½ûÂþÌìÌÃ

Menu
½ûÂþÌìÌÃ
Search
Magazine
Search

Getting to know somewhere

lenox

It was fun travelling around with a rucksack in those days - twenty years ago or more. A hammock, a change of pants, a hippie's guide to Latin America (mine was called 'Along the Gringo Trail'), a bit of grass and a notebook. Mexico was fun because I spoke Spanish... and because I wasn't an American (!) This was before the Malvinas war and nobody then had any strong feelings about the British. Some Americans in those days travelled with a huge maple leaf sewn on their rucksacks. Others used an Irish passport...
We were all jealous of the fellow from Finland. I mean, how can you get angry in a Mexican bar (if you happen to be a drunken gent clutching a pistola) with someone from Finland?
Then I discovered that the best way to get to know a country was to not travel about it, but to live somewhere in it. Fixed. That was the adventure and the education - getting in deep!
I think that's what most people on this site have done. It's the best!!

See also

Living abroad: the expat guideI have an urgent questionHealth insuranceOld blue Book of LifeSip, Share, Speak: Activity-Based Conversations
Julien

lenox wrote:

Then I discovered that the best way to get to know a country was to not travel about it, but to live somewhere in it. Fixed. That was the adventure and the education - getting in deep!
I think that's what most people on this site have done. It's the best!!


I think we all agree with you Lenox :)

Don't you feel a bit frustrated when you're travelling in another country, with no time to discover its people, the local culture, and to discover life as it is there (and not as it is described on a tourist brochure)?

lbcanaries

Definitely with you there... but there are ways and ways of living.  My parents (expats in Asia), for instance, lived a very British colonial type lifestyle.  Very remote from the local culture.  Living somewhere is not enough, you need some cultural immersion.  You won't have to look very far to see thousands of Brits living in their own 'ghettos' with little interest or contact with indiginous local life.

Oooh that was a bit of a soap box blast!

Jo Ann

That's interesting.
I am in a Reading group. A couple of months ago, I made the critique of a book telling the story of an Italian living in Kenya. Not only did I hate the character, but I was twice as mad because in French, the title was "The African" while in English, it was "Rules of the wild".
A lady didn't understand why I was that mad, as many communities have the right to live among who they feel safe with. I agree totally. But my problem wasn't the fact that the Italian character was living among European expats. It was the title in French. Because living in Africa, no matter the country, when you don't live as they do, you cannot be considered African.
I have been living in Europe for... 8 years. I adapted my own culture to the French way of life. That will NEVER make me an European to the eyes of (real) Europeans. So why, when it's about Westerners going to Latin America, Asia or Africa, they are identified as the "White" African, the "White" Asian, etc?
There are Westerners that live in the bushes, that live like the natives and don't need to forget about their own culture to be considered African (for example). But someone who just lives in a ghetto cannot be considered that way...
That's my humble opinion only...