I have been reading a rather obscure travelogue from the 1930s entitled Ilf and Petrov’s American Road Trip, which documents the travels of two Soviet journalists across the Depression-era United States. The account is fairly objective and somewhat propaganda-free. As we have seen repeatedly since de Tocqueville, it seems we learn the most about our national character from outsiders. And yet those outsiders do not have to come literally from beyond our borders but can originate within as members of oppressed groups that live on the margins of or without the mainstream as political or social outcasts. Never have I felt more a part of a dispossessed class than on November 4, 2008.

Despite my initial comments, I do not intend for this post to proceed as political commentary; I do have a point to make about travel. Since one of the purposes of TGBSW is to contemplate how being gay (or being part of another socio-political group) colors a person’s experiences when traveling, we must consider how that experience becomes sharper when in hostile territory. The problem is how do you identify hostile territory. Is California now hostile territory in light of the passage of Prop 8? Even if you live, as I do, in San Francisco?

As a gay traveler, it is easy to find yourself in hostile territory. Whether the Central Valley of California or the Valley of the Kings, we are not welcome everywhere we go. However, at the risk of sounding overly idealistic, I believe travel can change hearts and minds. Travel not only broadens the mind of the traveler but may also have a positive effect on the denizens of the destination.

During the summer, my partner and I visited Israel, Jordan and Egypt (I will cover this trip in more depth in future posts). Given the legal oppression of gay men in Egypt, I – and my partner – harbored a great deal of dread about visiting a country with such an anti-gay posture. Yet, we had a wonderful time and had the privilege of encountering the remnants of one of the oldest and most carefully preserved cultures on the planet.

Being cowed and choosing to travel in the safe, gay travel circles would be an easy response. Even in the U.S., while hate crimes in general are down, hate crimes related to sexual orientation are up. Whether the attack is physical or electoral, our survival depends on being aware of our surroundings.

Ilf and Petrov’s experience is, I think, illustrative. The pair could have avoided coming to the center of imperialistic capitalism but did not. They dove in – or drove in, as the case may have been – and returned home with what I trust was a greater understanding of the people of the U.S. that helped dispel myths about our country. Even during the most intense periods of the Cold War, cultural exchange programs between the U.S. and the Soviet Union helped belie the propagandistic myths of the two superpowers.

If we have the courage to venture into perceived hostile territory, gay goodwill ambassadors may demonstrate that straight people have nothing to fear from gay people. You may be changing someone’s opinion without knowing it. It is easy to hate someone with no identity, no face, no voice. It is easy to despise the theoretical. When standing face-to-face with another human being, it is difficult – though I realize by no means impossible – to hate that person on the receiving end of your gaze. With that in mind, maybe we should not think of any destination as hostile territory but just as another opportunity.