having just returned from a trip to asia and australia, i can confidently say that the basic premise of this article is mistaken. reeling off facts from wikipedia is not the same at all as traveling to a country. the tastes, interactions, trash on the sidewalk, mysterious odors, miasamatic airs, overheard conversations all add up to a thousand times what the two paragraph history of vietnam gives you. is this satire? is this written by a bed bound agoraphobic? dont be silly. education is more than reciting the after effects of chinese rule on a small nation, its more than knowing dates of revolutions and the current form of government. education is context and perspective, macro to micro, the where and why and how. if education is wikipedia then philosophy is dirty limericks and science is air fryers.
All true, but most "travel" is staying a week or so as a tourist in some location, and it is true that what is learned from this kind of travel is generally trivial and superficial (and thus often wrong). You probably can learn more deep truths about a country and culture from reading on the internet, unless you are really making an effort to properly integrate in some way, likely for a minimum of many months. But, then, this is usually not what is meant by "travel".
i think it goes back to a deeper root premise about the human experience. maybe thats where i go a-kilter. it seems common these days for people to travel and then take instagram pictures and make posts about their experience going to michelin starred places. perhaps they are looking at their phones much of the time or documenting their travel for an audience that isnt themself. then, sure, you may as well read articles about it. youre missing the whole point anyway, and youre also missing life at home even if you arent traveling.
You do realise many of us read ”on the internet” (or preferably study literature, history, art and the language) of places we visit? These two in no way cancel each other out.
I have been on a work trips to places I really did not quite know the culture, history, or the language of, nor did I care enough to learn about them. These trips are always boring, even without the work stuff. Mass-turism is similar and most beautiful artistic achievements are just tedious extension of yet more of Disneyland forever.
I spoke a bit of Japanese when I travelled to Tokyo over 10 years ago, before the current tourist boom. I had known the history and culture for years from reading about it and studying martial arts since I was a child. I was an art student when I went to Rome, Firenze, Venice, Napoli. I could read a comic book in French when I first went to Paris, knowing of course the art historical perspective to it, but wanted to understand the culture, the feel, match it with my reading of the history.
So there’s travel and there’s travel. You can travel to your own back garden and find immense treasures, after a bit or research. Or you can go to other side of the planet and find nothing at all.
Nothing about my post said nor implied the two things were at odds or that there aren't people that do both. In fact, based on everything you are saying, I can't really find anything to disagree with at all.
> So there’s travel and there’s travel.
Indeed. If travel = tourism, then I agree most travel (as tourism) is superficial gives mostly trivial knowledge about a culture. If travel is "living / working abroad" or "an exchange", than, obviously it is not so trivial. And indeed, even a week as a tourist can be rich if you've read deeply on some specific aspect of the country, and that is the focus of your tourism.
I would still guess that over 90% of travel (at least among younger generations) is just shallow tourism, and people most vocal about the benefits of travel are generally just tourists pretending their shallow tourism is something more. This is the sentiment I think animates this kind of blog post / article.
EDIT: And also there is nothing wrong with liking fundamentally superficial and/or simple things. I enjoy trashy fast food and SPAM from time to time despite also happily spending many days and hours carefully preparing gourmet meals. But I don't ever pretend that enjoying SPAM is some elevated fine taste. Those who enjoy shallow tourism just have an annoying tendency to try to pretend that their "travel" somehow makes them better and/or sophisticated in some way, but, it simply does not, in the vast majority of cases.
having just returned from a trip to asia and australia, i can confidently say that the basic premise of this article is mistaken. reeling off facts from wikipedia is not the same at all as traveling to a country. the tastes, interactions, trash on the sidewalk, mysterious odors, miasamatic airs, overheard conversations all add up to a thousand times what the two paragraph history of vietnam gives you. is this satire? is this written by a bed bound agoraphobic? dont be silly. education is more than reciting the after effects of chinese rule on a small nation, its more than knowing dates of revolutions and the current form of government. education is context and perspective, macro to micro, the where and why and how. if education is wikipedia then philosophy is dirty limericks and science is air fryers.
All true, but most "travel" is staying a week or so as a tourist in some location, and it is true that what is learned from this kind of travel is generally trivial and superficial (and thus often wrong). You probably can learn more deep truths about a country and culture from reading on the internet, unless you are really making an effort to properly integrate in some way, likely for a minimum of many months. But, then, this is usually not what is meant by "travel".
i think it goes back to a deeper root premise about the human experience. maybe thats where i go a-kilter. it seems common these days for people to travel and then take instagram pictures and make posts about their experience going to michelin starred places. perhaps they are looking at their phones much of the time or documenting their travel for an audience that isnt themself. then, sure, you may as well read articles about it. youre missing the whole point anyway, and youre also missing life at home even if you arent traveling.
You do realise many of us read ”on the internet” (or preferably study literature, history, art and the language) of places we visit? These two in no way cancel each other out.
I have been on a work trips to places I really did not quite know the culture, history, or the language of, nor did I care enough to learn about them. These trips are always boring, even without the work stuff. Mass-turism is similar and most beautiful artistic achievements are just tedious extension of yet more of Disneyland forever.
I spoke a bit of Japanese when I travelled to Tokyo over 10 years ago, before the current tourist boom. I had known the history and culture for years from reading about it and studying martial arts since I was a child. I was an art student when I went to Rome, Firenze, Venice, Napoli. I could read a comic book in French when I first went to Paris, knowing of course the art historical perspective to it, but wanted to understand the culture, the feel, match it with my reading of the history.
So there’s travel and there’s travel. You can travel to your own back garden and find immense treasures, after a bit or research. Or you can go to other side of the planet and find nothing at all.
Nothing about my post said nor implied the two things were at odds or that there aren't people that do both. In fact, based on everything you are saying, I can't really find anything to disagree with at all.
> So there’s travel and there’s travel.
Indeed. If travel = tourism, then I agree most travel (as tourism) is superficial gives mostly trivial knowledge about a culture. If travel is "living / working abroad" or "an exchange", than, obviously it is not so trivial. And indeed, even a week as a tourist can be rich if you've read deeply on some specific aspect of the country, and that is the focus of your tourism.
I would still guess that over 90% of travel (at least among younger generations) is just shallow tourism, and people most vocal about the benefits of travel are generally just tourists pretending their shallow tourism is something more. This is the sentiment I think animates this kind of blog post / article.
EDIT: And also there is nothing wrong with liking fundamentally superficial and/or simple things. I enjoy trashy fast food and SPAM from time to time despite also happily spending many days and hours carefully preparing gourmet meals. But I don't ever pretend that enjoying SPAM is some elevated fine taste. Those who enjoy shallow tourism just have an annoying tendency to try to pretend that their "travel" somehow makes them better and/or sophisticated in some way, but, it simply does not, in the vast majority of cases.