Alright, Indiana Jones - I'll bite. It was fairly obvious what you were getting at and I think you were hoping I'd say Benidorm...
No, I wasn't actually, but you list of countries was pretty much what I expected...
So, what exactly do you mean by: "a very westernised holiday sense"? Personally, we wouldn't consider ourselves to have a "westernised holiday sense", but I'll humour you. Where would someone have to go and what would they have to do not to have this "westernised holiday sense"? Are we talking about trekking in Yemen, Segwaying in Pyongyang old town?
What do you mean by "too many people like sanitised holidays?". It's a holiday and I don't think anyone should feel the need to defend how and where they spend their hard-earned leave and money or aim to achieve some intangible goal of being considered and enlightened non-westernised traveller.
I'd consider a westernised/sanitised holiday going to well worn big tourist destinations, staying in named higher star hotels, eating in expensive (relative to the country) hotels and complaining about the food... Coincidentally about half of your complaints are related to them...
The issue I have - and apologies if I read your post wrong - is that a lot of people expect to go to a foreign country, because it's warm, or because there's something to see and it to be "England in North Africa", expecting British food, British level/style of hospitality and British culture in general. Those people then complain when they get home that it was disgusting and the people were horrible...
Do you know what the worst part of travelling in my 20s was? It was listening to the endless supply of identikit bores on every beach and bus who would communicate in clichés and bang on incessantly about how they'd been "off the tourist trail" to experience the "real [enter country name here]". Funnily enough, they all told similar stories. There is a general rule that is worth keeping in mind - In 2018, it's easy and generally affordable to get anywhere, within reason. If people don't go somewhere it's probably because it's not worth making the effort to go. There is a lack of supply because there is a lack of demand. On the flipside, places visited by lots of people are not necessarily always worth visiting, which is where Marakech falls, in my opinion. Gone are the days when trekking to Machu Picchu was something to tell all your friends about. These days "I went off the beaten track" is less about actually seeing something worthwhile and more about trying to claim bragging rights. However, unless you made tea with water from a tap in Chernobyl or narrowly escaped being eaten by a velociraptor on Isla Nublar, nobody actually cares.
Shock, horror - maybe they went to different places to you! Or you were just the bore that followed the top 10 in the Lonely Planet guide...
There are places that are worth visiting outside of the main tourist spots, and you don't have to be Indiana Jones to go and see them. They are usually a bit harder to get to, in part just because most tours don't take you there, or because taxi drivers expect you to be going somewhere else. Some of the best places I've been to are those such places - sure, they may not be the "best" example, but I'd rather go to the second best, with 1/10th the number of people milling around and none of the annoying hanger ons you may get at the "best" place. Everyone else can easily go to, but most don't...
Your complaint there makes you no better that the people you just complained about. It's nothing to do with going off the "beaten track", rather just avoiding the worst of the excesses in countries that rely heavily on tourism. Do you think the main Market in Marrakesh is representative of Morocco? Do you think Hurghada/Sharm is representative of Egypt? Do you think Covent Garden is representative of England for that matter? No, and in all those places you know you're going to be ripped off with mediocre/expensive food, accommodation and just generally have to deal with all the crap that goes with those locations. Are they worth visiting? Sure. Are they worth basing an entire trip around? Nope, not in my opinion.
For many people, a trip to Marakech would simply not be worth the effort. It is an unmitigated dump. It offers nothing that you can't get anywhere else and is not the authentic cultural experience you might expect. I should have listened to my old man. He spent 3 months there doing research in the 70s and said it wasn't even worth the visit then.
I stand by my point that some people can’t admit to themselves that they’ve had a bad trip.
And I found the opposite. Sure, it wasn't Singapore but it was a lot cleaner than a lot of the north African cities I've been to. It was fine, had some interesting things to see and I would recommend people spend a day or two there to look at things - but I wouldn't necessarily recommend going there specifically (see my first comment in this thread).
Ironically I was expecting to hate it - it was just a couple of days at the end of a trip into the mountains before flying home from the airport there - but in fact it was a pleasant surprise.
Whatever you feel about it, it's much better to actually list the reasons you don't think it's worth going than just saying:
It's the worst place I've ever been. Awful.
To me, that means either you have a very different idea of holidays than I do, or you haven't been many places outside of those "sanitised" locations. And that's the point - just complaining about somewhere without any reference as to what it's being compared to, or why you don't like it, is pointless.
