Bori goes to Holland

So I have to admit, I was surprised and humbled by the commotion that my previous post about traveling generated. Okay, commotion might sound a bit exaggarated, but pageviews really peaked - I had 153 reads so far and more than 50 facebook likes (thank you!). It's interesting and also thrilling that I've struck a chord with so many people with this topic. Seems like this might be a subject relevant to many of us.

I also had some people comment or write me critique, or additions to my thoughts (thank you!). They very rightfully pointed out some of the shortcomings of my previous argumentation, which is why I felt the need to write a follow-up post.

I might have been a bit too pivotal in my reasoning before, but so I would like to now make it clear that I agree and admit that comparing international travel to domestic travel is a bit comparing apples and oranges. They aren't really the same, and one isn't inherently better or worse than the other. Each have different meaning and purpose, require different resources and tools. 

So why did I compare them in the first place? I was trying to grasp a clash of values, a problem if you will that I've been witnessing around me, and I used the analogy of theses 2 types of travel as a means to represent the polarities of this paradigm.

'Fast food tourism'

One of which is the 'fast-food' type tourism, which I believe international travel is more prone to. I am ambivalent about this shallow form of travel, because while it is very entertaining to do at times, it's a luxury of the wealthy, and not very eco-friendly which is something that personally bothers me. I feel like it's about 'consuming' places, sights and their local specialties (or the fast-food), and then throwing away the disposable parts and moving on.

I'm conflicted about this form of travel because I believe many people do it because they have some sort of need to just 'get away' - which in itself is totally fine. However, I feel like they 'use' these places as a means to distract themselves from their everyday life. The novelty of all the new shiny things puts them in the moment, finally allowing them to switch off and relax - in a way, using whatever new place they visited as a disposable mindfulness towel if you will. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with craving that happy-being-in-the-moment tourist feeling - but this is where my argument about domestic travel creeps back in: you don't *need* to go abroad just to be mindful and relax. Switching into that mode in which you just observe and connect to your surroundings shouldn't be something that you can only do if you go at least 500 kms away. Shiny new things, even if they are tiny, are literally behind any corner that you have never been to yet, possibly within a block around your house. So if you just crave to have a little of that awe feeling, I really recommend practicing that *everyday*, *anywhere*. It really is a win-win for all, as it's not only much more sustainable environmentally, but also budget-friendly. And you even save time. Loads of it too!

An additional layer of complexity that comes into play when I think about this stuff is my general annoyance with people who say traveling is their hobby. Or when they simply say 'I love to travel.' Like wanting to and traveling to places was something unique, like it's the hallmark of being open-minded, or smart, or cool, or whatever - where in reality traveling in the form we usually think about is pretty much only related to your income. Okay, possibly maybe other circumstances in your life, like choosing a job that allows you to travel, but let's be real: it's mostly just about money. Having had your pictures taken in Times Square, on The Great Walll of China or at the beach in Rio, isn't an accomplishment in itself - unless it is, because you walked there on foot or something. But for most people this is just a luxurious opportunity, something they arrogantly refer to as a 'hobby.' 

vs. 'Deliberate tourism'

So until now I described what I more or less mean when I say 'fast-food' tourism, although I guess you could call it 'shallow' or 'accidental' tourism too. And from there, if I have to reconstruct the other pole, I guess I'd call it 'deliberate' tourism. And the main distinctions I would make compared to the previous type would be in terms of intention and time. Intention mostly in regards to the place: if you go to a specific place not out of pure chance (needing a disposable mindfulness towel) but because of some specific interest or meaning - may it be because you are visiting distant relatives you have never met before, or you are going to the Amazonas because ever since you were a kid that was your dream and it's a major item on your bucketlist. And then in these cases it's the actual location in itself that has meaning, not the simple fact of 'being away from home'. (Athough, on second thought, I do think 'being away from home' can also be the intended location, which again just underlines how fluid these concepts are and how I'm also just trying to make sense of it all and potentially failing at it miserably.)
Regarding the time factor, I think the shorter the time we spend somewhere, the more likely it is to turn into 'consuming' the place. Whereas the more time we get to be somewhere, the more we will learn and grow, and the more that place will have meaning for us. I think this is a no-brainer correlation, and there isn't much else to add to it. Of course we all have time constraints, and again, not everyone has the luxury to spend a year wandering around Asia between jobs. So I'm not saying the more time you spend somewhere your time spent will necessarily be more 'valuable'. However, I do think that trying to cramp in for example as many attractions into the available time as possible might be something to rethink - giving yourself time to enjoy fewer places might be a more enriching experience.

While writing this, I stumbled on this quote on the internet:

Who knows if it's really from the Dalai Lama, but I like how it underlines my points - first of all it sets the frequency to once a year (it's luxury if you do it more often), and I love the vagueness of 'someplace', how it only has the criteria of 'never been before.' That can be pretty much anything, from the other point of the globe to your attic. 

While I think there is still many aspects of this topic that could be covered and many more layers of complexity to be unraveled, I hope as a first step I managed to somewhat broaden the domestic-vs.-international travel paradigm debate onto a more abstract level of how we think about travel. This isn't the full picture yet, I still might be 'wrong' (although I don't think there is any right or wrong on this), I still might be missing many elements to this story - I most probably am. I can only know as much as I know and think about right now. Maybe, once I'm even wiser, there will be another follow-up post in the future...

Last but not least, I also hope that I was able to shed some light onto the fact that hopping around and ticking off destinations like a to do list might not be how you get the most out of your travel. If it's only a burst of mindfulness that you need, it's not the distance, or not even the place that's going to make a difference. It's you. 

And because that last sentence is waaaay too cheesy, I'll just disperse the awkwardness of it with a somewhat related picture of cute dogs.