Cruise ships still dock in Haiti..

[Barringtonia]

How much does a tragedy need to interfere with your holiday plans?

Sixty miles from Haiti's devastated earthquake zone, luxury liners dock at private beaches where passengers enjoy jetski rides, parasailing and rum cocktails delivered to their hammocks.

The 4,370-berth Independence of the Seas, owned by Royal Caribbean International, disembarked at the heavily guarded resort of Labadee on the north coast on Friday; a second cruise ship, the 3,100-passenger Navigator of the Seas is due to dock.

The Florida cruise company leases a picturesque wooded peninsula and its five pristine beaches from the government for passengers to "cut loose" with watersports, barbecues, and shopping for trinkets at a craft market before returning on board before dusk. Safety is guaranteed by armed guards at the gate.

In some senses it might invite outrage and, to be fair, even passengers are somewhat discomforted..

"I just can't see myself sunning on the beach, playing in the water, eating a barbecue, and enjoying a cocktail while [in Port-au-Prince] there are tens of thousands of dead people being piled up on the streets, with the survivors stunned and looking for food and water," one passenger wrote on the Cruise Critic internet forum.

Although some of it seems, I don't know, a little whatever..

"It was hard enough to sit and eat a picnic lunch at Labadee before the quake, knowing how many Haitians were starving," said another. "I can't imagine having to choke down a burger there now.

Still, it's not their fault, it's a holiday but still..

Some booked on ships scheduled to stop at Labadee are afraid that desperate people might breach the resort's 12ft high fences to get food and drink..

Quite the concern, and some are pretty unconcerned..

...but others seemed determined to enjoy their holiday."I'll be there on Tuesday and I plan on enjoying my zip line excursion as well as the time on the beach," said one.

It's not even a new issue..

The company recently spent $55m updating Labadee. It employs 230 Haitians and the firm estimates 300 more benefit from the market. The development has been regarded as a beacon of private investment in Haiti; Bill Clinton visited in October. Some Haitians have decried the leasing of the peninsula as effective privatisation of part of the republic's coastline.

However, in return, the company is looking to give back..

In the end, Labadee is critical to Haiti's recovery; hundreds of people rely on Labadee for their livelihood," said John Weis, vice-president. "In our conversations with the UN special envoy of the government of Haiti, Leslie Voltaire, he notes that Haiti will benefit from the revenues that are generated from each call …

"We also have tremendous opportunities to use our ships as transport vessels for relief supplies and personnel to Haiti. Simply put, we cannot abandon Haiti now that they need us most."

"Friday's call in Labadee went well," said Royal Caribbean. "Everything was open, as usual. The guests were very happy to hear that 100% of the proceeds from the call at Labadee would be donated to the relief effort."

Forty pallets of rice, beans, powdered milk, water, and canned foods were delivered on Friday, and a further 80 are due and 16 on two subsequent ships. When supplies arrive in Labadee, they are distributed by Food for the Poor, a longtime partner of Royal Caribbean in Haiti.

Royal Caribbean has also pledged $1m to the relief effort and will spend part of that helping 200 Haitian crew members.

So, should a tragedy like this spoil your holiday?

[Lackadaisical2]

How can you get upset with people stimulating the Haitian economy?

If anything, thats absolutely what they need right now (on top of all the aid).

No, I wouldn't let it ruin my "holiday" as you put it. Why should it?

[SD_Film Artists]

Ah, so that explains why my cousins actually enjoyed going to a country that was just a UN Mission away from Somalia. Although their trip was pre-earthquake.

[Greed and Death]

would you prefer the armed Haitian guards to be unemployed and running around Haiti ?

[Jordaxia]

So, during this Haitian thing, we've been banned from fun, because THINK OF THE HAITIANS. The gut reaction to these people -having a holiday- due to its relative proximity to that disaster is exactly that. Why should it interfere with their plans? Has it interfered with the average persons plans?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Taking a luxury holiday is the bourgeoisie's version of solidarity.

Cynicism and class war aside, If it contributes funds towards the rescue and reconstruction effort then I have to say it's a good thing.

[Muravyets]

If the cruise ship passengers had the option, with the assistance of the cruise line, to volunteer to assist in recovery efforts -- say, if the deal was they can get two cold, minty mojitos, a conch salad, and two hours on the beach every day for free in exchange for the rest of the day moving rubble off roads or carrying water to emergency centers -- I'd be fine with it.

If the cruise ships were jettisoning extra passenger luggage to make room for emergency supplies to be delivered dockside to emergency aid workers or military forces, I would have no problem with it.

If the the cruise passengers were being told they had to stay on board because the resort was being given over to military forces and the Red Cross or UNICEF to establish a home for displaced Haitian children, I would have no problem with it.

As it stands, however, this story fills me with disgust for my fellow human beings. Detestable, disgraceful creatures.

But then I have always had a guillotine-level moral issue with people who take luxury vacations in outrageously impoverished places. And that bogus argument about how they are benefitting the local economy only angers me more, since the obvious levels of persistent, even worsening, poverty around those resorts put the lie to that claim every time it is made. Any time someone tells me that they are vacationing in a place like Haiti (even without a recent disaster), and I ask them who they booked their vacation with, if they answer anything other than "the Peace Corps" or "the Red Cross" or "UNICEF", etc, then they become less human in my eyes.

[Risottia]

If the cruise ship passengers had the option...

[Sgt Poke-A-Man]

If the cruise ship passengers had the option, with the assistance of the cruise line, to volunteer to assist in recovery efforts -- say, if the deal was they can get two cold, minty mojitos, a conch salad, and two hours on the beach every day for free in exchange for the rest of the day moving rubble off roads or carrying water to emergency centers -- I'd be fine with it.

If the cruise ships were jettisoning extra passenger luggage to make room for emergency supplies to be delivered dockside to emergency aid workers or military forces, I would have no problem with it.

If the the cruise passengers were being told they had to stay on board because the resort was being given over to military forces and the Red Cross or UNICEF to establish a home for displaced Haitian children, I would have no problem with it.

As it stands, however, this story fills me with disgust for my fellow human beings. Detestable, disgraceful creatures.

But then I have always had a guillotine-level moral issue with people who take luxury vacations in outrageously impoverished places. And that bogus argument about how they are benefitting the local economy only angers me more, since the obvious levels of persistent, even worsening, poverty around those resorts put the lie to that claim every time it is made. Any time someone tells me that they are vacationing in a place like Haiti (even without a recent disaster), and I ask them who they booked their vacation with, if they answer anything other than "the Peace Corps" or "the Red Cross" or "UNICEF", etc, then they become less human in my eyes.

Should we do the same for people vacationing in not-Haiti?

[Muravyets]

Should we do the same for people vacationing in not-Haiti?

That depends. Are the vacationers engaging in this kind of luxury and are the non-Haiti places "outrageously impoverished" (those are my words from my original post)? If so, then I guess already said "yes", didn't I? And if not, then they are not relevant to my comments, are they?

EDIT: Also (this just occurred to me), "should we do the same" as what? What precisely did I suggest "we" "do" "for" anyone?

[Fartsniffage]

EDIT: Also (this just occurred to me), "should we do the same" as what? What precisely did I suggest "we" "do" "for" anyone?

Consider them less human.

[Muravyets]

EDIT: Also (this just occurred to me), "should we do the same" as what? What precisely did I suggest "we" "do" "for" anyone?

Consider them less human.

Now point out where I said "we" "should" think that way, as opposed to saying that I think that way.

EDIT: A mere statement of my own opinion as an explanation of my comments on the topic =/= a call to action or a prescription for others to follow.

[Sgt Poke-A-Man]

Should we do the same for people vacationing in not-Haiti?

That depends. Are the vacationers engaging in this kind of luxury and are the non-Haiti places "outrageously impoverished" (those are my words from my original post)? If so, then I guess already said "yes", didn't I? And if not, then they are not relevant to my comments, are they?

EDIT: Also (this just occurred to me), "should we do the same" as what? What precisely did I suggest "we" "do" "for" anyone?

Not only there, but people vacationing at all. How can you justify people taking a decadent vacation whatsoever when there are people in 3rd world countries that are starving for food and longing for shelter?

Some of our everyday lives interferes with aiding these people, but when we take a vacation...

[Fartsniffage]

Now point out where I said "we" "should" think that way, as opposed to saying that I think that way.

EDIT: A mere statement of my own opinion as an explanation of my comments on the topic =/= a call to action or a prescription for others to follow.

Don't get snarky with me just because you consider some people less than human based on where they choose to vacation.

[Muravyets]

Now point out where I said "we" "should" think that way, as opposed to saying that I think that way.

EDIT: A mere statement of my own opinion as an explanation of my comments on the topic =/= a call to action or a prescription for others to follow.

Don't get snarky with me just because you consider some people less than human based on where they choose to vacation.

I'm not getting snarky with you because of that. I'm getting snarky with you because you are trying to put words in my mouth and make me defend or drop an argument I never made in the first place. And you're not even doing it on your own dime -- you're jumping on someone else's bogus bandwagon to do it.

I never said that other people should think or do anything. I have a right to answer the question about my own personal opinion and that is what I did. My statements need have no bearing on anyone else. End of argument.

[Antilon]

I already have a hard time trying to ignore the beggars and leaflet-handers on the street (every time I manage to ignore them, I'm filled with some guilt ); it would be impossible for me to enjoy a vacation in a third-world/developing country, much less a country that was hit by an earthquake. I admit, I do take vacations to the Philippines, but only because of family obligations (i.e. summer 2009 I went to celebrate my grandmother's 90th birthday).

[Fartsniffage]

I'm not getting snarky with you because of that. I'm getting snarky with you because you are trying to put words in my mouth and make me defend or drop an argument I never made in the first place. And you're not even doing it on your own dime -- you're jumping on someone else's bogus bandwagon to do it.

I never said that other people should think or do anything. I have a right to answer the question about my own personal opinion and that is what I did. My statements need have no bearing on anyone else. End of argument.

Just as I have the right to question your personal opinion. This is a public forum after all.

If you consider your way of thinking on this issue to be the correct one why wouldn't you want others to share it? If you don't consider it correct then why do you hold it?

[Flameswroth]

This would definitely not ruin my holiday. At least not in and of itself. Naturally a surge of Haitians flooding the resort to sustinence would cause issues if it occurred, but I really would have no problem continuing a vacation had I planned it. Granted, I am in no financial position to be taking ocean cruises at the moment, so it's unlikely I'd be put in that situation any time soon. But if it did, it'd be a very special vacation, and I'd be damned if I let problems beyond my control interfere with my good time.

[The Alma Mater]

But then I have always had a guillotine-level moral issue with people who take luxury vacations in outrageously impoverished places. And that bogus argument about how they are benefitting the local economy only angers me more, since the obvious levels of persistent, even worsening, poverty around those resorts put the lie to that claim every time it is made.

But do they contribute less to the reconstruction and aid than the average Joe that stayed at home does ?
How many people actually donated ? How much of that money really goes to Haiti ?
At least this gets in the general vicinity...
Not saying that they are right to vacation there, just that they are doing more than most. Which is very, very sad indeed.

Then again - should we not feel guilty every time we buy sweets, a dvd or any other thing of luxury - while kids are starving in Africa ? That third tv you just bought could have saved the lives of 50 children !

[Sgt Poke-A-Man]

Now point out where I said "we" "should" think that way, as opposed to saying that I think that way.

EDIT: A mere statement of my own opinion as an explanation of my comments on the topic =/= a call to action or a prescription for others to follow.

Don't get snarky with me just because you consider some people less than human based on where they choose to vacation.

I'm not getting snarky with you because of that. I'm getting snarky with you because you are trying to put words in my mouth and make me defend or drop an argument I never made in the first place. And you're not even doing it on your own dime -- you're jumping on someone else's bogus bandwagon to do it.

I never said that other people should think or do anything. I have a right to answer the question about my own personal opinion and that is what I did. My statements need have no bearing on anyone else. End of argument.

I hold an opinion regarding healthcare, too, but I don't remember telling people that they shouldn't argue about it.

Your opinion is that people should not take vacations to countries in need of philanthropy, and my contention to that opinion questions if you believe that people should take vacation whatsoever if there is a need for philanthropy at all.

I understand your opinion, but it rings both of misanthropy and philanthropy at the same time.

[Muravyets]

I hold an opinion regarding healthcare, too, but I don't remember telling people that they shouldn't argue about it.

By all means, argue about what I said. You can even argue about what I did NOT say, if you like -- amongst yourselves. But don't expect me to assume and act out the role of the puppet who said the words you put in my mouth. I will answer for what I said, but I will NOT defend an argument I never made.

I stated my own personal point of view. I never said that anyone else should think as I do.

Your opinion is that people should not take vacations to countries in need of philanthropy, and my contention to that opinion questions if you believe that people should take vacation whatsoever if there is a need for philanthropy at all.

The answer to your question is no, and I believe my use of the words "outrageously impoverished" should have made that clear the first time.

I understand your opinion, but it rings both of misanthropy and philanthropy at the same time.

Yeah, it does, doesn't it? There's a reason for that.

[Muravyets]

But then I have always had a guillotine-level moral issue with people who take luxury vacations in outrageously impoverished places. And that bogus argument about how they are benefitting the local economy only angers me more, since the obvious levels of persistent, even worsening, poverty around those resorts put the lie to that claim every time it is made.

But do they contribute less to the reconstruction and aid than the average Joe that stayed at home does ?
How many people actually donated ? How much of that money really goes to Haiti ?
At least this gets in the general vicinity...
Not saying that they are right to vacation there, just that they are doing more than most. Which is very, very sad indeed.

Then again - should we not feel guilty every time we buy sweets, a dvd or any other thing of luxury - while kids are starving in Africa ? That third tv you just bought could have saved the lives of 50 children !

No, we need not actually oppress ourselves every day with such an extreme of the "there are starving children in China who would be glad to have that" meme. I am starting to suspect this entire thread will fall under the heading of "false dichotomy" or some similar problem.

[Muravyets]

Look, before people get even further worked up:

1. I stand by every word in my original post.

2. I stand by EVERY word in my original post, so kindly take all it as a whole.

3. I said what I said about what I said it about, and not about anything else. I am not applying those views to anything other than what I stated in the post, and therefore if you are wondering if I am applying them to anything else you might have in mind, the answer is no, I am not.

4. Yes, the tone of my comments is quite harsh.

5. Yes, they do express misanthropy and philanthropy at the same time. That is deliberate and not an error.

Okay, carry on.

[Greed and Death]

If the cruise ship passengers had the option, with the assistance of the cruise line, to volunteer to assist in recovery efforts -- say, if the deal was they can get two cold, minty mojitos, a conch salad, and two hours on the beach every day for free in exchange for the rest of the day moving rubble off roads or carrying water to emergency centers -- I'd be fine with it.

If the cruise ships were jettisoning extra passenger luggage to make room for emergency supplies to be delivered dockside to emergency aid workers or military forces, I would have no problem with it.

If the the cruise passengers were being told they had to stay on board because the resort was being given over to military forces and the Red Cross or UNICEF to establish a home for displaced Haitian children, I would have no problem with it.

As it stands, however, this story fills me with disgust for my fellow human beings. Detestable, disgraceful creatures.

But then I have always had a guillotine-level moral issue with people who take luxury vacations in outrageously impoverished places. And that bogus argument about how they are benefitting the local economy only angers me more, since the obvious levels of persistent, even worsening, poverty around those resorts put the lie to that claim every time it is made. Any time someone tells me that they are vacationing in a place like Haiti (even without a recent disaster), and I ask them who they booked their vacation with, if they answer anything other than "the Peace Corps" or "the Red Cross" or "UNICEF", etc, then they become less human in my eyes.

the thing is where their is no major roads or rail to the area the tourist are going.
So delivering supplies to that area for earthquake hit regions is impossible. As would be volunteering from that region. This is a remote peninsula on larger also remote peninsula.
The Sea and Airports that can be used are already At capacity with relief supplies inbound.

Their really is no way for the cruise ship to be of any assistance.
so their choice is vacation in Haiti or Vacation on another Island. Which is better for Haiti.
Really is no different then going to a Shreveport Casino the week after Katrina hit.

[Cosmopoles]

As far as I'm aware, the main issue is not a lack of volunteers or aid but transport bottlenecks preventing aid from reaching the capital. I don't see how the passengers, crew or company can do anything to solve that issue.