Tourist or traveler

No.

I read and enjoyed that article with my coffee this morning. I do extensive research on the sites we choose to visit before we travel. However, since our focus is on the history and geography of the places we visit and since we, like most people, always have a time budget, I guess we are "tourists." I don't mind, but there seems to be a subtle bias that the "traveler" is somehow higher on the evolutionary ladder....We could possibly someday be "travelers" in this country, but doing so in Europe would be difficult- it's too difficult to leave house and pets for more than a month....As children, both my husband and I had family trips to Europe of the "ten countries in a month" variety. Such trips can be useful as first experiences - getting an "overall view" helped us hone in on what we would like to later visit in more depth.

I really enjoyed this article. My favorite bits: ...we're going to meet people who don't think the way we do. And listen to someone who doesn't think the way we do, we may learn something that could be useful, as well as something downright interesting....running into people who will change your perspective, who will change the way you looked at things. And sometimes I think not just for the moment either, but permanently. This was certainly true when I visited third-world countries. I was with a group of upper-middle-class American academics who had it all materially, but were deeply discontented and complained about many small physical inconveniences. Juxtaposed against that were people living in metal shacks with dirt floors, no potable water, and no plumbing, whose smiles and joyful hospitality lit up their tiny abodes. I changed my life dramatically after that, to eliminate unnecessary materialism and focus completely on the things that really matter - people and relationships.

Oh no, not this again.... Here's my take. A self-identified "traveler" is a tourist who thinks he's better than all the other tourists.

Sorry, Tom. That's crap and an unfair generalization and judgment about people you don't even know. (P.S. I typically really enjoy and appreciate your Helpline comments.)

Tom has my vote.

Kind of a silly distinction. Some people just naturally do things slower. But on this board Tom is pretty close to the truth. And it should be he or she. We know you only by what you post.

"crap"???? That's not something Oscar Wilde would say. Traveler/Tourist=Potatoe/Potato

My take is that the boundaries of the categories are neither fixed nor a matter of any consensus - for the author, it is a rather crude way to acknowledge (somewhat arbitrary extremes along) a wide continuum of human motivations for traveling. Someone who is seeking deep understanding and immersion in another culture will likely have different travel patterns than someone whose travel satisfies more narrow desires - that seems logical. As long as each person satisfies their own individual needs for travel in their own way and/or adapts them over time as needed, there's really no need to favor one label over the other or treat it as an "either/or" proposition, as if our behavior is static both across time and space (i.e. various geographic locations we visit). "Either/or" seems like an oversimplification at best and a false dichotomy at worst. Using the author's definitions, I've been both a traveler and a tourist (and in-between the two states) in the same place at different times in my life (and even on the same trip) - if that makes any sense :-) I think it's up to each person to ultimately define their relationship to the rest of the world on their own terms - who cares what some travel writer, pundit, or anyone else for that matter calls them? As long as we all understand that there is a wide spectrum of travel experiences - in terms of depth, length of trip, and a whole lot of other variables - when we talk about the topic of "travel", everything else is just arbitrary labels.

Did anyone read the article? ; ). The "traveler" that they are talking about is one goes really deep and is on the road for a serious amount of time. Now, whatever label you want to put on it or not put on it, it's a different type of trip than most of us have the time to take. I just spent a week in the Adirondacks. I would call myself a summer visitor. We did some tourist stuff, visited the Adirondack Museum, swam at Long Lake, some of us did float plane trip. But mostly, we soaked up the Adirondack countryside which was new for me. But in one week, there is know way that I know the Adirondacks as well as I know northern Wisconsin. I've spent numerous summers at the latter, I know about Wisconsin people who both live in and visit the north. I can't even pretend to know about the NY locals!

I'm with Tom on this one. And I do not think there is a "deeper degree of curiosity in a traveler". That's just arrogance, for lack of a better term, that "travelers" say to separate themselves from those they consider "tourists". Tom's statement was no more judgmental or overgeneralizing than the people in the article who claim a difference.

So... does a 'traveler' take a picture the first time they see the Eiffel Tower? Or, do they just discuss it with a local? Or, do they become a 'temporary tourist' while they are taking the photo and then revert back to the elitist traveler when
they put their camera away? Truthfully... I don't care what I am (tourist, traveler, temporary local, photographer)... as long as I get to take trips and have fun:))

Tourist vs traveller: self-aggrandizing, pretentious nonsense. Deeper degree of curiosity in a traveller? My foot! Deeper pockets more likely.

Another vote for Tom.

It sure sounded elitist to me. And that genetic memory for Americans - hogwash. Latin Americans haven't been there significantly longer than North american. Humans have been migrating forever and still are. If I want to get someone else's perspective, I can engage with just about anyone on the street within 50 miles of my apartment. Maybe, maybe that's not true for people living in rural areas of the U.S., but it would surely be true for anyone within driving distance of any sizable population center. That's not why I travel to foreign countries. Come to think of it, that's not why I love to travel in the U.S. either.

I,too, vote for Tom's answer.

Now that I've read the article... the word "pretentious" comes to mind over and over again. It got off on the wrong foot immediately with this amazingly US-centric comment: " The road book is a peculiarly American genre. I don't know of any Italian road books or British road books or French road books or Spanish road books. " Ummm... have these self-designated "travelers" ever set foot in a bookstore in a foreign country? And even if they can't decipher a word of a foreign language, are they really so inward looking that they think the British don't have a long history of travel writing? Sir Richard Burton, anyone? How about "The Seven Pillars of Virtue"? The works of GK Chesterton? Charles Dickens? Robert Louis Stevenson? There was a lot of this "traveler vs tourist" nonsense a few years ago when Mr. Steves was pushing that "Travel as a political act" stuff, which seemed to give too many people permission to become self-righteous about their love of travel. I'll never forget one post. It began with "I'm a traveler, not a tourist, I enjoy experiencing authentic local culture, I'm not interested in touristy things, blah, blah, blah." And where was this "traveler" heading? The usual. London, Paris, Rothenburg, Munich, Venice, Rome, etc. So... what exactly makes him more special than all the "tourists" going to the same exact locations? Perhaps he was investigating the Mittelstand industries outside of Rothenburg's old defensive walls, to gain an understanding of how the modern German economy functions... but somehow, I doubt that was on the agenda. More likely, the torture museum and night watchman's tour.

I think the discussion brings up some good points but yes it is a slippery slope into pretentiousness. Rick Steves promotes "hit and run" directions to many attractions and that is definately speed tourism. But that may provide time to go off on a few tangents and talk to some real people. I think you have either a time budget, a money budget, or both.

Yet another vote for Tom.

yep,, another vote for Toms original take on it..

Another vote for Tom.

Between these two words or labels, I identify myself in Europe esp Western and Central Europe as a traveler from the time of my first trip as a backpacker in early '70s to now.

PS, Michael... I wish we had someone with the biting wit of Oscar Wilde to further slice down this phony distinction. Sorry, but that article really touched off a nerve in me. Here's why. I'm American by birth, but I've spent most of the last several years outside of the country. In that time, Ive met many interesting people and has some rather profound discussions on the similarities and differences between European and American culture. Now, for the most part, the Belgians, Brits, Dutch, and Germans I've talked to generally have a favorable view of the US. But there's a few recurring critiques I've heard either implied or directly stated more than a few times. One, we're a little arrogant, and two, that we generally are too inwardly focused and have little understanding of most of the rest of the world. And that we're too loud, but I readily concede that point. Believe me, as the lone American in these circumstances, I try to defend us and demonstrate that it actually isn't so. And then, I read the above comments that the road book is essentially an American-only genre! UGGGGGHHHH! OK, rant over, time for a beer and thereafter, bed....

Tom for President!

I have met many wonderful , kind, smart , modest etc etc Americans .. on a one on one basis... but , frankly as a nation it would be hard not to come off a tad arrogant when the children are told from babyhood that they live " in the greatest country in the world"... a mantra that does seem very unique to Americans.. ( we are only talking about western 1 st world countries here)
Everyone generally loves their own home countries, this is natural.. but we all realize our country may not be the "greatest" because we don't look at the that angle quite the same.. Its ok to criticize our governments.. but Americans who actively criticize their government are often told by other Americans " to love it or leave it"... a saying I hate.. they should be free to disagree and not be considered un-American. This is where many other countries do differ, debates around the pub or café about the failings of the persons respective countries is considered fun and interesting .. and yes, they ARE a lot more informed about other countries then we are ... sheesh what I know about the government of Sweden you could fit on the head of a pin.. I think its hard to be American you are told you are the best , but when others object it puts you in a difficult position.. Canadians don't get told they are the best, they are told they are lucky cause we aren't too polluted , or too crowded,, or have too much crime,, so its all sort of middle of the road stuff.

I think this sounds like one of those things where there may be a distinction, but anyone who calls themselves a "traveler" will automatically come off as more pretentious. Whatever. I like to travel, period.

I think it is funny they are using the word "traveler" as for most people, at least in many countries in Europe, this has another whole connotation. Anyone need their roof or driveway fixed? If you come over here and say you are a traveler, you may find it hard to get a hotel room without paying up front, as well as a few smirks.

Jo, I just thought of that as well. How funny would it be for one of these sorts to boldly announce himself a "traveller" anywhere in the UK? I can imagine the next comment- "What, you're a Pikey?" (for those who don't understand, note the deliberate spelling I used, and look it up on Wikipedia). I like the general theme that's emerging in this thread. Enjoy your trip, have fun, explore and discover... but don't be a self-righteous pretentious snob about it and maintain some humility.

I don't disagree with Pat, and I like every subsequent reply Tom has made better than its predecessor (which were all spot on). Well done!

Two thumbs up for the man from Hüttenfeld, Hessen - our Tom.

To me, the tourist, not the traveler, is the person with a deeper interest in travel. A traveler is just passing through. When I drive across several states, I may pass through some pretty country, but it doesn't interest me. There may be some interesting people, some good museums, great hotels and unique restaurants along the way, but I stay in cheap roadside motels, eat at fastfood joints, do not go out of my way to visit with people or view the sights and just get back on the road. I'm a traveler. When I arrive at my destination, I take an interest in the area, its history and its people, stay in better places, eat better food, etc. Then, I am a tourist.

Whoa, Roy, people who stay at great hotels are better than people who stay at cheap places?

I never said that. If just passing through, I just want a cheap, highway-convenient place. If I am really interested in a location as a tourist, I want something a little better. Adding: My point is that the effort to abandon the perfectly good word "tourist" makes no sense except in, maybe, marketing terms. Caputo and Least-Heat Moon are among those going off the deep end in this movement.

I'm with Tom, there really is no distinction. To say you are the preferred one over the other is a bit pretentious. One of the things that I think is important when traveling is expectations: Match your expectations accordingly and you will have a good time and gain insight regardless of budget and style of travel.

Tom has it right!

In the UK, isn't the term "traveler" used to describe a gypsy? That could potentially have negative connotations. I don't think it makes a difference what you call yourself...traveler or tourist. I'm sure that the locales that one visits are certainly happy to receive your traveler/tourist dollars/Euros/etc! :-)

one more vote for Tom's take on this