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