Why Was Thailand Never Colonised ?

[Heng]

... and always showed up like clockwork to get their visas and purple stamps.

Pulled the blood from your head didn't it?

Hardly, just a basic autorun file called pushingthewhingersbuttons.inf

[DocStrangelove]

Its never too late.

Farang Men to the Isaan region:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[Lancelot]

Thailand was a buffer state between British Burma and French Indochina. It suited the British and French for Thailand to remain independent.

[brahmburgers]

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

good one, t.s ...got a smile from me.

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.

good point. If you were to look at a time sequence map of SE Asia which showed the past 1,000 years in one minute, the various colors would droop around like a light show at a Grateful Dead concert.

Another point, as far as I know, earlier rulers in this territory never put up barriers to outside traders. In contrast, the Chinese and the Japanese did that vehemently (against Europeans) a couple hundred years ago, and major conflicts ensued with much suffering by the Asians.

If Siam territory was located along major seafaring routes, as Vietnam, Malaysia, or Indonesia are, then it would have been a more ripe target for colonization - simply because the Europeans in their ships would have been closer by. Siam was somewhat set-away from major sea routes, so therefore its leaders had the time to assess what was happening to their neighbors. That was a big reason why King Chula (or was it Rama II?) took his entourage on its amazing diplomatic mission to Europe.

In some ways, present day Thailand is somewhat colonized. It has the 2nd most numerous number of 7-11's outside of the US (after Japan). All its young people want to be as white-skinned as possible, and as much like farang as possible, with all the western-invented gadgets they can amass.

Question to no one in particular: If Siam had been colonized, would they have a better railroad system?

[Heng]

In some ways, present day Thailand is somewhat colonized. It has the 2nd most numerous number of 7-11's outside of the US (after Japan). All its young people want to be as white-skinned as possible, and as much like farang as possible, with all the western-invented gadgets they can amass.

I'd agree that suggests the 'colony of Japan' argument is probably most accurate. In all of the industrial estates I've been too, they probably have more companies here than any other country. Repatriated profits are the closest thing to colonial tribute nowadays. The only thing that keeps it from real colony status is that as a % of the economy, even their significant status is dwarfed by local business as a whole.

[Sherlocke]

White-skinned is not like farang - like Japanese, like people who don't work in the field, like rich people who can afford to stay inside with air-con - that's why white skin

[Flatouthruthefog]

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

good one, t.s ...got a smile from me.

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.

good point. If you were to look at a time sequence map of SE Asia which showed the past 1,000 years in one minute, the various colors would droop around like a light show at a Grateful Dead concert.

Another point, as far as I know, earlier rulers in this territory never put up barriers to outside traders. In contrast, the Chinese and the Japanese did that vehemently (against Europeans) a couple hundred years ago, and major conflicts ensued with much suffering by the Asians.

If Siam territory was located along major seafaring routes, as Vietnam, Malaysia, or Indonesia are, then it would have been a more ripe target for colonization - simply because the Europeans in their ships would have been closer by. Siam was somewhat set-away from major sea routes, so therefore its leaders had the time to assess what was happening to their neighbors. That was a big reason why King Chula (or was it Rama II?) took his entourage on its amazing diplomatic mission to Europe.

In some ways, present day Thailand is somewhat colonized. It has the 2nd most numerous number of 7-11's outside of the US (after Japan). All its young people want to be as white-skinned as possible, and as much like farang as possible, with all the western-invented gadgets they can amass.

Question to no one in particular: If Siam had been colonized, would they have a better railroad system?

Hi

If Siam had been colonized, they would certainly have a better railroad system. One with a sensible gap between the rails. A SAFE one. Instead of the biggest narrow gauge system in the world, restricting speeds and coming to a dead (and I do mean dead) halt every time the rain washes away the gravel under the sleepers and the overly-wide, high-centre-of-gravity train falls over.

Happily, at very slow speeds.

This is not rocket science. But it is very close indeed to the 'Rocket'.

(Look it up)

[Sherlocke]

Wasn't the rocket broad guage?

[Flatouthruthefog]

Post number 6 answers your question but Id like to add that the british reparations for Thailand declaring war on us was 3 million tonnes of rice (or something like that). Shame they didnt ask for unlimited visa privileges for british citizens.

Did Thailand ever have a british colonial administrator with more power then the king? This would be 'colonisation' in my book. Maybe add driving on the left side of the road because any sane person knows that the right side is the natural side to drive a car.

I remember reading something about a Thai-Persian advisor who got more powerful then the king in the 19th century, but I think later WWI broke in before official colonization by the British could be written in the books.

"Any sane person"? No siree bub!! Only a died-in-the-wool, uninformed, American could ever make an assumption like that. And it WAS an American who taught us that to ASSUME makes an ASS of U and ME!

Let me instruct you in the facts, which are so easy to check these days.

Most people are right handed. That is why, in the days of swords, the weapons were worn on the left side of the body so they could be drawn and used easily by the right hand.

So men riding along the road (on horses, not '55 Chevrolets), rode on the left so they could quickly draw their swords if the man coming the other way appeared to be an enemy.

This was true all over the civilised world (plus America!) until one Napoleon Bonaparte rose to power in France, hating the British (as all envious dictators have done for ever). He decreed that his men would march/ride on the right, as was his right (but doubtless part of his ultimate downfall).

This irrational practice spread, and because Chevrolet (basically French, of course, as the name suggests) later became rather successful in the USA, your countrymen gradually moved many States over from the left to the right.

I admit that most nations have followed this erroneous lead, but more DRIVERS drive on the left, world wide. Not just UK, Ireland, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia, of course, but the vast vehicle populations of Japan, Australia, New Zealand and many other sensible nations. Just google it - please!

One thing for which we must all thank Napoleon of course, is his order that in columns of men marching at night, the man at the front must carry a white light and the man at the back must carry a red.

Now, if we can all pass this on to our Thai friends, especially those with motorycles, we may even turn this whimsical digression into a life saver.......?

Huh?

[Heng]

I definitely prefer driving on the left side IN the car, particularly with a stick shift. As for what side of the road, I tend to give myself the right of way anywhere so that's not a huge issue.

[brahmburgers]

Last I heard, 7-11 is an American franchise, not Japanese.

As for railroad, who built/oversaw Thailand's rail system?

I didn't know it was narrow gauge. The rails from Bkk to Kanchanaburi appeared to be standard gauge. Perhaps because I'm referring to the very narrow gauge rails which I saw in northern California (Nevada County) which were used for the placer gold trade going on in the mid to late 1800's.

Does Thailand have plans for rail lines going further afield? Seems it would be a good plan, and lessen dependence on the ubiquitous smoke-belching long-haul buses. Better still, would be some sort of campaign to encourage Thais to think about staying at home for holidays, rather than all of them feeling driven (pun intended) to go travel to far away provinces for Songkran and other holidays. Ok, not going to happen, but wanted to vent that anyway. It's a microcosm of Chinese all traveling somewhere distant each New Year which, incidentally, is the largest human migration pattern on the planet.

Edited October 30, 2009 by brahmburgers

[Sherlocke]

Post number 6 answers your question but Id like to add that the british reparations for Thailand declaring war on us was 3 million tonnes of rice (or something like that). Shame they didnt ask for unlimited visa privileges for british citizens.

Did Thailand ever have a british colonial administrator with more power then the king? This would be 'colonisation' in my book. Maybe add driving on the left side of the road because any sane person knows that the right side is the natural side to drive a car.

I remember reading something about a Thai-Persian advisor who got more powerful then the king in the 19th century, but I think later WWI broke in before official colonization by the British could be written in the books.

"Any sane person"? No siree bub!! Only a died-in-the-wool, uninformed, American could ever make an assumption like that. And it WAS an American who taught us that to ASSUME makes an ASS of U and ME!

Let me instruct you in the facts, which are so easy to check these days.

Most people are right handed. That is why, in the days of swords, the weapons were worn on the left side of the body so they could be drawn and used easily by the right hand.

So men riding along the road (on horses, not '55 Chevrolets), rode on the left so they could quickly draw their swords if the man coming the other way appeared to be an enemy.

This was true all over the civilised world (plus America!) until one Napoleon Bonaparte rose to power in France, hating the British (as all envious dictators have done for ever). He decreed that his men would march/ride on the right, as was his right (but doubtless part of his ultimate downfall).

This irrational practice spread, and because Chevrolet (basically French, of course, as the name suggests) later became rather successful in the USA, your countrymen gradually moved many States over from the left to the right.

I admit that most nations have followed this erroneous lead, but more DRIVERS drive on the left, world wide. Not just UK, Ireland, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia, of course, but the vast vehicle populations of Japan, Australia, New Zealand and many other sensible nations. Just google it - please!

One thing for which we must all thank Napoleon of course, is his order that in columns of men marching at night, the man at the front must carry a white light and the man at the back must carry a red.

Now, if we can all pass this on to our Thai friends, especially those with motorycles, we may even turn this whimsical digression into a life saver.......?

Huh?

.....and the reason we drive on the left in Thailand is most probably because the JAPANESE drive on that side - not the British. - Why do the Japanese drive on that side? - ........

If you watch early American films you will notice them driving on the left in LHD cars!.

About 40% of the worlds roads are "drive on the left" and many are developing economies os by no means a small minority. - India? and most ex-Brit colonies

[Payboy]

... and always showed up like clockwork to get their visas and purple stamps.

Pulled the blood from your head didn't it?

Hardly, just a basic autorun file called pushingthewhingersbuttons.inf

Did I tell you I dont need to go to the immigration office for my visa? We have a local Chinese cutie who runs those errands for us, and I never had to whip her yet. Except when she wears leather and screams for it.

[Heng]

Last I heard, 7-11 is an American franchise, not Japanese.

Have the Americans bought it back already? Haven't really done a follow up since college... basically the franchisees saved their profits better than the franchise founders and bought control. Much like the trend of a lot of things along the lines of 'I thought it up, but couldn't run with the ball' in various industries: electronics, cars, etc.

[Heng]

... and always showed up like clockwork to get their visas and purple stamps.

Pulled the blood from your head didn't it?

Hardly, just a basic autorun file called pushingthewhingersbuttons.inf

Did I tell you I dont need to go to the immigration office for my visa? We have a local Chinese cutie who runs those errands for us, and I never had to whip her yet. Except when she wears leather and screams for it.

Yeah, there's a big goldfish in my tank as well that always hogs the sunken treasure ship, strut-swimming around in circles.

[Payboy]

Yeah, there's a big goldfish in my tank as well that always hogs the sunken treasure ship, strut-swimming around in circles.

Home truths can hurt.

Just like the colonials, I can leave Thailand anytime I want. Can you?

[Heng]

Yeah, there's a big goldfish in my tank as well that always hogs the sunken treasure ship, strut-swimming around in circles.

Home truths can hurt.

Just like the colonials, I can leave Thailand anytime I want. Can you?

You'll get over it.

And of course I can, and do regularly.

[Payboy]

And of course I can, and do regularly.

Yeah.

[Heng]

Go fish.

[Payboy]

Go fish.

[Heng]

Go fish.

[Nostraforce]

How to drive

[AugustineB]

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.

No I didnt know that - quite a coincidence !

I was of course referring to European colonialism between the 15th and 20th centuries which is arguably still continuing today. .

I still do not buy the buffer state explanation - but this just seems like post colonial pique to me but of course I still know very little about the subject . However there seems to be a glaring inconsisteny in this argument - since when did colonial powers need "buffer states" they didnt have them anywhere else, between U.S.A. and Mexico, Brazil and Spanish speaking South America , Quebec and Canada etc etc - war between colonial powers jostling for dominance seemed to be standard procedure .

The same goes for some other explanations I have heard such as "Thailand doesnt really exist" or has only recently attained its current borders - the same could be said about most nations on the planet - all come from a myriad of cultural and social influences (BTW - the Celts were not German) - the reality of race, national identity or even personal identity is of course dubious but within the conteaxt of this thread is not really useful .

Suffice to say that "Thailand" as a state has had a coherent identity (as coherant as any state gets anyway) for quite some time . Although its identity may have diverse sources (as most countries do) the European colonialists were sufficiently alien to them to cement Thai determination not to cede control of their land and should, I would argue, be seen in a completely different light as say Chinese or Japanese economic influence and domination in WW2 and the latter half of the twentieth century - besides I am basically curious as to how they escaped European colonial rule , not the mongols , the Japanese etc etc . Yet somehow Thailand avoided the plight that so many other countries sucumbed to and I am curious as to why (if I have got the wrong idea - by all means explain why - but with verifiable references or at least logic) .

I have done a little research now . One recent book I read "mad about the Mekhong" suggests that the French were very keen to occupy Thailand and incorporate it into French "Indo-China" so to say that nobody wanted Thailand is simply not true.

Most Thais I speak to say that King Rama 5 sent out emissaries to many European nations to get to "know their enemy" so to speak. They also mention that one of the Royal Family was wedded to a Russian Aristocrat and thus they had Russia on their side. They say that the Thais played off the colonial powers against each other and thus retained sovereignty . Of course they lost a lot of land and let Britain take charge of certain mineral operations etc - but lets face it Britain just took over everywhere else they wanted to so from what I am reading somebody did a pretty good job of keeping Brittania and France at bay. Perhaps the Thais are brainwashed - but then so are Europeans - usually to believe they are superior and thus the argument that if anyone escaped colonialism its because "we let them" smlls a bit fishy to me.

Of course you may disagree but if so please cite your sources if you have any so that I may read up further on the subject.

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.......

Ok - so rather than just being rude could you actually provide some verifiable references for your opinion or even a reasoned argument otherwise guidebooks, in academic terms, are actually more valid than your post as they they have at least made it into print and sometimes even provide references .

When engaging in a historical discussion it is very useful to at least cite your sources otherwise it becomes just lots of opinions - which is fine but not constitute a discussion of much substance. Its quite easy to voice an opinion online - at university students are often penalised for citing sources online for this reason.

Edited November 6, 2009 by AugustineB

[thaihome]

.... Instead of the biggest narrow gauge system in the world, ..

Nowhere near the biggest system in the world. The SRT operates about 4,000km of meter guage line, India alone has over 17,000 km of meter guage track. South Africa and Spain both operate rail systems entirely in meter gauge.

Why do you people insist on making such inane comments?

TH

[Sherlocke]

"since when did colonial powers need "buffer states" they didnt have them anywhere else, between U.S.A. and Mexico, Brazil and Spanish speaking South America , Quebec and Canada etc etc - war between colonial powers jostling for dominance seemed to be standard procedure . "

Buffer states history is littered with them - read up on it - Afghanistan, (Thailand) Belgium, Poland, Canada and Mexico may well have been regarded as such - Alaska!

Edited November 6, 2009 by Sherlocke