Haiti attack on Cruisers.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Claude_Marie

I do not desagree with you but you got me lost.
When US Contractors rebuild Haiti, don't they work side by side with the local ?

Else, I have read " American imperialism about US aid".
20th century Soviet propaganda, and Europeans were called colonialists ( not any better), time to move on, it is 21st century.

Yes and it was said here that the contractors are welcomed and very well accepted by the population. But in what regards most of US money for development of 3rd world that has not been the way they have acted. Anyway regarding Haiti it was the response to an humanitarian crisis, not the typical help for countries in development.

Believe me I would like things chance and also with Europe whose main problem is that it has not one foreign policy but many small ones according to countries. That has to change and a foreign policy on Europe will only make sense and be effective if it will be a EC unified one...and for that many things have to change...it will take time.

[cards26]

Originally Posted by Canibul

He told us of stacks and stacks of perishable goods sitting in locked, fenced compounds in Port Au Prince, guarded by the military police. All those donations the Americans gave are going to feed and clothe the regime. Not the population.

True, and not only that, the 'regime' sold those goods to other islands and pocketed the cash.

[first wind]

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't agree with you. The ones that sell drugs are criminals not fishermen .
Normal people don't resource to criminal acts just to get more money. On the fishermen case probably there are some resentment feeling regarding rich men from other countries that are seen (justifiably or not) as oppressors and show their health on their doorstep.

Probably this has something to do with that resentment in what regards fishermen:

the ones that sell drugs are not much different. they are people, usually from poor 'hoods that hold disdain for the system they believe is the cause of their poverty (justifiably or not)and they turn to crime for the easy money.

you say that normal people don't resort to crime just to get money (to survive) but, i beg to differ, survival is a much stronger compulsion that resentment. until now, when there is violence for violence's sake, most crime was aimed at just that: getting easy money.

interestingly, you claim 'normal' people don't resort to crime to get out of poverty but, then, you insinuate that it's totally normal for fisherman to resort to crime out of resentment. and, if resentment was the issue, why not just beat the couple? why take the money if they weren't in it for the money?

[first wind]

Originally Posted by Polux

Yes. I don't live on US. Cities here have a very low criminality. Criminality has grown on assaults for robing on people that live isolated on the country side or in isolated places. Many of the assaults are done by immigrants from the East of Europe that had come to work some years ago and that due to the crisis don't have means of subsistence.

To give you an idea most of violent deaths on the country have to do with passionate crimes, honor crimes or family disputes. Very few are due to criminals.

oh. well, in the US, the country is safe. the cities are full of crime and violence.

[first wind]

Originally Posted by tightgroup

From your statement, I have to come to the conclusion that people require moral education. Which brings to mind a few questions;

Who's morality should be taught
Why we feel that moral education is important or required...

morality is not a thing we are born with. little kids are cruel and evil. we are taught right and wrong by our parents and communities. do you feel parents should not teach their children any morality? so, murder, rape, and theft are totally ok in your book?

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by first wind

the ones that sell drugs are not much different. they are people, usually from poor 'hoods that hold disdain for the system they believe is the cause of their poverty (justifiably or not)and they turn to crime for the easy money.

you say that normal people don't resort to crime just to get money (to survive) but, i beg to differ, survival is a much stronger compulsion that resentment. until now, when there is violence for violence's sake, most crime was aimed at just that: getting easy money.

interestingly, you claim 'normal' people don't resort to crime to get out of poverty but, then, you insinuate that it's totally normal for fisherman to resort to crime out of resentment. and, if resentment was the issue, why not just beat the couple? why take the money if they weren't in it for the money?

I think I lost the drift? How did it get to drug pushers from animals that boarded and brutalized an old couple? I hope they recover and convince people to go to the other end of the island. I guess just taking your stuff is not enough?

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Canibul

For several years we supported a missionary boat run out of Florida, the schooner Star of the Sea. They were running food and supplies donated by churches in the US to Haiti. We were told by the captain that they sailed all the way around to Ille a Vache, and based there to distribute the food packages to local orphanages. He said the ONLY way to get the food to the people who were starving was to bypass the US and Haitian government programs entirely. He told us of stacks and stacks of perishable goods sitting in locked, fenced compounds in Port Au Prince, guarded by the military police. All those donations the Americans gave are going to feed and clothe the regime. Not the population.

It is not just the corrupt government that is a problem either. I have "known" a guy on another website for over a decade who is one heck of a craftsman and inventor. He invented an easily made device that would compress plastic garbage into bricks. The bricks could then be used to build structures. Pretty slick what he did. He built test buildings and I think an engineer sign off on the designs. If I remember right a university helped him test the building designs using the blocks his device created.

After the earthquake, he went to Haiti on his own dime to show people how to make the device and how to build with the blocks created by the tool. He had some success but was very frustrated with the NGOs who had their own agenda. He just wanted to show people how to build the tool that could then be used to build plastic bricks that could then build houses which cleaned up the trash, gave people work, and provided housing. Brilliant idea and execution on his part. The problem was the various players including the NGOs.

Regarding Chinese aid. I am not sure it is all that good since the aid often has strings attached. Many of the stories I have read about Chinese projects in the third world has the Chinese providing the money, management, as well as much of the labor. The locals are not getting very much direct employment from the projects. Taking a Chinese loan can be iffy as well. I was just reading about one of the Pacific island nations that got a Chinese loan. Well, things are not working out paying off the loan and the Chinese want their money. Nothing wrong with that either. The one asset the island nation has is certain satellite slots that are very valuable and they are afraid that they will have to sell these positions to pay the debt. There is another Pacific island nation that has allowed the Chinese to develop the islands airport and other infrastructure and they are starting to wonder if they did the right thing. Palau is talking about limiting the number of Chinese tourists that are arriving at the island since the islands resources are being strained by all of the visitors. There is some local resentment about the Chinese and their behavior, though I suspect this is not really about the Chinese per say, but just too many people visiting the island irregardless of their origin.

Historically, Chinese have gone to new places and setup business. Nothing wrong with that either but it has led to trouble with the locals.

Later,
Dan

[JRM]

Originally Posted by pbbmorton

It is true less than half the money was distributed. Most went into the hands of the oligarchs.

US citizens that volunteered as first responders are very well respected. In fact they could walk unprotected through the slums in complete safety. It is the US government along with all the other governments that are just considered part of the oligarchy.

I was down in Haiti in September, working in a private orphanage. I've spent a decent chunk of time in third world contries, and Haiti is different. There's a hopelessness there that has to be experienced firsthand, it can't be described.

I work as a first responder, and the place I was volunteering for is operated by an R.N. who was in the initial earthquake response. I don't think we were treated any better for it. There are so many various aid agencies in the country, no one would be able to tell anyway.

I would never take my wife there, nor my boat. I didn't even take a wristwatch, much less a phone or a computer. We hadn't been in the country an hour before we had our first "negotiations" while the other side brandished a shotgun.

It's just a different place, and I don't think normal third world type experiences translate. I feel very badly for this couple. Those are some very serious injuries for anyone, much more so for a more "seasoned" person. I wish them a speedy recovery.

JRM

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[first wind]

Originally Posted by Canibul

Duh, that was my point. It's certainly safe to anchor here. And in most of the Bahamas. The Keys. West Coast of North America, until you get down to just south of San Diego. The Med, the Aegean, even big parts of the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, South China Sea. Most of Europe. Japan.

But when you start talking about really poor places, Things start changing. Much of Africa, the northern coasts of South America, parts of Central America. When you show up in a boat worth more than the collective valuables of an entire village, from a foreign culture, anchoring on a temporary basis, with not a friend or acquaintance in sight. And you probably don't speak the language in use locally.

It's kind of like some rich idiot waving a steak dinner under the noses of a starving crowd. Will a few of them take a bite they knows they can get away with?

Duh. I would.

nah. you got it all wrong. it's not the lure of easy money from an outsider. it's a moral lashback out of resentment of overfishing.

[tightgroup]

Originally Posted by Claude_Marie

Correct, that deserve an explanation, above is an understatement in reference to the Italian tourists (an Italian lady skipper and NOT a tourist)...Fidji" thread.


http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ji-143716.html

Should you check this thread, according to a large number of posters, you will understand that if you infringe the local so called culture (imported less than 200 years ago) in disrespecting a dress code (that fits perfectly said posters own agenda), then it is absolutely normal if locals (bunch of Chavs, IMHO) retaliate into the form of verbal abuse, sexually explicit and agressive gesture toward a defenceless (dirty European) lady who of course has been "asking for it" (despite absolutely not a single evidence).

Back on thread, I am not stupid enough to compare both situations.
Still, I see an analogy : Defenceless people, easy preys.

Hans and Fein are in my thought, by now they have recovered from cuts and bruises, a broken arm is nothing, psychological consequences are a major concern.
I trust that the Dutch autorities did their best to comfort them, supplied them with a psychological assistance.
Looking forward to hear that they are back on Pelicaan and have set sail again.

I find that we sometimes tend to use the phrase of offending someone's culture to express in a liberal fashion, malicious behavior.

[tightgroup]

Originally Posted by first wind

morality is not a thing we are born with. little kids are cruel and evil. we are taught right and wrong by our parents and communities. do you feel parents should not teach their children any morality? so, murder, rape, and theft are totally ok in your book?

Strange, when you fill a room full of kids they play with each other, they learn violence, hate and greed from the parents and the community.

I would suggest you read Piaget on this subject! First the community has really no business in the upbring of children, and here I agree its the responsibility of the parents .

But to stress that morality should be taught by a community opens at the very least a debate on what is morality , and how is it defined by the individuals. Is my morality better than yours ?? Should we let the state decide ?? And again my earlier question who's morality should be taught and why ??

[Kestle]

Originally Posted by Claude_Marie

@ Polux :


Wiki :


The USA is the largest foreign source of relief aid to Haiti from the 2010 Haiti earthquake, although in December 2011, the Haitian President Michel Martelly said that "The cooperation with Venezuela is the most important in Haiti right now in terms of impact, direct impact.".[1] USA, through USAID is giving more than $712 million in aid.


I did not bother looking up E.U aid, Japan aid...etc...etc...


What does it take to get ourselves a good name ???

Respectfully, this has nothing to do with their view of the US. It is about gangs. Period.

Soleil has vendors selling mud cakes (mud in a cake shape, baked in the sun) that poor locals use to reduce hunger pangs. Our church supports the priest who runs outreach there. Two years ago his #2 was gunned down at the gates to the compound with heavy automatic weapons fire, while the kids watched. Note the cost of food vs KK-47 and bullets. US related? Nope. He was perceived to have gotten in the way of drug and other business.

Like many resource and service poor countries, the government barely controls the locals.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[first wind]

Originally Posted by tightgroup

Strange, when you fill a room full of kids they play with each other, they learn violence, hate and greed from the parents and the community.

I would suggest you read Piaget on this subject! First the community has really no business in the upbring of children, and here I agree its the responsibility of the parents .

But to stress that morality should be taught by a community opens at the very least a debate on what is morality , and how is it defined by the individuals. Is my morality better than yours ?? Should we let the state decide ?? And again my earlier question who's morality should be taught and why ??

i have to agree to disagree with you about kids. from a very early age they are destructive, harmful to animals, pick on other kids unmercifully. i suppose, if their parents were psychopaths, they might learn that at home but, from my experience, it's parents and other adults that rein in that behavior and teach kids civiity.

as far as community, you are thinking about the sense of community in a huge empire, like America. community, in smaller, more old fashioned and traditional areas tends to be comprised of tightly knitt families with a shared common culture and morality....nothing like America, now.

however, certain levels of morality are basic to the human condition, regardless pf beliefs or culture. certain acts are pretty much deemed wrong by the large majority of people. as i mentioned; rape, murder, and theft are examples of this.

no one is suggesting that government should teach morality...least of all me. i am a libertarian; just shy of being an anarchist simply because i realize some form of government is a necessary evil.

however, all of us, from childhood up, are constantly exposed to the basic morality of our society through music, literature, and film. these basic ideas of right and wrong tend to be enforced by the attitudes of our family, family friends, teachers, and other respected members of our social circles. and, of course, our family instructs us as to the specific morals held by them.

everytime a kid sees/reads of spiderman, the hero, stoping a thief or a murderer, that child is learning morality: right from wrong.

thus, society educates us in it's collective morality...even if we don't live in a small, third world community.

[Claude_Marie]

Originally Posted by Kestle

Respectfully, this has nothing to do with their view of the US. It is about gangs. Period.

Not at all, thank you for your imput.

Your answer suits me perfectly, therefore comments about Imperialism, colonialism, cultural clash, dress code infringement, you name it are irrelvant.
Same goes with over-fishing, of course, at least in this part of the world.
Starts with anti social behaviour, ends with gangs.
Agreed.

PS : My hat off to first responders, NGO personnels, Churches and welfare organizations.
Out of interest, I donate money to a small NGO created by a young architect who came out with a project of "flat pack - Ikea style" small houses, were they ever built ?
Have you seen these "Ikea" houses ?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by first wind

...
you say that normal people don't resort to crime just to get money (to survive) but, i beg to differ, survival is a much stronger compulsion that resentment. until now, when there is violence for violence's sake, most crime was aimed at just that: getting easy money.

interestingly, you claim 'normal' people don't resort to crime to get out of poverty but, then, you insinuate that it's totally normal for fisherman to resort to crime out of resentment. and, if resentment was the issue, why not just beat the couple? why take the money if they weren't in it for the money?

Maybe I was not being clear. What I mean is that be honest and have moral high grounds have nothing to do with being poor or rich. What I was saying is that is probable that those fishermen did not feel that they were acting in a morally wrong way taking away some wealth from what they saw as rich oppressors that steel their wealth from the poor. My post was made replying to someone with local knowledge that said that poor people identified foreign rich yacht owners with local oligarchs that obtained their wealth through corruption.

What is morally right or wrong has to do with the way one looks at reality. There is an old Iberian saying (Portuguese and Spanish) that expresses that: "A thief that steals from another thief has 100 years or forgiveness", meaning that is not morally wrong to steal from a thief. Does not mean that is right or wrong just that many people feel that is not morally wrong.

The case I was referring regarding fishermen had not to do with the original case related by the OP but with an assault to a French yacht that involved menacing with guns but not any other form of physical violence.