Traveller or Tourist?

Recently I received a somewhat attacking comment on a photo of me in Cuba on Instagram.  It was an interesting experience which I really hoped to gain more incite from.  First I deleted the comment, as it seemed to have a political edge to it. I don't want to discuss politics in the comments of a post.  I then sent the comment writer a DM respectfully requesting clarification of the point he was trying to make.  I try to avoid political commentary and opinions intentionally because everything I write and post relates to travel first and foremost.  

In essence, his explanation was that my photo was evidence that I am not a "traveler," that I should become a "traveler" and then he went on to try and make my race an issue despite the fact that we are clearly the same race (mostly european/latino) and we look similar in skin tone.  I found the whole thing mystifying that someone could find this photo offensive and make wild assumptions based on that belief.  

But it really got me thinking on this topic in the travel community in which some people define themselves as "travelers" and want to quickly label others as "tourists."  Before ending my conversation with the comment writer, he explained that he had spent a month and a half travelling across Cuba and "nearly went to jail" for overstaying his visa.   I guess in his mind this assertion backs up his credibility as a traveler somehow.  He explained he stayed with locals.  So did I.  In fact staying with locals is by far the best option, especially in Cuba.  This is kind of a no-brainer to anyone who has visited Cuba.  He said taking a photo with a classic car was all the evidence he needed to label me a "tourist,"  which I guess to "travelers" is a devastating insult. 

To me, he's actually right in the sense that no matter how you slice it, I am a tourist.   Just like him.  I don't live there, I wasn't born there and I'm not moving there.  The conversation quickly devolved and I ended it when I realized he was just a troll.  Flattering as it is to have some trolls, I really don't have time for that.  

But our brief conversation got me thinking:  What's the difference between the traveler and the tourist?  This recent topic can be seen all over the place and the conversation inspired me to share my two cents and two brain cells about it in a blog post.  I'd love your thoughts, so if you'd like, send me an email or DM me on Instagram.

As a tourist, I'm there to experience a place.  Not to pretend I am a local with some pretentious higher level of understanding.  Even if I've studied the culture, even if I feel cultural connections, even if locals feel a cultural connection to me, even if I speak or am trying to learn the local language, I will always be a tourist by definition.  I've had wonderful conversations with locals of every social class, everywhere I've been.  I've become the email equivalent of pen pals with people from all walks of life in countries all over the world.  I'm still not a local, no matter how much I can try to pretend I am.

At the same time, I think I can agree with certain concepts that the comment writer probably wanted to convey.  I'm not and have never been the type of person who wants to go to a resort and never leave.  I can't imagine going to Cancun, for instance, and staying on a resort the entire day just looking at the same strip of beach.  That could be fun for a few hours, yes, but honestly I need to move and explore, regardless of how famous the destination is.  The resort might be relaxing, yes, but I wanna see some shit.  Is it wrong to stay at a resort in general?  Does this immediately mean you are a "tourist"?  I don't have strong opinions on it one way or another but I've had just as good a time staying in someones spare room as I have had staying in a five star resort.  Generally for me, as I've outlined in other blog posts, the choice is whether or not I can nab lodging at a hotel or resort for free.  That is the biggest deciding factor.  Is thrifty lodging an attribute of a traveler or a tourist?  In some ways, this issue gets more complex.

I follow a very talented travel photographer on Instagram that is predominantly landscapes.  The photos are heavily but professionally edited and inspire me to step my photo game up.  The photographer has opened up about how he spends the bare minimum on most of his lodgings unless he is doing promotional shoots at hotels as a part of his job.  Is he a traveler or a tourist?  

As an extension to the conversation, he's not even taking the absolute most original or artistic photos.  But he sees places in a certain way which allows him to produce photos which are both inspiring and technically excellent.  Is he a tourist or a traveler because his photos are excellent, albeit, not completely original?

I'm also not the type to participate in organized tours.  While the tours may be insightful, educational, cultural or adventurous, I'd rather explore on my own.  The very few planned "tours" that I've done involved one guide into a jungle in Panama and one walking history tour during one of my visits to Havana.  During the tour of Havana it was just myself and my local guide.  He offered me insight about how he felt about his home.  These guides were independent locals and I put money directly into their pockets.  Despite this personal preference to avoid tour groups, I'm still not a local.  But am I a tourist or a traveller?  I supported independent local men trying to take care of their families.  The money I paid went into their pockets, not a big business or a government. 

Perhaps I just have a trusting nature or perhaps it has to do with gender but I've never felt like the overseas traveling that I've done has required any bravery.   I love travelling or if you've decided, "being a tourist".  When a local person invites me to walk, talk, eat or drink some tea with them, I do.  I don't recommend this to everybody but I personally can sense when someone is trying to take advantage of me.  People almost never try to take advantage of me. Are the locals in big famous cities like Istanbul, Havana, Dubai or even small places like Abu Simbel, Borobodur and Hikone not "local" enough to be considered talking to locals?  Do I need to go somewhere truly unheard of to "earn" the title "traveller"?  Would a "traveller" even write a blog post?  

I've had great impromptu conversations about countless topics with locals.  I'm not even slightly afraid to hang out with people who may be ill, who may be much "poorer" than me, who may be "different."  I don't really get this comfort zone stuff in relation to traveling.  Does that make me a tourist or a traveler?  

At this point, I've spent months of my life traveling across Europe, Latin America, North America and East Asia.  In fact I spend months every year traveling.  I've toured around a few bits of Africa and Australia as well, though these trips were very brief.  Of all the places I've visitted, I wouldn't say that I have a greater or lesser understanding of a place than anyone else who visited for the same amount of time as me.  FYI, even after all those months, I'm still not a local.  I've spent weeks of my life in just one city, exploring just that city.  Am I not a "traveler," because I wanted to see a lot of Tokyo and just wander around there on foot?  Or as a "traveler" was I supposed to be visiting non-famous places in a remote section of Hokkaido? 

When I went to Paris for the first time, I did that lame tourist thing where I climbed the Eiffel tower. I didn't take the elevator because I wanted to burn off all those touristy crepes, baguettes, steak and butters I'd eaten.  I haven't climbed the Eiffel tower since.  Why?  I didn't enjoy it enough to do it again.  What I did enjoy was walking around in Montmartre at night.  Walking all alone by the Seine in morning.  This is also classic tourist type shit besides waking up before sunrise.  Does that mean I haven't seen the "real" Paris because I only spent a little time in the fauborgs? 

Admittedly, I'm not much of an outdoors man.  I haven't traveled across anywhere as an adult where I was just on foot with a back pack and tent.  If that's your thing, you probably deserve to be crowned the title of "traveler" but I bet you don't do that kind of thing just because you need to be recognized as a "traveler."  You're probably just an outdoorsy person.  

When it comes to my photography, I have to admit that my photos always lean heavily on the iconic side which could be easily called cliche.  To be honest and obvious, many of my photos were heavily inspired by people on social media.  But my photography has evolved over the years.  I used to only like shooting landscapes but I'm now trying to create scenes and ambiance.  Even the occasional portraits, provided the props are the right kind of weird.  Does this mean I'm a cheap hack?  Does it take away from any possible artistry?  Does it make me a "tourist?"   

I have a number of photos involving classic American cars in Cuba or classic French cars in Provence or a Japanese style Toyota taxi in Tokyo.  I rented these cars from a local person or business, got up early (with the hope of catching some solid light) and am trying to create an image.  So I'm taking pictures of what everyone knows about a place and am putting my own spin on them.  I'm trying to overdo it.  I like that! For example, in my photo with the American convertibles in Cuba, I'm holding a cigar.  I'm wearing linen pants and a linen guayabera shirt.  The guayabera actually originated in Cuba with its classic four large pockets to carry guavas by Cuban farmers.  The shirt became an icon.

The guayabera is both MEGA TOURISTY and yet a locally made and celebrated design both in Cuba and other parts of Carribean Latin America.  In Cuba and Puerto Rico, I bought guayaberas because I knew they were made locally, they're part of a local cultural, they're iconic and frankly I just plain like them.  Despite my Puerto Rican blood, I didn't grow up wearing guayaberas.  I put some of my own money into local businesses' and master tailors' hands when I bought these guayaberas.  They weren't made in China.  They didn't cost the same as a shirt made in China either.  So I'm wearing a touristy shirt which I bought from a business that is run by locals and supports locals.  Am I a tourist because of my clothing that I purchased?  Am I a "traveler" because I very specifically sought out small independent businesses there?  

Most (if not all) the clothes I wear in my photos were either made and sold by locals or were from local thrift shops selling locally made clothes.  I have a collection of clothes now that have cultural connections to small independent and local businesses around the world. Camperas and leather products from Buenos Aires, overcoats and shoes from England, sukajan jackets and raw denim products from Japan, handmade scarves from Morocco, a couple of tailored suits from Vietnam, gloves from Portugal and Spain.  The list goes on.  Now am I a tourist for shopping or a traveler for making absolutely certain I'm shopping all local?  

Side note, if you're a fellow traveler or tourist I'll happily tell you where any of these businesses are if you're interested in shopping for any of the clothes you see in my photos.  I am not even slightly being paid to promote them.  I just like to help small businesses.  I'm actually considering writing about my favorite independent stores around the world at some point.  The clothing is obviously more expensive because it was made by locals.  Send me an email or DM if you want more info on anything in the meantime.

To return to and conclude my original tangent, just what the hell does it mean to be a "traveler" or a "tourist"?  I would probably agree that you aren't a very good "traveler" if you go somewhere and only stay in the bubble of resorthood.  But really there's nothing wrong with that if you're just trying to relax for a few days and I won't try to pick on you about it too much.  You're probably also a bad traveler if you're only going somewhere to say you went somewhere.  I would probably also agree that you are a pretty hardcore traveler if you backpacked and slept outside across an entire continent without showering or bathing in anything but rivers and creeks.  But did you really see that much of a place if you don't connect with it's cities, service industry, infrastructure or local customs (which usually don't appreciate a filthy body)? 

I think it's time to stop trying to put other "tourists" and "travelers" into a box. In my judgment, I am both things.  Let's leave the pretense out of this traveling stuff.  Frankly I think it's a bit ridiculous for the privileged few who can afford any travel to try and pretend they are more "authentic" travelers.  Can you really call yourself a traveler if you don't understand a place, experience anything local, or even leave the resort?  Are you really a great traveler if you spend no money somewhere and only use what little resources some "poorer" locals may have?  Does it make you better if you travel "uncomfortable" and "local" despite the fact that you are also cheap? But I do see a few points that the righteous travelers make.  Don't be a dick.  Don't be scared of everything just because it's a little different.  Don't be afraid of locals.  Let me know your thoughts.