Would Thailand Really Have Been Changed By Colonialism?

[grtaylor]

It would have improved the quality of the bread.

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

It did in Viet Nam, Cambodia, And Lao.

[barky]

and

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

The westener pool in Thailand is as a direct result of the screening or non-screening process set up by Thais. If Thailand is attracting the wrong type of westener, it's the Thais fault noone elses. Thais make all the rules. In other words, Thailand reaps what it sows. For example, if Thais don't like the label of being the prostitution hub of the world, then close it all down. Go on Thais, stop blaming everybody else. You Thais made the mess why don't you take the responsibility and accountability for cleaning up the mess you have made to your reputation. Just close it all down. One problem solved.

[thaihome]

Wow, its threads like this that really show how poorly lots of people think of Thailand and how often that is based on their bias and often complete inaccurate view of history.

Of all it though my favorite is:

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 rural drift to communism?

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?

What drugs has he been taking?

The CPT was entirely made up of elite foreign educated rich people. The only rural thing they knew was when they fled into the countryside to try and start a popular uprising. What happened was the village scouts, made up of these rural poor folks you think are struggling even today in the streets of Bangkok, hunted them down in no time. The military had to come and offer amnesty in order in a save them from being slaughtered completely.

This person also probably thinks the current PAD vs PPP is struggle for the rural poor to have a voice in the government today. The poor versus the Bangkok elite, right? Not even worth an answer.

TH

Edited September 20, 2008 by thaihome

[kmart]

The CPT was entirely made up of elite foreign educated rich people. The only rural thing they knew was when they fled into the countryside to try and start a popular uprising. What happened was the village scouts, made up of these rural poor folks you think are struggling even today in the streets of Bangkok, hunted them down in no time. The military had to come and offer amnesty in order in a save them from being slaughtered completely.

This person also probably thinks the current PAD vs PPP is struggle for the rural poor to have a voice in the government today. The poor versus the Bangkok elite, right? Not even worth an answer.

TH

Good point. Communists in Asia are usually from the overseas-educated elite. Mao Zedong and Pol Pot (amongst others) learned their wonderful theology from left-wing studies in French universities, apparently.

[Groongthep]

Thinking of the Philippines whose culture was decimated and devalued by centuries of Spanish and then American colonisation.....

It's pretty hard to put the Spanish and American colonisations of the Philippines in the same category. The Spanish were there for centuries while the American rule lasted only 48 years from 1898 until 1946. In fact there was strong political opposition in the United States against colonising any of the former Spanish possessions after the Spanish American War, but unfortunately as in later American forays overseas, the jingoists won out. Elections were scheduled to elect an independent Philippine government in 1938 but were cancelled at the behest of the Filipino leaders in light of Japan's invasion of China and the feared threat to the islands from Japan. Thousands of American troops died first defending the Philippines from the Japanese invasion and then later from forcing them out. One year after the war ended (and after spending tens of millions of dollars on reconstruction) the US quickly granted the Phillipines it's independence and they elected their own government. American colonisation of the Philippines also differed from European colonisation in that the US exploited very few natural resources from the Phillipines, mostly due to the fact that there was very little in the way of resources available in the PI that weren't more easily obtained from Central America. In the 48 years in which it controlled the Philippines, the US actually spent more money on developing the country than it gained in exports from it. Today there are over 4 million Filipino Americans living in the US and probably less than 50 thousand non-Filipino Americans living in the Philippines. All said and done, it was indeed wrong for the US to have colonised the Philippines, but it's hard to argue that in the end the Filipinos didn't get the better end of the whole deal.

[jts-khorat]

Wow, its threads like this that really show how poorly lots of people think of Thailand and how often that is based on their bias and often complete inaccurate view of history.

Of all it though my favorite is:

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 rural drift to communism?

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?

What drugs has he been taking?

The CPT was entirely made up of elite foreign educated rich people. The only rural thing they knew was when they fled into the countryside to try and start a popular uprising. What happened was the village scouts, made up of these rural poor folks you think are struggling even today in the streets of Bangkok, hunted them down in no time. The military had to come and offer amnesty in order in a save them from being slaughtered completely.

I came back from a rural region close to the border of Laos recently and was told stories from the struggle with units of the Pathet Lao around there (they actually had a unit stantioned right in the middle were the village now is). The impression they left by executing everybody opposing and the excessive destruction the Americans left in neighboring Laos has impressed many of the locals there so much that they would not dare to work together even nowadays -- it would sound too close to those deposed ideals.

Communism as an idea of poor people in Isaan to identify around? Not any more, at least not where I have been.

[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.

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.

Still not sure where you disagree. But then maybe you actually have no real opinion and are just talking for talks sake. That sounds like a loosing horse to me.

[wintermute]

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

Singapore is not a good example because the Brits left it a total trash heap after WW2. Even before then it was a very segregated place that was more of a port that benefited the colonialists rather than anything positive.

People westerners tend to have a rosy and unrealistic view of colonialism. White man's burden and all.

Even "successes" like Hong Kong came out of necessity from the cold war. HK was a western buffer zone and the Brits poured lots of money into it because it served dual purpose. Japan was modernized long before WW2. It had nothing to do with colonialism and more to do with Japan's Meiji restoration period which was their own social transition from feudal to modern.

Edited September 20, 2008 by wintermute

[Tyke]

Singapore is not a good example because the Brits left it a total trash heap after WW2.

Can you elaborate? I thought the Japanese occupied it in WW2, so maybe they did the trashing.

[bangkokrick]

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

Sorry i don't know the answer, but you can also question the colour of the Thai flag if they have not been colonised. I am of course talking about the red white and blue.

Cheers, Rick

[DP25]

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.

I was in Beijing about 5 years ago. It's definitely advanced, much more so than most of the country. Most of China is still far less developed than Thailand however, as is Vietnam, due to the decades of communism prior to their recent embrace of the market.

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.

The communist movement in Thailand was never very strong nor was it a serious threat as it was in other SEA nations. Communist movements in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were based on anti colonial sentiment. They garnered popular appeal by attempting to truly free their country from foreign rule and influence once and for all, no one cared a fig about Marxism or Leninism, they were fighting based upon nationalist sentiment. Thailand was a very different situation, which is why the movement here was so weak, and they never were able to gather much more than 10,000 armed fighters. Communism was seen as an inherently foreign movement, a movement backed by foreign powers attempting to overthrow the monarchical institutions that had kept Thailand safe from foreign rule for centuries. Communism had no chance in a Thailand that had never been colonized.

[dave_boo]

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.

I believe that you mean to state that the prostitution and bar trade catering to foreign business men took off during the Vietname war era. Unless you believe that the whole of the country was corrupted by those evil Americans and prostiution sprung up overnight.

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.

I believe that you're overanalysing it in favour of former communist regimes/colonies. For instance, if you compare the percentage of 'successful' countries that were formerly ruled by 'communists' (or still are), and then those that were ruled by 'democracies', you're going to find the overall rates to be remarkably similar.

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.

My personal feelings about it are yes; Thailand could have benefited by having been a colony. However, there are a few cavaets. Firstly, it would have had to have been for less then a century, preferably only fifty years.. That's only three generations, and not as much culture would have been lost. Secondly, the colonial period would have had to start in the very late 1800's or early 1900's. This stipulation is due to the fact that during that time period most colonising agents had realised the errors of previous colonisations and were making strides towards correcting their mistakes. Also, combined with the less than a century rule it would have freed Thailand before the push by communism during the 1950's.

Not all colonisations were bad things. Had India not colonised Nepal, we wouldn't have Buddhism. Had the Persians not colonised some of the Greek city-states, the battle of Thermopylae would not have united the Greek states and allowed democracy to flourish. These are the two oldest positive examples of colonialism I can think of, there's more modern versions, but I'm on a historical kick tonight. I'll let those who depsise the colonial system present many counter points.

[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.

Still not sure where you disagree. But then maybe you actually have no real opinion and are just talking for talks sake. That sounds like a loosing horse to me.

Hope you will read my answer.

Still belive we could have a good discussion.

Just not fast enought with the keybord.

Hope you understand.

[Pierrot]

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

That's exactly my thought when I started reading this thread. HK and Singapore, both creation of foreign powers, are not doing so bad.

And for the other countries mentionned, their problems are not related to their colonial past, except when the power in charge was the USA, but mostly because ot collateral damage in the fight between the same USA and a third country.

The chance of Thailand was to be a "neutral" country as Switzerland during WWII

[thaigene2]

Well yes, it might have instilled a work ethic and the idea that one should think for him/herself - individualism - rather than finding and then depending on a pooyai patron. Feudalism would have been challenged to some degree at least..

[wintermute]

Singapore is not a good example because the Brits left it a total trash heap after WW2.

Can you elaborate? I thought the Japanese occupied it in WW2, so maybe they did the trashing.

Britain doesn't have any right to take credit for modern Singapore. Hong Kong maybe but not Singapore. After WW2 Singapore was in complete disarray the Brits surrendered to the Japanese and basically abandoned it after the war. Actually even before WW2 Singapore was a backwater port that was British administered but the wealth definitely didn't trickle down to the local population until long after independence. Seriously, go read up on Singapore's history. 100% of modern Singapore is because of basically one man's leadership and that is Lee Kuan Yew.

[kiakaha]

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?

Thailand HAS been colonised .....by foreign pop culture, inventions, materialisms, entertainment, sports, fashion etc....

[Groongthep]

Thailand HAS been colonised .....by foreign pop culture, inventions, materialisms, entertainment, sports, fashion etc....

And by self righteous foreigners who think the average Thai hasn't freely embraced these things by their own free will.

[PeaceBlondie]

As dave boo and I and others have pointed out, it depends on the definition of colonialization. Also, it depends on the century and the colonizing country. Missionary efforts have changed dramatically over the centuries, too. Especially since Bible thumpers no longer come with the conquering armies.

Thai culture, without obvious colonizing by foreign powers, never was perfect. Just distinctive.

[Scott]

As far as which side of the road the Thais drive on, it's been my experience that they don't drive on either side, rather in the middle. Distinctive Thai characteristic, they take the 'middle path.'!

[ourmaninbangers]

Singapore is not a good example because the Brits left it a total trash heap after WW2.

Can you elaborate? I thought the Japanese occupied it in WW2, so maybe they did the trashing.

Britain doesn't have any right to take credit for modern Singapore. Hong Kong maybe but not Singapore. After WW2 Singapore was in complete disarray the Brits surrendered to the Japanese and basically abandoned it after the war. Actually even before WW2 Singapore was a backwater port that was British administered but the wealth definitely didn't trickle down to the local population until long after independence. Seriously, go read up on Singapore's history. 100% of modern Singapore is because of basically one man's leadership and that is Lee Kuan Yew.

who the brits educated and kept safe from the commie, without them- no s,pre, no LKY who could taken s,pore in an instant

LKY is good at run the country, but is no better than ditacor

[ourmaninbangers]

Thailand HAS been colonised .....by foreign pop culture, inventions, materialisms, entertainment, sports, fashion etc....

And by self righteous foreigners who think the average Thai hasn't freely embraced these things by their own free will.

Do thai have free will? do they not autmaticly make a certain gesture when passing a statue ... most have not a clue what they are doing it for

most beleive in ghosts, ask them why? Can they hold public debats on everthing...

or stand and get all emotial about some people who are extrmely rich but I would question their status, I ask them what these people have done for them....because I have free will

and I am allowed to think and when I do I can see why this lack of free will has meant thailand it still in the darkages

I honeslty question if most have this,

I hope I do not sound too racist, it is not encourgred here in thailand to think freely

some subjects are banned- free will?

, hence the blind faith to certain things-anyone who is so devoted to somethijg they do not understand, and worship a certain set of people ..free will?

I think most are brainwshed into not being able to have free will- just follow what you are told,obey, stand, weep...

thailand was the whore that the west used in the worst way,UK, france, etc, did not want to " marry" it, just use it with giving little back

the boarders were definded by the british who sent a message to the King about how he should behave some 200 hundred odd years ago, which I am sure has been covered up

because it was less than polite

After WW2the brits sent another message to thailand to behave- they bombed the city.Another little secret. Why?.

The problem with colony is that the west comes, but it left too quicky

its like leaving a child alone to take care of itself