Blog #2 Deconstruct Pico Iyer's Article

In Pico Iyer’s article, Why We Travel, there are many logical fallacies and cultural assumptions that are inaccurate. Although his article is called Why we travel, a more appropriate title would be Why I travel because it is very much about him and not about society in general. Instead of writing to the masses, Iyer is targeting a specific audience, that being the wealthy upper and middle class. Iyer also makes a great deal of generalizations about other cultures that are invalid. Although some parts of Iyer’s article may appeal to those travelers who are of a high socio-economic class, I believe that the majority of his article does not speak truth to the majority of people who travel domestically or overseas.

When first reading Iyer’s article, it is not hard to notice some of the places he mentions: Beijing, Mongolia, North Korea, Cuba, and Thailand. His first assumption is that people have the means to travel to all these places. Many people only travel domestically because it is too expensive to travel abroad. Iyer then goes on to say that, “I know that I travel in large part in search of hardship – both my own, which I want to feel, and others, which I need to see.” While this notion might resinate with a lot of people, many travelers do not want to be burdened with poverty, famine, and hardship. People have their own problems and usually when they go on vacation they want to relax and feel good. Iyer’s next fallacy is that he states “holidays help you appreciate your own home more.” While this may ring true for a lot of people who come from a secure background and family, many travelers go away to escape and sometimes do not want to return home.

Iyer also makes a great deal of cultural inaccuracies that are in many cases generalizations. Iyer states, “In China, after all, people will pay a whole week’s wages to eat with Colonel Sanders, and in Paris, Mickey Rourke is regarded as the greatest actor since Jerry Lewis.” If a middle or upper class person in Beijing read that statement, I believe that they would react to it with disgust and call it a very ignorant because it is after all the 21^st century and we are in the age of globalization in which a middle class person in Beijing has more in common with a middle class person from New York City rather than someone who is of a lower class in Beijing. Although there might be people in China who will pay a week’s wage to go to KFC, there are probably people in the United States who would do the same. Just as there might be people in Paris who regard Mickey Rourke as “the greatest actor since Jerry Lewis”, I’m sure there are people in Paris who strongly disagree.

Although many people can probably relate to Pico Iyer’s article, Why We Travel, because they too want to experience hardship, experience new cultures, and indulge in exotic tendancies when they travel, Iyer’s views do not hold true for all people. Iyer’s targeted audience is people who have the means to travel overseas who are typically middle to upper class. He also assumes that people are as exotic and open as he is. Many people who do have the means to travel overseas do not want to be burdened with poverty and hardship. Throughout the article, when speaking about foreign cultures, Iyer’s tone is somewhat ignorant. He assumes that all people in China look at brands, like McDonald’s, with great admiration. While some might feel this way in China, some people also might view it with great disdain. The world is getting smaller and these brands that were once strictly American are now global and far-reaching. 

Deconstruct Pico Iyer's Article

In Pico Iyer’s article, Why We Travel, there are many logical fallacies and cultural assumptions that are inaccurate. Although his article is called Why we travel, a more appropriate title would be Why I travel because it is very much about him and not about society in general. Instead of writing to the masses, Iyer is targeting a specific audience, that being the wealthy upper and middle class. Iyer also makes a great deal of generalizations about other cultures that are invalid. Although some parts of Iyer’s article may appeal to those travelers who are of a high socio-economic class, I believe that the majority of his article does not speak truth to the majority of people who travel domestically or overseas.

When first reading Iyer’s article, it is not hard to notice some of the places he mentions: Beijing, Mongolia, North Korea, Cuba, and Thailand. His first assumption is that people have the means to travel to all these places. Many people only travel domestically because it is too expensive to travel abroad. Iyer then goes on to say that, “I know that I travel in large part in search of hardship – both my own, which I want to feel, and others, which I need to see.” While this notion might resinate with a lot of people, many travelers do not want to be burdened with poverty, famine, and hardship. People have their own problems and usually when they go on vacation they want to relax and feel good. Iyer’s next fallacy is that he states “holidays help you appreciate your own home more.” While this may ring true for a lot of people who come from a secure background and family, many travelers go away to escape and sometimes do not want to return home.

Iyer also makes a great deal of cultural inaccuracies that are in many cases generalizations. Iyer states, “In China, after all, people will pay a whole week’s wages to eat with Colonel Sanders, and in Paris, Mickey Rourke is regarded as the greatest actor since Jerry Lewis.” If a middle or upper class person in Beijing read that statement, I believe that they would react to it with disgust and call it a very ignorant because it is after all the 21^st century and we are in the age of globalization in which a middle class person in Beijing has more in common with a middle class person from New York City rather than someone who is of a lower class in Beijing. Although there might be people in China who will pay a week’s wage to go to KFC, there are probably people in the United States who would do the same. Just as there might be people in Paris who regard Mickey Rourke as “the greatest actor since Jerry Lewis”, I’m sure there are people in Paris who strongly disagree.

Although many people can probably relate to Pico Iyer’s article, Why We Travel, because they too want to experience hardship, experience new cultures, and indulge in exotic tendancies when they travel, Iyer’s views do not hold true for all people. Iyer’s targeted audience is people who have the means to travel overseas who are typically middle to upper class. He also assumes that people are as exotic and open as he is. Many people who do have the means to travel overseas do not want to be burdened with poverty and hardship. Throughout the article, when speaking about foreign cultures, Iyer’s tone is somewhat ignorant. He assumes that all people in China look at brands, like McDonald’s, with great admiration. While some might feel this way in China, some people also might view it with great disdain. The world is getting smaller and these brands that were once strictly American are now global and far reaching. 

Should we have borders?

    Countries are divided by metaphorical and literal borders. Metaphorical borders can be from culture, language, and social differences. Literal borders are what divide countries, states, towns, and cities. Borders are important not only because they simply mark off territory, but also because they keep areas safe and secure. I believe that we should have borders because they keep areas secure and because they create order.

   There are many different arguments as to how to best address our border problems with Mexico and other Latin American countries. I believe large although there are large portion of people who come through and are decent human beings, I also believe that a large portion of people who come through smuggle drugs and are affiliated with various gangs. I believe that borders are necessary in situations like these because the United States has to do its best to defend against these threats.

    I also believe borders are necessary because they create order. If there were no state lines or city lines in the United States there would be chaos. To start with, how would one know where exactly one is. Borders create distinct locations so it is very easy for people to their location. Whether its dealing with building permits, taxes, gas prices, speed limits, it all depends on what part of the world you are in and how are you supposed to know where you are if there are no borders. Long before the 21st and 20th century, people had to hunt for their own food. It was a common unwritten law that you do not go into another people's territory to hunt. You hunt in your own territory. If there were not borders to tell people if they were in their territory or not there would be madness. It would be a free for all and that would result in great tension, animosity, and aggression.

    Borders are important not only for the reasons stated above, but also because they clump people of similar language, culture, and social tendencies together. I believe that this is important because people need a place where they can bond with their own countrymen. That is why people love going back to their hometown or home country all the time, they want to be with people who speak their language, share the same culture, who part take in the same religion and cultural practices.

    Although some argue that borders are exclusive and often cause more problems than solve them, I still believe borders are the best option. Even though some of the most horrific battles we have ever seen has resulted because of border issues, it is important to see the value in borders. Although there are many reasons as to why World War II started, a main reason is borders. The Germans wanted to expand their territory into Europe and create an Aryan race. This resulted in the holocaust, great loss in life, and a great deal of destruction. While some may argue that this is a reason that there should be no borders so acts like these don't reoccur, I believe that this argues that countries should have even stronger, safe, and secure borders.

In closing, I believe that borders are a necessary and integral part in daily life. They serve to secure people and keep them safe, clump people of similar backgrounds together, which helps to promote peace, and lastly they create order.