Travel Blasphemy #6: It's OK to Pay for Photos

There are travelers who refuse to pay locals in exchange for taking their photos. Some tourists indict locals as greedy or exploitive (!) if they ask for payment. Some tourists think their photos aren't "authentic" or "candid" if they have to pay for them. Then there are those travelers who believe it is corrupting a traditional society if they pay for photos.  


And yet these very same photographers use the photos for their own tangible or intangible benefit, and in ways that the subjects have no control over.

This makes no sense to me. Especially when we're snapping pics of folks who live in a place where it's difficult to earn a sustainable income.

We've all got the right to support ourselves and our families, don't we? 

Doctors and attorneys aren't going to dispense their services for free just because they happen to be standing on the street, are they?

Travel Blasphemy #5: Sometimes a Postcard is Better Than the Real Thing

Postcard I sent to my parents from Mt. Rushmore, my first solo road trip

Sometimes a postcard is better than the real thing .. or at least just as good.

I remember when I first discovered this unmentionable side of travel. It was my first solo road trip on an Important Birthday.

I drove to the Black Hills in South Dakota from Missouri. I stopped at Mount Rushmore, got out of my car, walked over to my first sighting of this national icon, and felt .... stunned.  Looking at Mount Rushmore face-to-face elicited no different a response from me than when I'd looked at postcards of same. What a revelation this was.

Since that trip, I've occasionally had similar experiences. Istanbul was the most recent, where in fact, watching a virtual tour of such famous sites as the Blue Mosque and the Basilica Cistern was a better experience than my real, live visits. No crowds, no waiting in line, and no annoying muzak intended to enhance one's enjoyment.

The next time I go to a city filled with "must-see" sites, I'll look at the virtual tour first (maybe while I'm kicked back on a sofa in my pajamas and drinking some good coffee) and then decide if it's a place I want to visit in person.

I'm not going to feel guilty about it, either. After all, I've got finite resources in time, money, and hassle-tolerance - every hour and dollar I invest in a "must-see" is time and money I can't apply to another place or activity that isn't a "must-see," but that I might enjoy far more.

Travel Blasphemy #4: "American" is OK

One of the first questions people ask a foreigner:

Where are you from? 

You'd think that'd be an easy thing to answer.




Am I from the US, the USA, or America? 


I used to answer carefully that I was from the U.S. because, in order to be accurate and respectful, I must recognize that two continents share the name American. To say I was from America would be at best, gauche, and at worst, imperialistic. I didn't want that. 

Now I use "the U.S." or "America" interchangeably, depending on whichever option my brain pushes forward first. The reason why is in the section below.


Am I American or USian?


Fake question. Because in truth, USian was never an option for me. USian is just stupid, though if you want to call yourself that, go right ahead. I think we have the right to call ourselves whatever we want.

I used to feel awkward self-identifying as American (see first section for why), so I generally reframed my answer as "I'm from the U.S." 


But over time, I noticed something interesting. Almost everyone outside of the U.S. refers to people from the U.S. as Americans. And almost as often, they use America following "going to," "visiting," or "living in."

In other words, they don't trip over what is, in my current view, an artificial issue. By artificial I mean that we North and South Americans don't talk about being American (with a larger capital A than is already there) unless we're talking in the context of North America or South America. In other words, the distinction doesn't usually come up in casual conversation. Which is what the question "where are you from"? is -- casual conversation. 


I noticed something else here in Georgia. Sakartvelians don't complain about being called Georgian even though they refer to their country as Sakartvelo. (They do get a mite annoyed about being called Russian.) 

Speaking of Georgians, they don't shy away from calling themselves Caucasian simply because billions of people outside of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia might also self-identify as Caucasian.



So anyway, I'm American.

But what if this offends people in North or South America? 

Bottom line: All of us have the right to self-identify as we wish.

Travel Blasphemy #3: It's OK Not to Travel

It's OK not to travel.  

What is travel, really?

Is there a minimum physical distance one must transfer one's body from Point A to Point B before it counts as travel?

To qualify as travel, must there be a minimum number of variables that differ between Point B and Point A, such as scenery, climate, language, cuisine, culture, or customs? Do some variables carry more weight than others?

Is unfamiliarity the key criterion for an activity to qualify as travel?

Is international travel "better" than domestic travel? Or the reverse?

Then there's the un-killable "tourist" v. "traveler" debate.

Some argue that one should travel in order to:

• Broaden one's horizons;
• Become more tolerant;
• Learn what really matters; and
• Learn how we're all the same.

 ... and that people who don't travel are:

• Xenophobes
• Close-minded
• Scaredy-cats
• Boring, couch-potato slugs
• Unable to understand why they should travel
• Unwilling to cast off the bourgeois shackles imprisoning them in a soul-less cubical life

But, really, it's OK not to travel if we don't want to. And if we don't want to travel, no excuses and no embarrassment are necessary. We just don't care to.

We can live a big, rich life without ever leaving our home town.

I'm not talking about just reading books, watching TV, or surfing the web, either, though all of those activities can bring the world to us.

I'm talking about people who travel their home environs via keen observation and study skills. Or who have avocations that teach them about the multiple natural and human universes within a small radius of their home base. Mushroom-hunting, for example. Working with refugees. Writing poetry. Micro-travelers, if you will.

And even if we were to drop all reference to travel, there are legions of well-rounded, non-judgmental, complete people who derive joy in "just" raising a family, walking in the woods, tending a garden, participating in local theater, chopping wood, or whatever it is that gives them pleasure. They simply don't care to travel; they prefer other enriching activities.

Me, I love to visit places that pique my curiosity, whether domestic or international. I'm not a better person for it, and to claim I have some higher calling to explain my travel would be bullshit. I just like it.

While on the topic of bullshit and travel, the truism about travel making people more open-minded, tolerant, etc. is bullshit. My experience is that the ratio of traveling assholes : pleasant travelers is about the same as non-traveling assholes : pleasant non-travelers. Furthermore, said asshole-ness is an equal opportunity state of being regardless of where s/he is on the tourist food chain.

I am among a tiny fraction of the planet's occupants who have the wherewithal to travel more than 100 miles from their residence.

I am supremely grateful that I can afford the luxury of travel.

Travel Blasphemy #2: Bus Tours Are OK

Credit: HotelClub

"Real" travel is all about exploring on our own, getting lost and laughing about it, discovering hidden nooks and crannies of a place, stepping off that much-maligned beaten path, having that memorable conversation with the old guy you encountered in the dusty corner shop who's experienced a remarkable, adventurous life, and eating a homey meal offered to you, out of the blue, by a complete stranger who invited you into her house. Right?  

All of these are wonderful parts of travel. I love them.

And. Sometimes it makes sense to take a bus tour.

"A bus tour?" You ask, aghast. "Only bourgeois peegs take bus tours! Je suis un voyageur!"

Well, I dunno about you, but I've got finite resources in time, money, the number of learning curves I want to climb per day, and tolerance for arrangement hassles. I want my satisfaction utils to exceed the expenditures of these resources.

Here are circumstances where a bus tour might make sense: 

1. First visit to a large, sprawling city
2. First visit to a city with many landmarks 
3. Limited time
4. Limited knowledge about a location (i.e., event, cultural, or architectural history)  
5. An experience or secondary destination that is difficult to arrange on one's own
6. Physical challenges

Credit: Euro Travel

1. First visit to a large, sprawling city

In some cities, most of the interesting sights are concentrated in a relatively small geographic area. With some exceptions, Washington, D.C. is a good example of this; Chicago is another. I can walk to most of the sights or get around via the fairly-easy public transportation systems.

But in other cities, the landmarks are dispersed throughout a large geographic area, requiring one to master local transportation systems, the hours of operation at various venues, and the distances to visit them on my own. I'm totally on top of this for some trips. Other trips, I don't want to work so hard.

A bus tour is an easy-button way to visit the sights in such cities. If I want to take a longer look at one or two of the sites, I can return on my own. 

Another advantage of the bus tour is it gives me a 3D recon of the city. As I sit in my comfortable bus seat and watch the city roll by, brain pleasantly in neutral, I can note interesting neighborhoods and venues that I  want to explore later.


2. First visit to a city with many landmarks

Not all landmarks are created equal. I know some won't keep my interest longer than 15-20 minutes, but I do want to see them. Allocating more than, say, one hour of energy (physical, mental, emotional, financial) to get to and from each of these sights = poor return on my investment.

String a number of these kinds of landmarks together, and I've got an excellent case for a bus tour. I can  consolidate the sights in half a day with a small allocation of my finite resources, freeing up more to spend on other, more fascinating things on my trip list.

3. Limited time

If I'm going to be in a city for only a day or two, a bus tour may be the only way for me to see parts of the city I don't have the time to negotiate on my own.

In Istanbul, if you've got a long-enough layover and it's at the right time, you can get a tour of the city for the cost of a visa - 20 bucks.

4. Limited knowledge

Some of us do advance research on intended destinations, reading not only travel guides, but fiction and nonfiction books about the destination, perhaps even taking up some language lessons before departure.

I wish I were more like such travelers (well, not really, but I feel I should want to be more like them), but I'm not. An advantage of a bus tour is that tour guides usually provide interesting color commentary on the city, its history, the various sights and neighborhoods the bus passes, and often a scandalous bit here and there.

5. An experience or side trip that is difficult to arrange on my own

I'm defining difficult to mean "more trouble than I care to take" or "more time than I can afford" to design a custom experience or find my own way to a desired destination.

6. Physical challenges

There are some people who love to travel, but who have physical challenges that limit their abilities to explore on their own for any length of time.

For one, it may be an endurance issue - she knows she can go strong for a couple of hours, but then must rest. Another might have eyesight issues that affect his peripheral vision or depth perceptions, making walking about difficult. A third person may have mobility issues. Bus tours can extend the travel day and expand the travel experience for those of us with physical obstacles. 

So, put on those bermuda shorts, a fanny pack, and Bing Crosby hat and get on the bus!

Travel Blasphemy #1: Turkish Coffee

Nescafe, this traveler's friend. Credit: Nestle.

A lot of international travelers rave about turkish coffee and sneer at instant coffee.

I like a good cup of coffee, myself. I drink it black, no sugar.

If I'm going to have an espresso drink, I'm going to have an espresso or an americano. Because there's no milk, sugar, or other flavorings in the coffee, I can taste the beans, the roast, and the preparation. I know the difference between a good cup of coffee and a bad cup of coffee.

Hell, I've even been to the birthplace of coffee. Twice.

Coffee roasted Ethiopian style

If an establishment doesn't make a good espresso, then I'll just have the house brew, thank you very much. Why spend the extra money for a product that's no better than the brewed?


So when I say I am just as happy with a cup of instant coffee, strong, as I am with a turkish coffee, I do so without embarrassment. In my experience, most turkish coffees are no more flavorful than ol' Nescafe, giving me insufficient reason to suffer the sludge at the bottom of my cup.

And when I'm traveling, instant coffee is a loyal friend always ready to give me a dose of energy without any fuss.


For the record, though, my favorite coffee is at Coffee Zone in Jefferson City or Columbia, Missouri. Their everyday brewed Rocket Fuel is so muscular, it'll walk your cup right off the table if you don't keep an eye on it. To get Taisir or Osama's espresso would be redundant. (But for those who like turkish coffee, you can get that, too.)

Taisir Yanis' Coffee Zone, Jefferson City, Missouri