A Historical Analysis Of Why Thailand Likes America

[chiangmaikelly]

What inaccuracies did I post? Assuming you are talking about me.

Well, assuming that you might be talking about me .. although it really doesn't matter.

For starters, A Historical Analysis Of Why Thailand Likes America, A thinking man's study of why Thail's love Americans

Your thread title makes assumptions that may or not be true, i.e.:

- Do Thais really love Americans or do they occasionally change their opinions about 'America' (the U.S.A.) based on US Government actions?

- Further, which Americans? South Americans, Norte Americanos ...

- Historical Analysis? Maybe a regurgitation of a number of facts already recorded, inaccurate "stories" ala Tony P., etc.

- To me, it looks as if you start off with a bias and tried to bend and blend snippets of history to fit your premise.

- "Thinking Man" .. PLEASE! "Study"? Questionable, IMO.

I doubt very seriously if what you have "written" would stand muster much past the title under peer review by real historians.

As to who/where do the Thais "love". I would guess Switzerland. Because that's where H.M. grew up.

I will try again. What inaccuracies did I post. Historical means as opposed to current.

South Americans are not Americans they are South Americans. What inaccurrate stories? Since when is repeating facts inaccurate? Because you don't agree does not mean something is inaccurate.

Edited January 12, 2010 by chiangmaikelly

[caf]

There are always -- and I meant it, always -- people ready to pile on to criticize Americans, even if they've never been to the US. But actually we criticize ourselves enough we should be able to take it. I dismiss many of the critics for what they are -- ignorant and driven by less-than-admirable motives. I really don't care what drivel they spew.

Thank you ferd. A diamond shining bright on a page of mostly <deleted>!

Ulysses, start reading these posts with an open mind. Look at what venturalaw and some other americans are saying - they are not paranoid about everyone hating americans. they are stating their own opinions in the same way non-americans are making comments.

I can see there are some americans who can take no criticism, but they are in the minority in my view and from my experience ( though that is not necessarily true of americans on tv)

caf

[caf]

The op still does not get - and certainly does not like - the criticism that he is only presenting his own ideas and thoughts which are not backed by accepted historical sources.

Points have been made by Klikster and Whistleblower et al.

His references to his own exploits during Vietnam and talking with half drunk Thais are hardly the things that a "thinking man" interested in "historical analysis" would regard as important. He would win few votes in a serious historical debate.

Apart from some support by some Americans on here ( but their posts show they are supporting him for his nationaity not his writings; their posts are rarely commenting on the topic but rather shooting down some of the non american posters because they do not accept alternative views from their own.), he has lost it here too

caf

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

it's kind of ironic how it's fine to criticize America both from inside and out. It's part of the constitution and culture. But here we are living in a country Thailand who will block internet sites and censor openly etc when it feels like it.

I suppose we could be having this debate inside China or Russia as well. I am guessing North Korea doesn't have chatboards.

It kind of sounds like a bunch of chatty girls. "Oh she has fake boobs and a spray on tan. blah blah blah....

Jealousy or need to be competitive I suppose. It's not like TV is the trenches of academic history peer review.

I suppose CMK could have covered his bases by saying history from his point of view or an American expat. Perception of history is definitely driven by perspective.

[Ulysses G.]

There are always -- and I meant it, always -- people ready to pile on to criticize Americans, even if they've never been to the US. But actually we criticize ourselves enough we should be able to take it. I dismiss many of the critics for what they are -- ignorant and driven by less-than-admirable motives. I really don't care what drivel they spew.

Thank you ferd. A diamond shining bright on a page of mostly <deleted>!

Ulysses, start reading these posts with an open mind. Look at what venturalaw and some other americans are saying - they are not paranoid about everyone hating americans. they are stating their own opinions in the same way non-americans are making comments.

This post is very close to what venturalaw said and I'm pretty sure that would agree with it, but thanks for the advice anyway.

[chiangmaikelly]

The op still does not get - and certainly does not like - the criticism that he is only presenting his own ideas and thoughts which are not backed by accepted historical sources.

Points have been made by Klikster and Whistleblower et al.

His references to his own exploits during Vietnam and talking with half drunk Thais are hardly the things that a "thinking man" interested in "historical analysis" would regard as important. He would win few votes in a serious historical debate.

Apart from some support by some Americans on here ( but their posts show they are supporting him for his nationaity not his writings; their posts are rarely commenting on the topic but rather shooting down some of the non american posters because they do not accept alternative views from their own.), he has lost it here too

caf

Caf,

I went back and re read all of your posts in this thread. I have posted the disagreements below.

You said, "Mrs. McKenzie, from what you say, seems to have worked in counter-propaganda, so hardly a good source. And if, against her department's wishes, started a writing campaign then any letters that followed from that are mainly at best hearsay and certainly un-official and not authorised."

Yes, her letters were unofficial and not authorized. My point was that she took it on herself to save Thailand and did. That much is a matter of fact and you can verify it at your leisure.

You said, "The Uk wanted reparations, nothing to do with punishment. I don't know about China; but the UK certainly did not want to occupy Thailand. What source gave you that? It did not have the military or financial resources, or intent. Maintaining it as a buffer state was a goal."

Not only did the UK want to occupy Thailand but they did occupy Thailand for a year after the war. That is a matter of fact and you can also verify that at your leisure. Also by the amount of reparations asked for it is obvious the intent was to punish Thailand. They would have succeeded if it were not for the US who substantially reduced the payment of rice. That is also a matter of fact.

Your opinions that I should read books about WW II that never mention the matter under discussion here is a nice idea but hardly relevant to the discussion.

I have asked you on a number of occasions to please point out to me the error in anything I have written. You have not done so. You have repeatedly criticized me for what you don't like about my writing style but never about anything factual that I have written with the above exceptions.

I realize you are at a loss to debate any of the issues I have raised about Thailand directly following WW II. But maybe you could suggest some other country in recent memory who has a superior position in the hearts and minds of the Thai people.

Perhaps you could suggest Britain or Australia and provide some information to support that. Normally if you disagree with a hypothesis it is relevant to suggest another.

It is easy to shoot another down but not so easy to suggest another answer.

It is easy to point out all of the errors of Churchill and quite another thing to suggest someone else could have saved the Free World during WW II.

[Pakboong]

Caf - William L.Shirer was a journalist not a historian, there is a big difference. I am not sure how historians would regard his work, but I guess it wouldn't be too favourable.

He was a journalist and historian. He received several awards for his historical work. His works on WW2 are on the reading lists of at least one uk university to my knowledge and he is quoted in lectures. His main work on WW2 is very detailed and has voluminous footnotes giving sources, including german documents and diaries. So yes he was a journalist but, in answer to your question, was also regarded as a respected historian.

Chiangmaikelly admits he has read some quotes but from the knowledge he displays he has obviously not read in much depth. He has vacillated so much in this thread in my view that he has lost all credibility. I don't respond to him anymore.

CAF, you cannot be trusted, you agreed to no longer contribute to this tread. You also have used the term contribute rather loosely.