Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

LostYonder wrote

In short, tourism is a mode of capitalism - luxury spending, consumption of places, etc., etc. The basic question is, can one travel without being a tourist? is it possible to visit a different place to enjoy whatever it has to offer without consuming it? in recognizing that travel, more often than not, requires monetary investment of some kind, is it possible to visit a place without reproducing capitalist relations of consumer and server?

In today's world - no. But I do think there are ways we can mitigate the capitalist and negative impacts of travel. This often is translated by many to find more "authentic" experiences, places, and people than in touristed sites or hanging out with the locals, going native, etc. But all of these are just other expressions of capitalist penetration, not to mention the intellectual exercise of constructing "authentic" and "local" to begin with.

Ultimately, I think it is mind-set rather than just a set of practices. Though that requires further reflection...

5

kore wrote

travel, sure. like if you have family somewhere else, or if you're going to study. I also think work-exchange programs are a good way to do "tourism," there are people out there that actually want help and you can go see how people in the country actually live.

I really don't think the desire to see new and different places/cultures should be pathologized, but I think certain ways of doing it are less harmful than others.

3

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Are you invited, and are you giving to that place what it desires on its own terms? Travelling within one's culture is much easier than across different cultures - its easy to be colonial if one is not careful.

3

mofongo wrote

Your explanation confused me, could you expand a little bit more?

2

7b48dfb784360de35598f8dd3 OP wrote

The sidebar of f/tourists says "a forum around tourists cluelessly stomping around 'exotic' lands, without a care for context and their own positionality," so basically I was thinking, what's the antithesis of this?

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Traveling humbly, conscious of the fact that travel is consumption and by visiting you will inevitably be consuming in someone else's hometown, and trying to minimize the negative effects you would have on the working class and poor people in the areas you visit.

5

Bezotcovschina wrote

I really want to know. For example, when I'm travelling to Moscow or Saint-Petersburg to visit friends, could it be ethical? When I'm visiting relatives in a vilage, could it be ethical? When I'm visiting friends in Georgia (the post USSR country)? I think, first two examples have higher chances of being ethical, than the last one. But I could be mistaken.

2

ziq wrote

Can you hitchhike?

2

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

Theoretically I can. Never did, though. I think, I should try it someday. Just pondering, what defines ethical travelling and what makes me feel that I can responsibly visiting some places, but not so sure about others.

Edit: it almost felt bad, because I recognize that borders are actually a thing.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

Ethical travelling wouldn't burn fuel, it wouldn't involve environmentally sensitive areas, it wouldn't support gentrification (e.g. airbnb) it wouldn't leave any waste behind, it wouldn't involve beg-packing, it wouldn't exploit tourism-industry workers or enable tourism-industry slavery.

So the answer is pretty much 'no' because there's really no way to be 100% ethical under civilization.

3

Bezotcovschina wrote

Thank you for the exhaustive answer.

2

ziq wrote

You have a lot less control over your choices when you're away from home, that,'s the bottom line. Food, shelter, transport is all in the hands of others.

2