Luckily Dave realised that the roads of London were not paved in gold, but chewing gum and dogshit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/weekinreview/16fuller.html?ref=global-home
I love Thailand. I've visited, driven around, been harassed by strange tour guides and people who notice I'm not Thai enough times to have built a relatively deep connection with the place. I've also never in my (admittedly short and inconsequential) life associated it with civil war.
Bangkok especially will always be a giant tourist trap. It's gaudy and noisy and oh, so busy but IT NEVER HAD LARGE-SCALE VIOLENCE BETWEEN DISSIDENTS AND THE GOVERNMENT. Not when I was there, anyway.
The consequence is that I've only barely managed to wrap my mind around the idea of a country that I associate with the 'I DARE YOU TO EAT THE FRIED LOCUSTS!' game with my dad has descended into a CIVIL war. Not a terrorist conflict as is (depressingly) normal in large, metropolitan cities. This is a conflict that has been planned and engineered by citizens of the country who are so angry with their government that they are willing to risk their lives and take the streets. The impetus to do this comes from about 50 years of bad blood between the government and the poorer people but it's still extremely bewildering.
The problem here is that, unlike the revolutions (and I'm arguing that this is a revolution because there is a violent conflict trying to overthrow a government) in China, Russia and France (the one with Antoinette), there is a sizeable middle class. In the cases of the successful revolutions, the lack of a middle class was relatively paramount in helping the huge urban classes decimate the bourgeoisie. In this case, it's much more likely to swing the way of Paris in 1968 where the middle class were unwilling to change or didn't see the problems of the students/unionists as their own, and this invariably led to the end of the revolution.
Yesterday, the army was told that they were allowed to shoot on sight in certain areas of Bangkok. The areas in question are the main commercial districts. The Red shirts don't seem to be suffering from fatigue and the government (and army) just seem eager to wipe out this bit of dissent as soon as possible.
We'll see, I suppose. Although, I'd prefer if what we see involves fewer bodies and a change in policies. That is, however, wishful bloody thinking at this point.
In (completely related) news, my new favourite curse is 'May you live in bewildering times.'
I love Thailand. I've visited, driven around, been harassed by strange tour guides and people who notice I'm not Thai enough times to have built a relatively deep connection with the place. I've also never in my (admittedly short and inconsequential) life associated it with civil war.
Bangkok especially will always be a giant tourist trap. It's gaudy and noisy and oh, so busy but IT NEVER HAD LARGE-SCALE VIOLENCE BETWEEN DISSIDENTS AND THE GOVERNMENT. Not when I was there, anyway.
The consequence is that I've only barely managed to wrap my mind around the idea of a country that I associate with the 'I DARE YOU TO EAT THE FRIED LOCUSTS!' game with my dad has descended into a CIVIL war. Not a terrorist conflict as is (depressingly) normal in large, metropolitan cities. This is a conflict that has been planned and engineered by citizens of the country who are so angry with their government that they are willing to risk their lives and take the streets. The impetus to do this comes from about 50 years of bad blood between the government and the poorer people but it's still extremely bewildering.
The problem here is that, unlike the revolutions (and I'm arguing that this is a revolution because there is a violent conflict trying to overthrow a government) in China, Russia and France (the one with Antoinette), there is a sizeable middle class. In the cases of the successful revolutions, the lack of a middle class was relatively paramount in helping the huge urban classes decimate the bourgeoisie. In this case, it's much more likely to swing the way of Paris in 1968 where the middle class were unwilling to change or didn't see the problems of the students/unionists as their own, and this invariably led to the end of the revolution.
Yesterday, the army was told that they were allowed to shoot on sight in certain areas of Bangkok. The areas in question are the main commercial districts. The Red shirts don't seem to be suffering from fatigue and the government (and army) just seem eager to wipe out this bit of dissent as soon as possible.
We'll see, I suppose. Although, I'd prefer if what we see involves fewer bodies and a change in policies. That is, however, wishful bloody thinking at this point.
In (completely related) news, my new favourite curse is 'May you live in bewildering times.'