boycott Nepal

[Unregistered]

I feel anyone considering going to Nepal should seriously take a second thought about it. By going there you will have to ignore the pain and corruption of the country to maintain your superficial "adventure" to Shang gra La La land! And by paying the bribes to the Maoist you will be feeding the death, destruction, and impending civil war. I ask you to think about it or you can ignore these thoughts and use Nepal as a commodity.

[Unregistered]

I feel anyone considering going to Nepal should seriously take a second thought about it. By going there you will have to ignore the pain and corruption of the country to maintain your superficial "adventure" to Shang gra La La land! And by paying the bribes to the Maoist you will be feeding the death, destruction, and impending civil war. I ask you to think about it or you can ignore these thoughts and use Nepal as a commodity.

I would be interested to know your sources of information and experiences in Nepal. Many people in this forum are aware of the issues. Most will have seen the many requests from Nepalese to keep going. These funds keep many locals employed. it is a direct contribution to their economy, something they desperately need. As for your views about the maoists you may need to find out more. i will let others comment on that.

[yakshaver]

If I were to boycott all those contries and their products/organisations etc - I would live somewhere in a tent in the arctic or antarctic region. Or maybe I would not live at all but comit sucide as this would be the honorable thing to do and the only situation in which I would not be "tainted".
By your logic, unregistered, should I stop working for HP because it is based in the USA, a country which has lately commited any number of crimes and illegalities, starting with the invasion on Irak, and keeping people without trial or chance of a fair trial at Guantanamo bay? Or should I not visit the US for that reason? How about Bolivia? Or Italy for that matter? There is a lot of corruption there, and in the southern Italy people still suffer because of the influence of the Mafia/Cammorra etc.
Or how about me not visiting Australia, the country in which I live, because they keep imigrants in prison in the middle of nowhere, for years and years, including children. What makes the USA or Australia, for example, so morally superior?
Get a grip.

[Unregistered]

It's interesting that this issue has not surfaced earlier. There is a huge movement to boycott Myanmar (Burma) for similar reasons, yet this is the first suggestion that similar measures should be used against Nepal.

Boycotts don't accomplish much, but it is true that handing money to maoists, even if it's done under threat, contributes to death and misery in the hills.

[Unregistered]

All places has beatifull and ugly sides. I don't see any good reason to keep my eyes focused only to the ugly. Life would be miserible and sad if so. Where do you live? look around and I'm sure will find bad points in your enviroment.

[]'s

Hendrik

[James]

Weighing the benefits and detriments that tourism brings to Nepal; I still feel the benefits to the Nepali people still far outweigh the detrimental effects of potentially, even if indirectly, supporting either a questionable government or a brutal revolutionary force. It is the responsibility of all travelers to consider the impact of their travels and, if necessary, a boycott of certain destinations. These are personal decisions that all must and should make. Lets face it, we live in a complex world and seldom are things black and white.

[Unregistered]

If I were to boycott all those contries and their products/organisations etc - I would live somewhere in a tent in the arctic or antarctic region. Or maybe I would not live at all but comit sucide as this would be the honorable thing to do and the only situation in which I would not be "tainted".
By your logic, unregistered, should I stop working for HP because it is based in the USA, a country which has lately commited any number of crimes and illegalities, starting with the invasion on Irak, and keeping people without trial or chance of a fair trial at Guantanamo bay? Or should I not visit the US for that reason? How about Bolivia? Or Italy for that matter? There is a lot of corruption there, and in the southern Italy people still suffer because of the influence of the Mafia/Cammorra etc.
Or how about me not visiting Australia, the country in which I live, because they keep imigrants in prison in the middle of nowhere, for years and years, including children. What makes the USA or Australia, for example, so morally superior?
Get a grip.

Yea the world is not a perfect place and and we are all culpable. Boycotts do nothing but the thought did get your attention. I guess I could become a vegan wear burlap and panhandle for a meager existance but this would not really create any change either. What might help is people on this web site disccusing issues of more substanence than wondering if they should bring a down jacket or if they will be able to get a beer at Thengboche. I don't understand, you say you want a first hand experiance of the world that is why you travel, to get something other than the mass media manufactured version. Why do you get so defensive and insulting anytime someone raises any kind of issue other than how many layers of pile they should bring ect.?

[Unregistered]

It's interesting that this issue has not surfaced earlier. There is a huge movement to boycott Myanmar (Burma) for similar reasons, yet this is the first suggestion that similar measures should be used against Nepal.

Boycotts don't accomplish much, but it is true that handing money to maoists, even if it's done under threat, contributes to death and misery in the hills.


Thanks for the reply I just hoped to raise the issue. I also think boycotts are mostly ineffective but might bring attention about the country and open some disscussion other then the comforts of westerners trekking there.

[Unregistered]

It's not fair...

I think everybody here knows that there is a situation in Nepal. This has been discused now and then and who goes there knows the risks.

I just think is not fair to have a position and starts preaching that everyboy must have a likewaise position, based on some kind os right and/or wrong way to deal with the Nepal situation, sugesting that who does not do that, or something likewise, is a "superficial" trekker. It is just the kind of moral judgement that does not fit with the activity (trekking) and no one has the right to do it.

For exemplo, someone can use precisally the same discuss to based a similar judgement and propose, or exige, a similar action but for the complet opossite, that going to Nepal will finance the governament against the Maoists and their fight for freedon, justice, etc...

Yakshaver propose many situations and ask why so much atention to the Nepal situation if everything has good sides and bad sides. Like someone already said: life is not black and white.

[]'s

Hendrik

[Unregistered]

finance the Nepali goverment to fight the Maoist ----- what?

The King just declared himself dictator and gets military aid from the U.S.

[mieke]

(1) The King just declared himself dictator
and
(2) gets military aid from the U.S.
re. 1] You read the wrong papers & blogs or you talk to the wrong people.
re. 2] No, follow the news; US withdrew at least important parts of its aid in that respect, and more actions are on their way to make them stop every military aid/assistance for the time being.
(Admitted: what happens "behind the scenes" I don't know).

[Unregistered]

Unregistered, I just propose a argument in the same templates of yours, not that is a fact. Tourists brings money to Nepal. Lots of this money are expended at Nepal local comerce that partially goes to governament via taxs. With this, it will fight their enimies, the Maoists, that, following the view of our imaginary guy pro-Maoists, fight for freedon, justice, etc...

If the king of Nepal declare heself a ditactor, what I doubt very much, because all de bad conotation this word did get, well, he's a king and kings are, by definition, the absolute ruler of an land. But if he's governamet is despotic, that means doing some kind of analise which bases will necessary be used to judge the governaments all around the world, even if not ruled by kings...

But this is not my point. My point is tha boycot is not a solution. This will also do bad for the locals, maybe much more then do good.

And stays my point of the no right of nobody do judge other people who likes to trek in Nepal as "superficial" trekkers or sugest that they are helpers of atrocities. Ever realize that some people like to trek for the sake of just enjoying the experience?

[]'s

Hendrik