Tokyo, Bangkok, Istanbul, etc? Yes- they make the above cities seem small and not that interesting.

Seriously? I bet you have kids that get bored easily--you know what they say: boring people get bored.

I've been to Tokyo, Bangkok, Istanbul and agree that they are fascinating cities. I had the great opportunity to travel extensively due to a job I had when I was young. Are they more interesting than Chicago, NYC, and LA? Different, exotic--but more interesting? Depends on your point of view. I do not happen to think that one is better than the other.

Anonymous wrote:I have a few friends and acquaintances who give off this vibe. Like you are somehow a "better," more sophisticated, cultured person if you opt for international travel over domestic. I think this is really weird. There are a lot of cool things and places to see in this country. A colleague was asking me about my travel plans this summer and when I told her we are going to Seattle next week, she as like "oh." Apparently Seattle is boring, who knew? I guess if we were going to Greece though it would be worth discussing Do you get this vibe from people too? It's weird right?

Your post is truly weird.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a few friends and acquaintances who give off this vibe. Like you are somehow a "better," more sophisticated, cultured person if you opt for international travel over domestic. I think this is really weird. There are a lot of cool things and places to see in this country. A colleague was asking me about my travel plans this summer and when I told her we are going to Seattle next week, she as like "oh." Apparently Seattle is boring, who knew? I guess if we were going to Greece though it would be worth discussing Do you get this vibe from people too? It's weird right?

i prefer international to domestic travel for two reasons:

1) i don't like american beaches/oceans, much prefer croatia and greece for summer fun
2) the US has a lot of stunning nature, national parks etc, but i don't care much for that. i am more of a city person and american cities are in general small and not that interesting (plus i have already seen so many of them).

Nothing says small like New York, Chicago and LA.

Tokyo, Bangkok, Istanbul, etc? Yes- they make the above cities seem small and not that interesting.

Anonymous wrote:I have a few friends and acquaintances who give off this vibe. Like you are somehow a "better," more sophisticated, cultured person if you opt for international travel over domestic. I think this is really weird. There are a lot of cool things and places to see in this country. A colleague was asking me about my travel plans this summer and when I told her we are going to Seattle next week, she as like "oh." Apparently Seattle is boring, who knew? I guess if we were going to Greece though it would be worth discussing Do you get this vibe from people too? It's weird right?

you sound insecure.

Different strokes for different folks. Don't let it bother you. Travel where you want.

Personally, I've been to most major cities in the US thanks to business travel over the last two decades. I've had a blast is Seattle, but I wouldn't take my family of six there for vacation. But that's because I'd rather take them to the Caribbean on vacation...because we love the beach and water sports. I similarly wouldn't schlep to Europe to drag them through museums...not my idea of fun. We will take the kids to Europe when they are older (and we won't drag them through museums).

I only traveled domestically as a child, and I didn't even travel to most major cities. I did feel slightly embarrassed by this when I discovered my colleagues were world travelers. I'm still trying to catch up.

Anonymous wrote:This is the silliest thread ever. I have penty of money and have been everywhere.....our family takes close trips or trips involving direct flights only because traveling with a toddler is annoying. It has nothing to do with cost or sophistication...and I don't feel even the slightest bit apologetic for my simple vacation plans.

Hyperbole. You have not been everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've traveled many countries in the world - also have been to all 50 states. I think both are important. I've been to South Africa and the South, I've been to Mexico and New Mexico. I've been to China and Chinatown in New York and San Fran.

Anyone who thinks they are sophisticated because they do tourist travel overseas is a rube.

Have you been South of the Border and to "South of the Border"?

As a matter of fact yes.

Americans buying fireworks and .10 pottery for $20 is fascinating.

Anonymous wrote:This is the silliest thread ever. I have penty of money and have been everywhere.....our family takes close trips or trips involving direct flights only because traveling with a toddler is annoying. It has nothing to do with cost or sophistication...and I don't feel even the slightest bit apologetic for my simple vacation plans.

You should feel apologetic for this.

International travel is "better" because it costs more. Same reason people insist an MDX is "better" than a Pilot.

Snobbery.

"Inferiority complex" comes to mind.

This is the silliest thread ever. I have penty of money and have been everywhere.....our family takes close trips or trips involving direct flights only because traveling with a toddler is annoying. It has nothing to do with cost or sophistication...and I don't feel even the slightest bit apologetic for my simple vacation plans.

I would love to see Seattle and Pacific Northwest but extended family in Europe so vacation there.

We always travel back to our home countries in Europe and Asia (multiethnic family), and after that there is precious little vacation time or money to travel around the US. I hope we've never made anyone think we were snobs.

I would dearly like to go to every National Park!

I would never say international is better than domestic. "International travel" can easily mean going to the Caribbean where you never leave the resort, or going to London and never checking out the museums. Having said that, as someone who has been to approximately 50 countries and still travels substantially I keep going for the overseas trips because I seek out the different, not just scenery but also culture and food. The US is extremely homogeneous across the nation. There are stunning scenery but the food isn't going to be different (enough) and the culture is more or less the same. That's my experience and personal preference. And there's always that kick of going "overseas." Boarding a plane and landing in a country with a different language and architectural heritage and traditions and food. It's a real thrill for me.

Depending on the type of trip or where you go it can actually be easier to travel overseas than in the US. For example, I love mountains. I love the Alps. Why I love the Alps is because it's easy for me to fly to a main airport, take the train from Munich/Zurich/Milan into the Alps, transfer to a an highly efficient bus system if necessary and there are thousands of trails to pick from for walking (and aided by the ever so convenient ski lifts in the summer months). There are hundreds of Alpine huts that offer you excellent accommodation and wonderful food and drinks for very reasonable prices. I can easily plan a circular walking route that brings me back to the base point at the end. It's so easy to plan a week's walking trip through the Alps. However, in the US? There are spectacular mountains in the West but the infrastructure for exploring the region is much more limited. The distances are much longer, there are far fewer trails, you're more restricted in your options, accommodation seems to be either very expensive lodges or basic motels, the food is not as interesting (unless you pay for it). It can be great for picking a single trail and camping, or going to a single place and doing day walks, but you need to be much more careful in organizing the logistics. I'm not a family, I'm a single traveler (most of the time) so it's much easier to travel as a single traveler abroad than in the US.

As a single traveler, being able to take efficient, frequent and inexpensive trains and buses and domestic flights around Europe or Asia, the huge range of inexpensive accommodation available, thousands of little cafes and restaurants where I can dine alone comfortably (or street food in Asia, which is bliss), my overseas trips just offer me more benefits.

Having said that, exploring more of America is definitely on my list. I really want to tackle more of the great west. I want to see more American cities. I've been to 50 countries but not California! (airport doesn't count).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's weird to think international traveling is more exciting. It is! Geez, let's be truthful & not defensive. America is beautiful but traveling around the world is a special thing most people don't get the chance to do!

This is so weird. Why is going to London from DC inherently "better" than going to Seattle? The Mid Atlantic and the Pacific Northwest have incredibly different terrain. I don't think it's weird or lacking at all that someone living in DC might like to visit the Seattle area.

Because culturally Seattle WA is the pretty much the same as DC. At the end of the day America is pretty homogenous -- same chains, similar food, shared national identity whereas London is an international city with different history, culture, traditions.

You're using the word better, I'm not.

If you think Seattle is more exciting than London good for you, but don't be weirded out that others disagree!

What on earth are you on about?

On one hand it's not homogenous but on the other hand it's not like anyone here is vacationing at rural Louisiana or living among the Amish. Apart from geography Seattle is - at the level that a tourist is going to experience - the same as DC.