Posts: 66
Threads: 8
Joined: Feb 2006
I don't buy that it's only the tourists that have negative impacts on the environment. There's plenty of locals that don't show much respect for either how they treat the land or other people. As for too many newcomers changing the spirit of the area, for good or ill, that's the way things are. Part of living in an open society is the freedom to go live where you want. It definitely can create problems, whether in Hawaii, Montana, or elsewhere, but working to incorporate them is going to pay off more in the future than railing against them and letting them know they are outsiders - no surer way of increasing tension and assuring separate political agendas develop.
Posts: 151
Threads: 8
Joined: May 2006
I don't really think that's necessary to limit the number of tourists since the economy is doing that anyway.
http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stori...ily43.html
Steve & Regina
Hawaiian Acres / North Lake Tahoe
'If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there' - George Harrison
Posts: 116
Threads: 4
Joined: Apr 2006
Reading the above article, occupancy rates are down so let's raise our room rates. Hmm. Makes sense to me. Will the last tourist turn out the lights and pay 3 million dollars. Limiting tourism in a state where tourism is the major business is like Washington DC decreasing politicians and lobbyists, NOT gonna happen.
Posts: 76
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2007
What ever happened to freedom and free will. Lets just limit everything everywhere then we'll all be segrigated once again.
Why cant we all just co-exist
Shane Turpin
Lava Ocean Adventures
Posts: 990
Threads: 22
Joined: Dec 2007
Lava ocean, thank you, some think money falls from the skies. You guys pay taxes, the more sucessful the more you pay. Somthing goes wrong the CG comes. Who pays for them very much you and the fishermen and everyone who uses the harbor!
Same at all levels roads, fire , police, welfare in a pinch. parks, schools, you name it, and it costs plenty. I suspect puna is light on income from property taxes for the existing services. Kill more business and if we go into a recession, the other side could insist on spending taxes in the vicinity of where they're collected! Puna gets what puna collects from property taxes! The council has no qualms about tax raises if justified in their minds! Or couch them in 500$ registration fees for the family sedan, as service upgrades.
Gordon J Tilley
Posts: 49
Threads: 1
Joined: Nov 2007
quote:
As for too many newcomers changing the spirit of the area, for good or ill, that's the way things are. Part of living in an open society is the freedom to go live where you want.
I think the point is to preserve a culture that the "white man" has consistently shown no respect for. The rub happens when others come from a different culture, mostly mainland, think they have a better way to do things and insist on perpetrating it upon the culture that currently exists. It's an old story, but none the less true and relevant.
quote:
It definitely can create problems, whether in Hawaii, Montana, or elsewhere, but working to incorporate them is going to pay off more in the future than railing against them and letting them know they are outsiders - no surer way of increasing tension and assuring separate political agendas develop.
The original Hawaiians welcomed us as guests. We betrayed that hospitality. It is completely appropriate for Hawaiians to desire to preserve their culture and heritage. That they would express frustration and anger about the fact that they have to fight to do so is also appropriate. The tension exists because of arrogance, presumption, domination and oppression. I am cofident the rest of the United States would be feeling that "tension" if they suddenly became a conquered nation. I would also bet you may not be so open to just saying "incorporate."
I could be wrong in my interpretation of your statements, but to me is sounds like you are saying, "Just shutup and get along. Stop resisting the inevitable." in the name of progress or to just avoid conflict. Not all progress is good and I would catagorize what has happened to the Nation of Hawaii under that listing. Likewise, not all conflict is bad. It is indeed the catalyst for change.
One of my favorite sayings is, "Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you are right in doing it."
When life gives you lemons....trade them for chocolate!
When life gives you lemons....trade them for chocolate!
Posts: 325
Threads: 9
Joined: Oct 2007
quote:
Originally posted by Sharlee...I think the point is to preserve a culture that the "white man" has consistently shown no respect for...
Prejudice comes in many forms. Many "white men" have shown lots of respect for a variety of different cultures. Many haven't, and that's a shame. Just because my skin is pink doesn't mean that you should put me, or anybody who looks like me, in a certain pigeonhole. As you said, maybe you do have the right to think that way, but it doesn't make it right.
I understand and acknowledge what you say, Sharlee. There have been atrocities in the past perpetrated by "white men". It is also a caricature, a simplistic view, to blame all "white men" for the sins of some "white men". For example, slavery existed in America for centuries, but was rejected by "white men" like Abraham Lincoln. The "white men" of Congress and the Supreme Court continued to correct the wrongs of slavery by passing the Civil Rights Act. And progress continues to be made.
In Hawaii, the Hawaiians themselves had slavery, a caste culture, and hideously barbaric "kapu" laws. The white missionaries brought smallpox, a narrow viewpoint, and other negatives. but they made the Hawaiians end their own slavery.
Please don't paint me with the same brush that you paint all "white men", Sharlee, because maybe, just maybe, we're not all the same.
How do I know?
Aloha! ;-)
Posts: 49
Threads: 1
Joined: Nov 2007
quote:
Prejudice comes in many forms. Many "white men" have shown lots of respect for a variety of different cultures. Many haven't, and that's a shame. Just because my skin is pink doesn't mean that you should put me, or anybody who looks like me, in a certain pigeonhole.
That is why the term is put in quotes. It is acknowledging that it is an over simplification/generalization/stereo typing of the term and yet most will get the point without me having to type out two pages of explanation. I am white too and I don't fit in that catagory either and I don't feel that I put every white man in that catagory (notice there are no quotes this time.).
I feel the point I attempted to make was a fair point to make and not a specific attack on any one person (again, the point of using quotes) but it's a subject I am pretty passionate about and don't mind getting into it with people if they want to. I lived on an Indian reservation for years and I currently work with two others and see just how well those "corrections of wrongs" is working out. I would be happy to quote you a dozen statistics of how neither the Native American culture or the African American culture have even come close to recovering.
quote:
For example, slavery existed in America for centuries, but was rejected by "white men" like Abraham Lincoln.
Notice it first existed for centuries before people stood up and did something to stop it. Now a former post recommends "incorporating" and I stand up and say something and you blast me for it and twist what I feel is a pretty righteous point. There's another great saying, "Evil prevails when good men do nothing."
quote:
In Hawaii, the Hawaiians themselves had slavery, a caste culture, and hideously barbaric "kapu" laws. The white missionaries brought smallpox, a narrow viewpoint, and other negatives. but they made the Hawaiians end their own slavery
This statement seems to be saying the end justifies the means. I am confident Hawaii was not a perfect culture pre-conquer. No culture is perfect. But hoorah for smallpox, narrow viewpoints and other negatives, because Hawaii is now better for it??? I don't understand that.
Truthfully, dare I imagine you being as frustrated at my conclusions as I am at yours? I don't want to assume that. I am peaceful person that stood up for something I believe in. I guess, that might mean I will get blasted for it and I need to toughen up because that is just the way of it. But, mgeary, I think you over-reacted.
When life gives you lemons....trade them for chocolate!
When life gives you lemons....trade them for chocolate!
Posts: 8,459
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
Your points were understood and appreciated Sharlee. Feel free to state positions, just be aware that there will always be others who will too.
Aloha,
Punaweb moderator
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 325
Threads: 9
Joined: Oct 2007
quote:
Originally posted by Sharlee...But hoorah for smallpox, narrow viewpoints and other negatives, because Hawaii is now better for it??? I don't understand that.
You missed my point. I guess that's what comes from trying to do the "artful dance of communication" over the Internet. It doesn't work very well sometimes. I apologize for not being clear.
I was not saying that Hawaii was better for white men bringing their negatives with them. I was trying to acknowledge that the white men, some of them, brought very negative things with them, like smallpox and a puritanical point of view. I've found that being honest in a conversation, acknowledging another person's point of view, goes a long way to finding a middle ground, or at least to carry on the discussion with integrity. I thought that was apparent when I typed it, but it obviously wasn't, because you didn't take it that way.
I'm not one-sided about much of anything. White people have done horrific things to blacks and Native Americans and Hawaiians and Jews, and each other. No single person of any color, I believe, is completely a saint or completely a devil. We all have good and evil within us. No culture, as a whole, has entirely clean hands, either. In today's society, blacks are the largest killers of blacks. I don't assume that every young black man is a thug or a killer, even though he may dress differently and listen to different kinds of music. I'll make an assumption here, I know it's a dangerous thing to do, but I'd bet young black men don't like being thought of as thugs and killers. In the same way, I don't like being blamed for the sins of the white race, whether or not you put it in quotes. I try to be an ethical person, and I'm not ashamed of who I am or the way that I live.
Tourists coming to the Islands, the topic of this thread, may not behave the way you'd like them to, for a variety of reasons. Or at least the way that Damon would like them to, who started the thread by saying he'd like a tourist cap. Last time I drove through Puna, I saw a fair amount of junk cars, refrigerators, and washing machines rusting in the jungle. Tourists didn't put any of those things there.
The "can't we all just get along" guy had it right. I don't thing it's useful to lump people into groups and point fingers. The productive thing to do is identify specific problems, and try to find realistic answers to them. Putting a cap on tourism, IMHO, is not a realistic solution to whatever problems tourism brings. It's not gonna happen, as long as the tourists bring millions of dollars to the Islands.
If there is a problem with tourism, I'd approach it by trying to identify, specifically, what the problems are. "Losing this special thing called aloha", in Senator Hemming's words, is pretty vague, at least from a problem-solving point of view. How do you legislate "aloha"?
How do I know?
Aloha! ;-)
|
