With this said, attracting additional ships with larger capacity directly lines the cruiseline pockets along with the foreign ticket agent.

However, literature emerging from the Anthropology of Tourism continues to point towards the position that more money is realized from non-cruise, non-inclusive, mid to retired patrons. It also suggests that this clientele as at its disposal greater levels of disposable income, and appear to have been exposed to cultural models outside of their own and have cultivated an interest in the items that make of this area.

I find myself more convinced by this perception and thus a large %age of nicolette’s position. What I am not yet convinced of though is that we possess the capacity to generate the kind of interest that influence persons on this disposition to visit.

The very elements mentioned by nicolette that will draw the visitor to cuba appears to be lacking here at home. Pride appears to be replaced with arrogance and an position of entitlement. Unfortunately, to get to the artisan the visitor must negotiate this same wider public… unless the artisan’s become digitalists….

Tourism figures indicate that although the overall number of arrivals has increased over time the positive economic impact of those arrivals has decreased. I don’t know whether any studies of the negative economic impact — which would include environmental damage to our harbour and the monopolizing of onshore tours by the cruise ships and Atlantis together (witness the article by Neil Hartnell in today’s Tribune) — have been done, but anecdotally the ceding of control over our port to cruise ship operators does not seem to bring real economic benefits to Bahamians.

I advocate spending smarter, not more. Dredging Nassau Harbour to accommodate even bigger cruise ships is not spending intelligently at all, given the lacklustre economic return in this arena.

Aside from our economic status, which, I agree with you, is remarkable (but perhaps accidental, owing to the absence-through-embargo, for the self-same 40-year period, of our most formidable competitor, Cuba), of what in our nation can we look at and all be proud?

I suggest that even given our so-called “development” the market in The Bahamas has not been truly free. Without Cuba next door to compete with us (and for those people who have no idea what that could be like, I suggest they spend some time in the Archives and/or with a good history book and read the actions of the governments during the 1930s and 1940s to try and boost our economy through the expansion of our tourism product, and, further, examine the techniques used by the proto-UBP to do so), we have been working in a market that has been unnaturally skewed in our direction by — oh, my — the decision of successive American governments.

I suggest that even the land boom and foreign investment strategies will fail, and dramatically, the minute Cuba opens to that kind of economic activity. Cuban land, and Cuba’s tourism industry, are wide open, and will afford huge returns on foreign investment. And everything there will be cheaper, far cheaper, than here, with better value for money, too — a better educated population, a prouder people.

And once again, Rick, I am not seeking to take more resourcs from Bahamians to fulfill my desires. I never have. Like Pat Rahming, I am advocating a more equitable allocation of funds, a redistribution up of what we currently waste, an investment that will bring returns in a product that every truthful student of the Bahamian tourism product will conclude is failing, losing ground, losing its edge.

How will CARIFESTA help us all? Just for your information, it’ll bring 10 days of cultural activity on the Bahamian side of the bridge. Not counting tourists, it will bring between 1500 to 3000 performers to Nassau, most of whom will live not on our Gold Coast (Cable Beach and Paradise Island) but in more modest areas, in smaller hotels and guest houses, who will need food and transportation and who will spend money for that as well as for water and for liquor. In Trinidad, each performer spent a conservative US $100 a day on food, drink, transportation and accommodation, money that went directly into the hands of Trinidadians, not of foreigners who, here, repatriate over 50% of that money.

That’s the main benefit to “us all”. The money that CARIFESTA will attract will be spent among Bahamians, and go directly into the Bahamian economy, and not be filtered into it through salaries and tips, which is the main way in which it will go. And CARIFESTA — any cultural festival — would provide employment for a group of people currently underserved by our “development” model — artists, performers, seamstresses, designers, graphic artists, photographers, writers, t-shirt makers, strawcraft workers, etc, etc, etc — people in whose work we can actually be proud, and for whose work most Bahamians currently do not pay.

But don’t take my word for it. Go do the research on the economic impact of festivals for yourself. Go see who spends what on festivals where, and figure out what returns we are missing by our current misdirection of public funding.

Not more spending. Wiser investment. That’s what I’m after.