I see that you use my picture without linking to my site or attributing me in any other way, could you please take down the pic or stat linking to me and attributing me in a proper manner?

regards
Ulrik F. Thyve

First off, you cannot really compare Indonesia with Thailand, even if they are close on the map.
Culturally, Thailand belongs in a group with Burma, Laos and Cambodia, as “Indianized Buddhist South-East Asian” cultures.
Indonesia, on the other hand, is an Islamized Asian state, which brings about a very different set of cultural factors. (Consider that there have been — and still are — pogroms of Christians as well in Indonesia…)

So there is no such sectarianism as you describe in Thailand.
There have been periods of tensions between ethnic Thais and the Chinese minority in the last century, but never to the point of there being pogroms.
In any case, measures to assimilate the Chinese into the Thai majority ended up easing the tensions.
Nowadays, most Chinese will as heartily declare themselves Thais as they will Chinese ; and so will the ethnic Thais when talking about them.

More info here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Chinese

This being said, everywhere in Asia the Chinese are described as the “Jews of Asia”, because they hold economic power in almost every walks of life. Saying that you are “going to the Chinese” in any Thai village means going to the shop.
In Thailand though, as in Cambodia (my M.a. topic), measures to promote business ownership among ethnic Thais and Khmers have largely failed : Both because the latter have not traditionally been interested in doing business, which they culturally regard as base, and because people have preferred doing business with the Chinese, as they have always done.

So even though they might be considered the “Jews of Asia”, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are resented for it (or not in the Western sense).
To the contrary, for a Thai or a Khmer, marrying into a Chinese family is considered going up in social status and a guaranty of material comfort. And the Thais as the Khmer will usually boast about having Chinese blood, as that is considered a sign of business acumen.

Acajack: How does the survey explain that Canadians identify more with hockey and beavers than do Quebeckers?

I am afraid that the couteau sur la gorge strategy works, but will never earn true respect. For that I fear the only way will be to kick some ass and violate some civil rights. Take up the role model of the British Empire.

John: yum.

Um, no. Interesting read actually, but I’m pretty sure it was before that. 2002-2004ish.

Identity in the TimBit. :P I prefer the apple and blueberry fritters. Quickly microwaved and a cup of tea.

If this means that francophones can only get respect for their language from non-francophones using knife at the throat-type means (PQ governments, separatist/referendum threats, being jerks, causing a scene, etc.), then I think I am even more depressed about things.

This is exactly what I was referring to when I talking about a “sea-change” in a message a few days.

Looks like we are headed for the 1970s all over again.

Link: http://www.dominion.ca/Canada_Day_Survey_2007.pdf

Isn’t it possible to require access in French for all aspects of society and business without banning or diminishing other languages?

In a perfect world, yes. But the world is far from perfect.

but then didn’t it go too far by banning other languages?

The problem is we’re trying to safeguard our culture and language from people (the English) who exclusively play by their own rules and nothing else because they don’t have the capacity to do otherwise. And yes it’s too bad that others get tarred with the same brush, but it takes one bad actor to ruin it for everyone.

Remember: the English were the ones who managed to pit the Italians against the French 40 years ago.

Do you mind if we just call you Bruce? It would make things easier.

A stupid statement if I ever heard one.

I don’t know if you’ve travelled a bit. I have. I think I can safely say that Quebec ranks way high in terms of being a welcoming, open and inclusive society.
Yet that can’t seem to beat the convenience of just going for English…
In short, we have tried what you suggest, and it doesn’t work.

On the other hand, I have been in societies that are much more restrictive on issues of immigrants’ and minorities’ integration.
Long ago, I wrote a long post comparing the situation of the Chinese minority in Thailand to that of the English one here.
–Demographically, roughly the same situation : the Chinese constitute half of the capital, Bangkok; the rest are scattered in the countryside. They have traditionally held economic power, while the Thais have occupied the govt. and the clergy. The Chinese also speak the region’s superpower’s language, which is also one of the most widespread.

A big difference : They all go to Thai school, learn Thai history, and are taught that they are Thai citizens.

As a result, without having lost their Chinese culture (food, music, religion, customs, etc.), they share Thai culture with the Thai majority. I.e., for them, being a “Chinese-Thai” actually means being both : Not simply being a Chinese residing on Thai soil.

But then you say, “come, join us, participate with the rest of us”. In what? Naturally you can’t live here without participating in building the society. We all do this by default. Anglos are not gremlins trying to tear the society apart grommet by grommet — they’re just trying to live their lives as you propose. So, do you propose that Anglos participate in the advancement of policies that are clearly not in their own interests. What specifically do you mean by “participate with the rest of us”? and is it not already the case that they participate?

The Anglos are perhaps stuck in a defensive mode which makes them seem destructive rather than constructive, but what have you proposed that would help them abandon this defensive mode rather than hunker down for the coming onslaught of new restrictions. You can’t build a dam to protect against the coming flood, without directing the damage somewhere else.

For me the best solution is to be proactive in building the most appealing, inclusive, and WELCOMING Francophone society possible so that everyone will, given the choice, actually want to join you, to benefit from what you have created. I think this is what Quebec has, to a great extent, achieved in recent decades, but every time the griffon of nationalism flashes its teeth, those who have been inspired with the desire to “join in” get scared that they will be denied the full benefits of the new society. (The clearest example of course is the laws that don’t just promote French but forbid the alternatives).

Perhaps it is true that the only way to make full participation in Quebec society attractive to all comers is to remove the eternal option of just being a Canadian who happens to live in Quebec. But in this case if an inclusive, welcoming society is not what replaces the former being-part-of-Canada-is-enough option, then the cure will be worse than the disease.