• Royal Caribbean's decision to dock ships at Haitian resort creates controversy
    6 replies, posted
[quote]By now, most of us have seen and heard about the profound devastation and suffering wrought upon Haiti last week after a massive earthquake. So you'd probably think there's no way that cruising tourists could have returned to frolicking on Haiti's beaches mere miles from where people are trapped beneath the rubble of a decimated city. Unfortunately, you'd be wrong. On Sunday, the Guardian reported that Florida-based Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines is docking ships at the "picturesque wooded peninsula" known as Labadee, which it leases on Haiti's northern coast. At Labadee, passengers "enjoy jetski rides, parasailing, and rum cocktails delivered to their hammocks." The British paper also reported that passengers can spend their time "shopping for trinkets at a craft market" while armed guards stand at the entry to the complex to guarantee their safety. Despite the fact that the ships have delivered relief supplies to the island, some passengers on the ships are reportedly "sickened" over the decision to dock there. One passenger took to an Internet message board to protest the idea of vacationing where "tens of thousands of dead people are being piled up on the streets, with the survivors stunned and looking for food and water." When Royal Caribbean announced its decision to resume stops at Labadee last week, a company executive cited the economic importance of the resort to the local citizens as well as the opportunity to deliver much-needed supplies. "We also have tremendous opportunities to use our ships as transport vessels for relief supplies and personnel to Haiti," said associate vice president John Weis. "Simply put, we cannot abandon Haiti now that they need us most." Still, Royal Caribbean, which recently raised eyebrows when it announced that it's organizing a "cougar cruise" for older single women, has been catching heat from all corners on their decision, prompting company CEO Adam Goldstein to post a defense of the company on their website. Saying that he is "proud of what our people and our ships are doing," Goldstein writes: The ships going back to Labadee, including Navigator of the Seas today, are obviously making a very valuable contribution to the relief effort by offloading supplies at Labadee. The media understand this and generally have written and spoken about the relief effort in positive terms. But in the last 24 hours, sparked by an article in the Guardian in the UK, a different and more critical view has emerged that questions how our guests can justify having a good time in Labadee when there is such misery less than 100 miles away.[/quote] To sum it up a cruse ship docks in Haiti to rest, but what makes it worse is this area they docked at is kinda nicer area where people can go jet ski's, go shopping ect. They say they're using this time to help local business and deliver supplies. I don't believe of their motives other then to make money off of a already ravaged country. It isn't the whole idea of them docking, it is the reports they keep on getting saying people are still in "resort/vacation" mode.
[QUOTE=MR-X;19727909]They say they're using this time to help local business and deliver supplies. I don't believe of their motives other then to make money off of a already ravaged country.[/QUOTE] You're completely wrong. Without tourism, most small tropical islands would be completely fucked. The company is doing this to save a little bit of money, Haiti is allowing it because without it they'd be even poorer than they are now. Hell, that cruise line is probably Haiti's [i]only[/i] source of income at this point. Refusing to dock because a few tourists feel bad about it would be a terrible thing to do.
Who the hell cares, they're a company, not a country, they're not morally obligated to do [I]anything[/I]
If these tourists feel bad about enjoying themselves while other people suffer they shouldn't have been on a cruise in the first place; the cost of their ticket probably could've fed some starving african family for a year. Honestly, people can be so retarded sometimes, usually when they are trying to be "moral".
[QUOTE=ryandaniels;19729700]If these tourists feel bad about enjoying themselves while other people suffer they shouldn't have been on a cruise in the first place; the cost of their ticket probably could've fed some starving african family for a year. Honestly, people can be so retarded sometimes, usually when they are trying to be "moral".[/QUOTE] Yeah, Depending on the cabin, the tickets can be anywhere from 100-3000 dollars.
So, let me get this straight. You don't want them to get income?
[QUOTE=Sector 7;19728178]You're completely wrong. Without tourism, most small tropical islands would be completely fucked. The company is doing this to save a little bit of money, Haiti is allowing it because without it they'd be even poorer than they are now. Hell, that cruise line is probably Haiti's [i]only[/i] source of income at this point. Refusing to dock because a few tourists feel bad about it would be a terrible thing to do.[/QUOTE] I never said that. I know they would be fucked.. Even lived in Hawaii? without tourism and the military bases there it would be a fucking rock. (the pineapple and sugar industry there wouldn't be as big too) I never said they should stop. Like i said it isn't the idea of docking, it is just what they're doing. I just find it funny that people can afford to pay thousands for these trips but yet some people have trouble donating 10 bucks via text. All i really wanted to point out was how these people feel bad, but they paid for this trip. 100-200 bucks could of easy helped Haiti.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.