Steve, I don't know whether to throw you head-first into the Mekong or thank you for trying to deter the hordes of tourists from Vietnam (i.e. help it to remain a fabulous place to travel for those not wanting a predictable "package" tour).

My 3 weeks in Vietnam seem like the opposite of yours - I would go back in a second, there was so much we didn't get to see in our short time there. What we did see was amazing. Of course there were moments that sucked (mainly due to a few bad accommodation and food choices), but overall it was an incredible trip and I wasn't ready to leave.

Yes, there are people at every turn trying to get you to buy something, but in my experience, most of them accept a polite "no thank you" and a friendly smile and carry on. And as you said yourself, it's a dollar - a meager buck. A buck that probably means a whole lot more to the person you're giving it to than it does to you.

Once you're back in Vancouver and paying 6 times that for a dry, truck-ripened, cardboardy pineapple, you'll be wishing you'd taken the offer on the boat for another.

I have to agree with the comments above. Steve, your attempts to be ascerbic, witty and "cool" fail miserably. They only show your inability to adapt to local circumstances. My advice: stay home in Vancouver and forget about making a living as a travel writer.

OK, against my better judgment I’ll bite. First off Viet Fan, I know the easiest way to make a living as a travel writer—it involves taking money to go on junkets an then writing happy travelogues and providing phone numbers for cozy B&B’s. Not interested.

Viet Fan, how do you propose that I “blend in with local customs?” Do you mean the custom of trying to get by on a few dollars a month, if that? The point of these Vietnam stories, and the Mekong boat tour anecdote in particular, is the futility of an affluent Westerner’s attempt to “blend in.” Do you take Vietnamese people for fools? They have little and I have a lot—therefore, they will not allow me to “blend in.” Of course I know (and have already stated in these dispatches) that they need the money more than I do, and the result is a roiling stew of guilt despite my frequent compliance with monetary requests. But slapping a happy face on events is not my job. The understanding that locals need my money does not make the actual experience on the ground any more pleasant.

As for my experience of Vietnam. I hope my earlier letter from Can Tho makes clear that I had many good experiences there. And I confess that my reaction to the place was a bit of a puzzle for me—for example, the almost instantaneous improvement in my mood when I reached Cambodia suggested that there was indeed something in the Vietnamese air that I didn’t take to. But all travel experience is personal, and truthful travel writing ought to reflect that. I have heard from many people who hate Bangkok, while I love it. These are my experiences. Yours await you.

Oh my God! Steve Burgess (thanks for dropping the Cher-like single moniker "Burgess," it was reminding me of "Seacrest") has written TWO articles in FIVE YEARS which were both hauty AND incompassionate! That seems unpossible!

Burgess out!

Ron Y.: The poster who uses the handle Burgess is not Steve Burgess.

I have to agree with you, Steve, travel is all about personal experience. However, I never suggested that you should "blend in". What I did allude to is that you do not seem to adapt well to different cultural surroundings. It is your cultural sensitivity that I question, not your camouflage skills. For someone who made his mark as a cultural commentator in Vancouver, you seem to miss the mark widely in SE Asia.

Steve Burgess, I read all your stories from S.E. Asia. I've never been anywhere (I live 500 feet from where I lived in 1948) so I might be totally wrong about this, but I think you might be unconsciously picking up the quiet fact that the Vietnamese have a huge amount of resentment against Americans, (which I'm sure you conjure up images of) even though they probably keep it to themselves. So what are you doing travelling to that part of the world, anyway? To my way of thinking there's only one legitimate reason to go: To help poor people. I also wonder why you resent being asked for money. I think it would be an honour. I went down to the Hastings and Columbia area of Vancouver last month where there's sick people all over the streets, and took twelve dollars in change, which was about all I could afford, hoping that people would ask me for some, which they did. It's a rare opportunity to help poor people, and maybe you should have welcomed it instead of being irritated. I did, however think your writing was pretty good.

Truman, I think that you are wrong about the level of resentment against Americans in Vietnam. Half of the population is under 25 years of age, and they have no recollection of the "American" war. In my experience there, the majority of adults are simply focused on how to make a living. Anyone over 45 obviously has memories of the war, but except for those that participated direclty as soldiers or who now profit from the war museums, etc., I did not meet anyone who even wanted to discuss war issues with me. Vietnam is probably the most entreprenurial country I have ever visited. Life is tough, and most people are constantly looking for ways to either save money or earn a little bit more. Steve is obviously a foreigner in Vietnam, a tall, skinny visitor who probably attracts a lot of attention. And like most foreigners, he is correctly perceived to have more financial resources than the locals. This makes him (and all visitors, me included) possible targets for petty theft and scams of all sorts that are intended to put a few dong (the local currency) into the pocket of an enterprising local. (From my point of view, if you cannot figure out that you are being overcharged for something, then you deserve to pay extra!) Instead of handouts, the best way to help the Vietnamese is to go there like Steve did. Spend some money traveling around the country and buy a few souvenirs. Direct participation in the local economy is the best way, in my opinon, of making an economic difference.

Thanks for everyone's thoughts--it's an interesting discussion (and I apologize if I got a tad cranky earlier). I think Globe Trekker is on the ball here (as he was in his addition to my traffic piece). The situation I describe is currently an unavoidable offshoot of Vietnamese tourism. Truman, as noble as your ideals may be, how many tourists will flock to Vietnam solely "to give money to poor people?" I frequently gave money when asked. But regular tourism is what folks need there. (If during some future trip somewhere I am stabbed and relieved of my wallet, shall I bleed with a smile knowing I have boosted the local economy?) Viet Fan, you will have to take my word that I was a good guest in Vietnam. I met lots of swell people and I did not behave as if they were lucky to have me--I always tried to remember I was in fact a guest in their nation. But it is my privilege as a writer to record my private thoughts honestly, and what I described were the problems I encountered as I attempted to take in what was around me without necessarily being the centre of attention.

Steve, I was trying to figure out why you found Vietnam to be particularly unpleasant, but I concede that my too-hurried application of Occam's Razor,(the most obvious explanation is probably correct)may have lead me to the wrong conclusion regarding resentment about the Vietnamese (American) War. Of course, a more scientific polling of Vietnamese opinion would be needed to resolve the issue. Globe Treker,I was watching the show, "The Daily Buzz" this morning and they had an article concerning a Texas politician, I think, who said that Southerners are still pissed off about losing the Civil War. If I am correct, the Civil War has been over for 140 years.

I agree with Globe Trekker on this point as well--I did not find any lingering war resentment, nor did any other visitors I spoke with. Hey, they won. And besides, as GT says, most are too young to remember anyway. (A couple of old people did physically push me out of the way on the street, but I think they'd have done that for anybody). It's kind of spooky to see how local merchants are only too happy to reflect back to tourists the Hollywood vision of Vietnam. There's a popular Saigon club called Apocalypse Now, and as I've noted, Vietnam War movies are available all over the place.

It does seem a bit far fetched that I'd know more about the situation than you two guys--especially with me not having actually been anywhere near Vietnam. But, strangely, I still think I do. I remember seeing a documentary about Haiti in which some Canadian families were trying to donate money to some Haitian families. This was a one-off documentary because it showed how much the Haitians actually resented their benefactors--and thought of them only as a means of getting money--not as the friends that the Canadians had presumed themselves to be. Self-delusion is a pretty universal human trait. I just re-read The Confessions of Nat Turner, by William Styron. Apparently, the whole town of Jerusalem, Virginia had no idea why the slaves would be mad at them and want to cut their throats and stuff like that. I know it's a novel, but I think Styron got it right. People are pretty much the same everywhere, as far as I can tell.

Truman, if people are essentially the same everywhere, then why do we Canadians spend so much time distancing ourselves from our American neighbours on issues such as cultural identity, medicare, and our obvious political differences? American military superiority may give them the ability to cavalierly engage in many foreign disputes (ie. take on the role of the world's policeman), but this is an attitude that much of the rest of the world consideres to be presumptive and arrogant. The fact that most Americans do not seem to understand this speaks volumes about their political isolation, and their inability to see things from somebody else's point of view. One of the great things about travel is that it provides an alert individual with an oportunity to experience first hand different cultures, social systems and political points of view. With respect to the issues we are discussing here about Vietnam, I have to confess that I am married to a Vietnamese woman and we spend 3-6 weeks per year visiting her relatives in HCMC or traveling to other parts of the country. This may give me a small advantage over Steve in terms of avoiding scams, etc., due in part to my previous experience there, but mostly because either my wife or her family have always been quick to point out situations that I should take care to avoid. I would like to think that my experience there also provides me with some insight into what the concerns of a typical Vietnamse might be all about. And in the past 5 years of visiting Vietnam, I would have to say that discussing the "American" war is far down the list of their daily concerns. (We also should take care to remember that the American involvement in Vietnam was only at the end of a 75+ year-long struggle that the Vietnamese undertook to throw off the colonial burden of French imperialism. And that after that particular war the Vietnamese also fought with both China and Cambodia over border incursions. The Vietnamese take obvious pride in defending themselves, but we should not mistake that pride for resentment towards Americans.)

In the comment above, when refering to the "obvious political differences" with our American friends, what I really meant was our different foreign policy perspectives. I hope that makes my comment a bit easier to understand.

Globe Trekker, I remember a day in l967, I think, when I debated fifty or so engineering students in front of the UBC library. Topic: The Vietnam War. It turns out that everything I said was true although, then too, I had never travelled anywhere. At the time there were also at least one hundred and twenty-five million Americans who were wrong about Vietnam. I don't think that travelling necessarily teaches anyone anything beyond weather patterns and names of bridges and highways. What most of us see when we travel is the world we have created on the inside of our skulls. And this is no less true whether that journey is to the corner store or to Vietnam. When I wrote about peoples' similarities I was referring to patterns of responses by poverty-stricken people to those whom they view as privileged--and especially voyeuristic tourists. I would be extremely surprised to learn that the Vietnamese people, after--as you say--struggling against the French, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Cambodians and the Americans, have not developed a quiet resentment against foreigners in general. (Personally, I think Vietnam, as a nation, should receive a Nobel Prize for defeating Pol Pot, whose fondest dream was the killing of everyone in Cambodia with the exception of one million specially chosen citizens. And can you imagine China invading just to punish Vietnam for forcing the Khymer Rouge out of power in Cambodia?) I remember when acceptance and welcoming of tourists became official government policy in Vietnam. (A few years after the war) Is it any wonder? Tourists were, and are, a major resource in that country, still the poorest in Southeast Asia, and although the sex tourism industry may be greater in Thailand, it is alive and well in Vietnam. (One of my ugliest memories is of a customer (I'm a self-employed carpenter) who travelled yearly to Thailand and secretly told me with glee that you could have sex with girls as young as twelve over there, for about three or four dollars.) The Vietnamese have many reasons to resent foreigners, and I'm sure sex tourism is high on the list. Thanks, for clearing up the point about differences meaning foreign policy perspectives. That DID make your comment a bit easier to understand. I see, GT, that you have an excellent and natural reason to visit Vietnam, but just the concept of being a rich tourist in a poor nation kind of makes me want to heave up quite a lot. And those who resent their sad little scams make me embarrassed for being a human being.

TG writes:
"I don't think that travelling necessarily teaches anyone anything beyond weather patterns and names of bridges and highways. What most of us see when we travel is the world we have created on the inside of our skulls. And this is no less true whether that journey is to the corner store or to Vietnam."

Geez, I hate these kinds of generalizing statements.

Since you've never travelled much beyond your neighbourhood, then how can you decide how people who are travellers think? You watched a documentary? Wow.

I'm not a world traveller by any means, but I've been around Canada and the USA a bit. All of these journeys changed some of my ideas about the people who live in these places.

Anyone who has travelled knows that you can't rely 100% on the views of those who have gone before. Every journey is different for different kinds of travellers.

It has occurred to me, more than once, that some of the regular letter writers to this Tyee have an obsession to comment on everything they read even when they don't know what they're talking about.

At least, this time, TG has admitted that he/she doesn't know what he's talking about before he started.

JF, thanks for the "faint praise damning"--"at least TG has admitted..." However, I didn't admit THAT. I think I have an absolutely massive knowledge about Southeast Asian, in spite of never having been there. (I might add, in a fit of immodesty, that I also know a lot about stars light years away. I've never been THERE, either) Also, I did say, "most" people don't learn anything. You might be an exception. (The word, "most" is most often used to qualify, or limit an idea) I gave the example of being right about the Vietnam War--during the Vietnam War. I wonder, then, according to your analysis, how I accomplished THAT, never having been, by my own admission, much further than 500 feet from where I lived in 1948. (Or, for that matter, it seems that I knew more about weapons of mass destruction than Colin Powell, who's been, basically, everywhere.) Incidentally, why the "he/she" business. All the Trumans I know are men--as in Harry Truman, Truman Bradley, Truman Capote. If you had been brave enough to give your name, I would have readily accepted Jeff or Jocyln as an indication of your gender. As an example of a "generalization", the kind which you "hate", I think posters who hide behind non de plumes are a bit like little boys throwing rocks and then hiding and running back to their moms.(Has Canada suddenly become East Germany before the wall went down?) I wouldn't be surprised if most people understand that, as human beings, we tend to take our biases, prejudices, politics, degree of empathy, historical knowledge, and general intelligence with us wherever we go. It's hardly rocket science. Here's a little thought game for you: Search back through the Burgess Asia posts and see if you can find a poster who came back from Vietnam with a completely different opinion of the place than Burgess. If you find such a post, would you agree "in general" with my comment. No? Why not? There IS another possible reason why I post comments on so many subjects. Maybe, I'm a lot smarter than you.

However, I do admit to a certain amount of self-righteous moralizing.

I must have hit a soft spot.

Apparently my opinion about you means more to you then your opinion about me matters to me.

There are a lot of legitmate reasons for using nom de plumes. My reason could be that I didn't want to make you feel awkward the next time we meet face to face.

Sorry, dad.

JF, sorry that you got dragged into this discussion. Personally, I try to resist the temptation to engage TG any further. It is quite obvious that this self-styled expert, who admits he has no first-hand knowlege of, or experience in Vietnam, is nothing more than a windbag. An egocentric, holier-than-thou, shit-for-brains windbag at that. Just ignore him. He has nothing of value to contribute to this or any other thread here.

JF, I'd be very interested in your list of legitimate reasons for using non de plumes. Isn't that what so many people have died for: the right to be openly responsible for our ideas, even those coming from a "holier-than-thou, shit-for-brains windbag?" Whether I get a bit self-righteous or not, which I admit to, I'm certainly not running and hiding, like you guys.

"But it is my privilege as a writer to record my private thoughts honestly" And some private thoughts should remain as such unless there is a purpose to sharing. Pardon me if I can't find the compassionate angle to this one.