Travelling and Exploring

Travel broadens the mind. Says who? Look at Chris Columbus, his opening up of the New World, the Age of Exploration and setting in motion of a momentous chain of events that were to shape the future of the peoples of this world. Hats off to the spirit of dynamism and adventure of this single man. But could the Conquistadores crazed by part a psychopathic attitude to religion that took orgiastic pleasure in suffering inflicted both on the self and others and part by material greed, or the other kinds of colonists who came in their wake, be called broad-minded? Brave, adventurous, enterprising and all that perhaps but broad-minded? Judging by the way they treated other cultures and civilizations, some of them arguably more sophisticated than theirs, could they be really called that? Have been dabbling a lot in Spanish history of late, watched this wonderful BBC series that ties together Spanish art and history and was led sort of naturally to the question : how much of modern Western progressive thinking that we all like to be part of now, the so-called Age of Enlightenment and all that jazz had actually to do with exploration and contact with other cultures? There are of course several Google Books on the subject. But it seems to me that any meaningful dialogue between different cultures wasn't possible till the nineteenth century; so when Western scholars weren't busy cataloging various aspects of native cultures as they normally were doing from the 16th down well into the 20th, they just used native societies as mirrors held upto their own, and used the "noble savage" figure to settle their own debates about the nature of Man and God.

Coming back to the question of travelling, from experience I've been led to believe that while travelling is close to a necessary condition for being broad-minded, it is hardly sufficient. So many touristy travellers just travel around a lot, seeing places superficially, always grumbling, complaining and critical of anything local while no harm would have been done if they tried to be a little patient and understanding and appreciate the really good things in the place . Take these travel entries from some Brit blogger that I casually chanced upon for instance : it was full of complaints about how things are run inefficiently in India. As an Indian I would be the first one to own upto that. But then aren't you already expecting all that and taking a conscious choice when you are choosing to visit India? The blog just read like a monotonous grumpy rant about how the train coaches are numbered badly, how there was no toilet paper at the hotel in Calcutta and how unhygeinic the eatery was in Bombay. Do such people travel to poor countries because they need some re-affirmation of faith in their own advanced first world societies and governments? On a different note, take the case of these American middle-aged couple I had spoken to sometime. They had been to France and thought that the French were really unfriendly and unwelcoming to English-speakers. Now I haven't been to France but know well enough of their historical problems with English. Maybe a few people would be unfriendly but why generalize? Why the hell would you expect French people to speak English at all? Perhaps the people you met even tried to speak politely to you but didn't even know enough polite words in the language? I'm sure if you had tried to learn and speak a little bit of broken French, they would have liked you a lot more. Yes maybe people who would react thus are chauvinistic and not liberal enough, but it's the traveller I'm talking about here. The locals will always have their prejudices and problems, but isn't it part of the traveller's job to be prepared for that and actually adapt to that if they wanted the full out of the travelling experience? Why even the BBC, which I so dearly love for its objective and internationalistic perspective, doesn't require its presenters to get the pronunciation of non-European proper nowns right.

Most travellers unfortunately even now seem to be stuck in a Conquistadore-complex. And Western civilization despite its wonderful achievements is still too full-of-itself. Why do the wars in the Middle East or Afghanistan get reported far more than the equally deadly ones in Darfur or Congo? Because Western interests are directly implicated in the former. Some will say : what's wrong with that? Each country or culture behaves selfishly when it comes to protecting its own interests. But I was raised to believe that progressive and humanist thought is important, and the more empowered and educated should bear a bit more of the responsibilty.