The Lament Of The 'Real' Traveler

While planning my next vacation I discovered an interesting debate on the forum at the Lonely Planet website. Come to think of it, it wasn't really a debate. It was more like a collective diatribe.

In one thread the 'community of independent travelers' lament the changes taking place in Laos. Some of the gripes are about the developing tourism industry and the growing number of hotels and guesthouses. Others decry development in general, with the dark prediction that soon Laotian homes will be just like the ones across the border in Thailand - made entirely of brick and equipped with televisions and refrigerators.

I feel a little sorry for these people. They are willing to travel thousands of miles from Europe or the US just to get away from their appliances for a couple of weeks. How they must feel cheated when they arrive in Luang Prabang only to find that they still have the option of watching TV.

How inconsiderate of the Laotians to refuse to remain a rustic, tribal backwater despite the obvious charms that that holds for the first world "eco-tourist".

Eco-tourism, now that's a term to warm the heart. It sounds so righteous and well-meaning. And to be fair, if in the name of Eco-tourism more travellers choose to travel over water by canoe rather than speedboat or jetski, then I am all for it. But it riles me when these same eco-tourists complain about the spread of roads which make travel "too easy". Sure, travel that is "too easy" makes tourism a little less romantic. It also gives the local population access to a better livelihood. Unromantic, but so much more valuable than a pretty picture or two.

There was a particularly fascinating discussion about the newly built railway line to Lhasa. "Tibet will be overrun by Han Chinese" complained some; "this will lead to colonisation" predicted others (presumably ignorant of the fact that Tibet is already administered by China); and my favourites were the pompous, self-righteous oafs who declared that they would not travel by the train because to do so would be tantamount to supporting the Chinese government.

Apparently it is irrelevant that the same railway line now makes it much cheaper to bring into Tibet such essentials as food. Or that this line now gives more Tibetans the option of migrating out in search of better incomes. Apparently Tibetans are not supposed to want better incomes, since richer Tibetans don't make for a very good tourist attraction.

I have an idea. I have a yearning to experience what Europe in the middle ages was like. Maybe all of Europe could oblige by giving up electricity, cars and even potatoes (imported from South America in the 16th century). Maybe they can go back to being a society of a few nobles living in wooden forts while the rest of the population sinks into serfdom. If they do that for me I promise to practice 'responsible tourism' while I visit them.

And then I will come back home and use the Internet to tell all my friends in Asia what a quaint, delightful, utterly charming experience it is to spend week in the citadel of London, where you wake up to the sound of cocks crowing outside your door and sleep as soon as it is sunset because sometimes there are wolves in the street at night.