Essay 2

If someone describes themselves as an “anti-tourist” one may think that means they are against all tourism.  In fact that’s not always the case.  Certainly there are those who are opposed to tourism in their country, but when listening to Daniel Kalder, a self-described “anit-tourist” it can mean something entirely different.  He in fact is a tourist, but not in a traditional sense.  He would rather visit places people don’t talk about instead of the usual cliché destinations.  Why?  Well in his own words, “after a couple of years I started to find that a lot of the places we’re supposed to find interesting, or supposed to be at the top of the list, I found a strange boredom creeping in when I visited them” (Kalder).  He goes on to explain why he thought that was, saying they’ve been covered and discussed too much and he’d rather experience places that people don’t seem to care about.  He acknowledges that events that happened in popular places are important but says, “I’d rather know what happened before, or after, or in between” (Kalder).

This view on anti-tourism is an interesting one.  It’s much more complex and open to more interpretation.  I don’t think he’s saying not to go see places like Paris, London, New York, or what have you, rather to seek out places, any place, that really interests you or you don’t really know anything about, so go find out.  I for one, don’t think I believe I share the same world-view as Kalder.  Where I understand he wants to experience places he doesn’t know much about, or views as under appreciated, I am interested in seeing places of historical or cultural significance, or the usual places, with my own eyes.

Works Cited:

Kalder, Daniel. Interview. To the Best of Our Knowledge. WPR, Madison. 17 Aug. 2011.