Backpacks - What is the Basis for the Prejudice/Snobbery Against Them in this Forum?
 

From time to time, I've seen comments in this forum essentially equating the use of a backpack as a piece of luggage with lack of funds, sophistication, class, etc. Anyone care to explain? I don't get it.

I didn't realize there was a prejudice against backpacks. My sister, who I feel confident in saying is by far more widely traveled than most in this forum, takes her trusty, large, patch covered backpack with her everywhere. The only place I can honestly think of on the planet that she has NOT traveled to is the Arctic and Antarctic. She would give most travel editors and writers a run for their money, yet insists on taking her backpack as her sole piece of luggage. It is not due to lack of funds or sophistication, but rather simple preference.

I am not prejudiced with those who use a backpack (noun) as luggage. but backpack(verb) is used to connote (with no grounds for shame or reason to look down on it) as a "style" of travel which IS typically conducted in one-half (or less) the "customary" budget - - especially for lodging (as in hostels or hotels which do not include a private bathroom) - - at least "customary" for many travelers that frequent this forum - - and usually pack in other forms of luggage. <BR> <BR> <BR>It also implies a less-structured itinerary, and - - traditionally, at least - - was a form of travel for younger travelers, for whom car rental is/was not even an option - - either because of age or affordability. <BR> <BR>If backpackers have LESS sophistication or class - - one might asked, compared to whom? and wouldn't they typically make it up for it with MORE energy, enthusiasm and awe? <BR> <BR>Best wishes, <BR> <BR>Rex <BR>

Rex - <BR> <BR>Actually, "backpacking" as a verb means "hiking with a backpack," i.e. in association with outdoor active travel. Nothing to do with budget considerations.

I haven't seen any "prejudice", but I can tell you mine.....(and I've used one) WHY don't people carrying them realize that they've got "X" amount of stuff on their backs when they are whacking you in the train terminal, the shops, etc....? I always take mine off when entering the plane so I'm not smacking other fliers in the head, etc. <BR> <BR>Melodie

I've been reading this forum for several years now and don't recall seeing such things about class. I think you're trying to create a fuss myself. Most remarks are that you are obvious as a tourist and perhaps a pickpocket target if you wear a backpack around town. It certainly is correlated to someone traveling on a cheaper budget who wants to stay at hostels or very cheap hotels, don't be disingenuous -- backpackers don't check into the Ritz.

I hate to admit it, but I've stayed at several 4-5 star hotels with my trusty black backpack. Laptop aside, it's been my only piece of luggage for years, whether traveling for business or pleasure. It just works for me. <BR> <BR>

I do believe that in travel "venues" (especially Europe-oriented), backpack (verb) certainly does mean to travel in a certain style - - and it might not ever involve hiking, nor traveling from one place to another on foot. <BR> <BR>In camping, I would agree that to backpack, implies moving from one camp location to another with EVERYthing on the backs of the campers. <BR>

I have to second the opinion that in the context of tourism, using the word "backpack" as a verb has nothing to do with hiking, and instead with a "style" of travel. This is an important central assumption to this particular thread, and I think it's pretty commonly understood as the above. It's also the reason that people equate a backpack with the TYPE of traveller. <BR> <BR>The style is typified by young travellers on limited budgets who stay in hostels and who tend to be visiting many different places. When people say "I'm backpacking through Europe" or "This hostel caters to backpackers", they certainly aren't talking about hiking - they're talking about low-budget travel and travellers. <BR> <BR>Certainly, there are those who have money, sophistication, and class who also choose a backpack as their bag while on vacation. The original post, however, was about stereotypes - and I think there's a clear reason for the stereotyping. Whether or not it's FAIR or REASONABLE is another debate - but the question was WHY backpacks draw such negative reactions.

I noticed as I re-read my post that something I said could be misconstrued. Of course, the fact that someone chooses to use a backpack or to "backpack" (verb, related to tourism) does not mean that particular person has a lack of funds, sophistication, or class. I only meant that the original stereotype comes from people travelling around on a low budget using backpacks. Whew.

I don't care what kind of luggage anyone carries and don't think anyone else does either. Like Melodie though, I think the b-packer need to remember that theyare a lot larger than usual and remove them in subways and other rowded places, carry them by hand or place them by your feet , you are taking up the room of 2 people, be careful how they turn around and don't go knocking people off their feet. And please remove them before boarding the plane and carry them. It aviods blocking aisles, swinging them and hitting people and don't displace other people things in the iverhead if you get there last, put it under your seat or find somewhere else.

I think some of the stereotype comes from retail stores. For example, Harrods in London will not allow people in the store if they are carrying a backpack. A person can only infer from this that Harrod's does not want unsophisticated people in their store. (I draw that conclusion because they also don't want people with ripped jeans in their store). I also agree with other posters, I have no problem with backpackers as long as they watch where they are swinging their pack.

Christina, I'll have to disagree with you regarding the fact that people with Backpacks don't check into the Ritz. My sister and I have stayed at the Ritz Carlton in Saint Thomas and the Regent Chaing Mai in Thailand (IMO a step above a Ritz and my vote for one of the best in the world), she with her trusty big backpack in tow. The bellman didn't give it a second glance.

I have heard that thieves love backpacks - a knife can rip open a hole in one on the subway or in a line. My kids and I carry smaller backpacks when flying, but leave them in the hotel while day-tripping. That is my prejudice against backpacks.

Personally, I do feel this forunm has a verry big predjudice against anyone who lacks funds, lacks sophistication and lacks class. If you read the bios thread here you will see this place is spilling over with yuppies. Not all, but many, look down, down, down on those who haven't traveled to Europe like they have.

I admit that I read just a small minority of the threads here but, in the ones I've read, I've noticed little, if any, of what you mention. The comments I've seen "against" backpacks are usually to warn people that something carried on your back cannot easily be watched (by the carrier, that is) and is, therefore, more ripe for the picking by pickpockets.

My guess is that Harrod's (and other department stores) bars backpacks because of theft, not snobbery. A backpack makes a handy tool for stuffing stolen good. And I seriously doubt that Harrod's would turn away business from someone just because he's carrying a backpack.

Christina - <BR> <BR>Interesting - you initially deny that such stereotypes exist, and then go on to affirm them by correlating backpacks with budget travel. Thank you for helping me make my point. This is EXACTLY the type of assumption to which I was referring. I wasn't trying to make a fuss - I was inquiring about that very sort of statement. <BR> <BR>I've traveled with a backpack (of varying sizes) on most of my trips - from short business trips to long overseas ones. I discovered at a young age that this was by far the easiest way to carry things (and i don't swing them around on trains/planes). As "disingenuous" as it may seem to you, I do check into 4 and 5 star hotels with a backpack.

I think the term backpacker denotes a young, freewheeling type of traveler. <BR>Maybe it stems from the fact that by the time most people can afford to stay in five stars, they have too many aches and pains to carry a pack on their back. <BR>As for myself I now prefer to roll my luggage instead of lugging it on my back. <BR> <BR>

Pip, I agree, one push and I would be lolling around like a turtle on it's upturned shell if I wore a backpack these days. <BR>

Funny. <BR>I was shopping for purses yesterday and a good many of them are the type equipped with straps so they can be worn like a backpack. I'd say $165 for a soft leather purse that lacks sophistication/class is a mixed message at best. <BR>Honestly, who cares.

I have only seen back packers that have stringy hair, snell, seem unkept. There clothing is odd, out dated, and they appear creepy. You just want to run when you see them. this is the way I see them.

The way I've been interpreting the backpack posts is that there may be some prejudice against people who roam around large cities in Europe with humongo backpacks crammed with goodness knows what (whether they be backpacking or just packing a lot of stuff for the day), but not agains those who sport the smaller purse-type backpacks. I would never (though I did when younger) walk around with a real backpack in a busy city in Europe these days, but I do, like many, many European (and American) women, carry a medium-sized black leather backpack/purse. I bought it in Paris. I got into the habit when traveling alone with two small children - needed the hands free. I've never been robbed, never felt unsafe with it. It suits me. It carries everything I need. It's not so big that I have to worry about slamming into someone if I turn around on the métro (though I usually clutch it under an arm in such a situation anyway). <BR>At any rate, backpackers have a right to travel, too. I used to do a great deal of backpacking, though not much in Europe, and yes, you do have to carry a lot with you and it's large and heavy. As long as you don't bang into people or otherwise inconvenience them with your pack, what's the big deal? <BR>I see backpackers coming through the Dordogne all the time, often right by my house, which is on one of the GR routes. I usually stop them and give them a cold drink, as they almost invariably look hot and tired. I've met some fascinating people from around the world this way.

Just out of curiousity, I looked up "class" and "sophistication" in the dictionary (Random House, American English). <BR> <BR>Clearly, when people do express a prejudice or snobbery against backpackers, they're not including small ladies' purses. In the same vein, the fact that a FEW high-budget travellers choose backpacks doesn't make the general stereotype invalid. The anti-backpacker snobbery - the belief that they lack class and sophistication - is "reserved" for the stereotypical low-budget backpacker with a huge backpack AND "roughing it" clothing - jeans, shorts, tennis shoes, t-shirts, etc. <BR> <BR>According to the dictionary, there IS an argument for saying that backpackers (or at least very-low-budget travellers who don't dress "up") lack class and sophistication. <BR> <BR>One definition of class is "elegance, grace, or dignity, AS IN DRESS AND BEHAVIOR". So, if our stereotypical, low-budget "backpackers" dress in a way that lacks elegance and grace, that's one strike against them having class. One of the definitions of sophisticated is "appealing to cultivated tastes". Of course there are exceptions to what constitutes "cultivated tastes" (the dictionary lists "refined"), but I think it's a fair assumption that very-low-budget travel, gargantuan backpacks, and jeans, t-shirts, and shorts & tennies do not fit the GENERAL understanding of "cultivated/refined taste".

Don't some backpackers like dark chocolate? <BR>

Okay, just for the sake of argument (no, I'm not trying to start one -- just offer some thoughts), let's talk about some cultural aspects of backpacks. <BR> <BR>They are casual. <BR> <BR>They represent casualness in referring, visually, to outdoor life -- campfire rather than white tablecloth, sleeping bag rather than white sheets, etc. <BR> <BR>One cannot pack non-casual clothes in them -- a starched shirt, a linen dress, or a "good" suit would not survive, and anything one would pull out of a backpack to wear would have to be "perma-wrinkled" cotton or no-iron knit to look half-way neat. <BR> <BR>Further, one could not wear "good" suits and carry a full-sized traditional backpack without one's front looking all pulled and tugged and one's back getting sweaty and wrinkled in the process. <BR> <BR>If one has grown up thinking of churches, good restaurants, and other "special" destinations as places for which one dresses up, the sight of a backpack there can be jarring. They imply that there is no place this person will go for which he/she will dress any less casually than he/she is now (usually in shorts). That may not be at all true -- just talking about the impression. <BR> <BR>Second, they are bulky and do, indeed, expand by quite a bit the "personal space" taken up by any one traveller. Carried at chest level (or even eye level for a short person behind a tall person), they can seem very intrusive or obstructive of the space around them. The circumference around a person-with-backpack is - I remind the obesity police - greater than that of many overweight people (although it's true that the backpack can be stowed separately from the person.....). <BR> <BR>To illustrate: A line with ten people with conventional rectangular suitcases by their sides would be much shorter than one with ten people toting backpacks. Put that line in the aisle of a train or airplane that's already crowded and those with backpacks become ambulatory impediments. And very often, backpackers forget just how far behind them the backpack extends and they bump into people and things. Again -- they may in truth be no more so than those will cumbersome roll-ons, but it's again a matter of impression. <BR> <BR>Just a couple of thoughts. I do envy those young enough to carry all they need on their backs, esp. those who manage to look stylish in a tank top and packable spandex skirt, and those who can still sleep comfortably on a wooden bench with their heads on their backpacks. But I understand why some people may find the casualness and the spatial imposition of the backpack something other than "classy." <BR>

Personally, I try not to judge people (whether visitors or residents) on the way they dress or the luggage they use. <BR>However...if you're carrying 50+ litres of stuff on your back, please, please remember that this effectively quadruples your physical size and those of us who have to use public transport during the rush hour to get to work don't appreciate a) being whacked around the head with these things by inconsiderate travellers or b) having much of the space in already crowded public transport taken up by these things...is your journey really neccesary? could you delay it until the syetm is quieter?...please show some consideration for the people who live in your holiday destinations... <BR> <BR>now I've got that off my chest I'll get back to work.

Again I'd like to dispel these stil rampant stereotypes! While my sister always uses a backback for travel, she is an extremely attractive and well-dressed woman in her mid thirties who does stay in 4 or 5 star hotels and just happens to prefer her backpack with patches of all the countries she's visited on it to the ubiquitous black rolling suitcase! She would no more be lugging it about while touring than anyone else would be dragging their suitcase along with them through museums, cathedrals, shops, etc. She would put it in the back of a taxi or luggage compartment just as one would any piece of luggage! And I to have a small black leather backpack instead of a purse for travel. Makes holding all those shopping bags that much easier!

Are backpacks a protected class now? <BR> <BR>Good grief. Who cares what people think about backpacks? If you want to take one, take it, wear it, and be proud. This isn't the place to look for validation.

Holycrap - <BR> <BR>The assumptions people make. I don't hear anyone looking for any sort of validation. I see one person asking the basis for a stereotype, and several people responding.

I think that those people that use backpacks are the same ones that carry on too much crap and hog the overheads...backpack carrier=stupido

Thanks, Ed.

Re: "I've seen comments in this forum esssentially equating the use of a backpack as a piece of luggage with lack of funds, sophistication, class, etc." <BR> <BR>While a person who chooses to use a backpack may indeed have a lack of funds, I don't see a lack of funds as meaning that a person lacks class. <BR> <BR>I use a piece of soft luggage that can be carried on the back, over the shoulder, on in the hand. Whenever I need to maneuver through a lot of people -- like on a crowded train -- I always carry it in my hand since, if it's on my back, I discovered a long time ago how easy it is to forget how far out it extends, thereby accidentally whacking people when you turn around.

Ed, I'm sure you've done a lot more traveling than I have, but it hasn't been my experience that people that use backpacks are the same ones that carry on too much crap and hog the overheads. I've seen just as many people with huge suitcases -- presumably also full of too much crap -- hogging the overheads.

Ed, that's one of the first things from you that I've read and strongly disagreed with. <BR> <BR>To all antipackers, backpackers are no different than you or me. In fact, I was a backpacker in my younger days, so I know of what I speak. Backpacks are, simply put, one of the handiest, dandiest ways of getting around for weeks and weeks at a time when one doesn't have the dosh (or the interest) in renting a car or paying for taxis everywhere. The number of rolling suitcases it would take to hold the amount of stuff I could carry on my back would be far more of an inconvenience to those about me than my ocassional foray into (gasp) public space with my pack. <BR> <BR>To satisfy curiosity and to attempt to avoid the inevitable rude comments, I always checked my bag when flying, which left me with NO carryons at all; I tried to be as careful as possible when maneuvering in public spaces (and apologised the instant I realized that something had gone awry; I showered every day; I tried to avoid rush hour traffic when possible, though some train schedules made it necessary; I never had anything stolen from my bag; and I met some truly enjoyable people in my backpacking/hosteling travels, all of whom were as careful with their bags as I; and I did have one nice outfit with me that wasn't wrinkled or sweaty -- especially as I never tried to carry my pack in it (do you roll your suitcase wearing your nicest clothes?). <BR> <BR>Put briefly, I was a much "better" traveller than many 4* tourists I met and observed on my travels. Hopefully, even though I've since joined the rolling brigade (albeit in addition to little pack in which I carry my camera and other essentials), I still am. <BR> <BR>As for stupidity, I went to one of the top colleges in the nation, and other college students (or graduates) made up the largest proportion of fellow travellers I met. <BR> <BR>There are rude, stupid, and embarassing travellers at all levels of the socioeconomic scale and from all countries. Generalizations only hurt and cause long-winded, defensive posts such as this one...

Now, see, if Capo had just posted moments earlier, I could've just said "I agree with Capo" and saved us all the trouble of that long reply...I have to work on my Fodor's ESP!

Has everyone seen those baby carriers that are strapped to the back? I find those offensive. Your poor baby has to look at the back of your sweaty head all day.

Ed, Your comment displays your low level of intelligence. Ignorant generalizations = moron.

Next week after years of traveling and staying at first class hotels, my wife and I will depart for Italy, Greece and Turkey for a six weeks vacation with a bac-p each ! We are 55 and 60 years old and we know how to travel free of heavy luggage. Cloths to see the opera etc.no problems and no crap !

Q: What makes people think bad things about backpackers? <BR> <BR>A #1: No they don't. <BR>A #2: Here are some possible reasons. <BR>A #3: Because backpackers are bad. <BR>A #4: Here are some possible reasons. <BR>A #5: Backpackers are good. <BR>A #6: No, you're wrong, backpackers are good. <BR>A #7: Here are some possible reasons. <BR>A #8: Those reasons are stupid, ignorant and wrong. <BR>A #9: People who think ill of backpackers are wrong. They shouldn't. <BR>A #10: Here are some possible reasons. <BR>A #11: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Backpacks are great, I'm great, you're a do-do ca-ca head. <BR>A #12: You're a ca-ca-head. <BR>A #13: etc etc etc etc etc etc