civicmon

i'm a budget traveller more than a backpacker and i stay in hotels IF i'm arriving REAL late, like 11pm into HKG or something, after a 15 hr flight, just easier to get a real confirmed reservation and a decent night sleep before trying to find a cheap bed in the Chungking Mansions.

I just don't have the money to live a life of luxury but I have the desire, and indeed do, see the world.

ElmhurstNick

I never did the post-undergraduate backpacking thing. I did it post-graduate school, actually after nine months of working after graduate school - 38 days in Europe with my girlfriend at the time, with another friend joining us for about 15 days in the middle. I then did a 23 day Europe trip alone two years later, with no overlap between the destinations.

I stayed in midrange hotels - my target was 3* business hotels targetting business customers. 2* if I couldn't afford 3*. On the trip I took myself in 1993, my lodging budget was $1000 for 22 nights. I came in under budget without a sweat even booking all the hotels in advance, by staying in Colmar and Speiss instead of Basel and Interlaken, negotating a 3rd-night free at a little 2* in Salzburg (this was in the era of fax between me and the hotels), and planning the trip so that I had four overnight train rides at $25/couchette. Adjusting for inflation and the dollar-Euro balance, could I still do it on that budget? Sure. Would I? Maybe,

I still stay at 3* business hotels in smaller cities, such as Bern (there's a really great one across from the train station whose name escapes me right now) and Lugano. But now thanks to FT, I have tons of Starpoints and HHonors points, so I splurge in the larger cities, especially since now I'm apt to have my parents with me in those places.

But what is the difference between a "backpacker/hosteller" mindset and the "back door" mindset promoted by people such as Rick Steves? Isn't the idea to get off the beaten path? In Paris, my parents and I stay at a small business hotel in a working-class neighborhood near the La Motte Piquet metro stop on the border between the 7th/15th. There's an elementary school on the next block. We shop for our lunch at the local Monoprix, not the big one downtown. Sure, we go to all the big sights, but we also get lost wandering around, and talk to the owner of the little bakery where my dad likes to get his morning coffee. Even though I have more than enough points to stay in a Starwood/Hilton, I'd only take that option if meeting people such as FTers there.

(Of course, on my first trip to London, I stayed on Sussex Gardens and went to hospital from the mold in my room, and on my last trip, I had a suite upgrade at the Hilton Paddington on an award stay... So it's all relative!)

But my main question is why does the hostel itself make "going local" better? I don't want to share my room with a stranger, unless she's really cute. I don't even like sharing my room with friends when I travel with them, but usually money dictates that I do. But as long as I still take a little part of each day to go to a part of the city where few if any tourists will go, isn't that the point?

Altaflyer

Hostelling is an experience. Forget the room/bed aspect for a moment. The information you learn from fellow travellers about where they have been, what places are worth seeing and which to skip is invaluable. When you get back to the hostel after a day of sightseeing you can strike up conversations about all manner of topics...including politics, although these can get quite heated so one needs to tread carefully. Where I live, the Canadian rockies I can often feel like I have gone on holiday by heading for a remote hostel in the middle of nowhere Jasper National Park and sit by the campfire with a group of 10-20 travellers of all ages from around the world listening to and participating in a huge array of conversations. You don't get this at a Hilton. Then again, you may not want to and that's fine too. I really do think that by people of various cultures and backgrounds simply talking to each other we can create more understading of each other in an increasingly complex and interdependent world. Backpackers? Perhaps a bit more.

Don in LA

What a trip down memory lane this thread has been! As for the OP's original question, I have no idea what brand of backpack I used, nor where it is now, except that it had an internal frame that could be carried like a very large duffel bag when not on my shoulders. Invariably, I overpacked.

I used it on four trips: the post-undergraduate two-month trip with friends through Europe in 1986 (Pinniped: The Pink Palace was all the rage them too!), a one-year solo backpack trip through Western and Eastern Europe in 1989/90, a six-week solo trip through Central America in 1993 while taking law classes down there, and a post-graduate two-month solo jaunt through six countries in South America in 1995.

Backpacking and hosteling while single, at any age, is really the way to go. The opportunities that open up are simply not found in any other way of traveling (that includes "hooking up" with other travelers and locals. For instance, in Finland, I always had a bed reserved at the hostel, and always did my darndest to make I had alternate plans before they locked the doors for the night). I'm now happily married and have two wonderful children, but, as a result, I'll never get to travel like that again. That makes me a bit sad.

I always tried to represent the USA well, spoke the language whenever possible, and tried to use the backpack only when I had to get from Point A to Point B. I see backpackers today and, while I probably wouldn't give them a ride if they were hitchhiking, I'd certainly stop and offer them any advice I could about the places to go and see and do and drink in Los Angeles. People were always friendly to me in my travels, and it's the least I can do for this new generation of travelers.

Andrius

I don't worry about local economies that much, but I find it mildly amusing that the main pride of BPers seems at NOT staying at quality hotels or NOT knowingly eating anywhere hygienic. I fail to see what satisfaction can be derived from this negative orientation, but it's their choice.

As for the theories about backpackers hanging out with cheerful and interesting "real people" (as opposed to boring and collared-up bankers and managers who stay at presumably faceless international chain hotels where they hate each other), it is just part of shallow mythology attempting to glamorize laziness and poverty.

I met a lot of extremely boring backpackers; same way as I met a lot of very boring professional people. How talking about cheap booze and saving pennies every step of the way is more rewarding than talking about stock prices, I don't know.

How doing regimented backpacker routines (boozing - meeting the local creme of freeloaders - boozing - getting things stolen/getting arrested) and staying at cheapest rat-infested dump hotels is more clever or rewarding than doing regimented upmarket things (guided tours to Fodor's highlights - dinners at mildly authetic overpriced restaurants for tourists - 'ethnic night' at the end of the tour - carpet shop), I don't know either.

Altaflyer

Shock and horror to you that there are many lawyers, architects and bankers that are hostellers; I am a lawyer myself and have met many professional types in my hostelling travels. Indeed, staying at the local Ramada I doubt you would even know what the person in the next room does for a living!

gt_croz

The things you mention as "regimented backpacker routines" are inaccurate and things that can happen to ANY traveller. Boozing, getting things stolen/arrested, staying at a hotel with less than desirable characteristics? These things can happen to any person. An accurate description of regimented backpacker routines would be: exploring a country on a budget while commuting & eating as the locals do, staying at youth hostels to meet other travellers, packing light & covering large distances over a longer duration than the typical vacation.

Again, I'll reiterate: It's two different types of travelling. Each have their pros/cons. I've travelled both ways and I prefer backpacking because I feel that I get a much more exciting and cultural experience. To top it off, I end up spending way less money too.

Andrius

What I said might have been an inaccurate description of what backpackers do, but this is my impression from communication, over the years, with dozens of specimen in the category.

What I predominantly get are very predictable stories about getting legless / plastered / wasted in Bangkok / Tashkent / Accra / Riga, and then the dude in the room next door has his stuff nicked and starts to scream and the police come, and we all go to the police station.

Segment II in the story is a local dude who is has a van / shows us round and we go to his place and imagine THERE IS A PARTY (wedding/birthday/his brother is back from jail/off to serve in the armed forces)!!! No-one speaks any English but we have a brilliant time and everyone is drinking to our health and we get totally, like, wasted and then we miss our plane the next day. What an incredibly fascinating story - except if you have heard 20 stories like these before.

There is nothing wrong this type of leisure, though. A man who goes from one Sheraton to another and whose biggest story is how no-one spoke any English at Hilton in Osaka and he had to eat with chopsticks is no better and no worse than an average backpacker.

What makes me laugh is a self-righteous claim of being closer to 'real country' and 'real people'. By the way, most real people in countries both rich and poor work hard to make their ends meet. Local 'party dudes' found around internet cafes and backpacker hangouts are as far removed from 'real people' as you Hyatt doorman.

wanderlust_jules

I spent 3.5 months 'backpacking' around the south pacific about a year ago and it was my first 'backpacking travel' experience in over a decade since after high school going around europe. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised with hostel life... for the most part. Had I choosen hotels I probably could have afforded 2 weeks in Sydney and had about 1/3 the fun. What you gain from independent travel and the people you meet is a priceless experience worth the cost of the hostel card and I can now say I have friends in many countries that I go and visit. There are some annoying early 20-somethings out there on mom and dad's dime but they are easily avoided. I also did research and could book my own room at a hostel and just be social in common rooms if I wanted. Hands down I would do it again but also keep countries I'm traveling too in mind (safety and cleanliness of course!)

gt_croz

Unfortunately, you're right. There are people like you describe out there, but I assure you they are not representative of backpackers. There are far more quiet, considerate, respectful ones than there are party animals. I think the reason that they stand out is because they are loud, obnoxious, and draw attention. As you see from this thread alone, there are a lot of people who have partook in the backpacking culture whom you would have never assumed. These types of people are the majority of what you'll meet.

Andrius

I think it is very unfortunate that we judge about the groups of people often from most vocal and sometimes least representative specimen who offer themselves to us as their spokesmen/spokeswomen.

I should know better because I am usually the first one to be outraged about idiotic European generalizations which are made about Americans; so I suppose I should not generalize about backpackers, either

msp3

Are "backpackers" still a thing? Haven't seen any in many years...

darthbimmer

Backpackers are definitely still a "thing". How many you see is a function of the location and route. There was one next to me in line just yesterday at the security checkpoint.

pinniped

Nice bump.

I still have the same pack from when this thread started. Used it for a 10-day trip six weeks ago.

txflyer77

Head to Southeast Asia. The banana pancake trail is still very much alive.