Inverted Racism In Thailand......

[Sing_Sling]

Don't Chinese also have a gene for being better at Mathematics? Russians a gene for being better at chess?

And Thais for Connect 4.

Don't Chinese also have a gene for being better at Mathematics? Russians a gene for being better at chess?

And Thais for Connect 4.

Yup, it's all genetics, mate.

[Soutpeel]

I'm just telling you what it says on my passport "British nationals who are also the nationals of another country cannot be protected by HM Representatives against the authorities of that country."

SC is correct. Dual nationality undermines your protection by UK authorities. For example, if the dual country had National Service, then the UK government could not prevent you being called up.

That is one of the down sides of Dual nationality.

Maybe the two of you should try to draw a line between UK and the rest of the world.

I don't doubt that there is such language in UK passports. However, that doesn't make

the statement true for other countries than the UK.

SC presented this as a general truth earlier on, which it is not.

In my view that language in UK passports (if its there) is more to be considered as a general

disclaimer that allows UK authorities to be selective re assisting dual passport holders.

both "theblether" and "SC" are 100% correct in what they are saying and the "rule" also applies in other countries as well.

The example given Re national service, personally is very relevant as being a dual national, I had to do national service in the "other country" even though I held a British PP along with the "other countries PP"...further, at the time even persons who held PR and were eliable for national service by virtue of the age were required to do national service, even though they were not citizens, so holding a British PP did you no favours and certainly did not excuse you

[StreetCowboy]

I'm just telling you what it says on my passport "British nationals who are also the nationals of another country cannot be protected by HM Representatives against the authorities of that country."

SC is correct. Dual nationality undermines your protection by UK authorities. For example, if the dual country had National Service, then the UK government could not prevent you being called up.

That is one of the down sides of Dual nationality.

Maybe the two of you should try to draw a line between UK and the rest of the world.

I don't doubt that there is such language in UK passports. However, that doesn't make

the statement true for other countries than the UK.

SC presented this as a general truth earlier on, which it is not.

In my view that language in UK passports (if its there) is more to be considered as a general

disclaimer that allows UK authorities to be selective re assisting dual passport holders.

both "theblether" and "SC" are 100% correct in what they are saying and the "rule" also applies in other countries as well.

The example given Re national service, personally is very relevant as being a dual national, I had to do national service in the "other country" even though I held a British PP along with the "other countries PP"...further, at the time even persons who held PR and were eliable for national service by virtue of the age were required to do national service, even though they were not citizens, so holding a British PP did you no favours and certainly did not excuse you

But Melvinmelvin's point was that the British government was perhaps unique in its lack of support of its nationals in helping its nationals evade their responsibilities and obligations in thier other home country. Its not a point I am interested in arguing, since for me it is academic, and people of other nationalities would do well to check for themselves in their own case. I think it would be reckless to assume that your original home country would protect you against your adopted home government, and unlike others on this forum, I do not believe that the British government is outstanding in its pernicious neglect of its nationals overseas. I would imagine that this sort of issue falls under fairly well established international custom and practice, if not under explicit regulation by convention.

As I understand, the nationality of my birth has since lapsed, and I doubt the country of my birth even has any record of me, bar some handwritten notes in some remote local ledgers somewhere, so it is not an issue of great concern to me.

SC

[theblether]

I think Melvinmelvin misunderstands that this is the general forum, and not the Academy of International Law. If hew ould like the answer to UK policy then there are enough people here to answer, but we don't pretend to be able to answer for every country.

It would be handy now for Melvinmelvin ( so good he named himself twice ) to declare his nationality and his governments attitude to dual nationality. That would be an education for us all.

By the way SC, I don't understand the concept of your nationality lapsing? I think you ( or your parents ) would have needed to have intervened in some way to have lost that nationality.

[StreetCowboy]

I think Melvinmelvin misunderstands that this is the general forum, and not the Academy of International Law. If hew ould like the answer to UK policy then there are enough people here to answer, but we don't pretend to be able to answer for every country.

It would be handy now for Melvinmelvin ( so good he named himself twice ) to declare his nationality and his governments attitude to dual nationality. That would be an education for us all.

By the way SC, I don't understand the concept of your nationality lapsing? I think you ( or your parents ) would have needed to have intervened in some way to have lost that nationality.

From reading the information that i had available - perhaps the back of a cornflake packet, I forget... I think I had to specifically elect to maintain my nationality by a certain age, which, as it happened, I narrowly failed so to do. THough in retrospect, some decades later, my recollection is dim, hazy and inconsistent. To be honest, maintaining one passport is expensive and troublesome enough...

SC

[Ijustwannateach]

From a former language teacher's perspective, there is some scientific evidence that some (white, European-heritage) foreigners will have more trouble learning Thai potentially than the average Chinese and/or Indian, because of a gene that is linked towards proficiency in tonal languages. This gene is MUCH more common in countries where tonal languages are commonly spoken. It gives me more compassion for the people that I know who have genuinely tried to learn and been repeatedly frustrated (including some linguistic geniuses who are much better at multiple European languages than I am).

Frankly I would prefer to see evidence of the existence of the gene you talk about; language learning in infants and a tonal gene? So perhaps the !Kung Bushmen have a gene for their click?

I heard that it has to do with the left ( ? ) part of the brain, which apparently is not used in rational thoughts.. Just hearsaying..

It is the alleged gene that I think is questionable; infants are programmed to learn language and any child of any racial genetic history will learn to speak, in its early years whatever language to which it is exposed. I do not believe that there exists a gene such as Ijustwannateach claims and would like to see the scientific evidence he claims.

I don't really care if you believe me or not. Google it for yourself, or don't.

[submaniac]

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/26/10944

Dediu and Ladd scientific research paper on tonal language gene.

[maccaroni man]

my two stang. As we get older it is a proven fact that we suffer from hearing loss, add to the natural loss of hearing any damage that could have been done from rock concerts, working around heavy equipment etc.. and the ability to hear tonal languages well enough to repeat them is greatly impaired. after 16 yrs am still not able to say my wifes name correctly 100% of the time. Tonal languages do not have the margin of error that other languages do and that is the block for many of us.

[Sing_Sling]

I don't really care if you believe me or not. Google it for yourself, or don't.

Did you actually read this or was it just word-of-mouth over a beer?

http://www.pnas.org/...nt/104/26/10944

Dediu and Ladd scientific research paper on tonal language gene.

And the crux of the matter is . . . . drumroll:

We hypothesize that there is a relationship between the population frequency of these two alleles and the presence of linguistic tone

See the word 'hypothesis'? There is a chasm between 'evidence' and 'hypothesis', ijustwannateach

(By the way, you made the claim and it should be up to you to back it up when requested, in a discussion, not for you to tell people to disprove it - simple debating etiquette)

[submaniac]

See the word 'hypothesis'? There is a chasm between 'evidence' and 'hypothesis', ijustwannateach

I respectfully disagree. As I was taught in school there are "laws" such as the law of gravity (you drop an apple from a great height it falls, always), and "theories" to explain the laws such as "string theory" (which I don't want to get into).

The "evidence" is the existence of the differences in the genes, and the hypothesis that is sought to be proven is the correlation of the genes with the ability to learn tonal languages. It's not a "law", but rather a theory used to explain. As such there is no chasm between evidence and hypothesis as evidence is used to support a hypothesis, which is in itself only an explanation for why things occur.

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Edited March 23, 2012 by submaniac

[Ijustwannateach]

I don't really care if you believe me or not. Google it for yourself, or don't.

Did you actually read this or was it just word-of-mouth over a beer?

http://www.pnas.org/...nt/104/26/10944

Dediu and Ladd scientific research paper on tonal language gene.

And the crux of the matter is . . . . drumroll:

We hypothesize that there is a relationship between the population frequency of these two alleles and the presence of linguistic tone

See the word 'hypothesis'? There is a chasm between 'evidence' and 'hypothesis', ijustwannateach

(By the way, you made the claim and it should be up to you to back it up when requested, in a discussion, not for you to tell people to disprove it - simple debating etiquette)

I guess you were smart enough to read Submaniac's post before asking me the same question again- so what was the point?

And I know quite enough about the research process already, thanks.

When someone posts just to say 'I don't believe you', I don't regard it as an onus on me to prove what I said. These are discussions, not formal debates, and generally speaking when I have discussions with people- that continue- the benefit of the doubt is given regarding the good intentions of those speaking (that they are not simply making things up and have a good reason for believing as they do).

Now, what was that topic?

[Ijustwannateach]

http://www.pnas.org/...nt/104/26/10944

Dediu and Ladd scientific research paper on tonal language gene.

Thanks, Submaniac- it's nice that some people still look before they leap!

[Ijustwannateach]

See the word 'hypothesis'? There is a chasm between 'evidence' and 'hypothesis', ijustwannateach

I respectfully disagree. As I was taught in school there are "laws" such as the law of gravity (you drop an apple from a great height it falls, always), and "theories" to explain the laws such as "string theory" (which I don't want to get into).

The "evidence" is the existence of the differences in the genes, and the hypothesis that is sought to be proven is the correlation of the genes with the ability to learn tonal languages. It's not a "law", but rather a theory used to explain. As such there is no chasm between evidence and hypothesis as evidence is used to support a hypothesis, which is in itself only an explanation for why things occur.

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon."

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Hypothesis

Exactly. The hypothesis refers to the idea. Evidence is then used to support the hypothesis. Ultimately, if the hypothesis seems to form a good framework for explaining the phenomena, we call it a 'theory' and continue to collect evidence. When it has become a theory, it is generally considered scientific 'truth' (with some disclaimers and limitations). 'Laws' are more a matter of longstanding reliability and antecedence, and are as close as science gets to 'rock-solid' modelling. There is evidence- as I said- otherwise the paper would not have claimed support for the hypothesis (i.e., there is a null hypothesis and back to the drawing board). I made no claim stronger than the available evidence.

[Sing_Sling]

There was no evidence - how can you two overlook that?

When someone posts just to say 'I don't believe you', I don't regard it as an onus on me to prove what I said.

Except that the posts didn't just say that . . . you can obfuscate the issue as much as you wish, and looking at your m.o. you will keep on going until the initial issue has become so foggy that everyone just gives up eventually . . . so, go for it.

See the word 'hypothesis'? There is a chasm between 'evidence' and 'hypothesis', ijustwannateach

I respectfully disagree. As I was taught in school there are "laws" such as the law of gravity (you drop an apple from a great height it falls, always), and "theories" to explain the laws such as "string theory" (which I don't want to get into).

The "evidence" is the existence of the differences in the genes, and the hypothesis that is sought to be proven is the correlation of the genes with the ability to learn tonal languages. It's not a "law", but rather a theory used to explain. As such there is no chasm between evidence and hypothesis as evidence is used to support a hypothesis, which is in itself only an explanation for why things occur.

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon."

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Hypothesis

Her is a good explanation as to what constitutes what:

Fact - the assertion or statement of a thing done or existing;

Assumption - the act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing without proof;

Observation - the act or the faculty of observing or taking notice; the act of seeing, or of fixing the mind upon, anything.

Hypothesis - something not proved, but assumed for the purpose of argument, or to account for a fact or an occurrence

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-career-in-counseling/201110/facts-and-assumptions-what-is-the-difference-and-does-it-matte

There is a chasm between facts and hypotheses

Edited March 23, 2012 by Sing_Sling

[pastitche]

See the word 'hypothesis'? There is a chasm between 'evidence' and 'hypothesis', ijustwannateach

I respectfully disagree. As I was taught in school there are "laws" such as the law of gravity (you drop an apple from a great height it falls, always), and "theories" to explain the laws such as "string theory" (which I don't want to get into).

The "evidence" is the existence of the differences in the genes, and the hypothesis that is sought to be proven is the correlation of the genes with the ability to learn tonal languages. It's not a "law", but rather a theory used to explain. As such there is no chasm between evidence and hypothesis as evidence is used to support a hypothesis, which is in itself only an explanation for why things occur.

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon."

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Hypothesis

Exactly. The hypothesis refers to the idea. Evidence is then used to support the hypothesis. Ultimately, if the hypothesis seems to form a good framework for explaining the phenomena, we call it a 'theory' and continue to collect evidence. When it has become a theory, it is generally considered scientific 'truth' (with some disclaimers and limitations). 'Laws' are more a matter of longstanding reliability and antecedence, and are as close as science gets to 'rock-solid' modelling. There is evidence- as I said- otherwise the paper would not have claimed support for the hypothesis (i.e., there is a null hypothesis and back to the drawing board). I made no claim stronger than the available evidence.

I came back to this thread to say that I had found the paper quoted above which I agree does not fit with my outdated views on human psychology - it's been a while and after a career where it was of little significance. I might have done so earlier but was distracted by related references to things like genetic evidence for language populations in Europe.

So I agree that there exists a hypothesis that tonal language facility is present in some significant populations of tonal language speakers; however that particular genetic occurrence is nowhere like 100% of those who speak tonal languages (which are found all over the globe from Africa to Australia). That, imo, does not imply a necessity to have the gene present in order to speak a tonal language. The ability to mimic sounds and therefore acquire language is far older, given that our earliest ancestors were from a fairly small population of Africans. That reinforces my belief that any infant can learn any language to which it is exposed from birth. The !Khung I referred to, are AFAIK, the only users of the click in their vocabulary but there is no evidence I am aware of to suggest that this is genetic.They are also one of the oldest groups of our species on the planet and one of the most researched.

If you want to say that this particular pairing of alleles enables a facility for tonal language, that is fine but it may also have been an evolutionary development that improved success for a completely different environmental circumstance, just as our primate predecessors, it is hypothesised grew larger brains because they ate high protein foods like bone marrow that other carnivores left behind.

Incidentally I disagree with you that posting a hypothesis that is questioned means that the questioner has to research that hypothesis. Surely if you propose something that is not common knowledge, you should supply the evidence to support it.

Edited March 23, 2012 by pastitche

[Sing_Sling]

Incidentally I disagree with you that posting a hypothesis that is questioned means that the questioner has to research that hypothesis. Surely if you propose something that is not common knowledge, you should supply the evidence to support it.

Precisely.

As to the genetic 'fact' . . . it's not

[melvinmelvin]

I think Melvinmelvin misunderstands that this is the general forum, and not the Academy of International Law. If hew ould like the answer to UK policy then there are enough people here to answer, but we don't pretend to be able to answer for every country.

It would be handy now for Melvinmelvin ( so good he named himself twice ) to declare his nationality and his governments attitude to dual nationality. That would be an education for us all.

By the way SC, I don't understand the concept of your nationality lapsing? I think you ( or your parents ) would have needed to have intervened in some way to have lost that nationality.

From reading the information that i had available - perhaps the back of a cornflake packet, I forget... I think I had to specifically elect to maintain my nationality by a certain age, which, as it happened, I narrowly failed so to do. THough in retrospect, some decades later, my recollection is dim, hazy and inconsistent. To be honest, maintaining one passport is expensive and troublesome enough...

SC

I somewhat fail to see the relevance of my nationality.

My only point was that I reacted negatively to the following unqualified entry by SC:

"If you have dual citizenship, your 'home country' will not use its consular powers to assist you against persecution by your adopted country.

SC"

It was entered as a general fact applicable to all countries without being substantiated.

It was not qualified by UK.

I just reacted negatively to such a general statement.

(That was my whole point.)

*******

Having said that, I woud like to add that I find the example of national/military service not being

a very good example. Its not exactly that kind of obligations you would expect help to avoid.

******

With respect to the quote by SC from his UK passport.

As said before, I consider this as a general disclaimer which main purpose is to give

flexibility and discretion to UK authorities re offering assistance to dual passport holders.

The language in the passport should not be understood as:

Dual passport holders can bank on not being assisted by UK government.

but rather:

Dual passport holders can not bank on being assisted by ........

[theblether]

I think Melvinmelvin misunderstands that this is the general forum, and not the Academy of International Law. If hew ould like the answer to UK policy then there are enough people here to answer, but we don't pretend to be able to answer for every country.

It would be handy now for Melvinmelvin ( so good he named himself twice ) to declare his nationality and his governments attitude to dual nationality. That would be an education for us all.

By the way SC, I don't understand the concept of your nationality lapsing? I think you ( or your parents ) would have needed to have intervened in some way to have lost that nationality.

From reading the information that i had available - perhaps the back of a cornflake packet, I forget... I think I had to specifically elect to maintain my nationality by a certain age, which, as it happened, I narrowly failed so to do. THough in retrospect, some decades later, my recollection is dim, hazy and inconsistent. To be honest, maintaining one passport is expensive and troublesome enough...

SC

I somewhat fail to see the relevance of my nationality.

My only point was that I reacted negatively to the following unqualified entry by SC:

"If you have dual citizenship, your 'home country' will not use its consular powers to assist you against persecution by your adopted country.

SC"

It was entered as a general fact applicable to all countries without being substantiated.

It was not qualified by UK.

I just reacted negatively to such a general statement.

(That was my whole point.)

*******

Having said that, I woud like to add that I find the example of national/military service not being

a very good example. Its not exactly that kind of obligations you would expect help to avoid.

******

With respect to the quote by SC from his UK passport.

As said before, I consider this as a general disclaimer which main purpose is to give

flexibility and discretion to UK authorities re offering assistance to dual passport holders.

The language in the passport should not be understood as:

Dual passport holders can bank on not being assisted by UK government.

but rather:

Dual passport holders can not bank on being assisted by ........

The reality of the matter is in the UK, if you have dual nationality then the government will not act to protect you against the other nation, ot request made that nation.

So in that regard there is no ambiguity as to what is written in our passports, we are told explicitly to expect no help in that regard.

In as much as you are entitled to be annoyed at the broad brush answer, you now have a specific answer relevant to the UK. It would be interesting to know what you're nationality is, and what your governments attitude to dual nationality is.

It's not a question intended to undermine you or attack you, it's merely for information purposes.

[Sing_Sling]

Australia just asks foreign entities to offer assistance in case of need and to allow unhindered passing . . . nothing in the passport about dual citizenship. As long as you travel under an Australian passport the government will assist, irrespective of how many citizenships you hold

[samran]

Australia just asks foreign entities to offer assistance in case of need and to allow unhindered passing . . . nothing in the passport about dual citizenship. As long as you travel under an Australian passport the government will assist, irrespective of how many citizenships you hold

My reading of this is that they will do their best to help you, so long as the host government allows it.

Under international law, countries are not obliged to recognise dual nationality:

• A country may not permit Australian consular assistance to be given to Australian citizens who, according to its laws, it considers and treats as its own nationals.
  
• A person might not be regarded as being an Australian if that person is not travelling on their Australian passport, which may also limit the consular assistance available.
  

While we'll always try to assist to the greatest extent possible, under particular circumstances the extent to which we're able to help you will typically be determined by the government of the other country.

http://www.smartrave...-nationals.html

ed: I've tried searching for it, but I'm 99% certain 'Arkady' has spoken about this issue, and highlighted an international agreement/concept of some sort where dual nationality can prevent, say, an Australian citizen travelling on a Thai passport being offered consular assistance in Thailand. I stand to be corrected on that though.

Edited March 24, 2012 by samran

[Sing_Sling]

Yup, as I said . . . if you travel under an Oz pp then you are afforded protection . . . if you don't - well, your choice.

My brother has had several cases, he's also a dip - kind of a family tradition, where he's had to say 'sorry' because the guy wasn't on his Oz pp

My father had several of these cases as well - it's even worse when a death is involved

Simple - travel under an Oz pp and the Consulates and Embassies can and will help. Travel under a different pp and rely on that country's consular services.

Logic

[StreetCowboy]

Yup, as I said . . . if you travel under an Oz pp then you are afforded protection . . . if you don't - well, your choice.

My brother has had several cases, he's also a dip - kind of a family tradition, where he's had to say 'sorry' because the guy wasn't on his Oz pp

My father had several of these cases as well - it's even worse when a death is involved

Simple - travel under an Oz pp and the Consulates and Embassies can and will help. Travel under a different pp and rely on that country's consular services.

Logic

But even if you enter your home country under your Australian passport (or in my case, British), I doubt our government would protect us from persecution by our home nation

SC

[pastitche]

Yup, as I said . . . if you travel under an Oz pp then you are afforded protection . . . if you don't - well, your choice.

My brother has had several cases, he's also a dip - kind of a family tradition, where he's had to say 'sorry' because the guy wasn't on his Oz pp

My father had several of these cases as well - it's even worse when a death is involved

Simple - travel under an Oz pp and the Consulates and Embassies can and will help. Travel under a different pp and rely on that country's consular services.

Logic

But even if you enter your home country under your Australian passport (or in my case, British), I doubt our government would protect us from persecution by our home nation

SC

There's also the big question of where will we be if Wee Alec wins his referendum

[StreetCowboy]

Yup, as I said . . . if you travel under an Oz pp then you are afforded protection . . . if you don't - well, your choice.

My brother has had several cases, he's also a dip - kind of a family tradition, where he's had to say 'sorry' because the guy wasn't on his Oz pp

My father had several of these cases as well - it's even worse when a death is involved

Simple - travel under an Oz pp and the Consulates and Embassies can and will help. Travel under a different pp and rely on that country's consular services.

Logic

But even if you enter your home country under your Australian passport (or in my case, British), I doubt our government would protect us from persecution by our home nation

SC

There's also the big question of where will we be if Wee Alec wins his referendum

Then we might as well take dual nationality. I might go to the Land of Nod in a short while, actually,...

[pastitche]

Yup, as I said . . . if you travel under an Oz pp then you are afforded protection . . . if you don't - well, your choice.

My brother has had several cases, he's also a dip - kind of a family tradition, where he's had to say 'sorry' because the guy wasn't on his Oz pp

My father had several of these cases as well - it's even worse when a death is involved

Simple - travel under an Oz pp and the Consulates and Embassies can and will help. Travel under a different pp and rely on that country's consular services.

Logic

But even if you enter your home country under your Australian passport (or in my case, British), I doubt our government would protect us from persecution by our home nation

SC

There's also the big question of where will we be if Wee Alec wins his referendum

Then we might as well take dual nationality. I might go to the Land of Nod in a short while, actually,...

So we can either be Scots or nationals of "England and Wales and that other wee bit". Pleasant dreams Edited March 24, 2012 by pastitche

[StreetCowboy]

...

...

There's also the big question of where will we be if Wee Alec wins his referendum

Then we might as well take dual nationality. I might go to the Land of Nod in a short while, actually,...

So we can either be Scots or nationals of "England and Wales and that other wee bit". Pleasant dreams

Sadly, I may have no choice but to be one of Wee Eck's 'Heathen Scotch Gits'. I may yet regret letting my nationality of birth lapse, or even the nationality of the land of my birth

SC

[anterian]

I think taking out Thai nationality is fooling yourself, no matter how many years you live here you will always be a farang. I have a friend, a fourth generation Indian, as a child he thought he was Thai, his citizen card and passport says he is Thai, but the Thais in many subtle ways make it clear he is not.

[swisstouristpattaya]

why in hell do you think a swiss want become thai?

swiss are the cream of the crab!we are unique!

[NewlyMintedThai]

why in hell do you think a swiss want become thai?

swiss are the cream of the crab!we are unique!

A Swiss national might want a Thai passport to be able to own land, work without a permit, have access to local financing, and be free of visas and immigration hassles forever.

"Cream of the crab" (!) or not, you will never be able to do those things in Thailand on your Swiss passport.

[NewlyMintedThai]

I think taking out Thai nationality is fooling yourself, no matter how many years you live here you will always be a farang. I have a friend, a fourth generation Indian, as a child he thought he was Thai, his citizen card and passport says he is Thai, but the Thais in many subtle ways make it clear he is not.

You are confusing ethnicity and nationality. Naturally, you don't cease to be a farang when you obtain Thai nationality. Your hair and skin don't change color and your eyes don't change shape. That should be fairly obvious, shouldn't it?