"To Hell with Paradise" discussion

[ColeS]

Re: "To Hell with Paradise" discussion

Good topic ohliz.

I remember when I first heard about this book, I was very hesitant in spending the 24.95 plus shipping to get it. But I did get it anyway.

I was very excited at the beginning when reading it and then like you ohliz I thought that it dealt a lot more with diseases etc and not too much on Tourism (in the first half atleast). I enjoyed the rest after that and was bummed that it did not go on after '73.

I also thought (and I think the book stated that, but I could be wrong) that it read like someone's final thesis. More of a research paper and less of a true history (if that is even possible to differentiate).

Being in the Tourism industry though, I learnt more from this book than I learnt in school. Tourism in Jamaica was obviously a "buck up" venture and it was interesting to see how it evolved and how the attitude of the people and the Government changed after they realize that it was there to stay.

[ColeS]

Re: "To Hell with Paradise" discussion

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...from the beginning also the gov't was spending tax dollars to improve/build infrastructure for tourists but not for Jamaicans.

.... Roads, schools, health facilities all suffered while money went to build hotels, improve tourist attractions, roads to tourist areas, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

and you know the worst, and saddest (to me) thing about alla that is that it COULD have been beneficial if it had been done with the right motivation, there was plenty a work to go around, plenty ah money to be made, there coulda been some for ALL, but NOOOOO

if all that increase in building etc, to build up the tourist industry was done with the intention of increasing money coming into the country to be used for the betterment of the Jamaican people, , and if the 'good jobs' resulting from the 'boom' had been open to the local people - that woulda been a good thing

but NOT when it was for the purpose of just increasing the riches of already-wealthy immigrants, and worse! for the expressly stated puspose of encouraging more white europeans to move onto the island in order to purposely make the local population a minority, keep them down and relegate them to the lowliest servile employment, housing etc.......

that is the WORST kind of filthy nastyness right there

OK OK, mi agoh stop now, gotta watch my presha enoh.........

[/ QUOTE ]

Sistacaf,
You are so correct. It was during this time that the Government started the downhill act of "Catering" to lighter shaded outsiders (in more ways than service) than to their own people who was against Tourism in the first place.

Makes you wonder if Tourism would have still been the main supplier to the country if the Government had not jumped on it so aggressively. And could we have really done witout it? Maybe not. Afterall, it is an island, it does have sand and beaches, and we do make some good rum. We would eventually capitalize on it at some point, but would we have done it with a different attitude? Maybe.

[ohliz]

Re: "To Hell with Paradise" discussion

[ QUOTE ]
and you know the worst, and saddest (to me) thing about alla that is that it COULD have been beneficial if it had been done with the right motivation, there was plenty a work to go around, plenty ah money to be made, there coulda been some for ALL, but NOOOOO

if all that increase in building etc, to build up the tourist industry was done with the intention of increasing money coming into the country to be used for the betterment of the Jamaican people, , and if the 'good jobs' resulting from the 'boom' had been open to the local people - that woulda been a good thing

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Things could be very different today had things been done differently yesterday.

[ QUOTE ]
It was during this time that the Government started the downhill act of "Catering" to lighter shaded outsiders (in more ways than service) than to their own people who was against Tourism in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like since Columbus and until very recently, Jamaica has been run by people who identify more with white Americans and Europeans than they do with other Jamaicans...no?

Like white first, Jamaican second.

[ QUOTE ]
Makes you wonder if Tourism would have still been the main supplier to the country if the Government had not jumped on it so aggressively. And could we have really done witout it? Maybe not. Afterall, it is an island, it does have sand and beaches, and we do make some good rum. We would eventually capitalize on it at some point, but would we have done it with a different attitude? Maybe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who knows. There are very few beautiful warm places in the world today that are politically stable that don't have some kind of tourism going on. But how it is run and who benefits...that varies widely.

I really wish he'd gone more into those early inns run by Jamaican women. He indicated they did fairly well (compared to the early mega hotels the gov't and Americans built)....one wonders if Jamaica had encouraged and supported THAT kind of tourism, how different it might have been.

[jamaica_dreamin]

Re: "To Hell with Paradise" discussion

I received this book in the mail today. I'm going to start reading it this evening.

[ohliz]

Re: "To Hell with Paradise" discussion

I look forward to hearing your thoughts, jd!

Funny contemporary story. I lurk on a b board that is primarily used by people visiting Sandals Whitehouse. It is felt that their wedding photography services aren't the best, and a local photography couple has been recommended and used by many there. They paid for them to come to the wedding at Sandals on day passes, $85 each or so for the day.

Well Sandals soon realized that they were losing a few hundred $ that they expected to get because these couples were not buying their photo services. So they started to impose an "offsite vendor fee" of $350.

Couples that had already booked the Sandals "free wedding" balked at this and some were able to get out of the fee, some not.

Sandals new policy posted 3 days ago? NO "offsite vendors" allowed on the property at all, period.

Heaven forbid ANY amount of $ go into the local economy. Sheesh.

[jamaica_dreamin]

Re: "To Hell with Paradise" discussion

[ QUOTE ]
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, jd!

Funny contemporary story. I lurk on a b board that is primarily used by people visiting Sandals Whitehouse. It is felt that their wedding photography services aren't the best, and a local photography couple has been recommended and used by many there. They paid for them to come to the wedding at Sandals on day passes, $85 each or so for the day.

Well Sandals soon realized that they were losing a few hundred $ that they expected to get because these couples were not buying their photo services. So they started to impose an "offsite vendor fee" of $350.

Couples that had already booked the Sandals "free wedding" balked at this and some were able to get out of the fee, some not.

Sandals new policy posted 3 days ago? NO "offsite vendors" allowed on the property at all, period.

Heaven forbid ANY amount of $ go into the local economy. Sheesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a SHAME !! I spent a day at Sandals Whitehouse a few weeks ago. My freinds cousin works there and gave us day passes. We ate & drank free all day. I personally don't stay at AI's (for many reasons including $$) but it was a lovely day for FREE !

[blugiant]

Re: "To Hell with Paradise" discussion

nice tredd. mi started fii discuss sinting similar inn da mixture tredd inn da caribbean section dough mi neva fullee develop itt. yu see da caribbean islands wid da lightest population add sum aff da ighest rate aff mzungu tourism. ja population didd natt ave dat highlevel aff mixture like some aff da addar island.

mi neva read da book butt mi aggo putt itt pon mi list fii git