| > has a bit of an elitist attitude about it I agree, there is a kind of snobby adherence to the term by some people, as they see the point of becoming "well-traveled" to have been able to afford it. I politely disagree that the term -- or idea it was meant to abstract -- is to convey how much distance one has traveled, but rather how varied the places have been that one has lived in. Just a short quick visit, e.g. a many-hundred-mile 2-week scourge through Europe, robs you of the experience of living in a non-tourist area where the environment is nothing like what you are accustomed to. The idea (phrased as "well-traveled" or otherwise) from my perspective is to learn that many countries have very different ways of life; some have better/free access to health care, or not at all; some have almost no diverse ethnicities (e.g. China), or that in the middle-east, you can have countries with a strong diverse mix of many religions (Lebanon); how foreign country governments treat you (no VISA, vs. register yourself with police everywhere); etc. For those with hard lives, many can be some of the nicest people. Visit China, other south-east Asian countries, rural India, Africa, as well as the well-developed nations in Europe. The most important trait one should take away from travel is: first-hand experience at the range of life that exists on this planet, something which cannot be read from a book. We take for granted many of the artifacts and ways we work in our lives; seeing others gives us perspective that becomes a useful skill. I wholeheartedly agree that these skills can be developed without leaving the country, among our own rich, poor; and we are fortunate to have all four climates within our borders, too! |