Would Thailand Really Have Been Changed By Colonialism?

[Travel2003]

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?

In my oppinion, some would probably change.

Maybe not always to the better, but all colonists have left something behind (infra structure, educational systems, corruption, etc).

One noticeable thing in the neighbour countries is how much better the people is to talk a second language there.

In the beginning I thought it was strange that Thailand had probably the poorest English skills in Asia.

Would this be because she was never a colony, thus never was affected by this?

[PeaceBlondie]

Are most of us using colonization as a relatively uniform process through the ages? I think it depends on which century, and which culture does the colonizing, where and to whom. The Queen of Hawaii was horrified that her country was invaded and stolen by 'fellow Christians.' Some processes, such as the Russianization of Alaska, barely happened. I doubt the Latin American conquista of the 16th century resembled France's conquest of Indo China.

Some ancient conquests annihilated the indigenous tribes - perhaps ninety percent in Latin America. The Greek, Roman, and Persian empires made bloody conquests, but ruled differently than the Europeans ruled in the New World.

.

We see that Thailand was not directly colonized by Western powers, but they fought with their neighbors. The late 19th century adopted many Western ideals here. The modernization that continues under globalization is a form of colonial conquest both by the West and by northern Asia.

Thailand has never needed to learn English, generally.

[myauq]

The modernization that continues under globalization is a form of colonial conquest both by the West and by northern Asia.

why do so many people (on this forum) say that global capitalism is some form of colonisation?

thais, like many other countless people around the world, freely choose to participate in society as consumers. just because left-wing types don't like it, globalisation is somehow equated with colonialism. colonialism is not something which people choose, but it is imposed by an outside force; it subjects the colonised to foreign laws and systems of governance.

in capitalism people pick and choose, even though the choices aren't those that anti-globalisation people necessarily approve of.

[hansnl]

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

Oops, that is a hit!

Pardon for asking, but why is there left hand driving in Thailand?

Anybody can shed some light over that burning question for me?

Thank you

Edited September 19, 2008 by hansnl

[Edonista]

and

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

Allow farangs to own land and to run business without Thai partners and you shall see quite an improvement.

[Edonista]

It would have improved the quality of the bread.

Indeed.

[Tyke]

The modernization that continues under globalization is a form of colonial conquest both by the West and by northern Asia.

why do so many people (on this forum) say that global capitalism is some form of colonisation?

thais, like many other countless people around the world, freely choose to participate in society as consumers. just because left-wing types don't like it, globalisation is somehow equated with colonialism. colonialism is not something which people choose, but it is imposed by an outside force; it subjects the colonised to foreign laws and systems of governance.

in capitalism people pick and choose, even though the choices aren't those that anti-globalisation people necessarily approve of.

I see what you mean but I think the line between globalisation and European colonialism is more fuzzy than that. In many ways, both lead to dependence on foreign or international 'systems'. I'm more in favour than not of globalisation but to say most people "freely choose to participate in society as consumers" is a very broad generalisation. Most poor people in this world do not have a choice to participate or not - they have to do whatever is necessary to survive and if the only way is to participate in a globalised system that they have no say aboutn then they will participate. Likewise, the rich people are often brainwashed through advertising aimed at them from an early age to consume (psychological imperialism?) or dependent on a globalised jobs market that they have no control over.

I remember a quote from a Japanese politician or such after WW2 to the effect that they might have lost the war but they will prevail over the west eventually in other ways. And now Asia is prevailing or will do so in other ways.

[Edonista]

Anyway what Thai history really lacks is not a colonial period, but a Thai Olivier Cromwell or Kemal Ataturk.

This country is still a feudal one.

[egg6447]

Anyway what Thai history really lacks is not a colonial period, but a Thai Olivier Cromwell or Kemal Ataturk.

This country is still a feudal one.

yes . we use the term third world all the time on tv. its not the correct term.you have hit the nail on the head. no progress here till the mold is broken. indeed a cromwell is what is required. but alas cromwells only turn up every so many thousands of years.

[PeaceBlondie]

Crowmwell was no Ataturk. Didn't Cromwell lead an armed rebellion against the monarch and rule it like one himself? Maybe Thailand needs a Buddhist Gandhi, or a Thai Martin Luther King, Jr.

Wiki says about Cromwell, "When the Royalists returned to power in 1660, his corpse was dug up, hung in chains, and beheaded. Cromwell has been a very controversial figure in the history of the British Isles – a regicidal dictator to some historians (such as David Hume and Christopher Hill) and a hero of liberty to others (such as Thomas Carlyle and Samuel Rawson Gardiner). In Britain he was elected as one of the Top 10 Britons of all time in a 2002 BBC poll.[1] His measures against Irish Catholics have been characterized by some historians as genocidal or near-genocidal,[2] and in Ireland itself he is widely hated."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

[grtaylor]

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

Oops, that is a hit!

Pardon for asking, but why is there left hand driving in Thailand?

Anybody can shed some light over that burning question for me?

Thank you

That's a very good question. Also, why do they drive on the left in Japan? or Macau? The answer is obvious for former British colonies, but none of these were.

[Wandering]

Will no one mention the story of the Japanese colonializing Thailand? (yes I know they referred to it as making allies). The Japanese felt it was their right to colonize Asia. They used Thailand to attack Burma. The Karen were promised an important government role in Burma if they defended it. They sent the Japanese fleeing. Then the Thai soldiers (who had been hiding in the jungle) chased and killed as many as they could. Then the British betrayed the Karen. Ne Win ordered everyone killed on Bloody Sunday. (Yes, long very story)

The point is that The Japanese colonized much of Thailand.

[JohnBanPrang]

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.

Please do not forget that even if many of your historical facts are right,

Your conclusition is your personal understanding of Thai history.

Not a fact.

[JetsetBkk]

There's a good chance Thailand would have gone communist ...

That may still be the best thing to happen to Thailand yet. Democracy sure doesn't work.

[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.

Please do not forget that even if many of your historical facts are right,

Your conclusition is your personal understanding of Thai history.

Not a fact.

That certainly is correct. However, with the facts right, the chance that my conclusions are right is high.

Which particular conclusion of the above do you believe to be incorrect? Might be the base for a good discussion.

[Huey]

How could someone even ask such a question??? Then they wonder why some Thai's disrespect farangs. No Thailand would not have been better off as another nation's B*&ch.

[JohnBanPrang]

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.

Please do not forget that even if many of your historical facts are right,

Your conclusition is your personal understanding of Thai history.

Not a fact.

That certainly is correct. However, with the facts right, the chance that my conclusions are right is high.

Which particular conclusion of the above do you believe to be incorrect? Might be the base for a good discussion.

I belive we could have a very good dicussion.

Still belive the "facts" you are presenting are a "mishmash" of historical facts.

I'm not betting on a loosing horse, even if the chances are high.

Sorry mate.

[Tyke]

How could someone even ask such a question??? Then they wonder why some Thai's disrespect farangs. No Thailand would not have been better off as another nation's B*&ch.

The question is neutral.

The question is asked many times by farangs.

How could anyone query the motives of a questioner then provide such a silly answer.

No wonder some Thais disrespect farangs.

[Groongthep]

......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.

Are you suggesting that Vietnam and China are at similar levels of development? Been to Beijing or Guangzhou lately? Way ahead of anything in Vietnam.

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.

In the 70's there was a strong communist independence movement in Thailand. Had the government forces not been so heavily armed, and the right wing propaganda so convincing, the government could very possibly been defeated.

[geriatrickid]

I don't know if you would call it colonialisation or annexation, but my understanding is that much of eastern Thailand was part of the Angorkorean Khmer empire for about 500 years (900-1400). And if I am not mistaken, Laos was patched together from various small territories and kingdoms some of which were part of Siam in the late 1800's. I believe this was finalized with the French naval blockade of Bangkok in 1893. Then of course we have the modern era where Thailand was a defacto colony of Japan. One could argue that Thailand while not an official colony of the USA in the 1960's certainly traded its soul. At the risk of upsetting some people, the prostitution and bar trade took off during the Vietnam war era. Hardly the aspects of colonial influences that give folks a leg up.

While not having been a colony in the coventional sense, Thailand has certainly demonstrated many of the negative characteristics of a colony. The end result has not been good. Unlike former colonies such as the USA and members of the British Comonwealth, there is an absence of a credible legal system, sound secondary educational system or the concept of infrastructure. Even thel French managed to leave the concept of working civil service in their former colonies. Although former Italian and Portuguese colonies had the delight of being economically sodomized I suppose. China which suffered from horrible colonial occupations has bounced back. Korea, which was an occupied colony of Japan is a powerhouse. Former eastbloc countries now free of the tyranny of the Soviet colonial treatment are in most cases robust developing nations.

Perhaps colonialisation creates the yearning and desire to demand freedom. When people must sacrifice and shed their blood to earn their freedom, the people develop a respect for freedom.

[harrry]

Crowmwell was no Ataturk. Didn't Cromwell lead an armed rebellion against the monarch and rule it like one himself? Maybe Thailand needs a Buddhist Gandhi, or a Thai Martin Luther King, Jr.

Wiki says about Cromwell, "When the Royalists returned to power in 1660, his corpse was dug up, hung in chains, and beheaded. Cromwell has been a very controversial figure in the history of the British Isles – a regicidal dictator to some historians (such as David Hume and Christopher Hill) and a hero of liberty to others (such as Thomas Carlyle and Samuel Rawson Gardiner). In Britain he was elected as one of the Top 10 Britons of all time in a 2002 BBC poll.[1] His measures against Irish Catholics have been characterized by some historians as genocidal or near-genocidal,[2] and in Ireland itself he is widely hated."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

Ataturk was a strange mixture...some may say a despot who wanted everyone else to be democratic. But his positive influence on Turkey is undoubted.

[JSixpack]

I'm sure the vast majority of Thais would certainly say they are better off having not been colonised.

But of course they would, while they live in shacks, push food carts, and moan about their very real poverty. And North Koreans say that they are much worse off for having been colonized then and that they are so much better off now, certainly much better off than that puppet state to the south. Brainwashing, you see, facilitated by the abuse of Western technology. Yet we all know how "Thai culture" flies out the window whenever money is waved around. Most Thais would be happy to emigrate to the West if they could take their families with them and enjoy a much higher standard of living.

If Singapore would buy off the leadership of Thailand and then, like Thai politicians, pay the poor to vote to have Singapore take over the government in a temporary caretaker capacity (short-term, voluntary, modern colonization ), Thailand would certainly be much better off.

The degree to which a culture benefits from Western colonization depends largely on the characteristics of the culture itself and its leaders. It helps enormously if the culture has a strong work ethic: hence the success of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan. These countries certainly haven't lost the characteristics of the culture they wish to retain, no matter their Westernization. Similarly, Western countries have their own cultures even as they enjoy the many benefits of freedom, democracy, and modern globalization. On the other hand, 300 years in a convent and 50 in Hollywood wasn't able to do much for the Filipinos. But women received rights to an education early on there, and working abroad, enabled by English-speaking ability, is at least a significant source of revenue. Most would vote not to discard Western technology (karaoke machines come to mind). Yet advocates for the noble savage will argue they were better off living in jungles in a state of nature.

So the answer to the OP's question is a definite "maybe."

[Cuban]

Pardon for asking, but why is there left hand driving in Thailand?

Probably based on some good sales talk by a Japanese Car Maker. Or maybe a righthand drive car was given as a gift to 'someone' so it made sense that every other car follow his royal lead.

You know why Burma changed from driving on the left hand side of the road to the right?

(Despite cars being right hand drive.)

[Andrew Hicks]

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?

There are so many points to be made on this one.

British colony Burma... should now be the wealthiest in SE Asia. On independence took the Burmese Way to Socialism and shut itself off from the world and modernisation.

British colony Malaysia... substantially shaped by the colonial experience as Chinese and Indian labour was brought in to exploit resources of tin and rubber. Now in the agony of its first political change since independence but otherwise a success story.

British colony Singapore... a unique success story. One admirable feature now is the fact that they accept the colonial era as part of their history and not a hideous interregnum. Sir Stamford Raffles, invader and arch colonialist is respected by them as their founder.

Former French Indo-China... total disaster because France refused to let go of her empire and the issue of Vietnam's struggle for independence became confused with the capitalist West's violent resistence to communist expansionism. Continued post-colonial interference then created long term instability.

Thailand was politically independent and (after cosying up to Japan during orld war II) sided with the West and did very well thank you.

Thailand was as good as colonised by the US during the Vietnam War but came out of it okay. Had she been a British colony things might not have been much different at this point.

The British successfully won the 'Confrontation' struggle against communism in Malaysia in the fifties and sixties and no doubt would have used the same effective tactics in Thailand to contain the rural drift towards comunism. (Which was of course merely a way for the rural poor to identify their need for proper development and to count for something in society, a struggle that continues on the streets of Bangkok today).

The two big things the British leave behind permanently are the English language and a legal system, perhaps with some sort of constitutional structure. These things do help a country to modernise and be part of the nternational community.

Perhaps Thailand's volatile politics would now be more 'advanced' had teher been colonisation... but who knows.

Thinking of the Philippines whose culture was decimated and devalued by centuries of Spanish and then American colonisation, its absence in Thailand has left Thailand's individual culture and self-respect much more intact.

And that has to be a good thing!

Big issues indeed.

[geriatrickid]

You know why Burma changed from driving on the left hand side of the road to the right?

(Despite cars being right hand drive.)

Burma drove on the left until 1970, when it changed sides. It is said that the ruler of the country, Ne Win, consulted a soothsayer or interpreted a dream to mean that all traffic should keep to the right.

I prefer to believe that the Burmese were simply more advanced and wanted to reflect the majority of the world's driving habits choosing to cast off the British colonial habit of driving on the wrong side of the road Or maybe it was intended to piss off possible Thai invaders. Almost three-quarters of the world's highways are found in countries where traffic drives on the right.

Great website if anyone wants to find out all the intricacies and history. I learnt alot.

http://www.brianlucas.ca/roadside/

[Andrew Hicks]

Pardon for asking, but why is there left hand driving in Thailand?

Probably based on some good sales talk by a Japanese Car Maker. Or maybe a righthand drive car was given as a gift to 'someone' so it made sense that every other car follow his royal lead.

You know why Burma changed from driving on the left hand side of the road to the right?

(Despite cars being right hand drive.)

At the beginning of the twentieth centure there were no Japanese car makers. But yes, it was surely based on the first cars imported, presumably from Britain.

No I don't. Why did Burma cross to the other side of the road? To spite the British?

Another big issue is the type of electrical sockets etc!

[PeaceBlondie]

Andrew, you have a lot of good points, but what kind of socket the invader inserts his probe into, is another question altogether.

[Tyke]

No I don't. Why did Burma cross to the other side of the road? To spite the British?

I remember it in the news some years back - yes it was to spite their former colonial rulers. I think they did other things for the same reason like change street/city/country names - eg. Rangoon was changed to Yangon and Burma to Myanmar etc

[kmart]

Burma and the Burmese have really thrived since throwing off the shackles of colonialism, haven't they?

The withdrawal of a colonial power has usually heralded the arrival of political extremism of one stripe or another. Thailand has done very well from the poor fortunes of its neighbors in this respect.

[jitagon]

It would have improved the quality of the bread.

Don't know why, most certainly did not on Bali, or in India.