Controversial RS post on his travel blog

I'll bring a specific case to attention: a post on The Latest on Marijuana Laws in Amsterdam. That he favors legalization of marijuana as a preferable form of dealing with drug use is a well known fact. That his guides on Amsterdam-bound tours echo that position ostensibly is also known. However, I have a problem when, on the interest of fitting his agenda he just spin facts big time like this: The Netherlands' neighboring countries (France and Germany) are complaining that their citizens simply make drug runs across the border and come home with lots of pot. To cut back on this, border towns have implemented a "weed pass" system, where pot is sold only to Dutch people who are registered. The next step: In January of 2013, this same law will come into effect nationwide including in Amsterdam, whose many coffeeshops will no longer be allowed to legally sell marijuana to tourists. This is just wrong. Belgium and Germany (France is not a border country of Netherlands) didn't complain about the "liberal" coffeeshop laws of Netherlands. They are directed benefited by it by having their own youngsters not feeding domestic drug traffic, while not having to deal with the not-so-glamorous aspects of coffeeshops. The real problem is that these foreigner junk tourists cause a lot of loitering and problems near the coffeeshops, and traffic accidents as well every weekend. I live in one of these border towns and I know the problem first hand: a lot of Belgians would come every Fri/Sat/Sun to get their "fix" and cause problems. Coffeeshops were instituted to protect the young Dutch from exposure to street drug dealing and remove the coolness of law-breaking of smoking marijuana.

Responding to international pressure and conservatives in rural and small-town Holland, the federal government is cracking down on coffeeshops (which legally sell marijuana). But big-city mayors, like Amsterdam's, will fight to keep them open. First of all, this conservatives-in-rural-and-small-town demographic simply doesn't exist in Netherlands! There are a number of factors that explain it, but anyone who has lived more than couple years in the country and/or know a thing or two about electoral polling knows conservative electorate to speak of is in no way tied to "rural and small town" but to a ring of metropolitan neighborhoods poorer and less educated than the rest of the population! IT's just a plain, cheap, outrageous transplantation of RS's political readings on US politics to Netherlands where they make no sense at all! Indeed, the cities that initiated the push for the "marijuana pass" were medium-sized places like Venlo and Bergen-op-Zoom. Just because they are not touristic places doesn't mean they are "small rural towns"!!!

Amsterdam's leaders recognize that legalized marijuana and the Red Light District's prostitution are part of the edgy charm of the city; the mayor wants to keep both, but get rid of the accompanying sleaze. The Dutch have learned that when sex and soft drugs are sold on the street (rather than legally), you get pimps, gangs, disease, hard drugs, and violence. Amsterdam recognizes the pragmatic wisdom of its progressive policies and is bucking the federal shift to the right. Another offensive spin on facts. Anyone with knowledge of the Dutch "drug" and "pay sex" policy knows they were not mean to make any city "edgy", but to reduce harm for the own Dutch population. That will continue: there is no plans to abolish coffee shop attendance by locals. In regard of sex trade, there is also no push to make paid sex illegal, or even restrict labor rights of prostitutes. What is happening is a crack-down on women displayed on windows and a clear push by the city leaders to clean up De Wallen and adjacent areas of abusive pimps and the likes. It's the internet age and I bet those who indulge in pay sex (not my case) have an infinity of means to finding their fix instead of peeping on scantly dressed women. Maybe RS should read a bit more the Amsterdam city council? And about Dutch politics in general? There is no "federal government" in Netherlands "pushing to the right". If that happens in relate to Washington state x Washington DC, it is certainly not the case here. For years Amsterdam gemeente has been taking measures to clean the area commonly defined as the "1st canal belt". There are open talks of bringing more high-end stores and art galleries and the likes to the Dam square area. More than 60% of woman-display windows were already closed last decade.

Andre, see my response to that blog post. I noted the same problem with his "small town rural conservative" argument. Either he's getting his information from really bad sources (Hij geeft toe dat hij kan niet Nederlands spreken of lezen), or he simply made it up.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Andre you've written your fair share of blog-like nonsense on this helpline many times in the past. Why should you have a monopoly on BS;)

Andre, Thanks for your post. One of the most valid criticisms of Rick is (I'll get eaten alive for saying it) his myopic view of Europe. For as much time as he spends there, he still seems to be only familiar with major tourist attractions and cultural cliches. Americans, I can't exclude myself, tend to be idealogues - we automatically believe anything that agrees with our pre-conceptions and dismiss anything that doesn't fit them. That's one reason our political discussions are merely arguments that don't convince anyone of anything. One of my favorite things about Europe is political discussions where the other person listens to what you have to say, whether they agree or not, then will give their opinion without raising their voice.

Brad: I don't think of myself as an idealogue regarding Europe and find visiting the various countries is always educational even after having lived and worked there. Discussing politics, work, family life, etc. with Europeans on each trip is so worthwhile in my opinion.

People here seem to forget that Rick constantly underscores the fact that his opinions are just that. So as it relates to travel advice, you can accept his opinions or reject them. He also doesn't claim to have expertise on all things cultural, political, or anything else in Europe. He has opinions, of course, and shares them openly. You can agree or disagree. And I have never seen him claim to have all of the answers about anything. Indeed, there are folks who are lazy (maybe even dumb) and don't think very critically about anything they read, hear, watch, etc. If they have a favorite author, pundit, advisor, etc., they'll just automatically accept and repeat whatever such person espouses as gospel without thinking for themselves. For some, that's Rick. For others, it may be Rush Limbaugh. One thing I've noticed here is that some people will take just a snippet of something Rick has written about and run with it, attributing all sorts of goofy things to Rick himself. This is how we end up with bad advice, such as Brussels is only worth 15 minutes in the Grand Place for coffee, chocolate, beer, and piss boy nearby. Rick actually says no such thing, but he'll then get a bad rep here for offering crappy advice (which he actually didn't do...his goofy followers did it). I am of the opinion that much of what many hate about blue bookers actually stems from the blue bookers themselves and not from Rick. People also seem to forget that he has a business to run, so doesn't it sort of make sense that he would focus on many of the most popular places people wish to visit? I mean, he runs a flippin' tour company for Pete's sake...who wants to take tours of the northern suburbs of Paris or some backwater German town nobody cares about? Andre: It seems your rant would be better served in a feedback letter/e-mail to Rick himself instead of being posted here.

I actually very much respect that Mr. Steves, as the owner of a business, is willing to very vocally and without apologies state his opinion, and not become overly concerned at how this will effect his company's profit. I may not often agree with those opinions, but I appreciate that he has the guts to express them. I can even forgive some of the harmless little fantasies or distortions he presents as generalized fact, because they're usually just aimed at getting people excited about visiting Europe (example, see the current blog post about Belgians ordering another beer when the proper glass isn't available. While I don't doubt that this may very rarely actually happen... I've eaten hundreds of meals in Belgian restaurants and I've never seen anything like this scenario ever occur.) However, I think what Andre objected to was the straw man argument technique that Mr. Steves used in the blog post in question, not his actual opinion. As someone who purports to provide a window into contemporary European social affairs, and sometimes uses European examples to advocate for similar changes int the US, it only hurts his own credibility. At best, he's relying on sources that have either questionable motivations or are as ill-informed as he. At worst, he's flat out making the stuff up to better support his argument, and hoping that nobody in his audience will know any better. Although I speak Dutch and have strong family connections to the Netherlands, I don't live in the country, and care little what happens to their pot laws. I appreciate that Mr. Steves has attempted to keep his audience abreast of the debate, but he does neither his fans nor the Dutch people any benefit by misrepresenting the terms of the argument. He should be above that...

I suspect many people (if not most) have at least one issue on which they are rather irrationally fixated. It's pretty clear that for Mr. Steves, this is drug laws in general and MJ laws in particular. Regardless of what you personally think of drug laws (and I really don't want to read about what anyone thinks on that issue) you'll have to admit that the fact that he can't talk about the Netherlands without getting into it, or can't give a speech about the merits of travel without getting into it, rather odd. If he spends 3 minutes of a 1-hour speech talking about it, that's 5% of the speech, and that's about 10x more attention than the issue is worth to the general travel public IMO. Maybe he gets a little ego boost knowing that he is a bit of a hero to folks who go to bed at night dreaming of legalization. So maybe we should just let that little quirk slide, just like the neighbor who likes to talk about their collection of salt&pepper shakers...

I've written back on the Blog's feedback. Maybe I shouldn't have created this topic. In any case, I'm not contesting RS opinion on drug legalization. I actually agree, indeed, with most of his stance on their legal status, the non-sense of prohibition etc. What left me a bit angry is the fact that he just try to fit the facts, in this case, facts that are blatantly wrong, into his narrative, while he often encourages his fellow travelers to travel beyond the mere sightseeing, to connect with locals etc. I don't intend keeping on this, but an analogy of how misplaced his remarks were, speaking of a "conservative rural small-town Holland" of this country would be the equivalent of an European who travels often to US write about "the American suburbs, areas far from downtown where the poor and racial minorities live far and hidden from the inner city" when writing about why avilability of public transportation is lower in US than in Europe.

My view of RS is that he lives in a (self-imposed) world of sound bites. Extra words are 'weeded' (heh-heh) from his books, his travel programs are precious nuggets of info that survive the sharp knife of intense editing, and his appearances on PBS are tiny bites of well-worn 'Rickisms' - 'pack light', 'footloose and fancy-free' (although that one's fading away), 'language barrier is 1-foot tall', etc. Everything out of his mouth is waaaay oversimplified; sometimes that's very appropriate ('pack light'), and sometimes not (pretty much anything to do with world affairs). As someone pointed out, some people then make sound bites of RS' sound bites. 'Sound bits'? He has admitted that some of his stances on topics have changed over the years. Personally, I'd clobber him after 15 minutes of discussing most of the topics he likes to comment on, but I still like his travel advice. In a nutshell, he paints with very broad strokes, speaks (and writes) in tiny sound bites, and believes and espouses what he wants...without evidence of any real investigation. If someone speaks to him about the 'small-town concerns' and it sounds good to him, then he runs with it...over and over. **Am I the only one who has basically been able to speak along with RS during his PBS appearances, word-for-word, for the last 15+ years? ;-)

Actually, Tom, Andre, Randy and Eileen have all expressed well thought out replies on this topic. Very good perspectives!

I agree with the spirit of this post, Andre, if not the specifics (just because I know almost nothing about Dutch politics). I will defer that you know more than me, although no matter where someone is from, in politics anything can sound misrepresented (I had to listen to a fellow American at the schloss in Heidelberg lecturing some Germans about how Obama is a socialist who is going to take away everyone's guns. We're both American, but obviously our take on that subject is very different). But blatant misinformation and ignorance is annoying in general, whether it's someone giving advice on this forum who makes sweeping statements with nothing but their own one-time misadventure to back it up, or someone with access to a small media empire like RS. Although the latter can do more damage. I haven't read much of RS's blog or his political travel book, although I did watch his episode about Iran, and while I agreed with the spirit of the episode in a lot of ways, I found it deeply disturbing that he just glossed over the human rights abuses of the regime and painted it as if the U.S. fears Iran for absolutely no reason. I'm a pretty bleeding heart liberal, but that aspect of the show was just ridiculous and inaccurate, and frankly, insulting to Iranians who have been victims of the regime there. And it's stuff like that which makes me avoid his political writings, I just don't find him to be a terribly great critical thinker wrt to public policy and knowledge of other cultures. He's a dabbler, and while his travels have given him a unique perspective, he's not really an expert on anything aside from some aspects of European travel and shouldn't present himself as anything but.

Good example, and very well presented, Sarah - The Iran Episode. Yes, let's not demonize an entire culture/state/country/region, and let's try to reach out to one another, but puh-lease leave the rose-colored glasses in the drawer! "Death to America" isn't 'awww, shucks!' to many people...Of course, we say silly things, too: Damn it! I love purple! I'm starving! That's the ugliest thing I've ever seen! We don't mean what we're saying, they're just sayings. Some people find it strange to hear 'inshallah' in every other sentence from some people ('are 'they' really that religious/ fanatic?'), but we're (probably) quite used to hearing 'God willing' (and many other phrases) used similarly: 'I'm going to Paris in Sept, God willing.' 'God willing, the gas line will be short!' I'll venture a guess that most of the time these people haven't given much thought about God's feelings about Paris or long lines for fuel - the person may even tell you they don't believe in God - but we say these types of things anyway...but "Death to America" is very different for a lot of people... I really don't mean to take the conversation somewhere else (religion, politics, etc.), just saying - again - that RS can oversimplify things (easily-digestible sound bites), and come off not a little condescending and patronizing...I don't find him and his views as enlightened as he does ;-) C'est la vie! Love your guidebooks, Rick!

"Despite the lengthy and, for the most part, entertaining responses, the original question was rather simple. Yes, I disagree with some of Steves opinions. And yes, he is entitled to them. This isn't Burma so he has the right to say what he wants. The philosophical discourse that entailed was interesting but hardly relevant to question." My head has been somewhere else for the last several months, so my judgement may be off, but the discussion seems pretty 'on' to me. And might I add: God willing, we never become (Burma).

Whoa!! People contributing to this board actually criticizing "the man"! When will this madness stop!

"I found it deeply disturbing that he just glossed over the human rights abuses of the regime and painted it as if the U.S. fears Iran for absolutely no reason." If my memory is correct, he filmed, aired and promoted the Iran episode before the Green Revolution and the aftermath of the crackdown. He seemed to quietly stop promoting the episode once the regime made him look like a "Useful Idiot".

But didn't Rick indicate the purpose of the video was to build some level of education and understanding about Iran among his American viewers? Some might view this kind of education as intrinsically evil, since it encourages independent thinking and progress. But even if it's not evil, the show's intent wasn't political in nature, so why would he discuss human rights issues? Did he cover Israeli human rights abuses when shooting in Israel, or did he discuss the Albanian genocide issue with the Turks while filming his episodes there? Of course not, so why should anyone expect him to do it in Iran when he's making a video about the places, the people, and the culture of a country nobody here knows anything about? He shouldn't be demonized for reminding Americans that our own foreign policy is often directly responsible for how the world perceives us (in this case, reminding us of the CIA coup that installed a tyrant in Iran for U.S oil corporations). And, again, I have never heard him claim to have expertise in anything other than teaching people about travel. He shares his opinions on a wide variety of topics. If you don't agree, why watch, listen, or otherwise read what he has to say? Why get all worked up about it? Am I missing something? BTW, Tom corrected my typo...I meant to say Armenian, not Albanian genocide

The first time I had heard the name Rick Steves, was when I stumbled across this forum. He seems to have achieved a lofty status as the guru of all things travel, which I'm not sure he deserves. Whatever his opinions are on any subject, they are just that 'his opinion' - one solitary voice.

The last time that I checked, this website was entitled ricksteves.com.

With regard to RS's Iran episode, I think he had to downplay certain things about the country while he was filming in the country. He probably had to be very careful about what he said. In that episode, he also said that Zoroastrianism (which originated in Persia) was the first monotheistic religion in the world. That's practically impossible to prove - Judaism may be at least as old - but he might not have been allowed to acknowledge much about Judaism because of where he was.

Michael from Iowa - I agree that RS doesn't have to do a comprehensive take on the entire history of a country to do a show on it. However, if I recall - and it's been a while - his presentation of Iran came off as a very political thing in and of itself. And mind you, I'm pretty sure my politics and RS's are very similar. The show WAS political, it was just biased in an extreme direction that felt kind of foolish to me and made me a bit embarrassed. Of course US foreign policy has had a hugely horrific effect on Iran - that's not in dispute. But on the other hand, acting as if Iranians universally love Americans and are totally cool with us is just silly to anyone who follows foreign policy. And that is how he presented it. I think it's great to do a travel show in Iran, just be realistic about it, and acknowledge the reality of the situation. I don't know, RS has this very naive way of traveling, I've seen it in videos from North Africa as well, and also in his books where he recommends that tourists seek out red light districts and junkie cafes in Frankfurt. There's something about this dopey "gee shucks, if we all just talk to each other, we'll all get along! now let me take you on a tour of the red light district!" thing that I personally find both naive and upsetting from an actual social justice standpoint. I mean, he's got a section on the helpline dedicated to prostitution! With no mention of human trafficking? Again, I'm a bleeding heart, but this is cultural relativism in the most crass, opportunistic sense without regard for the complex social and political factors that intersect with tourism.

Good points, Sarah. As for the chicken guy, he certainly has a right to say what he said...no doubt about it. And the radical right enjoys the freedom to orchestrate some type of support stunt. No problem with any of that. I don't think it's controversial at all. It may be backwards, flat-world, blood-letting works, Neanderthal-like thinking, but we all have the right to express our own beliefs if we so desire. What is controversial, however, is when the majority wants to dictate which civil rights/civil liberties will be enjoyed by a minority. That's when courts need to protect everyone's Constitutional rights. But then this gets labeled as controversial, activist judges, etc. Can you imagine the outcome had the majority been able to decide through popular vote the fate of African American folks' constitutional rights during the Civil Rights struggle? There are some good points here about Rick, the feedback just seems pretty rough. I don't get some of his writing either. Why, for example, would he say that Brussels doesn't have any B&Bs, when there are 140+ on tripadvisor alone. He recommends just one, a gay B&B. That's great, but I'm guessing most of his flock wouldn't want to stay at a gay B&B. More importantly, he ignores the fact that there are tons of great B&Bs there. On NPR yesterday, there was an interesting piece on Andre's issue about Belgians going into the Netherlands on weekends to get high – caused parking problems, litter problems, public impairment problems, etc. The country and cities cracked down – no more foreigners in coffee shops – passport checks required at the door. Dutch people quit going, too, because they don't want to register with the government. Business has dropped by 80%-90%, and the coffee shop owners are pissed. They get to bail out Greece, Spain, etc., but where's their bailout? Street drug dealing is way up...all kinds of problems. Interesting!

Collectively: slow...deep...breaths. Now ever so gently, undo twisted knickers. Keep breathing deeply and slowly. Ahhhhh, much better.

Michael, Technically, the criteria to give or not the "weed passes" is residency in Netherlands, not nationality. There is some brouhaha about the government ending up with a list of marijuana smokers, which could be someday somehow leak partially or totally and cause embarrassment to those who partake on that junk.

In a later post, Mr. Steves briefly touches on the same topic again. He's switched "rural small town conservatives" for "reactionary forces" as the main motivators behind the pot law changes. Several of the burgermeesters who support the stricter initiatives are members of the PvdA, which is anything but a reactionary party.

Maybe I'm suffering from a wedgie but I am a little annoyed at the suggestion that helpline regulars - hell, helpline expats who actually live in Europe - can't have a substantive discussion about RS' works versus our lived reality without catty comments. Lord knows I don't always - or even often - agree with Andre's opinions but this is an interesting topic of discussion. Why would someone go out of their way to post in hopes of derailing it? Either join in or don't.

As I think I said, I definitely understand what Andre (and Sarah) are saying - I feel the same way. I also continue to buy RS products. Not everyone - even RS - can be as perfect as I am ;-) Seriously, I see what I'd call flaws in some of his statements, but he's not currently taking my calls, so...I won't be 'straightening him out' any time soon... No bunching here - he's like the eccentric brother you listen to at Thanksgiving; you may or may not agree with everything that comes out of his mouth, and there are 'those topics' that you just know are going to come up and perhaps you dread those, but you love him anyway :-) He doesn't get my blood pressure up anymore...

Yeah...BUT, I try to remember that RS's mission (as I understand it) is to bring Europe to the newbie travelers of the English-speaking world, and that means the biggies (Rome, Paris, etc.), plus what Americans, at least, are familiar with as 'Europe', and that means Bavaria, Normandy, etc. As a 957-year reader/watcher of RS products, I'd love to see some new material, but I also have to understand that I'm not his target audience (sniffle!). Now whether or not RS should broaden his target audience is another matter...I'd love to see some new places, and not the same ol' same ol'. I accept this fact as I am resigned that there will consistently be 29 questions about cell phones/moneybelts/adaptors in Europe on the 1st page of General Europe. Always. Never-ending. It's just the nature of the Helpline. It is what it is. And RS will continue to go to RodT, Civita di Bagnoregio, the CT, Neuschwanstein...Take a deep breath and accept ;-) Sorry, Andre - this has veered waaaay off...

On August 8 Brad from Gainsville wrote: One of the most valid criticisms of Rick is (I'll get eaten alive for saying it) his myopic view of Europe. For as much time as he spends there, he still seems to be only familiar with major tourist attractions and cultural cliches. In lack of a "Like" button just like on Facebook I have to quote this as I think this IS the key point of criticism one might have. I've been buying and reading Rick's books since ca. 1998 and am an active member on this website since at least 2004 but Germany is still limited to oompah music, beer halls, lederhosen, Neschwanstein castle... well, to Oberbayern (upper Bavaria) - maybe a bit too Über-Bavarian. The consequence: The oldest spots of cultural heritage and all the places the Germans actually go and spend their long weekends and holidays at remain "American-free". But those who have been to Germany before and have met us Germans should know that we actually do want to show you the best places of our country as well.

"and that means Bavaria, Normandy, etc. As a 957-year reader/watcher of RS products" So, what were Willian the Conqueror and Henry the Lion REALLY like?

"The Dutch have learned that when sex and soft drugs are sold on the street (rather than legally), you get pimps, gangs, disease, hard drugs, and violence. Amsterdam recognizes the pragmatic wisdom of its progressive policies and is bucking the federal shift to the right." I'm not sure how anyone can claim that making soft drugs and prostition legal has somehow kept the "bad" stuff away. The past couple times I was in Amsterdam I couldn't walk more than two feet in some areas without getting offered every illegal substance you can name, from smack to hash. I've also witnessed my share of fights (including one huge brawl involving at least 30 people and dragging on for more than 20 minutes all over the RLD) in the area as well.

Well...I don't like to kiss-n-tell, but...they were both hairy (and quite smelly). Because he and The Monks founded Munich, Henry and I never needed reservations for Oktoberfest tents, and I had an unlimited 'Chunnel Tunnel' pass...that is, until Bill up and died on me. How rude :-( OK - Henry was a lion...grrrrr...(wink)

Oy!!

Thank you, Eileen, for the description of Bill and Henry! But what's your secret? You've REALLY kept your looks!!! :) Do tell.