La Ceiba Dangerous for Gringos

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

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

on 12 Nov 2003, Richard Ferguson <raferguson@att.net> 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
>

Warren Post wrote:
>
>
> If you like archaelogical sites that aren't overrun by the tour bus
> crowd, you will like El Puente, a recently opened site near La Entrada
> and not far from Copán Ruinas. The ruins themselves are not spectacular
> but being the only person there gives it a special feeling: it's just
> you and the lost city.
>
>

Having been teh only one at Macchu Picchu, I knopw the feeling,
but that is a seriously over-restored site. I would like to be the
only person at Tikal or Palenque!

Doug McDonald

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:44:30 -0600, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

Sat atop the highest pyramid in Palenque loaded on the local magic
mushrooms and stayed past closing till the sun set.

Wind fanning the trees made the most amazing sounds combined with the
monkeys and the magic of the place and the spirits. Was many moons
ago but something you never forget.

Copan Ruinas has the most amazing stella I have seen.

>Warren Post wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you like archaelogical sites that aren't overrun by the tour bus
>> crowd, you will like El Puente, a recently opened site near La Entrada
>> and not far from Copán Ruinas. The ruins themselves are not spectacular
>> but being the only person there gives it a special feeling: it's just
>> you and the lost city.
>>
>>
>
>Having been teh only one at Macchu Picchu, I knopw the feeling,
>but that is a seriously over-restored site. I would like to be the
>only person at Tikal or Palenque!
>
>Doug McDonald