Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it highly amusing that so many people don't like "tourist traps". Of course, everyone defines "tourist trap" differently. The reality is that most of the worlds attractions are where tourists go. If you want to see Stonehenge or Venice or Yellowstone or the Alamo, you will have to join lots of tourists. Why do some people think they can go where there are no tourists and see world class sites?
Amusing.
Of course natural and historical attractions like Yellowstone are not tourist traps. The areas around them are what trap the tourists. The endless chain restaurants and motels. But I guess you have to put up with that to see the real attraction.
Cities on the other hand are different. There are the man made areas where they trap the tourists who do not know better. I used the example of Fisherman's Wharf. A series of docks converted to a bunch of honky tonk stores, motels and chain resturants is not where one should be to experience San Fran. South St seaport and Times Square are other ultimate tourist traps. There are a million other ways to get a true New York experience besides going to Times Square. It is a waste of time.
Disney is completely different because it is unto itself the attraction. You go there intentionnally to experience Disney- so in and of itself it is the Trap. There is nothing lse to experience but Disney.
If the OP doesn't like travel, then why post about it? I love almost everything about travel except the shake down by TSA. I meet new people, see the beautiful world God created. We visit gift shops, caves, national parks, museums and enjoy viewing the various structures and oddities that people have made. If someone has no interest in that and wants to stay home and watch more reality TV, fine with me. It just means all the other great stuff to see and do is less crowded. (I hate lines.)
I find it highly amusing that so many people don't like "tourist traps". Of course, everyone defines "tourist trap" differently. The reality is that most of the worlds attractions are where tourists go. If you want to see Stonehenge or Venice or Yellowstone or the Alamo, you will have to join lots of tourists. Why do some people think they can go where there are no tourists and see world class sites?
Amusing.
I agree: I notice someone mentioned they had to go through the Wharf to get the bus to the wine country? The wine country (which I happen to love) certainly is a tourist trap. Why are there so many wine country tours all the time?
The second thing that occurred was an exchange between a friend of mine about traveling in which she basically stuck her nose up in the air against people who don't travel as much as her because her travels made her enlightened. Again, I don't really care about someone's preferences, but this person is the type of person who hits up the tourist spots and sights when she travels so I found it weird that she was being an elitist about it. Her location tastes weren't anything to hit home about either: some popular places in western Europe like Paris.
A trip to Paris (or Berlin or Prague or Amsterdam or who cares where) can be no more enlightening than a trip to Chicago, or it can be a completely different experience. The same goes for almost anywhere, domestic or foreign. Claiming that a different person's trip is unenlightening just because it's in western Europe, is just as short sighted as that person playing "globetrotting elitist" simply because they've been somewhere that you haven't.
Being "enlightened" or "experienced" as a byproduct of travel, doesn't have as much to do with where you go, as much as it does what you do when you get there, and being "enlightened" is subjective anyway. Some people are enlightened by seeing art, others by eating food, some people like to see historic places, some like to climb mountains, some like to go diving, or whatever.
Also, it's possible to travel internationally without seeing anything that you can't get right in your own neighborhood. Business travel can be like that. Aside from having to pass through customs, a foreign business trip can be almost the same as a domestic one. Same hotels, same language, same meetings, same drinks and the same celebratory "meat meal" after whatever business is done, just a longer flight in between, and maybe a little bit different food in the interim. But, the trip can still be "enlightening" if you are dealing with people whose culture is not the same as yours. You can still take a lot away from a trip like that, without having gone to see art or old ruins. It's just a different experience.
I think I agree with what you've said.
I was in Tibet in June to view famous sites, like the Potala Palace and Jokhing Temple, as well as to learn about local culture. It was fascinating, and had been on my bucket list for decades.
In July, I was in Kauai and Maui, simply to soak up the peaceful atmosphere, rather than to see a famous site or necessarily interact with locals (although that did happen).
Both were great trips, but very different from each other in atmosphere as well as purpose. I consider both to have been "enlightening". LOL, both places were swarming with tourists. Who cares!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 43north87west
A trip to Paris (or Berlin or Prague or Amsterdam or who cares where) can be no more enlightening than a trip to Chicago, or it can be a completely different experience. The same goes for almost anywhere, domestic or foreign. Claiming that a different person's trip is unenlightening just because it's in western Europe, is just as short sighted as that person playing "globetrotting elitist" simply because they've been somewhere that you haven't.
Being "enlightened" or "experienced" as a byproduct of travel, doesn't have as much to do with where you go, as much as it does what you do when you get there, and being "enlightened" is subjective anyway. Some people are enlightened by seeing art, others by eating food, some people like to see historic places, some like to climb mountains, some like to go diving, or whatever.
Also, it's possible to travel internationally without seeing anything that you can't get right in your own neighborhood. Business travel can be like that. Aside from having to pass through customs, a foreign business trip can be almost the same as a domestic one. Same hotels, same language, same meetings, same drinks and the same celebratory "meat meal" after whatever business is done, just a longer flight in between, and maybe a little bit different food in the interim. But, the trip can still be "enlightening" if you are dealing with people whose culture is not the same as yours. You can still take a lot away from a trip like that, without having gone to see art or old ruins. It's just a different experience.
Where in my post did I say that you did? I expressed my opinion about visiting these two cities and the fact that they both have their charms. The rest of my statement was directed toward your original post, and yeah, you do seem to express contempt for places like "Paris".
Peddlers catering to the tourist trade always gather at famous sites, because that is where tourists gather. That doesn't diminish the value of a famous site. If you are Catholic, would you ignore the Vatican in favor of some obscure church elsewhere, just because tourists go to the Vatican? If so, you will miss out on a lot of great things the world has to offer.
JMHO
Re-reading your OP, I was reminded of a conversation I once had with an African-American lady who told me that she avoids tourist places, "assimilates" into local culture, and is accordingly, mistaken for a "local". LOL! We were in Moscow, and she only spoke English. Really? A local?
I did not. I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to defend myself against claims I did not make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBen
Of course natural and historical attractions like Yellowstone are not tourist traps. The areas around them are what trap the tourists. The endless chain restaurants and motels. But I guess you have to put up with that to see the real attraction.
Cities on the other hand are different. There are the man made areas where they trap the tourists who do not know better. I used the example of Fisherman's Wharf. A series of docks converted to a bunch of honky tonk stores, motels and chain resturants is not where one should be to experience San Fran. South St seaport and Times Square are other ultimate tourist traps. There are a million other ways to get a true New York experience besides going to Times Square. It is a waste of time.
Disney is completely different because it is unto itself the attraction. You go there intentionnally to experience Disney- so in and of itself it is the Trap. There is nothing lse to experience but Disney.
I agree. Someone once told me that they hated NYC because they thought it was a superficial place with all the flashing neon signs. That right there told me that they did not go anywhere beyond Time Square.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 43north87west
A trip to Paris (or Berlin or Prague or Amsterdam or who cares where) can be no more enlightening than a trip to Chicago, or it can be a completely different experience. The same goes for almost anywhere, domestic or foreign. Claiming that a different person's trip is unenlightening just because it's in western Europe, is just as short sighted as that person playing "globetrotting elitist" simply because they've been somewhere that you haven't.
Being "enlightened" or "experienced" as a byproduct of travel, doesn't have as much to do with where you go, as much as it does what you do when you get there, and being "enlightened" is subjective anyway. Some people are enlightened by seeing art, others by eating food, some people like to see historic places, some like to climb mountains, some like to go diving, or whatever.
Also, it's possible to travel internationally without seeing anything that you can't get right in your own neighborhood. Business travel can be like that. Aside from having to pass through customs, a foreign business trip can be almost the same as a domestic one. Same hotels, same language, same meetings, same drinks and the same celebratory "meat meal" after whatever business is done, just a longer flight in between, and maybe a little bit different food in the interim. But, the trip can still be "enlightening" if you are dealing with people whose culture is not the same as yours. You can still take a lot away from a trip like that, without having gone to see art or old ruins. It's just a different experience.
I agree that any experience can be "enlightening"(I dislike using that word) regardless of where you go, but I wasn't bashing western europe. My criticism was directed at the person who as being critical against other people. I did happen to say that I don't that persons preferences to be out of the ordinary.
Man, all this worrying about whether a place could be considered a tourist trap or not, and whether one can be considered a "real" traveler or not, must be exhausting!
I care not how others will perceive my choice of destination or my "approach" to trips. I go to places both well-known/touristy and off the beaten path. Some I like, others I dislike, but they are based on my preferences, not on whether they're classified (by whoever) as a "tourist trap" or a "locals only" thing/site.
Man, all this worrying about whether a place could be considered a tourist trap or not, and whether one can be considered a "real" traveler or not, must be exhausting!
I care not how others will perceive my choice of destination or my "approach" to trips. I go to places both well-known/touristy and off the beaten path. Some I like, others I dislike, but they are based on my preferences, not on whether they're classified (by whoever) as a "tourist trap" or a "locals only" thing/site.
You are right! In retrospect, I should have ignored this thread. Sometimes you don't know what you're going to get until you try it.
If you don't see sights, what's the point of traveling? To avoid seeing anything, you've got to stay in your hotel room...
If you are going "off the beaten path", you are still seeing sights.
If you are going into the backcountry, you are still seeing sights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I expressed my opinion about visiting these two cities and the fact that they both have their charms. The rest of my statement was directed toward your original post, and yeah, you do seem to express contempt for places like "Paris".
