I've said it before (#943544), Mr. Ganesh is pretty interesting when he's not talking party politics.
"Foreign travel has been growing for decades. But so has nationalism. This 'shouldn’t' be true."
Exhibit A:
Brits and Italians are among the most prolific travellers in the world. Both countries have voted for propositions or parties that might be called nationalist over the past decade.
Exhibit B:
In 1995, eight per cent of Americans were planning a foreign trip in the next six months. In 2023, more than a fifth were. In which of those two periods was the US more internationalist?
Ganesh's explanation:
The kindest answer is that other forces drove nationalism, such as immigration, and that things would be even tenser now without the great increase in travel. Another is that most of the increase is accounted for by people who were liberal-minded to begin with. Those most in need of foreign exposure are still dodging it.
Another explanation is that the inverse is true: the more we see of others' shit, the less benign we think of them...? This, though, is the most compelling to me: Reject the premise: Travel never had that comingling kumbayah effect:
travel should never have had such heroic claims made for it. If cross-border mingling by itself thickened the cord of human sympathy, Europe would have a more tranquil past. ... It is possible to engage with another culture while rejecting it.
What do the Stackers think?
non-paywalled here:
https://archive.md/eihs1