Farangs Calling Thai'S Racist...

[bkkjames]

Firstly, let me repeat my question from my opening piece--can a Thai guy just hop over to America on a retirement visa?  The answer is no.

Huh? That's ridiculous! There is no retirement visa available in the USA for anyone. Nothing to do with Thais, race, or nationality. It's a first world thing, most first world countries aren't interested in that kind of migrant.

Next ...

Jeez, JT, that's my freakin point!  Or do you only pick out certain things that support your contention?  Let's see, Thai's are more racist when it comes to land ownership, but less racist when it comes to immigration from developed countries.  Does that make it a wash?  C'mon.

No, you didn't make any point. The USA and many other countries are simply not interested in hosting any foreign retirees, period, regardless of wealth, race, nationality, anything. I don't think you've made any kind of point with this, and suggest you give it up.

How many hundred thousand Canucks are retired / semi retired in Arizona or Florida JT?

[carmine]

The OP is rather confused and i believe your stupid anti expat posts are probably the result of your own limited success here. If your posts were'nt so monotonous, ill concieved and confused, the fact that they are written in such an arrogant condecsending tone i'd probably find them rather insulting.

There's "possibly" racism here is there? I can think of a number of people of different creed/nationality that might put you straight on that question.

Now, that said, where's the IGNORE button so i too can follow what seems to be becoming a trend in looking to ignore your foolish comments.

Carmine, I'd like to reply to your post, but it's rather incoherent as usual. Do you think Google has a translator for gibberish?

Get a day job.

[Berkshire]

But as "racism" is an accepted term, I would suggest that posters not get wrapped around the semantics of the word. You can lump racism, nantionalism, classism, ethnocentricity, et al, for the purposes of this thread.

The problem, bonobo, is if you were to "lump" racism in with all these other words, it changes the meaning and intent of this word. It's like calling an "atheist" "anti-semitic." The atheist is not just against Judaism, but all organized religions. But the phrase "anti-semitic" is much more repugnant.

We're splitting hairs here, but I'm curious to know why you would refer to Thais as "nationalist" and not "patriots?" I had a discussion on another forum about this and no one could explain to me why they would make this distinction.

[Jingthing]

How many hundred thousand Canucks are retired / semi retired in Arizona or Florida JT?

To repeat, there is no retirement visa available in the US. PERIOD. For anyone! Yes they can stay part time on tourist visas, etc. and they CANNOT stay all year that way. Check your facts first, OK? Same deal with Canada. Americans cannot retire in Canada on a retirement visa, because such a visa option DOES NOT EXIST.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[Berkshire]

In this small town of 15 thousand so inhabitants, nearly all would know the answer to that question.

And you, no doubt, have spoken to all 15,000. Otherwise, you wouldn't be making such an outlandish statement. Or would you?

[Jingthing]

The patriot vs. nationalist canard sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would say. Of course virulent nationalists will tend to portray themselves in the best possible light, with the most pleasant sounding words. Next ...

[Berkshire]

Carmine, I'd like to reply to your post, but it's rather incoherent as usual. Do you think Google has a translator for gibberish?

Get a day job.

I'm actually at work at the moment.

[somtampet]

sorry op,but thats a big load of verbal diahrea.Forget racist farangs,the thais are very racist but does that make me leave Thailand,why the hel_l should i.My suggestion is stop trying to impress with the big post,and get out more,you will see racism every day by the haves against the have nots

[rgs2001uk]

Firstly, let me repeat my question from my opening piece--can a Thai guy just hop over to America on a retirement visa? The answer is no.

Huh? That's ridiculous! There is no retirement visa available in the USA for anyone. Nothing to do with Thais, race, or nationality. It's a first world thing, most first world countries aren't interested in that kind of migrant.

Next ...

Jeez, JT, that's my freakin point! Or do you only pick out certain things that support your contention? Let's see, Thai's are more racist when it comes to land ownership, but less racist when it comes to immigration from developed countries. Does that make it a wash? C'mon.

No, you didn't make any point. The USA and many other countries are simply not interested in hosting any foreign retirees, period, regardless of wealth, race, nationality, anything. I don't think you've made any kind of point with this, and suggest you give it up.

Last time I looked it up, Australia allows retirees for only A$500,000.

I would have thought in these times of financial uncertainty it would make sense to allow moneyed retiree immigration rather than the economic migrants many seem to encourage.

Many countries could do worse than follow the Thai example.

[bkkjames]

But as "racism" is an accepted term, I would suggest that posters not get wrapped around the semantics of the word. You can lump racism, nantionalism, classism, ethnocentricity, et al, for the purposes of this thread.

The problem, bonobo, is if you were to "lump" racism in with all these other words, it changes the meaning and intent of this word. It's like calling an "atheist" "anti-semitic." The atheist is not just against Judaism, but all organized religions. But the phrase "anti-semitic" is much more repugnant.

We're splitting hairs here, but I'm curious to know why you would refer to Thais as "nationalist" and not "patriots?" I had a discussion on another forum about this and no one could explain to me why they would make this distinction.

Patriot was a fashionable term coined by Dubyas speech writer. It resonated with his electorate and even those on the other side of the aisle post 911. Anyone going against the grain was called un-Patriotic by default. A fight against external powers / terrorists in the name of patriotism.

Being Nationalist (looking inward) on the other hand would be used more like the immigration debate going on in the US. The locals are currently using this in the battle over the temple for example and say in the temasak case. The PAD folk are pushing this tone as well. A fine line I admit but there is a distinction.

Edited August 11, 2010 by bkkjames

[Jingthing]

Carmine, I'd like to reply to your post, but it's rather incoherent as usual. Do you think Google has a translator for gibberish?

Get a day job.

I'm actually at work at the moment.

Totally Obvious Caption contest time, ha ha.

[bkkjames]

Carmine, I'd like to reply to your post, but it's rather incoherent as usual.  Do you think Google has a translator for gibberish?

Get a day job.

I'm actually at work at the moment.

Totally Obvious Caption contest time,  ha ha.

"Do Gay people like Katoeys?" oops wrong thread. 

[Jingthing]

Last time I looked it up, Australia allows retirees for only A$500,000.

I would have thought in these times of financial uncertainty it would make sense to allow moneyed retiree immigration rather than the economic migrants many seem to encourage.

Many countries could do worse than follow the Thai example.

Right, I didn't say ALL first world countries don't have a retirement visa. MOST don't. Australia does for quite wealthy retirees only. There is some lobbying for the US to offer similar, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

[Berkshire]

Carmine, I'd like to reply to your post, but it's rather incoherent as usual. Do you think Google has a translator for gibberish?

Get a day job.

I'm actually at work at the moment.

Totally Obvious Caption contest time, ha ha.

Yeah, my boss would be upset to see me goofing off. Wait a minute, I am the boss....

Edited August 11, 2010 by Berkshire

[stiggy]

Get a job where you work with multiple ethnic groups and across all classes here in Thailand.

look at how class is an issue, look at how other nationalites are treated for eg Burmese.

All nationalites show discrimination or racisim at some level, here is no different.

Society across all cultures and ethnic groups has the same traits at human level.

[carmine]

Carmine, I'd like to reply to your post, but it's rather incoherent as usual. Do you think Google has a translator for gibberish?

Get a day job.

I'm actually at work at the moment.

Totally Obvious Caption contest time, ha ha.

Thats useful to know. Can i order a big mac and fries? Do you deliver?

[surayu]

Honestly, racism in America today is still worse than Thailand.

So basically you are calling thai people racists with that, let me recall the title of your own topic here: " Farangs calling thai's racist...do you know HOW SILLY YOU SOUND?" ok let's see at the bright side of it, we finally agree on something, "thais are racists" that's it, not all of them obviously, but it's something that you can clearly see almost everywhere you go on various degrees

Edit:

and from your other post here (#87) : " Thai's are more racist when it comes to land ownership, but less racist when it comes to immigration from developed countries"

Edited August 11, 2010 by surayu

[surayu]

The atheist is not just against Judaism, but all organized religions.

No they are not "against" they just don't share the same views, it's not a war here, you can't make someone automatically an enemy just because is not on your side

[canuckamuck]

I seem to remember the boatloads of Rohingya refugees that were beaten on the beach and many of them sent back to sea to die. I think that is a pretty strong display of discrimination based on origin.

I also remember something about the Thai police selling Burmese refugees to fishing boat captains and the presumption that those people were frequently murdered and thrown overboard when they no longer would work for free or became sick.

I would say that that is an example equal to occurrences in America during slavery.

Edited August 11, 2010 by canuckamuck

[robblok]

Strange...

My first wife could own land right away when she arrived in Holland also no strange rules about not being able to work. She als was never charged more then a full blooded dutch guy and got all the government support when she wanted to divorce me.

I would say that an off the boat Thai will have an easier time being treated as an equal then an farang here. Were there guys that looked at her as if she was a hooker.. yes there were.. i wont deny that that kind of racism happens and i wont defend it. Was she accepted in my village in Holland.. sure by everyone no problems. Were here daughters ever teased on the basis of being Thai.. never. Did they get the same healthcare and rights as dutch people.. sure. Can the get a Dutch passport now.. sure quite easy actually.

Firstly, let me repeat my question from my opening piece--can a Thai guy just hop over to America on a retirement visa? The answer is no.

Secondly, most of you are confusing government policy with individual feelings and emotions. The duty of any government, among other things, is to protect the rights of its CITIZENS. If Thai citizens have more rights in Thailand than foreigners, then I'd say that's pretty normal. Just like Americans having more rights in America than non-Americans.

In Holland sure if they can show that they have money and can support themselves. (next point you loose) I would say sure i agree to a certain extend with you. The whole not being able to own land is crazy (granted agricultural land excluded but enough land to put a house on no). You still have rose tinted glasses on you really don't want to see that this country has bad things too.

[thepanicandthevomit]

Finally, in a perverted way, Thais are racist against themselves by using whitening cream and swallowing whitening pills. How idiotic, if not racist, is it to try to change one's skin color? how spell self mutilation due racial color?

This whole "light skin" business is such a misunderstood concept. First of all, it's a preference thing, not racist tendencies (i.e., beauty, attractiveness). Obviously it's not racial--all Thai's are of the same race regardless of their skin color (can we freakin agree on that??). I've been told that dark skin is viewed exactly the same as obesity in the USA. Are Americans racist against fat people? Wrong term. Do Americans discriminate against fat people? Probably, although at a more subliminal level and more against fat women (it's complicated). Substitute "fat" for "dark skin" and it's very similar. Thai's consider light skin Asians (e.g., Koreans, Chinese, Japanese) to be the most attractive. This preference is more pronounced for men choosing women.

As for "trying to change one's skin color," isn't that sort of like getting a tan? Actually, it's exactly the same. But I'm sure you will all disagree.

But as "racism" is an accepted term, I would suggest that posters not get wrapped around the semantics of the word. You can lump racism, nantionalism, classism, ethnocentricity, et al, for the purposes of this thread.

So we CAN generalise! Praise be!

[zzaa09]

It's not a matter of ganging up, it's a matter of ferreting out the reality here.

Reality. Seems to be a diverse variety of that here.....one's reality is another's...?

[Groongthep]

'Racism' is a word thrown around by the liberal politicians intended to stifle any objection to our governenments' devotion to a global multicultural Utopia. It's never worked throughout history and is not working now. Human nature dictates that we stick with our own kind and nothing can alter that fact. Falangs only come to Pattaya for the cheap sex with young women not because they wish to embrace Thai culture. We don't go in Thai bars and Thais don't go to Falang hangouts.

So it is a "fact" that human nature dictates we stick with our own kind huh? The many millions of happily married interracial couples around the world would seem to be at odds with that fact. It is probably better that you stick with your own kind though; whatever kind that is.

Where are these 'many millions of happily married interracial couples around the world' then? The US, Europe, China, India, Russia, the Middle East, Outer Mongolia? I live in London, probably the most multicultural city in Europe and possibly the world. There are approximately 130 different languages in use in the Metropolis and you might see a handful of mixed marriages, very few of which endure. Most people I've seen appear to select their matrimonial partners from within their own ethnic group.

And whenever I feel the need of your advice regarding with whom I should associate with I'll let you know.

Sociology 101 - opposites DO NOT attract: almost all people marry people they look like, usually from their own street. Same the world over.

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.

[Jingthing]

It's not a matter of ganging up, it's a matter of ferreting out the reality here.

Reality. Seems to be a diverse variety of that here.....one's reality is another's...?

Of course, but that's the eternal challenge, working through all of that.

[thepanicandthevomit]

So it is a "fact" that human nature dictates we stick with our own kind huh? The many millions of happily married interracial couples around the world would seem to be at odds with that fact. It is probably better that you stick with your own kind though; whatever kind that is.

Where are these 'many millions of happily married interracial couples around the world' then? The US, Europe, China, India, Russia, the Middle East, Outer Mongolia? I live in London, probably the most multicultural city in Europe and possibly the world. There are approximately 130 different languages in use in the Metropolis and you might see a handful of mixed marriages, very few of which endure. Most people I've seen appear to select their matrimonial partners from within their own ethnic group.

And whenever I feel the need of your advice regarding with whom I should associate with I'll let you know.

Sociology 101 - opposites DO NOT attract: almost all people marry people they look like, usually from their own street. Same the world over.

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.

Yeah? Your figures come from a newly formed, immigrant nation, so big wow. Perhaps it's YOU that needs to have your horizon expanded, eh? Tell me, how many muslim and jew marriages there are in your company? An estimation is fine.

[Huey]

Yeah I have to disagree with the well meaning but short sighted OP. True Thailand simply dose not know the kind of racism perpetuated by farangs in the West. However Racism can come in degrees of malevolence. The degrees you find here are minimal but it dose most certainly exist and it's not something anyone should be expected to appreciate.

[Huey]

Yeah? Your figures come from a newly formed, immigrant nation, so big wow. Perhaps it's YOU that needs to have your horizon expanded, eh? Tell me, how many muslim and jew marriages there are in your company? An estimation is fine.

Since when have Muslims and Jews become races??? Last time I looked they were religions that included all races.. Why drag faith into it?

[Huey]

I seem to remember the boatloads of Rohingya refugees that were beaten on the beach and many of them sent back to sea to die. I think that is a pretty strong display of discrimination based on origin.

I also remember something about the Thai police selling Burmese refugees to fishing boat captains and the presumption that those people were frequently murdered and thrown overboard when they no longer would work for free or became sick.

I would say that that is an example equal to occurrences in America during slavery.

Wrong, Africans were brought over to America against their will, Burmese choose to enter into Thailand illegally. BIG difference.

[CarlBkk]

I seem to remember the boatloads of Rohingya refugees that were beaten on the beach and many of them sent back to sea to die. I think that is a pretty strong display of discrimination based on origin.

I also remember something about the Thai police selling Burmese refugees to fishing boat captains and the presumption that those people were frequently murdered and thrown overboard when they no longer would work for free or became sick.

I would say that that is an example equal to occurrences in America during slavery.

Wrong, Africans were brought over to America against their will, Burmese choose to enter into Thailand illegally. BIG difference.

Look around here and back home and notice racism and racist opinions everywhere. However, in some places it's way more obvious and plentiful than others. In England it's getting very complicated with the huge immigration that immigrants are racist against immigrants, disregarding the natives. In Thailand it's less complicated due to fewer pockets of nationalities settling here. I'd say its minimal against caucasians, but it is again linked to behaviour and reputation. Thais are openly racist against blacks, Arabs and Indians. However, it could be said that the moneyed Indians here for two or more generations share a certain degree of racism towards the Thais! And so on. Thais are indeed most racist towards their neighbours whom they've had a bloody history with...although I'm not quite sure if all of these neighbours view Thais with equal abhorrence. Chinese immigrants in Thailand, in my experience, have been the worst culprits of racism in terms of social mixing, marriage and general close-minded outspoken opinions on other races, Westerners being a major one.

[bonobo]

But as "racism" is an accepted term, I would suggest that posters not get wrapped around the semantics of the word.  You can lump racism, nantionalism, classism, ethnocentricity, et al, for the purposes of this thread.

The problem, bonobo, is if you were to "lump" racism in with all these other words, it changes the meaning and intent of this word.  It's like calling an "atheist" "anti-semitic."  The atheist is not just against Judaism, but all organized religions.  But the phrase "anti-semitic" is much more repugnant.  

We're splitting hairs here, but I'm curious to know why you would refer to Thais as "nationalist" and not "patriots?"  I had a discussion on another forum about this and no one could explain to me why they would make this distinction.

You missed my point.  I am suggesting not getting wrapped up around semantics here.  I believe it was you who pointed out that Thais discriminating against Burmese or Cambodians was not racist as they were of the same race (if that wasn't you, mea culpa.)

I believe that there are two issues being discussed here.  One is whether Thais consider the term "racist" something as bad as those in the West consider it, and the other is whether Thais do feel superior to other demographics, be that racism, nationalism, or whatever.  Splitting hairs over Burmese/Thai as not racism as they are both the same race is somewhat silly when Thais and Ugandans and Finns are all the same race from a scientific point of view.