I have read a little and would like to hear informed opinions . Something a little more detailed than " they were allowed to be a buffer zone" or "due to the clever negotiating skills of their monarch" would be great as Ive already read these opinions and whilst I dont know enough to agree or disagree I would simply like a bit more detail .

I have to say I don't buy some of the stuff Ive read online in response to some of this question, to me there still seems to be some colonial arrogance leftover in some of our attitudes in Europe , eg :

"If they remained uncolonised its because we "wanted" it that way." . I dont buy that the western colonial powers just "werent interested" there were plenty of valuable resources in Thailand, surely as many as in all the surrounding countries that were colonised, so we are to believe that the valuable resources in the area stop precisely at Thailands borders ? Normally the Europeans just took what they wanted - so how did Thailand manage it ?

In another thread it was pointed out that Thailand also had some agreements with Russia and Germany which helped them stave off the French and British. I would like to hear more about that if its the case.

I am really interested in the history of this area and so would like if possible referenced responses so that I can read up more later .

P.S. I am aware that Siam conceded a lot of territory to French Indochina, Laos, Cambodia etc - its how they kept hold of what they've still got Im interested in.

Edited October 23, 200916 yr by bazmlb

its hard to colonise when you have to leave every 90 days?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh dunno ask the Japanese

Thought they just rolled over for the Japanese.

TheWalkingMan

Why? ..... King Chula Chomklao made a point of establishing good relationships with all the European Royal families.

He was also a very sharp diplomat and very consious of what had become of other South East Asian countries - so he never took sides with one colonial power or the other, instead his attitude to all of them was neutral and "marketed" Siam as a geographical barrier in the region between the various competing European colonial interests established around him. The concensus amongst historians is that he done this deliberately to avoid the fate of his neighbours.

King Chulongkorn (as he is known) is celebrated each year on the 23rd October (yesterday - which I gues is why you have raised this subject now (?)) and if you go down to the Esquestrian Statue you will find loads of flowers placed there in thanks of his lifelong work to keep Thailand a soveriegn nation.

Edited October 23, 200916 yr by Maizefarmer

Unfortuntely for the OP his premise is fundamentally wrong.

Thailand has been colonised on several occasions but I suppose he is referring to the fiction peddled by the current Thai establishment and the dreary guide books that lap it up and spew it out for naifs like him to consume and regurgitate on fora such as this.

Oh well, here we go again.......

.... depending on how you interpret the meaning of "colonisation" yes, you can say it has been colonised ... but instead of telling the OP he is wrong, and saying "here we go again...." why don;t you add something constructive explain how/why some historians feel it has been colonised in the past and some historians don't agree with that argument?

I should add that the academic consensus is that Thailand has/was never "colonised" - if the conventional definetion is given to the word.

Edited October 23, 200916 yr by Maizefarmer

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHi...T/thailand.html

I suppose one 'out there' theory is the women and culture. The high and mighty types visiting were probably pacified and kept happy by it. Could be they didn't want it turning into 'another colony' like the others. Also don't forget the British Empire was always busy keeping what it had going...

In the late 1880 France wanted to colonies Thailand, The Thai king went to Europe, in fact to Britain , he asked Queen Victoria to Help Thailand because they were no match for France , They had already started to colonies Vietnam, Britain agreed to help Thailand , He also went to Russia and Germany . They also agreed that Thailand should not be colonized , The rest is history, Thats why France had dealings in Vietnam until they withdrew, . Also Burma Colonized some of Thailand for a while.

I suppose colonisation in the sense you are probably using, and the one most do without fully comprehending its true meaning, is that hoary old reference to subjugation by a Western power within the past 200 years. If so then you are quite right, Thailand has not surrendered sovereignty to an external power from that quarter.

However, that is to ignore the concept of colonisation by means other than the strictly geo - political.

I have no brief to lecture and frankly can't be arsed but to get the ball rolling perhaps one might consider the effect of the mass migration of ' coolie ' Chinese into Thailand in the past 150 years or so and ponder its effect given that the entire banking and political infrastructure of modern Thailand now appears to be populated by folk whose great grandparents are revered in terms most Hong Kong Chinese might not find too amiss. Would that be colonisation? Possibly you may prefer assimilation facilitated for the purpose of homogenisation and the ultimate good of the host but given the complexion of the modern Thai establishment I would suggest that colonisation is the more accurate term.

The post second world war influx of American dollars sustaining a bulwark in the Domino theory is another colonisation and one which is perhaps the most insidious for its distortion of Thai socio political development at a time when it was most vulnerable and arguably has provided the basis for the current malaise. But that is another story.

Anyway, everybody knows the Khmer made Thailand.....

Discuss?

It was. By the Chinese. They just changed their names first.

because...

It was. By the Chinese. They just changed their names first.

Really the best way. They don't notice until it's too late, and by the time that they do, the only avenue left is pretty much whinging about it in shadows and anonymous web forums.

Seriously though, I'm not sure if hundreds of thousands and later on millions of immigrant Chinese pursuing/acting in their own best interest with no external gov't support/no tribute or taxes paid to a home country, etc. can constitute colonialization.

A takeover surely, but hardly a colony of another country.

because...

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

and we see the same phenomenom unfold across many countries. When I went back to America for the first time after 3 years, as I was taking my first step off the plane...

The first language I heard was Spanish.

And the UK will be Muslim before long.

And the UK will be Muslim before long.

Sorry as but I won a bet with an American once,as we landed in England...

I said the first 5 people he meets in England will not be speaking English

Just like JFK. And they are all quite miserable/useless/unfriendly.

And the UK will be Muslim before long.

It already is.

I suppose colonisation in the sense you are probably using, and the one most do without fully comprehending its true meaning, is that hoary old reference to subjugation by a Western power within the past 200 years. If so then you are quite right, Thailand has not surrendered sovereignty to an external power from that quarter.

What quarter are you on about?

I suppose colonisation in the sense you are probably using, and the one most do without fully comprehending its true meaning, is that hoary old reference to subjugation by a Western power within the past 200 years. If so then you are quite right, Thailand has not surrendered sovereignty to an external power from that quarter.

However, that is to ignore the concept of colonisation by means other than the strictly geo - political.

I have no brief to lecture and frankly can't be arsed but to get the ball rolling perhaps one might consider the effect of the mass migration of ' coolie ' Chinese into Thailand in the past 150 years or so and ponder its effect given that the entire banking and political infrastructure of modern Thailand now appears to be populated by folk whose great grandparents are revered in terms most Hong Kong Chinese might not find too amiss. Would that be colonisation? Possibly you may prefer assimilation facilitated for the purpose of homogenisation and the ultimate good of the host but given the complexion of the modern Thai establishment I would suggest that colonisation is the more accurate term.

The post second world war influx of American dollars sustaining a bulwark in the Domino theory is another colonisation and one which is perhaps the most insidious for its distortion of Thai socio political development at a time when it was most vulnerable and arguably has provided the basis for the current malaise. But that is another story.

Anyway, everybody knows the Khmer made Thailand.....

Discuss?

Perhaps you are referring to "de facto" colonisation vs the OP's more conventional version? In any event, I think where colonisation occurs, the power structure that is established subsequently is in someway accountable to a foreign government eg Malaya to Great Britain, Indonesia to Holland etc. The mass migration of Chinese to Thailand is just that, migration. If one of their descendants successfully establish a power structure here, it's still a local matter (perhaps influenced by the culture of their ancestors) and there is no legal, governmental nor constitutional obligation to defer to Beijing; all important governmental functions, military, judiciary etc have their highest authorities locally, and not externally.

If I use your de facto colonisation version, can I say that Africans have colonised USA?

And the UK will be Muslim before long.

Sorry as but I won a bet with an American once,as we landed in England...

I said the first 5 people he meets in England will not be speaking English

Well as he was most likely standing in line at immigration (non-UK or EU passports) that is hardly an outstanding prediction on your part.

Why was Thailand not colonised? Well apart from the diplomatic manoeverings of King Chula there was little need. The country was sandwiched between French and British interests so was essentially a shared concern.

If the OP is talking about the 'Bangkok period' then it is answered above - good deplomacy, chance, location, ceding territory...

Go back a couple of centuries and you have a land made up of different kingdoms that controlled different areas at different times, and were influenced / controlled / colonized by different people at different times. Obviously the Burmese and the Khymers were the main 'invaders', though often they didn't invade at all, their territories just overlapped into present day Thailand.

Check out the history of the main periods and you will see that they are not a long line of Thai kings as many would like you to believe. Study the buildings, religions and language in more detail to see the heavy influences. For example you might ask yourself why a certain type of building is sometimes called a Chedi, sometimes a Prang and sometimes a Stupa? What are the differences and who might have influenced them?

In the UK we have Roman, Viking, French, Norma + + + influences in our buildings (look at our great Noman buidings), language (Roman numerals) and religion (French and Spanish influences), all on a Celtic (German) background... Thailand is exactly the same.

If you studied; Sukhothai, Lopburi, Ayudthaya and Nakhon Pathom you'd get a good basic idea. The problem is it's not nicely collated for you (as far as I'm aware), and since the 1930's the establishment has heavily pushed a unifom and inaccurate histroy as a nationalistic control mechanism, so you need to do a bit of independant study. It's very interesting and well worth the effort. Thai history has much more variety and depth to offer than the propaganda pushed by the Ministry of Culture offers up...

For Heng: During the 12th century there was a lot of Chinese earthernware coming into Thailand, but the indeginous population didn't show any Chinese qualities in their religion, buildings or traits. Thus, you could presume that the Chinese traders started to come here around the 12th century (perhaps a little before?) and stayed on in dribs and drabs, gradually heading further and further south. Perhaps making their first settlements in Nakhon Sawan as an easy base to trade with various major kingdoms of the time?

Edited October 24, 200916 yr by jasreeve17

With all the speculation, theory etc which have been offered here, I remember an answer to this same discussion given many years ago along with 2 pertinent questions.

Technically no colonization has taken place in Thai minds

Who would want to colonize Thailand?

Why would anyone want to colonize Thailand?

Jasreeve17 raises a valid observation - there are periods in history in which the coutnry has been subjugated to foreign control, but tht was pre-Thai, or pre-Thailands' exsistance as a country, and in that respect its perhaps best then that the time frame is defined.

What is interesting, is that out of all the countries in South East Asia, the one which has not been colonised (Thailand) is the one that none-the-less displays the most foreign influence in culture, its economy and its progress(?).

It, perhaps, also has the least influence as far as Western thinking.

And the UK will be Muslim before long.

Not really, Ian.

The test is who actually controls government and the money supply.

You can only tell that by observing what newspapers they read.

The Financial Times reader knows he has money and so de facto controls and governs the country.

The Guardian reader believes he should be controlling and governing the country

The Sun reader does not mind who controls the country or governs it so lond as she has big tits.

Edited October 24, 200916 yr by caf

Love your last line caf...

and we see the same phenomenom unfold across many countries. When I went back to America for the first time after 3 years, as I was taking my first step off the plane...

The first language I heard was Spanish.

the decline/shift didn't start only 3 years ago. things have change a lot since the Columbus trip in 1492. below a map of the state of colonisation in 1750, 250 years later. as for today, another 250 years later, i wouldn't expect to hear mainly any of the native american languages after my first step off a plane. albeit some native languages are still living and spoken by people in certain areas.