Pre-empting the scare mongerers...

There is an e-mail going around purporting to show the decapitated and
dismembered body of a woman found in Hillbrow, Johannesburg. The
e-mail claims that the event is typical of the violence one can expect
when visiting South Africa.

The photographs are real, but the description is false. The incident
took place in Jamaica a few years back, and HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO
DO WITH SOUTH AFRICA.

I detest these types of sordid, scare mongering bits of
mis-information that only serve to increase negativity for no reason.
They also waste precious bandwidth.

What bothers me even more, is the mentality of the idiots who
perpetuate or originate the garbage. What DO they hope to achieve?

While I am in no doubt that similar incidents do happen in South
Africa, I can see no reason why someone would need to fake the story.

I wouldn't be surprised if our friend, Neil Watson / Juan Uys / Skye
the rent boy, (Crimexposouthafrica.com) wasn't behind this little
piece of digusting drivel.

On 5 Jul, 18:02, Marc Lurie wrote:
There is an e-mail going around purporting to show the decapitated and
dismembered body of a woman found in Hillbrow, Johannesburg. The
e-mail claims that the event is typical of the violence one can expect
when visiting South Africa.

The photographs are real, but the description is false. The incident
took place in Jamaica a few years back, and HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO
DO WITH SOUTH AFRICA.

I detest these types of sordid, scare mongering bits of
mis-information that only serve to increase negativity for no reason.
They also waste precious bandwidth.

What bothers me even more, is the mentality of the idiots who
perpetuate or originate the garbage. What DO they hope to achieve?

While I am in no doubt that similar incidents do happen in South
Africa, I can see no reason why someone would need to fake the story.

I wouldn't be surprised if our friend, Neil Watson / Juan Uys / Skye
the rent boy, (Crimexposouthafrica.com) wasn't behind this little
piece of digusting drivel.

is this a more balanced opinion ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/ma...l-news-128.xml

Sadly, yes. The Telegraph article is a fact-based article, written
without an apparent agenda. As far as I can see, there's no hysterical
knee-jerk journalism in it, and it doesn't contain mistruths, lies, or
fabrications.

Regards,
Marc

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 02:42:43 -0700, me
wrote:



is this a more balanced opinion ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/ma...l-news-128.xml

On Jul 5, 12:02 pm, Marc Lurie
wrote:
There is an e-mail going around purporting to show the decapitated and
dismembered body of a woman found in Hillbrow, Johannesburg. The
e-mail claims that the event is typical of the violence one can expect
when visiting South Africa.


The fact that the rates of violence are high in some parts of a city
or country doesn't indicate at all that crime would be a risk to
travelers in that country.

Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami and Paris have some very dangerous areas,
but no one talks about refusing to visit those cities for fear of
crime, let alone not visit the US or France. The bad areas are very
far from anything 99% of tourists would ever encounter.

A responsible traveler to South Africa who visits Cape Town, the
Garden Route, and Kruger is probably at a roughly similar risk of
crime overall as they would be in a typical American urban area, not
significantly more or less.

You're correct of course, and your comments are those of a person who
looks at the situation with a rational eye, and not with hysteria and
sensationalism.

I don't entirely agree with you though. My feeling is that a tourist
in South Africa is definitely more at risk than a tourist in most
other coutries, but as you say, not significantly so. However, while
the chances of being affected by crime might be similarly slight, the
chances of that crime being disproportionaltely violent is FAR higher
in South Africa than in, say, the USA or Europe. Perseonally, however,
I don't believe that crime in SA should deter tourists from visiting,
they must just be aware of the issue, and the chances are that they
will never be affected.

The point however, of the OP, was that the event portrayed as having
happened in Johannesburg actually happened in Jamaica. This begs the
question of WHY someone might attribute the crime to South Africa and
fabricate the story. What motives do they have in the first place etc.

Unfortunately, the internet is a convenient hiding place for all
manner of kooks and nutcases who use the anonymity of the internet to
spread mistruth, lies, and misdirection for their own ends.

Cheers,
Marc

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:21:36 -0700, wrote:

The fact that the rates of violence are high in some parts of a city
or country doesn't indicate at all that crime would be a risk to
travelers in that country.
SNIP
A responsible traveler to South Africa who visits Cape Town, the
Garden Route, and Kruger is probably at a roughly similar risk of
crime overall as they would be in a typical American urban area, not
significantly more or less.

On Jul 31, 3:38 am, Marc Lurie
wrote:
I don't entirely agree with you though. My feeling is that a tourist
in South Africa is definitely more at risk than a tourist in most
other coutries, but as you say, not significantly so. However, while
the chances of being affected by crime might be similarly slight, the
chances of that crime being disproportionaltely violent is FAR higher
in South Africa than in, say, the USA or Europe. Perseonally, however,
I don't believe that crime in SA should deter tourists from visiting,
they must just be aware of the issue, and the chances are that they
will never be affected.


Visitors to Brazil or Mexico, for example, definitely need to be aware
of the risks of crime in those countries. In the larger cities
especially, you have to know which areas are unsafe by day or night,
and what things to watch out for - you don't wander around aimlessly
in strange areas at night, or carry valuable items on your person for
no reason, and you might even divide your money between pockets in
case you are robbed. But it's not like any significant percentage of
visitors become victims, out of the millions who visit those countries
every year, and it certainly shouldn't put anyone off from visiting
those countries or make them too scared to venture outside of a few
resort areas. The situation for visitors to South Africa is similar.

I see your point about how the crimes that do occur against tourists
in South Africa are disproportionately violent crimes. In most
European cities, the worst thing that happens to tourists on a regular
basis is pickpocketing or bag snatching.

The point however, of the OP, was that the event portrayed as having
happened in Johannesburg actually happened in Jamaica. This begs the
question of WHY someone might attribute the crime to South Africa and
fabricate the story. What motives do they have in the first place etc.


While crime is obviously a very serious issue in South Africa, by
making the situation sound much worse than it actually is, are they
trying to discredit the current government?

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:27:31 -0700, wrote:


While crime is obviously a very serious issue in South Africa, by
making the situation sound much worse than it actually is, are they
trying to discredit the current government?


My point exactly. I think that it goes deeper than simply discrediting
the government (because let's face it, there are far better and more
legitimate ways to discredit this particular government: AIDS policy,
Zimbabwe, corruption etc.) The people who propagate this sort of
misinformation have an agenda of their own, an agenda flavoured with
malcontent, racism, bitterness, and misplaced feelings of
disenfranchisement. It's strange how the very people who were quite
happy to oppress before 1994, now complain when they feel a bit
uncomfortable or are inconvenienced.

I don't entirely agree with you though. My feeling is that a tourist
in South Africa is definitely more at risk than a tourist in most
other coutries, but as you say, not significantly so.

Hi Marc,

Let's go to the matter of this distinction, tourist. Having traveled
widely, I can well anticipate some stereotypes (especially ugly
Americans) that lend weight to this heightened risk. Obvious displays
of consumer wealth are a crime magnet anywhere when one is out of
their element. What can a traveler do for camouflage?

I have scanned the online newspapers for crowd scenes to judge what is
being worn (not many Bermuda shorts and Hawaiian shirts that typify US
vacationers there). What is surprising is that I don't really see any
garb that suggests any national identity. That is, the cut of a suit
can be easily identified as being British or Italian - in the extreme
- but when we submerge into the ordinary street clothes, then I don't
see anything particularly South African. Of course, my examples are
sparse and online news is hardly concerned with those kinds of photo
shots (and "fashion" is as alien from the mainstream in any country as
to be useless as a guide).

So, at the risk of sounding like a come-on, what are you wearing
now? :-)

Do jeans predominate? Would "Dockers" brand one as north American?
Are sandals bohemian or strictly bush? Does a Panama straw hat mark
you Latino? Are jackets worn, or just shirts? Button-down collars?
No collars? How about cardigan sweaters (not that I have any)? Are
tourists the only people who carry cameras? (That would be
unfortunate.) Do you wear ball caps? If so, are they worn
backwards? (Hard to say which way is backwards anymore.) Do certain
colors predominate? How about sunglasses? I won't ask about a fanny-
pack....

Regards,
Richard

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:08:04 -0000, wrote:

What can a traveler do for camouflage?

Richard

Hi Richard,

Good question that. :-)

Of course it all depends on where you are. Carrying a camera and
snapping away at everything is a dead give away (outside of a game
park that is).

South Africa is an ecclectic mixture of people, and there's no
"typical" dress style. We tend towards more casual clothing, and
towards cottons that don't require rigid starching. Colours tend to be
muted or more subtle. Hawaiian shirts and plaid are a no-no. Older
businessmen wear suits, but there has been a big movement towards more
practical work clothing for most professions.

If you walked into a Cabela's store and bought a whole range of safari
clothing, you'll stick out here like a sore thumb. ;-)

That's a great idea to look at crowd photos. I'll have a look around
and see if I can find any. I'll post links on this thread.

The easiest way to spot a tourist though is that they tend to stand
around gawping instead of walking with a purpose. American tourists
(the ones who stand out most) are LOUD and will express their feelings
openly so that everyone can hear.

On Aug 31, 12:52 am, Marc Lurie
wrote:
If you walked into a Cabela's store and bought a whole range of safari
clothing, you'll stick out here like a sore thumb. ;-)

Hi Marc,

Well, in fact I have bought boots from them in the past. As for their
product line I can appreciate your point (not my style at all). Who
in South Africa (a store) represents the place one would shop for
casual clothes worn around the house and out to market?

That's a great idea to look at crowd photos. I'll have a look around
and see if I can find any. I'll post links on this thread.

Thanks, I will look forward to anything you might find.

Carrying things to the extreme (or rather, the mundane), if we were
wearing khaki, would that mark us as being from the veld? Hicks or
easy marks, so to speak, when in Durban?

Regards,
Richard