Lives of Wander

Theresa May 3rd, 2010

Have we mentioned before how interesting it was to be abroad when Obama was elected President of the U.S. and to continue traveling through much of his first year in his office?  Have you heard our stories about the Obama grocery stores, the Obama kangas, and the baby gorilla named Obama? Have you wondered at all what it was like to be an American abroad in the midst of Obama-mania?

An article I wrote about the “Obama effect” on travel has just been published in the May edition of Perceptive Travel. Please go check it out and let me know what you think. And while you’re there, take a look at the other articles in this month’s edition as well as previous editions. If, like me, you’ve grown tired of travel magazines and websites that are nothing more than Top 10 lists and service articles, you’ll want to bookmark Perceptive Travel as it features the kind of stories that just don’t make it to print anymore in our short-attention-span society.

P.S. Thanks to my sister-in-law Paulina, who spent last summer in Uganda and helped me out with photos for the article.

• Africa , Politics
• Comments(3)

Jeff July 23rd, 2009

As I’m pretty sure everyone is familiar with, the US has a fairly sordid history in Vietnam that we as Americans don’t particularly enjoy talking about. There is no doubt about the fact that the US did some pretty evil things in Vietnam – for example, napalm and agent orange were used to defoliate the thick vegetation where there just so happened to be people living. Not to mention the basic act of the US imposing its will unilaterally. Guess we’re still making that mistake. But let there be no mistake here – in my opinion, the US certainly weren’t the “good guys” in this war.

But, well, we lost the war. And the North Vietnamese won. Communist/socialist regimes (though I’ve actually found myself delighting in the fact that they are more capitalist than America these days) are no stranger to presenting one sided stories, and the Vietnamese are no different. The Vietnamese government thoroughly presents its view on the war at three sites we visited – the Reunification Palace and War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) and the Hoa Lu Prison Museum in Hanoi.

Reunification Palace began life as Norodam Palace, for use of the French Governor of Indochina. Then it became Independence Palace in 1945, I’m sure you can guess why. It was bombed by a North Vietnamese secret agent and destroyed, then rebuilt in 1963. And since 1975, its been called the equally obvious Reunification Palace. There is allegedly Chinese character symbolism in the design of the central column of the building, forming characters for good fortune, etc. It’s really not very clear if you ask us.

Out front, the tanks that crashed through the gates on April 30, 1975 permanently rest. They and the crew that guided them are commemorated for their role in the “liberation” of the south. The inside of the Palace is beautiful, as I suppose most palaces are. But the most fascinating area I saw was the basement bunker, where war operations were conducted. All of the old radio equipment remained untouched, the maps presumably the same ones. It was eerie but captivating. We then arose into a room on the history of the Palace and further down, a video room. It was here we got our first view of the Vietnamese perspective.According to the Vietnamese government, the war was fought between all Vietnamese people and the Americans. It was a war of “Imperialist Aggression” against the Vietnamese people. No South Vietnamese people fought against the North, and the reason it took them another two years to capture Saigon after the Americans ostensibly left was not really discussed. Furthermore, and I find this odd for a socialist regime, the Vietnamese people are not glorified. Instead, the US is denigrated. The video and history display repeatedly talk about the tactical mistakes Americans made, their failed bombing runs, their failed war policies. Rarely did they mention how valiently their own soldiers fought, how they exploited weakness and kept the tactical upper hand, or anything or the sort. It was quite the opposite of what I expected.

Leaving the Palace, we headed to the nearby War Remnants Museum. The first exhibit was a haunting display of the photographs of the photojournalists killed during the war, often including their last frames from just minutes (or less) before their death (oddly, this exhibit was almost fully sponsored by Louisville based companies … the Courier-Journal, UPS, KFC, the Bingham family, LG&E, etc … can anyone explain this?). It was an amazing exhibit. But after that, the museum focused on detailing fully the atrocities of the Americans. This consisted of five separate exhibits. Now, make no mistake, the Americans did many horrible things worthy of these exhibits. There’s what Agent Orange has done to thousands of children, just tragic. There’s the endless and quite indiscriminate bombing campaigns. The torture and deadly beatings of prisoners at Phu Quoc island. The infantry attacks that left villages empty. And so on. Feel pretty lousy yet? But the activities of the North Vietnamese soldiers during this whole sordid “war” business is strangely absent. There certainly is no mention of the horrible things their soldiers inevitably did.

Now, I’m willing to concede that on a tally of war crimes and failed war policies, the US won handily. So these first two museum, while one sided, were not on the wrong side of truth. But Hoa Lu Prison, perhaps more familiarly known as the Hanoi Hilton, definitely crossed that line. Since the prison was built by the French, it was first used to house Vietnamese criminals and dissidents. The first half of the museum glorified the communist party members who suffered there under the “horrible atrocities” of those evil French imperialists, which included the worst cuts of beef and pork at mealtimes and a nine hour workday. Theresa and I both looked at each other and said “sounds better than a lot of free people’s lives.” Course, a fair number of prisoners were executed, so I suppose that’s not so great. The two best rooms in the museum, however, dealt with the treatment of American POWs. One room focused on the northern bombing campaign and how evil it was, complete with John McCain’s flight suit!

The other room dealt with how wonderfully the Vietnamese treated the American POWs. There were photos of them celebrating Christmas, a curio case with the guitar they were allowed to keep, the Americans playing basketball, and finally, the Americans being released. All the while declaring how the gracious Vietnamese government, despite the horrible things the Americans had done, treated these prisoners so well and gave them a “home away from home.” Now, I don’t think I’ve ever heard an American POW tell a story that would corroborate that tall tale. We had a good long laugh at that. But as they say, history is written by the victors, so I guess there must be some other reason John McCain can’t use his right arm.

• Asia , Politics , Vietnam
• Comments(1)

Theresa May 29th, 2008

The kayaking trip that Jeff mentioned in the last post didn’t just involve paddling around tidal waters; it also came with some history lessons on the area in general and Sandy Island in specific. At one point, we all pulled up in our kayaks as our guide described how the area in which we were floating was once a rice-growing area managed by plantations where over 1,000 slaves were put to work. On one hand, it was interesting to learn a bit of history. On the other hand, we all agreed at the end of the trip that the way the history was presented made us feel a little bit uncomfortable. Our guide repeatedly stressed how well the slaves in this area were treated and how profitable the plantations were. There was maybe a brief aside acknowledging that slavery was, perhaps, not the best thing, but we all felt the guide was a little too sympathetic to this horrible part of our history. Hey, the plantations were turning an 8% profit, how could it be wrong?

It’s always tricky dealing with history in which there is an obvious winner and an obvious loser, an obvious bad and an obvious good. The first time I came across a memorial to fallen German soldiers while living in Freiburg, I spent some time staring at it uncertain as to how to interpret it. I mean, Germany was obviously the bad guy in this battle. How could they be memorializing their soldiers? I get a bit of the same feeling when I see Confederate war memorials. But then, if you take a moment to think about it, you realize that it’s not that simple. The fallen soldiers were husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers, and they died fighting for something they believed in. Whether they simply believed in their country or in objectives that we find abhorrent (the annihilation of a race, slavery, etc.), we have no way of knowing. Whether they fought willingly, even exuberantly, or whether they were forced into battle, we also will never know. All we know are that these are men who went away to war and never came home. The facts are obscure, the history incomplete.

History is a funny thing. It seems it should be objective. This happened. Then this happened. Then because of this, this happened. But it’s not like that at all. Instead history is interpreted. The winners have their version. The losers have their version. The governments have their version. The people on the ground have their versions. There are individual histories and collective histories, private memories and public memories. And as time passes, the histories and memories merge and change. I find this process to be completely fascinating, and if I were ever to return to school it would be to study history and memory.

On our trip, we’re sure to have multiple experiences in which history is presented in ways that differ from what we know. Sometimes the facts will have been blatantly distorted. Other times the facts will be interpreted in a way different than what we’re used to. And on occasion, we’ll be presented with history that we know little about and will thus have little basis on which to judge the accuracy of it. The history we’re taught as Americans is not just our version of it, it’s also often woefully incomplete. Admit it, unless you’re a history buff who sought out specialized college courses, you probably know little about the Korean War and probably not all that much about Vietnam. The Cold War is a vague idea that seems almost quaint. Iran-Contra is in your vocabulary, but explaining it might be beyond your capabilities. With history classes always seeming to start with the Tigris and Euphrates River Valley and the rise of civilization, there never seems to be enough time for any amount of focus on the twentieth century. A brief glossing over of all that happened from WWI to the present is about as good as it gets. And even then, the focus is almost exclusively on Western Civilization. What happened in the rest of the world goes without mention, unless somehow the U.S. got itself involved. An incomplete education, indeed.

I’m going to go ahead and be a nerd here and say that I’m really interested in learning some new history on this trip and getting a different viewpoint of history that I think I already know. I’m sure sometimes the new info will be interesting. Sometimes eye opening. Sometimes downright hilarious.

• Politics
• Comments(0)

Jeff May 7th, 2008

I’m sure you all have heard, especially if you’re making it to this blog, of the tragedy in Burma from Cyclone Nargis. As bad as Hurricane Katrina was, Nargis has already killed ten times as many people, and there are many many more unaccounted for. There are stories of entire towns, houses, people and all, being literally washed off the map. Those left in its wake face even more hardship, now having to fend off disease, find food and clean water, and start putting their lives back together.

I think what strikes me most about this tragedy is how “unavoidable” it was. There are some reports that the people were not notified well enough, but first of all, there is no clear way to contact everyone as its not like there is a TV or radio in every house. Even so, I’m sure people are quite skeptical of the state run media by now, not to mention people often don’t abide by storm warnings, as we so often see in this country. The truth is that the only thing that would have really saved lives is better infrastructure, and that does not come without a stronger and more developed economy. That path was carved 30-40 years ago. So say what you will about the regime there (and we have), but there was not much they could have done to prevent this tragedy.

What they can do, however, is address the aftermath with conviction and honesty. Their people need all the aid they can get and there are people around the world willing to give it to them. This is where their actions most offend me. So far, they are making things rather difficult because of bureaucracy. The only place to get a visa into the country is through the office in Yangon, which, as you may imagine, is not very functional at the moment. I imagine this will find an expedient resolution very soon, and there are already a number of amazing organizations already in the country doing their best to provide necessities to the people of Burma. The Network for Good has a great post about the best ways to start helping the people put their lives back together. Please do what you can to help the Burmese people get back on their feet so they can go get their democratic leaders (in 2011 … if its not ignored this time).

• Asia , Burma , Doing Good , Politics
• Comments(3)

Theresa April 8th, 2008

Did you know that:

During Mugabe’s rule the average life span of Zimbabweans has fallen from 65 to 30 years, the lowest in the world? Mugabe himself is 84.

Mugabe was inspired by Gandhi’s passive resistance movement and once vowed to use similar principles to help his own nation gain independence? He has, however, killed tens of thousands of people in ethnic cleansings since taking power.

Zimbabwe, under Mugabe, has the highest inflation rate of any currency in the world? Current estimates put it at 100,000%. Money is virtually useless.

Zimbabwe was once called the “breadbasket of the world”? Since Mugabe began his program of forcefully taking farms from white farmers and redistributing them (primarily to friends and political cronies), 1/3 of the population has had to rely on the World Food Program to avoid starvation.

In 2005, 10,000 of the poorest Zimbabweans were left without a home when Mugabe had the shantytown to which he had has his administration relocate these people destroyed? One of Mugabe’s many palaces was only a mile down the road.

Zimbabwe has the potential to be a wonderful place. The marvelous Victoria Falls lies on its border. Splendid African wildlife roams its plains. The land is arable and has a history of abundant production. The education system was once one of the best in Africa. In the 28 years that Robert Mugabe has ruled, however, Zimbabwe has been brought to its knees, virtually destroyed by a man the world once thought would save it.

Things do not look good, but on April 2, there was a ray of hope, as word leaked out that Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change had garnered over 50% of the votes in the March 29 election. A run-off was supposed to occur within three weeks between Tsvangirai and Mugabe. It looked like regime change might be on the way. However, Mugabe, not surprisingly, has not been cooperating with the process. Official results have yet to be released, and Mugabe has cried foul in regards to the counting of votes. He has also begun to crack down harshly on opponents, arrest journalists, and instigate violence in order to derail a run-off.

The future of Zimbabwe is at a crucial point. We must hope that the pendulum swings in the right direction. We must also do more than hope. I strongly urge each of you to contact your congress person, your president, and the United Nations to ask them to do everything in their power to see to it that this election process can continue and continue peacefully.

U.S. Representative to the United Nations: Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad, usa@un.int, (212) 415-4000
The president: comments@whitehouse.gov, 202-456-1111
Find your representative’s info: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
Find your senator’s info: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

• Africa , Politics , Zimbabwe
• Comments(3)

Theresa March 30th, 2008

Take a look at the State Department’s Information Sheets for each of the world’s countries, and you may want to never leave your home. Should you leave the friendly (?) confines of the United States, you will likely be robbed, raped, stabbed, shot, and then buried in an unmarked grave. You may also be the target of a terrorist event, particularly in Europe, where, I quote “open borders…allow the possibility for terrorist groups to enter/exit the country with anonymity.” Even in countries that seem relatively benign, the alarmist State Department can come up with something for you to worry about. For instance, did you know that when in Austria, you “should be particularly careful not to leave valuables at [your] table while serving [yourself] from the breakfast buffet”?

Sure, the State Department has a responsibility to alert U.S. citizens to the threats that may face when traveling, but shouldn’t the warnings come with a reality check? After all, the same exact things are just as likely (if not more likely) to happen to you while you’re in America. In case, you weren’t aware our crime rate is relatively high, particularly in our cities, and our rate of gun crime is, in fact, much higher than it is in many other countries. A few months ago, my friend Jessica met a British guy at a restaurant here in DC who was absolutely convinced he was going to be shot while here. I’ve lived here nearly four years now and never once thought that, nor really ever felt even remotely unsafe. But, hey, if you look at the DC murder numbers without any context, you might be fearful too. Too bad the State Department doesn’t do an information sheet for the U.S. That would certainly be interesting.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not a laugh-in-the-face of danger kind of girl. I have no wild desire to go anywhere where my life would be in real danger. But as I plan this trip, I’ve been confronted with the consternation of figuring out what places are actually “dangerous.”

I, for one, will immediately put any location in the middle of a war in the category of dangerous. But what about countries that aren’t at war, per se, but are led by men (yes, always men) who are more than a little unstable. Iran, for instance, or North Korea. Would I really be in danger if I went to either of these? Perhaps, I honestly don’t know. (Don’t worry, Mom, I don’t plan on finding out.)

And how about Venezuela, Columbia, or Bolivia? Columbia, interestingly enough considering all the bad press it gets, has a pro-American government, and I’ve heard nothing but raves about it from other travelers. The kidnapping/rebel thing is a little unnerving admittedly, but what are the actual facts on that? Venezuela and Bolivia both have socialist governments that aren’t exactly fond of America, but what have they actually done to cause us to be fearful of them? And come on, let’s be honest, they aren’t the only countries down on America right now.
With the exception of the most committed world politics junkies, most of us have fairly spotty knowledge of what is happening around the globe. Keeping up with our own lives can be trouble enough sometimes. And in the end, we’re forced to rely on the information we have at hand…newspapers, television news reports, the State Department website. At best, these sources are incomplete. At worst, they’re biased. So what’s a traveler to do? Best I can figure, you follow the news (but rely on more than American sources for a well-rounded perspective), talk to other travelers who have recently been to the area you’re interested in, trust your instincts, be smart, and for Pete’s sake don’t leave your belongings unattended while you gorge at the breakfast buffet.

So go ahead and tell me what you think. Where won’t you travel because of safety concerns and/or what causes you to deem a place unsafe?

• Politics
• Comments(6)

Theresa February 17th, 2008

In the last post I wrote, I talked about the influence of American politics on the rest of the world. While writing that post, Jeff and I got to discussing a related idea—how difficult it is to hear other people criticize your country when you’re traveling.  It’s almost as if America is family; I can pick on it all I want, but by God, you better not say a negative word about it.

America is an easy target. We wield a huge amount of power, and we often do really dumb things.

I’ll be the first to admit that I think our current President is a moron, that the war in Iraq is a disaster, that our environmental policy stinks. And if you, Mr. or Ms. Non-American, say these things to me during a civilized discussion, I’ll acknowledge that you’re right. But if you just throw out an insult, or if you catch me in a foul mood, I’ll be right up in your face defending America tooth and nail. Though W and I don’t see eye to eye on pretty much anything, you better not tell me that he’s a terrorist. You better not say that our war is worse than the 9/11 attacks. You better not claim that America is evil. I don’t deal in platitudes and gross exaggerations. I don’t deal in comparisons of horrors. I know that America is good. And if you even dare go anywhere near these statements, you better have a damn good answer about what your country is doing to make the world a better place.

Way back when Jeff and I first started planning this trip, I mentioned to him the one thing that I would have a really hard time putting up with. It wasn’t squat toilets. It wasn’t long bus rides. It wasn’t having limited clothing options. It wasn’t even dealing with foreigners who hate America. Most of them don’t know America well enough for their opinions to count. The thing that will be hardest for me is dealing with those Americans, who we’re bound to come across, who love to have pretentious conversations about how stupid/awful/self-involved/arrogant/whatever America is and how whatever third world country they’re in at the moment really has it figured out.

Sure, I agree, the $6 beachfront bungalows and the $2 steak dinners and the $0.50 massages are awesome. But you know why they’re awesome? Because you can afford them. To the people who live in these countries, all of that is still out of reach. Education, health care, a chance to improve their lives…that, too, is probably out of reach. I’m not saying you need to pin an American flag to your backpack the way the Canadians pin the maple leaf to theirs (why, again, do they do that?). I’m just saying that you need to be a little more respectful of where you come from, a little more humble about what you’ve been given, a little more thankful that by the grace of God (or whatever higher power/good luck you want to acknowledge) you were born in a place that might not always do the wisest things or act in the best way but allows you a hell of a lot of opportunity.

I am not a flag waver. I can’t even begin to describe how frightened I was to come home to a post-9/11 world after months away and find flags plastered everywhere and the national anthem de rigueur at every event right down to the ballet. But send me out into the world for an extended period of time, and the patriot inside comes out. During the 2002 World Cup, my roommates and I risked life and limb to wave an American flag and chant wildly at a German gathering as the U.S. played (and almost beat) Germany. And I don’t think I’ve ever heard a more perfect rendition of our national anthem then when our German hallmates sang it to us (print out of the lyrics in hand) from the balcony as we played wiffle ball on the 4th of July at our Freiburg dorm.

Distance does indeed make the heart grow fonder.

• Politics
• Comments(7)

Theresa February 11th, 2008

Tomorrow Jeff and I go to the polls to cast our votes in the Maryland presidential primary. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that the presidential race is pretty big news here in the United States. Record numbers of people have been turning out to register their thoughts on who should be the next to lead our country. We may possibly witness a turning point in American history–the election of someone who is not a white male. We’ll see. The fact that the Democratic nominee will be either a black man or a white woman is, in itself, groundbreaking.

But interest in our election is not confined to within the American borders. People all over the world are keeping an eye tuned to the race. For better or worse, American politics affects people all around the globe. Our policies on immigration, on economics, and on environmental issues travel wave-like out from our shores, impacting millions and millions of people who don’t have a vote to cast in this election. Our policies on war and defense can mean life or death for those living in countries we consider unfriendly and those living in countries that join with American forces when we go to war. It’s rather amazing to consider how important U.S. elections are to the world. Makes you wonder why it’s not more important to some Americans–particularly those who don’t vote.

The two years I spent living abroad happened to fall within a period of particular worldwide interest in American politics. I flew to Germany one week to the day before the attacks on the World Trade Center. I stood staring at a store’s TV display, surrounded by crying Germans, and watched the towers fall. (It was the middle of the afternoon there.) Over the course of that year, as we went from a country under attack to a country on the attack, I watched the tremendous goodwill of the German nation turn to animosity and anger. I lived in Greece in the run-up to the 2004 election, seeing first-hand how passionate other people were about American politics.

What stuck with me most from these two experiences is the forthrightness with which foreigners are willing to ask you about your political leanings. I can’t even count the number of times I got in a cab and was directly asked who I voted for or who I was going to vote for. Perfect strangers had no problem asking me what I thought of Bush and giving me their uncensored opinion. It was often startling. That’s not something we do here in America. It’s like asking someone’s weight or age or how much they make. Taboo. Sure, we discuss politics with friends and family. When we are fairly certain of a person’s political leanings, we might be free with our views. But we don’t ask people who they voted for. I mean, isn’t that why there’s the little curtain at the voting booth?

I certainly appreciate the idea of the secret ballot. No one should feel bullied into voting for anyone. But at the same time, don’t you think it might be productive for people to be “forced” to answer for their vote? Shouldn’t we have a reason for voting the way we do, and shouldn’t we feel strongly enough about that reason that we’re willing to stand up for it? If someone should ask us how we voted, shouldn’t we give a proud answer rather than responding that it’s none of their business. We might all vote a little smarter if we were held accountable for our vote…not, of course, by government or anyone official or threatening (God forbid), but by our friends, by our families, maybe even by our cab drivers.

For the 2008 general election, in which the 44^th president of the United States will be chosen, Jeff and I will be somewhere in South America. (Which reminds me of another thing to add to the to-do list: figure out the best way for us to cast our votes.) From that far-away perspective, it will certainly be interesting to not only see how America votes, but also to observe how the rest of the world reacts.

(Our apologies for the lack of posting the past week. Hectic doesn’t even begin to describe our lives at the moment, but we plan to post more this week, including a follow-up we already have in mind to the current post. Please keep checking back and leaving your comments!)

• Politics
• Comments(7)

Theresa October 4th, 2007

Since Jeff and I first decided to take this round the world trip–it’s been years in the making now…hurry up with the PhD already–we’ve been makings lists of places we want to go. We get a zillion travel magazines and we’ve read through books like “1001 Places to See Before You Die” and “Lonely Planet’s A Year of Adventure,” searching for locations that seem interesting to us. So far, we haven’t settled on anything certain, but we have a pretty good idea.

One of the places on our list was Burma, although it had a faint little question mark next to it. It’s a place we’d both like to discover but that we had uncertainties about. As a country led by an oppressive and illegal regime, we wondered what was the right thing to do. For political reasons, should we boycott this country, refusing to contribute money to a corrupt and cruel government? Or should we go in spite of the government, to meet the people, to better understand the situation, to try to put money into the hands of people who need it? We hadn’t really formulated an answer.

Recent events have made it such that the decision is not so difficult. Clearly Burma is a troubled and dangerous place–at the moment for travelers, probably always for citizens. And even if it calms down, I am not sure we’d go. I think before, when violence wasn’t so blatant, it was somewhat easier to justify a trip there. Now, with my political sensibilities more strongly awakened, it seems that it would be wrong to go against the wishes of democratically-elected leader Aung San Suu Ky, under house arrest since 1990, who asked that people boycott the country until the military regime is deposed and civil liberties are restored. I hope that happens soon, that these protests are not futile, that democracy is indeed on the brink of a comeback. And I hope that not just for my own petty interests, but for the welfare of a people.

What do you think? How much should issues such as these play in to decisions about travel? I’m not exactly sure if I can draw a line in the sand, establish a base criteria. I’m not going to go to somewhere that is clearly dangerous—Iraq for example. But I don’t want to not go somewhere because of sensationalized danger that is in fact, not truly there. A fair amount of people thought we were crazy to go to Egypt in 2004, but if I hadn’t had gone, I would have missed one of the most amazing and friendly places I have ever been. And what about when a place might not exactly be dangerous but is very strongly anti-American? Although I hear wonderful things about Iran, I’m not planning to go there. However, I think we will go to Venezuela, which is led by a man nearly (or just) as crazy and anti-American as Ahmadinejad. I can’t articulate my reasoning, and I can’t say that it won’t change. Often making decisions about travel has to do a lot more with your gut than your head. It’s a rapidly changing world, and sometimes even a line in the sand is a little too permanent.

• Asia , Burma , Politics
• Comments(12)