Thom Hogan held hostage in Chile

I enjoy Thom Hogan's site. Checking in the last couple of weeks I noticed there wasn't much going on. Interesting story he tells

http://www.bythom.com/hostage.htm

Wow, thats some story.

Unions = terrorists or criminals?

This is worthy of the lamented ex-president Bush. Very unpleasant, extremely annoying but, ultimately, not as bad as it might have been...

... still, I'm glad that Thom Hogan is back in circulation and the other photographers have escaped!

Tim

Well Tim, dramatics make for a better read

I agree with you somewhat. Using the word "hostage" in his blog implies criminality at the very least, but then again with that criteria, every airport that has suffered a ground crew strike could be considered taken hostage, like that of Spain just last month. Passengers getting stranded is what happens when mass union strikes happen. The French trucker strike was similar, grinding road traffic to a halt for a major thoroughfare for the EU.

You'd think Thom would be more objective but I guess that's his personal side of things. Without making myself sound sanctimonious, his article has sanctimonious tones, and that is something I didn't think a well travelled man would be.

Well Tim, dramatics make for a better read

I agree with you somewhat. Using the word "hostage" in his blog implies criminality at the very least, but then again with that criteria, every airport that has suffered a ground crew strike could be considered taken hostage, like that of Spain just last month. Passengers getting stranded is what happens when mass union strikes happen. The French trucker strike was similar, grinding road traffic to a halt for a major thoroughfare for the EU.

You'd think Thom would be more objective but I guess that's his personal side of things. Without making myself sound sanctimonious, his article has sanctimonious tones, and that is something I didn't think a well travelled man would be.

Yeah Tim, it's all George Bush's fault.

Thom Hogan does come to the 'hostage' conclusion with reservation. Strikes are one thing; roadblocks I think take it up a notch...

Why do unions think they can do things that would be considered criminal for individuals? Things that go beyond simply withdrawing their labour and protesting on the side of the road, like me or any other non-union person.

French truckers as well; park your frikkin truck, don't block the road.

Jeff, livelihoods in the balance (and possibly lives because of what the subsidies in gas gives), add a dash of propensity to be more pro-active in getting the point across creates situations like these.

Reading Thom's blog, his biggest problem was that he couldn't find transportation of his own pass the roadblocks. He then begins to denigrate the Chileans for their unwillingness to help and even their carbon footprint, and even commenting on why a parent would bring a child to a demonstration to be injured. To say that he's still angry and bitter is probably putting it mildly. It's normal enough that he feels outraged.

A campaign to boycott Chile notwithstanding, I hope he calms down enough to realize that the world is a big place. Different cultures and nationalities think and do things differently. If he can't handle the idiosyncrasies of destinations that aren't exactly Disney Land (Raw and wild in his words), I think he's right to seek areas where he feels that raw and wild could be got without people trying to make a living.

Jeff, livelihoods in the balance (and possibly lives because of what the subsidies in gas gives), add a dash of propensity to be more pro-active in getting the point across creates situations like these.

Reading Thom's blog, his biggest problem was that he couldn't find transportation of his own pass the roadblocks. He then begins to denigrate the Chileans for their unwillingness to help and even their carbon footprint, and even commenting on why a parent would bring a child to a demonstration to be injured. To say that he's still angry and bitter is probably putting it mildly. It's normal enough that he feels outraged.

A campaign to boycott Chile notwithstanding, I hope he calms down enough to realize that the world is a big place. Different cultures and nationalities think and do things differently. If he can't handle the idiosyncrasies of destinations that aren't exactly Disney Land (Raw and wild in his words), I think he's right to seek areas where he feels that raw and wild could be got without people trying to make a living.

Well yeah, I agree with you, no doubt that the Chileans were angry and bitter as well. So it goes; just don't think it's OK to give unions a free pass as to where to draw the line between legal and criminal. If I can't block the road, neither can they. I don't think that's a cultural thing, or at least does not pass as one in my book. I can choose not to show up to work, blocking access to a patient's bedside because I'm pissed off at Obamacare would be criminal. But then one of my favorite books is Atlas Shrugged.

I get Thom's sentiment. There's so many places in the world to go to, why aggravate yourself by going somewhere you're considered a bargaining chip. For this same reason I refuse to go to France. I wont fly through any french airport, nor do I want to drive through france. Not a single Euro of mine is going to be spent in France if I can help it. (well, except for Brie, gotta have my Brie). Simply because I strongly oppose the idea that people on strike can do more than just stop working. Like Jeff says, blocking roads is not legal, and the french government should arrest all of em and throw them in jail for a few weeks. Or better, take their drivers license. How would they feel if I went on strike by blocking the entrance of their trucking depots? To oppose the..eh...killing of sharks. Yes, thats it..lets block all trucking depots because shark finning has to stop. Id be thrown in jail within the hour, that is, if I survive the ordeal

So, I get when Thom feels the same about Patagonia. Plenty of other beautiful places in South America.

Hehe Cor, in the last few paragraphs, he labelled pretty much all of South America as unstable. Not that they are going to miss him either. I agree like all of us, he has the right to boycott any and all countries for whatever whimsical reason. I just read a lot of frustration and anger in his blog, and I hope he gets over it for his own sake.

Jeff, it is criminal to have an illegal organized strike in the US and many other countries. I agree that roads shouldn't have been blocked but the governments of the respective countries let the strikers block it for days. Obviously the French could've used the police to open the roads back in the 90s (like they did on the riots in Belleville). Likewise, the Chileans have the history of using police (secret and otherwise) which probably made the use of force all the more sensitive.

I think there's another component to it that I think 'justifies' a little his frustration and anger, and it's the group leader responsibility thing. It's one thing to travel alone and take responsibility for yourself, it's another when you have to think about others; I would and do travel to places I would not take my family. Thom apparently had some folks in his group who could have got into trouble healthwise.

I think it's a big deal taking responsibility for others even if they do sign waivers etc. That's why I am so fanatically supportive of a guy like Jim Abernathy who clearly takes that responsibility seriously, and I am less supportive of folks like the captain of the boat off the Sea Shepherd that got cut in half by the Japanese whaler because he was negligently unprepared and unnecessarily put his team in harms way when he could have taken evasive action, even though they signed waivers.

I think it is ironic that the agent laughed at the gang sign joke but the tourists didn't.

steve

He then begins to denigrate the Chileans for their unwillingness to help and even their carbon footprint

Yes, that did strike me. Having flown to provide a workshop to others who have flown there too, its hardly a good point from which to start lecturing others about energy conservation . Whatever the rights and wrongs of being a inconvenienced (even very substantially) 'hostage' is an odd choice of word given its far more serious connotations. If you are going to travel then things can happen and IMHO you really do just have to accept this and be prepared for doing so - my personal bugbear is Heathrow which I will avoid like the plague....

I think there's another component to it that I think 'justifies' a little his frustration and anger, and it's the group leader responsibility thing. It's one thing to travel alone and take responsibility for yourself, it's another when you have to think about others; I would and do travel to places I would not take my family. Thom apparently had some folks in his group who could have got into trouble healthwise.

I think it's a big deal taking responsibility for others even if they do sign waivers etc. That's why I am so fanatically supportive of a guy like Jim Abernathy who clearly takes that responsibility seriously, and I am less supportive of folks like the captain of the boat off the Sea Shepherd that got cut in half by the Japanese whaler because he was negligently unprepared and unnecessarily put his team in harms way when he could have taken evasive action, even though they signed waivers.

Jeff, I'm not sure that actually justifies it or makes it worse. He is responsible and to take a kidney transplant patient into a place where medical help is far away could be construed as very open and supportive or irresponsible and willingness to take anyone for the $$$. As an occasional trip organizer, obviously there are bigger responsibilities, but a lot of the responsibility rests on the participants as well. Unrest, Acts of God, political unrest etc happen all the time all over the world. It's pretty naive to think going to a place with a recent history of political unrest is absolutely safe and reliable. Thom got caught in a bad situation, and he has every right to be angry and bitter, and even boycott of Chile and parts of Latin America on his own. I just think he is not taking responsibility for his own decision to bring people there as a group. Either that or he didn't read about the Chilean history enough or understand the cultures involved.

Paul, let's be fair to say that getting stranded at an airport in the UK is much less arduous than in a small town in South Chile, even if it is LHR. But he chose to go there to photograph the landscape etc.

Paul, let's be fair to say that getting stranded at an airport in the UK is much less arduous than in a small town in South Chile, even if it is LHR. But he chose to go there to photograph the landscape etc.

Absolutely. He did choose to go there! And as you quite rightly point out its a responsibility thing. When things go well, that's great. When they don't, well, being bitter doesn't solve them I'm afraid. But to describe it as a hostage situation is I'm afraid preposterous. When there is uncertainty in the world people look for leverage and tourism as an earner has potential for just that. Ignore this at your peril.

But to describe it as a hostage situation is I'm afraid preposterous. When there is uncertainty in the world people look for leverage and tourism as an earner has potential for just that.

Doesn't mean you have to accept it as normal. Thom is saying, this is not normal, im not going there anymore. Some of you have probably avoided Puerto Rico for far far less Maybe he's been overly dramatic, although being told you're not allowed to leave a certain area by someone thats not the government but some random angry mob would be kind of intimidating.

Doesn't mean you have to accept it as normal. Thom is saying, this is not normal, im not going there anymore. Some of you have probably avoided Puerto Rico for far far less Maybe he's been overly dramatic, although being told you're not allowed to leave a certain area by someone thats not the government but some random angry mob would be kind of intimidating.

I agree with you, it sounds a little more "threatening" than just a bunch of union guys blocking a road... CNN also uses the "H" word. I've been to South America many times and never encountered anything like what is described.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-542654

Doesn't mean you have to accept it as normal. Thom is saying, this is not normal, im not going there anymore. Some of you have probably avoided Puerto Rico for far far less Maybe he's been overly dramatic, although being told you're not allowed to leave a certain area by someone thats not the government but some random angry mob would be kind of intimidating.

Perhaps it's just I don't like the condescending tone of his article towards the Chileans. I personally dislike travellers who go to other countries and disparage the locals when things don't go their way. To brand Chileans unhelpful etc just because a small group in a small area act to defend their livelihood, is just uncalled for. However I totally see your point and we're approaching this from opposite ends. My other issue is he never accepted responsibility for making bad calls. Thom seems to think Acts of God and civil unrest is something that should never happen so he didn't buy coverage. Call me a boy scout, but a security evacuation service is usually part of the service of the travel insurance, which includes search and rescue and civil unrest.

I agree with you, it sounds a little more "threatening" than just a bunch of union guys blocking a road... CNN also uses the "H" word. I've been to South America many times and never encountered anything like what is described.

 

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-542654

John, that's iReport and not vetted by CNN. It's little more than a blog for people using CNN. It's not an official article. I've had my share of incidents in South America so maybe I'm sorta the kinda guy that accepts that it's part of traveling around the world.

This is worthy of the lamented ex-president Bush.

I know Thom. He would be considered a football field left of Bush, any Bush, to put it mildly. Hence his ability to criticize the carbon footprint of people who struggle to get by. He can get a little convoluted, like complaining how the locals are destroying tourism with their actions while bemoaning the building boom going on to accommodate more tourists.

Jeff, I'm not sure that actually justifies it or makes it worse. He is responsible and to take a kidney transplant patient into a place where medical help is far away could be construed as very open and supportive or irresponsible and willingness to take anyone for the $$$

Uh, Drew, I don't think the kidney transplant patient was a member of Thom's group. He was prioritizing all the stranded folks as a volunteer. Thom doesn't need to take anyone for the $$$. The trip was sold out a week after it was open about two years ago. BTW, he understands their culture pretty well. He's spent considerable time in South America and is fairly fluent in Spanish.

I recall listening to a presentation, with film, by Stan Waterman circa 2001. At the end of the film, he stated that he would never return with a group to the Red Sea. He decided it was too risky. It's just a judgment call. For Thom to say no more Chile is just such a judgment.

John, that's iReport and not vetted by CNN. It's little more than a blog for people using CNN. It's not an official article. I've had my share of incidents in South America so maybe I'm sorta the kinda guy that accepts that it's part of traveling around the world.

Okay, here's some others:

The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/1...tage-protesters

UPI:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/0...75591295046555/

That's just a few. A quick Google search will find many news articles referring to "hostages", "rioting" and "threats" associated with the Magallanes region strike. In addition, casualties, looting, destruction of property and at least 2 deaths have been reported. I'm not there and of course can't judge, but it just seems a bit more radical than normal.

George, thanks for the correction. I'm not going to belabor the point that Thom has every right to be angry and bitter. My issues with his blog are due to lines like:

South America is now off the list of "safe and reliable." I repeat: South America is no longer a reliable and non-disruptive tour destination.

That's anger talking and I'm saying while it's first hand account of the happenings in Magellanes, it's also heavy on emotion and shouldn't be treated as an objective report which unfortunately many people will think it is because of who he is.

He is definitely entitled to his opinion and I'm glad that he's since calmed down and recanted a little bit:

*This is the major edit referred to above. The original said "Boycott Chile." My apologies to the rest of Chile--my issues are with a specific region of Chile (though the central Chilean government did seem weak in its response). Thus, I've edited "Boycott Chile" to say "Boycott Southern Chile," meaning the area that includes Punta Arenas, Puerto Natales, and Torres del Paine. That last bit (Paine) is hard to write, because the park and the hosteria owners in the park didn't support this strike. But you can't really get in and out of the park easily without going through the other two areas.

John, even the Guardian puts the word hostage in parenthesis, which is a big difference. Articles from the Santiago Times were more even handed, using the term "stranded tourists" which essentially is what Thom and his group were. And let's be realistic in expecting violence etc when there are extended protests over livelihood (not judging the cause, but the effects of such protests and the history and propensity for violence in humans). Once in a while, you even get violent riots over sporting events in the US. For me, I have a lot more respect for the 70 or so tourists who remained in the park and continued their holiday despite what was happening around them, with dwindling supplies and road blockades. Now that's a true hardcore tourist.