People question (Detroit: friendly, cities, places)

[keraT]

Interesting thread, I learned a lot about people in Detroit and people in general even thought I pretty much grew up in Detroit. Still nice to read others perspective. And Brodie734, the concept of never traveling outside USA due to cost but taking just as expensive trip like Disney or cruise is common everyone in USA. I think I read somewhere that a huge percent of USA population don't have passport because they never leave the country.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by keraT

Interesting thread, I learned a lot about people in Detroit and people in general even thought I pretty much grew up in Detroit. Still nice to read others perspective. And Brodie734, the concept of never traveling outside USA due to cost but taking just as expensive trip like Disney or cruise is common everyone in USA. I think I read somewhere that a huge percent of USA population don't have passport because they never leave the country.

I have been out of the country a little. We may take a trip to Germany and northern Europe in the next few years, but i am much more interested in travelling in the USA. I will die before I run out of amazing things to see and do and amazing people to meet right here. Yes I may miss out on seeing other things possibly equally amazing in other countries and sort of meeting equally amazing people in those countries. But that is fine with me. There is enough variety of people and options right here to keep me more than happy. Besides where else can you meet a German, Ugandan, Pakistani, Russian, Korean and Australian all on one place in one day?

[craig11152]

I've done a little two bit research and one source says the US ranks 2nd in overall travel but its mostly domestic.
When you look at the countries that lead the list of "international travel" they are mostly smaller European, Hong Kong and Singapore. They have small size in common and in many cases its not hard to find an International border to cross on a day trip in your car. So its not a big measure of anything other than the ease of doing so.
One might liken International travel in Europe to interstate travel in America.

Add to that there is a lot more diverse geography to see in America than there is in Finland, Norway, Sweden or Denmark, countries all high on the international list and so I don't think its reasonable to bash Americans for their domestic travel unless you are an elitist.

[brodie734]

It's mostly a mindset thing. There's a big world out there, why would you limit yourself? And even more so, why would you limit yourself strictly to Florida? Go see the national parks or whatever, do a road trip, visit Alaska. But the idea of acting simultaneously awed by trips to Paris while booking another $10k family trip to Disneyworld for the 15th consecutive year baffles me.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by brodie734

It's mostly a mindset thing. There's a big world out there, why would you limit yourself? And even more so, why would you limit yourself strictly to Florida? Go see the national parks or whatever, do a road trip, visit Alaska. But the idea of acting simultaneously awed by trips to Paris while booking another $10k family trip to Disneyworld for the 15th consecutive year baffles me.

While I do not get going to Disneyland repeatedly (or at all from my perspective). Staying within Florida is not really "limit[ing] yourself." There are 21 million people in Florida. They are people from all over the world. You can travel all over the world every day of your life and you will not meet 21 million people from all over the world. Time limits you, but geography does not, not today. There are at least 1500 really cool places to do or things to see in Florida. You will never get to see and do them all. You can travel all over the world and do and see hundreds of other things, then you will miss the 1500 cool things you could have seen or done in Florida. Ok you have gone to the Louvre, but you have not climbed a sequoia tree and spent the night in its branches. You may have visited sixteen capitals of European Countries for a day or two, but you have not hiked the John Muir trail. Which is better? Who has limited themselves more?

While Disneyland is not my personal thing, I am not going to look down my nose at those who find joy in repeated visits. They say the see, find, and do different things each time. They certainly get experiences that I will never have.

I could see myself making 100 trips to Zion Canyon and never getting tired of it (especially if I can regain enough health and strength to go extreme hiking). Every hundred yards or so at Zion is different and reveals a new wonder. I might miss out on some other national parks, but people who visit all the parks for a day, would miss out on the parts of Zion that I would get to see. Who is more limited? They will see bits of more parks, but they will miss the coolest parts of the coolest park.

Is my 100 trips to Zion canon better than Tom's 100 trips to Disneyland, or your 100 trips to Europe? By whose judgement? Perhaps you are limiting yourself by missing out on 100 trips to Disneyland and the opportunity to experience what they experience. Just because you do not understand their choices does not make your choices better or less limiting than theirs. There are people who spend their whole lives studying a single ant colony. They will know things about ants and physics and many other things that you will never learn. Did they limited themselves by studying an ant colony for their whole life, or did you limit yourself by not studying one for your whole life?

[brodie734]

I suppose it's necessary for me to clarify this further: I'm not making a value judgment here. Personally, while I do love to travel and I have special attachments to places in Europe that were formative to me in my early twenties, I think it's quite clear that the obsession with international travel among certain people is a virtue signalling exercise... the people I know who wouldn't think twice about visiting Zion when they could spend twice as much money for half as long a trip in a second rate European capital city all fit a certain type and persuasion. I think the reverse is also true, I have met my share of people who are borderline offended by the very idea of traveling to Canada let alone leaving this continent for their own virtue signaling reasons. Personally, I just want to see as much as I can, and to that end I spent my vacation time last year in New York City, exploring free Canadian national parks as well as Toronto, in London and English Countryside, on road trips up north and to Chicago, and, yes, in Florida.

What I was intending to do here was not shame people for not having traveled abroad or not having been interested in traveling abroad. I was talking about a particular mindset I encounter wherein somebody asks me about a coat, say, and I tell them I got it in Ireland and they react in awe: "wow, you say that like it's no big deal! Ireland. Damn. I wish I could do something like that". And then that same person uses three of their six weeks of vacation time on a single trip to go to the same place that they have gone every year since I've known them for the same amount of money as it would take to do something different. I correlated that to people who won't even drive from, say, Livonia to Ferndale because 45 minutes on the road is too much time for them to spend in the interest of doing or seeing something new. I would call all of it parochialism.

[craig11152]

That is the second time you have used the word "parochialism" or "parochial" in this thread. To me it comes across as condescending, bigoted, small minded, narrow minded petty, biased, prejudiced, all of which are synonyms for parochial. Its hard not to see that as insulting.
I honestly don't see how you can use that description while claiming NOT to make a value judgement.

[BPtransplant]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Having spent time in Indianapolis and now Cincinnati, I've noted a rather parochial and somewhat insular attitude among a lot of people. I didn't find this as much of a problem in Missouri and Kansas nor NY or New England when I lived in those places. Also not an issue in Minnesota when I lived there.

Wow...I found the EXACT opposite. I lived in MN for many years and found people there to be extremely insular and not as friendly as that state leads people to believe.

Maybe it's the area we live in in MI, but we have found the opposite here. People are welcoming and willing to make new friends. My wife that is a Minnesota native says the same thing.

[brodie734]

Originally Posted by craig11152

That is the second time you have used the word "parochialism" or "parochial" in this thread. To me it comes across as condescending, bigoted, small minded, narrow minded petty, biased, prejudiced, all of which are synonyms for parochial. Its hard not to see that as insulting.
I honestly don't see how you can use that description while claiming NOT to make a value judgement.

That is not what parochial means:

Parochialism is the state of mind, whereby one focuses on small sections of an issue rather than considering its wider context. More generally, it consists of being narrow in scope. In that respect, it is a synonym of "provincialism". It may, particularly when used pejoratively, be contrasted to universalism. The term insularity (related to an island) may be similarly used

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by BPtransplant

Wow...I found the EXACT opposite. I lived in MN for many years and found people there to be extremely insular and not as friendly as that state leads people to believe.

Maybe it's the area we live in in MI, but we have found the opposite here. People are welcoming and willing to make new friends. My wife that is a Minnesota native says the same thing.

I actually got along reasonably well with the local people and those from WI and IA when I lived in the Twin Cities. Had more problems with the transplants with the exception of my friend who is from CT also and a former neighbor of his from India.