I'd add that they have an actual winter with reliable snow for months and I'd imagine outdoor winter sporting activities are popular there. I think eastern parts of Ontario in general (or areas relatively close to the Quebec border) are the frontrunner for "most Canadian". Ontario is the "median province" and relatively close to the traditional Canadian culture and environment.

That's a totally legitimate way to feel.

Though I have to say that travelling abroad in my case has deepened my understanding and appreciation of "home". I recognize that many people can achieve that without travelling as much as I have, but for me it's been a plus. I didn't really start travelling in search of myself or my identity. It sort of just happened.

Overall, it's given me a better grasp of "home's" strengths and shortcomings.

In the process, I think I have become a pretty darn good tour guide and ambassador for "home" (at least that is what I've been told), as I have a pretty good idea of what people will be wowed by and what will be "meh" to them.

I live in Quebec, where the average Jos or Ginette thinks they're Peter Fucking Ustinov because they've been to Punta Cana or Cayo Coco every winter for the past 10 years!

I find that's my context. I find myself interested in how my travels abroad (yes, I've been a few places) have altered my views on home. Its failings, its successes, its hopes and how it fits into the world.

I see New Zealand's approach to reconciliation to the Maori and how they seem to have done much better than Canada and its Native peoples. Or how largish sections of their history at Te Papa seems to be near duplicates of ours (change Gallipoli to Vimy Ridge). Funny how that British Colony thing worked out.

The farther I get from that link to 'home' (in the context of my lived experience) the harder I find to sustain that interest. It's an important story, sure, but it's not necessarily my story, nor one I can relate to. I'm not saying it means the story has no value, but it's not for me.

In a certain sense, I don't want to be that tourist who says "But in Canada, we do..." all the time. At some level, it has to come to it though, because I'm going to have to find a link to have a sustained conversation. It's just much harder for me to do that in Vietnam than the UK, to the point I'd likely be saying nothing remotely intelligent.

One of the reasons is because when Bert and Myrt get back to Pahrump from Paris, everyone will ask them if they went to the Louvre. I suppose they could lie and say they went even if they didn't, and no one would really know.

I must confess to doing all the must-sees most everywhere I go. At least on the first visit. Though I am curious by nature so while not an art expert, I do try to appreciate things and take my time. And I don't just focus on the "star" attraction in a place like the Louvre. I like to explore off the beaten path. So to speak - I mean, there are no paths not beaten at the Louvre.

There's a lot more to places and to people than just language though. There are common features of humanity all around the world and a lot of travel is fun for the sensory experiences; look at cool stuff, try out different food. You can appreciate Asian art and scenery without speaking Japanese or Chinese.

I find the language stuff varies a lot depending on where you go. In some places people are used to travelers or used to having to try out a few different languages with people who may not speak well, and then in others people are only used to interacting with native speakers.

In the case of the Louvre it's a must-see for a good reason. I try to mix up stuff like that with less planned exploration. It would be kind of a shame to visit Paris and never go to any famous stuff.

In my experience you can find that common ground with people of any culture. We're all human, after all.

Though as you say it's a lot more work with some people than others.

I've been to the Louvre, and while it was an impressive experience, it just seemed really industrial in the way they moved the crowds into and out of the building from the massive bus park underground, and with the tour directors leading their charges throughout the massive complex. I would not say the experience was exactly enjoyable. Am I glad I did it? I suppose so, if for no other reason than if you didn't, you might regret it in the long run.

I did see the Mona Lisa, from about 20 metres away, and only by peering between many upstretched arms clutching iPhones trying to get that photo souvenir to prove to the cousins back home that you were actually there. My sons were smarter, they stuck to the walls of the gallery, and gradually sidled their way closer and closer to the famous portrait. They got quite close. :)

We had a free hour at the end of the tour to self explore, and that was the most enjoyable part of the visit. There is a lot of impressive stuff at the Louvre off the beaten path - things like the Codes of Hammurabi.

The first time I went to Capri our tour guide spent much of the boat ride in bashing on the blue grotto which he said was the most over-rated tourist trap in the world. If we really wanted to go, he'd show us how to get there. But if we really wanted to be wowed, he had this great view for us to take in, instead.

Of course, that view was probably right next to a café that gave him a percentage on all the patrons he'd bring in, right?

Anyway, he convinced most of the group to forgo seeing the blue grotto on what was probably their only visit ever to Capri.

Me? There's no way I was going to visit Capri without seeing the blue grotto.

And as you say, it's famous for a reason.

During my visits to Paris I've just booked hotels online (some ahead, some not) and traveled on the metro and RER (a system that the fundamental laws of the universe prevent us from reproducing in Canada :)). I bought a ticket at the Louvre and wandered around. When I was there, there was a Mona Lisa crowd but a lot of other stuff was not very busy.

I really enjoyed Versailles too which is another one I'd call a tourist trap, yet something that is genuinely impressive and unique. Same thing goes for the Eiffel Tower, although Versailles was more culturally impactful during its height.

I think there are 3 major classes:

1) Unique attractions that are amazing and naturally evolve turn into tourist traps. Generally worth visiting if you're nearby.
2) Impressive but non-unique attractions of which there are many examples, but one was chosen for development into a tourist trap that can handle buses etc. Or maybe it's a little nicer but not a lot nicer. Maybe you want to visit, maybe you don't.
3) Tourist traps with no redeeming characteristics. Avoid.

I can think of 2 examples of (2). Chichen Itza is one (tons of Mayan ruins). Peggy's Cove is another (tons of lighthouses, villages, and rocky scenic coastline areas). Niagara Falls is a combination of (1), the actual falls, and (3), the crap nearby.

I was lucky to start travelling just as international tourism really exploded in the 1990s. And also before everyone had a smartphone!

Looking at France for example, the first time I went the country had around 50 million foreign arrivals per year. Pre-COVID, the country was moving in on 100 million international arrivals.

That's twice as many people vying for the same space, and often wanting to see the same sights.

I consider myself truly fortunate to have been globe-trotting in what was probably a golden age of international travel.

I am actually thankful for the tour buses because if the same volume of visitors were traveling independently the packs of tourists would not be nearly so concentrated or easy to avoid.

It is amazing how many people all follow the same tourist path. There can be a world-famous attraction with huge hoards of tourists and then a couple of blocks away you hardly see any.

This is true. Natural wonders transcend language. Being somewhere similar but very different (say, the dense cities of Asia) could be quite intriguing.

The farther I travel distance-wise, the more I'm looking for a well-rounded experience because I'm going to tire of doing just one thing for three weeks.

But, I completely admit that I'm a hedonist in that sense. My vacations are vacations and I like variety in activities.

It's happened more times than I can count that I've seen the same people at different sights. Sometimes the same day, sometimes in the span of a week.

Bus tours can be a useful way of seeing things in an efficient manner.

I've been to the Eiffel Tower too, and by being on a tour, we had a pre-booked time for our arrival, and we were ushered past a two hour line-up just to get tickets, and went directly to the elevator leading to the first observation deck. We had a half hour there, which was enough to really enjoy the experience. Of course there are limitations. We could not visit the upper observation deck, you could not wander off and explore by yourself (although we were given the option of taking the stairs down to the ground afterwards, which we did), and you can't dawdle around taking in the ambience. These parts are frustrating, and I generally prefer a "free range" vacation experience, but for some things, a tour in pretty much mandatory.

I don't think there is anything wrong with people planning their holidays so that they have as much enjoyment as possible.

It's the people who do things for social signaling reasons and have no fun who I think are doing it wrong. Unless the social status makes them happier in the end, but that seems empty to me. Then again I'm a bit of a disagreeable weirdo.

I too think I have traveled during the golden age 2005-2015. Never before had so many places been so accessible and easy to find due to the internet, but before Instagram and smartphones proliferated enough to ruin places with selfie hordes and influencers. Meeting backpackers was easy as they still wanted to chat/weren't glued to their devices and it's very easy to stay in touch now with people you meet, much easier than in the 90s when I also travelled extensively albeit with family

Wanna bet people travelling now think they're doing it during the golden age too?