Feature Photo: Verity Cridland Photo: Hamed Masoumi
Last Friday, three Americans hiking near the Iran-Iraq border were detained by Iranian soldiers for having crossed into Iranian territory.
The three, identified as Sarah Shourd, Joshua Fattal, and Shane Bauer, have not been heard from since.
In the latest update, Iranian officials have announced that the government is interrogating the three and deciding whether to try them as spies. American officials are attempting to work through Swiss ties (the Swiss have represented the U.S in Iran since the 1979 hostage crisis) to obtain further information and negotiate the release of the travelers.
The incident has inspired a vitriolic and disturbing backlash against the three Americans, and revealed a common way of thinking in the U.S about travel and travelers.
Take these comments on the website of ABC News, for example:
“Let them stew over there for a bit. For to be so educated (as it appears) these children certainly are naïve and STUPID!”
“Dude, the GPS say’s were in Iran. Hey, lets go ‘break bread’ with the Iranians, we’ll show’em, Americans are goooood, it’s just our government that’s baaaaad…C’mon let’s do it ….we’ll be hero’s for world peace.”
“I hope they spend a couple of years in an Iranian prison thinking about their self-centered stupidity. And, when they get out, I hope the U.S government jails them for another couple of years. Idiots!”
“Ere is a real example of people acting stupidly, and now they ask us for help because of their stupid actions. I say if you want to vacation in the mountains of Iraq, summer in Afghanistan, or frolic in the waters off Somalia north coast then you should do it knowing (because the state department tells us so) that if your picked up on your own—stupid.”
“…they walk around with this dewey-eyed dream of the world…”
“…stupid aspiring writers…”
There are two themes here. One is that travel (outside of the U.S and perhaps Western Europe) is dangerous, reckless, and stupid. The other is that only starry-eyed, pot-smoking hippie backpackers are dumb enough to try it, and they get what they deserve.
One of the striking things I’ve noticed in comments on articles about the hikers is the way people are seething with contempt about the nerve of these “backpackers” to go “on vacation” in Iraq. The mainstream news media runs with this image and perpetuates it, etching out an image of the three as clueless, trust fund hippies singing camp songs round the fire on the Iraq-Iran border.
In actuality, the three were established journalists and experienced travelers, with bylines in the San Francisco Chronicle, the L.A Times, New American Media, The Nation, The Christian Science Monitor, Transitions Abroad and Brave New Traveler. Shane Bauer’s story on Iraqi Special Forces took him to Baghdad, where he did extensive research on the political infrastructure behind the special forces and interviewed Iraqi civilians, Iraqi military officers, and American military officers. He speaks fluent Arabic and has lived for years in the Middle East.
Sarah Shourd’s stories on Yemen and Israel also show an insight and skill as a journalist and a shrewdness for travel which betray the convenient idea that she’s a study abroad ingenue with a misguided sense of adventure. She also has lived and traveled for years in the Middle East and was studying Arabic in Damascus.
Yet most Americans would prefer to view them in line with a rhetoric that says, “Don’t go overseas. The world wants to kill America and America is damn smart to just stay at home and let the State Department deal with it.” Thinking this way maintains the neat dichotomy between hippie liberal backpackers who sympathize with those hostile foreign nations and clued-in Americans who understand that in the “real world” these nations all detest us.
The coverage of this story is a direct reflection of the way the U.S news media portrays travel to anywhere that isn’t Tuscany or Disney World: dangerous and inherently stupid, seeing as the rest of the world hates Americans and wants to attack them out of envy and hatred.
Perhaps this is why so few Americans travel and why so many Americans returning home from a trip to Latin America or Africa or the Middle East will be confronted with gasps and wonderment over how they survived.
Because the media doesn’t like to tell the stories of travelers who’ve come back not only in one piece but actually inspired and optimistic, the disaster stories will always reaffirm the same point about travel being for the green young idealist who has yet to get slapped by the “real world.”
And sure, there will always be a certain degree of naïvete and ignorance involved in travel: that’s part of what makes it so difficult and so rewarding. How can a person not be naïve in some respect visiting a different culture and trying to figure it out from square one?
But as most readers of this website could tell you, traveling is something you learn in the same way you learn to teach or to cook. It’s complicated and physically and emotionally trying, and this is part of what makes it addictive, particularly for challenge-oriented people. And oftentimes, the more people travel, the more willing they are to take on bigger and bigger challenges, and the less willing they are to think of travel the way the mainstream media and the State Department paint it.
Therefore, they take risks. And these risks are the basis of some of the most successful reporting and travel writing, the kinds of stories that crack open our awareness of and compassion for life in a particular place.
Photo: Desmond Kavanagh
This is what Sarah Shourd did with her articles on Yemen and Israel; she took risks and put herself in uncomfortable, unfamiliar situations and came out with stories that stick with the reader long after he/she has finished the last sentence. I can still imagine what it must’ve felt like to sit in prayer with so many covered women in Yemen, and I can feel her experience gnawing at my own given ideas about that country.
Yet if Sarah Shourd had been kidnapped in Yemen, I wonder how many people who read her story and enjoyed it would instead be saying, “How stupid!”
It is not only Americans glued to Fox News and spiteful of travel who scorn these travelers. There is also a vibe within the travel community that says, “well, you should’ve known better, too bad.” Whether that is true or not, where is the empathy for travelers when they need it?
Are we willing to marvel over travelers’ experiences when they get home, and dream about how we would’ve liked to have gone and done what they did, and look through the windows they open for us, but not to rally around them when they get into trouble?
This is not to say that travelers never make mistakes or get careless or cocky. This could have been what happened to these three hiking around the border; we still don’t know. There is plenty of potential back and forth about the logistics of their plan: North Kurdistan is a resort area and a relatively safe area for travelers, not the “war zone” people think it is. Other tourists have gone there in the past several years with no problem. The three spoke the local language and had traveled extensively in the region, which would have prepared them for travel in such a volatile area. Then again, one could argue that their experience should have taught them not to get so close to the border.
We don’t know. Traveling is always a series of decisions and oftentimes the travel that teaches the most, and leads to the best and most piercing writing, is a series of calculated risks.
So instead of degrading and condescending to these travelers, maybe we should show some compassion. After all, how many times have you been in a dicey spot on the road, how many times could someone have said to you days or weeks after a disaster, “what were you thinking?”
This is not to diminish the gravity of this situation, or to glorify their travels, or to say, “no big deal, so they made a mistake.” Rather, it’s to counter this widespread way of thinking that sees travelers as clueless, innocent idealists, and travel as an inherently reckless and futile behavior.
This story is more complicated than such straightforward conclusions, and merely writing it off as an example of naivete meets danger not only hypocritically insults these travelers when they most need support, but also degrades the act of travel overall and reduces it to simple formulas of safe vs. dangerous, smart vs. stupid, naive vs. experienced.
Community Connection
To read travelogues from Iraq and Iran, check out this post by Matador editor Tim Patterson.
About the Author
More By This Author
- 5 Essential Online Resources for Finding ESL Jobs (5 comments)
- Does Travel Abroad = Less Conspicuous Consumption At Home? (11 comments)
- Getting Hassled In Top Travel Spots: Preventable or Inevitable? (11 comments)
Related Posts
38 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
Apparently they are all Jewish and are now going to be tried as Israeli spies. This is going to get very serious, very quickly.
↵ -
Hey Stella–
Do you have any links to explain this further? Sounds disturbing!
Thanks!
↵ -
This site always has the inside scoop, way way ahead of other media. Sometimes they exaggerate so as to be overly hawkish, but they are very in the know.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6211
↵ -
“they take risks. And these risks are the basis of some of the most successful reporting and travel writing, the kinds of stories that crack open our awareness of and compassion for life in a particular place.”
An excellent writeup. Thanks for writing this Sarah.
↵ -
This is a great piece, Sarah. I had no idea that this was the common attitude in the US concerning this incident, but sadly can’t say that I’m all that surprised either.
Spies indeed.
Especially when it comes to the Middle East we see ideas like those quoted above about travel. Yes, of course it’s more dangerous than a trip to the corner store, but journalists who go there are among the only ones brave enough to see for themselves what is actually happening.
I hope for their safe return and also that people are not as hard-hearted and stupid as the comments you quoted would have us believe (add some sics! These jerks can’t spell or use proper grammar either).
↵ -
This is superb Sarah. It really is more about compassion. We all make mistakes. When calculated risks are taken and something positive comes out of it, like behind-the-scenes reporting in a rogue state, everyone applauds the reporters and gets to read about things they otherwise would never be able to read about.
Now if these same reporters get caught out, all of a sudden it’s “well, it’s their fault, they shouldn’t have been there”.
Have some compassion people. If any of them were your family/friends, you wouldn’t be saying the same thing.
↵ -
I agree that they took a risk (which is fine if they were comfortable with it), but it also reminds me of the “We’re not invincible” post on Matador last week.
Oh, and I understand what you’re trying to say with this post, but I don’t think the phrase “most Americans” is accurate…
“Yet most Americans would prefer to view them in line with a rhetoric that says, “Don’t go overseas. The world wants to kill America and America is damn smart to just stay at home and let the State Department deal with it.”
Some angry people commented on news stories, but that doesn’t reflect the nation as a whole…
↵ -
Hi there, I wrote the ‘we’re not invincible’ post. The intention is a cautious reminder to people who are about to go abroad to travel. But if anyone does get themselves into some kind of trouble, should we just turn our backs on them? As I said before, everyone makes mistakes, and I think it speaks volumes how people react.
It might be correct to say that this doesn’t reflect most Americans’ views, but it certainly does of most people who’ve spoken up about it. If people are in support of them, they should say so and not remain quiet.
↵ -
You said it all, Sarah. Thanks for articulating for us.
↵ -
Fantastic article, Sarah. I also wasn’t aware that this was the way the story was being spun back in the U.S., although I’m not too surprised. Until we know why they’re there, it’s a little too soon to judge. And no matter what, I just hope they make it home safely.
↵ -
Those comments are probably more indicative of the attitude of people who read/watch ABC News rather than the country as a whole.
I spent 4 months in Lebanon last year and before I left people would ask me in all seriousness if I was going over there because I wanted to die. Its sad that most people’s idea of travel is going to Western Europe and anywhere else is just unthinkable.
↵ -
I don’t agree with your comments entirely. Although, I believe the three hikers made a mistake in crossing into Iranian Territory, I also believe, from your reporting, that they were experience and fully aware of the dangers. By this, it’s difficult to feel anything positive about the situation. What is the lesson and at what cost?
↵ -
Hey James,
My point isn’t that there’s anything positive to feel about this or any great inspiring lesson to take from it. My point with this article was to analyze the way the situation is being talked about, and to encourage people to have some empathy with these travelers in their current situation.
↵ -
Great article Sarah. We should at least suspend judgement on any issue of naivety and stupidity etc. until they are returned safely and we have access to the details. Anything else would be, well…naive and stupid.
↵ -
Using the ABC comments was really smart. Great article!
↵ -
“Ere is a real example of people acting stupidly, and now they ask us for help because of their stupid actions. I say if you want to vacation in the mountains of Iraq, summer in Afghanistan, or frolic in the waters off Somalia north coast then you should do it knowing (because the state department tells us so) that if your picked up on your own—stupid.”
“…they walk around with this dewey-eyed dream of the world…”
“…stupid aspiring writers…”
The words quoted above are only parts of the feelings not wholly revealed by their authors and submitted in this article. Hidden are feelings of superiority, inferiority and envy… the authors of the comments could be struggling to provide for their families in today’s rabid economy, or soldiers living day to day in a war torn area of the world who can’t allow themselves the time, our three travelers have taken, to be dreamers, visitors enjoying foreign and exciting views of the world. The authors probably haven’t enjoyed a liberal education and majored in peace and conflict studies and grown to feel ashamed of their country. Now as stated in this article these authors have the audacity to feel put upon by suddenly being held responsible for the escapist search for adventure that these three travelers have sought. It seems there is right and wrong in both views. It’s like the child who gets in trouble and the parent who has to rescue him, only it’s time for some of our liberal educated citizens to drop a little of their snobbery that is so apparent in their rhetoric when talking about their fellow Americans… who just might be Fox News followers.
↵ -
BJ–
I think you’re making a lot of assumptions here about a) who the people leaving these comments are and b) who the travelers currently in Iran are. You attribute a lot of nobility to commentators who are essentially saying they’d like to see other people rot in jail or suffer because of a mistake. I see your point that their might be envy, jealousy, and superiority or inferiority behind these comments, but I don’t think that justifies their callousness and utter lack of empathy for fellow human beings. It scares me the way people like this can so freely say things like “let ‘em rot!”
Also, I find your analysis of these travelers just plain wrong. It is really frightening how many people automatically assume these travelers are “dreamers” and “liberals.” What does the word “liberal” mean besides being a political buzzword for volvos and snobbery? It’s a term a lot of people throw around as an insult and yet it’s little more than a series of cliches, meant to pigeonhole individuals into a particular stereotype.
Also, I don’t know where you get the idea these people are “dreamers.” Again, what does that mean? That they’re pot-smoking hippies? In actuality, they write meticulously researched articles about the Iraqi political system and the history of the conflict in Darfur which are published in some of the most respected publications in the states. They speak multiple languages and are experienced teachers. They have years of experience living and traveling abroad. I don’t know why traveling, teaching and living in the Middle East makes them “dreamers.” If you mean that they’re not sitting at home in the U.S talking about how messed up the world is and how evil “the terrorists” are, then you have an extremely cynical view of the term “dreamer.”
Also, I believe your comment betrays how little you actually know about traveling or living abroad. You feel the need to belittle traveling and living abroad by narrowing it all into an “escapist search for adventure.” What are these travelers escaping from? Some dreary, bitter, cynical 9-5 reality dominated by fear and paranoia that perhaps a lot of the people leaving comments on ABC news live in? Some life you think they should be living, or you feel angry or resentful that they’re not living? I don’t see any evidence at all here that they’re escaping anything. They’re just living their lives, and they’re living them in a way that seems much more fulfilling than a lot of these angry commentators live their lives in the U.S. Travel is a lot more than an “escapist search for adventure” and assuming that anyone who travels is merely escaping the U.S is an extremely narrow-minded way of thinking.
Also, I don’t see any evidence that these people are “ashamed” of their country. Did you actually read any of their writing? Could you pick out any example that proves your point here? Since when did politics get so dumbed down in the U.S that any criticism of U.S policy is seen as being unpatriotic and “snobby?” I am ashamed that the U.S has killed untold numbers of civilians in Iraq. I am ashamed at what it has done in Latin America, and traveling there I do feel ashamed when I see the devastation following U.S-backed coups and dictators. Does that mean I don’t appreciate what the U.S has given me, or the positive aspects of the U.S and the people there? Does it mean I hate the U.S vehemently and idealize all other countries? No! Since when is it such a black and white, all or nothing question of saying, “YES! I love the U.S! I’m not ashamed that we’ve waged illegal wars that have caused tragedy and disaster!” or “I hate the U.S! It’s evil! I love Iraq and want to escape to live there!” This is such a simplistic, dualistic way of thinking.
↵ -
Sadly, I am not surprised by the comments. I probably could have written some of them word-for-word, that is how predictable I find these people. These types make a regular habit of giving completely ignorant opinions, and unfotunately they usually go unchecked. This article serves as a great educational tool to open their minds to the reality of the situation, and the hatefulness of their comments. I only hope that information like this actually reaches them.
↵ -
Maybe it’s because it hits so close to home, but it always bothers me a little when people hate on the media. To anyone who wants to throw these writers in jail, I’d have to ask: how do you know about anything that happens beyond your own doorstep? Somebody went there to find out about it for you, and you can be damn sure it wasn’t the US government.
↵ -
HEAR HEAR!
Very well written and I totally agree.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.↵ -
Excellent piece Sarah! Echoing Kate’s comments, I’m not in the least bit surprised that this is the sentiment shared by so many Americans. We’re always going to face risks no matter how “safely” we travel. But of course, I’m an idealistic hippie, so what do I know.
↵ -
So what you’re saying then is that its just as safe to backpack through Iraq as it is Chile? Who knew? /sarcasm
Yes, I agree that people shouldnt always believe what the media tells them (especially when it comes to travel) but common sense should prevail here. If they wanted to go to Iran, they should have entered in through legitimate channels. If they didnt intend to go to Iran, then they should have made bloody sure of exactly where they were at all times.
Im sorry to hear that they’re in Iranian custody, and that they may be tried as spies, but last I heard Iran *hated* the USA, and America was fighting a war in Iraq. Hardly seems like a smart place to wander about.
↵ -
Wow! It seems like I have struck a nerve. Please let me respond to some assumptions in your post. First, regarding the comments of people quoted in my post… no where in my post was the term nobility used to reference any of their positions.. I don’t know any of those involved and have only their words to get an idea of who they are. I was talking about feelings. I’m glad that you see my point that their might be envy, jealousy, and superiority or inferiority behind their comments.
Second.. Most importantly, I certainly don’t agree that Sarah Shourd, Joshua Fattal, and Shane Bauer should be held captive. I also don’t believe that the majority of Americans want them held and per your words, “let ‘em rot!” I found after reviewing my post that I failed to speak to that injustice and for that I apologize. It is interesting to learn that some of them have lived several years in the middle east and know the lay of the land. I want them to be safely returned.
The terms liberal or conservative are merely words that describe a way of thinking and I never use them as insults. Different ways of thinking is what makes the US a unique society in which to live. However, I don’t believe it is the only worthwhile country in the world. I agree that travel broadens a person’s outlook and that by living within a different community, it is easier to learn their views and share what is happening to them with the world. There are always two sides to any story. I have read several interesting articles by Shane Bauer and he is an excellent writer.
No where in my post did I use the term pot-smoking hippies… which was a popular term used in the sixties and seventies. I never use those words.
As for dreamers… they are what makes the world interesting. Daring to do what others yearn.. I admire dreamers who contribute to society. However, I don’t denigrate others who choose to take the more conservative approach to living. To each his own… that is my belief.
Your are incorrect in your comment that I have little knowledge about traveling or living abroad. During my lifetime, I have traveled abroad and lived in Japan for three years. Like Sarah Shourd, Joshua Fattal, and Shane Bauer, I enjoyed the different cultures, communities, and environments. Each day brought a new adventure or concept and I enjoyed it. However, upon my return home, I appreciated the differences between our countries and how much freedom we take for granted in our daily lives. I also believe in the right to speak out… It is one of our personal freedoms. I don’t believe speaking out is unpatriotic, sometimes, the patriot is the one who does speak out when they see the possibility of some freedom slipping away.
I get my news from the internet via such sites as BBC News, Livestation, Reuters, Breitbart, Guardian, Twitter, and Stumbleupon. I choose not to watch ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC who offer their version of the news, unfortunately it doesn’t mean it is the whole version.
I’m confused why you assume that my life is angry and resentful about others and the choices they make to live their lives. Believe me, I’m not. I think I read an article by Sarah Shourd wherein she used the term “ashamed.” I also make no judgement about it. No one can really know what another has experienced or what has contributed to the feelings they may have or exhibit. I agree with you nothing is really black and white..
Thanks for your post. I find that we agree on many things and most importantly have the option to disagree… something others living in another country just might not have.
To end this..I hope Sarah Shourd, Joshua Fattal, and Shane Bauer are safely returned home soon and are free to live their lives as they choose.
↵ -
BJ-
Thank you for an interesting response. Your first and second posts have a very different tone. Your first post includes a lot of this resentful, condescending rhetoric that I’ve found in many comments on articles about these three travelers. You describe the people leaving these angry comments as “people struggling to feed their families” and “soldiers fighting in war torn areas”–this is what I mean by attributing nobility. You don’t have to use the word noble–it is implied.
Also, the way you use terms like “peace and conflict studies,” “dreamers” and “escapist search for adventure,” and the fact that you directly compare these travelers to children and the more “conservative,” as you say, commentators to parents is suggesting that you do not respect these three and you instead feel that they are something akin to irresponsible, pot-smoking hippies (even if you don’t use this term directly.)
Finally, you seem to be using the term liberal as an insult. You directly compare “liberals,” who are supposedly ashamed of their country, who are snobbish, who major in peace and conflict studies, who do childlike things like get lost in foreign countries because of their dreamy ignorance, with “conservatives” or “everyday people” who are struggling to feed families and fighting wars. Since when was there such a stark divide separating Americans into two categories? This is Bush administration rhetoric and it’s coming out strongly in the aftermath of this story.
I appreciate your second post and clarifications. It’s interesting that you’ve lived in Japan–I’d like to know what your observations were when you returned home from living in Japan. How did it change your perspective on the U.S?
Thanks for continuing to contribute and offering your perspective. I hope you’ll keep following Matador and participating.
↵ -
I think this was a completely misguided column. In involved a ‘reductio ad absurdum’ technique of taking the most ignorant and extreme of comments against the travellers and then interpreting them in the most extreme manner in order to discredit anyone who disapproves of the travellers’ actions. I can understand doing this in your sympathy for someone who is similar politically and is a colleague and possibly a personal friend, but the issues are important enough that it’s better to view the situation without being overly influenced by personal considerations.
Thinking it’s foolish to illegally enter a country with a deserved reputation for political repression is not the same as thinking the whole world is unsafe outside of America. People can enjoy hiking in the Masai Mara, biking through Viet Nam, or helping build a house in Honduras, and still think it’s stupid to make an unauthorized entry into Iran or North Korea, especially at this point in time.
You’re right that reporting from places with potential violence like Yemen and Iraq can be very valuable besides being dangerous. But you are conflating journalism with authorized entry to journalism with unauthorized entry: two very different things.
Regimes like Iran’s can use people as political bargaining chips. When travellers violate the laws of other countries they become potential bargaining chips that can be used against their country of origin. In this way they are not only hurting themselves, they are hurting their fellow citizens who had no part in the decision-making that resulted in this unneccessary disadvantage.
People who are too used to the arguments of moral relativism and to pointing out US imperfections and defending the actions of police states can find their assessments contradicted by reality when they finally experience the police states personally. In this sense, the reporters were victims of their own incorrect political assessments.
I don’t think “they got what they deserved” and I hope they come home safely as soon as possible. But sympathy for their plight should not lead automatically to justification of their actions and especially not to demonization of those who disapprove of them.
↵ -
Michael,
Thank you for an interesting response. I’d like to clarify that I’m not “conflating journalism with unauthorized entry.” I pointed out that these travelers were journalists because I wanted to discredit the popular interpretation that they are wet behind the ears backpackers on some lark. Many comments–and not just the ones on the more radical websites (and I’d argue ABC News isn’t that radical, it’s quite mainstream!) but also comments here on Matador–tend to try and pigeonhole the travelers into this cliche of dreamy, hippie backpackers. For more evidence of this, read this article: http://www.bravenewtraveler.com/2008/11/07/escape-from-iraq-a-muslim-family-finds-solace-in-ramadan/.
Also, I don’t think any of the three intended to make an unauthorized entry into Iran, and I don’t think they were “victims of their own incorrect political assessments.” This is an awfully condescending statement. You’re assuming they sat around the campfire and said, “hey, why not just try and cross the border into Iran since it’s really not that bad a country? It’s better than the U.S, actually!” I don’t see any evidence in any of their writing of their defending Iran or defending police states, and I don’t think what happened here was a case of them believing somehow that they could cross borders and the friendly Iranians would give them a pat on the back.
I don’t see any of the “moral relativism” you’re referring to in these journalists’ writing. I don’t understand how so many people have jumped to the conclusion that these three are sympathetic to Iran. There is absolutely nothing in their writing to suggest that. Pardon the analogy here, but it seems to me similar to the leap of logic many Americans made in linking Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein. Simply because Sarah Shourd has written about the effects of Israeli occupation in Golan Heights doesn’t mean she has justified the police state in Iran, and it doesn’t hint at any sort of moral relativism.
Finally, sadly enough, I don’t believe that the comments I quoted above are a small sampling of extremist views. I think they represent the views of a wide swath of people–even, I would venture, of the “mainstream”–in the U.S. My goal in including these comments was not to demonize the commentators or to discredit anyone who disagrees with the traveler’s actions, but merely to analyze the way many people think about travel in the U.S and the way the media influences and plays off of this way of thinking.
My point was also to show how in this situation a very particular rhetoric develops, and it is a rhetoric that has been encouraged by the Bush administration. It spouts contempt for “the liberals” and attributes all sorts of values and beliefs to them–they’re “dreamers,” “moral relativists,” they’re anti-U.S and pro-police state, they’re ignorant, they’re not in touch with the real world. They’re spoiled children. I want to analyze and debunk this rhetoric.
Finally, I’m not justifying their actions in this article, but rather asking the reader to empathize with how they came to be in this situation. There is a difference. Nowhere do I say, “hey, how were they supposed to know where the border was, anyway?”
If you read the last few paragraphs of the article, I think this will be clearer.
↵ -
I really wish that people would stop assuming that anyone interested in international travel is even liberal, much less dreamy eyed, naive, etc. The person who introduced me to most of the travel resources I know of, who has spent time in too many countries for me to keep track of, and has been traveling since she was a teenager, has to work at not being so cynical that it puts people off, is very conservative, all about family values, strong work ethic, not legalizing drugs, etc. She regularly rolls her eyes at “hippies” and optimists in general. She just loves increasing her store of experience and knowledge, and is open minded enough to accept that not everyone is going to be like her, and that’s ok.
She isn’t terribly rare.
A desire to experience new things isn’t antithetical to a conservative philosophy.
↵ -
Sarah,
I wrote that you were selecting the “most ignorant and extreme comments” to debunk and somehow you slid “extreme comments” into “extreme websites” (ABC news is obviously not extreme) which is not what I wrote. You really shouldn’t use that kind of rhetorical tactic.
We know that the three journalists did cross the Iranian border, so there has to be some explanation. You shouldn’t exclude all possible motivations because one motivation or another has to be true. I was agreeing with your assessment that they didn’t do it out of cluelessness. But that doesn’t leave many other explanations. They either crossed the border intentionally (in search of a story or for other reasons) or they did it unintentionally in spite of being experienced enough travellers to know that you leave yourself a margin of error when near a defended border. Either of those explanations makes more sense if they misguidedly believed that the Iranian government is more benign than it really is. It doesn’t make much sense to posit that they knew the Iranian government is paranoid and repressive and yet they went hiking right at the border where you can’t see the crossing. That would take you back to fecklessness. My guess of poor political thinking makes more sense. You seem to be denying all possibe motivations and yet we know it did happen.
I’m glad you brought up Sarah’s article on the Golan Heights which seemed more an exercise in political propaganda than in journalism. She wrote “it’s hard to understand why Israel hangs on to such a small sliver of land despite the international outcry against its illegal occupation.” Nothing in the article mentioning that, pre-1967, Syrian soldiers used to shoot from the Golan Heights down on Israeli farmers working their fields. Nothing about Syria invading Israel from the Golan in 1967 and being pushed back after loss of innocent life. Reading Sarah one would never know that Syria is the kind of place where 20,000 were killed in Hama when Assad repressed the Moslem Brotherhood. She doesn’t attempt to report both sides but she also doesn’t arrive at one side while struggling and refuting the evidence of the other side. She simply assumes away anything that might be troubling to her world-view by writing as if it doesn’t exist!
Just to be clear on where I’m coming from, I’m a liberal myself and I campaigned for Obama in the last election. I work for a non-profit to attempt to forestall climate change. What Sarah has written on Syria does make it seem, not that she is pro police state exactly, but, as is much more typical, that she is willing to imagine away the police state aspects of places like Syria to make things more conform with her political stance. That’s not journalism.
Anyway, let’s hope all three are freed soon.
↵ -
Michael–
I wonder if you were too busy making smug analyses about my “rhetorical tactics” to actually bother to read my writing.
Nowhere did I try to confuse websites with comments. I made the point that ABC News is not a radical website, AND I made the point that the comments left there are not radical. Read this sentence:
“Finally, sadly enough, I don’t believe that the comments I quoted above are a small sampling of extremist views. I think they represent the views of a wide swath of people–even, I would venture, of the “mainstream”–in the U.S”
I also linked to Sarah’s story on Matador in order to illustrate how the comments found there are similar to the comments I’ve cited in this article, and how they all demonstrate a similar theme.
I therefore made the point that the comments I use in this article are NOT the exception to the rule not once, but twice, so I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that I’m trying (and failing, as your smugness suggests) to conflate websites and comments.
Also, Sarah’s Golan Heights article was not a piece of “reporting,” as you claim–it is not meant to be a New York Times story explaining the history of Golan Heights. Rather, this is a piece of narrative non-fiction writing. I think it’s important to clarify the difference between a non-fiction essay and a piece of reporting. Obviously, no author is going to be able to summarize the history of the Israeli/Syrian conflict in 2,000 words or less and the goal of her piece is not do such a thing.
I also notice a particular doggedness in the way you insist on defining Syria as “the kind of place where 20,000 were killed in Hama when Assad repressed the Moslem Brotherhood.” So can we therefore define Israel as the kind of place where thousands of Lebanese were killed and over a million displaced in retaliation for an attack on seven Israeli soldiers? Can we define the U.S as the kind of place that would overthrow democratically elected governments in Guatemala and Chile? I don’t think defining countries as “the kind of place where…” is very helpful, nor is it the kind of journalism you claim to respect in your comment.
As for Sarah writing “nothing about Syria invading Israel from the Golan in 1967 and being pushed back after loss of innocent life,” actually, Sarah wrote about how the people living in Golan Heights rebelled until they forced the Israeli’s to push back.
You also try to use her statement “it seems hard to understand why Israel hangs onto such a small sliver of land despite the international outcry against its illegal occupation” as an example of how little she understands about the situation in Golan Heights. However, she goes on to explain why Israel hangs on to Golan Heights, and why this area is strategic for Israel, in the next two paragraphs.
Finally, as for the the story behind how the three of them ended up in Iran, maybe you should check out the statement written by their travel companion in The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090817/meckfessel
↵ -
Based on your your response to dissent from your views, if you want to see smugness please look in a mirror.
↵ -
I am with you 100% on this article. Very well written Sarah.
It seems to be the common paradigm (at least from an American viewpoint), especially in these cases, that traveling is dangerous and irresponsible, and whatever happens to the naive traveler serves them right.
I still can’t understand the contempt expressed for these 3 travelers. Being verbally attacked and stereotyped by people they don’t even know, who have just read a paragraph story from their most trusted news source, and now feel they are entitled to a valuable opinion on the issue?
Again though, like you said, I’m not intending to downplay the gravity of the situation, because no one really knows all the details as of yet.
But it still saddens me to see all the condescending, name calling, and ill wishers on the subject of travelers in general.
Most people are well and excited when you’ve returned from afar with stories and pictures from a recent adventure, and more than happy to live vicariously through your experiences…but the moment you do something that lands you in a tough spot… they are quick to say, “I told you so.”
I’m just so glad to have found a community like Matador!
Thanks for sharing this great article
↵ -
Please.
I understand, someone has perhaps tread on (near) your sacred cow and it’s very cathartic to get all jazzed up about it. But don’t you recognize that you’re making the PRECISE generalization that you’re excoriating ‘people’ for making?There is a HUGE difference between backpacking on the Iranian border in a war zone, and ‘…that travel (outside of the U.S and perhaps Western Europe) is dangerous, reckless, and stupid.’ That’s just sloppy emotionalist exaggeration.
“This is what Sarah Shourd did with her articles on Yemen and Israel; she took risks and put herself in uncomfortable, unfamiliar situations and came out with stories that stick with the reader long after he/she has finished the last sentence.”
You’re absolutely right. She took risks. Period, full stop. The word risk has meaning, it’s not just there for decoration. The reason we get a frisson of adrenaline walking near the edge of a cliff is because it’s a risk. If we accept that risk (of falling off) because there might be a beautiful view that nobody’s ever seen before, we – as independent, intelligent adults – CHOOSE to trade the small chance of mortal peril in the hopes of gratification. That’s our choice. But then, if we go slip sliding over the edge, it’s not a tragedy, it’s a choice we made. Sometimes the dice are against you. We can feel a basic human sympathy for people in suffering, but when they DELIBERATELY PUT THEMSELVES IN A POSITION TO SUFFER…well, ultimately it’s their problem. Thanks Darwin.What ‘people’ are commenting on is the absurdity of people choosing to take a very high risk, and then being surprised when it turns against them, and the ridiculous efforts extended by the US gov’t to ‘rescue’ them from a situation of their own choosing. It’s kind of like Siegfried and Roy – the dudes played with TIGERS. The fact that ultimately one of them got chewed was a) unsurprising, b) not worthy of more than simple sympathy, and c) certainly not worth the intervention of the US gov’t to save him.
There are oodles of interesting places to backpack in this world that aren’t in a war zone, and even if you felt compelled to backpack in Iraq, there’s lots of interesting bits of Iraq that aren’t near Iran. (And deliberate disingenuity doesn’t help your point. North Kurdistan is a resort area, lol. That’s hilarious. I’ll have to recommend that to my grandparents when they take to the motor home next summer.) To have deliberately chosen such a place, and particularly with their extensive backgrounds and knowledge – they were no novices, as you point out – was a clear choice. Personally, I do think it’s a little disrespectful to assume their choice was out of a cavalier disregard for the danger. They were professionals pursuing (I’d guess) their chosen occupations. Respect them for that, but aside from their employers who might have a moral obligation to try to beg them free, I feel no compunction about forgetting them and moving on to the next news item of the day. If they do get out, I’ll avidly read their story…because that’s why they took the risk (presumably). But I’m certainly not going to lose sleep over their fates.
The reason that they are being referred to as kids is because this sort of risk-taking behavior is very common to youth; be it because they either disregard the actual risks, or accept the risks because of a narcissistic belief in their ability to control events. Their biographies suggest to me too that they got a little cocky, but I’m not really invested enough in their outcomes to care. Of course, it’s not always youth: just google Pippi Bacca (30?) and how this hiker – “(who) wanted to show that she could put her trust in the kindness of local people” ended up.
To answer your specific question, ‘what if she’d been abducted in Yemen?’ – well, having been in Yemen myself extensively, I’d say it was because she stupidly ignored the long historical and cultural history of most of Yemen, which is a violent, godforsaken place with a brutal culture (especially toward women and girls). There are Yemenis I consider my close friends, both in Aden (mostly) but a few from the area of Jibla. There are some amazing things to see, eat, and do there. But I wouldn’t call it safe.
So no, to contradict your title – travel isn’t just for ‘idiotic idealists’. But ultimately, Darwin rules. Don’t be surprised if he bitch-slaps you for naive choices. And don’t be faux-shocked if the rest of us, who chose not to take such risks, aren’t terribly sad about the result.
↵ -
Sarah, you have a great article but don’t crucify me for saying that don’t agree with all of it – I have to say I agree with Steve (above). These people took a risk and are now paying for it. If I was in the same situation, I wouldn’t be suprised at the outcome.
I’m a traveler – not a dopey, liberal backpacker. Even if I were the latter, I wouldn’t put myself in harm’s way without paying for the consequences.
I am sure the backpackers knew exactly what they were doing and I am sure once they get out they will tell you they deserved it. I don’t think they should be left to rot as some suggest, and I certainly don’t think they are stupid – but one can hardly be outraged at what is happening. I also am not losing sleep over it.
What I don’t like though, is how it seems everything is so black and white: you are either against them, bleating away on ABC or you are 100% behind them. I’m not against them but I’m not behind them either. I believe people should stretch their legs and go beyond the call of Western Europe but I think there is a huge difference between that and hiking in a uneasy Middle Eastern country.
That said, what I really wish the news would do is stop portraying them as “hikers” or “backpackers” – I bet if off the bat they had described them as journalists, then all this backlash wouldn’t have happened in the first place.
↵ -
Sarah,
Another well-written, interesting post. It generated some interesting comments and inspired me to put my two cents in, at the risk of pissing-off a few folks at Matador.
Sarah Shourd, Joshua Fattal and Shane Bauer made a big mistake. We probably all have, or will sometime in our lives.. I’ve done a bunch of them. I wish their families and them the best of luck
A long, long time ago I was in a serious jam, right here in Okinawa. An elderly gent who reminded me of Mr. Miyagi (Karate Kid) was employed to help me. Quietly, behind the scenes, he got cronies, from all walks of life to work their magic.
Everything was going well. Evidence disappeared, people made the impossible happen for me; I was about to get off the hook!Then some nosey, noisy Americans got involved. Mr. Miyagi said,”They don’t know what they’re doing. They wake up sleeping tiger”. He was right.
The sleeping tiger woke up and got me, Miyagi and all his cronies.I am seriously concerned about the welfare of the three writers and hope everyone at Matador is wishing for their safe return. They are in a cage with a sleeping tiger. It’s probably best we don’t make too much noise and wake the tiger up.
Quietly, give your support to those who work secretly in the background, in Iran, my friends or those three writers are screwed.
↵ -
Wow. Mike, we need to sit down over a couple of beers I think so you can finish that story.
Very good point, not one that that has been considered.
↵ -
Carlo,
Couple a beers! That usually leads to a couple more beers. And way back in my younger days, more jail time. I’m Irish; we drink until the planet leaves our feet. Let’s just do some iced coffee !↵ -
Haha. OK. I can do iced coffee. Especially Vietnamese iced coffee. Mmmm.
↵
