Tourist = Bad for Culture, good for Economy
Traveler = Bad for economy, good for culture.
Just kidding.
I would say that 10% of the blogs and articles throughout Matador deal with this exact issue in one way or another...but that's not going to stop anyone from weighing in. ;)
I just think the line can get blurry because the label is all about perspective. A Panama-hat-and-hawaiian-tshirt wearing American with a Camera around their neck would be a "tourist" to the backpack-slinging, local-food-sampling "traveler". But the locals probably don't differentiate much between the two. Lord knows, people in my home town can identify someone from another state.
Olivebeard is right. It is all about perspective. The "locals" in fact may prefer "the visitors" to confine themselves to the resorts and tourist-friendly centers rather than "travel" (i.e. dress in rags, smell like shit, and sleep in unregulated and grimy hostels) through the ghettos of their land.
The whole debate must have started with a "traveler" talking down to a "tourist." I can see no other way this began. I'm just gonna come out and say it. I am a tourist. Chances are you are one, too. Deal with it.
While I'm at it, I'm a traveler also. I guess I can be both.
Tourists visit a place looking for all the comforts of home. Travelers visit looking to learn how others live...
Bollocks. With that definition anyone who orders a coke when abroad, is a tourist.
You're probably gonna argue that ordering a coke is not necessarily trying to get the confort of the things we got back home, to which i'll reply something along the lines of "who are you to define what is confort and what's not?", and after endless pages of going back and forth, we'll prolly end it with some memorable line about the subjectiveness of the issue, which brings me to my next point; the bigger question here: why do you need to differentiate them?
I was was forced to define them, i'd say, based on my experience, that the people who make an effort to categorize them as travellers (as opossed to tourist) are a bunch of envious fuckers who just wished they had the money "tourists" have.
Best for the culture and the economy? You go to any gov who's eco has a strong touristic ingredient (Mexico, Thailand, Brasil, Uruguay) and ask them who brings in the cash: people who stay at luxury hotels or backpackers who stay 3 months spending 10 usd a day.
For the record, i still can't afford five star hotels.
I think Jay said it right: we're all a little bit of both.
The idea of distinguishing between travelers and tourists feels--to me--a little bit like drawing the line between Hutus and Tutsis (ie, it's not an organic distinction but one imposed by parties who want to label one group as superior). Not that the tension between the rich Americans and the grubby backpackers is going to evolve into a genocide... But you know what I mean.
Why draw more lines between people than necessary? Isn't that what gets us into trouble in the first place?
The more important question in my eyes is: how conscientious are we when we're traveling? In other words, it's not an either/or issue but an issue of degrees. The people you might think of as tourists or travelers are all located on the same continuum.
Oh, I want to go on and on. But I think I've said enough for now.
The idea of distinguishing between travelers and tourists feels--to me--a little bit like drawing the line between Hutus and Tutsis (ie, it's not an organic distinction but one imposed by parties who want to label one group as superior). Not that the tension between the rich Americans and the grubby backpackers is going to evolve into a genocide... But you know what I mean.
In all honesty, i don't.
Hutus vs Tutsis? What the fuck are you talking about? The division between hutus and tutsis was emphasised almost entirely by a third party.
The division between "travelers" and "tourists" is mostly made by people who label themselves as "travelers". They not only make the division, they are part of it.
You show me a tourist and i'll show you someone who couldn't care less about being labeled one.
"The division between hutus and tutsis was emphasised almost entirely by a third party."
Um... Except during that whole genocide thing. Sure, some of the early emphasis on differences was imposed by the Belgians, and continued to be carried out by the international aid community. But the Hutus who masterminded the genocide certainly embraced the concept. On the flip side, the current ("Tutsi") government is attempting to paper over the old distinctions... and is being accused of doing so in order to mask discrimination against the people formerly known as Hutus.
I think Jenny's point was that it's a fabricated distinction - or at least one that's been over-emphasized, and distorted as need be for particular ends. In this case, "travelers" alter the definition as need be in order to include / exclude others. It seems you're both in agreement there...
Heh, i knew this would happen. That's why i used the word "emphasised".
"Um... Except during that whole genocide thing."
Several well respected historians would argue the sentiment installed there by the third party was the main reason the genocide took place.
"But the Hutus who masterminded the genocide certainly embraced the concept. "
The belgians went there and created a monster. They just werent there when the monster went loose.
"I think Jenny's point was that it's a fabricated distinction -"
Such distinction is both wrong and missleading if you don't grasp the concept of where the distinction is comming from.
" seems you're both in agreement there..."
How dare you ;)
Wow, I took a few days off and missed all the excitement.
@deva, You clearly have a good sense of what's happening in Rwanda. I appreciate that you're looking at the overall point I was trying to make rather than the particular comparison I made.
@Kaunassian, I certainly didn't mean for this to evolve into a discussion of the historical complexities in Rwanda. That was a mistake on my part. Let me see if I can clarify.
What I was trying to say is that I don't think the distinction between traveler and tourist is the right distinction we should be making. In that sense, I believe we *are* in agreement (you said, "the bigger question here: why do you need to differentiate them?").
However, I think it IS important to recognize that there are ways to be a more ethical traveler/tourist. I don't care if you're penny-pinching in rural Pakistan or cruising the Caribbean in your private yaht; EVERY traveler/tourist can be more aware of how their actions impact their environment.
Kaunassian, you also said that 'the people who make an effort to categorize them as travellers (as opossed to tourist) are a bunch of envious fuckers who just wished they had the money "tourists" have.'
I disagree. I've known plenty of people who consider themselves "travelers" even though they spend lots of money on the road. My parents are great examples: they're conscientious and respectful, but they stay in higher-end hotels and aren't likely to ride on the top of a chicken bus.
I don't think it's an issue of money, or even time--though the classic distinction suggests that travelers have lots of time and little money while tourists have lots of money and little time. The point I was trying to make earlier is that there are simply too many gray areas in between. I've rarely come across people who fall neatly into one category or the other, even by their own standards. Every self-described "traveler" I know admits that they have a little bit of the "tourist" in them, too. And many of the people others might define as "tourists" also see themselves as "travelers" in their own way. It's not up to me to say who is one or the other.
I hope this clarifies my thoughts.
Ha. Not sure how this went off the tracks of "tourist vs traveler" and now we're debating Rwanda, but I guess that's what forums are all about ;)
Getting back to the original post, I think being a traveler boils down to one thing: taking risks. I don't think it matters what you're wearing, where you stay or how much money you spend.
You could be rocking some silly ass "I ate the worm! Playa del Carmen, Mexico" t-shirt and staying in a nice hotel, and still be a traveler, as long as you do whatever you can to go explore the gems of that destination--that everyone else has somehow missed.
Instead of taking the eco-tour with everyone else, Take a bus to where the road stops and pay some dude to take you into the forest. Strive to find all the little local restaurants and bars that the people who have been living there all their lives, call their favorite. Try to be the only gringo in the whole spot and when everyone at the bar turns around and gives each other a look like, "what the fuck are these guys doing in here?", buy 'em a beer and introduce yourself..practice a little Spanish.
Most people will be fired up on you.
Personally, I try to be a traveler, but there have been a couple vacations I've taken in the last couple years where, due to my company, I was definitely a tourist. Leaving the beach, getting on a bus, walking into a dive in some little ally...these are all risks and some people are less willing to take risks and would rather play it safe and relax. That's cool, but the best travel experiences almost always involve *not* playing it safe.
My two cents..
You could be rocking some silly ass "I ate the worm! Playa del Carmen, Mexico" t-shirt and staying in a nice hotel, and still be a traveler, as long as you do whatever you can to go explore the gems of that destination--that everyone else has somehow missed.
I don't think you get it. That is precisely what is wrong with your argument. Who's to say what are the gems of the destination that EVERYONE ELSE missed? You?
When defining a word, precisely like we're doing in this particular thread, people are inclined to favour a more objective description of the meaning, you know, like in dictionaries. Just so you know.
Ha. I'm not saying that "I know where all the gems are"..I'm saying that if you are the only non-local in a bar, everyone else has missed it, right? Maybe it's awesome. Besides, that was a tangent of my main point.
My central answer to the question was that travelers are "people who take risks when they travel". Is that objective enough, or are you going to come back and say, "who are you to tell me what a "risk" is?!
If so, I will define a 'risk' as stepping outside of one's personal comfort zone. In my opinion, that's why when someone has done some real travel (taking personal, calculated risks), they come back and say "I feel like I've grown (mentally).."
If you're not taking risks, you'll get back and just be depressed your vacation is over.
Get it?
Joined: 03-17-08
I thought this would make for an interesting topic; how do you define a tourist and how is it different from a traveler? I find that there is a lot of negative connotation involved with being a tourist but the lines between tourist and traveler can get very blurry. Thoughts?