> to instead live the same lifestyle as the citizens of the countries we visit: Stay in a neighborhood instead of a high-rise hotel, shop at the same grocery stores, eat the same home-cooked meals, get around via the same transit, I mean as high-fidelity as is reasonable
Until one of you gets severely sick or something like that, in which case you'll be very happy to not live like a local anymore and fall back on your home country.
This "citizen of the world" rhetoric seems to only ever be "citizen of the world that we like". How about being a citizen of the world in North Korea, or as a woman in Saudi Arabia, or as a gay teenager in Somalia?
Sorry, I have a hard time swallowing the "bourgeoisie traveling the world with Airbnb is the best way to combat bigotry" bait.
You might try thinking about this from the other direction. I can tell you from first-hand experience that once-shocking levels of South Korean nationalism, and really, ethnic nationalism, have been calmed down to something far far friendlier and more cosmopolitan, and it very much seems that travel and exposure to other cultures (especially the West, but not only) are what has done the trick.
Now as for being a North Korean, well, you are kind of proving the point because North Koreans' number one problem is isolation from the world.
Back in the USA, what percentage of Trump voters do you imagine hold passports? Sure, correlation is different from causation, but still...
So I can respect your call to realism, but at the same time it reminds me of some old aphorism about babies and bathwater or something.
Incidentally, another baby that people seem to want to throw out when the bathwater gets dirty is international trade.
>Back in the USA, what percentage of Trump voters do you imagine hold passports? Sure, correlation is different from causation, but still...
About the same percentage as Hillary supporters? In my experience holding a passport is more correlated with income than any particular political leaning. What they do is likely a lot different (e.g. religious mission vs French wine binge), but there is nothing particularly Democrat/Republican about a passport.
The notion of global citizen is misguided in the first place, because there is no global entity to be a citizen of, at any socio economic level that matters.
Sure you can say that you're a creature of Mother Earth, we're all brothers and sisters united by a common bond, all that; at the end of the day you're still paying taxes to a very specific, non "global citizen" government, and depending on that government for basic services like healthcare or educating your kids.
> The notion of global citizen is misguided in the first place, because there is no global entity to be a citizen of, at any socio economic level that matters.
Well duh. I'm pretty sure people who use this phrase are well aware that they're not literally becoming citizens of some world entity.
> Sure you can say that you're a creature of Mother Earth, we're all brothers and sisters united by a common bond, all that; at the end of the day you're still paying taxes to a very specific, non "global citizen" government, and depending on that government for basic services like healthcare or educating your kids.
Yes, this is what the term "global citizen" means.
Until one of you gets severely sick or something like that, in which case you'll be very happy to not live like a local anymore and fall back on your home country.
This "citizen of the world" rhetoric seems to only ever be "citizen of the world that we like". How about being a citizen of the world in North Korea, or as a woman in Saudi Arabia, or as a gay teenager in Somalia?
Sorry, I have a hard time swallowing the "bourgeoisie traveling the world with Airbnb is the best way to combat bigotry" bait.