So I was reading an autobiography and the author said something about how people not lacking the wherewithal to travel and see the world but who had nevertheless not bothered to see much of it, and then tended to expound loudly on matters of the day in politics and morals and public policy, were the worst of the ignorant provincial.
Oooops. I expound loudly (well, I do a lot of it on a message board, which isn’t literally loud, but I don’t think he’d let me off the hook for that).
And where have I been? Of the continental five places (America/Eurasia/Africa/Australia/Antarctica), I’ve had my toe on the land of America and Eurasia only. (I see no legitimate reason to segregate America into two continents, and even less so for slicing Europe apart from Asia…besides, that would reduce my score from 2 in 5 to 2 in 7, dammit). And of the oceanic five places (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, Southern), I’ve only dipped my toe in the Atlantic and the Pacific.
That’s a consistent 2/5 and I’m middle-aged and damn, I’ve got to go travel and see the world!
Honestly, if your primary concern is that your lack of travel makes you appear provincial and ignorant in matters of politics and morals and public policy, you probably don’t have to factor Antarctica into your calculations. I suspect that not even the most cosmopolitan of global travelers routinely defer to the perspective of penguins on these topics. So excluding the polar regions, you’re already exactly half as well-traveled as someone who’s been to every non-frozen region in the world, if that makes you feel any better.
Well, I can only beat you by one continent (Asia), and I’ve also only stuck my toe in Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, even though I lived in three countries by my 21st birthday and have been a citizen of two. On the other hand, the only country gentleman in my life has visited is Canada, yet he’s quite knowledgeable about and interested in foreign affairs. He’s far from ignorant or provincial.
It’s not about the numbers, but about the individual. A provincial person wouldn’t hang around this board reading the experiences of people who live in other countries and finding out why they see the world the way they do. An ignorant person wouldn’t even think to ask the question because of course the way they do things in their particular part of their country is best. I’ve spent far too much time reading your posts to consider you either of those things.
There are people who can travel the world and come back with the same set perceptions they left home with; there are others who may never leave their homes but because they are willing to open their minds and consider other perspectives, are far more knowledgeable about how people live and think than someone who’s filled up his passport.
I’ve been around the U.S. quite a bit, but only “just over the border” to Touristo, Mexico for a few hours. I’ve been to Florida, but not California. I’ve never been to Europe, though I’m dying to go to England.
I’m the sort that would love to travel, but Mr. K is a homebody. He did his traveling in the Marines and is quite happy to stay here on the farm.
I do manage to eek a trip or two out of him every decade, but it’s not enough for me. We did Washington, DC and a weekend in Missouri, but I don’t really count that, as we stayed with friends and didn’t do any sightseeing.
To those of you who are fretting over having seen the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans only – FWIW, I’ve heard that the Indian Ocean is way overrated. :dubious:
Anyway, don’t feel bad. Travel is difficult and getting even moreso, thanks to all the traitors trying to make us afraid of terrorism. Plus, of course, it’s expensive and travelling to some places is politically unwise. (Especially if you belong to the Whole Skin Party.)
It looks better if you break into smaller units. That way I can say I’ve been to: 47 states, 6 provinces, 3 continents, and frak! Only 19 countries! I’m shamed in the eyes of the world.
