Why Do Tourists Visit Ancient Ruins Everywhere Except the United States?(priceonomics.com)
priceonomics.com
Why Do Tourists Visit Ancient Ruins Everywhere Except the United States?
https://priceonomics.com/why-do-tourists-visit-ancient-ruins-everywhere/
282 comments
Some of it can be explained by trends and name recognition, as other comments suggest -- e.g. you get far more reactions to "We went to the Grand Canyon!" or "we went to Zion National Park!" than to "We hiked to Bluebell Knoll, the highest point of Dixie National Forest!"
But another part is definitely facilities. Being not originally from the US but having been to large parts of it, I was incredulous when I found out that BLM public land literally means just that -- that you can drive onto it and do stuff within reason; this is such a powerful concept that I -- and others -- often don't know what to do with it.
It's definitely an easier expenditure of mental energy to go to a big-name National Park, pay the fee, get the map, go to the Visitor Center, go to the big lookout and vistas, and leave with the magnet and the hat -- and I say this without intending to disparage this style of tourism. I lack the outdoorsy know-how and wisdom to feel at ease on the backroads of the desert southwest (and I live too far away from the backroads of the rugged northwest) where most of these facilities are, and it's a nice (albeit somewhat fictitious) thought that when you stick to the approved big tourist roads at big tourist places, that you're not completely alone in nature at the mercy of the elements.
But another part is definitely facilities. Being not originally from the US but having been to large parts of it, I was incredulous when I found out that BLM public land literally means just that -- that you can drive onto it and do stuff within reason; this is such a powerful concept that I -- and others -- often don't know what to do with it.
It's definitely an easier expenditure of mental energy to go to a big-name National Park, pay the fee, get the map, go to the Visitor Center, go to the big lookout and vistas, and leave with the magnet and the hat -- and I say this without intending to disparage this style of tourism. I lack the outdoorsy know-how and wisdom to feel at ease on the backroads of the desert southwest (and I live too far away from the backroads of the rugged northwest) where most of these facilities are, and it's a nice (albeit somewhat fictitious) thought that when you stick to the approved big tourist roads at big tourist places, that you're not completely alone in nature at the mercy of the elements.
> I lack the outdoorsy know-how and wisdom to feel at ease on the backroads of the desert southwest.
This is one of the reasons that I am glad I was a Scout and spent a lot of time in the backcountry.
I grew up thinking that this is how everybody grows up, but having lived in several major world cities, it has never ceased to amaze me how few city-folk know any fundamental outdoor skills.
Selecting a campsite, leaving no trace when you leave, water purification and management, building and containing campfires, land navigation with a map and compass, how to safely use a rifle, knife use and maintenance, first aid... I learned all of these as a kid.
Spending that time "roughing it" really helps you appreciate the benefits of both preserving nature, as well as the wonders of modern civilization. It also builds some serious self-reliance skills, which have served me well in life.
Maybe we need a program similar to Scouting, but for adults that have lived all of their lives in or around cities? Would help to bridge the urban-rural divide in both directions. Does such a thing exist?
This is one of the reasons that I am glad I was a Scout and spent a lot of time in the backcountry.
I grew up thinking that this is how everybody grows up, but having lived in several major world cities, it has never ceased to amaze me how few city-folk know any fundamental outdoor skills.
Selecting a campsite, leaving no trace when you leave, water purification and management, building and containing campfires, land navigation with a map and compass, how to safely use a rifle, knife use and maintenance, first aid... I learned all of these as a kid.
Spending that time "roughing it" really helps you appreciate the benefits of both preserving nature, as well as the wonders of modern civilization. It also builds some serious self-reliance skills, which have served me well in life.
Maybe we need a program similar to Scouting, but for adults that have lived all of their lives in or around cities? Would help to bridge the urban-rural divide in both directions. Does such a thing exist?
> Maybe we need a program similar to Scouting, but for adults that have lived all of their lives in or around cities? Would help to bridge the urban-rural divide in both directions. Does such a thing exist?
There are two good options for this, NOLS (National Outdoor Leadership School) and Outward Bound. I went on an Outward Bound expedition where we kayaked for several days on Lake Superior, and I have a number of friends involved with NOLS. NOLS and Outward Bound are similar; they both teach outdoor skills in a group setting. Outward Bound has a little more emphasis on group dynamics, but they're both great programs and they offer a wide variety of courses in beautiful locations.
NOLS: http://www.nols.edu/
Outward Bound: http://www.outwardbound.org/
There are two good options for this, NOLS (National Outdoor Leadership School) and Outward Bound. I went on an Outward Bound expedition where we kayaked for several days on Lake Superior, and I have a number of friends involved with NOLS. NOLS and Outward Bound are similar; they both teach outdoor skills in a group setting. Outward Bound has a little more emphasis on group dynamics, but they're both great programs and they offer a wide variety of courses in beautiful locations.
NOLS: http://www.nols.edu/
Outward Bound: http://www.outwardbound.org/
I think we should try to first make popular scouting organizations for children who are diverse, inclusive, and welcoming.
The Boy Scouts of America currently can't be supported by me no matter their merits because of their stances on gays and the non-religious.
I also don't support sex segregation in scouting.
Keep the BSofA for the people who want that sort of thing but let's support inclusive scouting organizations as well.
The Boy Scouts of America currently can't be supported by me no matter their merits because of their stances on gays and the non-religious.
I also don't support sex segregation in scouting.
Keep the BSofA for the people who want that sort of thing but let's support inclusive scouting organizations as well.
The national organization lifted its ban on openly gay leaders about a year ago.
I am an Eagle scout who was openly an atheist while going through the program. A lot of this depends on your local leadership; the national organization stays out of it.
The program is a great program as noted above, for all its flaws. If you have a child interested, you can have a huge effect on the local program simply by becoming involved.
I am an Eagle scout who was openly an atheist while going through the program. A lot of this depends on your local leadership; the national organization stays out of it.
The program is a great program as noted above, for all its flaws. If you have a child interested, you can have a huge effect on the local program simply by becoming involved.
I was politely asked to leave my local group under similar conditions (non-belief causing friction), though I was only a webelo at the time.
I would probably feel out the group first if you intend to do this, it wasn't a pleasant experience at the time.
I would probably feel out the group first if you intend to do this, it wasn't a pleasant experience at the time.
> If you have a child interested, you can have a huge effect on the local program simply by becoming involved
Sorry but joining an organization that is openly exclusive to you and your values then trying to change it to be inclusive to you and change their core values seems very wrong. Having your child being an unwelcome outsider during your personal crusade. why not join, create, and support alternative scouting organizations that welcome you and your values?
Sorry but joining an organization that is openly exclusive to you and your values then trying to change it to be inclusive to you and change their core values seems very wrong. Having your child being an unwelcome outsider during your personal crusade. why not join, create, and support alternative scouting organizations that welcome you and your values?
Either approach is valid. Not everything is political. On paper the bsa may seem bad but in person you may realize your local troop only really cares about the outdoors aspect. I was in the bsa and it was just a bunch of kids doing kids stuff in the woods. homosexual and religious agendas were so foreign I never knew it was an issue until I read about it in college.
Even if your local troop doesn't enforce the official BSA policies... There are alternative scouting organizations that have different official policies. Why support one over the other if the other exists? Support alternative scouting organizations is all I am saying.
Agreed. Lord Baden-Powell would be very disappointed at the Boy Scouts as it exists today.
But I do seem to meet a large number of young adults that could benefit from a similar experience to Scouting, in terms of learning valuable life skills, building self-confidence, and as a way of broadening their experience outside of urban life.
But I do seem to meet a large number of young adults that could benefit from a similar experience to Scouting, in terms of learning valuable life skills, building self-confidence, and as a way of broadening their experience outside of urban life.
> Lord Baden-Powell would be very disappointed at the Boy Scouts as it exists today.
Lord Baden-Powell as he was or a hypothetical version of him with modern morality applied?
"No man is much good unless he believes in God and obeys His laws. So every Scout should have a religion....Religion seems a very simple thing: First: Love and Serve God. Second: Love and serve your neighbour." - from Scouting for Boys. And, generally, he seemed to consider that pretty important.
Lord Baden-Powell as he was or a hypothetical version of him with modern morality applied?
"No man is much good unless he believes in God and obeys His laws. So every Scout should have a religion....Religion seems a very simple thing: First: Love and Serve God. Second: Love and serve your neighbour." - from Scouting for Boys. And, generally, he seemed to consider that pretty important.
Scouting for Boys is basically what he started out with. He then lived on to nurture the organization into something else. Other life outlooks than his own, including atheism, was never really problematic. Otherwise it wouldn't have spread to muslims, jews, atheists and so on. All of this matters very little however, as Baden-Powell's ideas aren't gospel. The organization doesn't exist to teach hundred year old ideas about how boys should behave. (It's important to know that the national organizations have a lot of leeway in shaping their own program and the BSA is unique in a number of ways.)
> Baden-Powell's ideas aren't gospel
I'm not making any argument about what the Boy Scouts should or shouldn't do, but rather responding to the statement that Lord Baden-Powell would be disappointed by it or parts of it rejecting atheists, which is clearly false.
I'm not making any argument about what the Boy Scouts should or shouldn't do, but rather responding to the statement that Lord Baden-Powell would be disappointed by it or parts of it rejecting atheists, which is clearly false.
>Keep the BSofA for the people who want that sort of thing
Things like
>Selecting a campsite, leaving no trace when you leave, water purification and management, building and containing campfires, land navigation with a map and compass, how to safely use a rifle, knife use and maintenance, first aid... I learned all of these as a kid.
I suppose.
Things like
>Selecting a campsite, leaving no trace when you leave, water purification and management, building and containing campfires, land navigation with a map and compass, how to safely use a rifle, knife use and maintenance, first aid... I learned all of these as a kid.
I suppose.
...and “no boy can grow into the best kind of citizenship without recognizing his obligation to God.”
Sorry, this goes against my core beliefs and I couldn't perosnally support or send a child to such an organization no matter what their other merits may be.
http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/11/02/beginning-next-y...
Sorry, this goes against my core beliefs and I couldn't perosnally support or send a child to such an organization no matter what their other merits may be.
http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/11/02/beginning-next-y...
It really does depend on the troop.
I was a boy scout in the Bay Area and we had openly gay scouts and almost all of the kids and parents were atheist.
I was a boy scout in the Bay Area and we had openly gay scouts and almost all of the kids and parents were atheist.
Even if your local troop didn't follow the original policies and mission statement of the organization doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't want to support the organization even if a rogue troop doesn't follow the official mission statement.
From my link above:
>What’s new is that beginning Jan. 1, 2016, every rank from Tenderfoot to Eagle Scout (plus Eagle Scout palms) will include a “duty to God” requirement
From my link above:
>What’s new is that beginning Jan. 1, 2016, every rank from Tenderfoot to Eagle Scout (plus Eagle Scout palms) will include a “duty to God” requirement
I'm an atheist, and scouts made a wonderful contribution to my life. I put my atheist kids into it, and they had a great time, too. It's a wonderful organization and great troops are the norm, not "rogue". I don't know if there were any gay kids among these pre-teens, and I didn't notice anyone who ever seemed to care. I've worked with Mormons on community service events: some of the finest people I've ever known. I don't believe in their God, but I believe in them and have no trouble getting along. I've been involved with sports in a Catholic organization. I've worked at companies that had some policies I disagreed with but that were a net positive in the world, in my opinion, and I hope I was a net positive for the company.
I'm not aware of any perfect scouting-like groups nor of any imperfect ones that, all things included, would be better for my own boys than the scouting group across the street.
I don't have to take umbrage at everything that has some relationship to something I don't agree with. I guess there is more that one kind of "inclusiveness".
I'm not aware of any perfect scouting-like groups nor of any imperfect ones that, all things included, would be better for my own boys than the scouting group across the street.
I don't have to take umbrage at everything that has some relationship to something I don't agree with. I guess there is more that one kind of "inclusiveness".
Some people inside BSofA are trying to change that (I know one of them). Hopefully they'll prevail.
There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels rifles only exist to kill other people. How would you convince them to take such a course?
Well, as adults that can make their own decision, that would be up to them, of course.
Hopefully this isn't too political, but I will try and answer your question.
Part of self-reliance is the ability to make your environment safe. This is why you learn first-aid, CPR, how to use a fire extinguisher, how to properly use a knife, etc.
In the United States, there are more firearms then people. This trend shows no signs of stopping any time in the near future.
Statistically speaking, in a group that focuses on outdoor activities and self-reliance, there will be multiple gun owners. Some will probably have concealed weapons permits.
Taking a gun into the wilderness is a sensible precaution. There are any number of dangerous critters, especially the ones with rabies.
While in the backcountry, you will also run into other people that are armed.
Our hypothetical non-gun-person is therefore going to be around guns.
Guns are dangerous.
Not knowing how to safely handle a gun makes non-gun people potentially dangerous to both themselves, and other people.
The responsible thing is therefore to learn how to safely handle a weapon, including how to unload and clear it.
They don't need to ever buy one, own one, or even like guns.
But knowing gun safety is right up there with knowing CPR.
You don't learn CPR by reading a book. You do it by practicing in a controlled environment.
Same for gun safety.
Hopefully this isn't too political, but I will try and answer your question.
Part of self-reliance is the ability to make your environment safe. This is why you learn first-aid, CPR, how to use a fire extinguisher, how to properly use a knife, etc.
In the United States, there are more firearms then people. This trend shows no signs of stopping any time in the near future.
Statistically speaking, in a group that focuses on outdoor activities and self-reliance, there will be multiple gun owners. Some will probably have concealed weapons permits.
Taking a gun into the wilderness is a sensible precaution. There are any number of dangerous critters, especially the ones with rabies.
While in the backcountry, you will also run into other people that are armed.
Our hypothetical non-gun-person is therefore going to be around guns.
Guns are dangerous.
Not knowing how to safely handle a gun makes non-gun people potentially dangerous to both themselves, and other people.
The responsible thing is therefore to learn how to safely handle a weapon, including how to unload and clear it.
They don't need to ever buy one, own one, or even like guns.
But knowing gun safety is right up there with knowing CPR.
You don't learn CPR by reading a book. You do it by practicing in a controlled environment.
Same for gun safety.
This sounds so ... American ... to me. I've spent over a 100 days camping in the backcountry (and many more day trips) and never once carried a gun. Only once have I seen someone carrying firearms and it was a ranger specifically tasked with destroying a problematic bear.
It just seems so much easier to just avoid wildlife in most places.
It just seems so much easier to just avoid wildlife in most places.
It's very rare in the United States, as well. There's a small number of folks who carry rifles for protection against bears, particularly in places like Alaska where you're extremely likely to encounter bears and also possibly angry moose; most just carry bear spray, or just have a bell and talk or sing, so they don't accidentally sneak up on a bear.
I've hiked in probably 30 of the 50 states, and have met a very small number of people openly carrying guns of any sort (maybe some had concealed pistols for defense against people; that's a reasonably common thing, and there's a permit for concealed carry in most states).
I've hiked in probably 30 of the 50 states, and have met a very small number of people openly carrying guns of any sort (maybe some had concealed pistols for defense against people; that's a reasonably common thing, and there's a permit for concealed carry in most states).
Aside from the handful of states that do not regulate concealed carry, every state has a permit process for concealed carry. There are none remaining now that prohibit it outright.
It would probably be hard to convince them. But I'd try by drawing the parallels with encryption and illegal activity. To rephrase your statement
There is a non-trivial portion of the population
that feels encryption only exists to hide illegal
activity. How would you convince them to use a VPN?Well, it also helps that encryption is a non-violent technology.
Then why is it classed as a munition? Check mate.
Because that's the loophole the government needs to attempt to limit export of it. Why does the FDA want to class inflatable pools used for water births as "medical devices" that need millions of dollars in studies before they can be sold and used, but on the other hand class stainless steel operating tables as not medical devices?
I am very much pro-encryption-for-the-masses, but also consider it to be important to be able to argue multiple angles on any issue.
So, playing Devil's Advocate, here is what an anti-encryption person would say in response:
Nobody really needs encryption, and the common availability of military-grade encryption powers terrorism on a global scale.
Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries.
If this technology could be countered by intelligence agencies and law enforcement, it would become almost impossible to use the Internet to coordinate terror attacks, or to secretly support terror groups.
Thousands of innocent lives could be saved if we just limited encryption to low-strength variants, which are still strong enough to safeguard emails and documents from nosy coworkers.
And really, what legitimate use is there for strong encryption? If the government wants your salsa recipe, they are just going to throw you in prison until you tell them. Your online payments will still be secure if the government holds a master key. The only reason you would need strong encryption without government oversight is if you have something dangerous to hide.
So, playing Devil's Advocate, here is what an anti-encryption person would say in response:
Nobody really needs encryption, and the common availability of military-grade encryption powers terrorism on a global scale.
Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries.
If this technology could be countered by intelligence agencies and law enforcement, it would become almost impossible to use the Internet to coordinate terror attacks, or to secretly support terror groups.
Thousands of innocent lives could be saved if we just limited encryption to low-strength variants, which are still strong enough to safeguard emails and documents from nosy coworkers.
And really, what legitimate use is there for strong encryption? If the government wants your salsa recipe, they are just going to throw you in prison until you tell them. Your online payments will still be secure if the government holds a master key. The only reason you would need strong encryption without government oversight is if you have something dangerous to hide.
>Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries.
This is not true, and you should not allow someone to get away with statements like these. The Paris attackers made extensive use of unencrypted burner phones. Far from supporting it, this actually deals a fatal blow to the idea that terrorists could be stopped, if it weren't for that pesky encryption. They demonstrably can't.
I'm frightened that, as a meme, "paris attacks demonstrate the need to weaken encryption" actually got off the ground. It demonstrates the power of government propaganda is sufficient to completely invert the lessons of an event to suit them.
This is not true, and you should not allow someone to get away with statements like these. The Paris attackers made extensive use of unencrypted burner phones. Far from supporting it, this actually deals a fatal blow to the idea that terrorists could be stopped, if it weren't for that pesky encryption. They demonstrably can't.
I'm frightened that, as a meme, "paris attacks demonstrate the need to weaken encryption" actually got off the ground. It demonstrates the power of government propaganda is sufficient to completely invert the lessons of an event to suit them.
Of course, one of the strongest reasons for encryption is not having omnipotent government. Absolute power and all that...
Rifle shooting doesn't seem to be an important component.
As a non-american scout my experience includes all the same things, except the shooting.
As a non-american scout my experience includes all the same things, except the shooting.
In many cases, it's less about knowing how to shoot a rifle (though that is a factor as well) and more about how to safely handle one. Even if you do not care for guns, there are many around, and knowing how to safely handle one and treat it with the care needed helps to prevent deadly accidents.
I'd add to that the ability to recognize when a weapon is not being safely handled, and either confiscate (in certain circumstances) or correct the person with the weapon, or just vacate the area.
A rifle really is the best tool for: hunting large game for food and defending yourself from hostile megafauna.
It usually only takes one target or skeet shooting session to convert someone. Shooting things is really fun, when you do it in a safe way.
They could certainly opt out of any shooting education, it wasn't compulsory when I was a Boy Scout. Though I think the fact that they'd be shooting at paper targets would be a pretty immediate rebuttal of their beliefs.
Well, it doesn't help that most of the gun enthusiasts' arguments for why they need their guns involve killing other people. That and I don't think that anyone needs a semi-automatic "assault-style" weapon to hunt for food. Most of the guns that we see in the news and the gun debates are not guns that I ever saw someone hunting with.
You can have guns solely for target shooting. Hunting is a PITA.
"Most of the guns that we see in the news and the gun debates are not guns that I ever saw someone hunting with."
Correct. Hunting rifles are typically much more powerful and lethal than handguns and "assault style" AR-15 and AR-derivative rifles.
They shoot farther and with more velocity, they use larger (sometimes much larger) projectiles and are much more accurate.
Correct. Hunting rifles are typically much more powerful and lethal than handguns and "assault style" AR-15 and AR-derivative rifles.
They shoot farther and with more velocity, they use larger (sometimes much larger) projectiles and are much more accurate.
On the other hand, rifles are just a fraction (< 5%) of gun deaths in the United States.
When I lived in Arkansas, I took several deer with an AR-15. Now that I'm in Virginia I can't do that, because the cartridge isn't considered powerful enough to be humane. Here, I use a AKM in 7.62x39mm.
I'm not sure what you mean by "assault-style", but assault weapons are inherently automatic weapons, not semi-automatic. I find it very odd that you specified "semi-automatic" which is, by far, the least dangerous of the two. Are you advocating for bolt-action rifles?
The very definition of "assault weapon" is political. I use it to mean both semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles that were designed for combat. This is a common definition, but obviously, not fully accepted.
Nobody "needs" anything. Do you "need" a car that can exceed 80mph on a road?
We want to have certain things, and once you have accumulated the resources to get them, you can purchase them.
We want to have certain things, and once you have accumulated the resources to get them, you can purchase them.
There's no reason for guns to necessarily be included in an outdoorsmanship course, of course.
But I'll note that part of the reason the gun debate is so poisonous is advocates that are unwilling to draw a distinction between the use of guns against animals and the use of guns against humans - regarding any distinction between different types of guns or contexts of ownership as heretical.
But I'll note that part of the reason the gun debate is so poisonous is advocates that are unwilling to draw a distinction between the use of guns against animals and the use of guns against humans - regarding any distinction between different types of guns or contexts of ownership as heretical.
I was in scouts. Learning about rifles and shooting is completely optional. If you don't want that merit badge, you can just get something else.
There are a staggeringly large number of firearms in the United States. Firearms are incredibly dangerous objects. Just about the only way to make one more dangerous is to have no idea how it works. I would also think that from an intellectual point of view, one would want to have at least a basic understanding of something you oppose so strongly, which is almost never the case when it comes to firearms.
"There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels rifles only exist to kill other people."
I find it odd that you say people think rifles only exist to kill people. Pistols are used in the vast majority of shootings, and rifles in the vast majority of sport uses.
"There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels rifles only exist to kill other people."
I find it odd that you say people think rifles only exist to kill people. Pistols are used in the vast majority of shootings, and rifles in the vast majority of sport uses.
People with strong anti gun stances aren't very rational about there uses.
Take them bow hunting. They'll wish they had a gun real quick :)
I'd offer it to them if they'd like, but why push them into it?
For what it's worth, there is also a non-trivial portion of the population that feels that confidence with weapons is an integral part of the American individualist spirit.
For what it's worth, there is also a non-trivial portion of the population that feels that confidence with weapons is an integral part of the American individualist spirit.
lol. methinks you pull stats and scenarios outta your butt.
You are asking how do we convince people who refuse to use guns how to learn how to use guns safely...
Maybe you could just let them not use guns?
You are asking how do we convince people who refuse to use guns how to learn how to use guns safely...
Maybe you could just let them not use guns?
> it has never ceased to amaze me how few city-folk know any fundamental outdoor skills.
In our local area we have several drownings a year, tourists who don't understand the power of the ocean. That and people falling off cliffs. Our education system (UK) is very out of touch with nature. Very few students get to swim in the ocean, climb a cliff, light a fire or camp out in the woods.
In our local area we have several drownings a year, tourists who don't understand the power of the ocean. That and people falling off cliffs. Our education system (UK) is very out of touch with nature. Very few students get to swim in the ocean, climb a cliff, light a fire or camp out in the woods.
>> "Our education system (UK)"
The UK isn't big but I don't think you can generalise here because my experience is very different. Scout groups seem very popular (so popular it's really difficult to get your kid a place in one), schools offer the optional Duke of Edinburgh award which teaches camping/orienteering and is pretty popular, and in the UK a hell of a lot of people live pretty close to the ocean and know how to use it safely (surfing is very popular in Ireland and south cost of England/Welsh coast). When I was younger my friends and I would go camping a few times a year as did many other groups of friends (the reason was mostly so we could get drunk without getting caught but still we hiked 12 hours to get there, figured out how to cook, get water, build a fire, pitch tents etc.).
On the other hand I've been pretty shocked this Summer that every sunny weekend it seems half a dozen people get killed in the ocean here. I'm only in my mid-20's but maybe the education system has been lacking in recent years to cause this? Or is it maybe that kids don't play outdoors very much anymore so don't have an easy way to learn and practice the skills? In the 90's video games were just hitting/becoming affordable so we could build huts in fields, play football everyday, ride bikes, play on building sites, camp several times a year. Looking at younger family members they don't do any of these things. Maybe it's not education but lack of practice. Schools can teach you how to swim but if you never actually go to the ocean or a pool after learning you're going to be out of practice when you go and try to swim in the ocean in the summer.
The UK isn't big but I don't think you can generalise here because my experience is very different. Scout groups seem very popular (so popular it's really difficult to get your kid a place in one), schools offer the optional Duke of Edinburgh award which teaches camping/orienteering and is pretty popular, and in the UK a hell of a lot of people live pretty close to the ocean and know how to use it safely (surfing is very popular in Ireland and south cost of England/Welsh coast). When I was younger my friends and I would go camping a few times a year as did many other groups of friends (the reason was mostly so we could get drunk without getting caught but still we hiked 12 hours to get there, figured out how to cook, get water, build a fire, pitch tents etc.).
On the other hand I've been pretty shocked this Summer that every sunny weekend it seems half a dozen people get killed in the ocean here. I'm only in my mid-20's but maybe the education system has been lacking in recent years to cause this? Or is it maybe that kids don't play outdoors very much anymore so don't have an easy way to learn and practice the skills? In the 90's video games were just hitting/becoming affordable so we could build huts in fields, play football everyday, ride bikes, play on building sites, camp several times a year. Looking at younger family members they don't do any of these things. Maybe it's not education but lack of practice. Schools can teach you how to swim but if you never actually go to the ocean or a pool after learning you're going to be out of practice when you go and try to swim in the ocean in the summer.
Scout groups seem very popular (so popular it's really difficult to get your kid a place in one), schools offer the optional Duke of Edinburgh award which teaches camping/orienteering and is pretty popular
Don't forget the Cadet organizations too e.g. https://armycadets.com
Don't forget the Cadet organizations too e.g. https://armycadets.com
Totally agree here and had the same experience. Scouts was one of the best parts of my childhood and I say that as a kid who otherwise would have preferred to be indoors playing video games.
> Does such a thing exist?
National Outdoor Leadership School perhaps?
National Outdoor Leadership School perhaps?
Not to mention tours, accessible restrooms, refreshments...etc. it also has to do with advertising. If I am planning a trip, I have never heard of Bluebell knoll but I have certainly heard of Yosemite. I live in rural appalachia. There are a thousand state parks and 2 national parks by me. The locals know where the best places are. Tourist tend to go where ease of access (picnic tables, maps, refreshments, etc), and accommodations. Highly trafficked parks are also geared towards tourists and are heavily more well funded. People in general like comforts when they are away from home.
> restrooms, refreshments
Hiking: you're doing it wrong. Seriously, if you don't have to at least pee outdoors, it's not a hike.
Hiking: you're doing it wrong. Seriously, if you don't have to at least pee outdoors, it's not a hike.
I think "accessible" was the important part of that comment. People with limited mobility may not have the privilege of having a pee outdoors; at least, not comfortably.
While I love to hike, including way off the beaten path, it's worth recognizing that not everyone is able-bodied enough to take advantage of those aspects of our parks. So, it's totally cool that National Parks provide a means for folks with limited mobility to safely see some of our nation's most beautiful places. And, it's a valid reason to visit the obvious parks rather than going off on your own in lonely places.
While I love to hike, including way off the beaten path, it's worth recognizing that not everyone is able-bodied enough to take advantage of those aspects of our parks. So, it's totally cool that National Parks provide a means for folks with limited mobility to safely see some of our nation's most beautiful places. And, it's a valid reason to visit the obvious parks rather than going off on your own in lonely places.
> BLM public land literally means just that
National Forest land too. I grew up as the child of a federal employee in rural eastern Oregon, and I got a solid taste for "I can ride my dirt bike 50 miles in any direction and do whatever I want." Sadly, where I live now, I need to carry three different parking passes in my car depending on where I want to go hiking on the weekend, and somehow the $50K I pay in taxes every year can't absorb the fees of these things - I need to remember to go prostrate myself at each office every year to get them...
National Forest land too. I grew up as the child of a federal employee in rural eastern Oregon, and I got a solid taste for "I can ride my dirt bike 50 miles in any direction and do whatever I want." Sadly, where I live now, I need to carry three different parking passes in my car depending on where I want to go hiking on the weekend, and somehow the $50K I pay in taxes every year can't absorb the fees of these things - I need to remember to go prostrate myself at each office every year to get them...
> I lack the outdoorsy know-how and wisdom to feel at ease on the backroads of the desert southwest
Please don't let this stop you. It's like people saying they can't go hiking because they can't afford "hiking boots". Whatever shoes you already wear every day are fine enough to get out there to start!
Throw a tent, a little stove and a box of food in your car and get out there. Maybe stick closer to bigger roads to start so you can always walk back if you car breaks down, but please get out there!
You'll figure out how to put your tent up after a few tries, and as long as you've got some food and water, you'll be fine.
Please don't let this stop you. It's like people saying they can't go hiking because they can't afford "hiking boots". Whatever shoes you already wear every day are fine enough to get out there to start!
Throw a tent, a little stove and a box of food in your car and get out there. Maybe stick closer to bigger roads to start so you can always walk back if you car breaks down, but please get out there!
You'll figure out how to put your tent up after a few tries, and as long as you've got some food and water, you'll be fine.
Be careful with this kind of advice. I'm an experienced camper/backpacker. The wilderness can be a dangerous place for beginners, even if they are just "car camping." For example, the Mohave (where I backpacked/camped/rock-climbed for seven years) has 18 species of rattlesnakes, and one of those is the Mohave rattlesnake, which carries one of the most lethal rattlesnake venoms in the world.
Food, water and shelter aren't enough for camping. You also need: flashlight with spare batteries, a map of the surrounding region, a compass, extra clothing, sun protection and a first-aid kit. It's also a good idea to know where the nearest ranger station is so that you can haul ass there in case of an emergency.
Food, water and shelter aren't enough for camping. You also need: flashlight with spare batteries, a map of the surrounding region, a compass, extra clothing, sun protection and a first-aid kit. It's also a good idea to know where the nearest ranger station is so that you can haul ass there in case of an emergency.
This kind of advice really irks me.
You're discouraging people from even starting. They don't need all that gear and experience to get out and try it - in all honsety their first night will be just off a road next to their car - are they really going to get in trouble from not having a flashlight and map and compass? Just sleep in the car.
> the Mohave (where I backpacked/camped/rock-climbed for seven years) has 18 species of rattlesnakes, and one of those is the Mohave rattlesnake, which carries one of the most lethal rattlesnake venoms in the world.
Awesome! how many times did you see one? How many times were you in danger of being bitten? Quoting facts like that doesn't help teach people the realities of camping. Chances are the vast majority of people will never see one.
For reference, I'm from Australia, and lived in the Yukon for 4 years, hiking, camping and canoeing all over remote Yukon and Alaska. I've been face to face with bears about 10 times, seen tons of deadly snakes, waded across waist deep glacier melt rivers, etc. etc. I camped most nights from Alaska to Argentina, and now I'm camping my way around Africa. I've hiked many of the worlds most famous multi-day hiking trips. I've spent something like 1000 nights in a tent in my life.
Stop discouraging people from trying. Soon you'll be telling people they can't try swimming without buying goggles, they can't try golf without buying clubs and thousands of dollars of lessons from a pro, and they can't learn to drive without buying their own $30k car.
Encourage people to try something new. They don't have to start out in a store - they have to start out doing.
You're discouraging people from even starting. They don't need all that gear and experience to get out and try it - in all honsety their first night will be just off a road next to their car - are they really going to get in trouble from not having a flashlight and map and compass? Just sleep in the car.
> the Mohave (where I backpacked/camped/rock-climbed for seven years) has 18 species of rattlesnakes, and one of those is the Mohave rattlesnake, which carries one of the most lethal rattlesnake venoms in the world.
Awesome! how many times did you see one? How many times were you in danger of being bitten? Quoting facts like that doesn't help teach people the realities of camping. Chances are the vast majority of people will never see one.
For reference, I'm from Australia, and lived in the Yukon for 4 years, hiking, camping and canoeing all over remote Yukon and Alaska. I've been face to face with bears about 10 times, seen tons of deadly snakes, waded across waist deep glacier melt rivers, etc. etc. I camped most nights from Alaska to Argentina, and now I'm camping my way around Africa. I've hiked many of the worlds most famous multi-day hiking trips. I've spent something like 1000 nights in a tent in my life.
Stop discouraging people from trying. Soon you'll be telling people they can't try swimming without buying goggles, they can't try golf without buying clubs and thousands of dollars of lessons from a pro, and they can't learn to drive without buying their own $30k car.
Encourage people to try something new. They don't have to start out in a store - they have to start out doing.
Maybe the best advice is to start slow. If you are a complete tenderfoot, going on a 15 mile hike that bags three 4000 ft peaks is more likely to be a bad time than a three mile hike that summits once. Backpacking the 100 Mile Wilderness requires a little more planning and confidence in your gear and skills than an overnight where you have cell service throughout. Hiking on the east coast, where water is plentiful and you pretty much can't walk more than a day in a straight line without hitting a paved road, is a different beast than places out west where you can easily die of dehydration or bumble off and never be seen again.
are they really going to get in trouble from not having a flashlight and map and compass?
It's true to say that many routes wouldn't need that equipment, but many routes would be dangerous without it.
Asking people who, in this context, have little or no experience with outdoor trekking, to appropriately identify the necessary clothing, footwear, or safety equipment for a hike, is inviting accidents.
Mountain Rescue regularly picks up people from Snowden who are lacking the appropriate kit, such as hikers attempting it in winter wearing shorts and trainers [1].
I am fully in favour of encouraging people to "get out there and do it", but with appropriate guidance: advice from an outdoor shop, a rambling guidebook, a knowledgable friend…something that can steer them towards an activity that's appropriate for their fitness level, experience, and equipment.
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578247/Foolish-walk...
I agree that the comment was a bit off-putting.
In addition, the assumption is that you're camping in an area where the area itself is inhospitable to life. There's a ton of camping and hiking opportunities on the east coast, and unless you break a leg or something, you can pretty much just pick a direction and walk ten miles and end up in somebody's back yard.
You should be able to walk through the woods for a few hours without having to gear up at the local outdoor's shop.
(Of course, that's not to say that there isn't a lot of damned good reasons to tool up, or that folks don't get dead even on the east coast. There's just a level of awareness that's involved in being outside that shouldn't come as a surprise to most. Our species is bred to be outdoors. Take it slow. Pay attention. It'll work out.)
In addition, the assumption is that you're camping in an area where the area itself is inhospitable to life. There's a ton of camping and hiking opportunities on the east coast, and unless you break a leg or something, you can pretty much just pick a direction and walk ten miles and end up in somebody's back yard.
You should be able to walk through the woods for a few hours without having to gear up at the local outdoor's shop.
(Of course, that's not to say that there isn't a lot of damned good reasons to tool up, or that folks don't get dead even on the east coast. There's just a level of awareness that's involved in being outside that shouldn't come as a surprise to most. Our species is bred to be outdoors. Take it slow. Pay attention. It'll work out.)
>>You're discouraging people from even starting.
No, I'm discouraging people from starting unprepared. Big difference.
>>Awesome! how many times did you see one? How many times were you in danger of being bitten?
I personally saw one maybe a dozen times. Camping mate got bitten by one because he didn't see it. He woke up at night, got outside the tent to take a piss and in the dark stepped on one. Within 30 minutes he was vomiting and foaming at the mouth, and had started losing sensation in the leg he was bitten in. The only reason he's alive today is because we remained calm, applied first aid and were able to rush him to a nearby hospital.
This happens to people rarely. But the point is that it can be fatal for someone who isn't prepared to handle the situation. In general, thousands of people die every year in the USA because they underestimate nature, don't understand the risks of the adventures they undertake and don't prepare accordingly.
Besides, think about it this way: if someone starts out unprepared and has a shitty experience as a result (e.g. they forgot to bring extra clothing and couldn't sleep at night because it was cold), they are unlikely to try again. Being prepared helps them enjoy the activity more, which in turn makes it more likely that they will do it more.
No, I'm discouraging people from starting unprepared. Big difference.
>>Awesome! how many times did you see one? How many times were you in danger of being bitten?
I personally saw one maybe a dozen times. Camping mate got bitten by one because he didn't see it. He woke up at night, got outside the tent to take a piss and in the dark stepped on one. Within 30 minutes he was vomiting and foaming at the mouth, and had started losing sensation in the leg he was bitten in. The only reason he's alive today is because we remained calm, applied first aid and were able to rush him to a nearby hospital.
This happens to people rarely. But the point is that it can be fatal for someone who isn't prepared to handle the situation. In general, thousands of people die every year in the USA because they underestimate nature, don't understand the risks of the adventures they undertake and don't prepare accordingly.
Besides, think about it this way: if someone starts out unprepared and has a shitty experience as a result (e.g. they forgot to bring extra clothing and couldn't sleep at night because it was cold), they are unlikely to try again. Being prepared helps them enjoy the activity more, which in turn makes it more likely that they will do it more.
Hmm. I recommend at least a little preparation, since there's always someone who gets it wrong and has to be rescued: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/31/woman-sorry-...
People absolutely should try, and the price of entry is really tiny, but the price of getting it wrong can be fatal. What's also possible is people simply being unnecessarily uncomfortable due to a lack of preparation and then never doing it again.
Heck, I had the latter experience myself: I'd been camping as a kid and got training at school and all that, but the first time I did it as an adult after a gap of ten years I was uncomfortable because I'd forgotten that nights are cold in summer.
People absolutely should try, and the price of entry is really tiny, but the price of getting it wrong can be fatal. What's also possible is people simply being unnecessarily uncomfortable due to a lack of preparation and then never doing it again.
Heck, I had the latter experience myself: I'd been camping as a kid and got training at school and all that, but the first time I did it as an adult after a gap of ten years I was uncomfortable because I'd forgotten that nights are cold in summer.
> but the price of getting it wrong can be fatal
Oh please, give it a rest.
We're talking about driving down a road with a car and camping near it for a night or two. Maybe going for a short walk. Like, you know, walking to the store. To say that the consequences of doing that can be fatal is exactly the same insane hyperbole as saying choking on lettuce can be fatal.
Yes, both can. The chances are remotely slim, and you shouldn't scare people off by mentioning it constantly.
Oh please, give it a rest.
We're talking about driving down a road with a car and camping near it for a night or two. Maybe going for a short walk. Like, you know, walking to the store. To say that the consequences of doing that can be fatal is exactly the same insane hyperbole as saying choking on lettuce can be fatal.
Yes, both can. The chances are remotely slim, and you shouldn't scare people off by mentioning it constantly.
>>Oh please, give it a rest.
As an experienced wilderness traveler, I consider teaching people about the potential risks to be the responsible thing to do. It might scare them off but that's better than them getting hurt or worse.
Besides, in my opinion being aware of the risks, no matter how minor, is considerably less scary than not being aware of them. People who are prepared will be more at ease and as a result they will enjoy the activity more. We are not talking about taking a six-month course on wilderness survival. We're talking about having some basic knowledge and equipment, neither of which is expensive or time-consuming to acquire.
As an experienced wilderness traveler, I consider teaching people about the potential risks to be the responsible thing to do. It might scare them off but that's better than them getting hurt or worse.
Besides, in my opinion being aware of the risks, no matter how minor, is considerably less scary than not being aware of them. People who are prepared will be more at ease and as a result they will enjoy the activity more. We are not talking about taking a six-month course on wilderness survival. We're talking about having some basic knowledge and equipment, neither of which is expensive or time-consuming to acquire.
I'll hop on the bandwagon attacking you, at least a bit.
Food, water, and shelter are plenty for car camping in most places.
Car camping in Death Valley in August? Or in the Colorado mountains in January? Of course not.
Know the environment, have some lighting, and go on. You're not wrong, but you're overselling the danger. Common sense and a general awareness of the climate will be enough to make a judgement on safety.
Food, water, and shelter are plenty for car camping in most places.
Car camping in Death Valley in August? Or in the Colorado mountains in January? Of course not.
Know the environment, have some lighting, and go on. You're not wrong, but you're overselling the danger. Common sense and a general awareness of the climate will be enough to make a judgement on safety.
That's OK, I'm not offended.
The most important thing about being out in the wilderness is this: it's better to be over-prepared than under-prepared. This holds true regardless of experience level.
It's true that car camping is considerably safer. But, in my opinion, making sure you have the "ten essentials" I listed is about forming the right habits. You may not need the extra shelter since you can sleep in your car, but when you decide to upgrade to tent-camping, you'll know to bring some with you.
The most important thing about being out in the wilderness is this: it's better to be over-prepared than under-prepared. This holds true regardless of experience level.
It's true that car camping is considerably safer. But, in my opinion, making sure you have the "ten essentials" I listed is about forming the right habits. You may not need the extra shelter since you can sleep in your car, but when you decide to upgrade to tent-camping, you'll know to bring some with you.
Don't people have friends? Go with friends! Chances are one of them might know a thing or two about the outdoors.
I'm not sure arbitrary is the best word here. I agree, this is a huge country in terms of geography and there are countless things to see that are incredibly beautiful or downright interesting, but the three sites you mention (Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Yellowstone) are the cream of the crop in terms of uniquness and impressiveness.
It's not called the "Common Canyon" for a reason. Where else are you going to see something like that in the States? Something of that magnitude?
And Yellowstone? It's a Super Volcano for christ's sake!
Yellowstone and Yosemite both offer incredibly unique and beautiful sites.
This isn't meant to take away from your larger point - that we have hundreds (if not thousands) of other locations in the US that are both amazingly beautiful and where your experience will be more your own rather than shared with the denizens of tourists, but to call the major attractions "arbitrary" seems to undermine how incredible they actually are.
It's not called the "Common Canyon" for a reason. Where else are you going to see something like that in the States? Something of that magnitude?
And Yellowstone? It's a Super Volcano for christ's sake!
Yellowstone and Yosemite both offer incredibly unique and beautiful sites.
This isn't meant to take away from your larger point - that we have hundreds (if not thousands) of other locations in the US that are both amazingly beautiful and where your experience will be more your own rather than shared with the denizens of tourists, but to call the major attractions "arbitrary" seems to undermine how incredible they actually are.
You're right. To be clear, I've visited all of the National Parks I mentioned, sometimes multiple times, and I've loved my visits, and I recommend them highly to anyone who hasn't seen them. I suspect when I retire I will volunteer as camp host in whichever national parks will have me, and continue my travels. I really love our national park system is what I'm trying to say, but I'm also disappointed at how little most people step outside of the well-trod paths...even to the small degree required to take a short detour to hit up a national monument or forest or whatever. There's definitely a long tail at work; visitors drop off precipitously when talking about places that aren't the really "big" ones.
PS: The US National Park system is awesome.
Also, I love how some places are left rugged and undeveloped, while others have an excellent infrastructure in place to allow people to see the highlights even from the car. At first, I thought it was pathetic: you drive through, get off at the parking lot, take a picture, and drive to the next parking lot, ad nauseam.
That's not seeing nature, I thought.
But then, if you're older and somewhat infirm, or, say, wheelchair bound - the accessibility of many parks still allows you to experience the sights.
Also, I love how some places are left rugged and undeveloped, while others have an excellent infrastructure in place to allow people to see the highlights even from the car. At first, I thought it was pathetic: you drive through, get off at the parking lot, take a picture, and drive to the next parking lot, ad nauseam.
That's not seeing nature, I thought.
But then, if you're older and somewhat infirm, or, say, wheelchair bound - the accessibility of many parks still allows you to experience the sights.
As an overseas (or even domestic) tourist, you might be quite time constrained, and then, naturally, you'll go for the most famous ones within the vicinity.
This "long tail" phenomenon is at work elsewhere, as well: I've been to the Angkor Wat complex in Cambodia recently for the third time and took some time to explore more remote ruins (Koh Ker, Beng Mealea, etc.), and while the main sites (Angkor Wat, Ta Phrom) are visited by busloads of tourists, you can easily be the only person for a while at the more remote ones.
This "long tail" phenomenon is at work elsewhere, as well: I've been to the Angkor Wat complex in Cambodia recently for the third time and took some time to explore more remote ruins (Koh Ker, Beng Mealea, etc.), and while the main sites (Angkor Wat, Ta Phrom) are visited by busloads of tourists, you can easily be the only person for a while at the more remote ones.
Be careful lamenting that the places you love aren't overrun
I doubt it will become a problem in my lifetime. America is big. We have a lot of beautiful mostly deserted places, including a lot of federally protected land. I'd like it if more people got out into it more often; there might be a bit more concern for protecting it, if more people saw it in person.
It's true, America is huge, but look no further than beautiful places within a two hour radius of Portland and Seattle on weekends to see what could happen someday. It's a wilderness traffic jam. Everyone out there respects nature, there's just a lot of people...
To go off on a tangent, I think we, as a nation, need to spread out again. So much of our nation's small towns were built on farm, ranch, oil, mining, etc. labor. And, as those industries got automated out of existence as a source of employment, all of the small towns that were supported by them shrunk/died. Small town America is a disaster these days (and I think why our politics have gotten so ugly; people want someone to blame). They're a meth-addled shell of their former selves.
The most popular cities in the US don't have room for all the people that want to live in them (for a variety of reasons, NIMBYism being a big one). If everyone who could work remotely moved out to smaller towns, we'd revitalize small town America and those folks could buy houses (which is not possible for a lot of people in a place like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Austin, etc.).
But, you're right. I do find the crowded parks surrounding major cities to be a turn-off. There is a point at which I wish there were some more quiet and solitude. Which is why I spend so much time so far away from major cities.
The most popular cities in the US don't have room for all the people that want to live in them (for a variety of reasons, NIMBYism being a big one). If everyone who could work remotely moved out to smaller towns, we'd revitalize small town America and those folks could buy houses (which is not possible for a lot of people in a place like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Austin, etc.).
But, you're right. I do find the crowded parks surrounding major cities to be a turn-off. There is a point at which I wish there were some more quiet and solitude. Which is why I spend so much time so far away from major cities.
>I do find the crowded parks surrounding major cities to be a turn-off.
Although even there, you can get away from most of the crowds pretty quickly. It won't be untracked wilderness but it won't be crowded.
I was in Acadia National Park last weekend and the standard just-off-the-road spots were mobbed (holiday weekend) and the standard trails were pretty busy. But we hiked a handful of less-common trails and only saw a handful of people except at the beginning and the end.
If you have the skills, you can also go to certain National Parks in the off-seasons. Doesn't work everywhere but when there's access there are far fewer people.
Although even there, you can get away from most of the crowds pretty quickly. It won't be untracked wilderness but it won't be crowded.
I was in Acadia National Park last weekend and the standard just-off-the-road spots were mobbed (holiday weekend) and the standard trails were pretty busy. But we hiked a handful of less-common trails and only saw a handful of people except at the beginning and the end.
If you have the skills, you can also go to certain National Parks in the off-seasons. Doesn't work everywhere but when there's access there are far fewer people.
I think this is consistent with your earlier point that more people should visit some of the less well known national parks and scenic sites. It spreads the tourists and visitors over a much larger area. This should reduce crowding in the major attractions and destinations, which should make them more enjoyable to those who do visit. The smaller national parks will see more traffic but perhaps this will create more awareness and build support for preservation and/or cleanup. The communities around these locations may also benefit from the increased business.
This makes an astounding amount of sense - so it will probably never happen. But it is just astounding the differential in housing prices. I know some people that are trying to sell houses in the little Maine mountain town I grew up in, and they'll be lucky to get 80-100k out of them - for nice houses with big 10+ acre lots.
If I could pick those up and move them to southern New Hampshire where I live (not even Boston or more expensive locales), they'd go for 350k-500k. It's really absurd.
If I could pick those up and move them to southern New Hampshire where I live (not even Boston or more expensive locales), they'd go for 350k-500k. It's really absurd.
Supporting remote, small towns is difficult to do without emitting a lot of carbon. I actually like the idea from a cultural and aesthetic viewpoint, but the city dweller generally has a smaller carbon footprint than the person in a small town (adjusting for income).
That's only due to the density of development and the cheap materials/ designs used for housing. In theory a town could be both small and dense with energy efficient designs.
Small towns generally do not have as wide a variety of shops as bigger cities, so residents in small town and rural environments have to drive several times a month to a bigger city, sometimes 100 miles or more round trip.
I think that's part of the problem to solve. I think there's a happy medium: A town big enough to support a few large groceries and a couple of big box stores, but small enough to not be a traffic nightmare (hopefully walkable/bikable for most and maybe even with a small but efficient mass transit system). Very few people need to live in rural areas, anymore, but also few people need to live in the most populous and most expensive cities, except for the opportunities those bigger cities provide.
I guess I wasn't clear when saying that I think we should spread out again, I did not mean I think people should live on ranches or farms, 3 miles from their nearest neighbor and 30 miles to the nearest tiny town. That's not what the future looks like, I would hope. But, small to mid-sized towns can be reasonably dense, and can provide reasonable amenities. There are towns like this that don't get a lot of attention, and I tend to like to visit them (I'm parked in Eugene, Oregon right now, and both Eugene and Springfield match the description I've just given...though Eugene, in particular, is maybe on the large, and expensive, side of the model I'm envisioning). But, there are others: Asheville, NC and Denton, TX spring to mind as excellent examples. Real estate isn't super cheap in these cities, but it's not outrageous, either. There's plenty of shopping, plenty of entertainment, plenty of stuff to do and see, but without the soul-crushing traffic jams, and dehumanizing crowds, of (sort of) nearby Atlanta or Austin.
I guess I wasn't clear when saying that I think we should spread out again, I did not mean I think people should live on ranches or farms, 3 miles from their nearest neighbor and 30 miles to the nearest tiny town. That's not what the future looks like, I would hope. But, small to mid-sized towns can be reasonably dense, and can provide reasonable amenities. There are towns like this that don't get a lot of attention, and I tend to like to visit them (I'm parked in Eugene, Oregon right now, and both Eugene and Springfield match the description I've just given...though Eugene, in particular, is maybe on the large, and expensive, side of the model I'm envisioning). But, there are others: Asheville, NC and Denton, TX spring to mind as excellent examples. Real estate isn't super cheap in these cities, but it's not outrageous, either. There's plenty of shopping, plenty of entertainment, plenty of stuff to do and see, but without the soul-crushing traffic jams, and dehumanizing crowds, of (sort of) nearby Atlanta or Austin.
> I think we, as a nation, need to spread out again
We, as a species, have spent the last few eons coming together, and all of the reasons why we have done so are still in effect.
For starters, transportation costs are vastly lower in cities. Take New York, for instance. Here we have a vast subway system the efficiently moves millions of people around, day and night. Just the Lexington Avenue line alone moves more people than the entire DC metro, the 2nd most used American subway system.
For $130 a month, roughly, I can get more or less anywhere I care to in the city at more or less anytime I choose to do so. The trains are electric and likely contribute far less to global warming, air pollution, etc. per capita than would driving.
Even without the subway within a 5 block radius I have restaurants, bars, grocery stores, a hardware store, a pharmacy, a few doctors' offices, parks, and so much more. My contribution to destroying the planet when I run my errands is far smaller than hypothetical spread out America.
Should I get food delivered, more often than not the courier is on a bike, not a car. I work on a delivery app myself and know that in some cities we use scooters, bikers, and even walkers. Way more efficient than spread out America where the car is king.
One of the major reasons to travel at all is to go to work, and with jobs being much closer, the distance travelled is far shorter. From a pure physics point of view the energy expended to move a given mass is going to go up the longer that mass has to travel. Traveling 2 miles to work uses less energy than going 20. Spread out America will result in fewer jobs being nearby, meaning traveling longer distances and times to get to work.
Sprawl is actually really bad for traffic, as well, as cars take up huge amounts of space. In the DC metro area the Orange Line moves more people than I-66 inside the Beltway, despite taking up far less land and being limited by the insane interlining the Metro has going on.
The aforementioned Lexington Avenue line moves far more people than the DC metro as a whole, and takes up way less space than an interstate highway of equivalent capacity. And even it could in theory move more people with a modern signaling system and articulated trains. New trains alone could boost capacity by 10% or so. My own line is getting about a 10% capacity boost from its new signaling system.
Transit scales in ways cars cannot. Spread out America is too spread out to invest in a subway system.
Even roads are cheaper in a city. One mile of road serves tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands vs. a few hundred in a small rural town. The cost is spread over far more people, making each person's contribution much smaller. Road improvements are more cost effective, as they can improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
Even ignoring the last mile delivery costs, being in a large enough city means having access to far more efficient means of intercity and global transportation. Freight trains and cargo ships are way more efficient than 18 wheelers. Intercity passenger trains likely pollute far less than jets do. Here in NYC I can reasonably use Amtrak's Northeast Corridor trains to get to places in Virginia, DC, Baltimore, Philly, and many others. There are also abundant, and cheap, buses to make the same trip.
Spread out America is too spread out for trains to be economical, as the infrastructure costs are too high and the potential passengers per stop too low.
The next major city efficiency gain comes in the form of heating and cooling. Apartments are more efficient to heat and cool given the shared walls and thermal mass. They are also more efficient to build, particularly low to mid rise apartments. Rowhouses are also fairly efficient for similar reasons. Electricity and gas for heating and cooling use is lower per capita than in suburbia and rural areas.
> The most popular cities in the US don't have room for all the people that want to live in them
Actually, every major American city has quite enough room to expand. This includes San Francisco, New York, DC, Chicago, Boston, LA, Seattle, and Portland. There are many I'm missing, but there are very few who are truly limited by geography.
(Note: DC is a special case in that it's not part of a state, so it can't annex surrounding areas and what is considered DC proper can never expand. It does however have suburban areas in its city limits, has a severe height limit, and is well below peak population).
The problem in all of these cities is political, not geographical. In all of these cities, we have put in place rules that limit population density in certain areas, make construction difficult and expensive, and even disallow certain entire classes of buildings. The 'missing middle' kind of housing is missing because it's illegal to build, even though historically these cities and others built large numbers of these houses.
Even Manhattan alone is below peak population. The area between Downtown and the heart of Midtown is much shorter and could support tall buildings just like the rest of the island. It is illegal to build them, though. Likewise, Brooklyn and Queens could easily support these tall buildings. Again, they are mostly illegal save for a few blessed spots.
Given Japanese zoning laws as an example of a better system, these cities would be far denser in their underdeveloped areas and housing far cheaper. Because it's a national, not local, system, you avoid the prisoner's dilemma of having to house every poor person in your neighborhood.
> If everyone who could work remotely moved out to smaller towns, we'd revitalize small town America and those folks could buy houses
Remote work is less efficient or impossible in almost every single job out there, including software, and that is why we don't employ it everywhere. I work in NYC but my company HQ is in SF.
So many things get done more quickly when I fly out there or when they flow here. Video chats, IM, and email are all great, but a poor substitute for a 30 minute in person chat.
Really what you want is to reform zoning laws so that the 'missing middle' is no longer illegal. This would ultimately lower housing costs in cities and increase worker productivity.
This is an issue that has actually started garnering attention on a national scale--newspapers sometimes comment on this now--but economists have been chatting about this for decades, and even have estimates on the costs these laws have.
You could potentially boost GDP by something like 10-20% just by reforming zoning laws.
We, as a species, have spent the last few eons coming together, and all of the reasons why we have done so are still in effect.
For starters, transportation costs are vastly lower in cities. Take New York, for instance. Here we have a vast subway system the efficiently moves millions of people around, day and night. Just the Lexington Avenue line alone moves more people than the entire DC metro, the 2nd most used American subway system.
For $130 a month, roughly, I can get more or less anywhere I care to in the city at more or less anytime I choose to do so. The trains are electric and likely contribute far less to global warming, air pollution, etc. per capita than would driving.
Even without the subway within a 5 block radius I have restaurants, bars, grocery stores, a hardware store, a pharmacy, a few doctors' offices, parks, and so much more. My contribution to destroying the planet when I run my errands is far smaller than hypothetical spread out America.
Should I get food delivered, more often than not the courier is on a bike, not a car. I work on a delivery app myself and know that in some cities we use scooters, bikers, and even walkers. Way more efficient than spread out America where the car is king.
One of the major reasons to travel at all is to go to work, and with jobs being much closer, the distance travelled is far shorter. From a pure physics point of view the energy expended to move a given mass is going to go up the longer that mass has to travel. Traveling 2 miles to work uses less energy than going 20. Spread out America will result in fewer jobs being nearby, meaning traveling longer distances and times to get to work.
Sprawl is actually really bad for traffic, as well, as cars take up huge amounts of space. In the DC metro area the Orange Line moves more people than I-66 inside the Beltway, despite taking up far less land and being limited by the insane interlining the Metro has going on.
The aforementioned Lexington Avenue line moves far more people than the DC metro as a whole, and takes up way less space than an interstate highway of equivalent capacity. And even it could in theory move more people with a modern signaling system and articulated trains. New trains alone could boost capacity by 10% or so. My own line is getting about a 10% capacity boost from its new signaling system.
Transit scales in ways cars cannot. Spread out America is too spread out to invest in a subway system.
Even roads are cheaper in a city. One mile of road serves tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands vs. a few hundred in a small rural town. The cost is spread over far more people, making each person's contribution much smaller. Road improvements are more cost effective, as they can improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
Even ignoring the last mile delivery costs, being in a large enough city means having access to far more efficient means of intercity and global transportation. Freight trains and cargo ships are way more efficient than 18 wheelers. Intercity passenger trains likely pollute far less than jets do. Here in NYC I can reasonably use Amtrak's Northeast Corridor trains to get to places in Virginia, DC, Baltimore, Philly, and many others. There are also abundant, and cheap, buses to make the same trip.
Spread out America is too spread out for trains to be economical, as the infrastructure costs are too high and the potential passengers per stop too low.
The next major city efficiency gain comes in the form of heating and cooling. Apartments are more efficient to heat and cool given the shared walls and thermal mass. They are also more efficient to build, particularly low to mid rise apartments. Rowhouses are also fairly efficient for similar reasons. Electricity and gas for heating and cooling use is lower per capita than in suburbia and rural areas.
> The most popular cities in the US don't have room for all the people that want to live in them
Actually, every major American city has quite enough room to expand. This includes San Francisco, New York, DC, Chicago, Boston, LA, Seattle, and Portland. There are many I'm missing, but there are very few who are truly limited by geography.
(Note: DC is a special case in that it's not part of a state, so it can't annex surrounding areas and what is considered DC proper can never expand. It does however have suburban areas in its city limits, has a severe height limit, and is well below peak population).
The problem in all of these cities is political, not geographical. In all of these cities, we have put in place rules that limit population density in certain areas, make construction difficult and expensive, and even disallow certain entire classes of buildings. The 'missing middle' kind of housing is missing because it's illegal to build, even though historically these cities and others built large numbers of these houses.
Even Manhattan alone is below peak population. The area between Downtown and the heart of Midtown is much shorter and could support tall buildings just like the rest of the island. It is illegal to build them, though. Likewise, Brooklyn and Queens could easily support these tall buildings. Again, they are mostly illegal save for a few blessed spots.
Given Japanese zoning laws as an example of a better system, these cities would be far denser in their underdeveloped areas and housing far cheaper. Because it's a national, not local, system, you avoid the prisoner's dilemma of having to house every poor person in your neighborhood.
> If everyone who could work remotely moved out to smaller towns, we'd revitalize small town America and those folks could buy houses
Remote work is less efficient or impossible in almost every single job out there, including software, and that is why we don't employ it everywhere. I work in NYC but my company HQ is in SF.
So many things get done more quickly when I fly out there or when they flow here. Video chats, IM, and email are all great, but a poor substitute for a 30 minute in person chat.
Really what you want is to reform zoning laws so that the 'missing middle' is no longer illegal. This would ultimately lower housing costs in cities and increase worker productivity.
This is an issue that has actually started garnering attention on a national scale--newspapers sometimes comment on this now--but economists have been chatting about this for decades, and even have estimates on the costs these laws have.
You could potentially boost GDP by something like 10-20% just by reforming zoning laws.
I guess I should be clear: I want people to live in some of those smaller towns; I don't want them to live in the boonies, 30 miles from the nearest store. There were once small, walkable, towns, in America. Much of that is gone.
But, I don't get to tell people how and where to live. Lots of formerly vital little towns, with two or three grocery stores, two or three box stores, and a bunch of little mom and pop businesses, are in decline as younger folks flee to bigger cities. Those are the places I think would be nice to see revitalized. I don't recommend a return to rural lifestyles...unless you're growing most of your own food and working remotely (I know some people doing this, actually), it'd be an ecological disaster.
So, I agree with you. Fixing our cities by allowing more affordable housing to be built would be great! That's fine with me, too. But, there's also plenty of room to spread out in the US, and there are ways to do it without negative ecological impact. But, it probably takes planning on a scale and of a kind that won't happen. Just like moving the needle on the housing crisis in places like SF has proven to be extremely difficult.
But, I don't get to tell people how and where to live. Lots of formerly vital little towns, with two or three grocery stores, two or three box stores, and a bunch of little mom and pop businesses, are in decline as younger folks flee to bigger cities. Those are the places I think would be nice to see revitalized. I don't recommend a return to rural lifestyles...unless you're growing most of your own food and working remotely (I know some people doing this, actually), it'd be an ecological disaster.
So, I agree with you. Fixing our cities by allowing more affordable housing to be built would be great! That's fine with me, too. But, there's also plenty of room to spread out in the US, and there are ways to do it without negative ecological impact. But, it probably takes planning on a scale and of a kind that won't happen. Just like moving the needle on the housing crisis in places like SF has proven to be extremely difficult.
Your plan sounds like utopia for me. I don't know how it would happen, however. Maybe some show in the style of 'Portlandia', silly yet demonstrating true lifestyles, in order to attract people.
The area around Seattle is actually the same exact thing playing out at a smaller scale. There are several (granted, more like a couple dozen) very popular trails and locations, like, say, Rattlesnake and Pilchuk. And then there are hundreds of great trails - some of which, yes, are hidden behind miles of forest roads, but still a lot of readily accessible ones - that don't see much traffic, but offer pretty views and/or great workouts.
And in many cases, both kinds are within spitting distance of each other - e.g. Si is always packed, but Mt Washington, right across it in the valley, and two freeway exits away to the trailhead, with similar difficulty, and just as nice views at the end, is pretty quiet.
And in many cases, both kinds are within spitting distance of each other - e.g. Si is always packed, but Mt Washington, right across it in the valley, and two freeway exits away to the trailhead, with similar difficulty, and just as nice views at the end, is pretty quiet.
Having lived just outside of Yosemite for 5 years prior to moving to Portland a year and a half ago... it's incredible to me, how packed the 'local' hikes and wilderness destinations are, around Portland. Yosemite was only a joke in Yosemite Valley - anywhere else outside of the Valley and you're going to be pretty secluded... I've yet to go on a hike in the Gorge that wasn't surprisingly packed, even mid-week on rainy days. It's startling.
Of those three I've only been to the Grand Canyon, my family otherwise went to more obscure places including very obscure ones where my father hunted elk, and it's as you say. Is there anywhere else in the US where you can stand on one bank of a river and look out/down/whatever at a tributary for miles and miles and miles? The whole thing certainly made a grand impression on me, even after previously seeing many amazing mountains and mountain ranges.
BLM == Bureau of Land Management
(Leaving this here for anyone like me who had to google why Black Lives Matter has anything to do with tourism)
(Leaving this here for anyone like me who had to google why Black Lives Matter has anything to do with tourism)
Sorry, I guess I'm used to speaking with folks who recognize the context (lots of my friends are involved in Black Lives Matter, too, but the ones who travel know BLM means "free/cheap camping").
One incredible thing about BLM managed land is that you can often visit, and camp, for free. Sometimes for months at a time. There's an entire subculture of mobile homeless folks who do just that. There's lots of snowbirds who summer around Mammoth Lake (which is actually national forest land, mostly, I think, but similarly loosely regulated) and winter in Quartzsite or Slab City or Yuma.
One incredible thing about BLM managed land is that you can often visit, and camp, for free. Sometimes for months at a time. There's an entire subculture of mobile homeless folks who do just that. There's lots of snowbirds who summer around Mammoth Lake (which is actually national forest land, mostly, I think, but similarly loosely regulated) and winter in Quartzsite or Slab City or Yuma.
Cool, it sounds like the Freedom to Roam we have in the Nordic countries[0], except in the Nordics it applies to all wild land, even privately owned.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Nordic_countri...
"Allemansrätten gives a person the right to access, walk, cycle, ride, ski, and camp on any land—with the exception of private gardens, the immediate vicinity of a dwelling house and land under cultivation. It also gives the right to pick wild flowers, mushrooms and berries, but not to hunt in any way. Swimming in any lake and putting an unpowered boat on any water is permitted unless explicitly forbidden"
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Nordic_countri...
"Allemansrätten gives a person the right to access, walk, cycle, ride, ski, and camp on any land—with the exception of private gardens, the immediate vicinity of a dwelling house and land under cultivation. It also gives the right to pick wild flowers, mushrooms and berries, but not to hunt in any way. Swimming in any lake and putting an unpowered boat on any water is permitted unless explicitly forbidden"
That's fantastic! I feel like that should be the law everywhere. It's kind of accepted in the US that unless posted "no trespassing", you can wander about in rural areas, without trouble, as long as you don't get too close to houses and such. But, the law definitely sides with property owners if they put up a sign saying keep out.
But, to put things into perspective, the BLM and the Forest Service have more land under management than nearly all of the Nordic countries combined (BLM and Forest Service have nearly 3 million sq km under management). And, the much of that land can be roamed, at will; some of it can even be camped on for long periods of time at little or no cost. So, there's no shortage of land in the US for roaming, though it's concentrated most heavily in the southwest. Northeastern states have been too densely populated for too long to have had a chance to get some protected wilderness.
But, to put things into perspective, the BLM and the Forest Service have more land under management than nearly all of the Nordic countries combined (BLM and Forest Service have nearly 3 million sq km under management). And, the much of that land can be roamed, at will; some of it can even be camped on for long periods of time at little or no cost. So, there's no shortage of land in the US for roaming, though it's concentrated most heavily in the southwest. Northeastern states have been too densely populated for too long to have had a chance to get some protected wilderness.
With the result that tourists flock to Trolltunga and other inaccessible sites with no training, no equipment and no hiking clothes/boots. They start too late and get lost and cold when it suddenly gets dark or the weather turns. The local red cross is called out and have to hike up to get them down again. :-)
e: Not to say I'm against allemansretten, I love it.
e: Not to say I'm against allemansretten, I love it.
[deleted]
BLM website - http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html
My favorite location like that is Este park, which is the town right next to rocky mountain national park. Of all the places I've been it's by far the most beautiful. Hell the in the thin 10 mile winding road through a canyon I was stopped by two mountain goats fighting on the road. 30 minutes later, I chilled with some elk, while eatting McDonalds. All this was right before driving to the top of a mountain, called "stair to heaven"
I worked out at Muir Woods National monument years ago, when it was free to get in. Most of the tourists were from other countries. ($10 to get in today--crazy.)
It seemed like most tourists cared more about eating, and buying souvineers. (Most were on a bus schedule though. It went from San Francisco, Sausalito, and then Muir Woods.)
They seemed to like being around other tourists? Never quite figured them out. I do know this, some tourists didn't appear to be on vacation. They looked misserable. They seemed annoyed at little things, like ice in soda. I was asked so many times, "Why do Americans put ice in soda!". I used to tell them that we want to delay diabetes. Then, I got to the point where I just said Americans are stupid. The second one they got.
Most didn't seem to care about the large Redwood trees. The only group of people who seemed genuinely interested, excited to see such large trees were a group of Amish tourists.
My buddy introduced me to BLM camping, and one day, I hope to be in your shoes, enjoying life in a RV.
It seemed like most tourists cared more about eating, and buying souvineers. (Most were on a bus schedule though. It went from San Francisco, Sausalito, and then Muir Woods.)
They seemed to like being around other tourists? Never quite figured them out. I do know this, some tourists didn't appear to be on vacation. They looked misserable. They seemed annoyed at little things, like ice in soda. I was asked so many times, "Why do Americans put ice in soda!". I used to tell them that we want to delay diabetes. Then, I got to the point where I just said Americans are stupid. The second one they got.
Most didn't seem to care about the large Redwood trees. The only group of people who seemed genuinely interested, excited to see such large trees were a group of Amish tourists.
My buddy introduced me to BLM camping, and one day, I hope to be in your shoes, enjoying life in a RV.
I have a funny feeling your talk about chinese tourists and others from poorer countries. Ice in drinks is rarer due to concerns about tap water. Chinese also seemed to greatly prefer all drinks to be warm or hot....the concept of ice cold drinks seems to be no the norm.
A good many of these tourists are tours....some of them straight up rip offs so they take it out on locals. Imagine if you went to paris and found out your tour group was charging you 20% higher for everything....I'd be pissed off too.
I'm susprised about redwoods...
The tourist thing is a language barrier....When I lived abroad, I noticed americans did the same thing too including many expats.
A good many of these tourists are tours....some of them straight up rip offs so they take it out on locals. Imagine if you went to paris and found out your tour group was charging you 20% higher for everything....I'd be pissed off too.
I'm susprised about redwoods...
The tourist thing is a language barrier....When I lived abroad, I noticed americans did the same thing too including many expats.
> a group of Amish tourists
I never imagined Amish could travel like tourists around. What a funny idea.
I never imagined Amish could travel like tourists around. What a funny idea.
Some Amish and Mennonites can drive (sometimes they'll have community cars they share), but even those who don't can use public transportation and will take busses, Amtrak trains, etc. to travel.
The majority of Mennonites have no religiously-based restrictions on technology at all.
This concentration of tourism is by design. They call these areas "dead zones." The idea is to create a national park of millions of acres and concentrate all the tourism into just a few select areas and roads. You assume these areas will experience significant environmental degradation but the remaining park will be largely untouched, aside from the occasional backpacker. It makes good sense to me if the main goal is preservation.
Last year I went camping with some friends in the Redwood National Parks in the northwestern tip of California, and I experienced something similar. We hiked in maybe 12 miles to the Grove of Tall Trees, which has some of the biggest trees in the world and is surrounded by absolutely pristine nature (think butterflies, rivers, streams, and orange-brown deer prancing about). It was breathtakingly beautiful. We were there for 3 days and this was smack dab in the middle of the summer, and we saw maybe 8 or 9 other people the entire time.
I just was up there last week and had the same impression, at Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park & the Redwood National Park. Fern Canyon and the Cathedral Trees trail were both amazing and pretty unpopulated - I would recommend it for anyone interested in hiking, who could handle a long day's drive from San Francisco.
Some of us do not have the luxury of living in a rv and travelling most of the time, so we take the easy route and go to national parks in the limited time available. I went to yellowstone this independence day weekend, and it was terrific, despite the crowds. It doesn't matter to me that a noname place could have been better, because I had a great time anyway.
That's great, and I don't mean to sound demeaning of that kind of decision-making. I understand my lifestyle provides a tremendous amount of privilege in this area.
I just think of the times when I've had conversations with folks who live within an easy day trip of some amazing place, and I'll say, "I'm stocking up to camp at X place for the next week or two." And, they'll say, "Oh, yeah? I've heard of it. Never been." It's surprising. National Parks at least tend to have been visited by the folks who live nearby, often regularly.
I just think of the times when I've had conversations with folks who live within an easy day trip of some amazing place, and I'll say, "I'm stocking up to camp at X place for the next week or two." And, they'll say, "Oh, yeah? I've heard of it. Never been." It's surprising. National Parks at least tend to have been visited by the folks who live nearby, often regularly.
>There's like a weird need for there to be a gate with a ranger taking entrance fees and such, for someone in the US to want to see and experience a place.
Or is the exact opposite true?
Perhaps the United States Government does a poor job of promoting their most breathtaking parks, and only creates parking lots and ticket takers once there is the financial incentive to do so (because the general public decides they want to amass there for any particular reason)?
Or is the exact opposite true?
Perhaps the United States Government does a poor job of promoting their most breathtaking parks, and only creates parking lots and ticket takers once there is the financial incentive to do so (because the general public decides they want to amass there for any particular reason)?
No, it's because the breathtaking places are breathtaking for a reason, and the infrastructure built up around them before is still relevant now. I'm not discounting how wonderful, say, a national forest is, but the areas deemed a national park are classified that for a reason.
Often that reason may simply reflect where the water is, and how the wildlife follows that water.
Often that reason may simply reflect where the water is, and how the wildlife follows that water.
Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand Canyon are among the most beautiful pieces of land probably in the world and certainly in the country.
Just because there's other pretty, lesser known stuff around does not make these things any less spectacular.
Just because there's other pretty, lesser known stuff around does not make these things any less spectacular.
I've travelled some internationally and realized this phenomenon is magnified inside the US.
If I had to wonder at a reason why, I'd say it has to do with something else I've noticed: People from the US are also significantly more worried about the credence in what they're doing as something worth doing. Best way of that is that other people are doing it. If there's a ranger waiting to take your money it must really be worth it!
If I had to wonder at a reason why, I'd say it has to do with something else I've noticed: People from the US are also significantly more worried about the credence in what they're doing as something worth doing. Best way of that is that other people are doing it. If there's a ranger waiting to take your money it must really be worth it!
I am American living in southern France and you haven't seen nothing until you've seen Chinese tourists.
From NYC and can confirm. Been to the art museums often and every time there's a group of Chinese teens/young adults taking a picture or selfie of every painting and moving on to the next one.
Don't be silly, they wouldn't do that!
They would take a minimum of 10 selfies per painting before moving on.
They would take a minimum of 10 selfies per painting before moving on.
Haha, I thought Chinese shared that with Americans, but maybe they are more extreme -- I feel like living in France you get some selective bias of the type of tourists that go to France... It's France after all
I'm not sure. In Rocky Mountain National Park for instance, there are things above 9000 feet you can't get to unless a ranger takes your money; and in every experience I've ever had, that's the only way to get access to those experiences.
When I spent the night on Long's Peak in Rocky Mountain (not intentional! I went up a semi-technical route but somehow lost the "easy" trail on the way down...) there were no rangers and no payments. I value that day-night-morning more than all of my other visits to RMNP put together.
The trail markings on Long's Peak are terrible. I had trouble finding the trail back down too but it was midday and there were ranges around to point me in the right direction.
There are plenty more places where you'll see zero people on your hike, even on developed trails. Undeveloped BLM Wilderness Areas you're even less likely to see someone—some of these in remote areas likely only get a dozen or so visitors per year, mostly hunters. I've visited some 20,000+ acre Wilderness Areas half a dozen times and never once seen another person in them.
Yep, BLM land and campgrounds are some of the most under-utilized resources for getting out into nature. It's not uncommon to be the only person for miles around. There's sort of a continuum of how populated an area will be, based on how it's been designated by the government. What's most interesting to me is that it often has little correlation to how beautiful or interesting an area is. BLM land is kind of like an afterthought for the federal government. They are mostly very sparsely staffed (I can count the number of rangers I've seen on BLM lands on my fingers, and I've cumulatively spent maybe a year on BLM lands), and very sparsely visited.
Is there a list of these places somewhere?
This is actually one of the great gaps in available tools. For camping, there are some pretty good crowd-sourced websites that will help you find boondocking spots; these are not necessarily the most beautiful (though reading reviews will often tell you if there's something amazing nearby to check out while camping). A lot of it is targeted to folks who can't afford to camp in RV parks or campgrounds, but wants to get out into the wild.
This one is probably the best for finding BLM and National Forest options for camping: https://freecampsites.net/
All Stays is OK, too, but has a lot of noise in the form of Walmart parking lots and rest areas and such, as well as commercial campgrounds, (which are also great if you live in an RV and need a place to park for the night on your way somewhere): http://www.allstays.com/Campgrounds/
I wish there were a really good website that combined all of my favorite things: Public lands, free/cheap camping, and beautiful or interesting scenery. But, I kinda piece together my travel itinerary once I know where I'm going; I'll google a bunch the day or two before I start driving. Usually I'll have a pretty good idea of the places I want to stop, and how long I want to stay, based on reviews and the information I've found. And, sometimes there are surprises. When I'm on my way places, I'll sometimes stop at all of the public sites along the way (as best I can figure out where they are), and camp at the ones I like the best.
This one is probably the best for finding BLM and National Forest options for camping: https://freecampsites.net/
All Stays is OK, too, but has a lot of noise in the form of Walmart parking lots and rest areas and such, as well as commercial campgrounds, (which are also great if you live in an RV and need a place to park for the night on your way somewhere): http://www.allstays.com/Campgrounds/
I wish there were a really good website that combined all of my favorite things: Public lands, free/cheap camping, and beautiful or interesting scenery. But, I kinda piece together my travel itinerary once I know where I'm going; I'll google a bunch the day or two before I start driving. Usually I'll have a pretty good idea of the places I want to stop, and how long I want to stay, based on reviews and the information I've found. And, sometimes there are surprises. When I'm on my way places, I'll sometimes stop at all of the public sites along the way (as best I can figure out where they are), and camp at the ones I like the best.
Not really, because BLM land, especially in the west, is incredibly scattered and vast. You could find a list of, say, BLM Wilderness Areas, but not their general land. I would suggest looking at a land ownership map for an area you're interested in to see where concentrations of public land can be found. Caltopo is a great option for this—among many other layers you can turn on, "Land Management" is an option you can overlay atop the background for anywhere in the entire U.S. in the top right layer dropdown. A land management agency legend for the color overlays will appear at the right of the top navbar when enabled.
http://caltopo.com
http://caltopo.com
> while dozens of surrounding National Monuments and National Parks and National Forests (mostly free to visit), are often nearly devoid of visitors.
My parents went to grand canyon couple of years ago on their yearly 1 week off from work. they wanted to see the grand canyon . Most people I would imagine don't live in a RV or have all the time in the world to explore smaller parks.
I find it that whenever someone generalizes a population they are often talking about poor or lower middle-class people. sorry, 'average American' doesn't live idyllic RV lifestyle .
My parents went to grand canyon couple of years ago on their yearly 1 week off from work. they wanted to see the grand canyon . Most people I would imagine don't live in a RV or have all the time in the world to explore smaller parks.
I find it that whenever someone generalizes a population they are often talking about poor or lower middle-class people. sorry, 'average American' doesn't live idyllic RV lifestyle .
"sorry, 'average American' doesn't live idyllic RV lifestyle ."
I think this comment ignors a huge swath of people living in RVs. Most of the people living on BLM and National Forest land in RVs do so as much out of necessity as desire.
Living in an RV is cheaper than living in a house or apartment, and most of my friends who live in RVs are extremely poor; well below the poverty line in many cases.
I think this comment ignors a huge swath of people living in RVs. Most of the people living on BLM and National Forest land in RVs do so as much out of necessity as desire.
Living in an RV is cheaper than living in a house or apartment, and most of my friends who live in RVs are extremely poor; well below the poverty line in many cases.
Black Canyon of the Gunnison and Lassen Volcanic National Park were two notable finds that I thought to be under-appreciated, every bit as amazing as those places people can be expected to know.
I went from place to place by bicycle when I was a tourist in the U.S. and, because I was not able to travel as speedily as everyone else, able to evaluate the scenery for what it was. Most of my up-close-with-nature experiences happened in the forest or BLM areas surrounding big parks such as Yellowstone, not in those parks.
People that visit the U.S. are not like me, they have a very short amount of time and they book lots of hotels in must see places. One day they are at the airport in L.A. picking up the car, three days later they are in Vegas, then they have the helicopter flight booked for the Grand Canyon the day after that.
In their itinerary they also have some irrational must-do thing where no amount of education can talk them out of this pilgrimage. This could be to the birthplace of a particular singer, a desire to drive some silly old car on Route 66 or a 'need' to go to '4 corners'.
It is therefore most fortunate for the bears and other unusual flora 'n' fauna that there is this tourist free area just outside the tourist hotspots. These areas are totally inaccessible to people on two-week fly-drive holidays with both Vegas and the Grand Canyon to cram in.
I went from place to place by bicycle when I was a tourist in the U.S. and, because I was not able to travel as speedily as everyone else, able to evaluate the scenery for what it was. Most of my up-close-with-nature experiences happened in the forest or BLM areas surrounding big parks such as Yellowstone, not in those parks.
People that visit the U.S. are not like me, they have a very short amount of time and they book lots of hotels in must see places. One day they are at the airport in L.A. picking up the car, three days later they are in Vegas, then they have the helicopter flight booked for the Grand Canyon the day after that.
In their itinerary they also have some irrational must-do thing where no amount of education can talk them out of this pilgrimage. This could be to the birthplace of a particular singer, a desire to drive some silly old car on Route 66 or a 'need' to go to '4 corners'.
It is therefore most fortunate for the bears and other unusual flora 'n' fauna that there is this tourist free area just outside the tourist hotspots. These areas are totally inaccessible to people on two-week fly-drive holidays with both Vegas and the Grand Canyon to cram in.
It extends beyond the ruins to all things of cultural note...
I've known several people who will never set foot in an art gallery or a museum at home but who have lined up for the louvre just to say they've been there.
It's pretty clearly the curation. Parks have familiar facilities, guidance and support, and, frankly, advertising.
A friend of mine contacted me after a very bad trip to the Desolation Wilderness. She was shocked that the trails weren't marked, that there wasn't water etc. She thought it would be like a city park! Listening to her story I realized she didn't even understand in retrospect how close to dying she had been.
For someone like her a park is great: it gives her the support system she needs to enjoy the outdoors.
A friend of mine contacted me after a very bad trip to the Desolation Wilderness. She was shocked that the trails weren't marked, that there wasn't water etc. She thought it would be like a city park! Listening to her story I realized she didn't even understand in retrospect how close to dying she had been.
For someone like her a park is great: it gives her the support system she needs to enjoy the outdoors.
The parks are definitely something to enjoy and respect.
I highly recommend two books:
Desert Solitare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Solitaire
Death, Daring and Disaster: Search and Rescue in the National Parks
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/hisnps/NPSBooks/farabee.htm
The National Parks: America's Best Idea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Parks:_America%27s_Best_IdeaInteresting, as an Australian, I would say the culture here is almost the opposite. Of course, the famous national parks will be heavily visited, often by international or interstate tourists, but exploring lesser known and further flung parks is part of the culture of "going bush".
I have been amazed to go to places so remote I would not expect to see a living soul over a week only to find 2-3 4WDs already nestled in between the trees.
I have been amazed to go to places so remote I would not expect to see a living soul over a week only to find 2-3 4WDs already nestled in between the trees.
I get what you're saying, but the Grand Canyon and Yosemite are worth the crowds. When you walk up to the Grand Canyon the first time, your brain can't quite get a grip on the scale. And the first time I went to Yosemite I drove in at night and had no idea what I was in until I woke up inside that gigantic valley. Awe inspiring experiences.
Can you recommend any of those near-deserted places in WA?
Also, you live in an RV - you're my hero! How I wish I could do that...
Also, you live in an RV - you're my hero! How I wish I could do that...
Washington is one of the states I've visited least. I'm in the Pacific Northwest at the moment in Oregon, we'd intended to go on up north through Washington, but got waylaid for a while because my girlfriend wanted to work for a while in a regular job (her online income is much smaller than mine). I've passed through Washington once on my way to Alaska in 2012 or 2013, but I was in a hurry because the summer season in AK is very limited and strictly enforced (you don't want to get stuck on the wrong side of the mountains coming down through Canada in a big motorhome when the snows come). So, I'm not the best person to ask; I just did the obvious tourist stuff and kept on driving.
"How I wish I could do that..."
I'm gonna let you in on a secret: You (almost certainly) can! It costs less than living in a house, if you set out to live cheaply and travel slowly (the driving part, and the paying nightly rates rather than weekly or monthly rates in RV parks is how you can spend a lot living in an RV). Mobile internet coverage is better and faster than ever, though much more expensive than ever (I pay nearly $300/month). If you're a software developer of any sort, you've got a lot more freedom to live however you want than most people who have ever existed in history.
"How I wish I could do that..."
I'm gonna let you in on a secret: You (almost certainly) can! It costs less than living in a house, if you set out to live cheaply and travel slowly (the driving part, and the paying nightly rates rather than weekly or monthly rates in RV parks is how you can spend a lot living in an RV). Mobile internet coverage is better and faster than ever, though much more expensive than ever (I pay nearly $300/month). If you're a software developer of any sort, you've got a lot more freedom to live however you want than most people who have ever existed in history.
> You (almost certainly) can!
In theory, yes, but I'm married and have a kid. No way I'd be able to make the lifestyle change. Hence, you're my hero, living the life that I can't :)
In theory, yes, but I'm married and have a kid. No way I'd be able to make the lifestyle change. Hence, you're my hero, living the life that I can't :)
I've met families who travel; home school their kids, etc. It is certainly do-able. But, it'd require your partner's excitement over the idea, as well. I can see how that'd be a deal-breaker, and would maybe put off this lifestyle until your kid(s) have reached adulthood. That's much more common; thousands of people retire and move into the RV full-timer lifestyle every year.
Deer Park in the hills above Sequim is lovely. The road there was a little rugged last time I visited, but that was years ago so maybe it's different now.
Lake Quinault is also really wonderful, and apparently where the term "rain forest" was coined (by FDR, in the version I heard.)
If you're athletic, the climb up Mount Townsend is well worth it, and the trail is really pretty good.
If you like to camp, drive out by La Push and hike a mile or two north from Mora. Hole in the Wall is very interesting. Be wary of bears there, though. Hang your bacon high in the tree.
Mount Baker has lots to offer and doesn't get as much traffic as Rainier.
If you like it dry, there's a great campground above Twisp (northwest IIRC) that is really nice.
Lake Quinault is also really wonderful, and apparently where the term "rain forest" was coined (by FDR, in the version I heard.)
If you're athletic, the climb up Mount Townsend is well worth it, and the trail is really pretty good.
If you like to camp, drive out by La Push and hike a mile or two north from Mora. Hole in the Wall is very interesting. Be wary of bears there, though. Hang your bacon high in the tree.
Mount Baker has lots to offer and doesn't get as much traffic as Rainier.
If you like it dry, there's a great campground above Twisp (northwest IIRC) that is really nice.
There are so many of them. There are degrees of near-deserted of course. The Alpine Lakes Wilderness, for example, is popular but less so than the popular areas of Rainier. Mount Adams Wilderness. Much of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. But really, just look at a map of the Cascades and see the vast swath of national forest land there and pick up a Washington hiking guidebook to provide some pointers.
Look for places at least an hour away from Seattle and Rainier. Also, go to wta.org, and check how many reviews and trip reports any particular place or trail get.
For a specific recommendation, there's a lot of beautiful scenery and generally pretty few people along Hwy 20. Once you get off the road, there are many beautiful creeks and lakes surrounded by miles of trails, and not that many people, especially early and late in the season (the highway is closed for winter, and reopens once the snow melts and avalanche danger is back to normal). Check out the area around Stehekin in particular.
For a specific recommendation, there's a lot of beautiful scenery and generally pretty few people along Hwy 20. Once you get off the road, there are many beautiful creeks and lakes surrounded by miles of trails, and not that many people, especially early and late in the season (the highway is closed for winter, and reopens once the snow melts and avalanche danger is back to normal). Check out the area around Stehekin in particular.
I have a week to explore areas near San Francisco in the first week of December (driving there from Vegas via LA) can you suggest anything for an Australian? all I've heard is "Big Sur"
"Near San Francisco" coming from Vegas / LA gives you many options. Big Sur is definitely worthwhile, Yosemite is amazing but a bit out of the way.
Big mountains are between Vegas and LA - perhaps go through Mammoth Lakes and Bishop on highway 395, you go skiing at Mammoth and see Mt Whitney, the highest point in the lower 48 states, while driving through Lone Pine.
Note all the roads crossing the Sierra Nevada mountains are closed south of the Lake Tahoe area after they get enough snow, usually in November.
From LA to San Francisco, take the 101 freeway through Santa Barbara, which has great beaches and hiking (writing this from there). Recommend the courthouse (Spanish Colonial architecture), the botanic garden and Butterfly Beach. The southern Los Padres National Forest stretches for 40 miles behind there in the hills, with some of the beautiful hiking and camping far off the tourist trail the parent comment refers to: http://santabarbarahikes.com/hikes/sanrafael/
Wine country for the next 200 miles north through Santa Ynez and SLO, then leave the freeway for highway 1 to go through Hearst Castle and Big Sur.
Note vast parts of all the above have recently been or currently are on fire, so consider calling the ranger station to check conditions before you go.
More specific recommendations depend on what you're into, but usually the weather is nice in early December, though getting down near freezing at night away from the immediate coast.
If there's rain in the forecast at the coast spend the week skiing powder at Mammoth.
Big mountains are between Vegas and LA - perhaps go through Mammoth Lakes and Bishop on highway 395, you go skiing at Mammoth and see Mt Whitney, the highest point in the lower 48 states, while driving through Lone Pine.
Note all the roads crossing the Sierra Nevada mountains are closed south of the Lake Tahoe area after they get enough snow, usually in November.
From LA to San Francisco, take the 101 freeway through Santa Barbara, which has great beaches and hiking (writing this from there). Recommend the courthouse (Spanish Colonial architecture), the botanic garden and Butterfly Beach. The southern Los Padres National Forest stretches for 40 miles behind there in the hills, with some of the beautiful hiking and camping far off the tourist trail the parent comment refers to: http://santabarbarahikes.com/hikes/sanrafael/
Wine country for the next 200 miles north through Santa Ynez and SLO, then leave the freeway for highway 1 to go through Hearst Castle and Big Sur.
Note vast parts of all the above have recently been or currently are on fire, so consider calling the ranger station to check conditions before you go.
More specific recommendations depend on what you're into, but usually the weather is nice in early December, though getting down near freezing at night away from the immediate coast.
If there's rain in the forecast at the coast spend the week skiing powder at Mammoth.
Big Sur is, coarsely speaking, the stretch of coastline between Morro Bay and Monterey. Route 1 hugs the coast, and there's cliffs down to the ocean on one side, and mountains and an occasional canyon to the other side. Hearst Castle, the Bixby (Creek) Bridge are here, as well as a few state parks, ocean-bound waterfalls (rare), a lighthouse on a rock (Point Sur); it's quite fascinating. Plus you arrive at Carmel, Pebble Beach, Pacific Grove, and Monterey, which are scenic in their own right.
After that, go to Santa Cruz. The Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park is the southernmost redwoods park on the coast. It's not quite as impressive as the Redwoods National Park much, much, much further north, but it's got the trees and the atmosphere. You're still south of San Francisco at this point. You can take Route 9 (a winding road) or Route 17 (a less-winding road) up to Silicon Valley from Santa Cruz.
After that, go to Santa Cruz. The Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park is the southernmost redwoods park on the coast. It's not quite as impressive as the Redwoods National Park much, much, much further north, but it's got the trees and the atmosphere. You're still south of San Francisco at this point. You can take Route 9 (a winding road) or Route 17 (a less-winding road) up to Silicon Valley from Santa Cruz.
Yosemite is still worth-while, at the top of the list, but it's a four hour drive. Mount Diablo is nice, and you can drive to the peak. Fremont peak is nice, and is a hike. Point Reyes is great hiking (I've seen a white deer there!). Pinnacles is great. Henry Cowell redwoods park is great, you've never seen redwoods like that.
Going south across the golden gate bridge, sometimes I just drive along the coast all the way south to half-moon bay, it's a great drive, and in December the Mavericks waves might be big. There is a black-sand beach along that drive, too.
Going south across the golden gate bridge, sometimes I just drive along the coast all the way south to half-moon bay, it's a great drive, and in December the Mavericks waves might be big. There is a black-sand beach along that drive, too.
I'm a little worried Yosemite might be closed in the first week of winter or something? does it get snowed in?
Yosemite doesn't usually close except for rare events like flooding. The valley will remain open through the winter. It's just the road over Tioga Pass that closes with the first snow since NPS doesn't plow it. Actually, winter is my favorite time of the year there. Snow (hopefully) blanketing the mountains and the valley floor and fewer people. Many fewer people.
Big Sur is awesome, but ~3 hours away by car. Yosemite is also reasonable weekend trip from SF, maybe ~4 hours away. Preferably plan to spend at least two days, and camp in the park, in either case; there's at lot to see/do and that's a lot of driving to only stay for a short time.
Muir Woods (which is under an hour away), Point Lobos...there's a lot of really beautiful stuff within a day trip of SF. I'd buy a tent, and plan to spend the night out for some of these, since most of the really good spots are at least a couple hours away.
That said, one could easily spend a week (month) on SF and Bay Area city exploration. There's a train that connects SF with the entirety of the rest of the bay area, so you don't even need a car to visit Mountain View (Computer History Museum is a must see!, though you'd want to catch a bus or Uber from the station to the museum, as it'd be a longish walk), Palo Alto (Stanford, Facebook, etc.), and several others along the CalTrain route.
Given how little time you have, I'd probably recommend you focus on minimizing travel time, and hit on stuff that's really close. That limits your "natural wonders" options, but there's a lot of really cool stuff made by people in recent history that's also worth seeing. SF is one of America's great cities.
Muir Woods (which is under an hour away), Point Lobos...there's a lot of really beautiful stuff within a day trip of SF. I'd buy a tent, and plan to spend the night out for some of these, since most of the really good spots are at least a couple hours away.
That said, one could easily spend a week (month) on SF and Bay Area city exploration. There's a train that connects SF with the entirety of the rest of the bay area, so you don't even need a car to visit Mountain View (Computer History Museum is a must see!, though you'd want to catch a bus or Uber from the station to the museum, as it'd be a longish walk), Palo Alto (Stanford, Facebook, etc.), and several others along the CalTrain route.
Given how little time you have, I'd probably recommend you focus on minimizing travel time, and hit on stuff that's really close. That limits your "natural wonders" options, but there's a lot of really cool stuff made by people in recent history that's also worth seeing. SF is one of America's great cities.
Big Sur is terrific, with lots of beautiful rugged and ritzy places that a google search will quickly turn up. Might I suggest Cone Peak. It's 5000 feet above sea level and just 3 miles from the beach, with a road almost all the way to the top. (you can camp on the side of Nacimiento-Fergusson road overlooking the coast, too). Great entry point to the Ventana Wilderness if you find time for backpacking, even in December.
Inland from Big Sur and equally south of SF, Pinnacles was recently made a national park. It can be fully explored in a couple days and, aside from the stunning volcanic scenery, is the first place the Califirnia Condor was reintroduced after very nearly going extinct. These days you can spot quite a few of them if you're willing to wake up early and watch the sunrise from the summit. The park attracts a crowd, and it's worth reserving a camp site early, but it's far less hectic than some of the better known parks.
Going east from SF, the Sierras has a number of wilderness areas that attract a fraction of the people you'd find in Yosemite (the valley is an absolute must-see, but it's a zoo outside of winter. The outdoors will require more gear in December, but the snow capped valley rim is one of the most beautiful places I've seen). If the snow is late in falling, I'm partial to Emigrant Wilderness - the same granite as Yosemite, none of the crowds. South of Yosemite, look into King's Canyon. Both should have snow in December, which is a good reminder to check seasonal road closures if you intend a scenic route across the Sierras. North of Yosemite, highways 120, 4, 88, and others typically close.
North of SF, Mendocino National Forest has an abundance of dirt roads accessing enormously underutilised public spaces. There's a drive-in campground just south of Snow Mountain (in the Snow Mtn wilderness) that's stunning and empty. Despite the name, it doesn't get much snow. Closer to the city, Sugarloaf above the Sonoma valley makes for a great low-key 1 or 2 day trip that can be worked into visiting a winery or two.
The Sonoma coast north of SF also has a lot of beautiful places. Check out Salt Point. A bit out of the way for Vegas, though.
Death Valley is mostly on the way to LV and in December will be cool enough to stand.
These are a few of my favorites that are varying degrees off the beaten path but all incredible natural places.
Inland from Big Sur and equally south of SF, Pinnacles was recently made a national park. It can be fully explored in a couple days and, aside from the stunning volcanic scenery, is the first place the Califirnia Condor was reintroduced after very nearly going extinct. These days you can spot quite a few of them if you're willing to wake up early and watch the sunrise from the summit. The park attracts a crowd, and it's worth reserving a camp site early, but it's far less hectic than some of the better known parks.
Going east from SF, the Sierras has a number of wilderness areas that attract a fraction of the people you'd find in Yosemite (the valley is an absolute must-see, but it's a zoo outside of winter. The outdoors will require more gear in December, but the snow capped valley rim is one of the most beautiful places I've seen). If the snow is late in falling, I'm partial to Emigrant Wilderness - the same granite as Yosemite, none of the crowds. South of Yosemite, look into King's Canyon. Both should have snow in December, which is a good reminder to check seasonal road closures if you intend a scenic route across the Sierras. North of Yosemite, highways 120, 4, 88, and others typically close.
North of SF, Mendocino National Forest has an abundance of dirt roads accessing enormously underutilised public spaces. There's a drive-in campground just south of Snow Mountain (in the Snow Mtn wilderness) that's stunning and empty. Despite the name, it doesn't get much snow. Closer to the city, Sugarloaf above the Sonoma valley makes for a great low-key 1 or 2 day trip that can be worked into visiting a winery or two.
The Sonoma coast north of SF also has a lot of beautiful places. Check out Salt Point. A bit out of the way for Vegas, though.
Death Valley is mostly on the way to LV and in December will be cool enough to stand.
These are a few of my favorites that are varying degrees off the beaten path but all incredible natural places.
Thanks for your detailed reply, i'll try to see as much as I can!
From Santa Monica to San Francisco take the coast highway as much as you're able (usually Pacific Coast Highway 1, sometimes 101), especially from Morro Bay north. The drive will take longer, maybe much longer if you stop at the scenic points. Driving north puts your car against the mountain. Driving south would put your car on the ocean side of the road, possibly offering better views.
Big Sur is great, and quite a fun drive. There is also the Marin Headlands and Muir woods north of San Francisco
Go further north up the 101 and visit the redwoods. I literally grew up on Endor. You will never see trees bigger. Head up to Humboldt county and check it out. The towns are meth filled hell holes but the camping and National/State parks are amazing.
[deleted]
I look forward to the book. Seriously. There isn't enough material on the more "undiscovered" parts of the country.
This happens basically everywhere though. Name recognition is critical. For example, in Naples you have the very famous Pompeii (overcrowded with tourists), the less famous Herculaneum (just as impressive, smaller, light crowds), and the spectacular Villa Poppaea (deserted). Do visit the later if you get the chance.
It's the same reasons that some products take off and others don't. The right people went and made a big deal out of them early and they were the social proof needed to get more, which begat more resources and infrastructure etc...
Little bit of a tangent... I am thinking of getting a travel trailer and living in it full time... Any forums, tips, experiences, models to look at you can share?? I have 0 experience with this.
I can, and do, talk for hours about RVs. I love them. I love cranky old RVs, in particular (I live in a 1984 Avion...which is one of the all-aluminum models, of which Airstream is the best-known manufacturer and the only current manufacturer). There are forums for every major manufacturer of RVs, most of them are super helpful; a bunch of retired old-timers who love talking about their RVs.
I'd recommend you spend some time learning about them. There are definitely quality differences; usually you get what you pay for, though buying older can get you a great deal, comparatively speaking. I would much prefer a high quality old rig to a cheap newer rig. But, older rigs can have a lot of hidden problems; my Avion has had a much rougher life and needs a lot more work than previous owner disclosed (for a variety of reasons I bought it knowing it needed work but some of the work it needed/needs is beyond what I expected or could reasonably find in the brief inspection I gave it).
One probably can't easily summarize everything one should know before buying an RV, but I'd recommend you start reading up on them now, and don't plan to buy for at least a month or more. Go visit RV dealers (with no intention to buy new, or even to buy from a dealer at all, as they will overcharge by a huge amount in the majority of cases...it's normal to pay half what a dealer would charge for a used RV).
Do you already have a tow vehicle? That's probably where you need to start, if you plan to go the travel trailer route. If you plan to live in the trailer full-time, you probably need a big truck to haul it; I've got a diesel F250, and it works great. With a weight distribution hitch it'll comfortably haul more than my house (which is probably about 9000 pounds loaded with tanks full).
As the other commenter recommended, road side service from Good Sam is a great idea; I've used both Good Sam and AAA, and Good Sam does a slightly better job getting the right sized tow truck out to you when you need it.
I'd recommend you spend some time learning about them. There are definitely quality differences; usually you get what you pay for, though buying older can get you a great deal, comparatively speaking. I would much prefer a high quality old rig to a cheap newer rig. But, older rigs can have a lot of hidden problems; my Avion has had a much rougher life and needs a lot more work than previous owner disclosed (for a variety of reasons I bought it knowing it needed work but some of the work it needed/needs is beyond what I expected or could reasonably find in the brief inspection I gave it).
One probably can't easily summarize everything one should know before buying an RV, but I'd recommend you start reading up on them now, and don't plan to buy for at least a month or more. Go visit RV dealers (with no intention to buy new, or even to buy from a dealer at all, as they will overcharge by a huge amount in the majority of cases...it's normal to pay half what a dealer would charge for a used RV).
Do you already have a tow vehicle? That's probably where you need to start, if you plan to go the travel trailer route. If you plan to live in the trailer full-time, you probably need a big truck to haul it; I've got a diesel F250, and it works great. With a weight distribution hitch it'll comfortably haul more than my house (which is probably about 9000 pounds loaded with tanks full).
As the other commenter recommended, road side service from Good Sam is a great idea; I've used both Good Sam and AAA, and Good Sam does a slightly better job getting the right sized tow truck out to you when you need it.
>Do you already have a tow vehicle? That's probably where you need to start, if you plan > to go the travel trailer route. If you plan to live in the trailer full-time, you
> probably need a big truck to haul it; I've got a diesel F250, and it works great. With >a weight distribution hitch it'll comfortably haul more than my house (which is probably >about 9000 pounds loaded with tanks full).
Yep I have an older F150 XL pickup. It is harsh on gas consumption and with towing the trailer that will get quite a bit worse but the savings can be substantial in the long run I suppose (as opposed to living in an apartment/house)
I live in Canada and would like something that is easier for 4 season usage. I can make do with warm clothes and down blankets etc but for example while working on my laptop in the winter, it will be easier without gloves ;-)
I can do without buying new but I am not too mechanically handy and do not want to spend a lot of money paying someone else to fix any issues with older trailers. However, I would definitely be down for buying something older if it is in good shape.
Yep I have an older F150 XL pickup. It is harsh on gas consumption and with towing the trailer that will get quite a bit worse but the savings can be substantial in the long run I suppose (as opposed to living in an apartment/house)
I live in Canada and would like something that is easier for 4 season usage. I can make do with warm clothes and down blankets etc but for example while working on my laptop in the winter, it will be easier without gloves ;-)
I can do without buying new but I am not too mechanically handy and do not want to spend a lot of money paying someone else to fix any issues with older trailers. However, I would definitely be down for buying something older if it is in good shape.
You'd want what is sometimes called a four-season RV; you're going to need a bigger truck. They tend to be among the most expensive options; they're heavier, and more densely insulated. But, keep in mind that one of the benefits of living in an RV is that you can follow good weather. No reason to freeze your ass off, if you can just drive a few hours to a lower elevation.
Arctic Fox is among the best known four-season RVs. I don't know of any other manufacturers who specialize in that area off-hand. Modern RVs are better insulated than older RVs, in the general case, especially when comparing similar quality levels (e.g. a new Airstream or Winnebago will be better insulated and energy efficient than a similar model made 25 years ago...but, 10 year old models are probably comparable to current models, and will often be obtainable for 1/3 the price).
With a travel trailer, there's much less concern about needing to be handy than there would be a with a motorhome. While things are going to break, and things are going to need work, that's true of new or old RVs. My motorhome (which was 7 years old when I bought it) constantly needed minor repairs. Likewise, my 32 year old Avion also constantly needs minor repairs (and it needed and still needs some major repairs).
Sticking with ~10 year old trailers is probably the right time frame for someone who has no desire to have a fixer-upper (I don't recommend fixer-uppers, no matter what, as they always cost more in the end). But, if you start searching well before you want to leave, you can be extremely picky and you'll find someone that has loved their trailer, and kept it in great condition. A lot of trailers only see seasonal use...so they've only been lived in for maybe 6 months, even if they're 10 years old. If the owners winterized them properly, and kept them covered or at least protected from direct sun and such, a ten year old unit can be damned close to new. Higher quality trailers hold up better to aging than cheaper ones, so look for the high end brands (there's too many of those to list, but if you spend a few weeks checking out RV dealers, and RV shows and reading some forums, you'll get a feel for the ones that people really like).
Arctic Fox is among the best known four-season RVs. I don't know of any other manufacturers who specialize in that area off-hand. Modern RVs are better insulated than older RVs, in the general case, especially when comparing similar quality levels (e.g. a new Airstream or Winnebago will be better insulated and energy efficient than a similar model made 25 years ago...but, 10 year old models are probably comparable to current models, and will often be obtainable for 1/3 the price).
With a travel trailer, there's much less concern about needing to be handy than there would be a with a motorhome. While things are going to break, and things are going to need work, that's true of new or old RVs. My motorhome (which was 7 years old when I bought it) constantly needed minor repairs. Likewise, my 32 year old Avion also constantly needs minor repairs (and it needed and still needs some major repairs).
Sticking with ~10 year old trailers is probably the right time frame for someone who has no desire to have a fixer-upper (I don't recommend fixer-uppers, no matter what, as they always cost more in the end). But, if you start searching well before you want to leave, you can be extremely picky and you'll find someone that has loved their trailer, and kept it in great condition. A lot of trailers only see seasonal use...so they've only been lived in for maybe 6 months, even if they're 10 years old. If the owners winterized them properly, and kept them covered or at least protected from direct sun and such, a ten year old unit can be damned close to new. Higher quality trailers hold up better to aging than cheaper ones, so look for the high end brands (there's too many of those to list, but if you spend a few weeks checking out RV dealers, and RV shows and reading some forums, you'll get a feel for the ones that people really like).
I live in the SW (in the Rockies), which is the summer home of many RV-ers. At this point in the year, many people put their RVs up for sale. Just this weekend, I saw 3 used RVs that looked to be ~10 yrs old (1 looked 3 yrs old). All were about ~30ft in length w/ the side slide-outs that allow for more room. I'd check craigslist in these RV-heavy areas first.
Rent an RV for a month and live in it full time first before buying one. After you're sure that you want to live in one then get a Good Sam membership and the rest will come naturally.
Or, just buy an old one. Renting costs ~$100/day (and that doesn't include the cost of RV parks, fuel, etc.). You can buy a travel trailer for not much more than a month of renting, if you don't mind an older one.
Buying a new RV would be madness, of course unless you're really sure you want to live this way and have a lot of spare cash laying around. They depreciate at an incredibly high rate. My first motorhome cost a bit over $30k when I bought it (it was 7 years old when I bought it), and I sold it last year for $12000, after living in it for most of the six years that I owned it. If you take your time, and shop carefully, you can find really great deals.
But, yeah, it's definitely a major life change, and one that maybe shouldn't be dived into without careful consideration.
Buying a new RV would be madness, of course unless you're really sure you want to live this way and have a lot of spare cash laying around. They depreciate at an incredibly high rate. My first motorhome cost a bit over $30k when I bought it (it was 7 years old when I bought it), and I sold it last year for $12000, after living in it for most of the six years that I owned it. If you take your time, and shop carefully, you can find really great deals.
But, yeah, it's definitely a major life change, and one that maybe shouldn't be dived into without careful consideration.
Yeah but then if you don't like it you're stuck with an old travel trailer or RV to try and sell(hard) or store until it rusts away(space/money).
Spending $3000 to validate a pretty huge lifestyle change isn't that much really.
We got lucky that we really enjoyed it when we bought ours but I could understand a lot of people finding the lifestyle ultimately a lot different from what they expected.
Spending $3000 to validate a pretty huge lifestyle change isn't that much really.
We got lucky that we really enjoyed it when we bought ours but I could understand a lot of people finding the lifestyle ultimately a lot different from what they expected.
[deleted]
If you're driving a car, truck, or RV... then maybe the Grand Canyon is packed. If you are hiking or rafting... it is a desolate and inaccessible place.
The south rim can be a zoo during peak tourist season but the north rim has 10% of the visitation and it is 2000 feet higher in elevation and much cooler. The canyon views, in my opinion, are even more exquisite. Make the long, difficult trek out to Toroweap on the north rim, and you'll be fortunate if there is any one else there.
The Grand Canyon is actually pretty great, if you're physically able to hike several hours down into the Canyon. Once you're a couple miles down, the crowds thin way out, and you can get some peace and quiet. The number of people who go all the way to the river each day is quite small, compared to the number who just roam around the rim (on either side).
Agreed.
But isn't that true with everything? There's anyways somewhere better than the tourist trap; but only the locals know where.
But isn't that true with everything? There's anyways somewhere better than the tourist trap; but only the locals know where.
Maybe tourists are investors of a kind, and investors famously dislike uncertainty...
You're right, they are, investing time - which you can't make back if things go wrong.
It's like going out for a meal: our family can afford to eat out maybe once in 2 months. That makes the possibility of getting rubbish food, and rubbish service more worrying than if you can just go somewhere else the next night.
With more time (and more opportunity) you can sample more widely with less risk of wasting a large proportion of that time.
It's like going out for a meal: our family can afford to eat out maybe once in 2 months. That makes the possibility of getting rubbish food, and rubbish service more worrying than if you can just go somewhere else the next night.
With more time (and more opportunity) you can sample more widely with less risk of wasting a large proportion of that time.
Investors in social capital, in conspicuous consumption.
Stereotypically the locals don't visit nearby touristy areas because if the whole point of the activity is to brag that you are in the social class that gets vacation time and can pay a lot for travel, driving fifteen minutes from home proves nothing. Its a human thing not rural/urban... plenty of places in great cities where no locals will visit.
Being sweaty is not high social status, which explains why the parking lots and roads are bumper to bumper but the hiking trails are near abandoned.
Stereotypically the locals don't visit nearby touristy areas because if the whole point of the activity is to brag that you are in the social class that gets vacation time and can pay a lot for travel, driving fifteen minutes from home proves nothing. Its a human thing not rural/urban... plenty of places in great cities where no locals will visit.
Being sweaty is not high social status, which explains why the parking lots and roads are bumper to bumper but the hiking trails are near abandoned.
One particular reason is that historic sites that contain Mississippian culture mounds aren't that interesting - they are very hard to interpret, and there isn't much known about the underlying civilization.
I visit many of these sites when I can (for instance, Hopewell Culture National Historic Park, Emerald Mound, and Poverty Point), and there just isn't really much to really bring in tourists. There's absolutely no comparison to something like Tikal in Guatemala. I wouldn't recommend them to any casual tourists. The only reason I went to these sites is that I'm in the process of visiting all of the national park system units in the United States.
The Anasazi ruins in the Southwest are much easier to understand - Mesa Verde and Canyon de Chelly have extremely striking settings, and the lack of vegetation means that the underlying structure is easy to see. When I visited Hovenweep, I found a pottery shard that rodents had dug up, and when I visited Mesa Verde, rodents had brought an ancient corn cob to the surface - so it's a lot more fun to visit these sites.
Also, Mesa Verde is pretty close to Durango, CO, and is on the "Grand Circle" tour of southwest US national parks, forests, and monuments. So it's going to get a lot more tourists than something like Chaco Canyon which is way off the beaten path, and doesn't have much infrastructure.
I visit many of these sites when I can (for instance, Hopewell Culture National Historic Park, Emerald Mound, and Poverty Point), and there just isn't really much to really bring in tourists. There's absolutely no comparison to something like Tikal in Guatemala. I wouldn't recommend them to any casual tourists. The only reason I went to these sites is that I'm in the process of visiting all of the national park system units in the United States.
The Anasazi ruins in the Southwest are much easier to understand - Mesa Verde and Canyon de Chelly have extremely striking settings, and the lack of vegetation means that the underlying structure is easy to see. When I visited Hovenweep, I found a pottery shard that rodents had dug up, and when I visited Mesa Verde, rodents had brought an ancient corn cob to the surface - so it's a lot more fun to visit these sites.
Also, Mesa Verde is pretty close to Durango, CO, and is on the "Grand Circle" tour of southwest US national parks, forests, and monuments. So it's going to get a lot more tourists than something like Chaco Canyon which is way off the beaten path, and doesn't have much infrastructure.
Exactly - reading this I was thinking "You are surprised that what are now basically small hills are not tourist Meccas?" And while I don't know the exact numbers, places that are at least superficially interesting, like the cliff dwellings, have lots of recognition and are known as cool places to visit.
I am really into exploring the mounds and ancient dig areas. Have all sorts of old books with maps that cover many of the mound areas. Amazes me that many people have never heard of them. Taking the old maps and then using satellite maps to locate them is great fun to me. Many of the locations are forgotten about and very cool to explore.
I do agree to an average tourist they arent much to "look at" at first. If anyone is in the mid east river areas they are all around you though. Ohio, Ill. Mi. Miss. etc. The history alone is fascinating and very much not talked about surprisingly. I found it to be something that the more I researched the more I want to know and more excited I get to find spots.
I do agree to an average tourist they arent much to "look at" at first. If anyone is in the mid east river areas they are all around you though. Ohio, Ill. Mi. Miss. etc. The history alone is fascinating and very much not talked about surprisingly. I found it to be something that the more I researched the more I want to know and more excited I get to find spots.
I would agree with and extend your remarks in that I live in an area with geologically interesting formations, but the general public is like "um OK you've shown me a narrow valley and I heard there's an ice cream stand up ahead?"
I guess the conclusion is that because the history was rewritten to mean this content was mostly unpopulated, ready to receive the settlers, with some pockets of Indian tribes here and there.
Anything that contradicts it is difficult to accept.
Also most people don't know, and most importantly they don't want to know. The later is most important. I think even if told, or specifically taught in school, people will try to forget it quickly. It is uncomfortable to think of this country as great and glorious and then put the killing of all the Indians and slavery next to that. It just doesn't fit.
Even on a more superficial level, people don't care because they don't feel it is part of their ancestry.
It is a bit strange to me (but it is just me being weird) that a lot of Americans talk about themselves as Irish, Italian, or German. So I ask usually "so your parents are from Ireland?". And they'd say something like "Oh, no they came in 1850". Yet they have a kilt and go to "Irish" festivals. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it explains why on vacation they want to go to Europe to visit "history" and not to Cahokia.
Anything that contradicts it is difficult to accept.
Also most people don't know, and most importantly they don't want to know. The later is most important. I think even if told, or specifically taught in school, people will try to forget it quickly. It is uncomfortable to think of this country as great and glorious and then put the killing of all the Indians and slavery next to that. It just doesn't fit.
Even on a more superficial level, people don't care because they don't feel it is part of their ancestry.
It is a bit strange to me (but it is just me being weird) that a lot of Americans talk about themselves as Irish, Italian, or German. So I ask usually "so your parents are from Ireland?". And they'd say something like "Oh, no they came in 1850". Yet they have a kilt and go to "Irish" festivals. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it explains why on vacation they want to go to Europe to visit "history" and not to Cahokia.
Well, there's also that there isn't much history to talk about with Cahokia, since not even the Indians knew what it was for by the time North America was colonized. I don't think people would care much about Stonehenge if it was just a round dirt mound, no matter how old it is, since we know so little about the people who built that one, too.
A big part of the appeal of historic sites is the connection with a familiar narrative. There are stories written on the walls of chichen itza, or tikal. We know almost nothing about the people that built the mounds in St. Louis.
No narrative, and not particularly visually appealing, and you're not going to have much of a tourist site.
A big part of the appeal of historic sites is the connection with a familiar narrative. There are stories written on the walls of chichen itza, or tikal. We know almost nothing about the people that built the mounds in St. Louis.
No narrative, and not particularly visually appealing, and you're not going to have much of a tourist site.
Yup. The UK is covered with artificial mounds and earthworks other than Stonehenge, and most of them aren't that well understood or much of a draw for tourists.
It doesn't help matters when the article starts comparing Cahokia with sites as visually arresting and technically impressive as Macchu Picchu or Angkor Wat, wondering why it doesn't get as many visitors as an architecturally marvellous cathedral in the middle of a large city in a heavily touristed region or suggesting that it was bigger than London. (London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century, and for that matter the 1st century AD, and we still build supermarkets on top of the old city's rather more substantial ruins)
It doesn't help matters when the article starts comparing Cahokia with sites as visually arresting and technically impressive as Macchu Picchu or Angkor Wat, wondering why it doesn't get as many visitors as an architecturally marvellous cathedral in the middle of a large city in a heavily touristed region or suggesting that it was bigger than London. (London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century, and for that matter the 1st century AD, and we still build supermarkets on top of the old city's rather more substantial ruins)
> London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century
Yea, how are we supposed to trust the authors of this article on qualitative judgement calls when they are so misleading about basic quantitative stuff. According to Wikipedia, London was 60k people by 100 AD, dropped to 15k around 1100 AD, but then was back to 80k by 1300 AD, which are all very pre-industrious times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londinium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_and_Medieval_London
Compare this to the article:
> Dr. Timothy Pauketat, an archeologist who wrote a book about Cahokia, believes the city was home to over 10,000 people in 1250, with more Cahokians living on the surrounding farmland. If that’s the case, Cahokia was larger than London.
So, the author cherrypicks an expert who says the population Cahokia at its peak may possibly have been almost as big as London was at a local minimum over a 2,000 year history.
Yea, how are we supposed to trust the authors of this article on qualitative judgement calls when they are so misleading about basic quantitative stuff. According to Wikipedia, London was 60k people by 100 AD, dropped to 15k around 1100 AD, but then was back to 80k by 1300 AD, which are all very pre-industrious times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londinium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_and_Medieval_London
Compare this to the article:
> Dr. Timothy Pauketat, an archeologist who wrote a book about Cahokia, believes the city was home to over 10,000 people in 1250, with more Cahokians living on the surrounding farmland. If that’s the case, Cahokia was larger than London.
So, the author cherrypicks an expert who says the population Cahokia at its peak may possibly have been almost as big as London was at a local minimum over a 2,000 year history.
It's a common trope, though that doesn't entirely excuse it.
The claim is technically accurate (the best kind of accurate, as a friend put it). But it also borrows off an interpretation of London as a megacity of millions of inhabitants. The simple addition of "at the time" would make the claim so much more informative and accurate.
In thinking of common vs. technical interpretations of words, there was the case of an article on HN a few weeks back titled "Igloos that don't melt". It turned out the "igloo" wouldn't melt (not without fire at any rate) ... because it was made from plastic. Someone tried defending this usage on the basis that the Inuit word "iglu" simply means "house". But the English usage, and the clear intent of the headline, convey the image of a domed structure built from blocks of carved snow.
The technique in general is a cheap shot and as you note weakens rather than strengthens an author's credibility.
There was a similar
The claim is technically accurate (the best kind of accurate, as a friend put it). But it also borrows off an interpretation of London as a megacity of millions of inhabitants. The simple addition of "at the time" would make the claim so much more informative and accurate.
In thinking of common vs. technical interpretations of words, there was the case of an article on HN a few weeks back titled "Igloos that don't melt". It turned out the "igloo" wouldn't melt (not without fire at any rate) ... because it was made from plastic. Someone tried defending this usage on the basis that the Inuit word "iglu" simply means "house". But the English usage, and the clear intent of the headline, convey the image of a domed structure built from blocks of carved snow.
The technique in general is a cheap shot and as you note weakens rather than strengthens an author's credibility.
There was a similar
Even ancient substantial ruined stone structures in some areas of the UK exist without much notice being taken of them - e.g. the hill forts at Cademuir south of Peebles. Apart from the fact that the name might mean "great battle" there seems to be relatively little known about them.
I'm American with the majority of my ancestors being Germans and Swiss that came over in the 1850s. The rest were here when it was still Dutch or British territory. Those branches of family, we have stories written about their battles against Indian tribes where they slaughtered what would've been distant great uncles of mine. An ancestor of mine, an exile Huguenot woman exiled by Louis the 14th (but granted land by the King of England), axed and crushed the skulls of Indians who had just murdered her grade-school children in front of her eyes.
While not xenophobic, no, I don't view Cahokia as my heritage. Given the stories that I have passed down to me, that was clearly a war of civilizations. As much as saying that might bother the sensitivities of someone today.
Fast forward to today, one of my grandmothers still speaks some German. Not much, mostly carols and stuff from when she was a little girl. But I would never say I'm anything but American, any of my compatriots who do are quite the clowns. I think you'd need a parent from another country to claim that with any reasonable credibility.
Over 50% of my family was German or Swiss in 1850, and I visited Germany to see Munich and (old) Mecklenburg, where much of my family came from. Definitely nothing to be ashamed of. Though I'd like to visit Cahokia, it won't be to reconnect with ancestral bonds so you are onto something.
I love Europe, but saying I'm a European or even close is disingenuous. It's like someone who claims to be "Mexican" but born in the US. It doesn't exist, there's literally nothing Mexican about them other than maybe the skintone. Same applies to the rest of us.
While not xenophobic, no, I don't view Cahokia as my heritage. Given the stories that I have passed down to me, that was clearly a war of civilizations. As much as saying that might bother the sensitivities of someone today.
Fast forward to today, one of my grandmothers still speaks some German. Not much, mostly carols and stuff from when she was a little girl. But I would never say I'm anything but American, any of my compatriots who do are quite the clowns. I think you'd need a parent from another country to claim that with any reasonable credibility.
Over 50% of my family was German or Swiss in 1850, and I visited Germany to see Munich and (old) Mecklenburg, where much of my family came from. Definitely nothing to be ashamed of. Though I'd like to visit Cahokia, it won't be to reconnect with ancestral bonds so you are onto something.
I love Europe, but saying I'm a European or even close is disingenuous. It's like someone who claims to be "Mexican" but born in the US. It doesn't exist, there's literally nothing Mexican about them other than maybe the skintone. Same applies to the rest of us.
"... there's literally nothing Mexican about them other than maybe the skintone..."
But the skintone is all a person needs to be treated differently from someone who is presumed to be of European descent. The experiences of a dark, medium, or light skinned person in the US are not likely to be the same.
But the skintone is all a person needs to be treated differently from someone who is presumed to be of European descent. The experiences of a dark, medium, or light skinned person in the US are not likely to be the same.
Yes but you say that as if that isn't the same around the world. I've lived in 3 countries and visited 11+ and it is. Light-skin preference is not a US phenomenon.
Not sure if that invalidates what I said? A person can live in Ireland, be 5th generation Irish and if they have dark skin will often not be presumed "Irish" by some (not all) others. I think the general idea still holds.
It doesn't and I tried to make that clear by starting off with 'yes'. Not everyone (I hope) is always trying to argue and invalidate someone else. I know that's kind of the default position in a conversation, especially online where people don't have any sense that they're speaking to an actual human being. Recipients shouldn't always take the position of sensitivity and assume everyone is attacking either (I'm frequently guilty of that).
I just wanted the inclusion that it's not a US phenomenon by any means. Preference for lighter skin applies in many places without whites at all, including places like Japan. This country didn't spring from pure evil, and definitely not in a vacuum.
I'm unsure there's a place where darker skin is actually desired or socially preferable. Even in Africa. You may be punished for being white in some places, perhaps out of the fact you're clearly a foreigner or maybe out of historical resentment. But I've never personally seem a place where being darker is actually preferred or rewarded other than artificial mechanisms which attempt to counteract this natural phenomenon.
I just wanted the inclusion that it's not a US phenomenon by any means. Preference for lighter skin applies in many places without whites at all, including places like Japan. This country didn't spring from pure evil, and definitely not in a vacuum.
I'm unsure there's a place where darker skin is actually desired or socially preferable. Even in Africa. You may be punished for being white in some places, perhaps out of the fact you're clearly a foreigner or maybe out of historical resentment. But I've never personally seem a place where being darker is actually preferred or rewarded other than artificial mechanisms which attempt to counteract this natural phenomenon.
In the U.S. we do learn about the civilizations that were here before European settlers arrived. We also learn about how unfairly those people were treated, and our understanding improves as archeology improves and new discoveries are made. The U.S. takes great pride in the Navajo Code Talkers of WWII, as an example. And we're frequently debating whether to rename sports teams, place names, and even recently decided to kick Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill because, in part, of his role in the Trail of Tears.
European civilizations are a more direct influence on contemporary American life and law, so we tend to spend more time learning about those.
European civilizations are a more direct influence on contemporary American life and law, so we tend to spend more time learning about those.
Tourist do visit the ruins we have, Monk Mound, Mesa Verde, Montezuma Castle, Gila Cliff Dwellings just to name a few. I don't want to be culturally insensitive, but our ruins are not as impressive as the pyramids in Mexico, South America or Egypt for that matter. We have nothing that even comes close to ruins in Itally, China, Burma, Syria, or Iraq.
I've even been to a bunch of ruins and ancient dwellings in the US and I had to look up their names.
I've even been to a bunch of ruins and ancient dwellings in the US and I had to look up their names.
i think the major difference is the ruins we have in the US are basically just .. really old housing.
and to be fair all the interesting stuff is in the natural history museums, which people visit _a lot_ in the US.
and to be fair all the interesting stuff is in the natural history museums, which people visit _a lot_ in the US.
> ...are basically just .. really old housing.
Indeed, old is not enough. Old and grandiose (at least for that epoch) is what attracts curiosity.
For example, something like Stonehenge could be assembled in a matter of minutes with modern machinery, but several centuries ago it was more than the state of the art. Furthermore, it hints to a knowledge of astronomy which is daily knowledge in the epoch of Hubble, but is astonishing considerind that the first telescope would have to wait for Galileo to be born.
Another example: in Italy there are plenty of majestic cathedrals. We may discuss about the utility of spending so much money and man-centuries on cathedrals, but they are just so beautiful that you get speechless once inside.
Indeed, old is not enough. Old and grandiose (at least for that epoch) is what attracts curiosity.
For example, something like Stonehenge could be assembled in a matter of minutes with modern machinery, but several centuries ago it was more than the state of the art. Furthermore, it hints to a knowledge of astronomy which is daily knowledge in the epoch of Hubble, but is astonishing considerind that the first telescope would have to wait for Galileo to be born.
Another example: in Italy there are plenty of majestic cathedrals. We may discuss about the utility of spending so much money and man-centuries on cathedrals, but they are just so beautiful that you get speechless once inside.
Mesa Verde is pretty grandiose though, the buildings themselves are a little pedestrian but very well conserved and the overall site (including the mesas) makes it pretty awesome, standing in Cliff Palace is an interesting experience.
It's a bit isolated though, unless you really want to see Four Corners (which is completely uninteresting) it's a serious détour from the Yellowstone — Salt Lake — Canyons axis from which you'd likely turn west rather than east (or turn east south of Grand Canyon to Petrified Forest then go back west immediately). And sadly I don't remember anything of interest in the Navajo reservation (back when we went through anyway) which stands right between Grand Canyon and Mesa Verde.
It's a bit isolated though, unless you really want to see Four Corners (which is completely uninteresting) it's a serious détour from the Yellowstone — Salt Lake — Canyons axis from which you'd likely turn west rather than east (or turn east south of Grand Canyon to Petrified Forest then go back west immediately). And sadly I don't remember anything of interest in the Navajo reservation (back when we went through anyway) which stands right between Grand Canyon and Mesa Verde.
>something like Stonehenge could be assembled in a matter of minutes with modern machinery //
I'd visit that, has anyone done it? Would be great to have some of the burial mounds created so you could walk through and see them from the inside too.
You could have a "moving of the stones" festival where people could come and camp and have the opportunity to take part in moving and placing some megaliths. That'd be fun! (Kinda like a Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) project.)
I'd visit that, has anyone done it? Would be great to have some of the burial mounds created so you could walk through and see them from the inside too.
You could have a "moving of the stones" festival where people could come and camp and have the opportunity to take part in moving and placing some megaliths. That'd be fun! (Kinda like a Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) project.)
Yes they did, didn't take minutes though! There's a Stonehenge replica in the wairarapa in New Zealand.
Ah, thanks, should have thought to look on Wikipedia also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge_replicas_and_deriva....
There's a replica of Stonehenge in Maryhill, Washington:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryhill_Stonehenge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryhill_Stonehenge
I think that is right, dwellings just don't compare to a temple or a colosseum.
[deleted]
Before I moved to the US I lived in Peru, where I was born and raised.
Obviously, Peru's ancient/older indigenous monuments are very impressive and common. I used to live within a 20 minute radius of a handful of them.
Second, Peru being a former Spanish colony means a good amount of impressive cathedrals, town squares, and old palaces/wealthy people homes.
When I moved to the US I moved to Texas and people told me to visit the Spanish/Mexican historic buildings, including the Alamo... they were the same kind of building that were so common in Peru they were turned into banks.
Obviously, Peru's ancient/older indigenous monuments are very impressive and common. I used to live within a 20 minute radius of a handful of them.
Second, Peru being a former Spanish colony means a good amount of impressive cathedrals, town squares, and old palaces/wealthy people homes.
When I moved to the US I moved to Texas and people told me to visit the Spanish/Mexican historic buildings, including the Alamo... they were the same kind of building that were so common in Peru they were turned into banks.
I don't know about Cahokia, but the oldest ruins out West is Mesa Verde, and there's nothing touristy close to it other than Four Corners.
A buddy of mine from Toronto came to visit California and managed to hit SF, LA, and San Diego in the space of a week and two weekends, but seeing anything older than a mission[1] would've taken ten hours of driving — one way — to get to Mesa Verde.
Sure, you could see it if you're in the states as an outdoorsy type who wants to see all the majesty of the American Southwest, but this wasn't that sort of trip. Stonehenge, by contrast, ought to be less of a detour for someone who wants to hit all the UK highlights in a week or two.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_missions_in_California
A buddy of mine from Toronto came to visit California and managed to hit SF, LA, and San Diego in the space of a week and two weekends, but seeing anything older than a mission[1] would've taken ten hours of driving — one way — to get to Mesa Verde.
Sure, you could see it if you're in the states as an outdoorsy type who wants to see all the majesty of the American Southwest, but this wasn't that sort of trip. Stonehenge, by contrast, ought to be less of a detour for someone who wants to hit all the UK highlights in a week or two.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_missions_in_California
Telluride, Monument Valley, Canyonlands, Durango+Silverton, Arches, Chaco Canyon, Bisti Badlands, and tons of smaller sites (Aztec, Salmon).
I grew up in the area. You can't really (reasonably) fly within 3 hours, but between the 34th and 39th parallels, Nevada to Kansas, is wonderful, vast, and beautiful.
I grew up in the area. You can't really (reasonably) fly within 3 hours, but between the 34th and 39th parallels, Nevada to Kansas, is wonderful, vast, and beautiful.
> managed to hit SF, LA, and San Diego [...] but seeing anything older than a mission would've taken ten hours of driving — one way — to get to Mesa Verde.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites_...
You’re right though that most indigenous peoples’ dwellings in California were made of wood or mud, and have not survived the past 500 years. The artifacts recovered from archeological digs can be seen in museums, but there aren’t really any grand monuments.
It’s a tragedy, as there once was an incredible diversity of cultures in California. For instance, I’ve heard that linguistically, the pre-Columbian languages in California had more diversity than all the languages in Eurasia. Now almost all of those are extinct or headed for extinction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites_...
You’re right though that most indigenous peoples’ dwellings in California were made of wood or mud, and have not survived the past 500 years. The artifacts recovered from archeological digs can be seen in museums, but there aren’t really any grand monuments.
It’s a tragedy, as there once was an incredible diversity of cultures in California. For instance, I’ve heard that linguistically, the pre-Columbian languages in California had more diversity than all the languages in Eurasia. Now almost all of those are extinct or headed for extinction.
Chaco Canyon is a bit older than Mesa Verde. The former started around 850 while the Mesa Verde cliff dwellings began about 1150.
[deleted]
my brother worked at Mesa Verde. That park is kinda busy.
On the way back east I met up with him and went to see the ruins at Chaco Culture national park (mentioned in the article).
its beautiful but not super popular. Its far away from things and marginally difficult drive. You can stay overnight at a camp ground on site. The ruins are really interesting, but they know very little about the people who made them, and the wildlife is less prevalent, so its not for everyone. All those reasons make it less popular.
I think wildlife is the big draw of the more popular parks.
The directions give some idea of how remote: https://www.nps.gov/chcu/planyourvisit/directions.htm
pictures https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery.htm?id=9CAF0AAE-155D...
On the way back east I met up with him and went to see the ruins at Chaco Culture national park (mentioned in the article).
its beautiful but not super popular. Its far away from things and marginally difficult drive. You can stay overnight at a camp ground on site. The ruins are really interesting, but they know very little about the people who made them, and the wildlife is less prevalent, so its not for everyone. All those reasons make it less popular.
I think wildlife is the big draw of the more popular parks.
The directions give some idea of how remote: https://www.nps.gov/chcu/planyourvisit/directions.htm
pictures https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery.htm?id=9CAF0AAE-155D...
Chaco is definitely on the remote side. I think you are right about the reasons for it being not as popular.
I'll also throw out that Chaco can be incredibly gorgeous right after a snowfall. I was lucky enough to see it right after a few inches fell: https://roundme.com/tour/23482/view/57102/
I'll also throw out that Chaco can be incredibly gorgeous right after a snowfall. I was lucky enough to see it right after a few inches fell: https://roundme.com/tour/23482/view/57102/
Chaco also has some of the darkest skies in the US. It even as an astronomy program during the summer months with several telescopes people can look through. It is a really amazing place to visit.
I live in a rural area, so I'm used to seeing the Milky Way at night. But the night sky at Chaco Canyon still blows me away.
Snow in the desert. It does get very cold at night even in september.
Beautiful. Nice panorama photo.
The place is beautiful.
The place is beautiful.
High desert, like much of New Mexico. Chaco Canyon is at 6200 feet.
Well, I can't speak for anyone but myself but I guess it's because I didn't realize ancient cities like this existed in the United States. Now that I know they do, I find myself wanting to visit and curious to learn more about the history.
My knee-jerk response was "because the U.S. doesn't have any really ancient ruins, duh." Well, guess I was wrong. Now I'm wondering if there are similar things in Australia, too.
> Now I'm wondering if there are similar things in Australia, too.
AFAIK most if not all aboriginal communities were hunter-gatherers (unless you include torres strait islanders), not settled agriculturalists, hence didn't have large fixed-place communities (and thus no source material for ruins).
AFAIK most if not all aboriginal communities were hunter-gatherers (unless you include torres strait islanders), not settled agriculturalists, hence didn't have large fixed-place communities (and thus no source material for ruins).
That's my understanding too, but then I was taught similar about the Native American people.
That was my first thought, as well, followed by the fact that it may also be because we (or at least, I) know very little about those civilizations. When I go to Rome I am imagining what Roman life was like based on my knowledge of it. My pre-existing knowledge makes the sites come alive in my imagination, and thus makes them more intriguing to me.
I don't visit American ancient ruins because I really don't want to be treated like a terrorist or criminal on entry or exit. If I'm a guest, particularly one who's paying my own way, I want to be treated like that.
I know a lot of people won't like that, and others will say "But security!" That's fine, but it's my choice and that's why I've chosen that.
I know a lot of people won't like that, and others will say "But security!" That's fine, but it's my choice and that's why I've chosen that.
I grew up a few hours away from St Louis and visited Cahokia a few times when I was young. I figure(though may be wrong) most people who grew up in south to central Illinois have been there at least once.
It was hugely fascinating and it does spark the imagination about how life would be living in such a community, but IIRC it was mostly a big mound and a museum which was mostly reconstructions.
And the big reason there's not all that much interest is that there was never any direct European contact and it was not as advanced as the Aztec/Maya/Incas.
It was hugely fascinating and it does spark the imagination about how life would be living in such a community, but IIRC it was mostly a big mound and a museum which was mostly reconstructions.
And the big reason there's not all that much interest is that there was never any direct European contact and it was not as advanced as the Aztec/Maya/Incas.
I often spent time in New Mexico to visit family as a child and we would often find unmarked sites of Indian culture. I found them to be absolutely wonderful. Some where marked with little flags noting sites. I have never been to a place more exposed and ready for discovery in my entire life. Most place I have lived are overgrown and their secrets even more hidden. Getting to the point though, I feel that the most Americans have the perspective that cultured, and ancient sites are beyond America. America is something new and the rest of the world is older and more cultured. Sadly, we have hidden a lot of the culture and history that existed here before our country. We are not the same a civilizations that has been rooted in the land like China. They have 3,500 years of written continuous history. Our tourism in America is and has always been Westernized, not a continuation of something old but an idea of something new.
Most countries founded on invasion and genocide don't want to think about the victims, or acknowledge they had a 'real' civilization. Especially when their nationalism and Constitution-worship glorifies the genociders.
You're being downvoted, but I don't think you're that wide of the mark. I think what's at issue in the U.S. is the proximity of the genocidal acts (as well as the ongoing racism) and the social consequences of honestly addressing them. Italians today don't care about the consequences of Carthage because it's so far in the past as to almost seem fictional. But if you take a more proximate example - say, the Armenian genocide in Turkey - you find a similar phenomenon of widespread denial and/or ignorance.
You d be hard pressed to find ANY country not based on invasion and genocide. Even China which was never fully invaded has a long history of civil wars and genocides to unite the different regions or keep them united.
wtf, anyplace with an "ancient" anything anywhere in the world is almost guaranteed to have been the victim or aggressor of an invasion at some point in history. go read some world history books.
But hey, at least the one in the article is thought to be Objectively Not Our Fault, having collapsed pre-Columbus.
But notice how the entire angle of the article is Our Fault (well, your fault, I'm not American). That's what people want to hear nowadays. So the fact that it is "objectively not our fault", as you say, is actually a liability.
I visited Chaco Canyon ("Anasazi" ruins), which requires driving some 17 miles over a dirt road. The ranger told me the state had offered to pave the road so more visitors could attend, but the park service declined, citing the fragility of the ruins.
An anecdote related to ruins. I made a pit-stop at the Timbisha-Shoshone tribe's reservation when visiting Death valley. They clearly had a long-running feud with the federal government about land (often mentioning that they felt like cattle when someone erected a fence around them).
I asked them where I could see some historic Indian artifacts in the area - paintings, burial grounds and the like and they were pretty offended that I had the gall to enquire such stuff.
I guess for most native Americans not enough time has passed for the wounds to heal and there is a sense of humiliation when folks show up expecting a good photo op as if they are some extinct civilization.
I asked them where I could see some historic Indian artifacts in the area - paintings, burial grounds and the like and they were pretty offended that I had the gall to enquire such stuff.
I guess for most native Americans not enough time has passed for the wounds to heal and there is a sense of humiliation when folks show up expecting a good photo op as if they are some extinct civilization.
I mean, those wounds continue to be inflicted to this day. Currently in the news is the Dakota Access Pipeline which is being built against the wishes of the inhabitants of the area and the conflict has turned violent.
They do, and they bring a lot of vandalism with them. Rampant in the southwest, unfortunately. One of many very good reasons to support the creation of a Bears Ears national monument.
That's what happens when you focus too much on STEMS education and forget about Humanities ;)
Tourists do visit archeological, ruins, & historic sites in the United States. U.S. National Park Service statistics report over 307 million people visited sites in 2015, ~24 million of whom visited National Monuments [1]. Travel & Leisure [2] lists three of those Monuments among the top 38 visited ancient ruins in the world [3]:
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_%2B_Leisure An American travel magazine published since 1937.
[3]: http://www.travelandleisure.com/slideshows/worlds-most-visit...
#19. Canyon De Chelly, >800k visitors
#25. Montezuma Castle, >500k
#26. Mesa Verde, >500k
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_%2B_Leisure An American travel magazine published since 1937.
[3]: http://www.travelandleisure.com/slideshows/worlds-most-visit...
"The concept of tourists flockingto American Indian archeological sites may seem strange if you learned in school—like this author did—that America was sparsely inhabited wilderness before Europeans arrived."
Are people actually taught this? I don't think I was. Perhaps on some level there was an unspoken assumption of this but I really don't remember anyone ever explicitly making this argument.
Are people actually taught this? I don't think I was. Perhaps on some level there was an unspoken assumption of this but I really don't remember anyone ever explicitly making this argument.
I was not taught this.
As a young student I was first taught to be thankful to the Native Americans for helping the first European settlers learn how to farm and live on the continent. That idea is enshrined in the national holiday of Thanksgiving.
Later, as teenage students, we learned more of the gory details of the displacement of Native Americans. There's no way to undo history, but we definitely learn that behavior was wrong.
The evidence, in the form of renamed sports teams, place names, and the pending $20 bill redesign, along with tourism numbers that far exceed those implied in "Why Do Tourists Visit..." article, all indicate that attempts to teach Americans about the tragedy of our past behavior are making a positive difference.
As a young student I was first taught to be thankful to the Native Americans for helping the first European settlers learn how to farm and live on the continent. That idea is enshrined in the national holiday of Thanksgiving.
Later, as teenage students, we learned more of the gory details of the displacement of Native Americans. There's no way to undo history, but we definitely learn that behavior was wrong.
The evidence, in the form of renamed sports teams, place names, and the pending $20 bill redesign, along with tourism numbers that far exceed those implied in "Why Do Tourists Visit..." article, all indicate that attempts to teach Americans about the tragedy of our past behavior are making a positive difference.
From conversations I've had with Americans raised in the American schools system, at least through the 1980s and even early 1990s (I'm less certain of more recent experience), yes, that's quite common.
Public school history education is grossly misbilled.
Between the politics, poor understanding of many (though not all) teachers, texts, and more, it only provides the barest outlines of reality, and often only a highly distorted image of that.
Public school history education is grossly misbilled.
Between the politics, poor understanding of many (though not all) teachers, texts, and more, it only provides the barest outlines of reality, and often only a highly distorted image of that.
Not only are they taught this, it is still the prevailing theory, with the number somewhere between 2 and 20 million people for the US and Canada.
The cold hard truth is there isn't enough evidence to make anything but wildly rough guesses.
The cold hard truth is there isn't enough evidence to make anything but wildly rough guesses.
There are quite a lot of tourists in New York using our subway system, every day.
Actually ruins are just that - pieces of broken stone at best.
They are not that interesting on their own in my view, but they are often in great locations - old towns with cafes and museum or top of the hill, with great views etc
If it's just ruins with no infrastructure, then there is simply not that much to do.
Actually the same can be said of Stonehenge or Egyptian Pyramids - they are really in the middle of nowhere and there is not that much to see.
I'm not saying you shouldn't visit, but given we all have limited time on earth and 'free' time is even more scarce, it woudln't be my top choice.
Source: I have visited 70+ countries so far, lived in a few of them.
Maybe the answer to the question posed by the article's title is given in this line found near its conclusion?
> By 1492, American Indians had created a giant park whose beauty and riches inspired thousands and thousands of Europeans to cross a continent.
The park, not the ruins of buildings, is what North America’s ancient inhabitants left us. People continue to conserve, visit, and learn about our natural lands today (even if we've only recently begun to understand how to care for them as past civilizations did). Not to minimize the value of archeological sites, both ruins and hieroglyphics across the United States are fascinating to visit!
> By 1492, American Indians had created a giant park whose beauty and riches inspired thousands and thousands of Europeans to cross a continent.
The park, not the ruins of buildings, is what North America’s ancient inhabitants left us. People continue to conserve, visit, and learn about our natural lands today (even if we've only recently begun to understand how to care for them as past civilizations did). Not to minimize the value of archeological sites, both ruins and hieroglyphics across the United States are fascinating to visit!
I grew up living in a small village surrounding by national forest.
Good, and lets keep it that way. Tourist are the most destructive force I have ever seen, they pollute and litter and break things and have no respect.
One of my favorite shirts as a teenager was a picture of a bear chewing on some bones that said, "Bring more tourists... the last ones were delicious!"
Good, and lets keep it that way. Tourist are the most destructive force I have ever seen, they pollute and litter and break things and have no respect.
One of my favorite shirts as a teenager was a picture of a bear chewing on some bones that said, "Bring more tourists... the last ones were delicious!"
Because there is none as far as I know.
Because there is nothing ancient in the U.S. .... It has only been a country for a few hundred years.
Canyon De Chelly as an example of a place in the United States where people have lived "for nearly 5,000 years" and people visit there.
https://www.nps.gov/cach/index.htm
And many trees are thousands of years old, which is pretty awesome and makes them fun to visit :-)
It's possible we may learn more about these places as part of the grade school curriculum in the south western U.S.
And many trees are thousands of years old, which is pretty awesome and makes them fun to visit :-)
It's possible we may learn more about these places as part of the grade school curriculum in the south western U.S.
So, in the beginning there was nothing. And then there was the USA government?
I'm heading to new york,colorado and austin in october, are there anything under appreciated ruins/monuments/national parks to visit there? So far I'm only penciled in to visit dinosaur ridge in colorado. Thanks.
I would say:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_National_Monument
It is about 6hr drive from Denver, however, and I don't know what kind of time you have available.
It is about 6hr drive from Denver, however, and I don't know what kind of time you have available.
tourist attractions have fashions and trends.
places are popular because they are popular. either because of wanting to see what so many people have talked about or because they want to be able to impress people with where they have been.
places are popular because they are popular. either because of wanting to see what so many people have talked about or because they want to be able to impress people with where they have been.
The pueblo sites in the southwest are relatively popular, aren't they? I've been to Bandelier and it was far from empty.
IIRC they're <1000 years old, do they not qualify as "ancient"?
IIRC they're <1000 years old, do they not qualify as "ancient"?
The ruins are there, depending on what you consider to be ruin.
Take for instance the Hetch Hetchy. It is the the sister valley in Yosemite that was flooded to provide water to the San Francisco Bay area.
Take for instance the Hetch Hetchy. It is the the sister valley in Yosemite that was flooded to provide water to the San Francisco Bay area.
Preliterate versus historical site: European sites not in the Greek, Egyptian or Biblical histories are often a mystery too and not heavily visited, with the exception of Stonehedge.
Huh - about an hour ago I watched a show on Cahokia on the Smithsonian Channel, and I was amazed at how I had never heard of it before.
effigy mounds in iowa vs karnak temple in luxor.
Yea its obvious.
Yea its obvious.
It's still possible, and relatively easy, to discover new ruins in the southwest. Especially around Cedar Mesa.
I read there are tens of thousands of Anazasi sites in the Four Corners area. Mesa Verde and Chaco are obviously two of the largest but there are also small sites like graineries and single family ruins out there waiting to be found. I've done a fair amount of exploring in canyon country and coming upon a ruin unexpectedly gets my heart pumping. I find unrestored ruins to be far more interesting than the reconstructed affairs found in the parks.
I grew up in Farmington. We had a fake archaeological dig at my elementary school growing up, and we actually found some legitimate artifacts, namely some pottery shards.
They also found quite a bit of stuff when the Pinon Hills Golf Course was built.
They also found quite a bit of stuff when the Pinon Hills Golf Course was built.
[deleted]
Because they look more impressive. Duh.
Do they? I mean, sure there's some great stuff all over the world, but the US has some really interesting stuff, too.
Casa Grande is incredible, the Gila Cliff Dwellings are awesome, the Cliff Palace at Mesa Verde is something to see, Monks Mound and several other mound/pyramid structures are pretty fun, too. One of my favorite things to find when I'm out hiking is ancient man-made stairs or tunnels cut into mountains, or other evidence of habitation...and there's a lot of those, including in places you might not even know were historically inhabited.
I also think it's amazing to roam around a bunch of structures built 2,500 years ago, and that were occupied and in use for about 1,000 years (the Casa Grande site was inhabited from around ~450BCE until 1450CE), by a massive and advanced civilization. There's some really cool stuff to see in the US, is what I'm trying to say.
Casa Grande is incredible, the Gila Cliff Dwellings are awesome, the Cliff Palace at Mesa Verde is something to see, Monks Mound and several other mound/pyramid structures are pretty fun, too. One of my favorite things to find when I'm out hiking is ancient man-made stairs or tunnels cut into mountains, or other evidence of habitation...and there's a lot of those, including in places you might not even know were historically inhabited.
I also think it's amazing to roam around a bunch of structures built 2,500 years ago, and that were occupied and in use for about 1,000 years (the Casa Grande site was inhabited from around ~450BCE until 1450CE), by a massive and advanced civilization. There's some really cool stuff to see in the US, is what I'm trying to say.
There are ancient ruins anywhere but the volume around Europe is just immense. I grew up in a random Eastern European town and there was a 2k year old roman arch on one of the downtown blocks attached to modern office buildings/residences that nobody even bats an eye at.
As Eddie Izzard says, Europe is where the history comes from. But, there's a lot of wonderful old things to see in the Americas, including some wonderful old things made by people.
It's more like, Europe is where the historians come from.
Partly true; India for example is infamous for not having history. But China has a long tradition of carefully curated history; "historian" was a profession of some respect.
I've read one analysis that said you don't get so much emphasis on Chinese ruins because the Chinese mostly built in wood rather than stone. Stone ruins remain impressive for a long time. Wood... rots.
I've read one analysis that said you don't get so much emphasis on Chinese ruins because the Chinese mostly built in wood rather than stone. Stone ruins remain impressive for a long time. Wood... rots.
There are even some non-ruin places in the US that are at-least equally as striking as the big tourist spots. Last year I went to see the black canyon of the gunnison, which was new to me, and was totally awe-struck.
Would there be some sort of a list of sights like these to visit for someone outside of USA?
Here is a directory of National Conservation Lands maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/nlcs.html (I didn't find a way to search by features, like presence of ruins).
Edit: I found another page with a helpful written overview of the National Conservation Lands http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/NLCS.html
Edit: I found another page with a helpful written overview of the National Conservation Lands http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/NLCS.html
While I just berated American tourists for taking the path of least resistance and mostly sticking to the "big" National Parks, there is some value in sorting out the "must-see" from the "also amazing, but not as much amazing stuff to see in one location". If you can only stay in the US for a few weeks, hitting the high points may make sense. I've been traveling for years, and still haven't seen all of them, though I'm trying.
If human ruins are a priority for you, then the ones I've mentioned are maybe the best starting points (though Casa Grande Ruins is "only" a National Monument, and not a National Park; it's maybe a place to visit for a day or two on your way to or from somewhere else, unless you have a specific interest in the Hohokam civilization or that era). Mesa Verde is astonishing in its history; it was inhabited, off and on, for thousands of years, with evidence of habitation as far back as 7500BCE, and multiple eras of civilization represented. That'd be a good one to visit if you want to learn about ancient civilizations in the Americas.
Frankly, I think one could make an amazing vacation by visiting almost any National Park: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_of_the_...
I like to spend a week or two or three camped in the park, depending on the size of the park, and what kinds of exploration one can do. Some are bigger than others. Denali could take weeks to explore pretty thoroughly, Yosemite is maybe more of a long weekend.
Note that for most of those, the archaeology/anthropology angle is minimal, though almost always present; it's usually the terrain itself that is the star of the show. Most of our National Parks will have good materials about who lived in the area and when (and it's often fascinating and a good way to spend a day or two of your visit, and there's likely to be tours that focus on that aspect of the park), but the geological/natural features are often the focus.
Our National Parks system is among the things I'm most proud of about my country (and I have lots of things to be critical of). I wish I could show it to everyone in the world; but, most Americans haven't even visited more than one or two, so I guess we should start there.
If human ruins are a priority for you, then the ones I've mentioned are maybe the best starting points (though Casa Grande Ruins is "only" a National Monument, and not a National Park; it's maybe a place to visit for a day or two on your way to or from somewhere else, unless you have a specific interest in the Hohokam civilization or that era). Mesa Verde is astonishing in its history; it was inhabited, off and on, for thousands of years, with evidence of habitation as far back as 7500BCE, and multiple eras of civilization represented. That'd be a good one to visit if you want to learn about ancient civilizations in the Americas.
Frankly, I think one could make an amazing vacation by visiting almost any National Park: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_of_the_...
I like to spend a week or two or three camped in the park, depending on the size of the park, and what kinds of exploration one can do. Some are bigger than others. Denali could take weeks to explore pretty thoroughly, Yosemite is maybe more of a long weekend.
Note that for most of those, the archaeology/anthropology angle is minimal, though almost always present; it's usually the terrain itself that is the star of the show. Most of our National Parks will have good materials about who lived in the area and when (and it's often fascinating and a good way to spend a day or two of your visit, and there's likely to be tours that focus on that aspect of the park), but the geological/natural features are often the focus.
Our National Parks system is among the things I'm most proud of about my country (and I have lots of things to be critical of). I wish I could show it to everyone in the world; but, most Americans haven't even visited more than one or two, so I guess we should start there.
Not only that, but in other places in the world, there's actually a history to connect to these ancient places. Native Americans left relatively little historical record compared to ancient people in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. I'm much more likely to appreciate an ancient site if I know more about the people who inhabited it.
I live in an RV and travel most of the time...I make it a point to visit any National anything (park, forest, monument, as well was BLM lands that seem interesting) and state parks, within 50-100 miles of my route (depending on my schedule and ability to go off the grid at that time). There are places where you'll see maybe a dozen people on your hike; while in the "big" parks, you can't spit without hitting somebody taking photos from an obvious vantage point. I've stayed in BLM campgrounds that are stunningly beautiful, and I may be the only person there for a week or more. These places often have historical significance; as much of the US does, since there were great civilizations that rose and fell here before Europeans arrived.
There's like a weird need for there to be a gate with a ranger taking entrance fees and such, for someone in the US to want to see and experience a place.