The following article is reprinted by permission from the 1996 March/April issue of TRANSITIONS ABROAD magazine. For more information on the magazine and other TRANSITIONS ABROAD publications, e-mail: trabroad@aol.com, call +1  800  293  0373, or mail to: Transitions Abroad, P.O. Box1300, Amherst, MA 01004-1300  USA.

Danger Abroad ?

Mike Reddin

The headline "Small Earthquake in Peru: Not Many Dead," was written some decades back, by bored sub-editors on a London newspaper.   It suggests in its understatement something that is nonetheless true:  to those of us unused to them earthquakes sound horrendous, while those born and brought up along the San Bernadino Fault are positively blasé about them.  Acting 'unreasonably', millions of tourists flock each year to what Dave Barry describes as "the most heavily armed place on earth" -- Miami.  Most return alive.  

This article argues that whilst it is reasonable to be concerned about danger we should not over-anticipate its occurrence.  Most of all, it is wholly unreasonable to assume that it's more dangerous "over there" than it is "here" (wherever your here is).   Putting 'danger' and 'abroad' in the same sentence is generally unsound.

New Yorkers who are murdered mainly get murdered in New York, most within or near their own homes and mostly by acquaintances and not uncommonly by close relatives.  The same is true for Londoners in London: it's just that the odds for the Londoner are substantially less.  In short, concern about the danger of foreign travel, study, or work is all too often little more than another display of our xenophobia -- a sure sign that we need to get out more.  

Unfamiliar places are commonly assumed to be inherently dangerous.  Some of this distorted perception may have to do with the view through the eyes of home-trained media (including those, like CNN, which look international but are better described as "national media abroad") which reports ordinary events (political disputes, strikes, grief) as if they were universally significant. Truth is, the overwhelming majority of travellers will encounter nothing more dangerous than a burger that has passed its sell-by date.  It depends upon who you are, where you are, and what you're doing. 

Northern Ireland, after 25 years of civil unrest, has chalked up fewer violent deaths than most major U.S. cities in one year. Moreover, while some dangers (like blizzards) are indiscriminate, most dangers are reserved for particular groups -- women, whites, blacks, the elderly, BMW drivers, or the small and frightened.  In going abroad, you may be moving away from your regular persecutors and into a world where you're not on the regular list of victims.  You may move from a world of harassed minority to one where you are part of a majority, or, still in a minority but now one which is revered ! 

The bizarre truth is that almost anything is less dangerous than staying at home.  The act of travel itself is very very safe compared with crossing roads, drinking and driving etc etc.  Few of us will disappear in transit between Amherst and Wimbledon. Further, it may also be worthwhile to think of yourself as a potential danger.  Space travellers are cocooned in sterile suits not just for atmospheric convenience but to protect the new environment with which they will be in contact.  When you go to country X you may risk disease Y but you may be bringing your hosts disease Z.  Sometimes the deal is a bad one for all parties.  Indeed, in the new sensitivities of eco-tourism 'being there' at all may be a guilt-laden experience:  you and your lifestyle may be the environmental hazards; you are the problem, you are the 'danger'.

Putting Danger in Context

So, it's worth putting danger in context and looking at it from more than one perspective. In what capacity do you plan to visit -- student, tourist, imperialist, job-seeker, a bearer of gifts, a predator or an invader?  In what capacity did your predecessors visit - friends or foes, allies or enemies?  Did last year's trip by your college choir result in them making friends for life or  ... was the local bar razed to the ground?  It takes the advice of friends or experience to learn that most communities have a right and a wrong side of the tracks.  But even a fully funded USIA is not going to put out sufficient advisories to cover all eventualities.  Again, in many situations the visitor is less likely than the resident to experience danger.  In many places it is a matter of local and national pride that you as a stranger are better served, and better protected, than the natives. So, what gratuitous advice would I offer to the prospective traveller seeking to minimize danger?   Well, avoid major wars and countries where the airport is entirely staffed by armed men wearing Ray-Bans. Don't go to Bangladesh in the rainy season unless your program is above flood level; get malaria shots if malaria is prevalent -- but if it isn't, don't.

 Finally, remember one of Britain's great naval heroes, Admiral Lord Nelson.  When faced with the overwhelming might of the French navy prior to the Battle of Trafalgar he raised his telescope to his blind eye and commented, "Ships?  I see no ships."  And he was certainly victorious.  I do not suggest that we close our eyes to danger, but it might be worth recognizing that not everybody else in the world is gunning for us (literally or metaphorically) and that there are usually considerably fewer threats to our health beyond the horizon than just around the corner.  So, passports ready, go for it.  And on your way to the exit ask yourself, what am I getting away from?

                                    One would be in less danger

                                    From the wiles of a stranger

                                    If one's own kin and kith

                                    Were more fun to be with.                          (Ogden Nash, 1902-71)

Mike Reddin ( mike.reddin@virgin.net ) was Senior Tutor to the General Course (the JYA programme) at the London School of Economics from 1987 until he resigned the post in 2001.