Overall, we learned that Kiribati is not a very great place to live. Poor, unsanitary living conditions and pollution make disease common. The almost unbearable climate justifies the existing stereotype of the citizens on “paradise” being “lazy” because people can’t go through their work day in air-conditioning like the more fortunate American citizens. When we first did our first journal, we declared that Kiribati was still very much third-world and behind other cultures, however we now know that it is not as primitive as we had imagined it to be through the title. We had assumed it was very tribal with no government throughout the country, but we discovered that life on one of the outer islands remained somewhat tribal based as Troost viewed dinner here. The elders were the highest authority on the island, and the power flowed down the line from person to person from there.
Ethically we had no problems with how Troost conducted his work. Most of his work was done simply by observing his surroundings and taking notes on what was happening. The other method used to gather information was interviews. There isn’t anything unethical about that. Troost asked the questions and the people answered.
From his studies we as readers gained a relatively clear insight into the lives of the people on Kiribati. The main conclusion drawn from Troost is that Kiribati in no way should be favored over living in the United States. He compares every aspect of living on the remote islands to the U.S. and finds that the cons far outweigh the pros. He does find a sort of simplistic harmony while on Kiribati, suggesting that maybe the outside world has grown up almost too fast for itself. One could potentially adapt to this islands primitive nature, but as it was in Troost’s case, these things take a long period of time.
This information could’ve been discovered in a multitude of places. There is a small number of other ethnographical works about the South Pacific that one could draw information from. The United States has many government publications online as well as in print, and the online publications provide links to even more sources for knowledge. Whether all these sources are as effective as a first hand view on the life and culture is the main question.
Was Troost “successful” with his ethnography? To some degree the answer is yes, and to some degree no. The book serves its purpose as a funny, entertaining, and easy-reading novel, but it doesn’t provide a full ethnographical experience. Sure we get an insight into the lives and culture on the Kiribati and we learn about the climate and government, but this information isn’t really relevant to us. When talking in class we were discussing how our topics for the large paper should hold some sort of significance to our lives here in the US. Some of the other books on our list pertain much more to what we deal with on a day-to-day basis. Books such as Scratched Beginnings, or even Lost in Planet China, will hold more significance to whom and what we are today. The United States hasn’t cared at all about the South Pacific since WWII, and based on what we knew about it before the book, still obviously doesn’t care about it now. So yes, the book does a great job comparing our lives to the lives of the Kiribati, but in the end, who really cares?