SteeleJoe

IMHO, it was the only good song that they ever did and they should have been very grateful to whoever actually wrote it.

No doubt you are not alone in thinking that -- indeed it's not a very Simple Minds song (it was written for The Breakfast Club and not even for them) -- and so it's not surprising that someone who didn't otherwise like Simple Minds liked that one. And I was exaggerating a bit -- it's not a bad song, I just got annoyed with how overplayed it was and how many people knew only that song from them.But there are -- in my opinion -- loads of other good ones, for example:

Up On the Catwalk

Alive and Kicking

New Gold Dream

Waterfront

All The Things She Said

Sanctify Yourself

and...

The last one holds a special place i my heart not only because I think it's so cool but because I heard it (and watched the video) the first time in the Sugar Shack Bar in Bangkok Thailand in 1982 (as I was falling in lust -- though at 19 it sorta felt like love -- with my first Thai chick...and therein lies a tale in itself...).

The Sugar Shack -- everyplace was playing CCR and mostly other crap 70s rock and the Shack was playing videos of Depeche Mode, Duran Duran and the like; cutting edge for its time.

Anyway...I'm sure people stopped reading this a long time ago...

Why a link to one of their worst songs -- and one they didn't write and by all accounts weren't especially proud despite its massive success -- when it's not even the right song?!

Sorry...I liked Simple Minds and used to get annoyed that people would reduce them to that one Top 40 hit...carry on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd6riYfLPXk

In the interest of full disclosure: haven't been to Pattaya for almost 6 years. Haven't been involved in or even frequented the bar scene (with the exception of approximately 1/2 dozens evenings out) for even longer than that.

But even if it's somehow changed radically -- which seems unlikely -- it wouldn't change the fact that culture will evolve and has evolved and for better or worse, Pattaya is no more or less Thailand than the smallest changwat in Nakornnowhere.

EDITED FOR TYPO

Ah, yet another “Joe” who arrived very recently but immediately assimilated not only the fundamentals of Thai Culture but had the (abbreviated) history of the Thai Bar scene engraved on his heart – doubtless by Number XXX in Bar 1.

Ah, another fool who thinks length of membership on TV is any indication whatsoever of how experienced and/or knowledgeable one is of Thailand. Truthfully it's rather sad how many posters think that posting on TV is so important...and this one is so astonishingly smug!

Too boring for me and everyone else for me to go into my history, but how's this?

Been here for decades. Lived in Pattaya for several years and been visiting it for 29. Been speaking fluent Thai for 28 years. Spent years running bars. Lived, ate, slept and worked with people "in the bar scene" for years -- not as a customer (not only in sexual relationships of varying depth and duration but very close and decades long platonic ones as well). Worked as paid researcher and consultant on PhD thesis and other works regarding Thai sex industry. Studied and observed Thai culture and history both academically and less formally (but no less rigorously) as a hobby as well as part of my profession. Paid as cross-cultural consultant and trainer.

What does TV have to do with that? And why do I even need to bring any of that up? Only because of your absurd and gratuitously snide comment (not because I am trying to claim I have any more right to comment than anyone else -- only that it's really stupid that one judges my credibility by my post count or when I joined.)

Besides the comment I made doesn't even require knowledge of Thailand -- it just requires one to know what "culture" means.

In Switzerland, they had brotherly love. They had five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce?...The cuckoo clock. So long, Holly.

Almost every Swiss person I have ever met, or all of them in fact, would take great issue with that.

I should think so. With a role in, or responsibility for, the advent and/or development of:

The Tax Revolt

Direct Democracy

The pencil

The newspaper

The electric telegraph

The internal combustion engine

Playing cards

Contact lenses

Vivisection

Organ transplantation

The Red Cross

No doubt there's more. All while achieving massive wealth and development that it suatains to this day. Not to mention that "Harry" far overstates the role and impact of the Borgias. The qoute is amusing (though overused IMO) and I almsot wish it were accurate as it would sort of uphold some of the things I like to believe - but it aint.

Really getting silly, now -- aren't I? But it amuses me.

lovelomsak

I think you're claims about what you've heard, where you heard it, and how often you heard it -- as well as your unsupported assertions about how common it is -- are highly suspect. Nothing said in your recent post or the article in question supports them in even the slightest way.

Here's the article:

VANCOUVER (Reuters) - Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said on Friday he sees no return to the days of the "Canadian peso", saying the strong currency reflects confidence in the country's economy.

"Business people I've met here certainly share the view -- small business people and big business people -- that the Canadian dollar is not likely to go back to the days of being relatively cheap vis a vis the U.S. dollar. We're done with the Canadian peso," Flaherty told reporters in Vancouver where he was holding pre-budget consultations.

Flaherty said he will present his next budget in March and hopes it will not trigger an election for the minority Conservative government. He will listen to the opposition's requests if they are "good ideas," he said.

(Reporting by Allan Dowd and Leah Schnurr; Writing by Louise Egan; editing by Rob Wilson)

How I understand the article is that from now on the americans cannot say these derogatory things about us, because our dollar willnot drp for a longtime.

Really?! That's how you understand that article? I think there's some real question about your ability to understand what you read -- either that or your intellectual honesty. Because it's says absolutely nothing of the sort nor does it imply it. By the way, the origin of "Canadian Peso" is apparently thus:

Slang for the Canadian dollar during the nineties when it was substantially devalued relative to the American dollar. The Mexicanpeso was also substantially reduced in value during this time, hence the connection. The phrase is less commonly heard in recent times, as the Canadian and American currencies have been nearly at par.

You do realize the term has no apparent connection to any slur against Canadians nor is it clear in any way that it's an indicator of derogatory and discriminatory attitudes typically held by Americans towards Canadians? (I have refrained thus far from pointing out that implicit in your posit is that "Mexican" is an inherently insulting thing to be called; while you may feel that way and no doubt many Americans do, I do not and I'm sure there are many other Americans who'd think as I do -- I'm not willing to concede that as many Americans as you claim go around using "Mexican" as an insult and apparently expect that it would not only be understood as such and generally acceptable to others.

Anyway, I'm not even claiming no one has ever used the slur you cited. I'm just saying your claims are implausible and the more you try and prop them up, the weaker they look.

Edited Because I Can't Type Worth A D_mn

...for the most part the american contingent of NAFTA commonly made statements like "Those mexicans from the north will sign it because we will make them." or "dealing with these Northern mexicans is a pain in the ass". or "when will these northern mexicans learn their place" Yes it is commonly used in power places maybe not in public at sport events or bars, but at board meetings you can bet your boots it is.

The more you say, the less plausible it sounds.

(Especially given that you went from " have heard it more often then (sic) I care too " to "most of the 'mexican fron the north' statements were second hand stories".)

Put down that shovel.

dam_n, I knew I was too tired to post anything...I didn't mean to imply that Vietnam was a victory for Thai forces. (But there were Thai troops who fought well there.)

Most prostitutes sell their eyebrows, along with their pubic hair and armpit hair to wig-makers, who have to blend a mixture of hair to get just the right texture for their wigs.

FACT.

The Thai army (all the armed forces in general) has always been a "paper tiger." Basically only good for putting on fancy uniforms and parading around Bangkok on national holidays and killing unarmed student demonstrators. Got its butt kicked by the Burmese 400 years ago, has been continually loosing national territory to colonial and neighboring countries over the past couple hundred years, got its butt kicked again by the Lao Army (yeah, the Lao Army) a couple decades ago, and is now getting its face rubbed in it in the south.

You forgot the Japs in WWII. Every time I go past Victory Monument with its aviator, I try to recall a victory in the last century. Still working on it.

The monument is meant to glorify Thailand's relative success in its conflict with the colonial French of Indochina wherein, by attacking what was perceived as a weakened French presence (due the occupation of the homeland by the Germans and Japanese takeover of French Indochina) they regained territory previously given to the French decades earlier.

Too bad everything they got back -- thanks to their Japanese sponsors -- they had to give back to the French when the Japanese lost the war. (The price you pay for backing the wrong horse. Then again, the Thais got off pretty lightly for that -- thanks to the Americans.)

As for the analysis of Thai military prowess throughout its history...well...while I'm not necessarily saying that your opinion is entirely unjustified, I suggest you leave that sort of thing to someone with perhaps a bit more knowledge and/or objectivity. And you might also consider that conflating a Siamese Army of 450 years ago to the Thai military of the 20th and 21st century is ridiculous; they may fare better, worse, or equal in comparison but they are completely seperate entities in every single way.

(Both of you forgot Vietnam, by the way. And the fact that the Siamese didn't always lose to the Burmese. Or the Laos. Or the Khmers.)

I am the only westerner living in this strange alternate Thailand where I'm either treated with basic courtesy, mild friendliness, slight interest or complete indifference by 99.99% of Thais I encounter?

No. You definitely are not.

Americans call us mexicans of the north

i lived near the border of Canada and the US for a while and have never heard anything remotely like this. In fact, I do not remember hearing any Americans having anything bad to say about Canadians at all.

I had it said to my face in Thailand by an american. I lived near the border all my life also.30 years on the prairies and 25 years on Vancouver island. I amnot saying it is a dinner table everyday use but have heard it more often then I care too. I also have many american friends I sailed with and against that are good friends that admit to me they are aware that many americans only see us as "mexicans from the north" and they make a real effort to let me know that isnot their feelings. But we are talking Thailand here and like I said it was said right to my face,here in Thailand and the consensus was with the guy who said it.

Another time an american said the reason thais donot understand me is because of my mexican accent.

Don't buy it.

Sorry -- didn't see that the stats site had already been linked.

By the way, I'm not trying to pioint out how awful Thailand is (or the US). There's really only two reasons this comparison matters to me:

1. I always get annoyed by people who speak with certainty about something which they in fact don't really know enough -- especially when it's Thailand.

2. Thailand's relative position on these lists flies in the face of what's said by so many Farangs I've heard or read over the years gushing over how the Thais are so peaceful and non-violent unlike the savages that visit it.

I think there's a lot of great things about Thailand. Some things are better here than the US, in my opinion, and I have mostly good feelings about the Thais as a whole. But this isn't heaven and they aren't Angels.

EDITED FOR TYPOS

In fact, it probably happens much more often in the USA, where murders and other crimes are much higher than in Thailand.

uhhmmmm...not according to this:

Murders Per Capita

Thaialnd at #14, the US at #24...hmmm. And since you are discussing murder with a firearm (and claiming it happens more often elsewhere), what about this:

Per capita

Thailand at #3, the US at #8.

Look, I'm the LAST guy to try and convince anyone that the US is somehow better than Thailand -- neither country has anything to be proud about in those statistics (but don't you feel ridiculous at being such a stereotype -- to go the old predictable "the US is worse!"). As I've posted before (another thread) I'm a person who gets real tired of people who live here or visit regularly and work so hard at bashing the place ina an over the top and totally subjective fashion. But I also get annoyed by those who romaticize and idealize it -- and the while latter group may not be all jaded and bitter like the former, they tend to be the ones who put even weaker and more factually inaccurate arguments.

So feel free to believe that Thailand is wonderful and America/the west is evil - but at least don't mix up fallacy with your rhetoric (ie don't try and use facts as it's much more honest to just keep it about feelings since ultimately that's what makes you say things like the above qoute.)

PS: Maybe these stats are completely off -- it'd be doing me a favor if someonw were to prove me wrong cuz I really want to know.

I always tell people I'm from Canada. So do many of my friends from the states

Man, that's lame. While I'm not even slightly ashamed of being American, I'm no flag-waving uber-patriotic idiot either -- but I'd never deny where I was from no matter where it was. Especially not because some as***les wanted to judge me based on where I was born. They have a problem with me because of the passport I carry? (when I myself have zero prejudice against any nationality?) And I'm supposed to let those cretins make me cower and lie?

Nope. Not going to happen.

Americans call us mexicans of the north

<deleted>? I've never even heard that said, let alone said it myself.

especially in the Middle East (where there precious oil is)

Yeah, it must be nice to live in all the rest of the countries where oil isn't precious...

Be here legitimately, or not at all I say.

What exactly does that mean? One must have a B or O visa to be here legitimately? If so, I guess I'm here legitmately but as long as it's legal to do get repeated tourist visas, I don't see why I have any more inherent right to be here than the ones who maintain a visa by going on legal visa runs and I've never understood the righteous indignation of those who object strongly.

Smacks of elitism to me: especially as rather often the guy who's objecting was sent here by his company or recruited from abroad and walked into a relatively easy situation, but then somehow thinks he's superior to some guy who made his way over here on his own, decides he wants to stay, and manages to make it even though he want to and/or doesn't need need to be a teacher/ can't get a corporate job here/doesn't have the means or ability to start a business/isn't married to a Thai/ isn't old enough to retire. What's it to you, as long as he's not breaking any laws or doing any harm to Thailand (or you)? Is the money he spends in the local economy less worthy than yours (just because it may be less)? Are the relationships he builds here less valuable?

Plenty of the visa run types are people I'd just as soon not have here. But plenty of the "legitmate" types are as bad or worse (surely you've seen some hard-drinking, whore chasing guy -- nothing wrong with that er se -- who also is shitty to the locals and generally behaves like a cretin - he should be here but some some decent guy who does visa runs and behaves in more admirable way shouldn't be allowed -- just because the former has a B or O visa?).

Couldn't get past the OP: if it's not a joke it's severely effed up so many levels. Not the least of which is the absurdly ignorant historical revisionism...

Yeah, the Thai elites wanted the Americans out (despite the fact they had made and were making HEAPS of money off the situation) because they were worried about the status quo (that America was maintaining and protecting -- both by accident and design and not without some justification, given the alternatives); not because of the domestic and geoplitical situation at the time.

Right.

Not a shaved eyebrow in the bunch, but some have to use eye liner to cover naturally missing hair.

I think you might fin that in many cases that "naturally missing hair" is missing because it's been repeatedly plucked (a common method -- ouch!) and/or electrolytically removed.

While I am 100% in favor of ridding Thailand of trash, they should start by cleaning their on yard first. There are plenty more local criminals and crooked police than there are falang.

I think I get your point and while I'd certainly agree with the idea of Thais taking a look at themselves and their own shortcomings and resultant social issues (and the very obvious point that there more local criminals than foreign -- which is of course going to be statistically the case anywhere), I wonder if your notion really stands up -- all other things being equal: wouldn't foreign criminals be even MORE intolerable than locals to most people? I mean even someone who isn't particularly nationalistic (or, at all, like myself) would find it quite offensive that foreign lowlifes decided to use their country as a haven and would see kicking them out and/or locking them up as unconditionally a good thing. (The attitude being -- 'We've got enough of our own scumbags. The last thing we want is other countries' scumbags too.') And when local authorities are told by the foriegn auhorities where certain foriegn lowlifes are, why wouldn't or shouldn't they respond with alacrity?

Does your native country have plenty of criminals? (Mine does.) Presumably it does; wWhat possible objection could you have if your country's police were to be told where they could pick up some Thai murderer or child rapist in your country and they did so? And if a Thai were to say that rather than do that, they should arrest the local crooks, then get to the Thai -- what would you say to that?

Now, if its the case that foreign guys who are guilty of some minor crime in the west are actively pursued instead of some Thai murderer or rapist or whatever...obviously that would be wrong from any perspective -- but even if that's the case (which I rather doubt), I don't think that these cases indicate that is so.

Besides, they are busting people in Thailand -- that is their yard.

EDITED FOR TYPOS

OK, now I suspect you aren't even being serious.

Their remarks can be so cutting whilst they show little respect to the feelings of those they attack. I know I stand to get shot down for this discriminatory remark, but I have yet to find a considerate pot plant. And they always seem to get away with it.

95% of Thai pot plants are Buddhist and simply wouldn't behave in the manner you describe; besides these things happen everywhere and in fact American pot plants are far worse.

And I hope you aren't one of those fools who thinks the sex trade or drugs and so on are evil western innovations brought here by foreigners. (Heard it many times before and had a poster say so the other day -- blew me away).

Nothing you experienced in Pattaya has anything to do with Thai Culture.

Patrick

That statement reminds me of how (conservative) Thais are always talking about this and that not being Thai culture (sexy clothing, premarital sex, etc) -- methinks you are making the same mistake they do: "culture" is not a static thing. it evolves constantly (no less here than in the west, where sexy attire, premarital sex, etc were once not part of the culture) If Thais are doing it in large numbers and its widely (if not universally) accepted by them, then it is Thai culture.

Obviously there are many aspects of Pattaya which could (and should) be described as elements of a subculture and which are not typical of Thailand as a whole, but the fact remains -- Pattaya is the way it is because it's in Thailand. if it were somewhere else, it wouldn't be quite like that.

CULTURE: the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people

In other words, Thai culture isn't all about Thai dancing and wais -- don't be confused between culture and (ancient) traditions.

Where did Thailand get its culture and problems from?

sex trade, the West

youth yaba problems, the West

broken/twisted politics system, the West

That is unbelievably ignorant and inaccurate it almost takes my breath away. You, my friend, are colossally misinformed (and such a stereotypical self-loathing westerner and romanticizer (sic) of the developing world -- there's millions like you; I bet you think Asians are inherently more enlightened -- or would be if it weren't for the nastycolonizers and cultural imperialists...)

Thanks for that - but a bargirl once told me it was the Thai word for guava.

Guess how Thailand (Siam) wound up with Guava? The Portuguese. Why do you think potatoes are called man farang? Cuz they aint from here, are they?