• Trirat
  • ranking : Classic Member
  • email : petchsingh@yahoo.com
  • created : 2007-06-12
  • entry : 19
  • visitors : 26627
  • votes : 12
  • send msg :
Thai School Daze
A Thai teacher blogs about religion, science, teaching, politics, anything really.
Permalink : http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat
Thursday , January 3 , 2008
ARE SOME OF OUR BLOGGERS RACIST?
Posted by Trirat , Reader : 1278 , 07:33:00  
Print

I saw "Bobby" recently, a movie about the ordinary--and not so ordinary--lives of some people (fictitious) who were at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles when Rober F. Kennedy was shot down in 1968.

Some of the characters portrayed were Mexicans, working as cooks and busboys in the kitchen, preparing for the arrival of the senator. Their supervisor was Daryl (Christian Slater), a white man. When the general manager of the hotel asked him why he had'nt allowed them to take time off to go and vote, his reply was that they were mostly Mexicans, working there illegally, couldn't string two words together in English. The GM (William H. Macy) countermanded his order and fired Daryl on the spot.

Later, his wife asked him why he had fired Daryl, he said, "Because he was a racist, among other things."


This is what had transpired between the GM and Daryl:

GM:  I do everything I can to make sure that the employees of this hotel are treated equally and fairly. I’m getting complaints that you’re not allowing the kitchen staff off work to vote today.

Daryl: We’re understaffed this week. I’ve got six workers with flu. I’ve had to deny sick leave too.

GM: Did you tell them they couldn’t leave?

Daryl: This is no small thing we’re doing tonight. I need every staffer with a pulse on duty.

GM: Did you tell them that they couldn’t leave to vote?

Daryl:  (chuckles) They’re not going to vote. Half of them are illegal; they can’t vote. Why give them the time off for something that they can’t do anyway.

GM: (Turns around and closes door of the office.) You’ll post a memo informing all employees of their right to vote.

Daryl: They can’t put two words of English together.

GM: Put up a memo in English and Spanish informing all employees of their right to vote and allowing them the privilege to do so. Additionally, you will inform them that they will be paid for their time off for this privilege. And, because I’m an equal-opportunity kind of a guy, you’ve got till the end of the week to clear out your desk and leave. You’re fired, Daryl.


I was rather surprised at the GM’s reaction, or was it over-reaction? Of course, he may have been dissatisfied with Daryl for quite some time. Could some of our bloggers be regularly making generalizations about Thais that could be deemed racist (without being racists themselves)?

Read comment

comment 85
GGrass date : 15/01/2008 time : 10.58
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/GGrass

manhunt: really? do you mean white people get better price on second hand cars than asian people?
comment 84
Manhunt date : 14/01/2008 time : 17.36

GGrass - I am surprised that you & me didn't drop any comments till today. What the hell have we been doing? Are we being racists too? I know my heart is seriously not but my mouth does! All my friends are Tom, Dick and Harrys from all colours. Like in the states, we also have slight pricing differences for properties or second hand cars based on races. The fairer the skin, the better the price.
comment 83
GGrass date : 14/01/2008 time : 16.24
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/GGrass

k. trirat: hehehe.... here's my little contribution to your blog...

i've read it from the first day you wrote it, but i didn't watch that movie and i didnt' really understand your story... sorry....
comment 82
Ian date : 12/01/2008 time : 19.52
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Trirat, no legend, look at Thai women, they avoid the sun yet get enough for the body's needs. In England we have little sun and it is much weaker, so we need to maximise exposure. In the words of the old song, "Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun"
comment 81
Trirat date : 12/01/2008 time : 19.36
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Ian, about the Pakistani women and adult rickets. It sounds like an urban legend to me! Rationally, if their traditional attire prevented them from getting sufficient exposure to the sun, it doesn't matter where they live, they would still contract rickets, assuming their diet remained the same. So they should have been getting rickets even in Pakistan!
comment 80
Ian date : 11/01/2008 time : 21.25
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Trirat, when Pakistani women first began to arrive in large numbers in England some of them started to suffer from adult ricketts. The traditional Islamic female dress did not expose enough skin to allow the production of vitamin D. In white people the melanin expression gene is normally dormant to enable adequate VitD production. Blondness is a logical progression.
Interestingly low melanin is implicated in depression and Nordics have a higher rate of suicide than other Caucasians.
comment 79
Trirat date : 11/01/2008 time : 20.14
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

TomFin, I realize that the expression 'the kettle calling the pot black' is commonly used. But in the case of two non-white cricketers calling each other names, if the press had willfully used the expression in their headline, say, it would have been in bad taste, at the very least.
comment 78
Trirat date : 11/01/2008 time : 20.09
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Ian, I think you are partially correct: the evolutionary reason that men generally like big-breasted and wide-hipped women is because men believed them to be better child bearers. As for blond hair and blue eyes, the first instances must be have due to mutation: when there were enough of these 'mutants,' then sexual selection also kicked in. But the mutation had to come first. For this reason, you will never find a 'luk krueng' (mixed Asian-Caucasian) child with blue eyes. Being a mutation, blue eyes are recessive, brown eyes dominant.
comment 77
Ian date : 10/01/2008 time : 11.09
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

A strange fact about the black races that I discovered in the army. On night manoevers they also need to blacken their faces. It seems that black skin is shinier than white skin.
comment 76
Ian date : 10/01/2008 time : 11.05
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Trirat, it has been suggested that the blue eyed, blond haired Nordic types are the result of runaway sexual selection. This might see strange but very briefly the logic goes like this. Tall, broad boned, large breasted, women with fair skin that shows off the healthy red blood of lips and cheeks are all indicators of good child bearing ability. In a harsh northern climate and high mortality such indicators became particularly important.
this comment as it stands has many loopholes simply because I present just a synopsis.
comment 75
TomFin date : 10/01/2008 time : 10.42
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/justconsiderations

Vertigo, your comments are correct. Nothing dizzy.

"the kettle calling the pot black, they'd also probably be called racist!" No, is is not racist and is used often in the United States without concern.
comment 74
Trirat date : 10/01/2008 time : 10.42
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Ian, a person's skin color was due, of course, to evolutionary selection. I think even Nordics have some of this pigment, but in very small amounts. The Southern Europeans have more of it. Modern humans migrated to Europe lets say 50,000 years ago. These were the original hunter-gatherers. Such a long period has allowed them to evolve their fair coloring. The Southern Europeans probably are much later arrivals who migrated from the Middle East, bringing agriculture with them. They have had less time to get rid of their pigmentation.

(I'm just trying to revive this blog; it seems to be the only game in town, right now. Joke.)
comment 73
Trirat date : 10/01/2008 time : 10.32
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Virtigo, I agree with you; everyone discriminates now and then. For me, it's religion: if a fairly intelligent person believes in some kind of religion, I discriminate by taking him down five IQ points. What I mean is, if I talk to someone and think that person is very intelligent, but then they tell me they have to rush off to church, temple, mosque, synagogue, wat, or whatever, then I look smug and think...ah, there's his/her achilles heel.

If my spouse believed in a religion, even something as innocuous as Buddhism, I would still try to convert that person to non-belief.
comment 72
Ian date : 10/01/2008 time : 07.59
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Trirat, Nordic (blond, blue eyed) types, may go red in the sun, but many southern Europeans do not. Visit Spain , Italy, Greece, you will find many dark skinned Europeans.
Take away the negative connotation and race can be simply a useful descriptor. For example "my car is the blue car", or "my friend is the Indian looking guy in that picture". In both these examples I am use colour and race as discriminators, but not negatively.
comment 71
VERTIGO date : 10/01/2008 time : 01.04

This is the 2nd time i have tried to send this. Its not the Nations bloggers that are Racist, its the whole world, we all have at some point in our lives, discriminated against another person because of colour, creed, religion,sexual orintation or other reasons, be it, small or large the racisism was. Many of us have done it unknowingly and many have been open with it. The difficulty is knowing how to handle such things and unfortunately political correctness has hampered matters. I work with many different cultures and personly only see the human being, not thier colour, creed, etc and a lot of my co-workers are the same, we do have the odd racist amoungst us, but thier views are treated with the contempt that they should be. Understanding the person is what it should be all about, experiencing what they have and how thier life works, if we all learn't from each other, this godforsaken world would be a better place, an example i can give is my Thai wife is a devout buddhist, she prays everynight, she visits temples where ever we are in Thailand, i am an athiest, but respect my wife for what she believes in and will try and learn from her, i will never believe in religion but will i never criticise her or anyone for doing so. Life is to short for holding grudges, hatred or racist feelings, someone does not do something bad because of thier colour, its the person inside. I was once told by someone "a simple smile will breakdown any barriers any man may have or built and have more effect than a missile or rocket". Maybe this is something we all should try.
comment 70
Trirat date : 08/01/2008 time : 22.17
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Hermano, if someone were to remark that it was a case of the kettle calling the pot black, they'd also probably be called racist!
comment 69
Trirat date : 08/01/2008 time : 22.13
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Some Chinese woman may appear whiter than you, Ian, but put them under the sun and they don't become pink like Caucasians tend to do. That's because the Chinese girls have pigment under the skin which helps to protect from the sun's rays, which normally makes them appear 'yellow.'
The darker races have even more of this pigment.
comment 68
Ian date : 08/01/2008 time : 21.23
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Why do we call some people coloured and some white? I have never been white, as a baby I was pink, now on those parts which are not tanned I am a sort of reddish light grey:-) But I am not colourless, I am definitely coloured. I have met Chinese girls much whiter than me, yet they are called yellow.
comment 67
Hermano_Lobo date : 08/01/2008 time : 21.02
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez

I think the whole racism issue has got out of hand. It is also becoming intensely political. An Indian cricketer has just called a coloured Australian cricketer a 'monkey'. He was punished and this led the Indian Cricket team to throw their toys out of the pram. A black being racist to another black ! That is politically incorrect ! Here is the story = http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7174122.stm
comment 66
Trirat date : 06/01/2008 time : 15.03
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Lalida, I don't and won't delete any comments. I might not agree with someone, but I respect their right to have their say.
comment 65
earlsy date : 06/01/2008 time : 10.25
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/secondtimearound

Are some of our bloggers racist?

Yes...
comment 64
Ian date : 05/01/2008 time : 16.18
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Sorry about that digression Trirat, please continue:-)
comment 63
Lalida date : 05/01/2008 time : 14.40
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/fairness

Excuse me Ian, comment 24 in my Blog? Are you questioning my eye sight?

K. Trirat,

Ian had made a point in my blog stating I have intrude your blog with irrelevent comment or using as an excuse to go after the Nation, so if that's the case, you have my apology and do deleted if you wish together with this one. I have no dispute. Thanks
comment 62
Ian date : 05/01/2008 time : 14.26
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Lalida, as you asked me to comment in this blog (comment 24 "Letter to admin"), I have instead commented in your own blog which is where I feel such comments belong.
comment 61
TomFin date : 05/01/2008 time : 13.31
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/justconsiderations

Teasing is a sign of love.
comment 60
Trirat date : 05/01/2008 time : 12.43
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Lalida, don't worry about it. Remember femme fatale? I think they like you, so they're teasing you. Keep cool.
comment 59
Lalida date : 05/01/2008 time : 12.07
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/fairness

Shall we discuss on the behavior of the Nation's policy? As most can see, an attack on me was performed which I have done nothing to stir it up and various comments and PM to the admin to seek advice and was ignored. Should that be consider as racist, discriminations or prejudice?
comment 58
Ian date : 05/01/2008 time : 10.50
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Trirat, sorry I was employing a reverse form of speech, in which one says the opposite of what you mean, to express conventionality.
Let me rephrase it this way the. "To compare races, by emotional stability, intelligence or physical performance, is now seen by many as being racist."
Does my comment now make more sense to you?
Incidentally the figure you quote for Asian IQ only applies to Singapore and Hong Kong, with China closely following. Thailand rates 91.
http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm

You might find this extract interesting from
http://christianparty.net/iqnations.htm

"Lynn and Vanhanen prove that the widespread though rarely stated assumption of economists and political scientists—that all peoples and nations have the same average IQ—is wildly wrong. Their evidence documents substantial national differences in average intelligence. The highest average IQs are found among the Oriental countries of North East Asia (average IQ = 104), followed by the European nations (average IQ = 98), and the mainly White populations of North America and Australasia (average IQ = 98). Further behind are the countries of South and Southwest Asia, from the Middle East through Turkey to India and Malaysia (average IQ = 87), as are the countries of South East Asia and the Pacific Islands (average IQ = 86), and Latin America and the Caribbean (IQ = 85). Lowest are the countries of Africa (average IQ = 70). "
comment 57
Trirat date : 05/01/2008 time : 09.35
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Ian, I disagree with your statement that: "To compare races, by emotional stability, intelligence or physical performance, is racist."
In fact, published statistics show that if you're of East Asian ancestry you probably have an IQ of 105; if European, 99; and so on down to if your Australian Aborigine, 62. Of course, if you said that because of the lower IQ your are inferior, that would be racist. It's well proven that Thais are good boxers, but if you said no Thai would ever become world heavyweight champion, that's not racist, it's fact. Just don't add that it's because we're inferior (We'll never produce enough men heavy enough to be world champions who'll want to take up boxing.)
comment 56
Ian date : 04/01/2008 time : 08.44
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

I would like to make a follow on point from Pomjuk's comment, that prejudice simply means to pre-judge and that it is a natural human mechanism for tackling new situations. The word prejudice has acqured negative connotations which detract from its original meaning. Similarly any discussion of racial differences, apart from visible physical ones have become taboo. To compare races, by emotional stability, intelligence or physical performance, is racist. Anthropologists are in a bind, differences do exist between the human races, yet to openly discuss them is dangerous. These differences exist for valid biological reasons, each race has evolved to deal with different environmental situations.
If I can give just one example from the Olympics, swimming events are always won by whites, track events are dominated by blacks. The biological differences between black and white bodies makes this inevitable.
So if I was to tell a black swimming enthusiast that he had no chance of competing at Olympic level, it would be a racist comment, but without malice.
I think people often assume malice with racist comments where none was intended.
comment 55
Pomjuk date : 04/01/2008 time : 08.28
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/pomjuk

I’m saying that’s how human’s decision-making process works. Unlike artificial intelligent systems, that is exactly why we human are capable of dealing with incomplete information and exactly why we have common sense. Recent medical research has proven that during the time we sleep our neural networks are changed and new connections are made which further verifies my early suspicious.

To prevent human from forming the decision models and behavior profile is impossible since we are hardwired that way. However, we should train ourselves subliminally that we generally prejudge this will allow ourselves to reevaluate the models.
comment 54
Trirat date : 04/01/2008 time : 07.05
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Pomjuk, you're point that prejudice is derived from presumptions based on empirical observation, and that there's nothing wrong with this, is correct, I think. Pascal Boyer calls it an inference system, which in evolutionary terms was necessary for survival. For example, early humans, whenever they saw a large yellow animal with black stripes, would run away immediately. Their inference system kicked in, there was no time to think about it. If you thought, you were dead.

Similarly, humans developed inference systems about other humans who were different from themselves. We moderns just have to overcome these inference systems which are no longer valid.
comment 53
Trirat date : 04/01/2008 time : 06.42
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

FelixQui, having read Hair's comment 52, I concede that governments can be racist towards their own people, but have reservations about someone being racist against people of similar genetic background. Perhaps it's just a matter of semantics.
comment 52
Hair date : 04/01/2008 time : 01.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/1432
Still is his mind -  Inclusive his heart - Compassionate his actions - And free is his soul.  Ooooohhhh, I got such a long way to go.

I would tend to agree with Felix comment 16 that some or perhaps many governments may be racist towards their own people. However I do not wish to point at the Thai government, but talk more generally of my experience. Top government officials, be they elected or not, are often from more privileged and resourceful groups of society. It has become very clear to me in my work that these officials often have racist attitudes towards large groups of people in their own country, such as towards the poor or less educated, groups of darker skin color, or ethnic minorities. These government officials, as well as the social class to which they often belong, often consider themselves as the only ones that can preserve and protect the nation’s values and integrity. However these values and aspects of integrity are often narrowly defined by this ruling class to serve their own interests and preserve their own power and affluence. And, remarkably, they think they deserve it!!....at the expense of the people.
comment 51
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 22.24
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Tom Fin, I hope I am tolerant. And no, I definitely don't want all religious people condemned and exterminated. In fact, I would propose that if people like Osama bin Laden were ever captured, they would be forced to take part in a debate on why their religion was fallacious, that their belief system was all wrong. Then throw them to the wolves.
comment 50
FelixQui date : 03/01/2008 time : 22.21
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Trirat,
You didn't answer my question. I'll rephrase using our modified example:
If Mr. Black said it with a sneer, so that everyone knew he meant it just as much as Mr. White, what would you call the comment if not racist, and why wouldn't it be racist?
If Mr. Black and Mr. White make exactly the same comment, with exactly the same feeling and for exactly the same reasons, how does the accident of the speaker being black or white make a difference to the comment being racist or not?

I agree that if said differently, with different intent, and for different reasons, that exactly the same words may or may not be racist, but when these things are exactly the same, and only the race of the speaker differs, it is less clear that that makes a difference to the statement being racist or not.

You can of course define "racist" in your use to mean "unless said by a member of the same race", but then, what would you call what otherwise seems to be a genuinely racist comment? And would this mean that before you could say that something heard on the radio was racist or not that you had to first ascertain the race of the speaker? That sounds wrong to me. I think we can determine from the words , the way they are said and the context whether or not something is racist, and that details about the speaker, such as his age, race, sex and so on are not normally relevant.

(I was retracting my opinion about teh Thai govt. (C.48) when you posted C. 47)
comment 49
TomFin date : 03/01/2008 time : 22.20
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/justconsiderations

In your first example, Trirat, he is a racist.
In your second example, he would not be considered a racist. But he would not be welcomed with his own, He is a common type, black, Jewish, Catholic, Italian, Thai etc. this character has some psychological, status, problems. He may be a despicable human but not a racist.
comment 48
FelixQui date : 03/01/2008 time : 22.08
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

I agree with Pomjuk.
Although I do think a person can be negatively prejudiced against a group of which they are themselves a member, I think that Trirat and Pomjuk are probably right that in the case of the Thai govt. the lust to control is a sufficient explanation of their sustained abuse of teh Thai people.
comment 47
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 22.05
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

FelixQui, lets follow your argument. Suppose Mr. White were to say "Elizabeth eats dog food because she's African." He says it with a sneer; everyone knows he means it. He wouldn't be seen dead socializing with Elizabeth; if any member of his family were to marry her, he'd have a fit. So he a racist, right?

Now suppose Mr. Black had said the same thing. He says it sardonically. He is himself a black African, but he's always putting down fellow Africans. But he's really in love with Elizabeth (she's cute). If she were to give him the time of day, he'd be in raptures; if she accepted his marriage proposal, he'd be in seventh heaven. So he can't be a racist, can he?

Let's leave out American blacks, gays, and women for now, but I think the same kind of argument could be used to argue that they couldn't be racist against their own group.
comment 46
Lalida date : 03/01/2008 time : 21.43
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/fairness

Trirat,

I don't dare to judge others of how they behave or how they represent themselves. I react to people's behavior towards me, If they're right about me then I should accepted. If they're wrong then let time prove itself. As I've mentioned, one cannot change the mind of the others unless you can prove yourself you're not....Right? As to your question....you think he'll let me?
comment 45
Pomjuk date : 03/01/2008 time : 21.40
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/pomjuk

Human are programmed to form patterns, decision models and profiles to help us determine the expected outcomes. We are basically specialized statistical machines. We build mathematical models (neural networks) based on our experiences to form aids to our decision-making. The reason we sleep everyday is because we need to update these neural networks with the new information. Variables are then reevaluated to determine if they’re significant and if they are by how much to help determining the outcome. To disregard this fact is to be overly naïve.

To make the presumption on one’s empirical observation is nothing short of being prejudice (without the negative implication). The word is “pre + judge”, therefore the decision maker makes the presumption before getting to know the person. With that said, I have to say that there is nothing wrong with making the presumption in one’s mind. We all do that. However to express it verbally is to convert the presumption into the assumption. And that’s making an “ass out of you and me” (ass-u-me).

So make the presumption but keep it in your mind and give the person a chance to prove himself/herself.

For me examples of racists are European Jews genocide in WWII or Japanese American internment leaving the Italian Americans and German Americans untouched in WWII.

I don’t think Thai governments (military or otherwise) are racists. I think they just want easy control population. They take the easy path at the expense of the citizens’ rights and freedom.
comment 44
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 21.19
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Lalida, I think you were spot on when you said, "As for how others see me as a Thai or not, it doesn't really bother me..." I brought it up because you didn't fit the stereotypical Thai, rather submissive and non-confrontational. Which I do, by the way.

Also I had sympathy for Ian not because I agreed with what he said, but because of your aggressive style, or tone. Your ideas might have been good, but I never got to find out. I stoped reading before I got to them.

Your husband gave you good advice when he told you to win an argument by presenting facts, and presumably not by pulverizing your opponent. I liked your joke about taping his mouth...it was a joke, right?
comment 43
FelixQui date : 03/01/2008 time : 21.10
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Trirat,
You wrote: 'If she had said, "Elizabeth eats dog food because she's Africa," then it's prejudice/racism.'
Now, if the person saying it was also African, would it still be a racist comment? (Assuming it was made with exactly the same intent and expressed exactly the same opinion.)
I think the comment is racist because it makes a negative judgement about a whole racial group, and that members of the same racial group might well hold the same view, which would continue to be racist. You disagree because you think a black person, or a Thai person, can not hold racist opinions about their own race, but I wonder what you would call the comment if not racist? And why is it not possible for a member of a group to hold negative racial prejudices about their own group? An important part of the black rights movement in the US, and later the women's and gay movements, consisted of showing how blacks, women and gays had internalised and accepted the false and oppressive stereotypes of others so that they were in fact racist black people, sexist women and homophobic gays respectively. I think it is the comment that is racist, that uttering it sincerely shows the speaker to be racist, and that the speakers race is irrelevant to determining the comment to be racist or not, though it is perhaps even more sad if she is of the same race she is disparaging.
I therefore think it is possible for the Thai government to have a racist attitude towards Thai people. I concede that it may not be the case, but the observed attitude, the laws, and the given excuses, such as "Thai people are different. That might be OK in the West, but it won't work in Thailand because Thai people ... " do sound at least superfically racist.
comment 42
Lalida date : 03/01/2008 time : 21.07
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/fairness

Ian, how Blogs gets the most comment I don't think is a matter of who wrote it or how open the writer are but rather what the topic is about. In fact, I had a little discussion with PJ in his Blog but didn't really going into the matter.

I didn't really missed the point of K.Prirat, When I reply a comment or make a comment. I target what he writes rather then who he is. If I got something to say, I say it. If I don't, I just walk away. I don't write according to how much I know him/her or where's he from. There's no concern of mine. I don't think of who he/she is or what mentallity he/she got before I write but rather on what he/she wrote.
comment 41
Ian date : 03/01/2008 time : 20.51
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Lalida, I think you slightly missed the point to Tirat's reply. Let me try to explain.
I am British, yet feel that I am not a very typical Brit, yet others tell me I have often very British attitudes, for instance Piset in our recent discussion with him.
Similarly in normal discussions (off blog) I don't mention I was once a teacher, yet many people tell me I talk/sound like a teacher
It seems that no matter how hard we try not to, our past lives influence the way we think and behave. Thus knowing a few minor details about a person can help you to understand them. If you prefer to shroud yourself in mystery then people will always tiptoe around you because they are not sure of you.

The people who get the most comments are people like Greg, ITY, Ggrass and myself, not because we are better writers than others but because we have opened ourselves up to them, they know our pasts and our present lives.

You might totally disagree with me on this, perhaps others will also, but this is how I feel
comment 40
TomFin date : 03/01/2008 time : 20.48
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/justconsiderations

Some of us, when discussing prejudice, think of it in its negative, pernicious, incarnation. We think of racial prejudice - of prejudging others based on race - and then we move into discrimination and bigotry where a person displays intolerance toward others based on race, creed, opinion, lifestyle etc.

Certainly one can be prejudiced against inconsequential things like Lima beans and vanilla ice cream.
Perhaps, Trirat , in presenting this blog, you are searching for answers to the harmful effects of prejudice and not the everyday dislikes that we all have. Even disliking the “smelling people” that Ian-the-Younger talks of , while displaying a prejudicial bent, would be considered acceptable and tolerable in polite society.

We can not like everyone. And even if we are not prejudiced toward any group, we may enjoy the company of some group, nation, race of people more than others.

To some Ian's comment about prejudice toward religious groups may be of concern while the prejudice toward fatties, druggies and drunks may in fact show concern and good will.

While you may be prejudice against religion, Trirat, you except religious people. You do not want them expelled from the country, given second class treatment, be denied equal rights or placed in gas chambers to die. Perhaps, in fact, one may call you tolerant. (I,of course, may be wrong. You may in fact want all religious people condemned and exterminated.)
comment 39
Lalida date : 03/01/2008 time : 20.45
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/fairness

No, son of Bruce Lee cannot be consider as one, he's a mix. can't name any at the moment, perhaps later when my old man comes back.
comment 38
Lalida date : 03/01/2008 time : 20.34
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/fairness

Ian, Is it important to you of what I am or whether from Bkk or from e-san? Will it make you sleep more soundly? If so, simply see me as the way you want me to be, isn't it easier?

As for the word "Banana", do make a few more trip to Hong Kong, you might learn to accept it that originates from HK. Reasons : Many Chinese from HK in worries of 1997 migrated to Canada, US and kids were born there and went back to HKG without speaking a word of Chinese and mentallity was almost the same as westerners, That's why this name "Banana" was given to them. Son of Bruce lee was a good example and many movie stars in HK films as well.
comment 37
Lalida date : 03/01/2008 time : 20.22
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/fairness

K. Trirat,

Many thanks for your "brutally frank" reply in which I very much prefer, as I've mentioned in one of Tom's Blog. It's one step forward to let me see myself rather believing myself of what I am or not. So do be more Brutal with me, I would well come that

As for how you see Ian or sympathize towards him, I have no arguement on it as it is everyone's preference and at each and evryone persepctive. I only fight for what I believe in...and no doubt at times I am very agressive...but I will not admit I'm wrong in my facts but rather the way of presenting it. My husband once said to me when we were having an arguement, he said " You want to fight present your facts, present your evidence then you nail me on the floor for mercy, otherwise there's no way you can have me say sorry." from then onwards, I taped his mouth before we start an arguement. ha ha ha

As for how others see me as a Thai or not, it doesn't really bothers me cos I just don't see the point where it is leading to. Is it an issue? Is it because I can be in this web blog and be the "me" and I cannot be consider as a Thai or one from e-san? To me, it's just a difference of how people see things.

K. Trirat, do excuse me if at any way I have offened you but I'm a person that speaks from my heart, in another words. I'm too straight forward at time. Thanks again for the reply, it brightens up my day.
comment 36
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 20.21
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Pondering, I think the distinction between bad taste and prejudice/racist is, if you say something bad about something, it's bad taste; but if you say something bad about someone, it's prejudice/racist. So your colleague was in bad taste to have said, "she brings dog food." If she had said, "Elizabeth eats dog food because she's Africa," then it's prejudice/racism.
comment 35
Ian date : 03/01/2008 time : 20.13
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Trirat that I would have loved to see. I am using the term in the same sense that Lalida apparently did, although I must have missed the blog in which she said it. Actually I am now confused because I am sure elsewhere she said she is from Issan. Perhaps Lalida can clarify this, are you (Lalida) a Chinese Thai, born and bred in Issan? And where did you learn "banana" from, I have never heard it used by Hong Kong Chinese?
comment 34
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 19.49
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Ian, hey, wait a minute. I'm using the word banana to mean "yellow outside, white inside," which I learned from one of Lalida's early blogs. Are you talking about the same thing? I can guarantee I've never worn a micro skirt and sleeveless top. Well, except for that one time, but then I was drunk.
comment 33
Pondering date : 03/01/2008 time : 19.49
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/pondering

"Racist" has its own negative term...always. But how do you define one as a racist?

Let's look at this example: One of co-workers is from Africa and she often brings her African-cuisin lunch to work daily. One day I overheard another colleague made a comment about her food (and that she was standing nearby warming up that particular food in the microwave) and jokingly said that "look, Elizabeth brings dog food to work again!"
Of course, to some, it was funny, but to me I wasn't entertained by the ignorant comment; and I'm pretty sure Elizabeth wasn't having a blast hearing that either.

Do you think that comment related to racism?

I think it's more of a discrimination/ employee misconduct and sexual harrassment comment.
comment 32
Ian date : 03/01/2008 time : 19.43
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Hm, "banana" is a Malaysian expression, I have never heard it used anywhere else. I find the Malaysian Chinese banana girls great fun to watch, I like the way they flaunt their micro skirts and sleeveless tops just to taunt the Malay girls in their drab sharia outfits.
Have you met the expression "free hair girls", this is the term used to describe Malay Moslems who oppose Sharia dress.
comment 31
Ian date : 03/01/2008 time : 19.38
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Trirat, I would call killing people and blowing them up in the name of religion more than simply misguided. I agree with your general premise but some religious people I have no prejudice against simply because they do not try to force their views on me. They have the same rights of freedom of thought and speech as I do. My Hindu friends will not eat any part of a cow, yet they keep a pot of Bovril (a beef extract) in their fridge for when I visit and do not object when I use it. I have yet to meet the Moslem that would let me keep bacon in their home.
comment 30
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 19.33
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Hi, Lalida, thanks for confronting me with that question. Yes, prejudice had something to do with it. Let me explain, but I'm going to be brutally frank. I considered you a femme fatale (a woman who attracts men by an aura of charm and mystery)and definitely a dangerous one. I never dared to post any comments in your blogs because I was afraid of being chewed up (and spit out), I being mostly sympathetic to Ian. Now that you have shown your true self (I think), you are just fine.

Here was where I was prejudiced. Because you said you were married to a banana (I like that metaphor; I think I'm a banana too), and you were so aggressive towards Ian and others, I thought you couldn't possibly be Thai, perhaps Sino-Thai. Now that I've seen your blog "A day we choose to be free..." I see you as Thai as sticky rice. So Happy New Year.
comment 29
Lalida date : 03/01/2008 time : 19.02
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/fairness

Trirat,

May I asked a question? You have ignored both of my comment. What do you consider that ? Discrimination, Prejudice or racist or simply "who's this?"
comment 28
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 18.51
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Ian, let me nit pick. If you're prejudiced against certain religious groups, then I'm more extreme than you because I'm prejudiced against religions per se. But this doesn't mean I'm prejudiced against the people holding those religions. I just think they're misguided and perhaps one day will realize it.
comment 27
Ian date : 03/01/2008 time : 18.40
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

I cannot claim to be without prejudice. I am prejudiced against certain religious groups, I am prejudiced about people who abuse their bodies with drugs, excessive alcohol and over eating.
comment 26
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 18.33
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Ian_the_younger, you said, "The reality is that everyone has prejudices." If we confine ourselves to prejudices against other people (and not prejudices against certain types of food, say) then I can claim to be without prejudice. I think you, and most people today can claim the same. That is why when a discussion comes up, we shouldn't always group farangs one way and Thais another. Our similarities are greater than our differences.
comment 25
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 18.09
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

FelixQui, if racism embodies the belief of superiority of one race over another, then yes, governments can be racist, such as Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa. But the Thai government? It can't claim to be superior to the Thai people, because it is itself Thai.
comment 24
Lalida date : 03/01/2008 time : 17.33
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/fairness

I've read over the conversation between The GM and Daryl again. Perhaps I misunderstood it wrong, but what Daryl said was facts and that he needs the man power, I don't feel there's any racist involved.
I feel the GM is a bit over reacting not looking from Darly side.

"They can’t put two words of English together".

I suppose he made this out as a comment or making a point not making fun of it. If so, I see nothing wrong with it.

Perhaps like I said my opinion is wrong on this article.
comment 23
Ian date : 03/01/2008 time : 16.40
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Trirat, your comment 21, I would be reluctant to approve such a marriage mainly for the sake of the children and the stigma of being half-castes. I know this stigma should not exist, but it does, and needs to be taken into account. I remember clearly the first such boy that came to my school, his life was hell.
He was friends with me and once asked, "why when a crowd of boys misbehave in the playground the teacher always reports me? "
I said the reason is simple but unfortunate, at a distance of 100m it is just a blur of faces, but your colour makes you distinctive.
comment 22
FelixQui date : 03/01/2008 time : 16.39
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Trirat,
If someone or a group operates on teh principle that a particular race is defective in some way, that sounds racist to me. That the group happens to be of the same race does not make it non-racist. Some black people swallowed the racist propaganda of whites and adopted racist ideas about their blacks.
Why do you think the Thai government could not be racist towards Thai people? If you think my reasons for believing that the Thai govenment is not so racist are wrong, please explain where you think I went wrong (I think I might have my mind on this one changed fiarly easily: all you have to do is show that the Thai government thinks that Thai people are as mature and capable as any other people). Perhaps the government is not in fact racist as it prima facie seems to be, but that is a much weaker statement than asserting that they COULD not be racist, as your question "how can it be?" implies. Perhaps the government is not in fact racist, but it certainly could be.

I agree with your second point: yes, to the extent that people are racist, they are bad. Perhaps I was unclear. The point I wanted to make was that there is nothingly outstandlingly stigmatic that sets racists apart from others. they are as likely to be people we count as friends or neighbours as anyone. We all have our good points and bad points.

My cousin's husband is comfortably off. Money was not an issue. If my uncle had thought that it would be an issue because the man is black, that would be an expression of his irrational racism.
comment 21
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 16.20
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

FelixQui, while you've given us a very thoughtful comment, I differ with you on your two major points: the Thai government isn't racist--how can it be?-- it is into controlling people, which is of course what governments do, the Thai government perhaps more so than many. The second point, that racists aren't necessarily bad: Of course they're bad, to the extent that they are racists. They may have a lot of good in them, but having that little bit of racism makes them that little bit bad. However, I sympathize with your uncle: perhaps he was partly worried about the economic wellbeing of his daughter, married to a black man? If he had been a brown man with loads of money, would his reaction have been the same?
comment 20
Ian date : 03/01/2008 time : 16.18
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

I'm racist, I think the whole human race has messed up in the last 2000 years.
comment 19
Hair date : 03/01/2008 time : 16.12
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/1432
Still is his mind -  Inclusive his heart - Compassionate his actions - And free is his soul.  Ooooohhhh, I got such a long way to go.

Hi Tirat,

Happy new year. As to your comment 13, I would agree that some things said are just as bad as Daryl said. Some may argue it is not racism, but in my view it certainly does show a lack of respect and sensitivity. Yes, we may want to allow ourselves laughter and comedy, but I think it needs to be within bounds of sensitivity.
comment 18
Ian_the_younger date : 03/01/2008 time : 16.05
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/poomjai

Trirat,

The reality is that everyone has prejudices. Being the illogical chap that I am, I would stridently deny being racist, claiming my best friend to be of Indian origin, and yet still admit under interrogation to feeling a certain disquiet about French people, people who smell, noisy people (the French come under all three categories - kidding ).

Is it racist to have non-racially defined prejudices against people or indeed to have prejudices against national groups with the same skin colour?

The problem with these questions and indeed your question, is that they drive us down the convoluted and circumlocutory road of political correctness.

We have to live with prejudice, however unpalatable that may be. Our task is to keep it within manageable proportions, rather than aim to achieve the unachieveable.
comment 17
Hair date : 03/01/2008 time : 16.00
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/1432
Still is his mind -  Inclusive his heart - Compassionate his actions - And free is his soul.  Ooooohhhh, I got such a long way to go.

Hi Tom Fin,

Happy new year! Your comment 10 is really well said!! You are bringing out many of the subtleties of racism, often grounded in half sub-conscious attitudes of superiority and “I/we are more important and significant than he/she/them.” And yes, I think too that some people may have many friends of a different race or nationality and still be racist.
comment 16
FelixQui date : 03/01/2008 time : 15.48
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Hmmm ...
I think the most racist group in Thailand is the Thai government, which consistently assumes that Thai people are too stupid to be trusted to make adult decisions for themselves, but need to be told what to do at all times. They need to be told when and how much they may drink, where and until that time they may go out, what they may see on TV and the Internet, how they may entertain themselves, and so on. I am not saying that there should be no controls on these things, but they are grossly excessive in Thailand, and a common excuse is that they are necessary because the people (Thai people) are too immature and silly to make adult decisions. I strongly disagree with this assessment of Thai people made by their rulers. This might be a class thing, but it is also racist because being Thai is a defining criterion in making the assessment: Westerners and others are not seen as so financially or otherwise incompetent as ordinary Thai people are presumed to be.

I have seen rare comments here that I thought were in dubious taste (mostly presuming the sort of financial incompetence that I mentioned above), and probably racist, but generally, the Bloggers here do fairly well, if only because they know that explicitly racist comments are likely to be jumped on, as they should be.

But being racist, or making a racist comment, does not make a person bad: your typical racist, just like your typical murderer, is generally a nice, decent person but with a bad trait they may not be aware of or which might never have been put to the test. I was shocked when one of my uncles refused to attend his daughter's wedding because she was marrying a very black Nigerian. Until this unusual situation arose, his racism had never been made apparent, and I'm pretty sure that he had never thought of himself as racist. Discussion with some of my other uncles and aunts revealed that they had also had to struggle to come to terms with my cousin's choice in husbands. They never thought of themselves as racist, but neither did they think that a nice, white, middle class girl would go and marry a black man. With the exception of my uncle who behaved abominably, I don't think the rest of my relatives were worse people because they suddenly realised they did in fact have some racist issues to deal with: they were honest enough to admit they had a problem, and they did do something about it.
comment 15
TomFin date : 03/01/2008 time : 15.24
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/justconsiderations

You do not make it easy Khun Trirat. That is a really hard one to answer. The Manager and Daryle is a set up. It is made obvious to what the Manager is to illicit a response from a predetermined audience.

Constructive criticism, observation, dislikes, pet peeves, annoyances expressed in writing or verbally would probably not be racist. I dislike many things, places, people, policies, governments, books, restaurants etc etc. Because I dislike one French restaurant, because I criticize the chef, the waiter, the food, does not suggest I dislike all French restaurants or food or waiters or people.

Another words, the comments must be taken in context. And usually a number of comments, statements, rationals over a period of time from the same person will put it in perspective. A single comment out of context says little - usually.
comment 14
TomFin date : 03/01/2008 time : 15.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/justconsiderations

Making a joke out of ones habits, customs, traditions even stereotypes may not be racist. If it were we would have very little comedy and laughter.

Better start laughing for we have much to laugh at this coming year.
comment 13
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 15.14
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Hi Tom, nice to hear from you. Your comment is what I was after, which takes me to the next stage: isn't some of the things said on this blog about Thais, say, as bad as what Daryl said about the Mexicans? By the way, all this is just philosophical shooting the breeze; it's not my intention to create any more dissension.
comment 12
Lalida date : 03/01/2008 time : 15.09
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/fairness

Commenting on ones habits is not racist, making a joke out of ones habits and generalize it all is racist.
comment 11
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 15.02
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Ian, isn't someone who discriminates against one's own race a class-conscious person, not a racist?
comment 10
TomFin date : 03/01/2008 time : 14.45
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/justconsiderations

Trirat, Not surprisingly (to me) you are asking (again and again) a sophisticated question that is difficult to answer because of its simplicity.

Firstly, from a legal side, Daryle broke the law in the United States. You cannot prevent anyone from voting. That would allow the manager to legally fire him. That part is easy.

Is he a racist? Yes. To me, it is self evident. He may be a nice guy. You may want to go out for a beer with him.. He may even go for a beer with the Mexicans. He may like the Mexicans. Some of his best friends may be Mexican. He may have a wonderful wife. His children may be the best and the brightest and have Mexican friends doing sleepovers. He is still a racist.

While he may allow individual Mexican as acceptable company for a beer or as childhood friends, he discriminates against Mexicans as a Race or Nationality because they are Mexican. So he is a racist.

Does he think of himself as a racist? No, absolutely not. He will defend himself on a stack of Bibles and sacrifice his beautiful loving wife and his above average children claiming his pure intentions and his indiscriminate heart.

Some may disagree with me. I hope so. I know I will be considered wrong, wrong, wrong. So be it.

The manager is a racist
comment 9
Pomjuk date : 03/01/2008 time : 14.32
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/pomjuk

Racist, prejudice or politically incorrect that is the question. I think Daryl was guilty of being politically incorrect and prejudice than being a racist. He was responsible a kitchen that was serving a presidential visit and at the time was short of staffs. Sometimes it takes bullsh*t than being correct and blunt to get thru a tough time. He did not put into account his boss’s responsibilities when making the remark.

His boss was responsible for running the entire business and the company’s policies. And one of those policies was equal opportunity. He is liable if took no disciplinary action against Daryl after hearing Daryl’s comment however Daryl’s dismissal may be excessive in real life.
comment 8
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 12.43
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

redandwhitestripes,

Again, I think you're stating the obvious. If I said Germans are all tall, no one would bat an eye. But what if I said Germans were fat and smelly? But what I'd really like to hear is--based on the conversation above--is Daryl really being racist? In the movie he comes out as quite a nice guy, no worse than some I've met in real life. During the shooting of Bobby Kennedy he's also wounded. I was hoping that the movie would show him being reinstated in his job, but it didn't happen.
comment 7
redandwhitestripes date : 03/01/2008 time : 12.27
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/reallifethailand

I think we are confusing semantics here.

As I said before, if the term "racist" means making assumptions about people based on race, we all do this. Often these assumptions are true. For example, Germans tend to be tall. The term "racist" in modern usage however, tends to be construed as someone who discriminates against people purely on their race. I would hope that nobody on this blog does that. I have seen no evidence of this myself.
comment 6
Ian date : 03/01/2008 time : 11.21
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Trirat, just as a point of terminology, is it racist to criticise one's own race, or does it have to be another race to one's own?
comment 5
Boracic date : 03/01/2008 time : 10.44
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Boracic

Trirat - I think Ian hit the nail on the head, when he said Thai's pick their nose in public and your survey would be miles out because my survey puts it in the high nineties. I have also noticed that in China spitting on the sidewalk (or anywhere else) is a national pastime and if you can convince me otherwise I'll gladly change my mind. In Burma I notice that most men chew betelnut and have red eyes - they drop the red saliva anywhere they can -sometimes on your shoe, this is fact. In England a lot of people are overweight, dress like frumps and look ridiculous. In America you could roll most people into the fast food places....and one wonders how on earth they manage without their huge V8 Fords and Chryslers these days I do not consider these observations as racist they are formed over many years of personal observation.
comment 4
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 10.43
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Ian, I know you're not a racist, and obviously I'm wasn't even thinking of you. My point is, even though we may not be racist, we often say things which are inappropriate. Above,I quoted Daryl and the manager in full. I hear similar sorts of things said about Thais, which I normally disregard. That's why I was surprised when Daryl was fired, just as he apparently was.
comment 3
Ian date : 03/01/2008 time : 09.39
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Trirat, all races pick their noses, it is just that Thais do so more openly and publicly. I think climate may be part of the reason, in England a morning session in the bathroom sorts me out for the rest of the day, in Thailand I have to do a nasal excavation several times a day
Racially I do not discriminate, in fact the greater majority of my friends are non Caucasian, but I do have prejudice against certain religions which superficially might make me appear racist.
comment 2
Trirat date : 03/01/2008 time : 09.14
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/trirat

Pondering:

You said: "Making generalization doesn't define one as a racist to me, though depending on what kind of generalization an individual is generalizing about."

If you say most Thais love rice(true), or som tam (probably false), that's not racist. If you say most Thais pick their noses, that racist, because, according to my survey, only 49.99 percent do. (Joking)
comment 1
Pondering date : 03/01/2008 time : 07.58
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/pondering

Trirat:
I've seen Bobby too a while back. On this one particular movie or even with the dialog you've exampled; I do not think the manager over reacts. I however believe Daryl is discriminating against his Hispanic employees, though there is a very very fragile thin line that he may have crossed of becoming a racist.

Making generalization doesn't define one as a racist to me, though depending on what kind of generalization an individual is generalizing about.
Comment

  "If you are not member, please register to comment.
It take only a few steps."

  |  
name :  
email :  
website :  
comment :  
   
   

back top

<< January 2008 >>
s m t w t f s
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31