Overlanding as the New RV'ing

toedtoes wrote:


The reason why folks are arguing semantics is because you have made it about semantics. You posted the OP stating that there is a "new" thing called "overlanding". You talk about how wonderful it is that this "overlanding" has finally gotten to the U.S.

But, as people keep pointing out, it isn't a new phenomena. It has been around since before there were cars. People have been doing it for years in cars, vans, on motorcycles, on foot, in RVs.

But, you come back and argue that what we are describing isn't the definition of "overlanding" because it doesn't meet a, b or c. When folks then point out that it does include a, b and/or c, you complain that everyone is focused on semantics.

You keep going on about how Europe has been doing this to the point that it's no big deal. You use examples like traveling to destinations such as Samarkind or Kazakhstan. Yet, your OP states that it is not about the destination, it is about the travel to get there.

You now argue that Americans don't even know where Samarkind or Kazakhstan are. And that somehow Europeans are more advanced that us because they travel there. And that THAT is what "overlanding" really is.

You do realize that Europe, Asia and Africa are all connected by land and it IS possible to reach each other by driving. One cannot drive from Omaha to Samarkind - it is an impossible feat. So, therefore, by your statements it is impossible to "overland" in the Americas because one cannot drive to these "overland" destinations.

One may also point out that much of these exotic and remote destinations in Europe and Africa you mention are across flat dry lands. It is easier to get there by "specialized overland vehicles" than it is to get through the Amazon forest or over the Andes in one.

I also notice that you make no mention of exotic Asian locales. Could it be that you simply find "the Silk Road" destinations to be more interesting than other places? Could it be that your responses are biased on what YOU perceive as "exotic and remote" and dismissing other posters' ideas of what is "exotic and remote".

I would love to travel into the remote areas of Asia in hopes to see the tigers, snow monkeys, etc. I find those areas to be a great destination with a unique travel experience. However, one cannot reach those areas by "specialized vehicles". One must hike to reach those areas. I would love to travel in the footsteps of the Buddha. I could drive that, however, I can't drive it from California. So, my ideas of "exotic and remote areas" don't lend themselves to "overlanding". I have no interest in Kazakhstan. It is not a place I have any desire to see. I would like to travel to the arctic, however, I can't afford a vehicle that could get me there and keep me safe while there.

So, what destinations do you feel are worthy of the term "overlanding" in the Americas? Can you name a remote location in South America where it would be possible to reach by vehicle from a town in the U.S. And remember, it's a lot easier to cross borders in Europe than it is in Central or South America.

You insistence on twisting what I write, your refusal to deal with the actual definition of Overlanding and your continued use of a straw man argument to make your case makes the task of answering you difficult at best.

As for Americans geographical knowledge here is link to a National Geographic article about that very subject:

Natl Geographic article

From Newsweek and the Natl Geographic:

"A National Geographic poll of over 500 young Americans, aged 18 to 24, showed that six per cent failed to locate their own country on a map of the world. Among those with a high school education or less, the figure was one in ten. Only one in three could find Great Britain on a map."

If you took the time to read the article it would not take a rocket scientist to conclude that if that many Americans cannot find THEIR OWN COUNTRY or Great Britain on a map do you really think they can find Kazakhstan?

You say I make no mention of Exotic Asian locations? Samarkand IS in ASIA and is about as Exotic as it comes. I think that also proves my point about Americans lack of geographical literacy.

More on Geography: Here is just one photo of that "flat dry land" you think makes up the trip along the Silk Road...The Almaty Mountains of Kazakhstan.



And a typical Road in Kazakstan:


and another road of Kazakhstan:


Now that we have straightened out the geography of the world and Kazahkstan lets move on to that pesky definition you keep twisting around.

Overlanding like Rving has many facets it is not just one thing. However it is generally accepted that when people use that term in this context it means that one is traveling:

With a VEHICLE that is self contained and able to stay off the grid for long periods of time. Or a Motorcycle outfitted especially for this kind of travel. That vehicle is usually capable of traveling LONG DISTANCES off road on it's own fuel supply (very large fuel tanks) and electrical supply (Solar or generator)

Many overlanders go through South America and ship their trucks/motorcycles/Land Rovers by sea (imagine that!) to the tip of Africa or the other direction to Australia. When Overlanding around the world no you cannot drive there without it.

I think this all points out your less than complete knowledge of Asia, the Silk Road, Kazakhstan and overlanding. Yet you continue you argue these silly semantics about NEW. So for the umpteenth time: I never said overlanding was NEW I said it was new to the US and as a part of the RVing world here.

I don't think anything more need be said at this point.