Culture, Eco/ethical Travel and Impacts?

[jopperm2]

@fable, I don't think such access is completely controlled though and I don't think that's the aim of most tour companies. I think the aim is to dupe environmentalists into thinking they are going on ecologically sound tours in order to make as much money as possible with as few snags as possible.. Likely some companies do offer good tours, but profit is still their goal.

@Athena, I personally think there are some serious cultural issues in Hawaii that were there long before Cook landed, but I don't know enough about their history to comment too much. IIRC there was a revolution of some sort and the result was that the country should be annexed. It wasn't taken by the white man by force.

[Magrus]

Originally Posted by 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?

A friend of mine just got to go on a trip to Hawaii with her bf last month. They spent time there in one of the bf's families condo, his family has a good bit of money and they have a few properties there I guess. I saw the pictures, beautiful, girl had the time of her life I was happy for her. It irritated me though thinking of such a beautiful place becoming just a rich person's winter resort. For exactly the reason's you put there. That was someone's home, and still is. Altering it for profit disgusts me profoundly. A wonderful example would be the picture she brought home to show me of the ships that were sunk when Pearl Harbor was bombed there. Those ships are STILL there, rusting and polluting the water from 60 years ago. Wonderful environmental improvement for the natives I say.

However, you don't have to go to some tropical island or foreign country to see things like this unfortunately. I haven't done much research as it just enrages me to think of it after hearing it so why piss myself off by researching you know? Anyways, way back when treaties were made between the settlers here and the natives, it was agreed after a certain time the natives would get their land back. Not all, but portions. There's American's living there now, and the Native American's are clamoring for the treaties to be uphold right around here. The government is siding with the American's as those are the voters, not the Native American's. They can squat on the land and thumb their noses at those treaties because who's going to stop them? This really doesn't apply to the travel thing though, just the US government acting like they normally do.

As far as those areas in the rainforest and such with tourism. It's my supreme hope that those areas remain at least somewhat untainted by civilization. Looking around my area and seeing what we account for forests here to be pitiful stands of trees that don't even cover a full acre of land, it makes me wonder at what will happen to such areas as the rainforests. However, those "pure areas" aren't pure anymore. They have people going there to capitalize on them. I suppose I'd rather have people at least attempt to keep the ecology as it is while doing so as opposed to forcing away the natives and building Starbucks and housing tracks everywhere.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by Magrus

It irritated me though thinking of such a beautiful place becoming just a rich person's winter resort. For exactly the reason's you put there. That was someone's home, and still is. Altering it for profit disgusts me profoundly. A wonderful example would be the picture she brought home to show me of the ships that were sunk when Pearl Harbor was bombed there. Those ships are STILL there, rusting and polluting the water from 60 years ago. Wonderful environmental improvement for the natives I say.

...way back when treaties were made between the settlers here and the natives, it was agreed after a certain time the natives would get their land back. Not all, but portions. There's American's living there now, and the Native American's are clamoring for the treaties to be uphold right around here. The government is siding with the American's as those are the voters, not the Native American's. They can squat on the land and thumb their noses at those treaties because who's going to stop them? This really doesn't apply to the travel thing though, just the US government acting like they normally do.

I agree, the government is ignoring the treaties. It is very dishonest greedy and controlling in this situation. I concider it thievary.

[fable]

Originally Posted by jopperm2

@fable, I don't think such access is completely controlled though and I don't think that's the aim of most tour companies.

I never said it was the aim of a company--it's the aim of the government, that usually handles directly or licenses specific private companies to handle this for them. As such, it's carefully monitored.

I think the aim is to dupe environmentalists into thinking they are going on ecologically sound tours in order to make as much money as possible with as few snags as possible.. Likely some companies do offer good tours, but profit is still their goal.

You don't seem to get that some people are happy making a decent profit and protecting the environment. Or do you think that a tour company would risk heavy fines and the possible loss of its license to operate by abrogating the terms of its government contract? I know of one company in Kenya's national parks that was literally thrown out of business a few years back because it only paid lip service to government conditions. The owners were suddenly visited one day by a truck full of fully armed Kenyan police bearing a letter listing a series of violations, and escorted to prison. It's one example, but it shows how a government can take both its environment and its eco-tour business very seriously as going hand-in-hand.

For the rest, as I wrote, above: "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." Then has been shown to be the case when its systematically enforced; and now that many governments realize it also means more longterm business, vs shortterm business and a ruined ecosystem that provides no benefits to anyone, it seems things are looking up. I'm not saying this is invariably the case, but more governments these days realize the peril of losing "eco assets" if for no other reason than the loss to GNP. It's a materialist argument, but at least it works.

[jopperm2]

Okay, I'll buy that. I like that Kenyan example too BTW.. I wish the US government would handle corporate crooks that way.

I still think that the only reason that many of the companies pay any attention to the environmental concerns is that they don't want to pay fines. So if it isn't explicitly listed in a law, don't expect it to happen. I'm sure you know that though.