More "cruisers" violate borders and more on S/V Zatara

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by jstrru402

in this thread there have been numerous iterations or peoples anecdotes about being judged as cruisers rather than as an individual, covid notwithstanding. sorry, but I thought we were standing up to bias wherever we saw it. I guess not.

to be clear though...I'm not talking about the discrimination that SVZ may find. I'm talking about the potential for discrimination that a lot of others seem concerned about finding after the fact of SVZ's actions. I thought that was obvious... it was to me.

again, where else is ok to judge an entire minority group by the PAST actions of someone else?

Ever heard the word 'disingenuous'?

How 'bout the phrase 'once bitten, twice shy'?

It's quite clear to at least most of us that you're "not talking about the discrimination that SVZ may find."

What seems to be your concern, though I'm not sure why you don't just come out and say it, is 'racism', against the 'race' of cruisers.

None of this thread has been about "standing up to bias wherever we saw it"; it has been almost entirely about how the actions of the individual affect the outcomes for everyone else.

There are many clear instances of an individual's actions having repurcussions, both positive and negative, enormously outside their initial import, for reasons ranging from human nature to chronology, so the need for this concern is well-founded.

Whilst you (or I) might not think it's OK "to judge an entire minority group by the PAST actions of someone else?", the fact is that every sentient life form (and many non-sentient ones) do exactly that on initially meeting a potential interloper, for good reason. Survival.

To put it more simply, if a suspected 'interloper' turns out to be just that, every similar-looking newcomer is, quite reasonably, suspected to be the same.

So the answer to your misguided, practically nonsense question is "everywhere".

[Tillsbury]

Wow. I'm pretty sure that turning up somewhere with the sort of attitude that includes "educating the locals" will pretty much confirm to the country in question that they were absolutely right to pre-judge cruisers' behaviour.

[Sonny36]

How about, simply: "You're not in the United States, any more?"

[AKA-None]

Hmm a few of the folks tossing out uh ideas about making people come to their view are let’s say newish accounts. But let’s ignore that for a minute.

If you come to my house or my boat you don’t get to tell me how you will behave. At least if you want to stay or come again.

If your children come to my house and treat me and my house like crap. And then their cousins do the same then don’t expect me to think you might be different.

[smj]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Hmm a few of the folks tossing out uh ideas about making people come to their view are let’s say newish accounts. But let’s ignore that for a minute.

If you come to my house or my boat you don’t get to tell me how you will behave. At least if you want to stay or come again.

If your children come to my house and treat me and my house like crap. And then their cousins do the same then don’t expect me to think you might be different.

Well said.

[jstrru402]

Originally Posted by Tillsbury

Wow. I'm pretty sure that turning up somewhere with the sort of attitude that includes "educating the locals" will pretty much confirm to the country in question that they were absolutely right to pre-judge cruisers' behaviour.

I'm not suggesting that locals need to be educated, I believe they already understand the concept of judging people as individuals rather than group generalization. its the people that think they can't grasp such a concept are the ones that think they need an education.

[jstrru402]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

None of this thread has been about "standing up to bias wherever we saw it"; it has been almost entirely about how the actions of the individual affect the outcomes for everyone else.

you just defined bias. so its not about standing up to bias, its just about bias in general? got it.

I've read almost every post on this thread and have seen a bunch of self-described "progressive" sailors on here pontificating about their world view. it could only be imagined as to what a "progressive" sailor is, but it probably skews more towards pink hair, rainbows and butterflies.

all this talk about respecting a country's rules and laws, then devolving into America bashing while ignoring the fact that the US has largely played fast and loose with it's own rules and laws about the same subject for decaaaaaaades and is suddenly labeled as racist the moment they actually make an attempt to enforce its borders.

it wouldn't be too unreasonable to believe that these same "progressive" cruisers would fall in lockstep with the whole BLM movement in the US (and elsewhere), but again ignoring the hypocrisy that others refuse to call out discrimination in the South Pacific because... get this, white guilt? seriously, bringing up disease brought to the islands half a MILLENNIUM ago.

yuuuuup, all of this is waaaaaaay off the actual topic. but every single one of them is something a "progressive" sailor has already cited as a concern previously in this thread.

please, the very next time someone sails to Fiji or Tonga, let us know if you experience any discrimination because of SVZ's actions. you can't assume either. the authorities have to say they're treating you a certain way because of what SVZ did, otherwise it's just your opinion.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by jstrru402

... (locals) ... I believe they already understand the concept of judging people as individuals rather than group generalization ...

Well, if these locals are Harvard professors of sociology then possibly you are right.


If they are the other kind of locals, then you are nearly certainly wrong.


Unfortunately, very few locals, also in the s.c. developed, Western nations, are Harvard professors. Most are not.


From my observation, we are all judged first and foremost by our group-identity: we are just 'no name cruisers / foreigners' when we arrive anywhere on our boats.


And I am 100% sure we get judged by how other cruisers / foreigners beahaved - those who arrived before we arrived. Sometimes as long ago as 1492.



barnakiel

[NaClyDog]

Originally Posted by jstrru402

you just defined bias. so its not about standing up to bias, its just about bias in general? got it.

I've read almost every post on this thread and have seen a bunch of self-described "progressive" sailors on here pontificating about their world view. it could only be imagined as to what a "progressive" sailor is, but it probably skews more towards pink hair, rainbows and butterflies.

all this talk about respecting a country's rules and laws, then devolving into America bashing while ignoring the fact that the US has largely played fast and loose with it's own rules and laws about the same subject for decaaaaaaades and is suddenly labeled as racist the moment they actually make an attempt to enforce its borders.

it wouldn't be too unreasonable to believe that these same "progressive" cruisers would fall in lockstep with the whole BLM movement in the US (and elsewhere), but again ignoring the hypocrisy that others refuse to call out discrimination in the South Pacific because... get this, white guilt? seriously, bringing up disease brought to the islands half a MILLENNIUM ago.

yuuuuup, all of this is waaaaaaay off the actual topic. but every single one of them is something a "progressive" sailor has already cited as a concern previously in this thread.

please, the very next time someone sails to Fiji or Tonga, let us know if you experience any discrimination because of SVZ's actions. you can't assume either. the authorities have to say they're treating you a certain way because of what SVZ did, otherwise it's just your opinion.

Mate, this is all a bit of a stretch no? Why is it that anyone who disagrees with that yahoo is anti this or anti that or must be this or that?


Can't we just think his behaviour is abhorrent (while expressing that sentiment)? Why must people then try to bring in any political turmoil going on in your likely homeland? It's not relevant and doesn't belong here.

[barnakiel]

And we cannot avoid bias.


We can, however, avoid our bias affecting our ways in destructive ways.


Of course, only as long as we are aware that our views are biased (no matter what).


Too bad 99% alcoholics insist they have no problem.


Know thyself.



b.

[jstrru402]

Originally Posted by NaClyDog

Can't we just think his behaviour is abhorrent (while expressing that sentiment)? Why must people then try to bring in any political turmoil going on in your likely homeland? It's not relevant and doesn't belong here.

I 100% agree, but like I said, everything I mentioned was previously brought up by self-described "progressive" sailors. from sailors in the 1500s, to immigration enforcement, to this is going to mess up my plans, to everyone is going to treat us differently now.

again, wholeheartedly agree. feel free to think SVZ made a mistake. but a lot of people on this thread to take a step back from the ledge and remove connecting their actions to all this other garbage that has been brought up.

but where's the outrage for La Vagabond? because they were in Portugal, that dude's clear disdain for not being welcome gets a pass because he sprinkles in some "I guess I understand" comments? please, they've been moving from port to port. if you understand, how about you park it, or better yet, repatriate yourself to Oz until all this blows over. no grief directed at them though. SVZ gets it all because... well, you can draw the conclusion, but mine is that a lot of people here have made it a political issue based on their perception SVZ's political leanings.

[Chris31415]

Originally Posted by jstrru402

I
but where's the outrage for La Vagabond? ... SVZ gets it all ...

Well, it is a thread about SVZ.

[wingssail]

Well anyhow, my feeling about Zatara's behavior is that it IS NOT about any consequences myself or other cruisers might suffer because of it.

I think we should follow rules and procedures of a country we are visiting or intend to visit just because it is the right thing to do, the moral and ethical thing to do, not because we or others might suffer if we don't.

If some cruiser arrogantly decides that he can flout the rules, or make up some justification as to why his actions are OK, or inconsequential so why the fuss?...Then that cruiser has lost my respect for them. That cruiser is not an ethical or moral person. He gives himself a bad name, and yes, unfortunately, other cruisers too.

The fact that other cruisers following in his footsteps may suffer the consequences is of course a sad thing, and it is the lack of concern about the consequences of his bad behavior which adds to the lack of moral purpose of the cruiser who arrogantly does it.

In the case of Zatara, his opening lines, in fact his whole opening post on this topic pretty much confirms his arrogance and says little about being an ethical or moral person or about any humility he might have.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by jstrru402

you just defined bias. so its not about standing up to bias, its just about bias in general? got it.

I've read almost every post on this thread and have seen a bunch of self-described "progressive" sailors on here pontificating about their world view. it could only be imagined as to what a "progressive" sailor is, but it probably skews more towards pink hair, rainbows and butterflies.

all this talk about respecting a country's rules and laws, then devolving into America bashing while ignoring the fact that the US has largely played fast and loose with it's own rules and laws about the same subject for decaaaaaaades and is suddenly labeled as racist the moment they actually make an attempt to enforce its borders.

it wouldn't be too unreasonable to believe that these same "progressive" cruisers would fall in lockstep with the whole BLM movement in the US (and elsewhere), but again ignoring the hypocrisy that others refuse to call out discrimination in the South Pacific because... get this, white guilt? seriously, bringing up disease brought to the islands half a MILLENNIUM ago.

yuuuuup, all of this is waaaaaaay off the actual topic. but every single one of them is something a "progressive" sailor has already cited as a concern previously in this thread.

please, the very next time someone sails to Fiji or Tonga, let us know if you experience any discrimination because of SVZ's actions. you can't assume either. the authorities have to say they're treating you a certain way because of what SVZ did, otherwise it's just your opinion.

Well quite obviously you haven't "got it".

So much so that I, and I'm sure others, wonder about your comprehension of the English language, or if it is your first language. As for your usage let's see about that.

Originally Posted by jimbunyard
None of this thread has been about "standing up to bias wherever we saw it"; it has been almost entirely about how the actions of the individual affect the outcomes for everyone else.

Not exactly sure why you think your bolded section "defines' bias (usually briefly defined as a disproportionate influence), but to save further mystical excursions let's say that your proposed definition is valid. That would mean that the statement you seem to take exception to could be shortened to,

"None of this thread has been about "standing up to bias wherever we saw it"; it has been almost entirely about bias",

when clearly the entire thread has actually been about how the actions of an individual can affect the biases of, in this case, the inhabitants of an entire island nation towards visitors, not about the moral or ethical qualities of such bias. Nor has it been about efforts to modify the islanders-in-question biases either way until you rather suspicously brought it up.

And of course our suspicions are soon verified by your actions, labeling, offense-taking, apparent psuedo-nationalism; the only thing lacking is victimhood (but I think I saw that in a previous response).

Whether or not Zatara's actions have a direct action on anyone is completely beside the point (though it seems I remember at least two instances in this thread alone where they specifically did) because the direct results of disrespect and inconsideration when dealing with anyone at all are evident everywhere one looks. Interesting that, as a self-documented 'discrimination survivor' (if I understand post 253 correctly), you seem unaware of this concept.

So, tell us true, are you actually one of Keith's kids?

[contrail]

Originally Posted by jstrru402

I'm not suggesting that locals need to be educated, I believe they already understand the concept of judging people as individuals rather than group generalization. its the people that think they can't grasp such a concept are the ones that think they need an education.

Want an example? About 24 or so years ago, there were two places for cruisers to get water, in Cabo San Lucas, Baja, Mexico, after the 750 mile trip from San Diego. The classic and inconvenient way was to run a hose out through the surf, from one of the hotels, to your boat. The other was at the then quite new marina. The marina was mostly occupied by day charter sportfishers who went out early morning and returned in the afternoon. In those days, there was no such thing as a fuel dock, so to make life easier for cruisers, the marina instituted a policy whereby a cruising boat would be able to occupy a slip, for a few hours, whilst its normal occupant, one of the sportfishers, was out doing its charter. In those hours, the cruising boat's crew could take on water, wash the boat, provision, and do other chores. They were provided a key to the very ample toilet and shower facilities. As I recall, the fee for all of this was about $15, including water. Soooo, what do you suppose happened? Well, some entitled cruiser pulled into a slip, declared a "mechanical emergency", and refused to leave when the regular occupant returned with his paying guest. Then another passed his shower key to all his friends in the anchorage, and all 18 shower stalls became occupied, with lines, preventing the marina's normal paying customers from being able to take their showers. Soooo, what do you suppose happened next? Well the marina abolished the policy that helped cruisers, who then had to pay the rather pricey rate to stay overnight, if a slip was available, or else deal with what they needed from a rather uncomfortable anchorage. The marina got a rather bad experience from trying to help, and that governed policy from then on. Actions do have consequences that affect things for years and years.