Why Was Thailand Never Colonised ?

[Deke]

Here's one for you.

How about the Thai propensity to "back the winner", or at least, the perceived winner.

Look at WW2 and even the current political situation. Don't worry about ideology or right/wrong, just go with the flow.

[harrry]

Maybe the reason Thailand was never colonised is because no one wanted it.

[Deke]

^^ Maybe I should elaborate on the above.

My premise is that if the Thai government at the time saw a threat from Cambodia or Laos, they'd do whatever they could to gain favor (suck up?) with the French. If they saw a threat from the west or the south, they'd friendly up with the British.

There was no ideology involved. That's why Thailand was never colonized.

[bifftastic]

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?

Very interesting and informative, Thank you

I would imagine colonisation to mean one sovereign power subjugating and controlling the administration of another for it's own benefit rather than referring to immigration. Population movements wouldn't really constitute colonisation would they? I agree that economic domination is a modern form of colonisation but somehow colonisation implies an intent to do so as in 'we're going to invade that country and run it the same way we run our own' one governments intent to overpower another?

Edited October 24, 2009 by bifftastic

[Deke]

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?

Another important point is that Thai schools do not treat history as an important subject. My guess would be that if anyone in authority would try to change this, they'd be shot down in a second.

[Mossfinn]

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.

Apart from that they were probably cleaners, janitors etc jobs on the whole the great British public think is beneath them, hence the complaints against immigration, but they fulfil a necessary job role to service a particular industry that would go unmanaged without them.

[Rumfoord]

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.

i like the broader view you are suggesting. putting the things in a much wider historical context.

but try doing long division with Roman numerals and than say thanks to the Hindu–Arabic numeral system and a Persian mathematician.

[rabcbroon]

Thais will only attack foriegners if they out number them sufficiently

[jasreeve17]

I'd add that the current Thailand has not been established for such a long time, and before the 'Bangkok period' land borders changed a lot.

The Sukhothai period (roughly 12th to 16th centuary) is very famous with King Ramkhamhaeng being, perhaps, the most famous king. He introduced the basis of the current Thai alphabet for example; you can see this with a comparison of Khymer, Pali, Sanscrit, Lanna and other languages in the main museum at Sukhothai - my favourite historical museum in Thailand. The Sukhothai area covered areas of Northern Thailand and current day Burma, a bit of central Thailand too. They didn't suddenly die out, they just moved their capital city inside current day Burma - their artwork is perhaps the most beautiful from all the Thai regions wih Lanna (nothern), Tai (central?) and Burmese (Indian) input. The Thais don't like to admit the Burmese element because they consider themselves better than the Burmese...

From the same time, and up until a later date the Ayudthaya period stretched all the way from Angkor, to begin with it was effectivevly ruled as a fieifdom from the Khymer rulers and just morphed into prodominantly Thai, over the years. Of course they are very heavily influenced by Khymer everything - which the Thais do not like to admit because they consider themselves better than the Cambodians...

If you watched the recently made films where the Thais fought with the Burmese, this is simply untrue. The Thais depicted were a tribe that included many groups including Burmese, Tai and Cambodian (A bit like the Normans who many consider to be French but were in fact partially Dutch, covering some of Denmark and Germany too) - their geographical territory was not purely Thailand. The Burmese depicted were groups made up of Burmese, Tai and Lanna - their geographical territory was not purely Burma.

You can throw in some tribes from Laos too because they ruled large parts of present day Thailand from time to time, as Laos was ruled by others on occasion. Famously, the Emerald Budha was looted from Laos, just like the Mandalay gold was looted from Ayudthaya. Earlier still the Sukhothai gold was looted by another group...

Nakhon Pathom was earlier still and seperate from the other kingdoms with less Khymer and Burmese influences (but some); many folk suggest Taiwanese input (the tribes originally from Taiwan who made their way through Indonesia and along the island chains through Tonga, Samoa and Fiji to New Zealand. The Chinese only entered Taiwan relatively recently)...

Over the last 2000 years Britain has been completely bastardized. Thailand has a very similar history squeezed into the last 900 years - before then, Thai history is vague.

If you're really interested in Thai history then Sukhothai national park would be a dream come true. Two days cycling around all the history you'll need with a wonderful museum too.

The basic point I'm making is Thailand was never Thailand, so it didn't exist to be colonized... It's a bit like saying Slovakia has never been colonized and leaving it there; ignoring thousands of years of movement and different ruling groups.

[jasreeve17]

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.

i like the broader view you are suggesting. putting the things in a much wider historical context.

but try doing long division with Roman numerals and than say thanks to the Hindu–Arabic numeral system and a Persian mathematician.

I agree 100%, which is the point I always make to Thais: why deny the strengths in your make-up??? Harking back to a 'culture' which never actually existed while rubbishing the elements that make up your identity is insanity...

The UK became strong because we took in, often were forced to, different words, numbers, phrases, ideas, concepts and everything else. The sooner Thais accept their great heritage as a mix from many different cultures and people, the better they will become and the more they will achieve in the future.

[Heng]

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?

Um, thanks for the info. I didn't know that. We got here much later, in the 1930's. Got out of Nanking before things started getting ugly. I'd say that was a good call.

[jasreeve17]

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?

Um, thanks for the info. I didn't know that. We got here much later, in the 1930's. Got out of Nanking before things started getting ugly. I'd say that was a good call.

Yep, good choice by the ancestors; missed the Japanese horrors and the 'cultural' revolution. Glad you made it, my extended Issan family will enjoy living nextdoor to the Sino-Thais from Nanking. I'll remind them to bring their sound system - you'll just love the traditional music starting daily around 5am.

[harrry]

Although my last post was as a joke there is a bit of truth in it at least in the Bangkok period as I think most potential colonists were happy t maintain the status quo and have Thailand as a buffer between them.

[Sherlocke]

If the OP was referring to colonisation by Western nations - it wasn't because they didn't "want" to" so much as they didn't need to.As said earlier Thailand was a "buffer" state - this is not uncommon - Afghanistan and Poland have both had the dubious honour of this status at various times in Histroy - they were not as lucky as Thailand though.

The "King and I" is a story (that I believe was banned in Thailand) that originates in an era when many European Countries were sending various delegates to S.E. Asia to try an establish their own domination or at least look after their own interests in that area.

As for colonisation by other regional countries - well just try an define what "Thai" actually is (or is that Siamese?) - mainly the result of repeated invasions and combination of remnants of many cultures as a result. certainly not - as the Thai film and Propaganda industry would have you believe in, some mono-cultural nation unsullied by invasion or colonisation.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Sherlocke

[Scott]

Let's take care to stay on topic. The makeup of the population in the UK and US is not pertinent to this thread unless it is a a historical comparison.

Please exercise care in reference to race and religion as well.

It's a good topic and hopefully we can keep it open and share both information and ideas about the history of the country and the region.

[phetaroi]

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(?).

I'm not sure that surprises me so much. I used to be the principal of a school in the U.S. that had a heavy ESL (ESOL) population. I got to know those students extremely well...a bit of an interest of mine. I found that those who "went American" to the greatest extent when they first got there, were also the ones most likely to shift the furthest back toward their roots after a while. I can't explain it...but it may be a corollary.

[phetaroi]

If you're really interested in Thai history then Sukhothai national park would be a dream come true. Two days cycling around all the history you'll need with a wonderful museum too.

The basic point I'm making is Thailand was never Thailand, so it didn't exist to be colonized... It's a bit like saying Slovakia has never been colonized and leaving it there; ignoring thousands of years of movement and different ruling groups.

You're very correct...Sukhothai is fascinating...much more so than Ayutthaya which is far more commericalized (although I do enjoy it, too).

The whole discussion thus far has, in my view, been stated incorrectly. The claim I have so often read is that Thailand was never colonized by a western power, thereby specifically comparing it to Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam during the time of...oops, I was going to say western imperialism at its max...but I'd better say...oops, I can't think of a better word than imperialism. Care for a cup of tea, old chaps?

[Gaccha]

The basic point I'm making is Thailand was never Thailand, so it didn't exist to be colonized... It's a bit like saying Slovakia has never been colonized and leaving it there; ignoring thousands of years of movement and different ruling groups.

Right. And just to add to this point, the mainstream position on Thailand is that it underwent dramatic 'internal colonisation'.

Ask yourself what makes a nation-state a nation-state. Bearing in mind, it exists only insofar as it is constituted in the minds of the people within the map boundaries. If all but a tiny number are slaves, what does it matter why the land was not taken by the Europeans. You are fetishing a concept not relevant to the time or place. It is like asking why dinosaurs did not have democracy. The implication by raising the topic of epic Thai resistance to colonisation, is that it is something to be proud of.

[dudemeister]

I have heard/read some Thais claiming even Angkor belonged to Thailand/Siam.

But shouldnt it be the other way around - most of the land, what is now central Thailand, was under Khmer rule, which we associate nowadays with present day Camboge?

[jasreeve17]

I have heard/read some Thais claiming even Angkor belonged to Thailand/Siam.

But shouldnt it be the other way around - most of the land, what is now central Thailand, was under Khmer rule, which we associate nowadays with present day Camboge?

At one time Angkor did belong to the same dynasty that ruled Ayudthaya - they were of course from a Khymer lineage (and some say brought Thai boxing to Thailand [see the drawings on the walls of Angkor that predate Thaiboxing, in Thailand, by hundreds of years...], but don't say that out loud...)

Edited October 24, 2009 by jasreeve17

[dudemeister]

So really its Muay Khymer!

hehe

[Heng]

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?

Um, thanks for the info. I didn't know that. We got here much later, in the 1930's. Got out of Nanking before things started getting ugly. I'd say that was a good call.

Yep, good choice by the ancestors; missed the Japanese horrors and the 'cultural' revolution. Glad you made it, my extended Issan family will enjoy living nextdoor to the Sino-Thais from Nanking. I'll remind them to bring their sound system - you'll just love the traditional music starting daily around 5am.

Well, unless you're actually planning on moving in with us, next door is a couple hundred meters in each direction. I don't think even your 'top of the line' AJ system from Carrefour will carry that far. I actually like traditional Thai music, I always make a point of playing it in our lobby, keeps up the illusion that we're assimilated 'locals,' and not puppet masters pulling all the strings while quietly humming the Imperial March like the Chinese sith lords that we are.

It's all academic really, so the place wasn't colonized. It's was a different world then. It's like reminiscing about national championships in football if you go to Yale. It's unlikely that those times will ever come about again.

[jasreeve17]

So really its Muay Khymer!

hehe

I'm not sure (though some folk claim it to be true). I was being a bit tongue in cheek with that one, but there is some evidence at Angkor that appears to be hundreds of years earlier than any mentions of the sport in Thailand. I've never seen or heard of any absolutely conclusive evidence.

I wouldn't say it to a Thai because it's their national sport (I wouldn't want to hear that football was invented in France!). Though I'd be interested in hearing from a historian who has the full story, if one exists.

These areas just reinforce the truth behind Thailand's history: it's a mishmash of various cultures from around the region from India to China, and probably beyond. And, the place is all the better for it...

Edited October 24, 2009 by jasreeve17

[jasreeve17]

Heng said: "Well, unless you're actually planning on moving in with us, next door is a couple hundred meters in each direction. I don't think even your 'top of the line' AJ system from Carrefour will carry that far. I actually like traditional Thai music, I always make a point of playing it in our lobby, keeps up the illusion that we're assimilated 'locals,' and not puppet masters pulling all the strings while quietly humming the Imperial March like the Chinese sith lords that we are.

It's all academic really, so the place wasn't colonized. It's was a different world then. It's like reminiscing about national championships in football if you go to Yale. It's unlikely that those times will ever come about again."

I'll have you know my inlaws have a BigC storecard... seeing is believing those BigC soundsystems (or should that be hearing is believing?). As we speak, my realtor (used a horrible American word just for you...) is searching out a house next to yours; I told him to find the Chinese looking bloke with a tuk tuk in his driveway covered in American college stickers... Best to double glaze your lobby soon as possible!

BTW, Yale and football don't go together. If you'd said Ipswich Town and football then I'd of understood you - especially with regard to forgotten glory.

[cognos]

It wasn't colonized for many reasons..one may use the analogy of the artichoke plant..if LOS was an artichoke..all the leaves have been plucked off by France and England, as they took land from LOS that is now Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos and Burma( Myammar) respectively, and LOS remained the buffer zone( that prevented all out war between France and England) between the 2 then superpowers in the late 19th century. In fact the French called LOS the Tampon, or buffer. Before this the Mekong formed boundaries that actually made sense.

[dumball]

In an article I read some while back , it even stated that the original Thai language was concocted from Kymer as was apsara dancing .

[sokal]

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...

I like that theory, lets leave it at that.

[Rumfoord]

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.

i like the broader view you are suggesting. putting the things in a much wider historical context.

but try doing long division with Roman numerals and than say thanks to the Hindu–Arabic numeral system and a Persian mathematician.

I agree 100%, which is the point I always make to Thais: why deny the strengths in your make-up??? Harking back to a 'culture' which never actually existed while rubbishing the elements that make up your identity is insanity...

The UK became strong because we took in, often were forced to, different words, numbers, phrases, ideas, concepts and everything else. The sooner Thais accept their great heritage as a mix from many different cultures and people, the better they will become and the more they will achieve in the future.

roman numerals: I V X L C D M

'arab' numerals: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and one of the greatest idea evar, the "0"

nation states and claims of long and strong historical backgrounds, consistency and dating back the origin of 'the nation' ancient as possible and so on - Nationalism itself - that is an invention, ideology in the 18/19 century europe. it's a myth, developed by historian of that time, that became also a political concept.

you are right, if we look more thorough at the past we will find a true polycultural mixture, cultural exchange even in pre modern times, in the mediaeval times, in the ancient world. like you said, evidence we can find in architecture, rite, religion and languages. origin of words.

nationalism can be a plague. nationalistic mindset and stupidity you will found displayed by many people and it start with little things. just like the one who complained that at his return to america the first language he heard was spanish. or the ones that are afraid of a muslim takeover in the UK. the Christianisation wasn't that long time ago, the Windsors are actually of 'german' origin and so on.

if you say that you always make a point to Thais, its kinda a little bit stepping into the trap of nationalistic insanity. the accusation that Thais are übernationalistic is in some extent a projection, an eurocentric viewpoint. partly a supriority opinion and look down on thais with 'how they can dare' in mind and partly a wrong assumption that forms of nationalism in east and west are exactly the same.

never been colonised is still a different thing then not being free of any 'foreign' influence.

relatively speaking it is all a question of perspective.

if an extraterrestrial intelligence would analyse the sytem earth, they could came to the conclusion that in terms of expansion, spread and conquer new living space, sucessful evolutionary strategies and so on - the most prosperous species are nightshade plants like tomato, potato and tobacco plants and Capsicum with its fruit chili pepper. humans their dispersal vector.

i just want to point out another indicator of 'foreign' influence to what many seen as a typical feature of a region or nation - the local cuisine. before 1492 no potatos for europeans and no chili in SEA. but again a different thing and no answer to the question of colonised or not.

[sokal]

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?

I don't know about that. That is like saying Israel has colonised the US now.

Federal reserve chairman-Jew

Goldman Sachs CEO-Jew

[whistleblower]

i suppose the easy answer is ' nobody wanted it'