Historian Wants Country Called ' Siam'

[george]

Historian wants country called 'Siam'

BANGKOK: -- A historian of Southeast Asian studies has launched a "Siam not Thailand" campaigning, urging constitution drafters to revert to the name used in the Kingdom's first constitution.

"People who have been part of our country have different ethnic, linguistic and cultural identities. Therefore, to reflect historical fact and the present reality, the name of the country should be Siam, not Thailand," historian Charnvit Kasetsiri wrote in an open letter issued yesterday.

The country's first constitution, promulgated in 1932, used Siam as the country's name, but in 1939 Prime Minister Field Marshal Phibul changed this to Thailand "for racist reasons", Charnvit said.

"The government deems it is appropriate following the new fashion to change the name of our country to fit the race and the liking of the people," said the government statement in 1939.

The name "Thailand" does not fit with historical or present facts as there are more than 40 ethnic groups in the country, including Chinese, Tai, Hmong, Akha, Karen, Laotians, Khmer and Mon, said Charnvit, a senior advisor and lecturer at Thammasat University's Southeast Asian Studies Programme.

Constitution drafters discussed the issue of renaming the Kingdom in 1949 and 1968.

"To reflect the reality about races, languages and cultural identities, the 2007 constitution should make Siam the official name of the country in order to promote reconciliation and acceptance of ethnic and cultural diversities, as well as for the benefit of the country and its people," Charnvit said.

The historian asked people who agreed with his proposal to write to the constitution drafters and concerned parties.

--The Nation 2007-04-03

[lannarebirth]

I think I love this idea, though to be honest if it had been raised by one of the junta generals I'd be thinking shades of "Burma/Myanmar".

[ourmanflint]

Siam was the name we British gave to an unwilling Thailand..

It does sound more romantic for want of a better description, but I think it is inappropriate.

[meadish_sweetball]

It's just a word after all. Further, a name change would cost a lot of money. (new official documents, coins, notes etc. etc.)

The Northern Thais (khon muang) use 'khon sayaam' (Siamese) to refer to the Central Thais and do not feel the word includes themselves... so either way the label will be somewhat exclusive.

The inclusiveness thought is good, but the name change should not be highest on the priority list IMO.

[lannarebirth]

Siam was the name we British gave to an unwilling Thailand..

It does sound more romantic for want of a better description, but I think it is inappropriate.

I didn't realize that. I had thought Siam was derived from Sayam, the name the Chinese gave the region.

[Scott]

Good idea, this is the most important aspect for the charter. Now, they need a committee to change the spelling! Howabout Siami, Saim or Saeimi or.....

[Payboy]

whatever will happen to muay thai, phat thai and prik thai?

[gummy]

Now how about asking the Thais with a referendum what they would like their country called ? Apart from that and the reference to Burma/Mynamar there are are places/countries that have changed their names such as Bombay, Calcutta etc so it appears to be the latest trend ! For me I always considered Siam to sound "softer". Also people could perhaps spell it correctly unlike some other countries

Edited April 3, 2007 by gummy

[Xangsamhua]

The Northeastern (Lao-speaking) provinces, Lanna/Prayap/Chiangmai and Pattani (incl Yala and Narathiwat) were all conquered by and incorporated into "Siam". "Thai", as in Thailand, is a neutral term referring to any individual who belongs to a political or geographical entity - an inhabitant. One can refer to some one as Thai Korat, Thai Vientiane, Thai Chiangrai or whatever. It also connotes a free person. Hence, the name Thailand has the connotation "land of the free". It seems the historian, Dr Charnvit, objects to the name because of its association with Field Marshal Phibul and his motives. The motives may well have been chauvinistic and racist, but the name Thailand seems a fair and reasonable one to me. Siam seems more restricted and anachronistic. While there's nothing wrong with it, it reflects an earlier age.

[Plus]

the 2007 constitution should make Siam the official name of the country in order to promote reconciliation and acceptance of ethnic and cultural diversities,

I know a man who repainted his fifteen year old pickup truck from white to blue to improve his fortune. Surprisingly it didn't work.

[wpcoe]

So, what's the consensus here on the proper pronunciation of "Siam"?

see-AHM ?

SIE-am? (I mean SIE pronounced like the English word "sigh")

or something else?

[Laulen]

This idea is just silly! Romantic though it seems, 'Siam' has not been officially used for nearly two generations of people.

I also note that other 'ethnic' groupings living in Thailand include those euphemistically referred to as 'farang', all too often used as a lazy way to describe anyone 'white'.

May be the now-discredited Field Marshal Phibul was more perceptive of Thai sensiblities, hence 'Thailand' the 'Land of the Free', than history would now have us judge him.

[meadish_sweetball]

I don't think there is a consensus.

The Thais pronounce it 'sa-yaam' (rising tone on the second syllable). Swedes would say 'SEE-umm'.

Most English people seem to say 'sigh-AM', but I have also heard 'SIGH-am'.

[phazey]

Would they be renaming the cat also ?

[astral]

Would they be renaming the cat also ?

Why not??

It is conjoined twins now................

[Tarragona]

Well worth a look is Sujit Wongtet's book คนไทยมาจากไหน. It has a very full discussion of the origins of the words "Siam" and "Thai" and different ethnic groups within SE Asia and China. It really is a fascinating read.

[Johpa]

The Northern Thais (khon muang) use 'khon sayaam' (Siamese) to refer to the Central Thais and do not feel the word includes themselves... so either way the label will be somewhat exclusive.

The Northern Thai I know refer to Central Thai folks as Khon Thai and to themselves as Khon Muang. On a national level that they may see themselves as Khon Thai, but in everyday speech the term, or at least it use to, referred to others from Central Thailand who were not Khon Muang.

[ourmanflint]

I've been looking for the reference, but I seem to remember that Siam was the name the Burmese had for Thailand (Siam, "the land of the White Elephant"), and when signing some treaty or other the British used it to refer to "Thailand", or Muang Thai which it was then called by its Thai inhabitants.

Edited April 4, 2007 by ourmanflint

[sabaijai]

What's in a name?

Historian Charnvit Kasetsiri explains why he believes changing the country's name back to Siam will promote unity and reconciliation.

By: Surasak Tumcharoen

Published: 17/05/2009 at 12:00 AM

Newspaper section: News

Prominent historian Charnvit Kasetsiri recently lodged a petition with Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and the reconciliation and political reform committee calling for the country's name to be changed from Thailand back to Siam.

The former rector of Thammasat University and founder of its Southeast Asia Studies Project said the charter should be amended from the "Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand" to read either the "Constitution of the Kingdom of Siam" or the "Constitution of Siam", in order to promote "unity", "harmony" and "reconciliation".

The academic said renaming the country would be the first step to reconciling political and social ills in a country of 60 million people which included more than 50 ethnic groups.

Q: Everybody knows this country had been called Siam since the Ayutthaya era. Why was it renamed as Thailand 70 years ago?

A: That was in 1939, the year that World War Two started. The world had cringed at the rise of Adolf Hitler's nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy and Japan. In this country, the military-led government of then-premier Field Marshal Phibulsongkhram (Por) had been considerably influenced by ultra-nationalism which only imitated the powerful nazism and fascism overseas. Siam was renamed as Thailand on the spur of the moment when Field Marshal Por's government was evidently taking sides with the Axis forces during the early years of World War Two.

The ultra-nationalism in Europe and Japan apparently prompted Field Marshal Por's government to take for granted that this country needed some kind of military authoritarianism in times of war. Luang Vichit Vathakarn, then head of the Fine Arts Department, coined the new name for the country on the basis of ethnicity, undoubtedly because the Thai race was the ruling class of a mixed-up society.

The petition is primarily aimed to promote harmony and reconciliation in the country where more than 50 ethnic groups with their distinctive languages reside, including Thai, Yuan, Lao, Lue, Malayu, Mon, Khmer, Teochiu, Cantonese, Hokkien, Hainan, Hakka, Cham, Sakai, Tamil, Pathan, Persian, Arab, Phuan, Tai Yai, Phu Tai, Yong, Hmong, Karen, Museur and farang, etc.

cont'd here

-- Bangkok Post 2009-05-17

[sabaijai]

I've been looking for the reference, but I seem to remember that Siam was the name the Burmese had for Thailand (Siam, "the land of the White Elephant"), and when signing some treaty or other the British used it to refer to "Thailand", or Muang Thai which it was then called by its Thai inhabitants.

The central part of Thailand was called Siam well before the British arrived. It's not related to Myanmar language but appears to be of Mon/Khmer origin. According to Prof Charnvit, 'Siam; derives from the archaic word 'sam,' which means 'arable land.' In Myanmar it's 'shan,', which is how the Tai Yai came to be known as Shan to English speakers.

The change to 'Thailand' also had nothing to do with the British or any treaty, but was a unilateral change made under the 1940s Phibun Songkhram regime.

A 1686 French map:

[sabaijai]

It's just a word after all. Further, a name change would cost a lot of money. (new official documents, coins, notes etc. etc.)

The Northern Thais (khon muang) use 'khon sayaam' (Siamese) to refer to the Central Thais and do not feel the word includes themselves... so either way the label will be somewhat exclusive.

The inclusiveness thought is good, but the name change should not be highest on the priority list IMO.

Yes, there is definitely an ethnic connotation to 'Thai' that is still borne out in everyday conversation here. What Prof Charnvit says about southern Thais of Malay descent or part Malay descent is true. They usually refer to Thais who are Buddhist as thai and to themselves as well as other Thai Muslims of Malay descent as khaek. You hear this even among Thai Muslims born and raised in Bangkok and Minburi.

Another interesting bit of trivia is that the Lao refer to themselves as 'Thai' when speaking of regions within their own country, ie thai neua, thai klang and thai tai. It's even written in modern Lao schoolbooks that way. No yaw yak on 'thai' however.

Dutch, Portuguese, French and Chinese powers knew the kingdom of Ayuthaya as 'Siam,' 'Siem,' 'Sayam,' etc.

However I have more often heard northern Thais refer to central Thais, including Bangkokians, as khon tai (southerners), than as khon sayaam.

[webfact]

Its maybe worth to think about. Lets do some mathematics.

It was renamed in 1939 from Siam to Thailand.

People born in that year are now 70 years old. Folks born under the country name Siam

are 71+++ years old. How many percent out of a population of 65 millions are in this age?

But I got the feeling someone is trying to play the national card again like a well known political party did

not so long ago... Folks born after 1939 were born in Thailand.

Q: Hi, where do you come from?

A: I am from Siam. I am Thai

[cmsally]

Great: for years I have been trying to tell my more archaic relations that I live in Thailand and not Siam. Now when they are getting the hang of it, I have to try and reeducate them back again.

[animatic]

Never seen any Thaiamese twins... out here in the Bay of Thaiam

Edited May 17, 2009 by animatic

[Jimjim]

I realize the post was made two years ago but England did NOT give Thailand the name "Siam."

[webfact]

According to Wikipedia

Thailand

The word Thai (ไทย) is not, as is commonly believed, derived from the word thai (ไท) meaning "freedom" in the Thai language; it is, however, the name of an ethnic group from the central plains. With that in mind the locals seemed to have also accepted the alternative meaning and will verbally state that it means "Land of the free". This might be due to language barriers and the avoidance of long difficult explanations.

* Siam (former name): The Thai people called their land by this name from the Sukhothai period. It became the name of the country from the reign of King Rama VI or King Chulalongkorn. The name was changed to "Thailand" in the reign of King Rama VII (1925–1935) by the government of Siam at that time. The word "Siam" is probably derived from the Pāli toponym Suvarnabhumi "Land of Gold", the ultimate root being the Pāli root sama which variously denoted different shades of color, most often brown or yellow, but sometimes green or black.

Link to Source