think there's a right or wrong answer... It's just something that's fed my philosophical soul lately. Enough dithering, here's my tirade:
Is Kiev the new Prague?
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.
Is Kiev the new Prague?
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.