Would Thailand Really Have Been Changed By Colonialism?

[Tyke]

I have often heard that much of the unique culture and attraction of Thailand is partly due to it not having had a colonial history. But is this really the case? Would 100 years or so of European domination have changed the way Thailand now operates or the attitudes and way of life of Thais?

[Boksida]

Thailand has been colonised by Bangkok.

[imaneggspurt]

well apart from cambodia the others seemed to have benefited in one way or another,. but thank god it wont happen in my time

[Gumballl]

It is hard to say. I've never visited, but a good friend of mine who is from India does not choose favorable words when describing his homeland. He says it's replete with corruption, class divisions, pollution, over-population... Jeez, I can't recall if I am writing about Thailand or India? Oh yeah, India.

Anyhow, as an engineer and a "student" of thought, I am curious as to how Thailand designed its cities and roadways. Was Rice Whiskey served for breakfast before anyone started a day's work? I wish the US had designed the roadways here, similar to the western US... all in a grid, thus making things easy to find. I still cannot get over that I must travel 1/2 to 1Km past my destination, and then make a u-turn to come back. Please, if there are any Thais reading this post, please enlighten me. I understand BKK was once full of canals that were then converted to roads, but what about the rest of the country?

Edited September 19, 2008 by Gumballl

[Scott]

I once sat on a plane coming from the States next to a lovely young Thai student. She was warm, exhuberant and interesting. I remember her speaking rather loudly and unabashedly how sad it was that Thailand hadn't been colonized because the country would be so much better off now had they had the Western influences earlier on! I was as nervous as a whore in Church, since we were surrounded by Thai people! They didn't seem to impressed by her ideas.

In many ways the country would probably be better off, but in others it wouldn't. I think it would have been one giant trade off. As a foreigner, our lives would probably be a little easier and we would probably be able to get our heads around the Thai systems, at least of gov't, politics and law, but much of the mystique would probably be gone.

Globalization is basically doing the job of colonization anyway. The only difference is that globalization is likely to start, stop, go backwards, then forwards again for a long time.

[Tyke]

well apart from cambodia the others seemed to have benefited in one way or another,. but thank god it wont happen in my time

Burma?

[imaneggspurt]

well apart from cambodia the others seemed to have benefited in one way or another,. but thank god it wont happen in my time

Burma?

true, sorry ive never been and my comments were as seen,.

[Gumballl]

well apart from cambodia the others seemed to have benefited in one way or another,. but thank god it wont happen in my time

Burma?

And the US?

Edited September 19, 2008 by Gumballl

[h90]

Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia must be as rich or richer than Thailand if you look at the resources.

but in fact they aren't.

I don't know if that is because they were never colonised.

[robbiecia]

Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia must be as rich or richer than Thailand if you look at the resources.

but in fact they aren't.

I don't know if that is because they were never colonised.

Wow!!!!! I think i need to brush up on my history

Wasn't Burma and Malaysia colonized by the British.......Indonesia by the Dutch,.................cambodia by the french.............and the Philippines by just about everybody!!!!!!!

Correct me if i'm wrong

[Wrong Turn]

I have often heard that much of the unique culture and attraction of Thailand is partly due to it not having had a colonial history. But is this really the case? Would 100 years or so of European domination have changed the way Thailand now operates or the attitudes and way of life of Thais?

Colonization changes a nation in many ways IMO, depending on how long and deep it was. It changes culture, and sometimes political institutions.

I think colonization removes certain aspects of a cultures while adding elements of the foreign culture.

Nations would have been better off without it, in general.

But it also depends on what country. India is a huge country with an enormous population, while other nations are much smaller and have a different economy and geographical location.

So, I am glad Thailand was not colonized.

[teacup]

Any country that under occupation/or colonialism will definitely change.

To answer your question - under European colonization

We will probably see the spread of science and technology, modern form of education, democracy etc. by Europeans through colonization.

However these developments would have spread throughout the world anyway eventually but through being colonized at the early years, certainly/surely speeded things up.

And more of us would have be able to speak English much better than the current stage

However we do have the negative sides as well:

More often - none of the countries on the receiving end, especially the original inhabitants/locals certainly would have benefited anything much . Just look at those country in Africa, south america, or India for example - Thailand could be like that too

Look how much the European - like UK, Spain, or Portugal got quite wealthy, while the original inhabitants/locals certainly didn’t benefit much. Also look at how much natural resources had been sucked out from India, and many traditional local industries industry had been wiped out (ex. Silk weaving industry) though out the colonization period by the British. India used to have the glory days but not anymore thanks to the British colonization, and I think this could resemble what would have happen to Thailand also under the colonization by the European

Eventually we will see the fight against for Independence - with bloodshed? Don’t know

Just a short thought

Me think

I'm quite HAPPY that thailand was not colonized!!!!!

[maccaroni man]

Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia must be as rich or richer than Thailand if you look at the resources.

but in fact they aren't.

I don't know if that is because they were never colonised.

Indo was a Dutch colony until the end of wwII and it is rich, much richer than thailand gold, oil, exports etc....the basic problem there is corruption but during the Suharto leadership the quality of life and education for the average Indo thrived which for a population of more than 300million is saying something.

[jts-khorat]

It is true that Thailand de facto was never colonialized, however already with the arrival of the Dutch in the 1600s there was severe political influence and pressure, they were at that time regulars at the Thai court.

Both France (from the sides of Laos and Cambodia) and Britain (from the side of Malaysia) annexed large parts of the country in return for being officially independent. Phuket and its tin mining concessions was strictly controlled by British traders from neighboring Penang, later than Chinese merchant clans.

Not being colonialized is normally attributed to Thai cleverness by locals, but I would think that being a buffer state between the two super powers of late colonial times simply served their interests better; something not well received uttered aloud in a circle of Thai listeners.

How much influence there was in reality on a political level can only be guessed, but have a look how American policy controls a lot of the decisions made since the Vietnam War (eg drug laws, special trade rights, military presence).

Quickly you might get the idea that Thailand suffered all the drawbacks of colonialization, eg being kept back in an agricultural stage and no independent military history to form a proud national identity (the main moment in history is the sacking of Ayutthaya by the Burmese and their subsequent defeat -- heretics would say they got what they wanted and were not much interested later on -- owing much to the general xenophobia even in today's Thailand).

All those drawbacks came without having reaped many of the benefits, eg an ordered education system, knowledge transfer in the early industrial age, a standardized romanization of the alphabet, a high percentage of people fluent in a language other than Thai, etc.

[GuestHouse]

Thailand has been changed by Colonialism.

It's boundaries have been changed, its laws have been changed, it's trade and commerce has been changed, the self image of Thailand has changed and it's view of history has been changed to hide the truth of Colonialism and Thailand's history as a vassal state.

Edited September 19, 2008 by GuestHouse

[Tyke]

Although many people say Thailand would have been quite different today if it had been colonised yesterday, I tend to take the view that Thailand was not directly colonised because it was so united as a single ethnic population under a popular monarchy and a single religion that it would have been difficult to bring under the yolk of colonisation. Remember that European colonisers, particularly the British, did their colonising so well because they played one ethnic tribe or potentate off against another. They did not often invade a country, but first established trading posts then to increase influence they supported one local despot in fighting another. This 'divide and rule' tactic eventually led to their taking over the whole country.

In other words, Thailand was not colonised because it has a unique political, religious and ethnic composition, not the other way around.

[GuestHouse]

Not to mention the impact colonialism has had on Thai food.

[jts-khorat]

Although many people say Thailand would have been quite different today if it had been colonised yesterday, I tend to take the view that Thailand was not directly colonised because it was so united as a single ethnic population under a popular monarchy and a single religion that it would have been difficult to bring under the yolk of colonisation. Remember that European colonisers, particularly the British, did their colonising so well because they played one ethnic tribe or potentate off against another. They did not often invade a country, but first established trading posts then to increase influence they supported one local despot in fighting another. This 'divide and rule' tactic eventually led to their taking over the whole country.

In other words, Thailand was not colonised because it has a unique political, religious and ethnic composition, not the other way around.

Until the 1960, large parts of Isaan did not even use the Thai alphabet, but the Lao one. A hundred years ago in Isaan or the North nobody would have spoken Central Thai and believe me, in some of those provinces it literally is a different language. Large parts towards Cambodia at that time was deep jungle with mainly Khmer-speaking villages. The whole south of Thailand is Muslim, and a 100 years ago, partly with dialects completely different from Central Thai as well.

Ergo, your argument is not based on facts.

[Thaddeus]

It would have improved the quality of the bread.

[teacup]

and

It would have improved the quality of the farang pool in thailand

[Groongthep]

Would Thailand Really Have Been Changed By Colonialism?, Would it have been ruined or improved?

Such a hypothetical question can't really be answered. I'm sure the vast majority of Thais would certainly say they are better off having not been colonised. The Burmese however, would probably have liked to have kept Thailand had they not been thrown out. You could also ask, "Have Yala, Narathiwat, and Pattani been changed by Thai colonialism?, Have they been ruined or improved?" We can't go back in time; things are what they are. The only useful question is "What can we do to make things better?"

[Boater]

Just look at HK and Singapore !.. both rule by the british..

Now, if the British had ruled Phuket ( check the history books as they nearly did ) do you think Phuket would be a better place now..

For me Economically yes

[thai thai]

Thailand has been colonized by Chinese immigrants who now completely run the country...

[MEGALITHIC]

I have often heard that much of the unique culture and attraction of Thailand is partly due to it not having had a colonial history. But is this really the case? Would 100 years or so of European domination have changed the way Thailand now operates or the attitudes and way of life of Thais?

IMO it hasn't done Malaysia or Singapore any harm. The people in both of those countries seem to be more aware of the rest of the world than what the average Thai is. It's only when a Thai travels overseas that they learn that Thailand isn't the center of the universe.

There's positives and negatives for both sides of the argument. If the Brits had colonised Thailand then perhaps english would be more of a main stream language. How much would colonisation have diluted Thai culture? At the end of the day it didn't happen and I think, from my limited understanding of Thai history, the past rulers of Thailand were very clever in manouvering their way around colonisation.

Personally, I'm happy the place wasn't colonised. It's got it's own unique identity in the world.

[Cuban]

Is the question not academic, during the period in history when countries were being colonised the choice of which countries would be 'taken' by the European powers was based on the natural resources that each country had to 'offer', or it's location on the trade routes. Look at Singapore & Hong Kong mentioned above. Thailand was not spared because of it's mighty army but there was no one that wanted it for it's location or resources. I was unaware of the Tin in Phuket - but does that not show that what the country had to offer was taken (?) or sold. (Much as New Zealand was bought for some blankets and a few glass beads?)

Looking at those countries that were colonised, they do seem to have benifited from the step up offered in terms of technology and progress. However the colonised countries that suffered have a history of sticky fingers by those that are 'elected' and rule with their own and family's self interest at heart. Is that a lesson that Thailand has learnt yet?

Look at Rhodesia.

[Steve2UK]

Any country that under occupation/or colonialism will definitely change.

To answer your question - under European colonization

We will probably see the spread of science and technology, modern form of education, democracy etc. by Europeans through colonization.

However these developments would have spread throughout the world anyway eventually but through being colonized at the early years, certainly/surely speeded things up.

And more of us would have be able to speak English much better than the current stage

However we do have the negative sides as well:

More often - none of the countries on the receiving end, especially the original inhabitants/locals certainly would have benefited anything much . Just look at those country in Africa, south america, or India for example - Thailand could be like that too

Look how much the European - like UK, Spain, or Portugal got quite wealthy, while the original inhabitants/locals certainly didn’t benefit much. Also look at how much natural resources had been sucked out from India, and many traditional local industries industry had been wiped out (ex. Silk weaving industry) though out the colonization period by the British. India used to have the glory days but not anymore thanks to the British colonization, and I think this could resemble what would have happen to Thailand also under the colonization by the European

Eventually we will see the fight against for Independence - with bloodshed? Don’t know

Just a short thought

Me think

I'm quite HAPPY that thailand was not colonized!!!!!

Not to disagree with you entirely, but I remember watching an interview with a much-respected Indian professor at the time of India celebrating the 50th anniversary of its independence. He was asked for his opinion of the British raj and said: "Well now, they arrived here and stayed for a couple of centuries. In that time, they created a civil service and education system that still serve us well - and built a lot of railways. Then they left. You can't feel too badly about people like that". Of course, his comments were a bit "tongue in cheek" - but you can see his point.

[Steve2UK]

and

It would have improved the quality of the farang pool in thailand

Love it - have to agree with you 100% on this one!

[steveromagnino]

very easy to look at Singapore and HK as examples where it went right; however fair to say that Singapore was a dump when the English left it, and it was LKY that made it successful.

Thailand could have ended like like Australia or NZ. Nice work if you are white, not so hot if you were the Aborigine or Maori who top the stats of most of the worst aspects of both countries. Or USA for that matter.

Story of Latin America, South America, Indo, Africa and most of the other economically not exactly top performers of the world...not exactly a positive for colonialism.

And closer to home, Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos are all effectively the way they are thanks to support/lack of support at various times from colonial oppression. Vietnam is doing great now. But that's a huge recovery from where they were a while back.

As for Haiti and Dominican Republic type places......or some of the Pacific Islands..... you can see that colonialism has some strengths but also weaknesses as well.

I would not have thought things would be much different; much of the way Thailand has evolved politically in recent times has been the result of immigration, the endorsement of dictatorships during the cold war period, the prevailing mindset of governments regarding monopolies in the pre 90s, and so forth. Britain would have never lasted the WW2 in Thailand anyhow, so that likely would have been the period of independence after Japanese occupation anyhow. And prior to that, a fair chunk of western culture was already here; same as China; not exactly colonised but somewhat subjagated or whatever that cool word is that fits in this context, as Guesthouse points out to some degree (although let's face it, we in Thailand never had to suffer the invasion in farang numbers/culture that say NZ did when the Brits colonised there; Chinese came in to a greater degree here, and lesser degree in NZ, but perhaps did more to help both countries than the average white person since shown by the ethnic stats of crime, education, financial status etc in both places).

Personally I think some of the colonisers owe a fair chunk of restitution for some of their crimes some even under law e.g. Treaty of Waitangi in NZ, but they probably introduced plenty of good things and also a ton of bad stuff (e.g. smallpox, the Australian cane toad, rabbits in NZ/Australia, ABBA, Murder She Wrote, etc etc) - can't really say Thailand would be better or worse off.

[DP25]

There's a good chance Thailand would have gone communist and be at a Vietnam or Chinese level of development if it had been colonized. The communist struggles in Asia were primarily an anti colonization movement rather than ideological pure Marxist one. With a history of foreign rule, and the absence of certain Thai institutions, Thailand would have been highly vulnerable to a communist based independence movement. There is a small chance it would have been better of from colonization, but there is a huge chance it would have been disastrously worse off.

[Tyke]

Although many people say Thailand would have been quite different today if it had been colonised yesterday, I tend to take the view that Thailand was not directly colonised because it was so united as a single ethnic population under a popular monarchy and a single religion that it would have been difficult to bring under the yolk of colonisation. Remember that European colonisers, particularly the British, did their colonising so well because they played one ethnic tribe or potentate off against another. They did not often invade a country, but first established trading posts then to increase influence they supported one local despot in fighting another. This 'divide and rule' tactic eventually led to their taking over the whole country.

In other words, Thailand was not colonised because it has a unique political, religious and ethnic composition, not the other way around.

Until the 1960, large parts of Isaan did not even use the Thai alphabet, but the Lao one. A hundred years ago in Isaan or the North nobody would have spoken Central Thai and believe me, in some of those provinces it literally is a different language. Large parts towards Cambodia at that time was deep jungle with mainly Khmer-speaking villages. The whole south of Thailand is Muslim, and a 100 years ago, partly with dialects completely different from Central Thai as well.

Ergo, your argument is not based on facts.

Good points and I agree about the diversity in language. But your implication of ethnic diversity is less convincing as it is not clear if the Lao or Khmers are ethnically so different from the Thais and in fact they have intermarried and borrowed many things culturally from each other over the years. The Muslims in the south are a small minority of the Thai population and would not have posed a military threat. In any case as far as I know they did not fight each other like, for example, the Burmese and Thais did. It might have been like the Scots after they caved in and agreed to be ruled from London to clear their bankrupt country's debts (dig, dig) in that the threat by external forces was more important than their differences.

My pet theory is that the European powers thought that the more unified Thai kingdom would be better left alone as they did not have a good opportunity to 'divide and rule' and it would be too difficult to invade militarily. They contented themselves with just vying for influence with each other. Remember, even the Japanese did the same thing in WW2 - they basically negotiated free access rather than invaded.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Tyke