[chasingthewind]

I personally hate travel and can identify with some of what he expressed here, but at a deeper level this throbs with a kind of elitism that really bothers me. I imagine replacing the words "mass tourist" with "immigrant" and the sentence almost reads like one of today's despicable screeds against the "alien" invader. Is there even any possible solution to the "problem" of some people living in or near a place that others would wish to visit or even move to? What gives one set of people the right to live in/visit a place and denies others that same right? It's not an easy problem and a well crafted paragraph by a talented writer doesn't transform it into one.

[ChristianBundy]

> I imagine replacing the words "mass tourist" with "immigrant" and the sentence almost reads like one of today's despicable screeds against the "alien" invader.

FYI, it shouldn't be surprising that replacing critical words can change the meaning of a sentence.

[domador]

A question would be whether the replacement forms a valid analogous statement, one which reveals unrecognized hypocrisy.

In this case, it's a partially successful analogy. Both mass tourist and immigrants travel to foreign lands, but one of them does so optionally while the other typically does so out of real or perceived necessity.

[sundarurfriend]

> I imagine replacing the words "mass tourist" with "immigrant" and the sentence ...

That's a big leap there though, ignoring the context and intent of the quote. The main issue expressed there is the mindless greed of the "mass tourist" when visiting these places, not truly viisting them to be temporarily part of the magnificence, but to use it to boost their own ego and tick a notch in some list. The intent of the immigrant is for survival and better standards of living, the intent of this kind of "mass tourist" is superficial consumption, which is what he's warning against.