With all due respect, Vie, I do not think that the issues that Thais are worried about are unimportant or trivial compared to my holiday plans. From what I understand from what I have read, they are very important and need to be resolved for a host of reasons. However, I do not think it appropriate that the country be shut off in this fashion as a means to an end, given the flighty and ambiguous political cause we seem to have in this case. There are ways to affect change that are productive, and there are ways that are not productive. I feel these actions are not productive.
I’m a big fan of Martin Luther King Junior, as well as his inspirational mentor, Gandhi. The work they have both done in promoting non-violent protest is to be commended for its scope even in 2008. I agree that there can be a productive type of tension produced in society and that it can be a tool for real change.
But there is more to it than mere non-violence (assuming that this action at the airports can be called non-violent). King Jr. and Gandhi both understood that the non-violence had to specifically target those systems and people that infringed on civil liberties, thus robbing those systems and people of their livelihood and legitimacy in various ways (sit-ins, marches, boycotts, etc.). This opened up the door for others to join in if they saw fit. This aspect is very important.
If the action unfairly targets others, or if the action becomes more important than the cause itself, the message could get lost in the fray, just as it has here. Both men warned that it was not only inappropriate and counter-productive to use non-violence without measuring the timing and the application of that non-violence, but that recklessly applying non-violence would ultimately fail.
Taking King Jr.’s bus boycott as an example, his message would have been lost had large crowds of people taken over bus stations as opposed to simply calling on people not to ride the bus. Had protesters blocked entrance to coffee shops as opposed to having a few members peacefully sit-in and simply order coffee, the message would have been lost. Therein lies the fundamental difference.
By taking the airports in this fashion, the entire message gets lost in the din of frustrations felt by others not in a position to do anything for the change desired. In fact, targeting the airports like this insures that the impact is scattered and not well thought out. It also removes objective observers as witnesses to the process because they are either stuck outside the country or desperately trying to get away by some other means.
You say that my economic considerations are a “loss of perspective”. I disagree. I think the loss is yours in this case. You may be able to turn a blind eye to your business losses and eat them long enough to stay afloat. I’m happy that you have that station in this crisis. But my friend who makes my suits is a man constantly looking for sales. He works very hard and I respect him for that. He needs his regular customers to keep him afloat, and he also needs to keep his walk-in business going as well. I imagine that this is even more true given the recession we are now “officially” in. I’ve referred him to many people and I planned to take some of his swatches back to three new customers here in China as well. This is outside the business I was planning to give him myself.
I understand that you would prefer people like me be respectful of the real issues for real Thais. Perhaps I could do that a bit more in this case. However, I am not a good enough person to be able to completely dislodge my frustration with this mess from my hope for a better life for Thais in the future, especially since I feel this action is way off the mark and stupidly planned (if planned at all). I wish I could be that resolute, but I am not. I suppose you could say that other foreigners understand this inherently where I fail. To be honest, I think a lot more people living outside Thailand (and maybe inside as well) think as I do, which does not bode well for my tailor friend in Bangkok, as well as many other businesses who will be left to remake Thailand’s image when the protesters leave or are forced to leave.
Now I am definitely in the political sphere. I’ll stop here.
Cheers!
I’m a big fan of Martin Luther King Junior, as well as his inspirational mentor, Gandhi. The work they have both done in promoting non-violent protest is to be commended for its scope even in 2008. I agree that there can be a productive type of tension produced in society and that it can be a tool for real change.
But there is more to it than mere non-violence (assuming that this action at the airports can be called non-violent). King Jr. and Gandhi both understood that the non-violence had to specifically target those systems and people that infringed on civil liberties, thus robbing those systems and people of their livelihood and legitimacy in various ways (sit-ins, marches, boycotts, etc.). This opened up the door for others to join in if they saw fit. This aspect is very important.
If the action unfairly targets others, or if the action becomes more important than the cause itself, the message could get lost in the fray, just as it has here. Both men warned that it was not only inappropriate and counter-productive to use non-violence without measuring the timing and the application of that non-violence, but that recklessly applying non-violence would ultimately fail.
Taking King Jr.’s bus boycott as an example, his message would have been lost had large crowds of people taken over bus stations as opposed to simply calling on people not to ride the bus. Had protesters blocked entrance to coffee shops as opposed to having a few members peacefully sit-in and simply order coffee, the message would have been lost. Therein lies the fundamental difference.
By taking the airports in this fashion, the entire message gets lost in the din of frustrations felt by others not in a position to do anything for the change desired. In fact, targeting the airports like this insures that the impact is scattered and not well thought out. It also removes objective observers as witnesses to the process because they are either stuck outside the country or desperately trying to get away by some other means.
You say that my economic considerations are a “loss of perspective”. I disagree. I think the loss is yours in this case. You may be able to turn a blind eye to your business losses and eat them long enough to stay afloat. I’m happy that you have that station in this crisis. But my friend who makes my suits is a man constantly looking for sales. He works very hard and I respect him for that. He needs his regular customers to keep him afloat, and he also needs to keep his walk-in business going as well. I imagine that this is even more true given the recession we are now “officially” in. I’ve referred him to many people and I planned to take some of his swatches back to three new customers here in China as well. This is outside the business I was planning to give him myself.
I understand that you would prefer people like me be respectful of the real issues for real Thais. Perhaps I could do that a bit more in this case. However, I am not a good enough person to be able to completely dislodge my frustration with this mess from my hope for a better life for Thais in the future, especially since I feel this action is way off the mark and stupidly planned (if planned at all). I wish I could be that resolute, but I am not. I suppose you could say that other foreigners understand this inherently where I fail. To be honest, I think a lot more people living outside Thailand (and maybe inside as well) think as I do, which does not bode well for my tailor friend in Bangkok, as well as many other businesses who will be left to remake Thailand’s image when the protesters leave or are forced to leave.
Now I am definitely in the political sphere. I’ll stop here.
Cheers!
