'Political Racism' Must Be Ended Before It's Too Late: Thailand

[Jingthing]

And political racism would then mean the inherent different traits in political groups justify discrimination.

Right?

The word "racism" comes from the word "race", which, based on Google, is defined as "Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics." We are only talking about the people of Thailand, which is (generally) one race. Maybe "political prejudice" is a more appropriate term.

Thais are not a race. That's not even the slightest bit controversial. Informed scientists know there are NO races. But there is racism.

[farang000999]

The author is a complete <deleted>. The word racism involves "race".

If I do not like women it does not mean that I am racist against women.

If I do not like fire ants it does not mean that I am racist against fireants.

Mind boggling that this type of crap can get published in a major newspaper.

Only in amazing Thailand where both the author and editor probably got the job because of an Uncle somewhere.

[Jingthing]

The author is a complete <deleted>. The word racism involves "race".

If I do not like women it does not mean that I am racist against women.

If I do not like fire ants it does not mean that I am racist against fireants.

Mind boggling that this type of crap can get published in a major newspaper.

Only in amazing Thailand where both the author and editor probably got the job because of an Uncle somewhere.

The word racism involves race. But there are no races. If most people believe there are races and have been brainwashed that way all their lives, racism is still very real! With no races.

[allan michaud]

Would seem that most posters did not read the first line of the piece in which the author made it clear why you used the term racism.

By political racism I mean total discrimination against those with differing political views who - once categorised as belonging to the opposite political camp - induce a sense of hatred and discrimination.

Partisanism does not adequately describe what the author is talking about. This goes beyond just a blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance. It’s about just because somebody disagrees with one part of your viewpoint, you must be an evil person that supports everything bad that you oppose.

Many of us have had, or at least attempted to, discussion with CalgaryII. In virtually every case when faced with a reasoned balanced point, the response has been one of categorizing the person as a yellow shirted, coupeist, Bangkok elitist amart.

There is no room for agreement on anything, you are either like me or I hate you. I think the term political racism is pretty accurate as that is exactly how a true racist reacts to someone of another race he hates.

TH

Nice post good to see someone actually reading the article.

[noitom]

Would seem that most posters did not read the first line of the piece in which the author made it clear why you used the term racism.

By political racism I mean total discrimination against those with differing political views who - once categorised as belonging to the opposite political camp - induce a sense of hatred and discrimination.

Partisanism does not adequately describe what the author is talking about. This goes beyond just a blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance. It’s about just because somebody disagrees with one part of your viewpoint, you must be an evil person that supports everything bad that you oppose.

Many of us have had, or at least attempted to, discussion with CalgaryII. In virtually every case when faced with a reasoned balanced point, the response has been one of categorizing the person as a yellow shirted, coupeist, Bangkok elitist amart.

There is no room for agreement on anything, you are either like me or I hate you. I think the term political racism is pretty accurate as that is exactly how a true racist reacts to someone of another race he hates.

TH

Nice post good to see someone actually reading the article.

It doesn't matter "what he said he means." A journalist shouldn't have to explain the use of an incendiary word and then use it throughout the piece. Almost as if they were attempting to engender conflict and inflame readers all along the way. A journalist in command of English would choose other adjectives or means to make their point and prove their case. The use of "racism" in this context is incorrect, misleading, and detracts from any points that the writer is attempting to make legitimate or not.

[h90]

I do remember the breakfast news a few years ago, there was an argument being put forward that Abisit wasnt 100% Thai so shouldnt be in politics..so suppose there is racism in Thai politics, although a different way to the article.

Every Thai PM of the last 20 years wasn't 100 % Thai. They were all Chinese or partially Chinese (I am not sure for Somchai, but Yingluck, Abhisit, Thaksin, Samak, Surajut, Chuan).

Abhisit it was discussed because he is holder of an UK passport. Which is indeed a problem.

[exeter]

The writer might actually want to investigate the meaning ofthe word "racism!" It has nothing to do with anything he is writing about. What he is writing about is simply partisan politics and it exists everywhere and will forever!

The difference here though seems to be there is my way and your way but no middle way and the different parties appear to not just dislike but to hate other parties, I would call it political racism. Ine the west we have parties if different views but they do also have cross party support on some issues and select committeess made up of a cross section of members which seems to work well, until Thailand can adopt some of these ideas, even if its not their's the problems just rumble on. Like the charter amendments, reconciliation will change along with who is in power, keep changing to our advantage. Consenus is required, give and take and let things evolve over time. The alternative is more and more bickering, nothing going forward and Thailand waits, in the meantime its neighbours pass the country by in the region in terms of development and national cohesion.

Is it to much to ask for everyone to put party issues on one side and work for the benefit of the country, which is what they elected to do? Probably.

[exeter]

I do remember the breakfast news a few years ago, there was an argument being put forward that Abisit wasnt 100% Thai so shouldnt be in politics..so suppose there is racism in Thai politics, although a different way to the article.

Every Thai PM of the last 20 years wasn't 100 % Thai. They were all Chinese or partially Chinese (I am not sure for Somchai, but Yingluck, Abhisit, Thaksin, Samak, Surajut, Chuan).

Abhisit it was discussed because he is holder of an UK passport. Which is indeed a problem.

I dont see what the problem of holding a UK passport is, her was born in Newcastle, almost the whole world is wanting a UK passport to get in for the benefits on offer, not suggesting Abhisit is after benefits but no one in there right mind would turn it down or relenquish it given a choice.

[thaihome]

Would seem that most posters did not read the first line of the piece in which the author made it clear why you used the term racism.

By political racism I mean total discrimination against those with differing political views who - once categorised as belonging to the opposite political camp - induce a sense of hatred and discrimination.

Partisanism does not adequately describe what the author is talking about. This goes beyond just a blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance. It’s about just because somebody disagrees with one part of your viewpoint, you must be an evil person that supports everything bad that you oppose.

Many of us have had, or at least attempted to, discussion with CalgaryII. In virtually every case when faced with a reasoned balanced point, the response has been one of categorizing the person as a yellow shirted, coupeist, Bangkok elitist amart.

There is no room for agreement on anything, you are either like me or I hate you. I think the term political racism is pretty accurate as that is exactly how a true racist reacts to someone of another race he hates.

TH

Nice post good to see someone actually reading the article.

It doesn't matter "what he said he means." A journalist shouldn't have to explain the use of an incendiary word and then use it throughout the piece. Almost as if they were attempting to engender conflict and inflame readers all along the way. A journalist in command of English would choose other adjectives or means to make their point and prove their case. The use of "racism" in this context is incorrect, misleading, and detracts from any points that the writer is attempting to make legitimate or not.

He is a columnist writing an opinion piece. He can say anything he wants, any way he wants. Its his opinion and his writing stryle and choice of words.

The fact that you and so many others have reacted to the use of the word "racism" is exactly the point he was making.

But you seem to have missed that. You might want to think about why.

TH

[thaihome]

I do remember the breakfast news a few years ago, there was an argument being put forward that Abisit wasnt 100% Thai so shouldnt be in politics..so suppose there is racism in Thai politics, although a different way to the article.

Every Thai PM of the last 20 years wasn't 100 % Thai. They were all Chinese or partially Chinese (I am not sure for Somchai, but Yingluck, Abhisit, Thaksin, Samak, Surajut, Chuan).

Abhisit it was discussed because he is holder of an UK passport. Which is indeed a problem.

I dont see what the problem of holding a UK passport is, her was born in Newcastle, almost the whole world is wanting a UK passport to get in for the benefits on offer, not suggesting Abhisit is after benefits but no one in there right mind would turn it down or relenquish it given a choice.

There is no record of Abhisit ever holding a UK passport or using any benefits of being a UK citizen. He is a UK citizen because of the location of his parents at the time of his birth and the UK law covering citizenship at that time.

TH

[timewilltell]

'Political Racism' what the f is that?

Journalists these days....

The writer ofthe piece gave his explanation of what he meant by the term. Language is a living developing thing and since the word racism and its derivatives have been misused and attached to the most flimsy arguments, in the last decade or so, it has lost its original sting. Like any overused adjective or cliche it has become diluted in its effect in modern parlance compared to the meaning not so many years ago. Was it even used very often 80 years ago?. I think the writer has well understood its common meanng these days.

Whether or not you agree with my take, it is a shame that the point being made has been overshadowed; that point being that Thai politicians are unable to be anything except polarised in their opinion to the point of allowing their egotistical (my added interpretation) bigotry to prevent them from thinking about the alternative viewpoint to anything they have an opinion on.

Reminds me a bit about he trade union mouthpieces of not so long ago, who can see nothing except their own blinkered viewpoints and thereby caused great damage. I single them out because of the vitriol of their language and demeanor. What ever happened to Arthur Scargill?

[sparebox2]

'Political Racism' ? No such thing in Thailand.

'Colour Racism' ? Sure. Red, Yellow, Blue, Muti- etc.

[h90]

I do remember the breakfast news a few years ago, there was an argument being put forward that Abisit wasnt 100% Thai so shouldnt be in politics..so suppose there is racism in Thai politics, although a different way to the article.

Every Thai PM of the last 20 years wasn't 100 % Thai. They were all Chinese or partially Chinese (I am not sure for Somchai, but Yingluck, Abhisit, Thaksin, Samak, Surajut, Chuan).

Abhisit it was discussed because he is holder of an UK passport. Which is indeed a problem.

I dont see what the problem of holding a UK passport is, her was born in Newcastle, almost the whole world is wanting a UK passport to get in for the benefits on offer, not suggesting Abhisit is after benefits but no one in there right mind would turn it down or relenquish it given a choice.

I see a problem: in an conflict between Thailand UK, where would be his loyalty?

[Cornichon88]

What next ? Culinary racism ? Olfactory racism ?

This word has definitely lost its meaning as it is misused.

[whybother]

I see a problem: in an conflict between Thailand UK, where would be his loyalty?

Maybe that would be an issue IF there was a conflict between Thailand and the UK.

Until then .........

[lungmi]

Yesterday and today I assisted to a cremation of a poor man who worked two weeks ago for me.

No money for firework, the basic ritual by the monks, the coffin was the cheapest one.

But about 200 people (all dark skin, workers in the sun) wanted to give him the last attendance.

I was involved in the ceremony as farang for good luck.

I go with this 200 people for the last look on the corpse body (Isaw him 2 weeks ago) to put

frankingcence. I saw some yellow meat, my friend before...and I understood.

My life is changed. The poorest people and me have the same heart.

My people.

[Skywalker69]

"partisan politics"

???

All politics are "partisan". That's the beauty of the system.

This is a prime example of why Democracy in Thailand will never work as Thai politics is all about who can convince the proles who is the most "Thai". They then vote and go back to slurping their noodle soup in happy ignorance....

Do you think "Democrazy" will work?

Edited May 3, 2012 by Skywalker69

[BigJohnnyBKK]

The word racism involves race. But there are no races. If most people believe there are races and have been brainwashed that way all their lives, racism is still very real! With no races.

The concept of race as one dimension for putting people into categories is very much over-used, and it certainly is true that there are no black-and-white "hard edges" but rather a continuous spectrum of variety in the mixture of DNA in each person.

So it is true to say that scientifically speaking, it is impossible to use race as an objective means of classification for humans. I'm sure the same is true of breeds in animals, and of course humans are animals, as much as we like to think we're special. Another analogy is the use of "tall" "short" "fat" and "thin" - these are not scientifically objective labels, but that doesn't make the terms themselves useless or meaningless.

However race is in fact universally used as a **social** construct, and it is true that most such uses are not helpful to social harmony. However if not used for the purpose of discrimination by employers or governments in ways that violate human rights, you can't argue that use of the concept itself is racist.

From the point of view of personal preference, someone stating that they prefer "white" people or don't want to associate with "khon kaek", isn't IMO inherently "racist" - they are stating a personal preference, and the fact that such honest and open verbal expressions are offensive in the west is to me evidence of political correctness being taken too far.

Saying something like "Burmese people are thieves and liars" is of course an over-generalization, and shows the results of harmful and IMO "racist" social conditioning, but unless such an opinion is actually used to discriminate against a Burmese, say in hiring or pay levels it is simply a false and ignorant opinion.

Saying something like "Asian women are more openly practical and less likely to be influenced by the feeling of 'falling in love' in selecting a marriage partner than western women" is not IMO racist, and in fact I consider it to be a fairly accurate generalization as long as you're careful to note it isn't a statement about **all** Asian women, nor **all** western women, but an assertion about tendency and probability.

And of course in this sense I don't even use race itself, as "Asian" in this sense means "women raised in an Asian culture" compared to "women raised in a western culture".

Such statements can be useful to communicate real information, or at least to stimulate a discussion striving to arrive at "the truth", as long as those participating do their best to be accurate and thoughtful.

Don't throw out the baby with the PC bathwater.