(Report comment)

I am definitely a world citizen.

Perpetual travel requires an almost ascetic lifestyle that is not for everyone. There are many occupations and lifestyle choices that contribute to humanity but require more permanent roots to a particular location.

Perpetual travel opens yourself up to global experiences but unless those stops are semi-permanent, there will be little connection to real people and real causes. Focusing on the present is nice for yourself, but it limits your opportunities to leave a legacy to the world.

A perpetual traveler is the person visiting a museum and looking at all the artwork for a day. The World Citizen is the person on the street in front painting murals for several months at a time.

(Report comment)

When you say “I am me,” you have to differentiate from all the things that aren’t “you.” But at the same time, I know where you’re coming from when it comes to labels being too rigid. I think travel helps show that a lot of concepts are more flexible than we suppose.

(Report comment)

I may have skewed off topic there. Sorry. Back to it: I call myself a proud Canadian, but I no longer consider it home. I have a million happy memories in Vancouver, and I may again call Canada home, but I really don’t know. No matter where I am, I will always cheer someone on who’s wearing the maple leaf (especially hockey players) and will always get a shiver up my spine when I hear the Canadian anthem.

I don’t understand why anyone has to be anything. By categorizing ourselves we merely create separation, which kind of contradicts the essence of travel (as I see it).

I am me.

(Report comment)

We’re social creatures – we need one another to grow. We also need to express ourselves meaningfully for the same purpose. I’m not convinced that adhering to one way or the other will guarantee either goal. But to see things from this view does show a little more than we saw before.

(Report comment)

What importance does one role have versus the other? I think that are both important. I resonated with this line, …”Because of this, a perpetual traveler is always based in the present experience – the past is irrelevant and the future is unscripted.” I do my best to stay in the present; I’m always in the future. This is why I am working on short-term goals for myself. It will help me to be more focused in the present.

I do like to broaden my scope and think about cause and effect. If we ever have borderless relations, it would be a miracle!

(Report comment)

1. fellow members.
2. [Archaic] brothers.

Consider me a user of the word in the first, modern sense.

A bit of snark aside, I did have a serious point/question. What do you think, is there a third category here? Or is that a whole other question?

(Report comment)

We tend to forget, but anyone who’s gone through reverse culture shock will tell you that at least half of travel is trying to figure out home again. If travel is half journey and half homecoming, this scale makes more sense: PTs focus on unlimited travel, WCs on unlimited home.

@David – If home is the land itself, I’m inclined to say closer to world citizen. I say this because even though the tribe was mobile, they still moved together. That affiliation to me argues against perpetual traveler. On the other hand, neither title may apply to a people that didn’t have a concept of border to begin with.

@Eva – Not necessarily. The opposite of travel isn’t tourism. It’s “not travel.”

Is “brethren” being sexist? I’m sure you mean no offense to the sistren.

@Ian – Nationalism being outdated – maybe; but certainly how we view affiliation is under construction!

You really seem to dig Carl Sagan. That’s the second time you’ve quoted him. Good choice. Smart cat.

@jilly – Being a world citizen is more attitude than actuality, I think. I can consider borders irrelevent even if others don’t.

I also think your hypotheses demonstrate these really are extremes. Love of country is important to most of us, and trying to measure everyone the same way as at home is difficult to say the least. It also assumes, as you say, that you have the freedom and luxury to make these kind of statements.

It was fun working on this response. I’d never thought of the distinction before, and the titles are mighty colorful. I’m grateful to Mr. Falconer for the brain exercise! BNTers, don’t forget to check out his article at the link above. I’m as much a respondent to his thoughts as you folks are.

(Report comment)

The other thought I had, when reading this, is how it might be perceived by those who have taken on new citizenship at great cost. Many of my friends weren’t born in Canada and some of them value part of the relationship totally absent from the notion of “world citizenship” above: certain fundamental protections provided by the state, aka “rights.” Because they’ve lived without these protections in parts of the world. For them, citizenship is not a trite thing to be abandoned in favor of warm thoughts and individualistic ideasl, and multi-culturalism accomplishes the same goals of tolerance and openness.

A hypothetical: you’re in a foreign country and a civil war breaks out, shutting down transport and borders. Do you go to the embassy or consulate your passport will get you inside of, join the fight, or hide? How would each option fit with “world citizenship” ideas? Or was the idea only meant to be applied to happier situations?

(Report comment)

http://www.bravenewtraveler.com/2008/06/19/is-the-concept-of-nationalism-outdated/

I quote Carl Sagan, who wrote “…we live in an extraordinary time, when technological advances and cultural relativism have made such ethnocentrism much more difficult to sustain. The view is emerging that we all share a common life raft in a cosmic ocean, that the Earth is, after all, a small place…”

Since both perpetual travelers and world citizens opt to ignore the concept of borders, it comes down to how are you “contributing” to the world.

For the perpetual traveler, this can take the form of being a “mindful” wanderer. Your inner peace will radiate out even if you’re not volunteering or giving money. For the world citizen, perhaps their way of contributing is more engaged, but should also come from a place of inner peace.

(Report comment)