I hope they don’t have vuvuzelas at the World Cup in Brazil, but I’m worried they might fall into it. The word “vuvuzela” sure *sounds *like it ought to be Brazilian Portuguese slang, though it apparently isn’t.
Just some guy. Forget it. I’ve probably already said too much.
Now that I’ve been thinking about it, I’ll take one orgy, minus the killing, extra vuvuzelas.
Yes, I think that’s the slogan for their new tourism campaign.
Don’t get me wrong. Brazil is very nice and I enjoyed myself whenever I’ve been down there. But I haven’t met anyone who would call it “safe”. And I was there with a large group of locals so I assume they know what they are talking about.
Really I had a hell of a time convincing my girlfriend to even go. Any guide book or literature I could find was so peppered with warnings about being robbed by gangs on motor scooters or kidnapped by monkeys or some shit.
Does a country where nice neighborhoods need to be surrounded by walls topped with broken glass (or electrified or concertina wire or cameras) and neighbors are kidnapped in carjackings seem “safe” to you?
Damn, that guy looks kinda like the Brazilian version of me.
(said the white guy with glasses)
I accindentally rented that movie once. Was not what I had expected.
Not to belabor the point, but I suspect the per capita number of “gated communities” in the United States would dwarf the number in Brazil, most of them safely ensconced in white-flight suburbia. Ditto the number of car alarms, burglar alarms, and “home defense” weapons. Based on that, one might conclude that a country club community in the suburban United States is a treacherous place to be.
A guy got mugged at knifepoint?! Oh noes!
Wait, two people have been mugged with guns in broad daylight in the last two weeks…on my block.
I feel like like Brazil’s got nothing on South Africa, and South Africa is generally a pretty pleasant and fun place to visit, despite the need to take some very real safety precautions.
Paying attention to your safety is a global reality. There aren’t many parts of the world that resemble (nice parts of) America. We are lucky and fairly unique in our ability to stay away from people with whom we have the kinds of vast wealth disparities that fuel crime. Middle class people across the vast majority of the planet have home security systems, protective fencing and/or household guards. Europe, the US, and East Asia are home to the handful of cities where you can safely wander at night, intoxicated, or in unknown areas. But from Bangkok to Bangui, I wouldn’t try that in 90% of the world’s cities. So what can you do? Either you can cower in your little bubble and sneer at the dirty, crime-laden foreign cities…or you can take reasonable safety precautions (take taxies at night, don’t flash pricey stuff, be very selective of the circumstances you get drunk in, get an understanding of the areas you’ve been in, stay in secure facilities) and have a hell of a lot of fun around the globe.
It’s really not that bad. I took a three month solo (female) low-budget trip through Zambia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa this summer. Yes, I took a lot of security precautions. No, that didn’t stop me for even a moment from having a good time.
We aren’t having a “worst place on Earth” contest here.
I’m not following your (and other’s) point anyway. Is it 1) that Brazil isn’t dangerous or 2) that it’s not dangerous enough to avoid going there. Because I would agree with 2, but not 1.
Or to put it another way. When I say “I’m going to spend a week in Brazil with like 50 people for a weding”, there are two types of people. There are those who think it’s the most awesome thing they ever heard. Then there are those who think I’m going to get kidnapped by street gangs or something. I’m more of the first type. But with the understanding that you have to be careful down there.
Eh, as far as Brazilian security: as people have pointed out, by the numbers, Brazil is fairly violent and unsafe. In practise, however, the vast majority of violent crime happens in the poor or fairly-poor areas. A tourist or average expat is extremely unlikely to end up in the more unsafe areas except by choice (usually fetching drugs), which means their experience will be just as safe as in any large first-world city, on the whole.
The problem seems much more serious than it is to us furriners as IME Brazilians in general love to play up the violence and danger here, to the point of borderline paranoia - for example, when I meet new people here, after the introduction usually follows “so, how many times have you been mugged?” Even though, out of all the people I or my (Brazilian) wife know here, only three have ever been mugged in their lives, and only one experience was violent (a whack upside the head).
Anyway, to get somewhat back to the OP, as far as the World Cup - it’s only going to be a cockup because of the godawful infrastructure. In Rio, out of all the proposed infrastructure projects for the World Cup and the Olympics, most haven’t left the planning stages and virtually none are going to plan. Out of the two airports, one is the worst airport in the entire world (Galeão) and both are over capacity with limited possibilities for expansion (both are built on islands).
And even so, odds are decent that the average spectator’s experience at least isn’t going to be worse than at the World Cup in South Africa, at least regarding Rio. A new highway is almost ready to connect the major airport with the south zone, where most of the tourists will live, which will apparently be buses-and-taxis only; and to ease traffic congestion, senior officials are suggesting simply declaring holidays on all game days. It’s all fairly stupid (as are most of the proposed infrastructure projects, not to mention the actual development process in general - don’t get me started), and brings next to no benefit to us who actually live here, but for the visitors it’s likely to be functional.
What annoys me is news articles that all suggest that hosting these major sporting events will ultimately be a loss for Brazil (based on the experience of previous hosts), especially if there’s no investment in lasting infrastructure for everyone’s benefit. And there isn’t, to any significant extent.
It’s sites other than Rio I worry about. The group stages are really going to be a mess, because the organizers have gone out of their way to ensure that fans attempting to follow a favorite team will have to hit 3 different towns…the net effect of which will be increasing the burden on already-fucked-up travel infrastructure. How stupid is that?
You’re right of course, Maserschmidt, it’s stupid as hell. Since Brazil’s airports are all (I think – at least all the significant ones) over capacity already, the airlines won’t be able to cram in many new flights for the Cup. Unless they start cancelling “normal” flights to the non-Cup destinations, which would be a kick in the teeth for ordinary mortals and for business – and which might very well happen. Furthermore, volume will possibly be cut down by jacking up the prices for flights; at some point in the last month, all normal airline ticket prices suddenly increased 50%, and it’s certain that the prices will increase much further for the actual cup. The only question is whether the increase will be merely stratospheric, or reach geostationary orbit. So what with high prices for flights, and the high prices for tickets compared to Brazilian standards (plus FIFA insisting on an exemption from the Brazilian law letting students into sporting and cultural events for half price), it’s only going to be the Brazilian elite and tourists with money to burn traveling.
Oh, did I forget to mention that buying Brazilian domestic flights from abroad is a pain, if it works at all? So there goes a small fortune in premiums for travel agencies, or enforced tourism for tourists who end up in sunny Natal and find out the only way they can now get to the next game in, say, Porto Alegre is by a 6-day bus ride, so have to enjoy the sights of Natal (there’s a beach. That’s about it).
But yeah, if you don’t mind my using Rio as an example again – there simply aren’t enough hotels there for tourists as it is, and not much space/opportunity for building new ones, and this is Brazil’s primary tourist destination. Planning for the Rio+20 conference next year is proving a nightmare, and that’s minor compared to the World Cup. So when we factor in smaller/less visited places like Natal, Manaus, and Fortaleza, say, there’s just no way to make it work, as I assume the hotel chains figure there’s no sense in building lots of fancy hotels for a single sporting event when later tourism isn’t likely to fill them.
My point is, I expect that a lot of potential World Cup tourists are going to be put off by high costs and difficulties of finding accommodation and plane tickets, thereby greatly restricting the number of foreigners who actually arrive. And for those who do actually make it here, I expect everyone will muddle through somehow. The government – on a federal level only, since the states have been sitting on their hands until someone else is forced to take the bill – will throw money at a handful of infrastructure programs at the last minute to ameliorate the situation, and those programs won’t be sustainable (and won’t be intended to be, I suspect). Then when all is done, if the great majority of complaints can be portrayed as being just about prices, FIFA and politicians can blame it on the global recession or cheap gringos, thereby dodging the issue of Brazil’s piss-poor infrastructure and of FIFA being a collection of corrupt, supremely greedy meddling wankers.
Just my opinion, of course, and I could be wrong about everything. Either way, no matter how well or badly the event actually goes down, there’s a dozen ways I can personally profit 