Most Canadian / Least Canadian

[Nashe]

It's probably laughable, but I've done the "Red Bus" tours in London, Paris and Miami. Yeah, it's kinda silly but... you cover a lot of ground in a short time for very little money. It's hop-on, hop-off, and the networks generally hit the highlights and come with live commentary (not just the earbuds; but actual guides).

Since it only takes a few hours, you can choose which places bear further examination and come back, and which you needn't bother with. Miami's was fascinating, actually.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

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.

The infamous girl with the smiling selfie at Auschwitz a few years ago really sealed the deal for me.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

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?

I suppose they are. Though a lot of destinations are starting to have second thoughts about mass tourism, and now want to cap the number of visitors they get per day, per week, per month, etc.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

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.

In places where the writing system is completely alien to us (ie much of Asia), it's pretty much essential to go on a guided tour. Unless you have a personal guide you pay for yourself, or paid by your employer if you're there on business.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

It's probably laughable, but I've done the "Red Bus" tours in London, Paris and Miami. Yeah, it's kinda silly but... you cover a lot of ground in a short time for very little money. It's hop-on, hop-off, and the networks generally hit the highlights and come with live commentary (not just the earbuds; but actual guides).

Since it only takes a few hours, you can choose which places bear further examination and come back, and which you needn't bother with. Miami's was fascinating, actually.

I actually use these sometimes. They can function as a personally-tailored transit line that touches on most of the sights you want to see.

You're still pretty autonomous, though.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I actually use these sometimes. They can function as a personally-tailored transit line that touches on most of the sights you want to see.

Yup, that's what we use them for.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

Yup, that's what we use them for.

I actually like exploring cities' transit systems (of course!) but you do save a lot of time on a hop-on hop-off by avoiding transfers, getting lost, etc.

Now that I think I use them more if I am only in a city for 1-2 days. If I am there a week or more I am more likely to explore and orient myself with the transit system. Those hop-on hop-off thingies can be expensive.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I actually like exploring cities' transit systems (of course!) but you do save a lot of time on a hop-on hop-off by avoiding transfers, getting lost, etc.

Me too. In London I was all "this is awesome! there are so many stations!" and it hadn't dawned on me that we were (as tourists) mostly travelling at non-peak times. Until the day we happened to be headed back to our hotel at 5pm. Sardines, we was.

Still, no pungent urine smell like a few special bits of Paris.

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In places where the writing system is completely alien to us (ie much of Asia), it's pretty much essential to go on a guided tour. Unless you have a personal guide you pay for yourself, or paid by your employer if you're there on business.

Hogwash. You don't need to read the language to get by in most places, especially in areas which cater to tourists. Plus a lot of countries have translations for subways, restaurants, hotels, attractions. In many places it's not unusual to see signs exclusively in English in order to cater to tourists. In Asia especially it's trendy to have only English signs in trendy restaurants. Which is the opposite reaction you get from Chinese only signs in places in Richmond.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

Hogwash. You don't need to read the language to get by in most places, especially in areas which cater to tourists. Plus a lot of countries have translations for subways, restaurants, hotels, attractions. In many places it's not unusual to see signs exclusively in English in order to cater to tourists. In Asia especially it's trendy to have only English signs in trendy restaurants. Which is the opposite reaction you get from Chinese only signs in places in Richmond.

It really depends on the place.

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It really depends on the place.

Of course it does but it doesn't apply to 90% of places tourists go to in Asia.

You seem like the kind of person that hasn't traveled much of Asia at all. Wanna bet the hordes of Euro-American-Aussie backpackers haven't learned an ounce of Chinese, Korean, or Thai script whilst taking their gap year? They're not all on Contiki trips either or rich enough to hire a private guide. Not to mention for that type of crowd they'd lose a ton of "street cred" if they did. Ever hear of Lonely Planet guide books? Kids are just using blogs and the instagram nowadays.

Heck I was able to travel to practically every country in SE Asia, China, Japan, Korea without knowing a lick of most languages pre-Google Translate. Some spoken Mandarin/Cantonese but I can't read worth shit. I still got back in one piece, quite enjoyed it for the most part except for the relentless mosquitoes.

[MolsonExport]

I never take guided tours, and I rely on my instincts, when I am travelling in Asia. And besides the perfunctory "Anyang Haseo", "Konichi Wa", etc., I don't speak or read any Asian languages. It is amazing how well one can understand things by diagrams, watching other people and aping their behavior, pointing and nodding...
Outside of the big cities, very few people speak English (except maybe some young Chinese/Korean students, that learn the language at school). Surprisingly, few Japanese speak English well (I found proportionately more Koreans and Chinese spoke English, but this too drops off to nearly zero outside of Seoul, Beijing, and Shanghai).

[theman23]

Even easier these days with smartphones that allow you to quickly google or translate anything. A working SIM card is way more important than a guide.

[megadude]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

It's probably laughable, but I've done the "Red Bus" tours in London, Paris and Miami. Yeah, it's kinda silly but... you cover a lot of ground in a short time for very little money. It's hop-on, hop-off, and the networks generally hit the highlights and come with live commentary (not just the earbuds; but actual guides).

Since it only takes a few hours, you can choose which places bear further examination and come back, and which you needn't bother with. Miami's was fascinating, actually.

That was my reasoning too for NYC, Chicago and Denver. Save time but also cover the essentials in a relatively short period of time.

Interesting tour guides with lots of personality too. And on a couple of them met a new friend that would eventually become a facebook friend that I hung out with afterwards.

Went back into town the following couple of days to dive deeper on the places I was really interested in.

[Acajack]

I will bow to you guys' more extensive experience in (eastern) Asia!

I'd still argue that the non-backpacker crowd (which is most of the population) is more likely to take a guided tour or have a guide there than they would in places where they can at least understand the alphabet.

But sure...

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I will bow to you guys' more extensive experience in (eastern) Asia!

I'd still argue that the non-backpacker crowd (which is most of the population) is more likely to take a guided tour or have a guide there than they would in places where they can at least understand the alphabet.

But sure...

I know it might seem adventerous or even silly travelling to a place where you don't know the alphabet, but SE Asia (Thailand especially) has been a hub of international travel for decades now and it's been very common, if not de regueur to travel independently along the Banana Pancake Trail for people of all budgets. Not just backpackers.

Granted, places like provincial China are much more difficult, but even then with technology now you can literally speak into a phone in English and have it spit out Mandarin instantaneously. Captain Kirk would eat his oft-ripped shirt!

That's why I suggest hesitant Asia new comers to start with a place like Singapore, Malaysia, or Hong Kong. Places where English is widely spoken, infrastructure is familiar and food is delicious . Or heck, just dive right in like so many 20-somethings from Woop Woop, Australia and head straight for Thailand and Vietnam.

[Capsicum]

I personally haven't travelled that much (and well, given the pandemic, will probably wait a while to do so).

But when did the cultural assumption shift from the perspective of English-speaking tourists that "if you're travelling any where in an non-Anglophone country, with no guide or no tour, you better brush up on (insert language) otherwise you'll be stranded miles and miles away from anyone who can talk to you, in masses of foreigners who can't understand you" all the way to "Oh, you can get by with English nowadays over much of the world. Don't even bother to learn the local tongue, the locals will be rushing over to practice English with you anyway".

I've noted less of less of the linguistic "stranger in a strange land" or "fish out of water" experience portrayed and described in this generation both in pop culture and online/in social media. Like the way TV depicts "the clueless exchange student", like Bart Simpson in France, in an episode from 1990. Like people are talking about in this thread, is this due to the globalization and the homogenization of travel?

I don't know if it's a generational thing, but people like my Baby Boomer-or-older family members still have an assumption of hesitation to travel anywhere if you don't speak a lick of the language (they often asked if I was even able to talk to Europeans like German exchange students in English even while I was spending time in other English-speaking countries, when it seems it's "common knowledge" nowadays that educated western Europeans speak English quite well), while all my well-travelled millenial-aged peers have the opposite assumption (you can go anywhere as English speaker in anywhere at least somewhat of a "big city" without having to bother to learn their language, they'll be the ones trying to talk to you in English).

If it's something generational about the dominance of English making it easier and easier to not care about other languages, across the world, that's something noteworthy because for all the talk about "the decline of the West", the US no longer being the sole hegemon etc., the rise of Asia/the non-west etc. It appears linguistically this is an area where the Anglophone west is not ceding any little bit of ground but gaining. The rise of Asia has not made westerners speak Asian languages significantly more (maybe it did things like help the diaspora communities be more willing to keep/retain their language or keep in touch with their roots) though you hear the occasional talk about increased Mandarin education by non-Chinese in schools (and back in the 80s, Japanese when Japan was said to be rising power), but in fact made Chinese and Indians speak English as they rose in economic dominance much more than the reverse.

Is the English-speaking world and culture stronger than ever culturally? So, that the trend will be even less of a desire for Anglophones to give in to learn other languages in the future? Not saying that's necessarily good (good for Anglos!), but is that the case?

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I will bow to you guys' more extensive experience in (eastern) Asia!

Nice pun.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Nice pun.

The best puns are the ones you don't even realize you're making.

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I personally haven't travelled that much (and well, given the pandemic, will probably wait a while to do so).

But when did the cultural assumption shift from the perspective of English-speaking tourists that "if you're travelling any where in an non-Anglophone country, with no guide or no tour, you better brush up on (insert language) otherwise you'll be stranded miles and miles away from anyone who can talk to you, in masses of foreigners who can't understand you" all the way to "Oh, you can get by with English nowadays over much of the world. Don't even bother to learn the local tongue, the locals will be rushing over to practice English with you anyway".

I've noted less of less of the linguistic "stranger in a strange land" or "fish out of water" experience portrayed and described in this generation both in pop culture and online/in social media. Like the way TV depicts "the clueless exchange student", like Bart Simpson in France, in an episode from 1990. Like people are talking about in this thread, is this due to the globalization and the homogenization of travel?

I don't know if it's a generational thing, but people like my Baby Boomer-or-older family members still have an assumption of hesitation to travel anywhere if you don't speak a lick of the language (they often asked if I was even able to talk to Europeans like German exchange students in English even while I was spending time in other English-speaking countries, when it seems it's "common knowledge" nowadays that educated western Europeans speak English quite well), while all my well-travelled millenial-aged peers have the opposite assumption (you can go anywhere as English speaker in anywhere at least somewhat of a "big city" without having to bother to learn their language, they'll be the ones trying to talk to you in English).

If it's something generational about the dominance of English making it easier and easier to not care about other languages, across the world, that's something noteworthy because for all the talk about "the decline of the West", the US no longer being the sole hegemon etc., the rise of Asia/the non-west etc. It appears linguistically this is an area where the Anglophone west is not ceding any little bit of ground but gaining. The rise of Asia has not made westerners speak Asian languages significantly more (maybe it did things like help the diaspora communities be more willing to keep/retain their language or keep in touch with their roots) though you hear the occasional talk about increased Mandarin education by non-Chinese in schools (and back in the 80s, Japanese when Japan was said to be rising power), but in fact made Chinese and Indians speak English as they rose in economic dominance much more than the reverse.

Is the English-speaking world and culture stronger than ever culturally? So, that the trend will be even less of a desire for Anglophones to give in to learn other languages in the future? Not saying that's necessarily good (good for Anglos!), but is that the case?

It totally is, as a white uni-lingual anglophone, or heck just a white anybody. You'll literally have people all over Asia trying to come up to you and try to practice English.

Contrasted to an experience for an Asian Canadian who does not speak his "mother tongue" or any other Asian language for that matter travelling in Asia in the late 2000s early 2010s. I got a much colder experience than any travel partner with European-ancestry as I was considered, at least superficially, a local everywhere I went from China to Indonesia. Locals assumed, at best, I was my friend's tour guide or at worst, an idiot who couldn't understand the common tongue. It's gotten a bit better now with the large influx of Chinese tourists, but now there's the adverse effect of everyone assuming you speak Mandarin now!