Are Thais Taught Anything About The World Outside Of Thailand

[DEVATSAR]

Why would they have to know about the battle of Britain. Totally unimportant for them. They need to know their own history first.

How many of you have been taught anything about Thai history ? I know i havent.

very very true !!

Saw the king of siam film manyyyyyyy years ago, that was my ONLY education !

[Richard4849]

---They don't have the same inflated view of self-importance such that Westerners do. Westerners EXPECT everyone to know about Gitler, the Battle if Britain, and where Canada is on the map.---

You would expect most people had at least heard of Canada though, which is why was actually previously discussed, not being able to locate it on a map, and why are constantly referring to te battle of Britain? No one except for you keeps bringing that up.

---Other Asians do not expect everyone to know their history and geography in the same way. In fact, they will be bowled over if you do.----

Well that's merely your opinion, but lets assume for a moment it's true. It's probably because they are so clueless about western culture that they are so 'bowled over' that we are so knowledgeable about theirs. Which really goes back to the original point about westerners being more knowedgable about world geography than Asians. In fact it would probably be fair to say that many Japanese know more about the Battle of Britain (since you keep bringing it up) than the true extent of their own involvement of WW2 since it has been omitted from their own history books :-)

"We" are NOT so knowledgeable about theirs.

We're talking about the AVERAGE American, Brit, or Aussie -- not the members of this forum, who by definition have a special interest in Asia, most of us having lived here for an extensive length of time or visited repeatedly.

Go into an average bar in an average city in Peoria, Newcastle, or Alice and see how much the average customer knows about Asia. I don't think the result will be any less humorous than asking an average Thai in an average town about the West.

[DEVATSAR]

The majority of Thais that I talk to have heard of John Lennon (not the Beatles) & The Hotel California.

jb1

Or the classic MAN U and Wayne Rwoony

[kerryk]

You missed the point again. I am not talking about your knowledge of their history (its not all about you Richard) but whether they have an inflated or distorted view of the significance of their history, geography, and culture's importance to people in the rest of the world the same way you claim white westerners do.

I got your point and you missed mine.

They don't have the same inflated view of self-importance such that Westerners do. Westerners EXPECT everyone to know about Gitler, the Battle if Britain, and where Canada is on the map.

Other Asians do not expect everyone to know their history and geography in the same way. In fact, they will be bowled over if you do.

Clearer now?

You mention Asians but I think this thread is about Thailand. What parts of their history and geography do the majority of Thais know about?

I think they are just as clear on the history and geography of their own country as a similarly-educated American, Brit, or Aussie is about theirs.

Where the King was born? What the Victory monument celebrates? Not 10 out of 1000. But maybe those questions are too difficult. How about which way is North? Or what is Pi? Still too hard? Did Thai soldiers fight in Vietnam? Was Buddha married? Buddha questions are fun but I guess that is outside their range. I think most Christians would know if Jesus was married and had any kids and did he do a good job of raising them. But maybe I am being to intellectual. What questions would you ask?

Edited September 21, 2011 by kerryk

[Kananga]

Where the King was born and what the Victory monument commemorates are more trivia than expected knowledge.

I disagree. I just asked a person who went through the Thai educational system and she informed me that she learnt the answers to both at school. So while you may flippantly and disrespectfully disregard the birth of the most revered person in the country as pointless trivia it is in FACT a part of the national curriculum.

[Moonrakers]

White Westerners tend to have a vastly inflated view of the significance of their history, geography, and culture's importance to people in the rest of the world.

Do they?

Something like the Battle of Britain has huge significance to the world and the way it is today. The entire planet could have looked very, very different had the RAF not been able to defend Britain from the luftwaffe.

[Kananga]

---They don't have the same inflated view of self-importance such that Westerners do. Westerners EXPECT everyone to know about Gitler, the Battle if Britain, and where Canada is on the map.---

You would expect most people had at least heard of Canada though, which is why was actually previously discussed, not being able to locate it on a map, and why are constantly referring to te battle of Britain? No one except for you keeps bringing that up.

---Other Asians do not expect everyone to know their history and geography in the same way. In fact, they will be bowled over if you do.----

Well that's merely your opinion, but lets assume for a moment it's true. It's probably because they are so clueless about western culture that they are so 'bowled over' that we are so knowledgeable about theirs. Which really goes back to the original point about westerners being more knowedgable about world geography than Asians. In fact it would probably be fair to say that many Japanese know more about the Battle of Britain (since you keep bringing it up) than the true extent of their own involvement of WW2 since it has been omitted from their own history books :-)

"We" are NOT so knowledgeable about theirs.

We're talking about the AVERAGE American, Brit, or Aussie -- not the members of this forum, who by definition have a special interest in Asia, most of us having lived here for an extensive length of time or visited repeatedly.

Go into an average bar in an average city in Peoria, Newcastle, or Alice and see how much the average customer knows about Asia. I don't think the result will be any less humorous than asking an average Thai in an average town about the West.

I disagree. If you went into any such bar and asked a cross section of the clientele which continent Brazil was in, you would fare far more higher with your replies than if you asked in the equivalent Thai karaoke bar. It's not their fault that the majority of Western countries have superior educational systems to Thailand, but the results would still be the results all the same.

[Richard4849]

Education in the West is superior because high school grads come out knowing on which continent Brazil is located??? Talk about culure centrism.

[Kananga]

Education in the West is superior because high school grads come out knowing on which continent Brazil is located??? Talk about culure centrism.

No Richard. I would have thought you would have known the answer to that yourself. (Although coming out knowing where Brazil is located is surely better than coming out of 16 years of education and not knowing where it is located!) Seems like a superior Western education doesn't work for everyone

[Richard4849]

And with that dickish comment, my conversation with you is over. Why is it not possible for people here to have an intelligent discussion without turning into pricks the second someone disagrees with you?

[Geekfreaklover]

When I was teaching Mattayom kids (13-14 years old) at an iner city poor temple school in Bangkok I used to hold geography quizzes. Capital cities were a favourite. The kids all knew that Oslo was the capital of Norway. Which country Stockholm, Copenhagen etc were in. They knew the longest river(s), the highest mountain, tallest buildings etc. These are places and facts, by the way, many (I might say the average) American high school graduates wouldn't know about. Anyhow, the question that always stumped them was - what is the capital city of Cambodia? They were simply not taught that. The whole angkor dynasty didn't exist. Let alone the modern city. Burma was also off limits.

I was surprised that they did know about the Ramayana and how the ancient Indian epic was adapted for the Ramakien. They taught that. They knew that the Buddha was born in India, now Nepal. They knew about the dhammapada. These were Bangkok kids who lived in Klong Toei. I taught these lessons in Thai and English langauge. These poor students are smarter than most posters give them credit for.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Geekfreaklover

[kerryk]

Where the King was born and what the Victory monument commemorates are more trivia than expected knowledge.

I guess you chose not to deal with the other questions such as which way is North and what is Pi but do you have some questions about Thai history and geography or maths or science that the average Thai should be able to answer. It is nice to blissfully set aside my questions but what are some that all Thais should be able to answer?

[Kananga]

And with that dickish comment, my conversation with you is over. Why is it not possible for people here to have an intelligent discussion without turning into pricks the second someone disagrees with you?

Perhaps because you are misquoting me and making childish assumptions like you did in your comment above about the basis of a Western education centering about the location of Brazil. That particular comment of yours could hardly be categorized as an 'intelligent discussion' as you so daintily put it. Seems like you have run out of silly comments, which is better for the rest of us debating on this topic in a serious manner. So thank you.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Kananga

[theblether]

When I was teaching Mattayom kids (13-14 years old) at an iner city poor temple school in Bangkok I used to hold geography quizzes. Capital cities were a favourite. The kids all knew that Oslo was the capital of Norway. Which country Stockholm, Copenhagen etc were in. They knew the longest river(s), the highest mountain, tallest buildings etc. These are places and facts, by the way, many (I might say the average) American high school graduates wouldn't know about. Anyhow, the question that always stumped them was - what is the capital city of Cambodia? They were simply not taught that. The whole angkor dynasty didn't exist. Let alone the modern city. Burma was also off limits.

I was surprised that they did know about the Ramayana and how the ancient Indian epic was adapted for the Ramakien. They taught that. They knew that the Buddha was born in India, now Nepal. They knew about the dhammapada. These were Bangkok kids who lived in Klong Toei. I taught these lessons in Thai and English langauge. These poor students are smarter than most posters give them credit for.

At last a positive and insightful post which is on topic and highly relevant to the real state of education in Thailand. Thank you.

[Patron]

A great video on You Tube...do a search for....stupid answers on easy questions.

Do you know more then these people?

[SteeleJoe]

A great video on You Tube...do a search for....stupid answers on easy questions.

Do you know more then these people?

Well, I know the difference between "then" and "than"...

[Thaddeus]

Education in the West is superior because high school grads come out knowing on which continent Brazil is located???

Nope, education in the west is superior because the teacher knows on which continent Brazil is located.

[nong38]

Well, some debate, if only we could keep it to the subject and not make or take things to personally. Some very good points and bits of information I did not know so thanks for the contributions. It ocurs to me that we and I assume that we are mainly what might be loosely called "westerners" have the benefit of a different education which encourages to ask questions and be enquisitive about things, whilst our nation slants be different on events that have gone by depending on how nations view them. Thailand, in their wisdom of the moment have a different view on what will or will not be taught and as has been observed questions are not all ways required.

We would probably all agree that Thailand is a developing country whilst we "westerners" invariably think our country of origin is developed. Thailand strives to be a developed country with all that entails. The first thing that I would suggest is that the education system would need to take account of those aspirations and what might be required or changes to be made to make things happen. So you would think that we would all want Thailand to do that? If and when Thailand most being a developed country it will take on a lot of the things that developed countries have and the costs that go with them, which may be some of the reasons why we came here in the first place?

My orignal example of the Battle of Britain, seemed to be a not very big event for a lot of people to be not to omportant to a lot of people, yet to me an Englishman, it was one of the pivital moments in modern history. Imagine if the result had gone differently what might have happened. Instead of the Nazi war machine being halted that the Luftwaffe ruled the skies it would not have been long before Britain would have been invaded, then the US would have standing alone, slowly emerging from a period of isolationism. Convoys crossing the Atlantic were already being attacked by U boats and US ships sunk, Nazi agents were already in the US waiting to cause disruption on the eastern seaboard, the US would have been next.

Fast forward to a time in the Pacific not long after Pearl Harbour, to a place called Midway where a huge Japanese fleet was sailing towards the western seaboard of the US. The Battle of Midway" was almost as important as the "Battle of Britain" ( in my opinion, you may have a different one ) If the small US fleet had gone down there is no doubt that the Japanese would have attacked the US west coast. More by luck than judgement and by poor decisions or maybe unlucky decisions the US fleet against the odds won and stopped the Japanese adavance.

The outcome at the end of it all can be debated adinfinitum but: The rise of the Soviet Union, the defeated nations rally to become economic power houses, the British Empire has to be dismantled and US becomes the world's policeman. Many more I am sure you can think of too.

I think it is good that we can have these debates and I am sorry that, at present, the Thai education system does not allow them to share these opportunities, perhaps, after all they would be much happier watching an endless stream of soaps that does not require to much thought. Clash of cultures? Possibly, but I wont be going back to the UK I live in hope that I can tell Thais of things they did not and they tell me things I did not know and there are many.

[nong38]

---They don't have the same inflated view of self-importance such that Westerners do. Westerners EXPECT everyone to know about Gitler, the Battle if Britain, and where Canada is on the map.---

You would expect most people had at least heard of Canada though, which is why was actually previously discussed, not being able to locate it on a map, and why are constantly referring to te battle of Britain? No one except for you keeps bringing that up.

---Other Asians do not expect everyone to know their history and geography in the same way. In fact, they will be bowled over if you do.----

Well that's merely your opinion, but lets assume for a moment it's true. It's probably because they are so clueless about western culture that they are so 'bowled over' that we are so knowledgeable about theirs. Which really goes back to the original point about westerners being more knowedgable about world geography than Asians. In fact it would probably be fair to say that many Japanese know more about the Battle of Britain (since you keep bringing it up) than the true extent of their own involvement of WW2 since it has been omitted from their own history books :-)

I think the reason why the Battle of Britain is brought up is because the RAF was all that was left to defend the free world at that moment in time, about 2500 young men was all that stood against the much larger Luftwaffe, the world you live in today would not be the same and you not likely be here living Thailand complaining about it.

[Soutpeel]

Education in the West is superior because high school grads come out knowing on which continent Brazil is located??? Talk about culure centrism.

No Richard. I would have thought you would have known the answer to that yourself. (Although coming out knowing where Brazil is located is surely better than coming out of 16 years of education and not knowing where it is located!) Seems like a superior Western education doesn't work for everyone

I actually worked with a guy who came out of the US education system with a masters degree in nuclear physics and had been in the US navy on the subs.

Sitting in a restaurant on day in the US which had a huge world map on the wall and discussing some thing about Africa and he pointed to the continent of South America as being the location of the continent of Africa... .....so based on this, I would conclude this guy wouldnt know were Brazil was either...

[StreetCowboy]

Education in the West is superior because high school grads come out knowing on which continent Brazil is located???

Nope, education in the west is superior because the teacher knows on which continent Brazil is located.

Education in the west is superior because it turns out deep-thinking geniuses (genii?) like Zzaa

and sarcastic...

SC

Edited to remove obscenity

[Kilgore Trout]

The first time I came to Thailand I was paid to kill small brown men.

You were paid to kill Oompa Loompas? You cruel bastard!

I thought they were orange? Unless you are specifically referring to the old dwarf who stands outside the shop between soi 5 and 7 on Suk.

That depends. In the original movie (which was much better and starred Gene wilder), I'm sure the Oompa Loompas were brown-skinned.

Orangish brown

Edited September 22, 2011 by Kilgore Trout

[kerryk]

A big part of education in the West is critical thinking. You can learn all the non creative things that require only rote memorization but without questioning things you can't learn critical thinking.

It is also a big part of what makes things interesting. If I couldn't have disagreed with my professors I would not have studied half as hard.

There are so many things that a Thai person can't question that non questioning becomes part and parcel of the education process.

This is especially true in history as is evidenced by the lack of knowledge of the Franco Thai war of 1940 and later WW II and Vietnam. You have to be able to admit your country was wrong.

I am an American and fought in Vietnam and I have no trouble admitting my country and I were wrong.

Without the ability to criticize my country I would not be much of a scholar.

[theblether]

Correct, and one of the interesting things about the US view of history is that it is most certainly white man's Victors' history. I was amused and bemused to see people lauding the election of Barack Obama as some kind of cathartic victory in relation to race relations. I think even he tried to play that aspect of his victory down. He was abandoned by his African father ( for whatever reason, not mine to judge ) and brought up by his white mother, blah blah blah and once again it's not mine to judge.

What tickles me are Americans banging on about British Imperialism in the 19th century. While the Brits were " colonising " what were the Americans doing? Having a tea party in the Wild West? Offering balloons and party hats to the Native Americans? Or going to war against the long standing population and land grabbing not only from the Native Americans but from the Mexicans too. Hypocrites.

The US will turn full circle when a Native American becomes President.

Edited September 22, 2011 by theblether

[StreetCowboy]

Correct, and one of the interesting things about the US view of history is that it is most certainly white man's Victors' history. I was amused and bemused to see people lauding the election of Barack Obama as some kind of cathartic victory in relation to race relations. I think even he tried to play that aspect of his victory down. He was abandoned by his African father ( for whatever reason, not mine to judge ) and brought up by his white mother, blah blah blah and once again it's not mine to judge.

What tickles me are Americans banging on about British Imperialism in the 19th century. While the Brits were " colonising " what were the Americans doing? Having a tea party in the Wild West? Offering balloons and party hats to the Native Americans? Or going to war against the long standing population and land grabbing not only from the Native Americans but from the Mexicans too. Hypocrites.

The US will turn full circle when a Native American becomes President.

Is Barack Obama black? Does that matter?

I don't think it really matters where your ancestors of great antiquity were born. Since aboriginal americans make up a relatively small proportion of the total population of american citizens, one would not expect to see more than the very occasional president from that minority. Of course, we could also argue that aborigines are hampered by legislation that encourages idleness amongst the tribes, and reliance on tribal income, as well as a culture which differs from the mainstream US culture of entrepreneurship and personal ambition.

Do the tribal cultures of the aboriginal americans encourage learning about foreign countries? Or is such learning foisted on them through their participation in main-stream education?

Anyway, I shouldn't go too hard on the US for the way they treated the abos. We've all of us had to fight for lebensraum at some stage in our history, and the Americans have been doing it since they were brits.

SC

[theblether]

Correct, and one of the interesting things about the US view of history is that it is most certainly white man's Victors' history. I was amused and bemused to see people lauding the election of Barack Obama as some kind of cathartic victory in relation to race relations. I think even he tried to play that aspect of his victory down. He was abandoned by his African father ( for whatever reason, not mine to judge ) and brought up by his white mother, blah blah blah and once again it's not mine to judge.

What tickles me are Americans banging on about British Imperialism in the 19th century. While the Brits were " colonising " what were the Americans doing? Having a tea party in the Wild West? Offering balloons and party hats to the Native Americans? Or going to war against the long standing population and land grabbing not only from the Native Americans but from the Mexicans too. Hypocrites.

The US will turn full circle when a Native American becomes President.

Is Barack Obama black? Does that matter?

I don't think it really matters where your ancestors of great antiquity were born. Since aboriginal americans make up a relatively small proportion of the total population of american citizens, one would not expect to see more than the very occasional president from that minority. Of course, we could also argue that aborigines are hampered by legislation that encourages idleness amongst the tribes, and reliance on tribal income, as well as a culture which differs from the mainstream US culture of entrepreneurship and personal ambition.

Do the tribal cultures of the aboriginal americans encourage learning about foreign countries? Or is such learning foisted on them through their participation in main-stream education?

Anyway, I shouldn't go too hard on the US for the way they treated the abos. We've all of us had to fight for lebensraum at some stage in our history, and the Americans have been doing it since they were brits.

SC

I totally agree with every word you have written there.....you are 100% correct. I am only pointing the irony of colonials complaining about colonization.

[kerryk]

Correct, and one of the interesting things about the US view of history is that it is most certainly white man's Victors' history. I was amused and bemused to see people lauding the election of Barack Obama as some kind of cathartic victory in relation to race relations. I think even he tried to play that aspect of his victory down. He was abandoned by his African father ( for whatever reason, not mine to judge ) and brought up by his white mother, blah blah blah and once again it's not mine to judge.

What tickles me are Americans banging on about British Imperialism in the 19th century. While the Brits were " colonising " what were the Americans doing? Having a tea party in the Wild West? Offering balloons and party hats to the Native Americans? Or going to war against the long standing population and land grabbing not only from the Native Americans but from the Mexicans too. Hypocrites.

The US will turn full circle when a Native American becomes President.

I have tried to make a point about Thailand and freedom of inquiry as it applies to education. I fail to see how Americans view of UK history (which they really don't have anyway) has anything to do with Thailand. If you are going to rip Americans you should at least relate it to the thread.

[StreetCowboy]

Correct, and one of the interesting things about the US view of history is that it is most certainly white man's Victors' history. I was amused and bemused to see people lauding the election of Barack Obama as some kind of cathartic victory in relation to race relations. I think even he tried to play that aspect of his victory down. He was abandoned by his African father ( for whatever reason, not mine to judge ) and brought up by his white mother, blah blah blah and once again it's not mine to judge.

What tickles me are Americans banging on about British Imperialism in the 19th century. While the Brits were " colonising " what were the Americans doing? Having a tea party in the Wild West? Offering balloons and party hats to the Native Americans? Or going to war against the long standing population and land grabbing not only from the Native Americans but from the Mexicans too. Hypocrites.

The US will turn full circle when a Native American becomes President.

Is Barack Obama black? Does that matter?

I don't think it really matters where your ancestors of great antiquity were born. Since aboriginal americans make up a relatively small proportion of the total population of american citizens, one would not expect to see more than the very occasional president from that minority. Of course, we could also argue that aborigines are hampered by legislation that encourages idleness amongst the tribes, and reliance on tribal income, as well as a culture which differs from the mainstream US culture of entrepreneurship and personal ambition.

Do the tribal cultures of the aboriginal americans encourage learning about foreign countries? Or is such learning foisted on them through their participation in main-stream education?

Anyway, I shouldn't go too hard on the US for the way they treated the abos. We've all of us had to fight for lebensraum at some stage in our history, and the Americans have been doing it since they were brits.

SC

I totally agree with every word you have written there.....you are 100% correct. I am only pointing the irony of colonials complaining about colonization.

I wasn't really arguing, other than for the sake of it. The only point I was trying to correct or contradict was the implication that it was necessary for an aboriginal american to become president to demonstrate that the US 'had come full circle;, which I interpreted to mean 'was free of racial prejudice and bias'. Inevitably, regardless of the openness and equality of society, sub-groups which have privileges that discourage them from working, and their own culture which discourages participation in mainstream economic life, will always be vulnerable to disadvantage. And due to the small number of aboriginals in comparison to americans of immigrant stock, we would expect only a fairly small proportion of American presidents to be from the indigenous tribes.

I was really just reminding you, and all of us in general, to be tolerant of the vagaries of others...

SC

[kerryk]

Correct, and one of the interesting things about the US view of history is that it is most certainly white man's Victors' history. I was amused and bemused to see people lauding the election of Barack Obama as some kind of cathartic victory in relation to race relations. I think even he tried to play that aspect of his victory down. He was abandoned by his African father ( for whatever reason, not mine to judge ) and brought up by his white mother, blah blah blah and once again it's not mine to judge.

What tickles me are Americans banging on about British Imperialism in the 19th century. While the Brits were " colonising " what were the Americans doing? Having a tea party in the Wild West? Offering balloons and party hats to the Native Americans? Or going to war against the long standing population and land grabbing not only from the Native Americans but from the Mexicans too. Hypocrites.

The US will turn full circle when a Native American becomes President.

Is Barack Obama black? Does that matter?

I don't think it really matters where your ancestors of great antiquity were born. Since aboriginal americans make up a relatively small proportion of the total population of american citizens, one would not expect to see more than the very occasional president from that minority. Of course, we could also argue that aborigines are hampered by legislation that encourages idleness amongst the tribes, and reliance on tribal income, as well as a culture which differs from the mainstream US culture of entrepreneurship and personal ambition.

Do the tribal cultures of the aboriginal americans encourage learning about foreign countries? Or is such learning foisted on them through their participation in main-stream education?

Anyway, I shouldn't go too hard on the US for the way they treated the abos. We've all of us had to fight for lebensraum at some stage in our history, and the Americans have been doing it since they were brits.

SC

I totally agree with every word you have written there.....you are 100% correct. I am only pointing the irony of colonials complaining about colonization.

I wasn't really arguing, other than for the sake of it. The only point I was trying to correct or contradict was the implication that it was necessary for an aboriginal american to become president to demonstrate that the US 'had come full circle;, which I interpreted to mean 'was free of racial prejudice and bias'. Inevitably, regardless of the openness and equality of society, sub-groups which have privileges that discourage them from working, and their own culture which discourages participation in mainstream economic life, will always be vulnerable to disadvantage. And due to the small number of aboriginals in comparison to americans of immigrant stock, we would expect only a fairly small proportion of American presidents to be from the indigenous tribes.

I was really just reminding you, and all of us in general, to be tolerant of the vagaries of others...

SC

Interesting but nothing to do with education or Thailand.

[SteeleJoe]

Correct, and one of the interesting things about the US view of history is that it is most certainly white man's Victors' history. I was amused and bemused to see people lauding the election of Barack Obama as some kind of cathartic victory in relation to race relations. I think even he tried to play that aspect of his victory down. He was abandoned by his African father ( for whatever reason, not mine to judge ) and brought up by his white mother, blah blah blah and once again it's not mine to judge.

What tickles me are Americans banging on about British Imperialism in the 19th century. While the Brits were " colonising " what were the Americans doing? Having a tea party in the Wild West? Offering balloons and party hats to the Native Americans? Or going to war against the long standing population and land grabbing not only from the Native Americans but from the Mexicans too. Hypocrites.

The US will turn full circle when a Native American becomes President.

Questions...

So do Native Americans think that world history isn't the way the rest of Americans (not all of whom are White Men) do? Or are you specifically referring to US history? If so, do they think they won? Or do they believe they their lands weren't taken and their cultures all but destroyed as "white man victor's history" does indeed tell us happened?

How does Obama's family history relate to "white mans victor's history"?

How often do you hear Americans banging on about British Imperialism in the 19th century? And why do these alleged Yanks (or you) confine it to the 19th century? Does what the Americans did change anything about what the British did? Or are we not supposed to talk about anyone else's wrongdoings if we have some of our own? (if so, the Brits will have to take back a LOT of discussion -- much of it accurate and some not -- of US evils).

Why the quotes around "colonizing" -- was it not really that?

I won't even get into the fallacy of the full circle bit. SC Cowboy did a better job than I could anyway even if I am inclined to add some things to it...

One more question: what's that on your shoulder?