what makes travel, anyway? am i still traveling if i have been in the same place for 3 weeks? if i know the people there? if i've been there before? lived there before? if i'm not necessarily "going out," if i'm skipping sightseeing, if i'm spending most of my time in the private/domestic sphere, fundamentally displaced / yet at home in myself?
chimamanda ngozi adichie said at the internationell författarscen in göteborg last night that there is an advance in feminism in nigeria that has women knowing they don't need a man to complete them that is lacking in the (latent misogyny of the) west.
the interview was so bad (ugh the uncomfortable disappointment in jannike åhlund) but chimamanda ("i grew up reading books that i had nothing to do with my reality and i loved them") was so good.
so there are so many reasons for travel besides trade and immigration. one way or round trip, including relatively short stays between successive movements. medical, ecclesiastical, religious, governmental; for vacation, tourism, entertainment, delivery of news; in search of academies, learning, answers to myths.
i like that the swedish recipe for american pancakes calls for filmjölk or yoghurt.
gilbert at crozefond where i WWOOF'd in france giving me shit for being a rich american coming to work on the WWII-hungover farm. "one is not rich here. one is poor here. not like you americans."
nevermind the fact that most americans are poor. when is travel from the west ever not imperial? what about west-on-west relocation? what about the naïve desire to experience places regardless of anybody's economic position?