Urban dwellers aren’t any less culturally authentic than their rural counterparts just because they have plumbing and electric (maybe not even that!) Just because people in rural areas are more likely to conform to your romanticized notions of what a third-world culture ‘should’ be doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily ‘better.’ I can understand if you prefer a rural lifestyle (it’s cheaper, it’s got tons of natural beauty, etc) but don’t knock people in cities because of it.

Would you argue that a person living in the middle of Appalachia is more authentically American than a New Yorker? I doubt it, so how the hell is an indigenous person nestled in the Andes any less Bolivian than their counterparts in La Paz?

That said, I agree with Hal that where there are people, there is culture. While globalization can be grotesquely homogenizing, it can also give rise to interesting new cultural hybrids. Culture is not static – it is a process that unfolds as people change and adapt. To try to isolate and preserve culture (as many would do in rural areas) essentially turns people into living museum pieces, and puts in place the same implicit ranking of primitive versus progress. A tricky subject, to say the least!

Hmm, I sense an article in the making…

Perhaps villagers are extra-friendly because most foreigners who reach them are aid-workers of some sort with money to burn?

The problem is the way in which she paints a pretty generalized picture. But the plain and simple fact is that my village’s isolation–even being in the U.S., with regular road access to bigger cities and high speed internet–breeds a general air of xenophobia. When I moved here, no one talked to us…until *poof* our license plate changed from “Illinois” to “Wisconsin”. After that, even the damn local police stopped by to welcome us.

As Turner quoted, I think little civilizations DO form as a “defense” mechanism–defense from outsiders, defense from nature, and so on. The smaller the enclave, the more extremist they are CAPABLE of becoming.

Of course, this “danger” she speaks of is a little over the top. Sure, going 100 miles outside of Kabul to a village that happens to be under Taliban control has a high probability of getting you killed (if you make a misstep…like pissing on the Q’uran or accidentally respecting a woman). But that same village under control of moderate tribal leaders will probably just give you weird stares. It’s equally xenophobic to assume that village = kill outsiders. Killing–even to the most ignorant rural-dweller–is rarely beneficial.

I searched for “pig, blood” on Creative Commons and found dirty bodega. I think it’s suitably over the top.

Another fun quote I’m reminded of:

Q. What’s the difference between a developer and an environmentalist?

A. A developer wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist already has one.

I’m reminded of a few quotes from Michael Cricton’s State of Fear, which tackles this issue, among others:

“You think civilization is some horrible, polluting human invention that separates us from the state of nature. But civilization doesn’t separate us from nature, Ted. Civilization protects us from nature. Because what you see right now, all around you [cannibals]—this is nature.”

“[Life in Third World villages is] best and ecologically soundest. Frankly, I think everyone in the world should live that way. And certainly, we should not be encouraging village people to industrialize. That’s the problem.”

“So you want to stay in a hotel, but you want everybody else to stay in a village.”

http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.415/pub_detail.asp

Interesting concept Tim! That’s what it’s all about though, creating conversation and acknowledging there is always another point of view out there…who’s to say who’s right? The world is subjective (mostly that is, except physics). Nice work.