Travel Ethics: what sounds cool and what really is
Not just for this trip, but WRT travel generally, it is hard to figure out just what is ethical vs. acceptable, and what is authentic vs. sincere. Different cultures have different ideas of good, bad or normal, whether in terms of manners, health, safety, animal or environmental consciousness, etc. etc. Even trying to romanticize a region and search for "real, local cultural experiences" can be an arrogant, idealistic Western assumption. (Seriously, go see Baby Mama, just for Steve Martin's ponytail and the jokes poked at white privilege and the organic lifestyle, it really nails it!)
I mean, is backpacking and staying at hostels run by expats and full of arrogant drunken 20-something college-educated future corporate hamsters* any MORE authentic and real than staying at a 4-star chain hotel staffed by locals which, lets be honest in terms of population vs. workforce, sometimes actually fuels their economy (sad but true, in an age of corporate fishing & farming)? Or is it right or wrong to partake in the local cuisine because it is what the natives have eaten for a thousand years, even if you'd never eat dog or guinea pig at home? Or what about the bottled water dilemma, when it might be the only safe thing to drink on the road? Sustainability is awesome, but if the only thing really being sustained is global assimilation, what is that really?
Here are some concepts that could be debated on both sides, that I for one can't really make up my mind about:
* Ecotourism. Sounds nice in theory: authenticity + environmentally-friendly = liberal guilt soothed. But in practice? As an example, tcb told me about an awesome chocolate eco-tour in Belize (which does sound great BTW). Well, you can do that in many parts of that region, for between $17-$1,365. Also sounds awesome. Or you can go to Tabasco, MX, "birthplace of chocolate" (ie: where Spaniards first discovered it from natives), for a rumored $3.50 tour. What is real? Or more real? The more and more I search for eco-friendly tours or establishments, the more and more I find outrageous prices and non-native business owners. You know what organic food was called 100 years ago? Food. You know what eco-resorts were called 30 years ago? A room with no electricity, insulation, or temperature control, ie: a room. Or a dump, depending on who you ask. You know what they charge for a hut with a sand or cement floor in Tulum? Up to $500 a night! And what do the locals think of backpackers? They think, "Why is this rich gringo sleeping on the beach if he can afford something better?" I think that is kind of hilarious. But I also think sleeping in a hammock at the beach sounds like great fun, being a New Englander running away from winter. I also think, truly, you are in a lose-lose situation no matter how you travel, because you can never really be a native (especially when the natives would love a plasma screen tv as much as most Americans.)
* Animal Rights. I don't partake in dog racing or horse racing, but I love animals and also love to eat them. I wear leather, and would wear fur if it was 100 years old from a thrift store but not otherwise (frankly, what is more harmful, natural or synthetics which leach chemicals?). I would not own pets I could not take care of over their entire lifetime. I buy my fish from the local guy. But that is at home. Just in this one area of Mexico, I could conceivably: swim with dolphins, go to a bullfight, feed a monkey, swim in a coral reef, watch exotic birds, or even seek out sharks & manatees. Or spend money on none of those things, but run into a pack of iguanas or a scorpion, casually. I have personal issues with swimming with dolphin packages, or any major sea animal like sharks or manatees, but is it wrong? Any way to ask the dolphin if he enjoys it, the way my dog enjoys licking my face or catching a ball? Is a bullfight as bad as it sounds, or is it what the locals really love, and so maybe it is not exactly wrong? Authenticity: in a dilemma of personal vs. local morality, who wins?
* Authenticity. Let's say you manage to avoid both the high-end and low-end tourist traps (resort vs. hostel), and can find a real local joint to eat or sleep at, with friendly average folk who like to tell colorful stories or offer you guided tours though their neighborhood. It feels great to be someplace homey and give cash to individuals, not expats or corporations, yay you win! You get to be a cultural anthropologist!** But seriously, whether its the jungles of central American or southeast Asia, or the modest homes in quaint European villages, you are STILL a tourist. You are Other. As nice as they are and as personable, they still want you to tell all your friends and get more business and make more money, that is the way of the world, the whole world over. So when you come down to it, tipping the young maid or bartender well at the high-rise hotel helps an individual as much as anywhere else (and they might have struggling families to feed unlike the expats). Bargaining for a good price at a bazaar is authentic, but bargaining too low can be greedy considering that dollar means more to the shopkeeper than it does to you in the long run. You know who really finds you to be cool and awesome for your worldwide travel adventures? Your friends, family, and travel readers looking to do the same: ie, other rich Westerners.
There really is NO way to be 100% truthful and real, when traveling to foreign places with different sets of values, traditions, and histories. Not as an American adult in the Global 21st century. All you can really do is have fun and not be a jerk, to help deflect the Ugly American assumptions.
*And let's face it my blogging friends on the internets, we're ALL corporate hamsters at some point or in some way, I don't care how many times you've been to Burningman, served coffee for a living, or toured Southeast Asia on $1 a day. We have internet, for one thing.
**A study invented and popularized by the British, at the time when they were also masters of worldwide colonialism. Early example of liberal guilt, or part of the process of cultural assimilation and civilizing the natives, through exposure to outside influences? Objectivity is ideal but not always the truth.
I mean, is backpacking and staying at hostels run by expats and full of arrogant drunken 20-something college-educated future corporate hamsters* any MORE authentic and real than staying at a 4-star chain hotel staffed by locals which, lets be honest in terms of population vs. workforce, sometimes actually fuels their economy (sad but true, in an age of corporate fishing & farming)? Or is it right or wrong to partake in the local cuisine because it is what the natives have eaten for a thousand years, even if you'd never eat dog or guinea pig at home? Or what about the bottled water dilemma, when it might be the only safe thing to drink on the road? Sustainability is awesome, but if the only thing really being sustained is global assimilation, what is that really?
Here are some concepts that could be debated on both sides, that I for one can't really make up my mind about:
* Ecotourism. Sounds nice in theory: authenticity + environmentally-friendly = liberal guilt soothed. But in practice? As an example, tcb told me about an awesome chocolate eco-tour in Belize (which does sound great BTW). Well, you can do that in many parts of that region, for between $17-$1,365. Also sounds awesome. Or you can go to Tabasco, MX, "birthplace of chocolate" (ie: where Spaniards first discovered it from natives), for a rumored $3.50 tour. What is real? Or more real? The more and more I search for eco-friendly tours or establishments, the more and more I find outrageous prices and non-native business owners. You know what organic food was called 100 years ago? Food. You know what eco-resorts were called 30 years ago? A room with no electricity, insulation, or temperature control, ie: a room. Or a dump, depending on who you ask. You know what they charge for a hut with a sand or cement floor in Tulum? Up to $500 a night! And what do the locals think of backpackers? They think, "Why is this rich gringo sleeping on the beach if he can afford something better?" I think that is kind of hilarious. But I also think sleeping in a hammock at the beach sounds like great fun, being a New Englander running away from winter. I also think, truly, you are in a lose-lose situation no matter how you travel, because you can never really be a native (especially when the natives would love a plasma screen tv as much as most Americans.)
* Animal Rights. I don't partake in dog racing or horse racing, but I love animals and also love to eat them. I wear leather, and would wear fur if it was 100 years old from a thrift store but not otherwise (frankly, what is more harmful, natural or synthetics which leach chemicals?). I would not own pets I could not take care of over their entire lifetime. I buy my fish from the local guy. But that is at home. Just in this one area of Mexico, I could conceivably: swim with dolphins, go to a bullfight, feed a monkey, swim in a coral reef, watch exotic birds, or even seek out sharks & manatees. Or spend money on none of those things, but run into a pack of iguanas or a scorpion, casually. I have personal issues with swimming with dolphin packages, or any major sea animal like sharks or manatees, but is it wrong? Any way to ask the dolphin if he enjoys it, the way my dog enjoys licking my face or catching a ball? Is a bullfight as bad as it sounds, or is it what the locals really love, and so maybe it is not exactly wrong? Authenticity: in a dilemma of personal vs. local morality, who wins?
* Authenticity. Let's say you manage to avoid both the high-end and low-end tourist traps (resort vs. hostel), and can find a real local joint to eat or sleep at, with friendly average folk who like to tell colorful stories or offer you guided tours though their neighborhood. It feels great to be someplace homey and give cash to individuals, not expats or corporations, yay you win! You get to be a cultural anthropologist!** But seriously, whether its the jungles of central American or southeast Asia, or the modest homes in quaint European villages, you are STILL a tourist. You are Other. As nice as they are and as personable, they still want you to tell all your friends and get more business and make more money, that is the way of the world, the whole world over. So when you come down to it, tipping the young maid or bartender well at the high-rise hotel helps an individual as much as anywhere else (and they might have struggling families to feed unlike the expats). Bargaining for a good price at a bazaar is authentic, but bargaining too low can be greedy considering that dollar means more to the shopkeeper than it does to you in the long run. You know who really finds you to be cool and awesome for your worldwide travel adventures? Your friends, family, and travel readers looking to do the same: ie, other rich Westerners.
There really is NO way to be 100% truthful and real, when traveling to foreign places with different sets of values, traditions, and histories. Not as an American adult in the Global 21st century. All you can really do is have fun and not be a jerk, to help deflect the Ugly American assumptions.
*And let's face it my blogging friends on the internets, we're ALL corporate hamsters at some point or in some way, I don't care how many times you've been to Burningman, served coffee for a living, or toured Southeast Asia on $1 a day. We have internet, for one thing.
**A study invented and popularized by the British, at the time when they were also masters of worldwide colonialism. Early example of liberal guilt, or part of the process of cultural assimilation and civilizing the natives, through exposure to outside influences? Objectivity is ideal but not always the truth.