Essential reading for hippy world travelers.
Photo by NeilsPhotography___Feature photo by Ramona.Forcella
If you’re off traveling and are suddenly crippled by a horrific attack of Campylobacter jejuni after eating some under-cooked chicken, would you prefer to be treated by a Doctor — who, you know, has an understanding of the germ theory of disease — or have raw pig’s blood slathered on your face by a man who has never washed his hands?
I mean, I like “local color”, too, but I also like people who know how to build school-houses and hospitals, and who don’t believe that their neighbor can make their “cattle fly off into a vortex of clouds”.
(Turns out pig’s blood can also be used to ward off Thai witches and Cambodian cattle rustlers, as well as cure every sort of disease in Laos.)
The truth is, the inhabitants of rural areas — most particularly in the Third World, though this is true of parts of Europe as well — are not lovely repositories of authentic culture.
(To be fair: while I suppose being slathered in pig’s blood is ‘authentic’ in the basic sense that it is what they would do to one of their own, that isn’t an argument for trying it, nor for enjoying it.)
In fact, the further you get from the cities, the more viciously backwards with respect to medicine, hygiene and hospitality the people get…and, eventually, you reach places where the word ‘culture’ is completely inapplicable, and your life is seriously in danger.
Give me Allopathic Medicine, hot water, Das Pergamonmuseum and a nice chèvre en brioche, any day.
None for you, though, because you think that “cities all over the world are pretty homogenized”.
Ugh…not even someone who checked into the nearest Hilton as soon as they arrived in every city they ever visited could be so deluded!
Within a hundred miles of Paris alone there are fifty unique cultures, and a few dozen argots. The same could be said for Barcelona, Glasgow, Freiburg-im-Breisgau, Florence…
They all include nice clean beds, and clean food, too!
(Anyway, if you’d like to try to argue that there is no ‘culture’ in Paris or Barcelona…or that they are ‘homogeneous’…well…)
- Jordan
Editor’s Note
The essay you just read is a response to a popular article I wrote called How To Travel The World For Free.
In the article, I advised broke travelers to stick to rural areas instead of cities. Perhaps I went too far when I wrote the following in the discussion that followed my original post:
In my experience, culture is best preserved and practiced in rural areas. In this globalized age, cities all over the world are pretty homogenized – especially wealthy downtowns.
Sure, there are museums and restaurants, but real, living, vibrant culture – the blend of traditions unique to place – is best preserved in the countryside, away from corrupting influence.
The essay above, one of several smartly written rebukes, was a comment from “Jordan”.
Jordan, if you’re out there, thanks for making your voice heard.
COMMUNITY CONNECTION:
Here’s a lyrical essay about a pig slaughter in Nicaragua by Teresa, a contributing editor her at the Matador Network.
Also, check out a recent New York Times feature that shows how big U.S. pig farming companies like Smithfield are changing the farming culture of Eastern Europe.
About the Author
More By This Author
- 10 Reasons to Study Abroad in the Islamic World (14 comments)
- Could the Burj Khalifah Collapse? (28 comments)
- Choice, Control and Travel (18 comments)
Related Posts
14 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Christine. I don’t agree with Jordan, but I do appreciate his lofty sarcasm and recognize that he makes some good points about the benefits of – ahem – hygiene, cheese and civilization.
↵ -
Great idea for keeping this conversation rolling, Tim.
I agree that cities can be quite diverse, culturally and otherwise (just left La Paz this morning, the southern part of which contains the typical Western homogenization and gated-community feel, but as you head up the valley things get incredibly more “indigenous,” for lack of a better word). Yet, the notion of unique cultures being best preserved in rural areas also seems self-evident. The idea that any human-inhabited place lacks culture is contrary to the definition of the term, I think.
↵ -
I loved this piece. It’s easy to take ourselves pretty seriously, so its great to take a break with over the top arguments about the merits or lack thereof of slathering pig’s blood on our persons.
↵ -
That picture from dirty bodega is horrible and disturbing. Why can’t I look away?
Interesting concept Tim! That’s what it’s all about though, creating conversation and acknowledging there is always another point of view out there…who’s to say who’s right? The world is subjective (mostly that is, except physics). Nice work.
↵ -
Yeah… why the imagery? Other than to draw people in, of course.
I’m reminded of a few quotes from Michael Cricton’s State of Fear, which tackles this issue, among others:
“You think civilization is some horrible, polluting human invention that separates us from the state of nature. But civilization doesn’t separate us from nature, Ted. Civilization protects us from nature. Because what you see right now, all around you [cannibals]—this is nature.”
“[Life in Third World villages is] best and ecologically soundest. Frankly, I think everyone in the world should live that way. And certainly, we should not be encouraging village people to industrialize. That’s the problem.”
“So you want to stay in a hotel, but you want everybody else to stay in a village.”
http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.415/pub_detail.asp
↵ -
Thanks for those quotes, Turner.
I searched for “pig, blood” on Creative Commons and found dirty bodega. I think it’s suitably over the top.
Another fun quote I’m reminded of:
Q. What’s the difference between a developer and an environmentalist?
A. A developer wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist already has one.
↵ -
Having lived “just outside” of a city of 6,000 for most of my life, living in a “village” (Western definition…no huts) of 520 now, I’ll say that Jordan is right…kinda.
The problem is the way in which she paints a pretty generalized picture. But the plain and simple fact is that my village’s isolation–even being in the U.S., with regular road access to bigger cities and high speed internet–breeds a general air of xenophobia. When I moved here, no one talked to us…until *poof* our license plate changed from “Illinois” to “Wisconsin”. After that, even the damn local police stopped by to welcome us.
As Turner quoted, I think little civilizations DO form as a “defense” mechanism–defense from outsiders, defense from nature, and so on. The smaller the enclave, the more extremist they are CAPABLE of becoming.
Of course, this “danger” she speaks of is a little over the top. Sure, going 100 miles outside of Kabul to a village that happens to be under Taliban control has a high probability of getting you killed (if you make a misstep…like pissing on the Q’uran or accidentally respecting a woman). But that same village under control of moderate tribal leaders will probably just give you weird stares. It’s equally xenophobic to assume that village = kill outsiders. Killing–even to the most ignorant rural-dweller–is rarely beneficial.
↵ -
Good to hear from you again, Papa OB!
↵ -
When I wander into a village in rural Cambodia where the people aren’t used to foreigners, I’m generally treated with extreme hospitality and curiosity. Exceptions are alcoholics and, sometimes, the local police / soldiers.
Perhaps villagers are extra-friendly because most foreigners who reach them are aid-workers of some sort with money to burn?
↵ -
I don’t really buy that, Tim – to some extent, I disagree with Crichton’s argument.
↵ -
Agreed. Similarly, I’ve found the vast majority of rural Vietnamese to be incredibly warm and welcoming, eager to feed me and learn about *my* culture. Village hospitality in my experience has been anything but backward – in fact, it’s been much more civilized than anything I’ve come to expect in larger cities around the world. Of course, I take issue with the very label “backward,” as it implies (and reinforces) a hierarchy that privileges Western thought and practice and ignores potential alternatives.
That said, I agree with Hal that where there are people, there is culture. While globalization can be grotesquely homogenizing, it can also give rise to interesting new cultural hybrids. Culture is not static – it is a process that unfolds as people change and adapt. To try to isolate and preserve culture (as many would do in rural areas) essentially turns people into living museum pieces, and puts in place the same implicit ranking of primitive versus progress. A tricky subject, to say the least!
Hmm, I sense an article in the making…
↵ -
P.S. – As a new-ish poster to Matador (who is only marginally internet literate), I’m still figuring out how this works – how do I leave a comment from my Matador account, so my name links to my profile? I realized after I posted that I should probably put my profile URL in the website box, so I’m giving it a shot. Apologies for the irrelevant comment!
↵ -
Wow, some of these comments are really patronizing, and thank you for some common sense, Tim.
Urban dwellers aren’t any less culturally authentic than their rural counterparts just because they have plumbing and electric (maybe not even that!) Just because people in rural areas are more likely to conform to your romanticized notions of what a third-world culture ’should’ be doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily ‘better.’ I can understand if you prefer a rural lifestyle (it’s cheaper, it’s got tons of natural beauty, etc) but don’t knock people in cities because of it.
Would you argue that a person living in the middle of Appalachia is more authentically American than a New Yorker? I doubt it, so how the hell is an indigenous person nestled in the Andes any less Bolivian than their counterparts in La Paz?
↵
