Oh no....I think.......I am a travel snob. I don't feel it is where I am or what I am wearing(or what they are wearing)..but the attitude....I always assume the loud, brash, "In MY country...etc" that makes them a tourist!
Traveller vs. Tourist
Quoting isadora
Maybe it's not us, but rather the places we end up that throw us in one catagory or the other - at least for the time we are there...
That's a good point. Sometimes the hype is far more interesting than the place itself, which was the case for me with New Orleans. I'm glad I went, and I enjoyed the architecture and the incredibly cheap and plentiful buckets at Pat O'Briens... But I hated the feeling of being one tourist among many going from restaraunt to bar to shop and seeing one carbon copy after another. Then again, I let that feeling overwhelm me when I could have brushed it off and visited the cemetaries again.
The best time we had was on a plantation and bayou tour. Yes, there's "tour" in "tourist", but I really felt we got the "feel" for what the place used to be like.
There's a point - if you go on an organized tour, are you inherently a tourist? Two grown men on that plantation tour spent the whole time on their cell phones while their wives chatted about where they were going to dine that night. Are they tourists? And the people snapping pictures and stepping in awe into the slave cabins - are they travellers?
Quoting tway
There's a point - if you go on an organized tour, are you inherently a tourist? Two grown men on that plantation tour spent the whole time on their cell phones while their wives chatted about where they were going to dine that night. Are they tourists? And the people snapping pictures and stepping in awe into the slave cabins - are they travellers?
Being a tourist is a temporary thing. For instance, I'd consider myself a tourist when I hop on a bus tour of a city. Then as soon as I get off that tour and go for a walk around the city on my own, I'm an independent traveller again. At both times, I'm a traveller; I could even be a business traveller.
These terms don't define who we are as people, just what we're doing at that point in time.
Or so I'd like to think anyway 
(if that made any sense at all)
For each question answered - another pops up! This is great and thanks for all the input! (We had a feeling it might be "back page news" within hours of posting it. Glad to see it's still on page one.)
Again, it comes back to both being a state of mind - whether it be your own or someone else's.
We visited the "Fountain of Youth" in St. Augustine (tourist?) and drank the water (tourist?). We wanted longevity on our side so we could continue travelling for many more years. Hey, what ever works...
Bought a book on the psychology of tourism.
I'll let you know when i've read it.
But do not confuse tourists and travellers, we're the same, we cause the same damage, spend money etc. Just some tourists are worse in respect to the way they behave.
I've been studying ecotourism and natural area tourism, and trust me we're all the same. It's just that some of us have different objectives, places just need to cater for that, whilst keeping the area pristine as possible.
Traveller: "So how much does that cost?"
Tourist: "So how much does that cost in US dollars?"
MATT,
But do not confuse tourists and travellers, we're the same, we cause the same damage, spend money etc. Just some tourists are worse in respect to the way they behave.
I agree to some extent that our existence in places especially pre-historical sites, is argumentative. Imagine more and more tourists or travellers or tourvellers are 'visiting' Acropolis, Stonehenge and even The Great Wall and etc. - some views pointed these sites would inculcate the value of education and provoke our awareness of lives; the other part would be these sites (many of them are once the places of priesthood, 'signage' of conquer, monastery and forth) are not meant to be a tourist spot.
I came across some articles which had written :
1)The Pyramide of Le Museé du Louvre is a 'poison' to the art and architecture of the museum; the pyramide isn't identical in terms of history as Le Louvre; the writer would think letting that pyramide building on the site of Le Louvre is a manner of 'colonalism' irrespective the real meaning to those historical site although he admitted many modern Parisians agreed with the importance of the Pyramide in the present day.
2)Some claimed that the architecture of Taj-Mahal shouldn't be misused for constructing contemporary buildings as many modern Islamic nations are constructing the mosques without taking much afford to study its meaning behind the building. "Each architecture represents its hidden secret that nobody would know and we shouldn't snatch it because it is entirely sacred"- he said.
3)For those who have been to The Great Wall in China would find how gigantic that historical building is; no surprise for us to find that some scribbles are etched on the wall (and too some love messages); what would be exactly in the mind of most of us when we find ourselves on the wall? The truth is: it is the longest monastery in our history and in the world!!! More than millions of villagers and workers are buried in the monument (just calculate the manpower and the time span used for the construction from one dynasty to another dynasty!) - their heads, bodies, animal corpses (horses) and blood as the ancient dictators believe blood would uphold this great building and strengthen its soul.
I am only giving three examples and there are many more in fact.
To Matt: I am looking forward to listening to your view after you have read the book you mentioned.
Lee
I'll get right on it matey. (Hope that email helped aswell?)
If you have a real hard core traveller walking the Appalachian Trail does he not make the same footprints as a fat loud tourist? Causing erosion and disturbance.
Maybe we're worse? Think about it. A pristine condition walk through the mountains. We come along and want to climb all over it. Why? Because we want peace, quiet and tranquility. A loud fat gitty tourist comes along and is just interested in taking the car to the viewpioint where theres a road and massive tarmaced recreation area full of people.
Now whose worse?
The traveller causing damage to unspoilt areas?
Or
The Tourist who goes to the place that's already ruined and produces revenue by buying hotdogs or something for him and his family.
i am thinking although i meed to bed now...have to jog tomorrow morning...
Thanks, mate.
Lee
"There are two types of people in the world, those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You, dig."
Clint Eastwood, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
The world, in my mind, can't be so easily split into two groups. Everyone I have met has a different take on travel, how to do it and what to get out of it.
Often on the internet travel sites, I find that the posters call themselves "travellers" and have a biase against "tourists." There is a constant putting down of people who spend money on vacations. There is a reverse economic status in place - the less money you spent, the worst the conditions, the better traveller you are. And I can't stand that attitude at all.
Why do we need to classify what we do when we travel as tourism or travelling (or wandering or nomading or eco-tourising or anything else)? And why do we need to classify how other people travel, and pass judgement on it? Travel and let tour, I say. Or tour and let travel. Either way, live and let live.