on 12 Nov 2003, Richard Ferguson wrote in
news:3FB2FC5A.314DE828@att.net:
Good reply. Well reasoned and thought out. I usually compare
several countries advisories and you're correct the 'devil is in
the details'. You are also correct that Latin America as a region
is much more crime ridden than say, much of Asia. One thing one
has to take into account is the individual doing the travel. Is
he/she street smart? Is he a big 6'5" football player? All this
makes a difference. The other variable is the problem of not being
able to carry a gun or weapon to the Country your are traveling
to. So it is difficult to defend yourself is someone pulls a
weapon. Also the legal system in these countries is pathetic, so
you'll find no relief there, unless you can buy off the right
people. You're really at a serious disadvantage in Latin America
if your are a white Westerner. Speaking Spanish helps, but only
AFTER your in trouble.
> Doug:
>
> Obviously I do not agree that the country reports are useless.
>
> An individual country may have political pressures to bend the
> truth, it is true. However, if multiple countries say the same
> thing, then I think it is hard to imagine that various countries
> in various parts of the globe all are lying in the same way for
> political reasons. Sounds a lot like a global conspiracy theory
> at that point.
>
> The other way to look at these advisories is to look at the
> details rather than the big picture. If the advisory says
> specifically that a particular region of country X is unsafe, or
> that you should avoid doing A, B, or C, then that is specific
> advice, something you can act on. A general statement saying
> that country X has a high crime rate might be more influenced by
> political pressures than the detailed advice, which presumably
> is based on crimes reported to the embassy, in the local
> newspapers, or from other sources.
>
> The other old rule is that if there is smoke, there is fire.
>
> If you think that countries are subject to bias, then I argue
> that individuals are even more subject to bias. What about
> someone in the tourism business who has a financial interest in
> tourism in country X? What about someone who has an emotional
> attachment to country X, could that person look at the faults of
> country X in an objective manner, especially if it involved
> admitting to outsiders that his own country or his favorite
> country was no longer a safe place for tourists? What about
> someone who has strong political views, which cause him to favor
> or disfavor a particular country for political reasons? (IE.
> Cuba). What about someone whose views of the country are based
> primarily on the nice locals they met on their last couple of
> trips there? People have biases, sometimes very strong biases.
>
> It is true, as you said, if you know personally a resident of
> country X, and know that person is reasonable, unbiased,
> inteligent, and informed, then that individual is a very good
> source of information. But opinions expressed by unknown
> individuals on the internet are far from that that ideal.
>
> There is plenty of bias out there, which is why I urge people to
> get input from as many sources as possible, not just individuals
> on the internet who may have hidden or obvious biases.
>
> I will make one other comment, which is that Latin America as a
> region is a relatively violent area, with serious crime
> problems. (I have plenty of sources to back up that claim, if
> anyone is interested, starting with the UN.) I would not push
> these government advisories if I was talking about Japan or
> Canada, which are relatively safe.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> Doug McDonald wrote:
>>
>> Richard Ferguson wrote:
>> >
>> > Unfortunately,
>>
>> Unfortunately you always answer posts with the same
>> stuff. You list government web sites for travel information.
>>
>> These are, basically amd uniformly, worthless.
>>
>> This is because they are influenced, 100%, by politics and/
>> or political correctness.
>>
>> They cannot be trusted as to whether a place is safe
>> or unsafe, healthy or unhealthy. That goes either way:
>> if they say it is safe, it may not be. If they say it is
>> dangerous, it may not be.
>>
>> The only good information can be obtained from private
>> sources who you personally trust.
>>
>> Doug McDonald
>
|
