Have been listening over the garden wall to a heated and wildly misinformed discussion by reasonably well educated neighbours about 'foreigners'. Set me thinking!

Everyone, I suppose, identifies with and characterises people who are 'us'. And describes other sets of folk as 'them' . Do they? Though they are pretty nebulous concepts and descriptors. Phrases: "The Club:, "The local": "Other side of the Tracks", " Persons of color", "Strangers", " Immigrants", "Gweilo", "Foreigners", and of course "Farang".

I realise I don' t know exactly where the boundaries of "farang" lie..presumably a simplistic definition includes, white skin, big nose, a foreign tongue, clearly "Not Thai"...

There are very few places outside of probably Japan where miscegenation, immigration, tribalism and invasion have not created 'multicultures'.

I presume for a Thai person Chinese, Koreans and Japanese are not "farangs" but what exactly are they? And what about Indians, Africans, let alone the myriad internal differences of those appellations? I have certainly met Thais who thought Arabs, Europreans Russians all came from that same country, who, whoever they were, and wherever it was and whatever it was, was certainly not Siam

What about peoples from Laos, Myanmar, Kampuchea and Vietnam?

And anyway are there Thais who are 'foreigners' in their own country? Either by virtue of being basically Chinese or from a Hill Tribe. Because farang do not fit easily into the Thai 'Family of Man' numbers of people have felt they are somewhow non-persons. We have children who are luk khreung. Cannot really explain can you to a child that they are a 'half-person'!!?

Cannot see this going anywhere except downhill so pending review it is //CLOSED//