origin of Boondock

[Dick_B]

A recent TV report (I think History Channel) discussed the origin of many terms we use every day. One of them was the term boondock. The apparent origin is from the Philippines during WWII. When the Allies were overrun by the Japanese they retreated to the `remote areas' of the islands called the bundoc in the local Tagalong languange. As often happens, bundoc became Boondock as time went on.
So when you boondock you are typically going to a `remote area'.

[Handbasket]

The way I've always heard the story of the word's origin, it came back to the 'States with soldiers returning from the Philippine Insurrection that followed the Spanish American War of 1898. It originated with a Tagalog word, bundok, meaning jungle or countryside. I see that Wikipedia credits it as such.

Jim, "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are sneaky and you sleep with your mouth open."

[pnichols]

lfcjasp wrote:
Remote (just my idea) means hard to get, off the beaten path, far from the "rest of us". Examples: the Falkland Islands (which are inhabited), Easter Island (yes they now have tourists), Siberia, areas in the mountains, forests, deserts, etc. in Canada and the U.S. There may be people there, but no one else because it's so out of the way and/or too much a pain to go there. JMHO

Exactly ... you nailed it!!

Just for fun if you haven't already, you might want to click on the link I gave in a few posts above listing ten places in the U.S. that are considered remote. We have camped in the No. 1 area in our RV.

By the way, here's a paved road trip in Nevada that might be considered even more remote than the infamous stretches of Hwy 50. We haven't taken it yet, but will give it a try one of these days - and as I understand it there are plenty of camping spots along the way:

http://www.exploringnevada.com/scenic-drives/desatoya-mountains-scenic-drive.php

[lfcjasp]

Remote (just my idea) means hard to get, off the beaten path, far from the "rest of us". Examples: the Falkland Islands (which are inhabited), Easter Island (yes they now have tourists), Siberia, areas in the mountains, forests, deserts, etc. in Canada and the U.S. There may be people there, but no one else because it's so out of the way and/or too much a pain to go there. JMHO

[JiminDenver]

There are remote places, you just have to look for them. This was our camp site last week, on the way out we drove for miles before we saw someone else.

[pnichols]

Geocritter wrote:
I hate to say it but with maybe 15 years left before I leave the party I guess I'll be getting out just in time. I feel sorry for my kids having to deal with such an overcrowded future.

I agree 110%.

We've been blessed for the last 35 years to have a home that is in an immediate area that has great year round weather, clean air, is quiet, is nature filled, and very much gives an illusion of "remoteness" ... but still within a 10-15 mile driving distance of everything. However I like to say that our home is now located on an "island in a sea of chaos" - in that just a few miles from us we are surrounded by roads, malls, and other services that are very hectic and crowded most of the day every day.

When I was kid being raised in a small town, during the summer my Mom used to send us a way all day to ride bikes to and play on foot by the river, or in the creek, or in a swamp. No more can this be done with kids ... very sad indeed.

[Geocritter]

DutchmenSport wrote:
Remote? Hamilton County, Indiana use to be "remote." As a kid (1960's) one could drive country roads and never find a house. Fields and not even telephone poles. Then those back-country graveled roads turned into black-top, then into lined blacktop, then into 4 way roads, and now, when you drive from the North side of Indianapolis to anywhere, it's all 4 lane divided (almost everywhere). It started with a "remote" spot someone thought would be a nice place to put a house ... nice .. "remote" away from everyone. Sure ... worked great for the first homestead. But then someone else came along, then someone else, then a gas station, a shopping mall, sewers, gas lines, water lines, electric lines, more shopping malls, now mamouth apartment complexes, housing additons, home owners associations, and the fields that once were "remote" ... aint no more! It all started with 1 person "occupying" a "remote" spot! Top 10 "remote" spots ... not so remote when a bazillion tourists travel to see how "remote" it is. Sorry, there are no remote spots when they've become a tourist attraction or turned into a shopping center!

I used to do environmental site assessments, typically as part of bank loan due diligence. Viewing a set of aerial photos of an area taken between 1939 and the present can give you a real scary look at the growth of urban sprawl. Also, we should all remember back in the 60's there were "only" 3.5 billion of us, now there's over 7 billion. I hate to say it but with maybe 15 years left before I leave the party I guess I'll be getting out just in time. I feel sorry for my kids having to deal with such an overcrowded future.

[pnichols]

Well ... here's ten "remote" spots in the U.S.. We've spent some time in area No. 1 and it indeed is pristine and remote. Took us 2 1/2 hours to get there averaging 7-10 MPH in our RV, though, from the nearest little tiny town:

http://listosaur.com/travel/top-10-remote-areas-in-the-contiguous-united-states/

[robsouth]

Billy Joe Royal had a different view of "Down in the Boondocks"!!

[magnusfide]

Great factoid! Thanks!

Dick_B wrote:
A recent TV report (I think History Channel) discussed the origin of many terms we use every day. One of them was the term boondock. The apparent origin is from the Philippines during WWII. When the Allies were overrun by the Japanese they retreated to the `remote areas' of the islands called the bundoc in the local Tagalong languange. As often happens, bundoc became Boondock as time went on.
So when you boondock you are typically going to a `remote area'.

[noplace2]

DutchmenSport wrote:
"remote" simply does not exist

I respectfully disagree. The majority of the landmass of the US is uninhabited. Of the 318.6 million people, 82% live in or near cities and towns. Source: NatGeo

We recently backpacked 19 miles off-trail in NM. I'd be willing to bet my left, uh, uh, ear!, that we were the only humans within a 19 mile radius or 1134 square miles. There are LOTS 'o 'boondocks' out here.

You just need to get out more. 🙂

[DutchmenSport]

Remote? Hamilton County, Indiana use to be "remote." As a kid (1960's) one could drive country roads and never find a house. Fields and not even telephone poles. Then those back-country graveled roads turned into black-top, then into lined blacktop, then into 4 way roads, and now, when you drive from the North side of Indianapolis to anywhere, it's all 4 lane divided (almost everywhere). It started with a "remote" spot someone thought would be a nice place to put a house ... nice .. "remote" away from everyone. Sure ... worked great for the first homestead. But then someone else came along, then someone else, then a gas station, a shopping mall, sewers, gas lines, water lines, electric lines, more shopping malls, now mamouth apartment complexes, housing additons, home owners associations, and the fields that once were "remote" ... aint no more! It all started with 1 person "occupying" a "remote" spot! Top 10 "remote" spots ... not so remote when a bazillion tourists travel to see how "remote" it is. Sorry, there are no remote spots when they've become a tourist attraction or turned into a shopping center!

[eubank]

Dahkota is right: "Remote" is not easy to define.

Another example is the south rim of the Grand Canyon. If you stand out behind the Bright Angel Lodge, you'll be there with the multitudes of visitors. Gazillions of them. However, if you walk a few hundred yards to your left, you are, well, all by yourself. (Personally, I love to head to the plaza behind the Bright Angel after a good hike along the rim. Nothing better than a big ice cream cone with a great view on a hot, dusty day!)

🙂
Lynn

[dahkota]

Just because a space is occupied by a person doesn't mean it isn't remote. Remote does not mean uninhabited. There are tons of remote places in the US, even on the east coast. You will have to hike into them, as roads allow too many people. Of course, if one never travels more than 50 feet from a road, than I can see where one would deny the existence of remote locations.

For those interested: 10 remote places...

[DutchmenSport]

I don't think a "remote area" exists anywhere any more, especially in the USA. An RV.net thread just last week talked about hidden cameras in National Forests out in the middle of "no where." So, "remote" simply does not exist. And ... even if it did ... once the first person find the spot, it's no longer "remote". It's now "occupied!" 🙂