Airlifting Tourists out of Machu Picchu

12 posts / 0 new

Mon, 2010-01-25 21:25

j.m.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8480013.stm

This is why market societies are perverted, and even more perverted by the legacies of colonial racism. In a cost-benefit analysis, it becomes necessary to save tourists than it is to save Andean peasants. Tourists tell their friends that in spite of natural disasters they will be cared for (therefore assuring future visitors of the safety of the country and the continuation of the multi-million dollar tourism economy). Saving freezing children and parents in nearby Puno, and those that lost their crops and homes in the department Cusco, are worth hardly anything.

Tue, 2010-01-26 02:10

conrad yablonski

It was ever thus-under the pre-Incans, the Incans, the Spanish and now today.

Tue, 2010-01-26 19:44

j.m.

conrad yablonski wrote:

It was ever thus-under the pre-Incans, the Incans, the Spanish and now today.

What does that statement accomplish but to oversimplify history and deflect from the substantive inequalities that exist between the coast and the mountains?

Wed, 2010-01-27 22:10

conrad yablonski

Quote:
substantive inequalities that exist between the coast and the mountains?

WTH does that mean-you mean one region is somehow better off than the other?

Because they're for the most part they're both poverty stricken hell holes.

Thu, 2010-01-28 07:11

Southlander

They are not mearly saving the toursits, they are getting them out so they can go home. The locals are home, and probably want food, clean water, shelter and the chance to get their lives on track asap, without bad press or toursits cluttering up the place. These things are not supplied by shifting them to town.

Thu, 2010-01-28 15:25

j.m.

conrad yablonski wrote:

Quote:
substantive inequalities that exist between the coast and the mountains?

WTH does that mean-you mean one region is somehow better off than the other?

Because they're for the most part they're both poverty stricken hell holes.

Yes, one region is significantly better of than another. Literacy levels, healthcare, education and access to consumer goods are SUBSTANTIALLY different in these regions.

Is it too hard to believe that there is more wealth, services and consumption in the coast? I never suggested that there isn't a lot of poverty in the coast - there is. However, it isn't as severe as in the rural areas.

Thu, 2010-01-28 21:05

j.m.

Southlander wrote:

They are not mearly saving the toursits, they are getting them out so they can go home. The locals are home, and probably want food, clean water, shelter and the chance to get their lives on track asap, without bad press or toursits cluttering up the place. These things are not supplied by shifting them to town.

Actually, aside from the Argentinians that decided to walk to the next town over, evacuees are being taken to the city of Cusco where their respective governments are receiving them. The bad press is already there with tourists badmouthing the Peruvian government that they've been "abandoned". Hah, two or three days without a helicopter ride constitutes abandonment! I wonder what meaning that word takes when your land gets stolen from mining, or when your house or cultivating land washes away and you get thrown a small bone, if any.

Fri, 2010-01-29 00:04

Southlander

j.m. wrote:

The bad press is already there with tourists badmouthing the Peruvian government that they've been "abandoned". Hah, two or three days without a helicopter ride constitutes abandonment!

This is because reporters are only interested in the worst story, if you say haw badly you have suffered you get the front page. These reports always need taken with a grain of salt, and i hope not everyone thinks all tourists are such whingers.

Fri, 2010-01-29 00:21

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Southlander wrote:

j.m. wrote:

The bad press is already there with tourists badmouthing the Peruvian government that they've been "abandoned". Hah, two or three days without a helicopter ride constitutes abandonment!

This is because reporters are only interested in the worst story, if you say haw badly you have suffered you get the front page. These reports always need taken with a grain of salt, and i hope not everyone thinks all tourists are such whingers.

How come the peasants never get the front page? Are you lost on the interweb? Turn right, next exit.

Fri, 2010-01-29 00:31

#10

j.m.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Southlander wrote:

j.m. wrote:

The bad press is already there with tourists badmouthing the Peruvian government that they've been "abandoned". Hah, two or three days without a helicopter ride constitutes abandonment!

This is because reporters are only interested in the worst story, if you say haw badly you have suffered you get the front page. These reports always need taken with a grain of salt, and i hope not everyone thinks all tourists are such whingers.

How come the peasants never get the front page? Are you lost on the interweb? Turn right, next exit.

Seven other rural folk died - the news broke because a Washington Huaraya, a local porter and some Argentinian tourist, died in a landslide (although the story goes a different way - why should I repeat her name if it's already everywhere?). Campesinos and other rural people are so undervalued - people love their labour but couldn't give a shit about what happens to them. It doesn't matter that so many locals have lost so much as long as the tourists are okay. Even local media is concerned more about the tourists than the people living there.

Fri, 2010-01-29 00:53

#11

j.m.

Southlander wrote:

j.m. wrote:

The bad press is already there with tourists badmouthing the Peruvian government that they've been "abandoned". Hah, two or three days without a helicopter ride constitutes abandonment!

This is because reporters are only interested in the worst story, if you say haw badly you have suffered you get the front page. These reports always need taken with a grain of salt, and i hope not everyone thinks all tourists are such whingers.

Tourist expectation of sites don't factor into increased deception and thus make them more prone to whining? I guess we should toss that aside - it's just a well-researched phenomenon.

Government media, as a way of promoting citizenship, shows how tourists take responsibility for sandbagging duties and how locals who charge more for bread should be punished - a great example of disciplining "bad citizens" and using foreigners as the standard to which Peruvians compare their socially-imposed mediocrity* with (I always hate this because I have met a lot of really shitty people in Canada that have a socially reinforced smugness). I wouldn't deny that tourists can do ethical things in these situations, but clearly tourists, self-motivated and all, are hardly humble and angelic when they have to wait days - during their break from everyday life - to get out of Machu Picchu.

But really, thank goodness we focus on these poor souls - it's tragic they lost three days of vacation time and paid $2.50 for a few bottles of water while waiting for air evacuation. 80 000 locals just lost their homes, belongings and crops and will have to wait for these poor leisurely souls to get back to safety before more relief can be mobilized.

* See the whole "when did Peru fuck itself up?" discourse, and the newer version "when did Peru fix itself" discourse, which is based on being a good citizen (by noting perceived, not real, characteristics of Westerners).

Fri, 2010-01-29 16:49

#12

j.m.

Affirming what was already thought: locals still haven't received aid.

http://elcomercio.pe/noticia/406616/mas-alla-turistas-pobladores-cusco-a...

[quote]

Elsie Flores from Urubamba:
"después de más de 5 días de emergencia, los damnificados sigue sin recibir apoyo, no hay carpas, no llega el apoyo a Urubamba que prometió el Gobierno. ¡SOS!"

"after more than 5 days of (a state of) emergency, the displaced continue without help, there aren't tents, the help to Urubamba that he government promised never came. SOS!"