Farangs Calling Thai'S Racist...

[Ulysses G.]

This whole thread should be closed as those arguing otherwise are either insane/stupid or trolling.

...And every other thread that I disagree with!

[kevozman1]

Berkshire simply has an exceptionally narrow definition of the term racism and small case of rose colored glasses. I think we should let this thread die as it is only about semantics and not much else.

Well said. Berkboy seems to confuse racism with violence and genocide.

Edited August 19, 2010 by kevozman1

[Spee]

Try answering these two questions without bringing anything else into the discussion:

1. Do Thais tend to discriminate against certain groups of people?

2. Is discrimination right or wrong?

As long as we're clear that discrimination is not racism and vice versa.

Personally, I think racism is the modern day slur du jour, and is probably misused and misdefined more often than not. Discrimination is not far behind. Each is often confused with the other, even though they are far from being synonyms.

Would you consider the "no-gaijin" policy sometimes seen around Japan to be racism or discrimination? If you think it's the former and not the latter, I rest my case.

You may want to consider looking up the definitions of words before you embarrass yourself any further.

Ugh .... as usual, can't see the forest for the trees.

If one chooses to buy a shirt on Sukhumvit from a Thai vendor instead of the (insert other race here) vendor next door, then the person is clearly discriminating. Maybe it's the price or the color or body odor or something else. It is discrimination none the less but such action is hardly racist.

On the other hand, if one chooses to wipe out all (insert other race here) in Thailand, simply because they are of a specific race, then such action would clearly be indiscriminate racism.

People discriminate many times each and every day. Specific action against anyone for the sole reason that they belong to a specific race, and for no other reason, is clearly racist.

Where the problem comes into play is when troublemakers and shit-stirrers run around making highly opinionated and speculative claims that an individual or group is acting in a racist manner when in fact they are simply being discriminate for one or more of a multitude of other reasons.

[electau]

As far as is known one is within his or her legal rights ( it is not illegal ) to practice racism or discrimination in Thailand. There is no laws or legislation prohibiting it.

If there are such laws or legislation in Thailand, please post them here.

In Western countries there is legislation.

[Heng]

Do you want farangs to go around believing that Thais are racist?

-snip-

So to call Thais racists is not only inaccurate, it's obscene. It would seem that you, as a Thai person with some background in western cultures, would see this.

For myself I wouldn't want to give (too) broad generalized advice to farangs (or anyone else) in general. I usually deal with this issues on a case by case basis, sometimes giving my opinion, sometimes giving the cold shoulder (as mentioned).

I still believe there are plenty of racist Thais and people in general, I don't think that's going to change anytime soon. People are different, some people are better and worse at doing things. Recognizing such differences and making decisions based on those conclusions IMO isn't wrong.

[Heng]

You see, on number #2, you didn't just answer the question. You made the FOOLISH statement that the way you treat human beings is no different in terms of morality than the way you choose an alcoholic beverage.

Apparently to you it's perfectly moral that you tell an Indian or Pakistani that they can't rent an apartment in your complex simply because of their nationality, while other foreign nationals are fully accepted at your complex.

Apparently to you it's perfectly moral that an obviously handicapped person is very unlikely to be hired in most office environments in Thailand...better that they go out on the street and beg.

Apparently to you it's perfectly moral that a Lao/Thai person or Muslim person is less likely to be hired for a job than a central Thai, simply based on ethnicity.

Apparently to you it's perfectly moral that a 20-something with lighter skin in more likely to be hired for a certain job than a 40-something person with dark skin.

After all, all these choices are simply of the same scope as choosing which beverage you prefer at a bar.

I didn't make any mention of the way I treat people personally. I said discrimination is natural and that people aren't born, built, or can even possibly be 'made' equal in a vacuum. Thus it isn't right or wrong for people to recognize differences or to have personal preferences one way or the other.

But since you're apparently curious (or at least wildly guessing), more likely I'd build multiple complexes catering to various groups and perhaps another for those who prefer potpourri.

I'm not about to say that universal handicapped access or office reconfigurations should be enforced, no. Would I hire a handicapped person? If it didn't substantially (as in not a satang more than someone who wasn't handicapped) increase my costs of doing business, of course I would. Charity/person building begins at home, if someone is on the street begging, I blame their family, not society as a whole.

Lao/Muslim thing... same as above. Employment at will. Folks should be able to hire who they like.

Dark/light thing... Of course, especially if it's better for business. No malice or dislike directed towards the 40-something dark person. I'd still offer them a beverage and cookie (if this was a walk in interview). My house, my rules, I certainly wouldn't be telling this dark lady what the rules should be over at her house.

[wolf5370]

Reality 101 - In my workplace alone (an American company) I know of at least a dozen interracial marriages, white-black, white-east asian, hispanic-east asian, black-hispanic, white-hispanic and white-south asian. According to the Pew Research Center nearly one in seven new marriages in the U.S. is interracial or interethnic. link: Interracial marriages. According to official US census figures from the LAST census 6 and a half million Americans identified themselves as being of 2 or more races. That's about the same as 3 quarters of the population of London. link: US Census figures. These numbers also don't reflect the fact that the overwhelming number of mixed black and white individuals in America identify themselves as black only and not mixed. yogi100 says he believes there are only a handful of mixed marriages in London. That may be true but it particularly highlights how the different ethnic groups have not assimilated into British society nearly as well as they have in the US (and I would suspect Canada too.) I think yogi and panicandvomit need to expand their horizons a bit further.

While 6.5 million may be 3/4 the population of London, I would suggest that London has more than (just under) 2% of mxed marriages, especially when you take out the temporary visitors (much of West London is populated by foreign nationals on a temporary basis - work permit workers and visiting families). Your statement does NOT "highlights how the different ethnic groups have not assimilated into British society nearly as well as they have in the US" it merely shows that one poster's views on London does not a statitical analysis make! Also inter-marriage is not the sole indicator of assimilation - or are you suggesting that unmixed black families have not integrated and still consider themselves African rather than American?

[phetaroi]

You see, on number #2, you didn't just answer the question. You made the FOOLISH statement that the way you treat human beings is no different in terms of morality than the way you choose an alcoholic beverage.

Apparently to you it's perfectly moral that you tell an Indian or Pakistani that they can't rent an apartment in your complex simply because of their nationality, while other foreign nationals are fully accepted at your complex.

Apparently to you it's perfectly moral that an obviously handicapped person is very unlikely to be hired in most office environments in Thailand...better that they go out on the street and beg.

Apparently to you it's perfectly moral that a Lao/Thai person or Muslim person is less likely to be hired for a job than a central Thai, simply based on ethnicity.

Apparently to you it's perfectly moral that a 20-something with lighter skin in more likely to be hired for a certain job than a 40-something person with dark skin.

After all, all these choices are simply of the same scope as choosing which beverage you prefer at a bar.

I didn't make any mention of the way I treat people personally. I said discrimination is natural and that people aren't born, built, or can even possibly be 'made' equal in a vacuum. Thus it isn't right or wrong for people to recognize differences or to have personal preferences one way or the other.

But since you're apparently curious (or at least wildly guessing), more likely I'd build multiple complexes catering to various groups and perhaps another for those who prefer potpourri.

I'm not about to say that universal handicapped access or office reconfigurations should be enforced, no. Would I hire a handicapped person? If it didn't substantially (as in not a satang more than someone who wasn't handicapped) increase my costs of doing business, of course I would. Charity/person building begins at home, if someone is on the street begging, I blame their family, not society as a whole.

Lao/Muslim thing... same as above. Employment at will. Folks should be able to hire who they like.

Dark/light thing... Of course, especially if it's better for business. No malice or dislike directed towards the 40-something dark person. I'd still offer them a beverage and cookie (if this was a walk in interview). My house, my rules, I certainly wouldn't be telling this dark lady what the rules should be over at her house.

Yup, you're exactly the kind of guy we're talking about.

[wolf5370]

Try answering these two questions without bringing anything else into the discussion:

1. Do Thais tend to discriminate against certain groups of people?

2. Is discrimination right or wrong?

As long as we're clear that discrimination is not racism and vice versa.

Personally, I think racism is the modern day slur du jour, and is probably misused and misdefined more often than not. Discrimination is not far behind. Each is often confused with the other, even though they are far from being synonyms.

Would you consider the "no-gaijin" policy sometimes seen around Japan to be racism or discrimination? If you think it's the former and not the latter, I rest my case.

You may want to consider looking up the definitions of words before you embarrass yourself any further.

Ugh .... as usual, can't see the forest for the trees.

If one chooses to buy a shirt on Sukhumvit from a Thai vendor instead of the (insert other race here) vendor next door, then the person is clearly discriminating. Maybe it's the price or the color or body odor or something else. It is discrimination none the less but such action is hardly racist. If on price/etc then it is personal preference or just being pennywise - if its because the owner was black/etc then, yep, its racist. These things can not be confused, its hard to hurt the feelings of a T-shirt.

On the other hand, if one chooses to wipe out all (insert other race here) in Thailand, simply because they are of a specific race, then such action would clearly be indiscriminate racism. Erm, nope, that is specific (thus not indiscriminate) and is called genocide.

People discriminate many times each and every day. Specific action against anyone for the sole reason that they belong to a specific race, and for no other reason, is clearly racist. Exactly - but racism has to include other things than just race - it needs to include colour, creed and religion too as the sentiment is the same - discrimination that is damaging to society - if only there was a n inclusive word that doesn't lessen the impact of the term, but there isn't, so racism HAS to include more than race (especially as there is no true defining line between these 'races').

Where the problem comes into play is when troublemakers and shit-stirrers run around making highly opinionated and speculative claims that an individual or group is acting in a racist manner when in fact they are simply being discriminate for one or more of a multitude of other reasons. No, the problem comes when people are overtly discriminative of people due to their creed, colour or point of origin. If there was no case to answer then the T-shirt wearers would just be considered a poor joke and laughed at.

[bonobo]

For the record, I find racism deplorable and consider it an anathema to the human condition and a huge waste of potential. But racism exists world-wide. I admire cultures and institutions which work to shield people from the effects of racism, be that by having mutual goals, laws, or whatever. Sports have largely gotten that way, as has the military. I love watching the RSA rugby team, for example, where black and white players forget about color, while on the pitch, at least, despite the RSA's history and reputation of racial strife. I loved being part of the Marines where people with strong racial views which affected their private lives put that aside in the pursuit of the mission--all Marines being green.

But both Spee and Heng makes some good points above about discrimination and the fact that racism is a part of society. Racism does exist, and people do discriminate. And, as much as this won't be PC, sometimes, discrimination based on demographics is a logical course of action. If I am in Italy, and a bunch of Roma kids come up to me and start crowding me, my hand is going to my wallet. If I am a cop in New Orleans, and a group of teenage white kids with shaved heads walks into a local African Baptist Church, or a group of young black kids starts cruising Stone Canyon Drive in LA, well, alarm signals are going to start going off. Racial profiling is against the law in many nations, but sometimes discrimination is a logical step.

But it is still insidious. And when we fall victim to it, we are killing our humanity one piece at a time. I consider myself far less racist than most people. And I do think I generally look at the person rather than the demographics. But once, in my upscale, mostly white town in San Diego County, I was in my car following a tricked out Porsche, rap music blaring out of it, a muscular black arm hanging out the window. I remember thinking "drug dealer" with a degree of distaste. But when I pulled up at the light, I looked over to see two of the San Diego Padres baseball players, one being perhaps the most beloved man to ever put on the uniform, a philanthropist and community leader. I felt horrified at my knee-jerk condemnation of them. If that arm had been white, would I have assumed the same? I doubt it.

I don't think Thais are particularly more or less racist than any other demographic. I do think they don't see as much wrong with racial discrimination as do many other demographics. The television censors blur out cigarettes and guns, but they leave racial slurs intact. I do think it would help Thai society as a whole if some laws were enacted to protect people from overt discrimination, be that based on race, gender, ethnicity, physical limitations (handicaps) height, and the like.

The more individuals are allowed to reach their full potential, the better off all of us will be. That includes in Thailand as well as everywhere else in the world.

[klikster]

I've been posting on another thread that discussed the use of the word "farang." It's simply a descriptive word, nothing more, nothing less. To the average Thai, the word probably denotes wealth and privilege more than anything else.

I think you are way off base with your simplistic approach. Farang actually means light-skinned foreigner. While some presumption of "wealth and privilege" may be implied, that is a subjective interpretation. Also, "farang" can be a description or a virtual slur depending on how it is used .. especially the tone.

You say that " .. the word probably denotes ..". Not sure? Then why the "nothing more, nothing less."

BTW, i.e., denote.

Denote and connote are often confused because both words have senses that entail signification. Denote means "to signify directly or literally" and describes the relation between the word and the thing it conventionally names. Connote means "to signify indirectly, suggest or imply" and describes the relation between the word and the images or associations it evokes. Thus, the word river denotes a moving body of water and may connote such things as the relentlessness of time and the changing nature of life. http://www.thefreedictionary.com

[phetaroi]

So if you go through the 281 posts so far and do a tally, here's about what you find:

Somewhere around 4% of the posts seem to say there is not a problem in Thailand with racism and/or discrimination.

Somewhere around 30% of the posts seem to say there is a problem in Thailand with racism and/or discrimination.

The other roughly 66% of the posts don't directly say whether there is or is not a problem with racism or discrimination.

You know, if roughly 7 times as many people think there is a problem than think there is not a problem, then I think it's safe to say there's a problem.

Some of it comes down to superficiality of the Thai response to discrimination. I think there is progress being made. For one small example, you certainly see handicapped Thais in wheelchairs out in public more than you did a decade ago. But on the other hand, the Bangkok government put the ridged paving stones in sidewalks to help guide the blind. Try closing your eyes and walking those paths. You'll smash into vendors, fall into holes in the sidewalk, smash your head into new crossover stairs that have been erected since the paving stones were laid down, or you'll walk into new phone booths that have been constructed. Was putting down the paving stones a positive step in helping the handicapped? Yes...but then they were abandoned and ignored and have become virtually useless. Superficial progress based on international standards, but no follow through to make the effort meaningful. Practical result -- no progress in helping the blind navigate the sidewalks and streets of Bangkok.

I am surprised the Thai government hasn't announced their intent to make Thailand a hub for non-discrimination...and we all know what those Thai hubs really mean.

[canuckamuck]

We should change the name of this thread to 'words misused on Thai Visa'

[Ulysses G.]

You know, if roughly 7 times as many people think there is a problem than think there is not a problem, then I think it's safe to say there's a problem.

No one is claiming that no Thais are racist. They are saying that they are not any worse than other countries.

By the way, a large majority of Germans thought there was a "problem" with several minorities around the time of World War 2 and justified genocide because they all agreed with each other. Your "logic" does not compute.

[Heng]

You see, on number #2, you didn't just answer the question. You made the FOOLISH statement that the way you treat human beings is no different in terms of morality than the way you choose an alcoholic beverage.

Apparently to you it's perfectly moral that you tell an Indian or Pakistani that they can't rent an apartment in your complex simply because of their nationality, while other foreign nationals are fully accepted at your complex.

Apparently to you it's perfectly moral that an obviously handicapped person is very unlikely to be hired in most office environments in Thailand...better that they go out on the street and beg.

Apparently to you it's perfectly moral that a Lao/Thai person or Muslim person is less likely to be hired for a job than a central Thai, simply based on ethnicity.

Apparently to you it's perfectly moral that a 20-something with lighter skin in more likely to be hired for a certain job than a 40-something person with dark skin.

After all, all these choices are simply of the same scope as choosing which beverage you prefer at a bar.

I didn't make any mention of the way I treat people personally. I said discrimination is natural and that people aren't born, built, or can even possibly be 'made' equal in a vacuum. Thus it isn't right or wrong for people to recognize differences or to have personal preferences one way or the other.

But since you're apparently curious (or at least wildly guessing), more likely I'd build multiple complexes catering to various groups and perhaps another for those who prefer potpourri.

I'm not about to say that universal handicapped access or office reconfigurations should be enforced, no. Would I hire a handicapped person? If it didn't substantially (as in not a satang more than someone who wasn't handicapped) increase my costs of doing business, of course I would. Charity/person building begins at home, if someone is on the street begging, I blame their family, not society as a whole.

Lao/Muslim thing... same as above. Employment at will. Folks should be able to hire who they like.

Dark/light thing... Of course, especially if it's better for business. No malice or dislike directed towards the 40-something dark person. I'd still offer them a beverage and cookie (if this was a walk in interview). My house, my rules, I certainly wouldn't be telling this dark lady what the rules should be over at her house.

Yup, you're exactly the kind of guy we're talking about.

Cool. As you might have guessed I am one of my favorite topics.

[Heng]

I don't think Thais are particularly more or less racist than any other demographic.  

Good examples with the racial profiling.

Apparently some folks think (or at least like to argue) that such racism (which it is right?) is some kind of evil cancer with no basis in logic whatsoever.

[kevozman1]

Reality 101 - In my workplace alone (an American company) I know of at least a dozen interracial marriages, white-black, white-east asian, hispanic-east asian, black-hispanic, white-hispanic and white-south asian. According to the Pew Research Center nearly one in seven new marriages in the U.S. is interracial or interethnic. link: Interracial marriages. According to official US census figures from the LAST census 6 and a half million Americans identified themselves as being of 2 or more races. That's about the same as 3 quarters of the population of London. link: US Census figures. These numbers also don't reflect the fact that the overwhelming number of mixed black and white individuals in America identify themselves as black only and not mixed. yogi100 says he believes there are only a handful of mixed marriages in London. That may be true but it particularly highlights how the different ethnic groups have not assimilated into British society nearly as well as they have in the US (and I would suspect Canada too.) I think yogi and panicandvomit need to expand their horizons a bit further.

While 6.5 million may be 3/4 the population of London, I would suggest that London has more than (just under) 2% of mxed marriages, especially when you take out the temporary visitors (much of West London is populated by foreign nationals on a temporary basis - work permit workers and visiting families). Your statement does NOT "highlights how the different ethnic groups have not assimilated into British society nearly as well as they have in the US" it merely shows that one poster's views on London does not a statitical analysis make! Also inter-marriage is not the sole indicator of assimilation - or are you suggesting that unmixed black families have not integrated and still consider themselves African rather than American?

Come back to London in about 20-30 years when the different races are all

thrird to fouth generation and the culture of their homeland is not important.

You can only imagine the amount of mongrelization that will occure. 2%

mixed marriages................. seems a bit low to me.

By the wasy in my experience West London is the part with least foriegn nationals

and usually houses rich English people. I come from east where some areas

foriegn nationals are actually the majority.

[NamF0n]

or are you suggesting that unmixed black families have not integrated and still consider themselves African rather than American?

If you read these numbers of actual violent crime then you can make up your own mind

http://racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/06-02.htm

[Chunky1]

So if you go through the 281 posts so far and do a tally, here's about what you find:

Somewhere around 4% of the posts seem to say there is not a problem in Thailand with racism and/or discrimination.

Somewhere around 30% of the posts seem to say there is a problem in Thailand with racism and/or discrimination.

The other roughly 66% of the posts don't directly say whether there is or is not a problem with racism or discrimination.

You know, if roughly 7 times as many people think there is a problem than think there is not a problem, then I think it's safe to say there's a problem.

Some of it comes down to superficiality of the Thai response to discrimination. I think there is progress being made. For one small example, you certainly see handicapped Thais in wheelchairs out in public more than you did a decade ago. But on the other hand, the Bangkok government put the ridged paving stones in sidewalks to help guide the blind. Try closing your eyes and walking those paths. You'll smash into vendors, fall into holes in the sidewalk, smash your head into new crossover stairs that have been erected since the paving stones were laid down, or you'll walk into new phone booths that have been constructed. Was putting down the paving stones a positive step in helping the handicapped? Yes...but then they were abandoned and ignored and have become virtually useless. Superficial progress based on international standards, but no follow through to make the effort meaningful. Practical result -- no progress in helping the blind navigate the sidewalks and streets of Bangkok.

I am surprised the Thai government hasn't announced their intent to make Thailand a hub for non-discrimination...and we all know what those Thai hubs really mean.

The Thai government's insufficient sidewalk paving in Bangkok and the problems that it causes for the blind is one of the world's greatest social injustices since the Night of Broken Glass.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Chunky1

[phetaroi]

You know, if roughly 7 times as many people think there is a problem than think there is not a problem, then I think it's safe to say there's a problem.

No one is claiming that no Thais are racist. They are saying that they are not any worse than other countries.

By the way, a large majority of Germans thought there was a "problem" with several minorities around the time of World War 2 and justified genocide because they all agreed with each other. Your "logic" does not compute.

I don't agree with your logic at all. If having a just society is worthwhile, then it doesn't matter what other societies are doing. It matters what your society is doing. It's irrelevant to me (both in general and in this discussion) what Germans were doing 80 years ago. It doesn't even matter what other countries are doing today. We're talking about where, in regard to justice, Thai society is today.

[Ulysses G.]

[F1fanatic]

You know, if roughly 7 times as many people think there is a problem than think there is not a problem, then I think it's safe to say there's a problem.

No one is claiming that no Thais are racist. They are saying that they are not any worse than other countries.

By the way, a large majority of Germans thought there was a "problem" with several minorities around the time of World War 2 and justified genocide because they all agreed with each other. Your "logic" does not compute.

I don't agree with your logic at all. If having a just society is worthwhile, then it doesn't matter what other societies are doing. It matters what your society is doing. It's irrelevant to me (both in general and in this discussion) what Germans were doing 80 years ago. It doesn't even matter what other countries are doing today. We're talking about where, in regard to justice, Thai society is today.

You're right of course in your comment " If having a just society is worthwhile, then it doesn't matter what other societies are doing".

But, the previous poster has made an even better point that the 2nd World War highlighted the nightmare of a nation believing it was better than others. Ignorance is no excuse as it leads to death for other, innocent people.

It would be nice to think we've learned the lessons from the past - but we haven't.

Few people that have lived here a few years think the Thais are not racist, but then again the vast majority of us are to a certain extent.

The problem is (IMO)- that we are educated, have travelled, and are therefore aware that our own nationality is not as wonderful, superior etc. as we'd previously thought. The vast majority still believe it deep down, but that's human nature.

Education is always the answer to at least start addressing the problem.

[wolf5370]

Reality 101 - In my workplace alone (an American company) I know of at least a dozen interracial marriages, white-black, white-east asian, hispanic-east asian, black-hispanic, white-hispanic and white-south asian. According to the Pew Research Center nearly one in seven new marriages in the U.S. is interracial or interethnic. link: Interracial marriages. According to official US census figures from the LAST census 6 and a half million Americans identified themselves as being of 2 or more races. That's about the same as 3 quarters of the population of London. link: US Census figures. These numbers also don't reflect the fact that the overwhelming number of mixed black and white individuals in America identify themselves as black only and not mixed. yogi100 says he believes there are only a handful of mixed marriages in London. That may be true but it particularly highlights how the different ethnic groups have not assimilated into British society nearly as well as they have in the US (and I would suspect Canada too.) I think yogi and panicandvomit need to expand their horizons a bit further.

While 6.5 million may be 3/4 the population of London, I would suggest that London has more than (just under) 2% of mxed marriages, especially when you take out the temporary visitors (much of West London is populated by foreign nationals on a temporary basis - work permit workers and visiting families). Your statement does NOT "highlights how the different ethnic groups have not assimilated into British society nearly as well as they have in the US" it merely shows that one poster's views on London does not a statitical analysis make! Also inter-marriage is not the sole indicator of assimilation - or are you suggesting that unmixed black families have not integrated and still consider themselves African rather than American?

Come back to London in about 20-30 years when the different races are all

thrird to fouth generation and the culture of their homeland is not important.

You can only imagine the amount of mongrelization that will occure. 2%

mixed marriages................. seems a bit low to me.

By the wasy in my experience West London is the part with least foriegn nationals

and usually houses rich English people. I come from east where some areas

foriegn nationals are actually the majority.

The 2% was from the previous poster's 6.5 million Americans (out of just over 310 million) gives just under 2% - he was using numbers rather than percentages, America has 5 times the population of the UK, so using direct numeric comparison isn't like-for-like.

London already has many,many generations of immigrants - its a very old city. Even the Indian subcontinental immigrants are going on 4 generations now.

I was born in East London and worked in West London for 20 years. West End has a high proportion of non-resident foreign nationals (as was my point) - it includes China Town, the mainly Arab areas around Marble Arcch, Oxford Street/Circus, Hyde Park Corner and Picadilli as well as other smaller enclaves; Kensington is very mixed - rich Europeans/Arabs/Chinese/Japanese/Brits. The majority of the buidings are commercial, with most housing being out of the price range for most Brits. The East End has mostly long term immigrants (Indian subcontinent mostly) and indiginous Brits, so has more mixing. South London too these days. North London has the wealthier immigrants, but a much lower percentage - exept for enclaves around the M4/M25 (Heathrow) areas.

There were some seriously bad errors made in the 70's (old Labour) with ghettoising the East End (of London) instead of sparse housing methodology that allows for better intergration and local acceptance.

Edited August 20, 2010 by wolf5370

[kevozman1]

West London stretches past the west end and is used more for commercial purposes

then residential.

Funny I should be lectured on this subject as my mum and dad are Irish immigants who

came to live in Battersea and Ladbroke Grovein the 60's. My dad who moved to Ladbroke grove

when the first main source of non white people came to London: the Caribbeans. My

dad told me at that time there was hardly any non whites so for the MAJORITY of non Europeans

(as you mentioned mixed marriages) will NOT be many generations in London. Most

came over in the 80's - 90's.

[robblok]

The Thai government's insufficient sidewalk paving in Bangkok and the problems that it causes for the blind is one of the world's greatest social injustices since the Night of Broken Glass.

You try to be funny by making fun of "kristallnacht" You are not.

[JohnLeech]

][/font].......I'm just wondering if you realize how ignorant you sound ....they don't know about slavery in America .......Is that racism? It can't be because all Asians are of the same race

Ignorant? From what you have written' date=' I am surprised you can spell the word.

Why should Thais need to "[i']know about slavery in America[/i]" or anywhere else to understand is signiicance? They are only too well aware of slavery in their own country, which is why Rama V is so revered. Apparently you hadn't noticed.

"all Asians are of the same race"?? Not to any Asian!

[JohnLeech]

....My dad told me at that time there was hardly any non whites so for the MAJORITY of non Europeans

(as you mentioned mixed marriages) will NOT be many generations in London. Most came over in the 80's - 90's.

Your dad was misinformed. The peak of "non white" (more realistically, Commonwealth) immigration was in the late 50s and early 60s, resulting in the Commonwealth Imigration Act in 1962 in an attempt to control it. This continued into the 70s, notably with Ugandan and Fijian Asians, but slowed down in the 80s and 90s, largely as a result of Britain joining the EEC.

[kevozman1]

^Absolute <deleted>, strange how the official figures goes against everything I and many others

have PERSONALLY experienced. My father was not misinformed, he lived it and is not the

kind of guy who would bullshit.

Edited August 20, 2010 by kevozman1

[Spee]

Somewhere around 4% of the posts seem to say there is not a problem in Thailand with racism and/or discrimination.

Somewhere around 30% of the posts seem to say there is a problem in Thailand with racism and/or discrimination.

The other roughly 66% of the posts don't directly say whether there is or is not a problem with racism or discrimination.

Big difference as to whether or not it exists and whether or not it causes a problem, IMHO.

I have not personally seen nor experienced overt racism or discrimination in Thailand. While there is likely to be some, I don't believe that there is a massive problem with racism in Thailand, or there would certainly be more uproar about it. Undoubtedly, there is a massive amount of discrimination, and it has resulted in massive problems, as the recent societal struggles have shown.

I have personally experienced what I would consider racism and discrimination in other countries. I have been assaulted by black individuals on a couple of occasions, for no other reason than I am white. This is clearly indiscriminate racism. I have been denied entrance to businesses in Japan because of the "no-gaijin" entrance policy. As hinted at in an earlier post, I consider this to be discrimination, not racism, just as in places in the west where the innkeepers' right to refuse service to anyone (i.e., the right to discriminate) has been part of the common law for many centuries.

[wolf5370]

West London stretches past the west end and is used more for commercial purposes

then residential.

Funny I should be lectured on this subject as my mum and dad are Irish immigants who

came to live in Battersea and Ladbroke Grovein the 60's. My dad who moved to Ladbroke grove

when the first main source of non white people came to London: the Caribbeans. My

dad told me at that time there was hardly any non whites so for the MAJORITY of non Europeans

(as you mentioned mixed marriages) will NOT be many generations in London. Most

came over in the 80's - 90's.

Wasn't lecturing (did mean to at least) - we are agreeing here, that the West End (which is what I said raher than West London) is mostly commercial - my point was that there will be fewer mixed marriages there as there are fewer indiginous and the majority of those that DO live there are on visas.

The Caribbeans came over in the 50's enmasse under a scheme to encourage them by the British gov. The reason was post war there were not enough lower paid unskiled workers to work on the trains and buses and other such work. The Irish were also encouraged at the semi-skilled level for rebuilding/construction - London needed to be rebuil. A lot of Irish immigrants settled in the Mersey area. The greatest Indian subcontinent influx was during the mid seventies during another British gov drive to fill the hoard of new low paid government jobs (especially NHS) - this gave rise to some quite extreame right wing resistance (National Front was at its peak). I knew a Caribbean famly next door to me and many white people (East End) - the governments ghettoisation plan (of course they didn't call ot that, but that was what it turned into) saturated Tower Hamlets and within a few years every neighbour I had had gone. By 1978 we were gone too. It was unbelievable - the whole ambiance of the East End proper changed within months. Fear was everywhere, NF thugs and Indian boys carrying carving knives. There had always been gangs in the Eastend, but they followed a kind of code and tended to figh each other in dark places (like bomb sites) - am ny people at the time said that it would never have happened if the Crays were still in control (and quite a few older generation cockneys stil believe this). Teenage kids defocating in the gutters. The 'new' smell of Indian food. Foreign languages. SHops closing down as people moved away. Many Eastenders (cockneys) moved out to Essex or Kent (we moved to Kent). Our houses sold for peanuts - in ten years time, the boom would see those house prices increase 5 times!