SP55 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:22 pm
But you're not bothered that the arabs killed that young russian lady, are you? Whining about "racism" rather than murders, rapes, robberies and other real problems in society.
For years we who visit Sunee have said it's just a matter of time before the speedracing arabs kill someone with their driving. Now it happened.
I agree totally. Issues like the death of the young lady and the dangerous obnoxious behaviour of Arab tourists around the Sunee area are way more important than trying to find fault with the title of this post.
Incidentally, I don't believe the Arabs and their governments consistently use respectful non-discriminatory language when referring to gays.
I am always a little concerned when the issue of racism rears its head. The fact is, at least I consider it a fact, that we are all racist in certain respects and to a certain degree. I guess the question then is: when does a feeling of dislike become stronger to the point where it becomes intolerant or discriminatory.
I remember there was a long discussion on racsim a couple or so years ago on, I think, the sawatdee forum. The issue then focused on sexual preference and it boiled down to this. If you prefer to be with a Thai boy to the exclusion of all other races, does that make you a racist? If nothing would drag you into bed with a guy from Pakistan, does that make you a racist?
My answer to those two questions is a very definite “No”. I consider these to be preferences and a preference does not equate to racism. Yet, there were several posters who argued quite strongly that a preference in terms of nationalities can indeed be racist, if only because it speaks to deep-rooted feelings about one race against another.
I remember when Britain’s Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh visited China in the 1980s. Throughout his life the Duke has never been a paragon of tact. On that visit, he was overheard and widely reported as having called the Chinese “slitty-eyed”. Was that a racist comment? Personally I think the Duke was just plain stupid at having made the remark in the hearing of a group of journalists. I think he was simply making a remark based on fact, not a racist comment. Had he been heard calling his hosts “Chinks”, that would have definitely been racist.
Is calling someone of Arabian origin a “camel jockey” really racist? Perhaps it depends on context, but in general I don’t think so. And if it does, then a lot of common expressions relating to a person’s race have to be reconsidered. Many will know the word Cockney. It basically refers to a native of the East of London who was born within the hearing of Bow Bells of the Church of St. Mary-le-Bow. Cockney slang has a cherished and long history. For example, if a Cockney says you are “Brahms and Liszt”, he is not referring to two nineteenth century classical composers. It means you are very drunk = “pissed”!
The point is that there is another common expression. I was once at Heathrow airport when I had to go through the red channel to declare certain items (all marked way down from their actual value). Since I had made a list and had gone through that channel, the officer was kind and I was asked for just £1 in duty. After I had paid, this Cockney turned to his colleague and said, “Hey mate! There’s a four-by-two. Let’s get him!”
Clearly they were going to check on this guy much more closely. A “four-by-two” in Cockney rhyming slang means “Jew”. Today I believe four-by-two is not regarded as a racist term. In that context, though, I believe this was.
Similarly, a camel jockey is an Arab. When a Thai refers to a farang, is that racist? When a Hong Kong Chinese calls a foreigner "gweilo” (foreign devil) that used to be racist but is now no longer. When a Japanese refers to me as a “gaijin” (“outside person”), like most people I do not regard it as anything other than actual fact. Yet some still regard this as having a negative connotation that can be regarded as racist.
I wonder if the term “camel jockey’ falls into this category. Jockeys for popular camel racing used to be extremely young boys – as low as age 5 – and many had been trafficked, eventually to be sold into slavery when they got older. Many countries have now banned the use of boys under age 15. So could the meaning as it relates to Arabs in general have actually changed as the others have?
I fully understand that view. But does that mean calling me a foreign devil in Hong Kong is racist? I remember in my first weeks there, I was walking on a street when a bus full of primary schoolchildren passed by. All the kids pointed out of the window and laughed as they shouted "Gweilo!" That focussed on my race. Basically it was racist. But no foreigner in Hong Kong ever regarded it as such. I certainly didn't.
RichLB wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:56 amThe term focuses on race, not behavior.
Respectfully, I will therefore ask with particular reference to my longer post. If your preference is to enjoy the company of Thai guys - or even Asian guys in general, would you be perfectly content spending the night with a Pakistani, a guy from the Congo or an Inuit from Alaska? For the purpose of discussion, let's leave religion totally aside. If you do care with whom you spend the night and there is even one of that group that you would not wish as a bed partner, is that not racist?
I'm merely interested in where the definition of racism begins. I believe I gave several examples of terms which at one time were racist but are no longer. There are many others.
The article referred to the offenders as "young Arab nationals, not "camel jockeys", which, as GB posted, is a derogatory term. Perhaps not overtly racist, but unflattering, unkind, or demeaning.
RichLB wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:56 am
Of course using the term "camel jockeys" is racist. The term focuses on race, not behavior.
If people were trying to brand everyone from Middle Eastern countries that way, I would agree. But this is about the behavior of this specific group of people who come to Pattaya and behave that way. I see nothing racist about that. Perhaps it would be more politically correct to instead of referring to the motorbike maniacs as camel jockeys, referring to them as assholes, scumbags, and cunts. That would suit me just fine - and then those who are offended by referring to them as camel jockeys wouldn't even have to consider racism figuring into it . . .
In my view the term is racist. However, I recall that there was a member who systematically posted bluntly anti-semitic messages on this and other gay message boards and it was generally considered to be O'K. He has now gone from this message board. Bucknaway is a veteran poster on gay message boards. However, I would not recall he ever complained about that particular poster. If someone is pretended to be anti-racist, I would expect some consistency. In the end of the day it is up to Administrator of a private message board to decide what is appropriate and what is not.
I personally think that Political Correctness is not always good thing.
