Travel snobs (hostel, vacations, package, Europe)

[Wwanderer]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Do you think there is a cachet of travellers who has this belief that they are somehow more 'adventurers' or 'true travellers' than others?

Like they'd say things like, 'I'd NEVER go on a tour,'

'I try to stay away from all those tourist traps.'

They constantly bash newer attractions, for instance Las Vegas, while they get Moderator cut: edited: excited about some 12th century hill fort in Scotland because this and this historical event happened there.

They look down on those who stay in resorts...pride themselves on how well they budget themselves.

They think everyone should have to immerse themselves in the culture, learning the lingo, eating weird food...

Don't get me wrong, I'm a bit like that myself, but I do notice that some folk can get a little bit pretentious about being 'seasoned travellers.'

Well this describes me too, except for the "bashing" part. Newer attractions? Okay, I have no interest in nightclubs or gambling, or water parks or theme parks, so I have no interest in Vegas. But that doesn't mean I bash people for liking it.

I also don't like being "bashed" as someone who likes "weird food", or likes 12th cenutury hill forts--what's wrong with revisiting historical events? Or being criticized for learning some of the language or finding interesting local places that cost less!

Originally Posted by Bluesmama

Well, I'm not a seasoned traveller (meaning, never been out of the states). But I am unable to comprehend why people go through the trouble to fly somewhere just to stay confined within a resort.

Many folks go to resorts because they live somewhere that's cold in the winter, and they have limited vacation time, and just want to go somewhere warm and relax. Packaged trips to resorts in Mexico, etc. can be very cost-effective.

[EnricoV]

Originally Posted by annerk

I also want to point out that not all tours are created equal. While I have no desire to do a motorcoach tour with 45 other people (I can see why some like to travel that way--no decisions and safety, particularly for seniors) we have taken private and semi-private tours where there were only four or five others along with us, or sometimes it was just my husband and I. Those small tours tend to offer flexibility, and the private tours are customized specifically to what you're interests are.

I have done the big bus tours, and loved every minute of it. The biggest draw is the "no decisions" part. And not because I'm lazy (well, maybe) ... but because it's the biggest time saver I've ever experienced while on vacation. I can honestly say I saw very little more on a two-month backpacking trip than I did on a two-week bus tour. I also liked the company we went with. It was based in Britain, and we were among the very few Americans in the group. I don't think I'd like as much a tour that left from my hometown, filled with people all from the same place.

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by EnricoV

I have done the big bus tours, and loved every minute of it. The biggest draw is the "no decisions" part. And not because I'm lazy (well, maybe) ... but because it's the biggest time saver I've ever experienced while on vacation. I can honestly say I saw very little more on a two-month backpacking trip than I did on a two-week bus tour. I also liked the company we went with. It was based in Britain, and we were among the very few Americans in the group. I don't think I'd like as much a tour that left from my hometown, filled with people all from the same place.

I've had heaps of fun going on tours. But yes, like the above poster said there are different types of tours. I wouldn't like to go on a tour with 50 others just stopping by, getting out, taking pics and picking up some souvenirs, or a Contiki tours, but small group adventure tours (12 or less) can be heaps of fun! Trek America was great, I imagine Intrepid etc are similar. I was in the US for 6 weeks, got to do my own thing in LA and NY, but travelling across the US Trek America was the ideal way to pack in as much as possible in 3 weeks. Saved a lot of the hassle of organising. Now if I had say 3 months, sure I'd take my time, but yeah don't think tours are only for the unadventurous.

[chielgirl]

bwp, definitely contact us if you're going to be in Europe.
I know Thailand pretty well, also, especially the North.

I met an on-line friend in Luxembourg a few months ago and I'll be visiting her in Oslo in May. I'm meeting another on-line friend in Helsinki while on the same trip in my new VW camper van.

[Empidonax]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Do you think there is a cachet of travellers who has this belief that they are somehow more 'adventurers' or 'true travellers' than others?

Like they'd say things like, 'I'd NEVER go on a tour,'

'I try to stay away from all those tourist traps.'

They constantly bash newer attractions, for instance Las Vegas, while they get Moderator cut: edited: excited about some 12th century hill fort in Scotland because this and this historical event happened there.

They look down on those who stay in resorts...pride themselves on how well they budget themselves.

They think everyone should have to immerse themselves in the culture, learning the lingo, eating weird food...

Don't get me wrong, I'm a bit like that myself, but I do notice that some folk can get a little bit pretentious about being 'seasoned travellers.'

Like others have weighed in, I mostly fall into this travel category, though I don't "bash" others for different travel preferences, and an occasional tour or resort stay may actually be a good thing. It's okay to have travel preferences, but it isn't okay when those preferences are socially articulated to create divisions of superiority/inferiority. I see my life as constantly in flux, and what works for me now may not work for me years from now.

My situation is a bit difficult, as I teach languages and cultures at the college level for a living. Part of my lifeblood is encouraging people (students with travel plans) to learn at least a little of the language, try local foods, and so on and so forth. I see no problem with holding strong cultural/travel values and passing them along to people when appropriate.

But the key is humility and open-mindedness. If people do things their own way, that's ultimately their thing, they are responsible for their choices. If friends prefer a cruise with only a few hours' stop in amazing cities that merit more time, or if students travelling abroad prefer KFC to local cuisine, I don't mind gently dropping my point of view if circumstances permit (more in the case of students), but ultimately it isn't my travel experience. One of my neighbors travels regularly to places like Brazil and Alaska, but she often goes on tours. She's 90 years old! I hope I'm able to do so much at her age.

Over the years I've learned to appreciate and look for something worthwhile in seemingly mundane places, and this has helped me remain fairly grounded in my outlook. Travellers abroad will talk about the charms of tiny French or Spanish hamlets, but often express scorn at "boring" towns in the American South or Midwest. I admit that Las Vegas and Dubai strike me as highly fabricated, materialistic playgrounds, but seeing them could be a good lesson in the triumph of human ingenuity over a stubborn natural setting, and such places have good restaurants, a local culture, natural attractions, and other things to consider. A cruise generally doesn't interest me, but maybe it will in 20 years or so when my body slows down and I need more of a support structure for travel.

The kind of travel snob you've outlined does exist, of course, but that isn't the only kind. There are travel snobs who insist that only backpacking in underdeveloped countries is the only way to go. There are travel snobs who insist that only North America and Europe are worthy destinations. There are travel snobs who "collect" cruises and Caribbean islands like stamps, and make a point of the great expense and pampering involved. There are travel snobs who insist that you haven't seen America unless you've been to the Disneys and Branson. These are all fine travel preferences, but when they are used socially to create barriers they enter snob territory. But isn't the point of travel to open our minds and make us more willing to consider other points of view?

[BlueWillowPlate]

Originally Posted by quijote

...when they are used socially to create barriers they enter snob territory.
But isn't the point of travel to open our minds and make us more willing to consider other points of view?

Your *entire* post is spot on, but the point above is the main reason I've rolled my eyes at the tourist instead of a traveler schtick, because it's always rubbed me the wrong way when people prop themselves up with phony superiority.

Chielgirl, maybe one of these days I will be messaging you for Asia advice.
With two kids in Europe, that tends to be our destination, but I know my husband is hankering for other horizons. Maybe we could at least explore more of eastern Europe.

This thread certainly has brought out some interesting comments from very interesting-sounding people.

[Bluesmama]

Originally Posted by EnricoV

I have done the big bus tours, and loved every minute of it. The biggest draw is the "no decisions" part. And not because I'm lazy (well, maybe) ... but because it's the biggest time saver I've ever experienced while on vacation. I can honestly say I saw very little more on a two-month backpacking trip than I did on a two-week bus tour. I also liked the company we went with. It was based in Britain, and we were among the very few Americans in the group. I don't think I'd like as much a tour that left from my hometown, filled with people all from the same place.

There was a time when I considered traveling to the Middle East; however, it would have been as a solo traveller, and that's one part of the world where I would NOT venture out by myself. I would have done the tour groups for this one.

Sometimes faster isn't necessarily better. When I went to New York City several years ago I couldn't make myself ride the subways. There had been rainstorms, the underground humidity was like steam. I couldn't breathe, so I panicked. Rode busses instead. So while the busses were slower, I saw much more of the city that way.

[annerk]

Originally Posted by Bluesmama

There was a time when I considered traveling to the Middle East; however, it would have been as a solo traveller, and that's one part of the world where I would NOT venture out by myself. I would have done the tour groups for this one.

Sometimes faster isn't necessarily better. When I went to New York City several years ago I couldn't make myself ride the subways. There had been rainstorms, the underground humidity was like steam. I couldn't breathe, so I panicked. Rode busses instead. So while the busses were slower, I saw much more of the city that way.

Actually there's a very interesting element of the city you missed by not taking the train. I love the subway, even when it's hot. The people watching is extraordinary, and there is great undiscovered musical talent in some of the terminals.

[robertpolyglot]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

I haven't met many travel snobs and I travel a lot.
Most people simply talk about their preferences.

Bingo. I've found the places I like in Europe and South America, and in Canada on this continent, and go back to those places. I like them so much that I bothered to learn the language, and not for its snob value. I find that knowing the language makes everything about the vacation go that much smoother and be that much more enjoyable.

[robertpolyglot]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Folk who say why would anyone go to Las Vegas or Los Angeles, it's full of shallow materialistic plastic culture, while they are full of praise for San Francisco for it's historic architecture.

Of course many who do visit LA discover it has a lot of 'culture' too. The original site of the Pueblo/Olvera Street/Union Station is just one example.

I've always loved this one. America's second largest metro area has no culture? That's probably because the entertainment industry has tarnished its reputation. Los Angeles may be "older" than San Francisco...I'm not sure. Los Angeles just doesn't have the made-for-postcard "Victorian ladies" and all the "bay windows." But Los Angeles has always had a place in modernist architecture and has other great civic architecture. Some of its iconic movie houses can't be matched by San Francisco's. Many grand LA single-screen cinemas have not survived the wrecking ball.