Before the 20th century, travel was largely the province of the upper classes (one-way travel, on the other hand, was popularly known as “emigration.”). National economies weren’t as dependent on travel as they are today, nor did many nations develop tourism as a means of economic development. During the 19th century, as the notion of leisure time began to develop, guidebooks were written for the moneyed classes, who had both the funds and the time for sightseeing. Starting in the 17th century, “The Grand Tour” was a rite of passage for young, well-bred graduates of prep schools and finishing academies, before the assumption of their adult lives.

The advent of industrialized transportation made a trip to the seashore or to a mountain resort possible for an expanding middle class, and by the dawn of the 20th century, travel as a leisure activity bloomed. Many countries began to take notice, and tourism boards developed, niche tourism flowered, and concepts such as “eco-tourism” took root.

Now, in the 21st century, most people have traveled a bit, especially compared to their grandparents and great-grandparents, some of whom never traveled more than 100 miles away from home, or left the state/province, or even journeyed outside their own country. Some regions of the world, while not wholly dependent on tourism, derive a large percentage of their GNP (Gross National Product) from the jet-setters.

The United States, while it has a diversified economy, still depends on tourism to an extent. In 2003, the United
States’ Travel & Tourism Industry was expected to generate 4.3 per cent of GDP and 6,480,480 jobs (for more, see this report (PDF)). Although this was nearly four years ago, the figures are probably somewhat the same these days. While 4.3% is not a lot, over 6 million jobs is a big deal, especially when you consider the ripple effect should many of those jobs vanish.

It is rather troubling, then, to realize that foreign travelers are starting to avoid the United States. Countries such as Great Britain, Spain, and others where terrorism and political instability have existed generally have no problem with customs procedures, and from what I’ve heard, are generally reasonable about entry and exit policies (Israel being a possible exception; they’ve just changed their luggage identification policies, are known to thoroughly question travelers, and have security every thirty feet(or so it seems). But a dual citizen offers an interesting take comparing the U.S. and Israeli systems).

Here in the States, there is a proposal to start gathering data about religious beliefs and sexual habits from passengers. This is a huge difference from asking the purpose of a trip and the origin and destination of a traveler. If I were traveling, I would consider questions about where I’m coming from and going to to be somewhat intrusive, but at least logical. Queries about my spiritual beliefs and what I do behind closed doors is a different matter entirely.

I’m wondering if passengers who will merely be changing planes on U.S. soil will be subjected to these questions as well. As it is, travelers now have to undergo heightened security, fingerprinting, and constant waiting. As Nonny Mouse, who traveled on a flight from England to New Zealand, with a stopover here at LAX, relates:

“…we were herded into a bigger Immigration area, where all those who were not US passport holders filled out long green cards asking detailed personal information, to be handed over to US Immigration officials busy taking everyone’s fingerprints and photographs.”

Nonny is a U.S. national, but for someone who is on U.S. soil for the first time, and not even leaving the airport, this treatment really reeks of American hospitality, doesn’t it? This kind of treatment based on gummint policy is having consequences, as the “Ask the Pilot” column at Salon, notes:

Air New Zealand has … launch[ed]… a service from Auckland to Europe with a hassle-free transfer at Vancouver, British Columbia, eliminating its long-standing Auckland-Los Angeles-London route. Air Canada is following suit with a nonstop Vancouver-Sydney flight, bypassing its traditional layover in Hawaii, which, in the words of the magazine, “will enable global travelers to avoid the United States.”

Security is important, yes. But illogical, intrusive, boorish policies complicate international relationships and our global image, which is now having consequences. I’ve spoken before about the treatment of people traveling within the United States, and mentioned the proposed x-ray screening machines. Somehow none of this makes me feel safe, secure, and welcomed. I can’t imagine others feel reassured either.

The money we’re spending on the security we have doesn’t seem to be doing a whole lot other than turning a lot of people off to travel within and to the United States. There are also questions as to whether what’s being done so far is doing any good. As the “Ask the Pilot” columnist, Patrick Smith, notes, profiling and prohibitions on shampoo bottles probably are a waste of time, energy, and money– money that could be put to better use.

In the meantime, our global brethren are avoiding the friendly skies, or at least those skies directly above and within the United States. Let’s hope someone who is in a position to do something about this is paying attention…

New York City, like many port towns, is a city of endings and beginnings. For many in the United States, it’s where our families first entered America, ending their lives in the “Old World” and beginning a new one in a nation seemingly full of possibilities and promise. Until 1954, that point of transition was located by the docks, at Castle Garden, or Ellis Island.

Today’s immigrants frequently arrive by plane, and undergo the journey through customs. While customs can be anything from a relative breeze to a trying experience, it’s nothing compared with the long waits people had to make at times at Ellis Island, or the days of isolation on the West Coast’s Angel Island. A few years ago, we were able to get a slight glimpse of what it might have been like for the European immigrants when we toured Ellis Island, which had recently reopened as a museum. On that particular trip, we only viewed the main building; the rest of the island was closed to the public. There was a vague promise that some buildings and areas might eventually re-open.

It’s about ten years later, and a lot has happened since– not just in NYC, but also in regards to Ellis Island. While no new buildings had opened, immigration records became available online, which is a boon for genealogists like me (most of my ancestors came through other ports, or arrived in NYC earlier, at Castle Garden, so Ellis Island records have been a bust for me. But they might not be for some of you…).

Just last week though, the announcement came that new portions of Ellis Island would again re-open as part of Ellis Island National Monument and the Immigration Museum. Not only is that exciting news for history buffs like me, but it’ll also give the average visitor a chance to see more of what their ancestors might have gone through, and bring home the story of immigration and immigrants a bit more. At a time when there’s been quite a bit of rancor in the press lately over immigration, I think it’d be useful for people to perhaps reflect on where they came from, how their families got here, and how the struggles and challenges of the past enabled them to enjoy the lives they have today.

I’m not sure when I’ll go to NYC again– it’s an expensive town to visit. A friend recently took his family to the city on a day trip, and told me it cost more than he’d planned. I can understand– L.A. isn’t exactly cheap thrills either, if you want to see some of the highlights (the Huntington Library and Gardens, for example, is $15 per person; a single ticket to see the Queen Mary in Long Beach will set you back at least $22.95 for the cheapest tour). But if you plan to go, and you want to see Ellis Island, I suggest you pair it with a visit to the Lower East Side; although it’s far more upscale and trendy compared with the days of Five Points, the Tenement Museum gives you a glimpse into what it was like for immigrants after they left Ellis Island and arrived in Manhattan. I’d like to see this particular museum again, to see what they’ve added, if anything (looks like they’re setting up a new room for the “Irish Immigrant Experience”). It’s definitely an eye-opening experience. You can read books and watch movies that reflect the immigrant experience, but there’s nothing like actually seeing what a two-room apartment that held large families or numerous unrelated individuals, and realizing that we’re fairly spoiled today.

Of course, the area is much different today, and the waves of immigrants that lived in this part of New York have since moved to the suburbs and beyond, where some of their far more prosperous descendants live today. Something worth considering the next time you think immigrants don’t belong here. The family that today works in the orchards picking your fruit and vegetables could very well spawn a child that eventually makes it out of the substandard housing and living conditions in the fields, and have descendants who live next door to your own offspring. It’s happened before…

Right now, I’m either safely in my seat, chewing some gum and reading a magazine, or (more likely!) dozing off to sleep as the stewardesses bustle up and down the aisle. I’ll be leaving on a jet plane this morning for DC, so it’s highly doubtful I’ll have updates for you at this site until I return. If I can manage it, I will. More likely though, you’ll have better luck seeing what I’m up to over the next few days here. Check it out; I aim to please, and hopefully you won’t be disappointed.

NOTA BENE: the following links are NOT safe for work, kiddies, or other easily offended (or aroused) people. *YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED*

Although I’ve never been to Europe, or outside of the Northern/Western Hemispheres, I’ve traveled quite a bit in the United States. So I’m pretty used to how advertising works here in the U.S. of A. One thing that was kind of interesting when we went to Florida last month was the proliferation of billboards every few miles for either churches or gun shops. But the best juxtaposition was one that I’d seen every so often, an anti-abortion billboard, right next to another frequent contender: a billboard advertising vasectomies. Who says Southerners don’t have a sense of humor? In the same vein was a bridal shop in Jacksonville, conveniently located right next door to a “pleasure” shop. Florida’s an interesting state, that’s for sure.

Over the years, I’ve also heard quite a bit about how Europe and Europeans are quite different from us Americans. Someday I hope to have the chance to see this for myself firsthand, but in the paper yesterday was a rather interesting article about advertising campaigns abroad.

A French clothing company, Shai, decided to launch an internet-based advertising campaign for its clothes. This by itself isn’t unusual, but the tack this particular company has decided upon is rather, um, different.

As you’ll see in this article, the company in question hired a few porn stars to model the clothes, while simultaneously practicing their trade. The initial article attracted my attention, but it did make me think. Just what are we prepared to accept as far as advertising? Obviously you’d never find this in America– we still have a Puritan ethos that shadows much of what goes on in this country (for example, lots of movies will be shown in theaters with gratuitous violence, and get a rating of PG-13 or R, but show just a flash of frontal nudity, especially MALE frontal nudity– bam! An R, or the box-office killer, NC-17. Kind of hypocritical, I think. It’s the subject of an upcoming movie, “This Movie Is Not Rated,” and I’m looking forward to seeing it). Will people actually pay attention to advertising solely on the model, or how much skin they show, or if they’re slender enough? For example, a lot of women’s clothing models are far more svelte than the average American woman these days. How realistic is that?

Am I going to buy underwear because the model looks good? Nah, I’m gonna buy it because it’s a brand that will last a while, or is in colors I like, not because the male model has perfect, white (and maybe capped?) teeth, or has a healthy bulge where it counts, or looks like he’ll attract any woman he wants. Are the women I know going to buy a bra because the girl in the ad looks like she’s having fun? As far as my permanent roomie goes, she’d prefer to get a bra that will last for a while– no cheap garbage, thank you (on that note, lots of women I’ve talked to enjoy Victoria’s Secret for that reason– their bras seem to last forever, I’ve been told!).

I’ll buy a shirt or slacks because it looks good on me, not necessarily because it’s in style, or the ad was flattering, or was well photographed. But I know subliminally, ads do have an effect on people.

SO… back to this ad campaign. As far as I can tell from the article, people agree with me. Most will be attracted to the ads because of the action, not because of the product. As the owner of Shai admits, it’s not so much about selling the clothes, it’s more about building a brand, and attracting attention. “The first goal wasn’t to sell directly, it was to develop notoriety,” said Alexandre Maisetti.

I have no idea how much notoriety will develop, but it’s obvious Maisetti didn’t work for or learn from Abercrombie & Fitch, which in recent years has developed a reputation (and been scolded) for catalogs that are rather revealing. Still, revealing isn’t quite the same as X-rated material.

I decided to check out Shai for myself. Again, don’t click this unless you’ve read the warning above! It was um, illuminating, to say the least. Some of the clothing is actually rather nice. I’m not sure about the conversion rate, but knowing Euros are worth more than our currency is these days, I think I’ll stick to the stores I frequent these days. After viewing the models and the materials they were, um, hawking, I left feeling that Shai has definitely earned notoriety. But will that image be one the company wants to continue to tout? Will it eventually translate into profit down the road? Or will it merely be a gratuitous, shallow attempt at delineating a line between itself and other companies in a cutthroat market?

When you go to websites, read catalogs, and pore through ads in the Sunday papers, what attracts you? What sticks in your mind? Does a company’s comportment and principles matter to you? Is the message attached to and touted by a brand worth your supporting the product? Where do you draw the line, if at all?