Dumb, very dumb, move by Royal Caribbean

I watched a Haiti segment tonight on CBS' 60 Minutes... it was riveting, tragic, gut wrenching, sickening, appalling and more.  There were interviews with American surgeons using rum and vodka as alcohol replacements, hack saws as instruments of amputations... and compassion... so much compassion.

Also shown were bulldozers being used in one makeshift outdoor morgue to bury the hundreds of victims dumped there by family, friends and officials charged with doing something with the dead.

It reminded me of the grainy holocaust scenes filmed in Germany so many years ago except it's now and it's Haiti.  The missus and I watched in silence.  We should all be watching.

Juxtapose those described scenes with what follows and tell me that the decision-makers involved are doing the right thing:

Sixty miles from Haiti's devastated earthquake zone, luxury liners dock at private beaches where passengers enjoy jet ski rides, parasailing and rum cocktails delivered to their hammocks.

The 4,370-berth Independence of the Seas, owned by Royal Caribbean International, disembarked at the heavily guarded resort of Labadee on the north coast on Friday; a second cruise ship, the 3,100-passenger Navigator of the Seas is due to dock.

The Florida cruise company leases a picturesque wooded peninsula and its five pristine beaches from the government for passengers to "cut loose" with watersports, barbecues, and shopping for trinkets at a craft market before returning on board before dusk. Safety is guaranteed by armed guards at the gate.

The decision to go ahead with the visit has divided passengers. The ships carry some food aid, and the cruise line has pledged to donate all proceeds from the visit to help stricken Haitians. But many passengers will stay aboard when they dock; one said he was "sickened".

"I just can't see myself sunning on the beach, playing in the water, eating a barbecue, and enjoying a cocktail while [in Port-au-Prince] there are tens of thousands of dead people being piled up on the streets, with the survivors stunned and looking for food and water," one passenger wrote on the Cruise Critic internet forum.

"It was hard enough to sit and eat a picnic lunch at Labadee before the quake, knowing how many Haitians were starving," said another. "I can't imagine having to choke down a burger there now.''

Some booked on ships scheduled to stop at Labadee are afraid that desperate people might breach the resort's 12ft high fences to get food and drink, but others seemed determined to enjoy their holiday."I'll be there on Tuesday and I plan on enjoying my zip line excursion as well as the time on the beach," said one.

The company said the question of whether to "deliver a vacation experience so close to the epicentre of an earthquake" had been subject to considerable internal debate before it decided to include Haiti in its itineraries for the coming weeks.

"In the end, Labadee is critical to Haiti's recovery; hundreds of people rely on Labadee for their livelihood," said John Weis, vice-president. "In our conversations with the UN special envoy of the government of Haiti, Leslie Voltaire, he notes that Haiti will benefit from the revenues that are generated from each call …

"We also have tremendous opportunities to use our ships as transport vessels for relief supplies and personnel to Haiti. Simply put, we cannot abandon Haiti now that they need us most."

I think there's a need... and I think cruise ships could be used to fulfill that need... but to vacation less than one hundred miles from where perhaps 200,000 are dead and where millions are suffering... I can't fathom it...

Call me a softee, a liberal even... but there's something terribly wrong about it.

Crossposted(*).

Comments

[Lawrence Franko]

There is indeed something aesthetically disconcerting about people vacationing somewhere in the same country that has just experienced a tragedy. But would it shock you less if the vacationers went to, say, St. Martin, and denied Haiti the income that Royal Caribbean provides? The soft-hearted "liberal" says: "How awful it is that people are spending money in Haiti on vacation." But the hard-headed economist says: "Oh. Now that Haiti really, really needs money to feed its population and rebuild, you think we should cut off one of their few remaining sources of income because the contrast between pleasure and tragedy is so great?" Should the Haitians employed in tourism now starve because of our aesthetic sensitivities? Maybe instead of criticizing RCC, you should try to convince them, and some of their tourists clients to invest in MORE resorts, factories, or services in Haiti, so that Haiti wouldn't be so awfully poor that it can't afford a reasonable building code. It was the horrid construction that killed people, not the earthquake!

[Guitanguran]

Maybe somebody oughta ask the Haitians

[Jim]

Step back, take a deep breath, and re-think just how dumb your comment is.
The cruise line is not a rescue operation.
The Haitians working at the beach need the cash.
You are flailing at the wrong target. I can understand your emotional outburst, but you must recognize by now how dumb it was.
Get a grip, and correct your dumb post.

[tnxplant]

1) Twenty-five years ago we were in a church group with a woman from Haiti who told us how the sick and old there would be left on the streets to die and rot, so this is not solely because of the earthquake.

2) 60 Minutes is not known for presenting the whole story but is good at ginning up emotion with a carefully constructed narrow view.

3) Anywhere you vacation there is someone nearby who is suffering or dying in some way. Is it wrong in this case only because of the numbers or poverty involved?

[Greg A.]

The money the Haitians get from tourists is just as green as the money they get from international benefactors....

(caveat: I have no idea what color Haitian money is)

[Rick]

I'm sticking with my original thoughts...

Royal Caribbean could easily choose another port of call while thousands of bodies are rotting on the streets and hundreds of thousands are suffering immeasurably within 60 miles of their Haitian resort... and they could offset the loss of revenue for locals by simply replacing that loss with donated goods, services, even cash...

No one is stating here that vacations must cease altogether or that life does not go on... but where is the decency?

Seriously, where is the decency, the sense of humanity?

[Mommynator]

Rick, if it's a matter of contemplating taking a cruise and then debating whether to take it or use that money to help out, I think one side of that argument may have more weight.

If people have already paid and are on the boat, there's little to be done but to complete the voyage and then maybe go home and decide how to help.

Royal Caribbean is a business, not a philanthropic organization. That the vast majority of businesses in the USA conduct philanthropy is a beautiful thing and to be lauded.

And we still don't know exactly what the company that owns RC is going to do. And don't expect the lying MSM to tell us, either.

Also, don't forget all the misery that surrounded Jesus that He could have removed while he was here among us and didn't, and how He would go away from everyone to rest and refresh. If he didn't, his human body and mind would have been overwhelmed and unable to carry out His mission.

It's good to feel empathy, but empathy without the mind to react well to the situation is always a disaster.

[Rick]

I have to disagree Mommynator... Roya Caribbean Cruise Lines could easily divert to another port... easily... they do this quite frequently...

No one is asking RCCL to act philanthropically... I'm asking merely for some decorum...

Can you imagine Cruise ships pulling into New York Harbor within days of 9/11? I can't... why can't RCCL simply take their scheduled stops elsewhere for a few days?

[Mark]

"...but to vacation less than one hundred miles from where perhaps 200,000 are dead and where millions are suffering... I can't fathom it..."

I understand the delicacy of your feelings; my problem with your statement, though, lies in the focus on proximity. Is it in any way better if they dock MORE than 100 miles away? How many miles? How about 10 miles away, but in another country, Haiti's island-sharing neighbor, the Dominican Republic? If they dock in Iceland, in New Zealand...does that in any way help alleviate the suffering in Haiti? Should every vacation in the world be put on hold because somewhere there is suffering? Will you not eat and enjoy dinner this evening, because it's a near certainty that someone in your own home town is going hungry tonight?

Given your statement, how can anyone in the world enjoy anything if there's even one solitary soul suffering anything, anywhere? The moral question is, what does proximity have to do with the nature of suffering?

[Rick]

Proximity has nothing to do with the nature of suffering...

Proximity has a ton to do with common decency...

Are you one who throws parties at funerals? Do you show up at the hospice with a six pack and snack food? Are you the guy with party favors at the wake?

Let's respect the dead... let's show them some dignity...

For Christ's sake...

[D]

Who would want to vacation near that shit hole of a country any way?