Culture, Eco/ethical Travel and Impacts?

[jopperm2]

First off, I don't have the same bias as O'Rourke, we differ on a lot of issues.

Second, you say you know he's full of it because you have been to nearby countries "a couple of times" which is just as worthwhile as his experience.

You say that it is unbelievable that some of these trips are commercial gimmicks but consider this. They were using a moter bot to get from a semi-major city to theri loge that was a ten minute hike through jungle. That means they were probably all but five miles into the forest. Any legitimate trip would be more detailed than that.

This is what Mark Twain meant by "lies, damn lies, and statistics." "Less than 1 percent of Iowans" sounds tiny, but 19,000 homeless people, two-thirds of them children under the age of 12, sounds a lot larger. It sounds larger still when you recall that you said there weren't any, in another post.

Atually I said that in my 19 years living in Iow I rarely saw any. Anyway it's not a lie at all. You may think 19,000 is a lot, but I'll gladly tell it to their faces that it's an insignificant number.

I can't provide any detailed accounts of trips from my friends because I no longer associate with those people. When I moved away I lost touch. I knew I think three people that went on them and two were dissatisfied. One went on a trip that was basically extended camping. He was satisfied, but it wasn't exactly what he expect. They just trapsed around in the jungle for a week or so. The other two went together on something that from their descriptions could have been the same trip O'Rourke went on. They said there were "fake Indians" (not that they weren't real indians, but they didn't live in anything that could be considered traditional), caged wildlife, and a motorboat that was loud and had a wake that would likely be damaging any wildlife in the water.

That's not what this means: "That about sums it all up for me. From what I have heard, no matter how satirical his narrative is, Mr O'Rourke hits the nail on the head with this one."

What that means is that I agree with PJ that some of these trips are not at all helpful to the rain forest and in fact are harmful. I doubt that even some of the better trips are helpful really. I would be interested in knowing what you did on yours. I really didn't mean to provoke an argument. I was merely joking around and trying to somewhat show an example of the inefficacy of eco tourism.

@Moonbiter, Sorry for the nitpickiness here. I would be interested in hearing your take on the 4 trips you have done.

[fable]

Originally Posted by jopperm2

First off, I don't have the same bias as O'Rourke, we differ on a lot of issues.

And you still have the same general political biases and approach to welfare: make a joke, let 'em die, it's not your concern. Am I wrong in this?

Second, you say you know he's full of it because you have been to nearby countries "a couple of times" which is just as worthwhile as his experience.

This contradicts what you say below in this same post of yours: "They were using a moter bot to get from a semi-major city to theri loge that was a ten minute hike through jungle. That means they were probably all but five miles into the forest. Any legitimate trip would be more detailed than that." So what you're saying is that his few days' experience, taking a motor boat to get from a semi-major city to lodge and a ten minute wallk to the "jungle," is comparable to my wife taking a week, flying in on a 6-seater to a small airlot, next to a village about a day's travel by canoe to the nearest Indian settlement. Sure, that makes sense.

Atually I said that in my 19 years living in Iow I rarely saw any. Anyway it's not a lie at all. You may think 19,000 is a lot, but I'll gladly tell it to their faces that it's an insignificant number.

The question wasn't whether you'd seen any homeless. The point was that you said there weren't any in Iowa. You could have simply checked at anytime by picking up the phone to call your state government, or checked in a library, or even looked for Iowa Department of Housing documents online. I don't really know what purpose would be served by telling an 8-year-old homeless child that they're part of an insignificant number of people in your old home state. Each of us feels the pain of ourselves, first; when we mature as human beings, we begin to understand the pain of others, as well. If we don't progress along this route, we're borderline sociopaths, in my opinion.

I can't provide any detailed accounts of trips from my friends because I no longer associate with those people. When I moved away I lost touch. I knew I think three people that went on them and two were dissatisfied. One went on a trip that was basically extended camping. He was satisfied, but it wasn't exactly what he expect. They just trapsed around in the jungle for a week or so. The other two went together on something that from their descriptions could have been the same trip O'Rourke went on. They said there were "fake Indians" (not that they weren't real indians, but they didn't live in anything that could be considered traditional), caged wildlife, and a motorboat that was loud and had a wake that would likely be damaging any wildlife in the water.

This account actually sounds far more genuine than O'Rourke's. It still amazes me that people who would only buy a used car after bringing it in to their favorite auto mechanic for a checkup will nonetheless invest a good deal of money in something like this. You should always check ahead of time to get answers on every question you could possibly have about such matters. We did, and we never regretted the experience, though at the time it certainly wasn't labeled an eco-anything.

What that means is that I agree with PJ that some of these trips are not at all helpful to the rain forest and in fact are harmful. I doubt that even some of the better trips are helpful really. I would be interested in knowing what you did on yours.

The one trip was almost entirely spent in hollowed out tree trunk canoes, traveling down the Canaima. We would occasionally spy a "contact hut," a home whose inhabitants didn't mind occasionally greeting outsiders, though they always controlled the frequency with which they visits occurred. Typically, they were still a mile or more away from the river. They didn't even want to be in view of non-Indians. Our guide on that trip was a post-WWII Italian emigre who "went native" literally: he joined a small local tribe, married into it, and had a family of 6 kids and a wife. He was their social speaker, their contact with the outside world when one was needed. They shunned all other contact with us. We did slip in netted hammocks, identical to the ones the local tribes used, and made by them. We ate fish and fruits (well, the others ate the local fruits; I couldn't, being allergic), and we drank the water from the river. No one suffered any problems: it had a high tannic content, and had no life in it.

The other trip was quite different. There we stayed about 30 miles from a small village, and several hours from a local tribe. The latter did give us a privileged view not just of the outside of their living quarters (they used round straw-and-mud-dawb huts, with low-sloping conical roofs), but also a view of the main hall, which also doubled as the chief's living quarters: it was simply a larger hut, and probably not above 1500 sq ft. The tribe had arranged to permit these visits in exchange for a gift a year to the chief--and his son, about 15, came out to show us the latest annual gift: a nylon polar coat, complete with "Ohio" stenciled on the back! This was a prize possession, so it was not worn regularly--good thing, too, since the temperature was about 80 F with a 95 percent humidity most of the time. We saw all the steps involved in their breadmaking (which curiously mirrored what I knew of the production of naan, the bread of the Indian subcontinent), and I looked closely at the clothing (all handmade) and the weaponry (very, very sharp) used to clear back the rain forest each day and to kill whatever needed killing. They had a few metal implements, like a kettle and pole combination, which were given as a gift, but had and desired no contact with the outside world. They were hunter/gatherers, and were in a system that provided for all their needs. They also lost their teeth very early in life, and didn't live long. I was told the chief was about 35. He looked about 60, though not unhealthy or stressed. He just looked like he'd done a lot of living outdoors in those years he'd had, as you might expect. I've seen the same weathering effect on Viet vets who can't readjust to US culture, though there, many complicating factors lead to internal problems, too (and be damned the US governments that have repeatedly refused to help them).

Perhaps the greatest lesson I came away from all this with was the knowledge that despite what US museums regularly show about "stone age" and "bronze age" life exhibits, some parts of the globe still exist within various niches of these "ages" as living traditions. They are not "50,000 years ago," as we're told; they're an omnipresent now. From that, I realized that many people in any society don't necessarily exist in the same period; that rural and urban cultures are distinct, and frequently exist in different periods; that it is possible to live off the material objects of a technologically advaned culture, without exhibiting any comprehension of matters beyond that of the early Middle Ages; that geography and climate can determine the parameters of culture as much as economy; etc. Of course, I had a lot of research to do to investigate my theories, but that was only fun, and this got me thinking. It was fascinating.

I really wanted to find out more details about their worship systems, but that was obviously out of the question. Hell, the locals were even cagey about Santeria, which obviously has a much bigger following than the Catholic Church will let on. In the local village we saw a display of cardboard artworks said to celebrate the Christ Child; and what struck me from the first was that Mary was at the center, and that she was surrounded by a number of figures which included the Christ Child, Baron Samadi, and one of the first doctors in Venezuela to treat the poor (he died around the turn of the 20th century in the country's first reputed auto accident). When I asked about these figures, the local guide's English, which had been excellent, suddenly became very poor. I can understand why they fear sharing with outsiders. At the moment they need the RCC on their side; we were told numerous specifics about Protestant missionaries (the Southern Baptists were named repeatedly) who had tried to gain political clout by getting on the side of the wealthier regional elements. Since the RCC in South America traditionally favors the poor (despite the Vatican's attempts to tone that down), these locals were not going to cut the feet out from under the Catholic religious establishment. Too bad. We could have talked shop.

I could go on, there was a great deal more we saw, and some we experienced. Both trips were exhausting, and we definitely didn't live off the fat of any land. But we looked for culture shock, and we got it. I can post more about those experiences if you'd like, anytime.

[jopperm2]

And you still have the same general political biases and approach to welfare: make a joke, let 'em die, it's not your concern. Am I wrong in this?

Not completely wrong about it. I do care somewhat. I can't personally make a big difference in the matter, and I don't favor it politically. I do like to use humor to soften the blow of the reality that we won't be saving the world and people are going to suffer. O'Rourke's way more conservative than me though.

This contradicts what you say below in this same post of yours: "They were using a moter bot to get from a semi-major city to theri loge that was a ten minute hike through jungle. That means they were probably all but five miles into the forest. Any legitimate trip would be more detailed than that." So what you're saying is that his few days' experience, taking a motor boat to get from a semi-major city to lodge and a ten minute wallk to the "jungle," is comparable to my wife taking a week, flying in on a 6-seater to a small airlot, next to a village about a day's travel by canoe to the nearest Indian settlement. Sure, that makes sense.

It didn't contradict it. It just wasn't very clear. Sorry. What I meant was that you having taken two trips doesn't qualify you as much more of an expert than him. He's a novice at terrible, commercial, faux-eco travel; and you are a novice at legitimate amazon tourism. I didn't mean to imply that his travel was a legitimate as yours. It wasn't. It seems I have implied such. He has done some very legitimate travel in warzones for other genres besides humor books, but that's another story.

Originally Posted by Me in the Anti-Patriotism thread

And you mean that you wouldn't have wished that a government run shelter could have taken you in?

I'm not saying there should be none of this. It shouldn't be federally funded though. I think a better alternative is for city or county governments to give incentives to NPOs that can provide these cheaply and to run shelters when necessary themselves. I never once saw a homeless shelter before age 20 and I saw very few homeless people. Therefore I don't want to pay for shelters that are not going to benefit my area.

I think that solves the issue of what I said in referrence to the homeless population of Iowa. As for compassion; I feel for them, I've been there. We've had that debate a few times though. You know how I feel on it.

This account actually sounds far more genuine than O'Rourke's. It still amazes me that people who would only buy a used car after bringing it in to their favorite auto mechanic for a checkup will nonetheless invest a good deal of money in something like this. You should always check ahead of time to get answers on every question you could possibly have about such matters. We did, and we never regretted the experience, though at the time it certainly wasn't labeled an eco-anything.

That's basically what I was getting at. Some of these trips are crap. I'm glad it was conveyed.

[jopperm2]

I'm very interested in the religious aspects you mentioned.. It sounds like something similar to the voodoun traditions of the caribean.. Too bad they were afraid of whitey selling them out to the bishop!

[fable]

Originally Posted by jopperm2

I'm very interested in the religious aspects you mentioned.. It sounds like something similar to the voodoun traditions of the caribean.. Too bad they were afraid of whitey selling them out to the bishop!

Perhaps I didn't explain it well. It's not that they were afraid of the RCC's reaction. Quite the contrary. The RCC in that part of the world is seen (rightly) as a bulwark to the poor. Local priests are often very active in protest movements, and wield a degree of power. No, they were afraid their religious beliefs would reflect poorly on the RCC, be regarded as evidence of backsliding into "indigenous belief systems," and that the government would pay more attention to American Protestant missionaries who side invariably on the local level with the wealthy landowners. By putting their support behind the Protestant missionaries, the governments would be seen as backing powerful landed interests, and pacifying possible resistance among the poorer elements of the society who are (in those regions) sometimes dispossessed of their hereditary lands by hired mercenaries. Brazil is perhaps the best known, but by no means the only example of this. I can post some examples, if you'd like.

It didn't contradict it. It just wasn't very clear. Sorry. What I meant was that you having taken two trips doesn't qualify you as much more of an expert than him. He's a novice at terrible, commercial, faux-eco travel; and you are a novice at legitimate amazon tourism.

And that last sentence of yours makes no sense in context at all, which I'm sure you realize. Whether O'Rourke or myself is a "novice" in the Amazon region doesn't matter. What matters is whether he ever went. All I get from O'Rourke is the usual sense of utter cynicism about anything resembling ideals he doesn't believe in: that's it. There's no sense of character to make me believe it isn't some parody he's created out of whole cloth. What's the name of the place he stayed at? Does he mention specific locales, and when he went there? How much he paid? Is there anything that isn't generic in the piece, available from a little search on the Web? Why did he go in the first place, since O'Rourke's the last person you'd expect to take an "eco-tourist" jaunt? The whole piece sounds about as real as Tony Blair's constant protestations that he cares about all the civilian deaths in Iraq. I can give you names, dates, pictures, even 20 pages out of my wife's travel diary, which she maintained at the time; does O'Rourke offer any of this? Art Buchwald used to write about fake experiences he never had all the time, to put a pithy moral in his humorous political column. Only Buchwald never made any pretense of hiding the fact that he created out of thin air all the situations he discussed.

In any case, do you understand now why I feel the experiences were very valuable, and certainly didn't mirror the jaded and superficial attempts at humor made by O'Rourke?

[jopperm2]

That makes a little more sense now.. I didn't realize you were implying that it was fabricated. I suppose that is possible. I tend to think he did go simply because I have read a lot of his work and he is frequently on the go in weird places doing thanings that are out of the norm. I also suppose it could all be fake, but I've never heard him be called on it despite his large catalog.

I'm looking for anything that might substantiate the story.. I'll post that in a bit.

[jopperm2]

Here are the only details I could find. Somewhat ambiguous.

He left from Miami International to go to Peru. Just before and during the thrip there were coup attempts and Shining Path excesses. He landed in Iquitos.

He was grouped with a couple; Tom, and ex-rodeo rider who grew up in Texas and had since moved to New York, and his wife Susan; Michael, the executive editor for a New York Publishing house that had just comissioned a book for a friend of his; and Shelly, some girl who liked sloths.

He describes Iquitos in a way that sounds like he has been there before, though I have not, so I can't really validate it. More description than you could probably get without going or really making it up.

The guide's name was Julio. They traveled from Iquitos by motor boat 50 miles.
He lists about a page of bird species that are found in the area. Jose was the name of the ribereno rum bootlegger that they met(how many Joses so you think there are in Peru? ). He mentions the Yagua tribe by name.
They visited the town of Orellana. He mentioned the Napo and Sucusari rivers, and the Orejon indian camp.

There you have it! Submitted for your review. I don't know how much of the information would check out under scutiny, but it would be pretty sloppy to write something fake and have serious factual errors in it. I'm inclined to believe he did go, but it's not really provable with the info presented.

[fable]

I don't know how much of the information would check out under scutiny, but it would be pretty sloppy to write something fake and have serious factual errors in it.

The problem isn't whether there are serious factual errors, or not. After all, when you're as vague as O'Rourke is in the piece, who can call you on it? I can turn out something as believable and accurate as he did about this trip on just about any place in the world, given one hour's advance search on the Web--and that's no boast, simply the truth. His piece is as empty as the coffers of a televangelist's church one hour after the purchase of a mansion in Beverly Hills.

The problem is whether O'Rourke went, or not. I still get no sense from what you posted that he actually took the trip. The additional "details" you provided were as generic as the few references you'd already posted. O'Rourke is a writer. Writers are eternally hungry for detail, especially where people are concerned. I would have expected incident upon incident that was unique, vignettes that brought out the human context of a visit into an alien culture. Travel writers offer all this secondhand, as in Brian Hall's Stealing from a Deep Place, but they offer it, nonetheless. What I get instead here are a few stale jokes in a generic put-up frame...so, no, it doesn't ring true to me.

[jopperm2]

I won't disagree with that. Anyway, O'Roukian antics aside, my opinion is that eco-travel is inaffective in helping the environment, spreading awareness, etc. It is also in some instances a scam. Not all of it though. Some trips are actually trying to make a difference. I just don't think they succeed. They may be fun or interesting though for those interested. I personally can't stand hot weather or bugs, so I won't be going. Why am I in Florida??

[fable]

Originally Posted by jopperm2

I won't disagree with that. Anyway, O'Roukian antics aside, my opinion is that eco-travel is inaffective in helping the environment, spreading awareness, etc. It is also in some instances a scam. Not all of it though. Some trips are actually trying to make a difference. I just don't think they succeed. They may be fun or interesting though for those interested. I personally can't stand hot weather or bugs, so I won't be going. Why am I in Florida??

If tourism is limited to 1) very few facilities, whose resources/output is predetermined and controlled; 2) very few visitable locations; 3) accompaniment on all occasions by properly trained tour personnel, then it would seem that it can't do anything other than improve the environment--simply because these conditions keep facilities and tourists from messing the ecosystem up. How could it do otherwise, if the thing is run according to spec?

As for spreading awareness: My understanding is that eco-tours cater to people who are already aware of the importance of the environment; so there's no reason such a tour would even try for this.

As for being a scam: you don't know this, and you have provided no evidence supporting this. O'Rourke doesn't qualify. I could argue (not that I would) that women are overbearing, annoying creatures, and use James Thurber as testimony. Humorists make poor witnesses on any stand, even that of public opinion.

[jopperm2]

I'm referring primarily of sanctimonious tour companies that advertise that they are making a difference somehow. Like the fact that a small percentage of tourists who are likely already environmentalists traveling with them has any real affect on anything. I would say it is likely though that those tourists will have lower impact on the forest than if they went on their own. That's the only effect I can see. That's the scam IMO, that they claim that they are more than they are. Also scammy is when you get one of those cheeseball tours with the caged animals etc...

[fable]

Well, but look at it this way. If access to the environment by tourists is completely controlled, so that no one gets into some areas, and people only get into other areas when accompanied by guides, you can minimize environmental degradation. I don't believe this teaches anybody anything about the environment, but then, as I wrote above, the only people who are attracted to these kind of tours are already sensitive to the issues involved. And as I wrote above, the governments then control who locates there, what they offer, how much land they use, what resources they consume, and what outflux they provide into the surrounding environment. Controlling this aspect of tourism has been known to be vital in terms of keeping local ecosystems alive.

Sanctimonious? No more so than the businessfolk who preach that there should be no environmental resources set aside from regular use, and that future generations can worry for themselves, as they've always done in the past. When you're constantly fighting a well-organized, well-connected and wealthy opposition that wants to get its hands on pristine beaches, rain forest mines, etc, I suspect you would get a bit preachy. Kinda comes with the territory, and I'd understand.

[Athena]

I was in Hawaii for a good amount of time where I had a chance to observe this. Samoans and Hawaiians are a proud people. They care enough for their enviornment that they have the biggest jungle in the U.S. in Maui. The Dole pineapple plantation is a good place to buy from to support locals. Tourists also support locals by taking surfing and scuba lessons as well as paying to ride horses down the beach or up mountains. In 2006 Hawaii will be introducing the option of the inter-island ferry which will boost tourism EVEN MORE. Some Samoans and Hawaiians I met don't even live in houses. They live on the beach. Who needs shelter in Paridise anyway... shelter from what? The volcano? They take a risk living on the Big Island with an active volcano, but who wouldn't? They are comparingly, extremely racist people, in my opinion I DON'T BLAME THEM. (The term for a forigener in Hawiian is "Howley") The reason for this is probably the strong arm of the U.S. government STEALING THEIR LAND! The more empovrished east side of the Big Island (Puna) is home to the volcano, and gets a lot more rain then the west, hence cheaper lifestyle concidering the risk and weather. More natives and surfers live in Puna or that east side. The more rich west (Kona) side is more tourist and white and yuppie-run. In actuality, I am interested to know where the future of the island chain might lead. This gets me to my point. Rich white tourists are trying to buy out the whole island! Where will the jungle go if that happens?!! THE U.S. GOVERNMENT STOLE FROM THE HUMBLE AND SOLD TO THE RICH!! If you can't see a problem by now then stop reading this because you as a reader would not appeal to me as a writer. What happens to all of the natives? I'll tell you. They end up in jail because their pizza business owner decides to make a lil' meth lab and PIMP out his employees because THEY DESERVE NICE STUFF AND NICE LIVES. IT IS THE AMERICAN DREAM AFTER ALL AND WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT DENYING THE HAWIIANS THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE FREELY? Greed is the answer. No wonder the Hawiians <HATE>(cringe) the Americans. Why wouldn't you try to take as much as you could back from the people who <raped>(cringe) Paradaise? Some of my friends are homeless because the <government> (cringe) told them they can't live on their beach, and run their boat launch and shut down their pizza business. The <cops>(CRINGE) put GIANT cement blocks all down Po'ohiki Beach so the surf culture can't enjoy life as much as when surf culture could CAMP LIVE and SURF FREE without yuppie corrosion of native society. Now these people are racist, addicted to meth AND without a place to call home. AND THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIORNMENT AND ITS NATIVE CULTURE. Thoughts anyone?

[fable]

Um, maybe start up a new thread with your post as the first one, Athena? Because I don't know if it really fits in too well, here. But it's certainly interesting, and deserving of comment.

[dragon wench]

@Fable and Athena,

While Athena's post does branch off somewhat, it still tackles issues like tourism and colonialism/imperialism...both of which are fairly intrinsic to the topic at hand. So as far as I'm concerned, no worries