Mass Robbery in St. Lucia

[Finistere]

The difference between wealthy nations and poor ones is that the people of these nations were willing to die for freedom. If the leaders were corrupt they would be disposed. The British started with the Magna Carta, the. Dutch (my country of origin) fought for eighty years against the Spanish for freedom, my country the USA revolted against the British yoke and had more deaths percentage wise than any other conflict. The French deposed a corrupt Monarchy and there are many more examples. Countries become basket cases because the people look at leaders to do something for them instead of doing it for themselves.

China is not yet an example of a successful country, yes there are a few hundred million reasonable well of people, which leaves another billion in poverty. Mostly what China has to offer the world is well organized cheap labor.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Finistere

The difference between wealthy nations and poor ones is that the people of these nations were willing to die for freedom. If the leaders were corrupt they would be disposed. The British started with the Magna Carta, the. Dutch (my country of origin) fought for eighty years against the Spanish for freedom, my country the USA revolted against the British yoke and had more deaths percentage wise than any other conflict. The French deposed a corrupt Monarchy and there are many more examples. Countries become basket cases because the people look at leaders to do something for them instead of doing it for themselves.

China is not yet an example of a successful country, yes there are a few hundred million reasonable well of people, which leaves another billion in poverty. Mostly what China has to offer the world is well organized cheap labor.

History doesn't back your statement entirely.

Britain was a wealthy country long before the Magna Carta, and France was a wealthy country long before the French Revolution.

Democracy might be stronger initially if it results from a revolution, but over time even strong democracies seem to falter as their leadership slowly becomes corrupt and lackadaisical, and starts to feather their own nests instead of representing their people.

You got this part right: "Countries become basket cases because the people look at leaders to do something for them instead of doing it for themselves."

[Lake-Effect]

Wow - everyone gets a gold star from me for ignoring the gun trolls. Awesome!

[H Romberg]

Originally Posted by Blue Stocking

A recent thread meandered off to include links to a survey report, sponsored by a cartel of cruise ship operators.
This report, IMO, heavily positively biased in their favor, gave figures as to the effect these cattle barges play in an island's economy.
Nowhere does it deal with the effect on the psyche of islanders who view the apparent disparity, often with hostility.
The cost to an island's economic structure, just to provide enlarged, improved, docking and tendering facilities to handle the constantly increasing size of these ships, often creates frustration among the havenots, whose needs are seen to be placed way down the hierarchy of survival.
The total disruption of transportation systems such as buses and taxis, which scramble to survive with a reduced, local only patronage off-season, struggle with over burden when 15000 visitors arrive all at once.
The exploitation and price-gouging dictated by the ship in order for local tours and entertainment to be sold on- board, is nothing short of piracy.
Many islands are between a rock and a hard place.

Just gotta ask yourself one question though. If the islands would be better off without the cruise ships coming in, why would they jump through their arses to make it happen and why do they keep doing it?

To me, that says that as ugly and nasty as a cruise ship stop might be, it's still an asset when you factor in all the costs and benefits. Otherwise, they'd stop supporting them and they'd go out of business.

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

The thing is that the locals have no respect for the tourists. When I watch cruise ships emptying onto the shores of these islands, it is not hard to understand this.

Absolutely, the cruise ship tourists I have observed often lack situational awareness, and are not often tuned into their surroundings. I do think there is a risk we (cruisers) can be guilty of this.

Ignoring the post about the "gun trolls" I do think we need to be aware of how we present ourselves...do we look like victims? Something as simple as a chain on that expensive dingy (life savings in some places I have visited) can make a clear difference in the reality of how we are received.

There are few similarities to cruising on a sailboat and a cruise ship... But if we look and act like the average cruise ship passenger we do at our peril.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by H Romberg

Just gotta ask yourself one question though. If the islands would be better off without the cruise ships coming in, why would they jump through their arses to make it happen and why do they keep doing it?

To me, that says that as ugly and nasty as a cruise ship stop might be, it's still an asset when you factor in all the costs and benefits. Otherwise, they'd stop supporting them and they'd go out of business.

I think it's pretty clear that some people benefit a LOT from tourism.

It's hard to argue that the average citizen doesn't benefit at all, just that they don't benefit as much as we sometimes tend to assume.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

Ignoring the post about the "gun trolls"

If the shoe fits....

[s/v 'Faith']

Island economies are very difficult to sustain in our globally connected world. With exceptions like fishing and Michael Homsey's Bebi electronics (and their excellent anchor lights!) tourism is often the most viable product a people can market.

[zboss]

My god... couldn't this just be about a bunch of thugs committing a crime which is what thugs do? This "rich vs. poor" thing has nothing to do with what happened except "hey - I need some money.. do YOU need some money? Lets go rip of a bus full of tourists." Really, that is probably the level of complex thought that went into this "crime of the century".

Being poor has nothing to do with the poor being greedy or crime against the rich... look at Bernie Madoff. Some people are just plain sociopaths.

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If the shoe fits....

Differential power relationships are at the core of this discussion.

The tourists had power (money) that the thugs wanted, and the thugs had power (threat of violence) they used to obtain the money.

There is a real and direct application of the lessons of the story for all of us (those who cruise, maybe not the keyboard sailors).

Any reference to a "gun" need not make one a troll, or taint a discussion... The gun represents a tool that can equalize the power differential.... There are other ways (preferable and easier to carry).

I advocate situational awareness above all... Avoid the conflict, do not be oblivious, do not embrace victim hood... If a gun is mentioned or a lock, or just not being careless with your dingy it need not make one a troll... Unless they are simple minded enough to read any instance of the word "gun" as such.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

I belive the killing your enemy stuff started after the europeans got here ..Most indeginious peoples didnt do a lot of killing ,the height of victory in battle for "indians" was to simply touch the chief of the opposing tribe..Not saying that they didnt do it ,it just wasnt as commen as the "propaganda "would have us believe..It served the white man well to have the indians fight and kill each other,the old divide and conquer...

Why do you write such things when you know little about it?!
You better read up on this: the Caribs were a very violent bunch, always at war with other tribes and the only way they touched the chief of another people is when they ate them. Yes, ate them as in cannibalism. The word "canibal" comes from the Carib language.

They also ate the first European explorers, Giovanni da Verrazzano comes to mind :

In 1528, during his third voyage to North America, after exploring Florida, the Bahamas and the Lesser Antilles, Verrazzano anchored out to sea and rowed ashore, probably on the island of Guadeloupe. He was killed and eaten by the native Carib inhabitants

Also, read up about the "Black Caribs". Learn to recognize them if you're gonna spend time in St Vincent or St Lucia (no joke).
Carib heritage may still be a factor in violence in the Caribbean. I do not know this, but the islanders tell me this again and again, and they obviously fear Caribs (most often "Black Caribs"). I have visited a Carib village but it was just another tourist trap and a miserable one at that. I did not visit the Caribs on Dominica where 3,000 or so still live, because I decided to stay safe aboard instead

[foolishsailor]

Not sure i understand how the Caribs are defined as more violent than any other group as they are simply defined as a tribal group that migrated out of the Orinoco area and into the Caribbean prior to European Occupation. And as for "Black Carib". This is a broad and loose term that could include anything from black descendent of slaver era to black/carib deacendent. Either way not sure how this group of people would be any more predisposed to violence than any other poor islander?

[Blue Stocking]

Originally Posted by H Romberg

Just gotta ask yourself one question though. If the islands would be better off without the cruise ships coming in, why would they jump through their arses to make it happen and why do they keep doing it?

To me, that says that as ugly and nasty as a cruise ship stop might be, it's still an asset when you factor in all the costs and benefits. Otherwise, they'd stop supporting them and they'd go out of business.

Re-read my comments, and tell me if its clearer to you. I am a 67 yr old Bermudian tax payer who has worked in the industry. My last line summarizes the position.

Actually, you might be able to make a living in the service business. A charter boat maybe , trolling

[Southern Star]

Thanks zboss, I couldn't agree more. IMO we can debate the genesis of crime in St. Lucia or anywhere else, but surely the sociological perspective takes us nowhere (or at least, nowhere quickly). Many if not most areas that people will cruise (and certainly, most in the Caribbean) will also have a huge separation between the poor and the wealthy, or perceived to be wealthy foreigners. We cannot change that. Surely the primary relevance of this incident to this site -i.e., cruisers, would be in the following areas:

1. Can we extrapolate from this that St. Lucia as a whole is to be avoided by cruisers on their own yachts?
2. Even if Soufriere is to be avoided, does that also mean that other harbours such as Rodney Bay are also to be avoided?
3. What actions are being taken on St. Lucia to identify, apprehend and ultimately prosecute the perpetrators?
4. Is St. Lucia attempting to upgrade policing in areas which have proven to be susceptible to crime against tourists, particularly cruisers?

We will have to wait and see if persons are apprehended and charged, but that would certainly give an indication that St. Lucia is taking this incident seriously; there may even be some additional deterrence if those responsible are caught, tried and incarcerated. In addition, in spite of their financial difficulties, the Government of St. Lucia may decide to devote additonal resources to policing/security in identified areas.

A frightening incident, to be sure, but I would suggest not one that can be used - especially at this early stage - to write-off all of St. Lucia as a place to visit in the caribbean. Would the exponentially more tragic events yesterday in Boston stop you from travelling to Boston (or the United States as a whole) in the future? They would certainly not stop me.

I believe that we take comfort in the fact that, as promised, a full and effective investigation will take place into the events surrounding the bombings yesterday at the Boston marathon. I believe that we wil take additional comfort if the perpetrator(s) are identified, apprehended and prosecuted. And I believe that most will care less if those found to be responsible grew up poor, or had developed a hatred of the USA (and the multi-nationals present for this event) because of a perceived, or even actual injustice committed against themselves, or their families and friends.

Brad

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by zboss

My god... couldn't this just be about a bunch of thugs committing a crime which is what thugs do? This "rich vs. poor" thing has nothing to do with what happened except "hey - I need some money.. do YOU need some money? Lets go rip of a bus full of tourists." Really, that is probably the level of complex thought that went into this "crime of the century".

Being poor has nothing to do with the poor being greedy or crime against the rich...

I agree with you 100%. The CF sociologists and philosophers should stop blaming the victims. The only people I've met on the many cruise ships we've been on earned their money via hard work.