What Do You Feel Are The Differences Between Farangs And Thais?

[StreetCowboy]

That's what I said, but millions of whose lives? It surely wasn;t Japanese. Plus, I'm not real sure it was millions. I was exaggerating a little. In any case, it wasn't a step forward for humanity,

Yes. Exaggerated, just a little. Most will absorb such other exaggerations as gospel, though.

There is another thread which highlights the hazards of a sense of humour... there are many idiots amongst us who will accept things like that at face value.

Remember, we live in a post-Darwinian age in which we cannot rely on evolution to rid of idiots - not in the short term, anyway. You are going to have to make allowances for us....

SC

[mark45y]

That's what I said, but millions of whose lives? It surely wasn;t Japanese. Plus, I'm not real sure it was millions. I was exaggerating a little. In any case, it wasn't a step forward for humanity,

Yes. Exaggerated, just a little. Most will absorb such other exaggerations as gospel, though.

There is another thread which highlights the hazards of a sense of humour... there are many idiots amongst us who will accept things like that at face value.

Remember, we live in a post-Darwinian age in which we cannot rely on evolution to rid of idiots - not in the short term, anyway. You are going to have to make allowances for us....

SC

The atomic bomb saved a lot of Thai lives, since this is a Thai centric forum. The Brits and Indians were massing on the Burma border to invade Thailand and take their pound of salt for the Thai collusion with the Japanese that led to the fall of Singapore and Burma. The most likely scenario even if the Thais would have surrendered as a result of the British attack would have been the loss of a large part of the rice crop to the Allies and the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Thais.

Pretty much what happened when the Chinese troops invaded Hanoi and a million Vietnamese starved.

[StreetCowboy]

..

.8><-----SNIP --->< NESTED QUOTES DELETED

...

The atomic bomb saved a lot of Thai lives, since this is a Thai centric forum. The Brits and Indians were massing on the Burma border to invade Thailand and take their pound of salt for the Thai collusion with the Japanese that led to the fall of Singapore and Burma. The most likely scenario even if the Thais would have surrendered as a result of the British attack would have been the loss of a large part of the rice crop to the Allies and the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Thais.

Pretty much what happened when the Chinese troops invaded Hanoi and a million Vietnamese starved.

To be fair, my point was not made against the specific, slightly ebuliant claim regarding atoms for peace. However, it is probably fair to say that the bombs in question avoided the need to completely raze Tokyo and other cities, and may therefore have saved Japanese lives; and had the Americans held off using the said bombs for humanitarian reasons, others in the decades that followed may have been less restrained, resulting in a worse holocaust in the long run.

As Peter Sellers pointed out (Dr Stangelove was on Cinemax over the weekend, coincidentally enough) a Doomsday Device cannot ensure peace unless everyone is aware of what it can do (and believes that you may use it)

SC

[wackysleet]

IQ tests are just a start in assessing intelligence.

No it isn't, it IS the method of assessing intelligence. Note that IQ by no means assess social abilities and/or intelligence (SQ).

Most of us never reach our full potential when it comes to intelligence and we only use a small portion of our brain. That boils it all down to "street smarts"... which is being able to adapt to our environment. I've met all sorts of book smart people who don't have a clue how to get along in the world, and even less in an unfriendly environment

I often read and meet people with a firm belief that individuals are born with an equal measure of intelligence. They are not.

In addition, being street- or book smart has nothing to do with being intelligent, neither does economic success or social status.

Improving on your intelligence is possible within the scope of your mental abilities - though you cant improve indefinitely - which in itself is a measurement of your intelligence. From an evolutionary perspective, global average IQ is steadily increasing (the Flynn Effect).

We are not equal. Some are smarter than others. Period.

It seems that a lot of people equate intelligence as having a good education rather than the ability to apply lateral thinking.

[wackysleet]

IQ tests are just a start in assessing intelligence.

No it isn't, it IS the method of assessing intelligence. Note that IQ by no means assess social abilities and/or intelligence (SQ).

Most of us never reach our full potential when it comes to intelligence and we only use a small portion of our brain. That boils it all down to "street smarts"... which is being able to adapt to our environment. I've met all sorts of book smart people who don't have a clue how to get along in the world, and even less in an unfriendly environment

I often read and meet people with a firm belief that individuals are born with an equal measure of intelligence. They are not.

In addition, being street- or book smart has nothing to do with being intelligent, neither does economic success or social status.

Improving on your intelligence is possible within the scope of your mental abilities - though you cant improve indefinitely - which in itself is a measurement of your intelligence. From an evolutionary perspective, global average IQ is steadily increasing (the Flynn Effect).

We are not equal. Some are smarter than others. Period.

ItSorry, double posted, browser problems.

Edited April 4, 2011 by wackysleet

[SteeleJoe]

The most likely scenario even if the Thais would have surrendered as a result of the British attack would have been the loss of a large part of the rice crop to the Allies and the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Thais.

Actually, that scenario was by no means reliant on any British attack (I'd be curious to see some more info on that): the British tried very hard to set up war reparations that would have meant most of Thailand's rice being taken away. The French weren't averse to that either. It was the essentially the US that saw to it that (rightly or not) Thailand faced very little repercussions for their alliance with Japan.

And the Vietnamese suffered their famine primarily as a result of the (Vichy) French and Japanese policies -- and some natural calamities and general wartime conditions; not because of any Chinese invasion (they didn't so much invade as be assigned to disarm the already supine Japanese and administer that part of the country on behalf of the allies.)

[Shotime]

"It seems that a lot of people equate intelligence as having a good education rather than the ability to apply lateral thinking."

Excellent point. A good education doesn't necessarily mean learning the ability to learn.

"It was the essentially the US that saw to it that (rightly or not) Thailand faced very little repercussions for their alliance with Japan."

Go USA!

[SteeleJoe]

Go USA!

Not sure if that was meant to imply I was somehow cheering for the USA, but let me point out that 1) I specifically said that it may not have been the right thing to do and 2) it's simply a matter of historical fact.

Furthermore I don't suggest that the USA took the stance it did with entirely altruistic or otherwise noble motives (though it's true that US policy was ostensibly anti-imperialistic and there was struggle over how much the Brits and the French would be allowed to throw their weight around after WWII -- the Vietnamese came out the losers in that struggle -- for reasons of geostrategic compromise etc - but the Thais did better).

[Deeral]

Go USA!

Not sure if that was meant to imply I was somehow cheering for the USA, but let me point out that 1) I specifically said that it may not have been the right thing to do and 2) it's simply a matter of historical fact.

Furthermore I don't suggest that the USA took the stance it did with entirely altruistic or otherwise noble motives (though it's true that US policy was ostensibly anti-imperialistic and there was struggle over how much the Brits and the French would be allowed to throw their weight around after WWII -- the Vietnamese came out the losers in that struggle -- for reasons of geostrategic compromise etc - but the Thais did better).

".2) it's simply a matter of historical fact. "

nothing is EVER "2) it's simply a matter of historical fact. "

[mark45y]

The most likely scenario even if the Thais would have surrendered as a result of the British attack would have been the loss of a large part of the rice crop to the Allies and the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Thais.

Actually, that scenario was by no means reliant on any British attack (I'd be curious to see some more info on that): the British tried very hard to set up war reparations that would have meant most of Thailand's rice being taken away. The French weren't averse to that either. It was the essentially the US that saw to it that (rightly or not) Thailand faced very little repercussions for their alliance with Japan.

And the Vietnamese suffered their famine primarily as a result of the (Vichy) French and Japanese policies -- and some natural calamities and general wartime conditions; not because of any Chinese invasion (they didn't so much invade as be assigned to disarm the already supine Japanese and administer that part of the country on behalf of the allies.)

Summer 1945 - Severe famine strikes Hanoi and surrounding areas eventually resulting in two million deaths from starvation out of a population of ten million.

In order to disarm the Japanese in Vietnam, the Allies divide the country in half at the 16th parallel. Chinese Nationalists will move in and disarm the Japanese north of the parallel while the British will move in and do the same in the south.

In North Vietnam, 150,000 Chinese Nationalist soldiers, consisting mainly of poor peasants, arrive in Hanoi after looting Vietnamese villages during their entire march down from China. They then proceed to loot Hanoi. and stay for a year.

Off the top of my head, the Brits were ready to attack but didn't have to because the Japanese surrendered. The Brits then occupied Bangkok for a year and were pulled out because of problems in India.

My thoughts on the rice are purely hypothetical because it didn't happen but one could surmise if the Brits were at war with Thailand and invading the country they would have taken the rice and shipped to the British colonies that were in dire need of rice at the time. As it turned out as you mentioned the US prevented the UK from getting the large rice war reparations that they wanted and the French from getting the Emerald Buddha.

[Deeral]

life would be so much simpler if all it consisted of was conflicting armies

[SteeleJoe]

The most likely scenario even if the Thais would have surrendered as a result of the British attack would have been the loss of a large part of the rice crop to the Allies and the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Thais.

Actually, that scenario was by no means reliant on any British attack (I'd be curious to see some more info on that): the British tried very hard to set up war reparations that would have meant most of Thailand's rice being taken away. The French weren't averse to that either. It was the essentially the US that saw to it that (rightly or not) Thailand faced very little repercussions for their alliance with Japan.

And the Vietnamese suffered their famine primarily as a result of the (Vichy) French and Japanese policies -- and some natural calamities and general wartime conditions; not because of any Chinese invasion (they didn't so much invade as be assigned to disarm the already supine Japanese and administer that part of the country on behalf of the allies.)

Summer 1945 - Severe famine strikes Hanoi and surrounding areas eventually resulting in two million deaths from starvation out of a population of ten million.

In order to disarm the Japanese in Vietnam, the Allies divide the country in half at the 16th parallel. Chinese Nationalists will move in and disarm the Japanese north of the parallel while the British will move in and do the same in the south.

In North Vietnam, 150,000 Chinese Nationalist soldiers, consisting mainly of poor peasants, arrive in Hanoi after looting Vietnamese villages during their entire march down from China. They then proceed to loot Hanoi. and stay for a year.

Off the top of my head, the Brits were ready to attack but didn't have to because the Japanese surrendered. The Brits then occupied Bangkok for a year and were pulled out because of problems in India.

My thoughts on the rice are purely hypothetical because it didn't happen but one could surmise if the Brits were at war with Thailand and invading the country they would have taken the rice and shipped to the British colonies that were in dire need of rice at the time. As it turned out as you mentioned the US prevented the UK from getting the large rice war reparations that they wanted and the French from getting the Emerald Buddha.

After 12 hours you come back with a copy and paste job? if you are going to use someone else's work you really should cite them. Unfortunately for you -- though you tried taking it out of context to support your earlier claim, you apparently didn't understand what you read: I repeat the causes of the famine were not the Chinese occupation.

[SteeleJoe]

Oh, and there's this bit of plagarism too: Mark's source? Oh, well -- at least you learned some things today (no need to act like you knew what you were talking about all along).

Good night.

[mark45y]

The most likely scenario even if the Thais would have surrendered as a result of the British attack would have been the loss of a large part of the rice crop to the Allies and the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Thais.

Actually, that scenario was by no means reliant on any British attack (I'd be curious to see some more info on that): the British tried very hard to set up war reparations that would have meant most of Thailand's rice being taken away. The French weren't averse to that either. It was the essentially the US that saw to it that (rightly or not) Thailand faced very little repercussions for their alliance with Japan.

And the Vietnamese suffered their famine primarily as a result of the (Vichy) French and Japanese policies -- and some natural calamities and general wartime conditions; not because of any Chinese invasion (they didn't so much invade as be assigned to disarm the already supine Japanese and administer that part of the country on behalf of the allies.)

Summer 1945 - Severe famine strikes Hanoi and surrounding areas eventually resulting in two million deaths from starvation out of a population of ten million.

In order to disarm the Japanese in Vietnam, the Allies divide the country in half at the 16th parallel. Chinese Nationalists will move in and disarm the Japanese north of the parallel while the British will move in and do the same in the south.

In North Vietnam, 150,000 Chinese Nationalist soldiers, consisting mainly of poor peasants, arrive in Hanoi after looting Vietnamese villages during their entire march down from China. They then proceed to loot Hanoi. and stay for a year.

Off the top of my head, the Brits were ready to attack but didn't have to because the Japanese surrendered. The Brits then occupied Bangkok for a year and were pulled out because of problems in India.

My thoughts on the rice are purely hypothetical because it didn't happen but one could surmise if the Brits were at war with Thailand and invading the country they would have taken the rice and shipped to the British colonies that were in dire need of rice at the time. As it turned out as you mentioned the US prevented the UK from getting the large rice war reparations that they wanted and the French from getting the Emerald Buddha.

After 12 hours you come back with a copy and paste job? if you are going to use someone else's work you really should cite them. Unfortunately for you -- though you tried taking it out of context to support your earlier claim, you apparently didn't understand what you read: I repeat the causes of the famine were not the Chinese occupation.

I will try to be more careful I didn't know you were concerned about quoting one sentence quotes.

Wiki says, “The Vietnamese Famine of 1945 (Vietnamese: Nạn đói Ất Dậu - Famine of the Ất Dậu Year) was a famine that occurred in northern Vietnam from October 1944 to May 1945, during the Japanese occupation of French Indochina in World War II. Between 400,000 and 2 million people are estimated to have starved to death during this time.”

I can't help but think the presence of an looting Army of 150,000 Chinese with no food sources of their own helped the situation much.

I think you will admit that the Chinese looted a large part of North Vietnam and Hanoi. I don't imagine there was a prohibition against looting food.

[SteeleJoe]

Mark: As should have been obvious by now, I'm well aware of the famine. I don't need Wiki to tell me. You didn't originally say the presence of Chinese troops didn't help the situation, you said "the Chinese troops invaded Hanoi and a million Vietnamese starved."

And still you don't see that you undermine your own claims. I'll even use your rather superficial sources (believe me there are far better but surely you can't dismiss them since you used them yourself}:

1) Famine : October 1944 to May 1945 -- during Japanese occupation.

2) Chinese occupation begins in mid-September 1945.

Fact is I could write at great length and in some detail on the subject but it's late and this is way off topic. Why not just admit you were wrong rather than repeatedly trying to wriggle out of it? Or else you could just drop it.

[endure]

Thais seem to be able to dig a bit of sanuk out of most situations whereas farang tend to piss and moan even if they've got a full head of hair and have just won the lottery.

Thais 1 Farang 0

[Deeral]

It would be so helpful if people could discern between googling and real research.

Admittedly this is only a chat-room, but the kind of googling that goes on just shows how inadequately equipped most posters are to make sense of what they find on the net.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Deeral

[StreetCowboy]

Mark: As should have been obvious by now, I'm well aware of the famine. I don't need Wiki to tell me. You didn't originally say the presence of Chinese troops didn't help the situation, you said "the Chinese troops invaded Hanoi and a million Vietnamese starved."

And still you don't see that you undermine your own claims. I'll even use your rather superficial sources (believe me there are far better but surely you can't dismiss them since you used them yourself}:

1) Famine : October 1944 to May 1945 -- during Japanese occupation.

2) Chinese occupation begins in mid-September 1945.

Fact is I could write at great length and in some detail on the subject but it's late and this is way off topic. Why not just admit you were wrong rather than repeatedly trying to wriggle out of it? Or else you could just drop it.

How much of wikipedia is written by revisionists with a personal axe to grind, and how much by professional revisionists in the pay of governments and other agencies?

To be fair, I use it quite heavily, but mostly for historical football scores

SC

[Deeral]

Mark: As should have been obvious by now, I'm well aware of the famine. I don't need Wiki to tell me. You didn't originally say the presence of Chinese troops didn't help the situation, you said "the Chinese troops invaded Hanoi and a million Vietnamese starved."

And still you don't see that you undermine your own claims. I'll even use your rather superficial sources (believe me there are far better but surely you can't dismiss them since you used them yourself}:

1) Famine : October 1944 to May 1945 -- during Japanese occupation.

2) Chinese occupation begins in mid-September 1945.

Fact is I could write at great length and in some detail on the subject but it's late and this is way off topic. Why not just admit you were wrong rather than repeatedly trying to wriggle out of it? Or else you could just drop it.

How much of wikipedia is written by revisionists with a personal axe to grind, and how much by professional revisionists in the pay of governments and other agencies?

To be fair, I use it quite heavily, but mostly for historical football scores

SC

Yet again an example of googling rather than real research.If you knew your stuff you'd know how to read critically and not just take at face value.Criticism of Wiki is normally from those who can't do this and fail to identify academic argument when they see (or not as the case may be0.

A survey of Wiki and its entries compared it with other popular sources recently and found that it's articles were as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.

of course it has several advantages over that tome as it carries as discussion tab for most entries, so if you feel that it is not to your liking (surely you realise that ALL writing is biased???) then you can peruse the alternative views or even voice your opinion - something that you'd find very difficult with encyclopedia Britannica

PS - you realise that your use of revisionist is a meaningless cliche?

Galileo, Newton, Einstein AJP Taylor and Darwin were all "revisionists" if you care to use the expression

Edited April 5, 2011 by Deeral

[carmine]

Thais seem to be able to dig a bit of sanuk out of most situations whereas farang tend to piss and moan even if they've got a full head of hair and have just won the lottery.

Thais 1 Farang 0

Apart from the last childish line thats rather a good point.

[mark45y]

Mark: As should have been obvious by now, I'm well aware of the famine. I don't need Wiki to tell me. You didn't originally say the presence of Chinese troops didn't help the situation, you said "the Chinese troops invaded Hanoi and a million Vietnamese starved."

And still you don't see that you undermine your own claims. I'll even use your rather superficial sources (believe me there are far better but surely you can't dismiss them since you used them yourself}:

1) Famine : October 1944 to May 1945 -- during Japanese occupation.

2) Chinese occupation begins in mid-September 1945.

Fact is I could write at great length and in some detail on the subject but it's late and this is way off topic. Why not just admit you were wrong rather than repeatedly trying to wriggle out of it? Or else you could just drop it.

I would like to discuss it and know more about the period and what happened. But it is off topic. You seem like the kind of guy who approaches things with an adversarial nature and has to be right and extract an admission from me that I am wrong. OK, I don't have that big an ego. You are right I am wrong.

[SteeleJoe]

<br />

<br />Mark: As should have been obvious by now, I'm well aware of the famine. I don't need Wiki to tell me. <font face="sans-serif"><font size="2">You didn't originally say the presence of Chinese troops didn't help the situation, you said "</font></font><font color="#1c2837"><font size="2">the Chinese troops invaded Hanoi and a million Vietnamese starved." </font></font><br /><br />And still you don't see that you undermine your own claims. I'll even use your rather superficial sources (believe me there are far better but surely you can't dismiss them since you used them yourself}:<br /><br /><br />1) Famine : <font face="sans-serif"><font size="2"> October 1944 to May 1945 -- during Japanese occupation.</font></font><br /><font face="sans-serif"> </font><br /><font face="sans-serif"><font size="2">2) Chinese occupation begins in mid-September 1945.</font></font><br /><font face="sans-serif"> </font><br /><font face="sans-serif"><font size="2">Fact is I could write at great length and in some detail on the subject but it's late and this is way off topic. </font></font><font color="#1c2837"><font size="2">Why not just admit you were wrong rather than repeatedly trying to wriggle out of it? Or else you could just drop it. </font></font><br />

<br /><br />How much of wikipedia is written by revisionists with a personal axe to grind, and how much by professional revisionists in the pay of governments and other agencies?<br />To be fair, I use it quite heavily, but mostly for historical football scores<br />SC<br />

<br /><br /><br />

You've quoted me but I never used Wikipedia -- that was Mark. I think it's a useful resource but like any other, it needs to be balanced with other sources etc. Personally I'm rather old fashioned and a lot of my stuff comes from those things called "books" -- especially on certain subjects (among them the various conflicts in SEA) on which I have hundreds.

[SteeleJoe]

Mark -- Adversarial? maybe. I object when people make comments that are flat out wrong and when corrected obfuscate and distort and generally twist and turn to avoid simply conceding to the accurate facts presented. You were way off. When I calmly pointed it out you proceeded to, in a rather dishonest fashion, try and defend the indefensible over and over again. That's all. I don't "have to be" right -- sometimes I'm wrong and that's totally OK with me -- I apologize, admit error and move on. In this instance I don't "have to be" right --but I AM right so why should I say that I'm not?

[andrewbkk]

Yet again an example of googling rather than real research.If you knew your stuff you'd know how to read critically and not just take at face value.Criticism of Wiki is normally from those who can't do this and fail to identify academic argument when they see (or not as the case may be0.

A survey of Wiki and its entries compared it with other popular sources recently and found that it's articles were as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.

Wonderful. Only on Thaivisa.

I could write more, but I fear my arguments may not be construed as academic.

[Deeral]

Yet again an example of googling rather than real research.If you knew your stuff you'd know how to read critically and not just take at face value.Criticism of Wiki is normally from those who can't do this and fail to identify academic argument when they see (or not as the case may be0.

A survey of Wiki and its entries compared it with other popular sources recently and found that it's articles were as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.

Wonderful. Only on Thaivisa.

I could write more, but I fear my arguments may not be construed as academic.

Fallacious is the the word that applies in your case.

please try and address all of the criticism not just a small part.

[endure]

Thais seem to be able to dig a bit of sanuk out of most situations whereas farang tend to piss and moan even if they've got a full head of hair and have just won the lottery.

Thais 1 Farang 0

Apart from the last childish line thats rather a good point.

That 'last childish line' was a little dig at the OP's subtitle 'Do Thais fall short'.

[StreetCowboy]

8><... illegibly corrupted quote deleted.... ><8

You've quoted me but I never used Wikipedia -- that was Mark. I think it's a useful resource but like any other, it needs to be balanced with other sources etc. Personally I'm rather old fashioned and a lot of my stuff comes from those things called "books" -- especially on certain subjects (among them the various conflicts in SEA) on which I have hundreds.

Correct. I was using your quote to link my question back to the current discussion. I was not disagreeing, I was seeking further information, as you appeared to be casting doubts on the adequacy of Wikipedia as a source.

Remember - it is permissible to refrain from argument, even on TV.

SC

[SteeleJoe]

I was seeking further information, as you appeared to be casting doubts on the adequacy of Wikipedia as a source.

Remember - it is permissible to refrain from argument, even on TV.

Fair enough; I wasn't intending to cast doubt about wikipedia per se, it was more about the way Mark had cherry picked from two other sites (that I linked) that were mere superficial timelines (and more to the point while he had apparently zero knowledge of the facts beyond those out of context snippets even refuted his claims). As I said, I think wikipedia is fine as far as it goes -- which sometimes is far enough.

And thanks for more helpful posting tips but I wasn't arguing with you. Just trying to clarify.

[mstribling]

Thai women have single handedly kept the global shower cap industry afloat. Farangs have not.

That is a difference.

[Forethat]

Thai women have single handedly kept the global shower cap industry afloat. Farangs have not.

That is a difference.

lol, an excellent observation!