Siam Not Thailand T-shirt

[sabaijai]

Anyone seen one of these t-shirts around?

http://textbooksproject.com/SIAMTshirt.htm

[WujouMao]

no, i havent seen one of them before, but what do you mean by when you say Siam isnt Thailand t-shirt? are they made in Nepal or something?

Edited August 16, 2008 by WujouMao

[CSS]

no, i havent seen one of them before, but what do you mean by when you say Siam isnt Thailand t-shirt? are they made in Nepal or something?

It's a t-shirt promoting the return to calling the country Siam, and not Thailand. It says that calling the country Siam is more inclusive of all ethnic and minority groups living within Thailand.

[Jingthing]

no, i havent seen one of them before, but what do you mean by when you say Siam isnt Thailand t-shirt? are they made in Nepal or something?

It's a t-shirt promoting the return to calling the country Siam, and not Thailand. It says that calling the country Siam is more inclusive of all ethnic and minority groups living within Thailand.

Alternatively, its more conservative, traditional, and royalist to call it Siam.

[Groongthep]

It's going to take a while before I can make up my mind on whether this is a good idea or not. If the average Thai agrees that the old name Siam is indeed more inclusive of all ethnic and minority groups living within Thailand, then I say it's good. Something tells me though that Jingthing is right and a whole lot of people will feel that it's more royalist and exclusive of groups outside of Central Thailand.

[Jingthing]

My impression over the years is the forces pushing most heavily to change the name back to Siam are more of the right wing flavor. Politics aside, I find the name Siam much more evocative. I mean LAND isn't even a Thai word; one wonders what they were thinking. Then there are those who claim that Thailand means land of the free, not land of the Thais. Go figure. In any case, I don't expect the name to change again, so this is academic.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Jingthing

[rak sa_ngop]

First the Thais will have to learn to start calling Myanmar - Myanmar and not Burma.

[Rikker]

Siam isn't a Thai word, either. Several origins have been proposed, but the etymology of the word remains uncertain. It's of foreign origin, though. Most recently, Michael Wright proposed that it is a corruption of Suwannaphum, and had some textual evidence to support that claim.

But yeah. "Thailand" was chosen during the hyper-nationalistic Phibunsongkhram government to establish the supremacy of the Thai race, in a time when the number of Chinese immigrants in Bangkok and nearby areas was becoming quite significant. This was at the same time that other anti-Chinese laws were being passed, such as forcing Chinese schools that taught immigrant Chinese children in Chinese to either switch to Thai instruction or shut down, levying unfair taxes against Chinese businesses, state takeover of businesses dominated by the Chinese, etc. etc.

The effort was successful, in that it forced the Chinese to assimilate. Today virtually every Bangkok native has some Chinese ancestry, but they still identify as Thai.

I'm on the fence about this one.

Edited August 17, 2008 by Rikker

[WujouMao]

First the Thais will have to learn to start calling Myanmar - Myanmar and not Burma.

UK call Burma by its old name, so Thailand isnt the only one. most countires in asia reconise the junta of burma except for the burmese folks who work at irrawaddy.org in Chiang Mai

as for the old name of Thailand, i prefur the name Siam, afterall, you still have Siam Bank in Thailand right?

Edited August 17, 2008 by WujouMao

[CSS]

First the Thais will have to learn to start calling Myanmar - Myanmar and not Burma.

UK call Burma by its old name, so Thailand isnt the only one. most countires in asia reconise the junta of burma except for the burmese folks who work at irrawaddy.org in Chiang Mai

as for the old name of Thailand, i prefur the name Siam, afterall, you still have Siam Bank in Thailand right?

The US also does not recognize the name change to Myanmar but continues with Burma.

[mangkorn]

as for the old name of Thailand, i prefur the name Siam, afterall, you still have Siam Bank in Thailand right?

Actually, no. Siam Commercial Bank is an English translation, and only foreigners call it that - or bank employees when talking to foreigners. In Thai, it is called "Thanakan Thai Phanit" (a transcription, no Thai script on this computer), which would translate literally as Thai Commercial Bank. And even though it is a bank that is closely tied to the monarchy, it doesn't use the name "Sa-yaam" - in Thai.

As for Burma, or "Bama" - it's not just a few people in Chiang Mai who prefer the old name. Many people inside the country, perhaps even the majority, have not embraced "Myanmar" willingly, because that is associated with the junta.

Rikker: is Thai an ethno-linguistic group? I thought that would be Tai, which is a bit different, no?

In any event, the word "Thai" meaning Thai people, country, etc., is also written differently in Thai than the word meaning "free."

But as jingthing says, it's academic.

[Rikker]

Mangkorn, the history of the name of Siam Commercial Bank is a bit more complicated than that.

The original name when it was started in 1906 as Thailand's first local commercial bank was บริษัท แบงค์สยามกัมมาจล ทุนจำกัด. Here, กัมมาจล is a "false" Indic word that simply mimics the rough sound of the English word "commercial".

The name was changed in 1939, during the Phibunsongkhram government, the same year that Siam became Thailand. Several organization using the name Siam, including the Siam Society, had name changes forced upon them during this time. Some of these organizations (such as the Siam Society) reverted after Phibunsongkhram was ousted (the first time). In the case of Siam Commercial Bank, only the English name reverted, in 1946.

The inventor of the new Thai name, ธนาคารไทยพาณิชย์, was Prince Wan Waithayakorn, who points out in an article I've read of his that when you actually interpret กัมมาจล, it means something negative (I'll have to check a book I have to confirm precisely what he says the meaning would be).

Edited August 18, 2008 by Rikker

[mangkorn]

Thanks for that, Rikker. As ever, you are a fount of relevant historical references.

[Richard W]

Is Thai an ethno-linguistic group? I thought that would be Tai, which is a bit different, no?

No. Etymologically, they're the same word. It's a useful written distinction for linguists, who also make the distinction between the overall group and one specific dialect be using 'Siamese' for Standard Thai. The ethnonym is Tai except in Central Thai, Southern Thai, Northeastern Thai and Lao, and a few groups geographically close to them. This ethnonym is not used by the Northern Tai (not to be confused with the Northern Thai or with the Tai Nuea - a.k.a. Chinese Shan or Tai Le).

[CSS]

Is Thai an ethno-linguistic group? I thought that would be Tai, which is a bit different, no?

No. Etymologically, they're the same word. It's a useful written distinction for linguists, who also make the distinction between the overall group and one specific dialect be using 'Siamese' for Standard Thai. The ethnonym is Tai except in Central Thai, Southern Thai, Northeastern Thai and Lao, and a few groups geographically close to them. This ethnonym is not used by the Northern Tai (not to be confused with the Northern Thai or with the Tai Nuea - a.k.a. Chinese Shan or Tai Le).

I have a question. The residents of Thailand are obviously called คนไทย was this even the case while the country was สยาม? Or were they คนสยาม. If the name were to be changed to Siam do you think Thais would begin referring to themselves as คนสยาม?

[DavidHouston]

The following is from "Thailand, A Short History", David K Wyatt, First edition, Yale University Press, 1982; Second Edition, Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai, 2003, pages 40 – 41:

". . . . Their experience in the relatively more developed, complex, sophisticated environment shaped by centuries of Angkorean Khmer rule and influence gave this Tai elite of the Chaophraya valley and the upper peninsula a distinctive culture, different in some critical respects from that of their cousins to the north who ultimately became known as Lao or Shans. They seem to have been accustomed to relatively more complex, hierarchical social and political organization than the Tai Yuan or Lao. To their native animistic religion, they added a considerable body of Indian Brahmanical beliefs and practices, particularly associated with the rituals of rites of passage and domestic crises. These Tai – who may have had Mon or Khmer origins – historically have been referred to as Siamese, a local variant on the word Syam of the Cham, Khmer, and Pagan inscriptions. The term takes on political significance when one of their states, Sukhothai, is referred to in Chinese sources toward the end of the thirteenth century as Siem, that is, Siam."

Thus, Wyatt seems to give the thirteenth century (C.E.) as the period during which the Sukhothai kingdom was referred to as "Siam".

See, also, "A History of Thailand", Chris Baker and Paasuk Phongpaichit, Cambridge University Press, 2005, page 8.

Edited August 23, 2008 by DavidHouston

[Johpa]

I think there have been several movements over the years, of varying political persuasions, that have attempted to latch onto the term 'Siam' in order to differentiate themselves from the status quo.

Amongst the rural Northern Thai (Khon Muang) with whom I have spent the bulk of my time when in-country, although all identify themselves politically as being Thai when the conversation revolves around politics and national identity, from an ethnic standpoint, when they refer to someone as being Thai in everyday conversation, it specifically refers to someone being from Central Thailand and a native speaker of Central Thai and not of Northern Thai or Lao/Isaan origin (southerners are few and far between up north). They are also aware of which family is of Chinese origin and William Skinner's thesis of assimilation simply does not hold up and begs the question as to which direction assimilation has taken place in Bangkok.

[mangkorn]

Amongst the rural Northern Thai (Khon Muang) with whom I have spent the bulk of my time when in-country, although all identify themselves politically as being Thai when the conversation revolves around politics and national identity, from an ethnic standpoint, when they refer to someone as being Thai in everyday conversation, it specifically refers to someone being from Central Thailand and a native speaker of Central Thai and not of Northern Thai or Lao/Isaan origin (southerners are few and far between up north).

The same seems to hold true in much of Isaan, where people regularly refer to themselves as Lao people. That has nothing to do with the modern country of Laos - but is their personal identity (ethno-linguistic); their national, political identity is Thai, of course. They don't have any problem reconciling the two kinds of identities. I think it is similarly the case of Isaan people whose heritage links to Khmer. Interestingly, I have spoken with more than a few people from Surin about the Phra Viharn dust-up, all of whom scoffed at any Thai claims to the temple. They were stating the case as a common-sense, historical fact, but also revealed a certain pride of heritage, as well.

Thai academics have long examined and debated the notion of what is "Thai" (similar to "who is a Jew") without consensus, because it not a race, but rather a national identity. And there's nothing wrong with that. Modern day Thailand, and especially Bangkok, is a melting pot of ethnicities. Even many Chinese/Thai families began with mixtures of Chinese men and Isaan women.

[Rikker]

I have a question. The residents of Thailand are obviously called คนไทย was this even the case while the country was สยาม? Or were they คนสยาม. If the name were to be changed to Siam do you think Thais would begin referring to themselves as คนสยาม?

Thai has been the name they called themselves for a long time. As Richard points out, ไทย ไท ไต are all regional variants of the some historical word. And as David points out, variations on the name we know today as Siam has been used by foreigners (Chinese, Khmer, etc.) for many centuries. Its precise origin is still unknown.

Most Thais are taught that it comes from a word meaning 'black' or 'dark' in Sanskrit, rendered in Thai as ศยาม. If I'm not mistaken, this theory became widespread and accepted as fact around the time of the name change from Siam to Thailand, as a way of legitimizing the name change by giving 'Siam' negative associations with the color black. I need to study this a bit more, though.

I think there have been several movements over the years, of varying political persuasions, that have attempted to latch onto the term 'Siam' in order to differentiate themselves from the status quo.

Amongst the rural Northern Thai (Khon Muang) with whom I have spent the bulk of my time when in-country, although all identify themselves politically as being Thai when the conversation revolves around politics and national identity, from an ethnic standpoint, when they refer to someone as being Thai in everyday conversation, it specifically refers to someone being from Central Thailand and a native speaker of Central Thai and not of Northern Thai or Lao/Isaan origin (southerners are few and far between up north). They are also aware of which family is of Chinese origin and William Skinner's thesis of assimilation simply does not hold up and begs the question as to which direction assimilation has taken place in Bangkok.

In Dr. Charnvit's case, his campaign seems to be a reaction to the abuse of concepts like ความเป็นไทย 'Thai-ness' to dominate minority groups. In other words, it's a reaction to the reason the name change was made in the first place--to assert the superiority of one ethnic group in the country over others. If you call the country after that ethnic group, then it's easy to stay on top. Asserting one's ethnic difference from the majority all of a sudden becomes disloyalty to the whole country. Think how it would be received if a public figure in Thailand asserted that they weren't Thai, due to their Chinese/Khmer/whatever ethnicity.

But as Jay recently pointed out in the Robertson thread, that's exactly what a lot of Thais think about Thailand's ethnic minorities. Like the southern Muslims--they're not Thai, they're Muslim! And in the south in particular, I'm sure they don't feel like they have much of that ความเป็นไทย.

I can appreciate the sentiment behind the movement. The name creates confusion between political identity and ethnic/ethno-linguistic identity. It's not going to go anywhere any time soon, though.

[mangkorn]

Like the southern Muslims--they're not Thai, they're Muslim!

Minor quibble: Muslim is not an ethnicity, it's a religion. One can certainly be Muslim and Thai at the same time, and consider oneself to be both (Gen. Sonthi, for example).

Iranians are Muslims, but they surely do not feel much kinship with Arabs, nor Malaysians, in fact.

The ethnic identification of the southerners in Yala, Pattani, Narathiwat, etc. is Malay, or perhaps even a sub-group of northern Melayu. I'm not certain if they prefer to call themselves Melayu, or Yawi (the language), or something else, but that is their political/national identification. Their Muslim identification is also a very powerful one, so it is true that in some contexts down there one will hear the distinction between "kon itsalam (Muslim)" and "kon phut (Buddhist)." But there are Muslim people living there who do consider themselves to be Thai, in some sense.

That said, I do agree that in the political "us vs. them" dichotomy, the "them" are "those Thais..."

Yet, "Thai" isn't really a specific ethnic group, being made up as they are of many ethnicities. Even the ones who may consider themselves to be the "most pure" have lots of mixed blood in their family trees (unless they are pure Chinese, in which case one wonders how that could make them "pure Thai"). Thus, from what some have have suggested, "Thai" may sometimes identify people from the central region, Bangkok especially - who only speak central Thai. But, not always...

It depends on whom is talking, and in what context. It does seem that "Thai" is more a matter of identity, than of bloodlines.

Cheers, and thanks all for the enlightening discussion.

[Groongthep]

Yet, "Thai" isn't really a specific ethnic group, being made up as they are of many ethnicities. Even the ones who may consider themselves to be the "most pure" have lots of mixed blood in their family trees (unless they are pure Chinese, in which case one wonders how that could make them "pure Thai"). Thus, from what some have have suggested, "Thai" may sometimes identify people from the central region, Bangkok especially - who only speak central Thai. But, not always...

It depends on whom is talking, and in what context. It does seem that "Thai" is more a matter of identity, than of bloodlines.

Cheers, and thanks all for the enlightening discussion.

This is an interesting subject. When speaking to Thais about their ethnic background I have heard more than a few times someone proudly pronounce "เป็นคนไทยหนึ่งร้อยเปอร์เฃ้นต์" or "I am Thai one hundred percent". I imagine some of you may have heard this statement before too. Being that the people whom I've heard it from were always middle to upper class Central (usually Bangkok) Thais I assumed it was a statement about bloodlines. Not until I heard the same statement from a young woman in Chiang Mai who worked as a hotel maid did it occur to me that it maybe, like mangkorn has said, it is a statement of nationalistic pride rather than ethnic heritage. There is a chance of course that the maid was from Central Thailand and had moved to Chiang Mai, I didn't ask. Nonetheless I can't help but get the feeling that those from Central Thailand with bloodlines having less Chinese blood and links to families who consider themselves descendants of older "Siamese" elite feel a bit of superiority above those who aren't.

Any comments or observations?

Edited August 24, 2008 by Groongthep

[mangkorn]

"Thailand" was chosen during the hyper-nationalistic Phibunsongkhram government to establish the supremacy of the Thai race, in a time when the number of Chinese immigrants in Bangkok and nearby areas was becoming quite significant. This was at the same time that other anti-Chinese laws were being passed, such as forcing Chinese schools that taught immigrant Chinese children in Chinese to either switch to Thai instruction or shut down, levying unfair taxes against Chinese businesses, state takeover of businesses dominated by the Chinese, etc. etc.

That is all true (except for Thai as a "race"). It is also true that Phibunsongkhram was Chinese, himself: he was a typical product of Chinese mixing with people who lived here before they arrived. Apparently, he chose not to identify himself as Chinese, or not as Chinese as others of his ilk - at least not outwardly. But I'll bet he followed a lot of Chinese customs in his own daily personal life, all the while proclaiming himself to be "100 percent Thai."

Seems to me, that invalidates the entire notion of Thai as a supposed "race." In fact, if one goes back far enough, most Thai people are actually descendants of people who came from what is now known as China. In any event, most people don't know their entire family tree. How important is it, anyway?

Some among the dominant political and economic class, based in central Thailand, may - or may not - have tried appropriate the name Thai for themselves, but that has nothing to do with ethnicity. "Thai" is not a race (in the same way that Latino is not a race).

Very often, the defining factor is language, which is an extremely important identity characteristic. It certainly seems to have been in the golden age of the part-Chinese Field Marshall...

In Central America, one readily sees a similar dynamic at work: who is latino/mestizo, and who is indigenous? That comes down to cultural identification, not one of DNA. Many pure indigenous have assimilated into and risen high in the dominant latino culture, and don't even speak the languages of their ancestors; by their "blood" they are indigenous, but by circumstance and/or choice, they no longer are, culturally. And plenty of mestizos insist to the high heavens that they are indigenous, and they do have some valid claims to that (even if the motive is mostly just to bed impressionable, young European tourists - believe me).

Personal identification is, well, a matter of personal identification.

I know a bit about this: Irish by blood; latino by culture and life's circumstance. I am whatever I believe I am - nothing more, nothing less...

Cheers.

Edited August 24, 2008 by mangkorn

[Rikker]

Like the southern Muslims--they're not Thai, they're Muslim!

Minor quibble: Muslim is not an ethnicity, it's a religion. One can certainly be Muslim and Thai at the same time, and consider oneself to be both (Gen. Sonthi, for example).

Your quibble is with the Thais--I was just parroting Jay_Jay's account of a high-up Thai official's response to the question 'Are southern Thais Thai?'

The point being that Thais waver between considering 'Thai' an ethnic group or national group. And that the Thais are confused about how to classify other ethnic/religious groups in Thailand. They have no idea how to reconcile an ethnically Malay, religiously Muslim minority.

Edited August 25, 2008 by Rikker

[Johpa]

Yet, "Thai" isn't really a specific ethnic group, being made up as they are of many ethnicities.

There are a few of us old school, pre-post-modernists (please don't deconstruct me), former anthropology students who might beg to differ and would argue that Thais, or more broadly Tais, are indeed a distinct ethnic group sharing closely related languages, related social structures, related beliefs, related cuisines, related dress, and even related architectures. Of course there have also been some historical divergences such as the various Tai languages, and different borrowings such as the Central Thais borrowing heavily from the classic Khmer Kingdoms, and some major assimilations from some indigenous folks who showed up in the region before the Tai migrations southwards such as the Mon.

But despite the co-mingling of some genes, there is certainly a Tai ethnicity underlining the majority of the population of Thailand, as well as Lao, not to mention the Dai of Yunnan Province. As to how this ethnic identity coalesces around a national identity, I highly recommend reading Southeast Asian scholar Benedict Anderson's classic book Imagined Communities.

[myauq]

Siam isn't a Thai word, either. Several origins have been proposed, but the etymology of the word remains uncertain. It's of foreign origin, though. Most recently, Michael Wright proposed that it is a corruption of Suwannaphum, and had some textual evidence to support that claim.

As for Burma, or "Bama" - it's not just a few people in Chiang Mai who prefer the old name. Many people inside the country, perhaps even the majority, have not embraced "Myanmar" willingly, because that is associated with the junta.

some great comments, and an interesting discussion here.

i'd just like to add my two kyats worth, and comment about the above statements.

firstly, despite the fact the myanmar government is bitterly hated by its citizens, i would say that most people have actually embraced the name 'myanmar', rather than 'burma'. i'm a burmese speaker, and i only find myself saying 'burma' when speaking english. 'myanmar' is a much older name and, like the term 'siam', is more inclusive of the country's ethnic diversity.

secondly, according to Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit's A History of Thailand, the name 'Siam' originates from the Chinese word for Ayutthaya, which is 'Xian'. when the Portugese came to trade in the nth[?] century, the name changed into the westernised word we know today as 'Siam'. This seems to be the most plausible explanation.

[phaethon]

The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office position on Burma/Myanmar is:

"Britain's policy is to refer to Burma rather than 'Myanmar'. The current regime changed the name to Myanmar in 1989. Burma's democracy movement prefers the form ‘Burma’ because they do not accept the legitimacy of the unelected military regime to change the official name of the country. Internationally, both names are recognised."

BTW is it See-yam as the BTS announcer would have it at Siam Square or Sai-am as the spelling (สยาม to my untutored, amateur eye) and Western habit ("The King and I") would have it?

K.

Edited September 15, 2008 by phaethon

[Rikker]

secondly, according to Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit's A History of Thailand, the name 'Siam' originates from the Chinese word for Ayutthaya, which is 'Xian'. when the Portugese came to trade in the nth[?] century, the name changed into the westernised word we know today as 'Siam'. This seems to be the most plausible explanation.

Maybe this thread is as good a thread as any to compile the various theories of the word's origin. Perhaps David could post (or summarize) the relatively recent article by Michael Wright making the case for Siam being a corruption of สุวรรณภูมิ. He had some textual evidence, but I need to go back and re-read his precise argument. Myauq, could you post the relevant passage from Baker?

[DavidHouston]

secondly, according to Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit's A History of Thailand, the name 'Siam' originates from the Chinese word for Ayutthaya, which is 'Xian'. when the Portugese came to trade in the nth[?] century, the name changed into the westernised word we know today as 'Siam'. This seems to be the most plausible explanation.

Maybe this thread is as good a thread as any to compile the various theories of the word's origin. Perhaps David could post (or summarize) the relatively recent article by Michael Wright making the case for Siam being a corruption of สุวรรณภูมิ. He had some textual evidence, but I need to go back and re-read his precise argument. Myauq, could you post the relevant passage from Baker?

I have a pdf file with Michael Wright's article in Thai. If anyone would like this article from Matichon Weekend, please send me your email address by PM.

[5tash]

Looking for the definition of "Siam" in www.sealang.net Khmer dictionary gives these results;

syaam

1. blue, sky blue. ETY; Sanskrit, syama 'black, dark blue.'

2. sky, cloud.

3. Siam, Thailand.

Does the etymology apply to all three entries, or just the first?

If it does apply to "Siam, Thailand", wouldn't Thai etymology follow the same route?

[myauq]

secondly, according to Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit's A History of Thailand, the name 'Siam' originates from the Chinese word for Ayutthaya, which is 'Xian'. when the Portugese came to trade in the nth[?] century, the name changed into the westernised word we know today as 'Siam'. This seems to be the most plausible explanation.

Maybe this thread is as good a thread as any to compile the various theories of the word's origin. Perhaps David could post (or summarize) the relatively recent article by Michael Wright making the case for Siam being a corruption of สุวรรณภูมิ. He had some textual evidence, but I need to go back and re-read his precise argument. Myauq, could you post the relevant passage from Baker?

it's from a section in the book which explans the way that areas in the region were divided up and ruled according to mueangs (the theory of this governmenance is described as 'emboxment' as i recall).

baker and phongpaichit's interpretation of the etymology makes sense because the Chinese word for Ayutthaya, 'Xian', is phonetically much closer to the English 'Siam'; and, given the scale of the research in the book about other elements of Thailand's history, i find it much more credible:

Another federation formed among port towns on the lower reaches of the rivers in the Chaophraya basin, and around the upper coasts of the gulf, especially four places which had been founded or refounded under Khmer influence around the eleventh century: Phetchaburi, Suphanburi, Lopburi and Ayutthaya. After a struggle between the ruling families of these places, Ayutthaya emerged as a dominant centre in the late fourteenth century. The Chinese called this region Xian, which the Portuguese converted into Siam (pg 8, Baker & Phongpaichit).