Is Thailand Rife With Colonial Influences?

[Morakot]

Yes, colonized by Chinese.

Really?!

Only if you're talking about hundreds of years ago and over a long period of time, long before the rise of the modern idea of "nationhood" in this part of the world.

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

[sirineou]

The topic of hypothetical colonisation seems to be a particular favourite with Bangkok taxi drivers. The vast majority of them say they wish Thailand had been colonised by Britain, "then we'd be like Singapore!".

Are you sure your Thais that good? are you sure they did not say "more like Pakistan, or Myamar"

[BigJohnnyBKK]

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

Yes quite familiar with that, and IMO little to do with colonies as used in the English language.

The central state of a colonial empire actually controls the administrative details to a high degree, not just occasionally interfering in succession issues. The submissive state isn't actually yielding its sovereignty, just pay a tax to keep the peace, sort of like alimony payments I suppose.

WRT to China specifically it's pretty funny to read translations of the early accounts of trade with the developed world at that time, where the incoming goods were interpeted as tribute payments to the all powerful emperor of the civilized world by the heathens, while the goods offered in exchange were described as gifts from that kind and generous ruler 8-)

[chiangmaikelly]

http://en.wikipedia....ributary_system

Yes quite familiar with that, and IMO little to do with colonies as used in the English language.

The central state of a colonial empire actually controls the administrative details to a high degree, not just occasionally interfering in succession issues. The submissive state isn't actually yielding its sovereignty, just pay a tax to keep the peace, sort of like alimony payments I suppose.

WRT to China specifically it's pretty funny to read translations of the early accounts of trade with the developed world at that time, where the incoming goods were interpeted as tribute payments to the all powerful emperor of the civilized world by the heathens, while the goods offered in exchange were described as gifts from that kind and generous ruler 8-)

Perhaps you could go over the 15 major famines in India during British rule. For starters.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

What is the difference?

Yes they are related, but colonialism was driven mostly by economic motives and methods, gaining some level of cooperation from the locals, only using full-on military tactics as needed in the later stages.

Britain colonized India primarily through the East India Company rather than direct military conquest.

The aboriginals of the "new world" were largely treated as subhuman and could usually be cleared off their lands without full-on military conflict, exceptions proving the rule.

But you're right all depends on whose ox is being gored in the end a semantic difference.

But wrt the OP, both the Khmer empire and Burma conquered areas of what is now Thailand, but wasn't able to occupy the central kingdom long enough to actually control its resources long-term.

AFAIK, I'm not claiming to be an expert in the region's history.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

Perhaps you could go over the 15 major famines in India during British rule. For starters.

Don't understand the relevance. I'm not defending colonialism if that's your perception, you're the one who asked for my definition of the difference between the words?

Britain would never have been able to conquer India through military force initially, it gained its control there through much sneakier means.

[chiangmaikelly]

Try Burma shaping Thailand on ever so many levels - colonialisation isn't only a western prerogative

Sure, as if China's "colonized" Tibet.

I think the word you're looking for is "conquered".

I don't see much difference in reality between the two words when applied to the subjugated people.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

I don't see much difference in reality between the two words when applied to the subjugated people.

Sure as I said there's a lot of overlap of meaning, but the normal usage of the words do have distinct meanings. Conquest usually implies military-driven occupation of territory, usually adjacent to the hegemon, pure land-grab imperialism. Which last is another loaded term that has in modern times come to also include the colonial phenomenon, particularly in left-wing ideology.

Although the subcontinental Indian and the new world colonization processes were very different, what they share is the primarily mercantile motives, the more thorough exploitation of the population and resources. Obviously the two strategies will be combined when required, the one supports the other.

As an example of the distinction, one could say

"After the initial military conquest of Tibet, the Chinese government embarked on a major programme of colonisation to ensure the permanence of their occupation. Millions of ethnic Han were encouraged through subsidies (and in some cases forced) to settle in Lhasa and other Tibetan population centres, and currently ethnic Chinese connected to the corrupt bureaucracy largely dominate many sectors of the developing economy of the territory."

[metisdead]

Posts and replies with reference to HM the King have been removed. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family.

Other posts containing links to sites containing nudity have been removed as well as posts commenting on moderation.

If you have a problem with moderation issues, address them in an email to support at thaivisa dot com

[Trembly]

The topic of hypothetical colonisation seems to be a particular favourite with Bangkok taxi drivers. The vast majority of them say they wish Thailand had been colonised by Britain, "then we'd be like Singapore!".

Are you sure your Thais that good? are you sure they did not say "more like Pakistan, or Myamar"

Yes, I'm pretty sure my Thai is that good.

[simple1]

The topic of hypothetical colonisation seems to be a particular favourite with Bangkok taxi drivers. The vast majority of them say they wish Thailand had been colonised by Britain, "then we'd be like Singapore!".

Are you sure your Thais that good? are you sure they did not say "more like Pakistan, or Myamar"

Just as a reminder, Pakistan came into being upon India gaining independence in 1947

[Sing_Sling]

Try Burma shaping Thailand on ever so many levels - colonialisation isn't only a western prerogative

Sure, as if China's "colonized" Tibet.

I think the word you're looking for is "conquered".

What is the difference?

Historically there isn't one. Colonialism wasn't a touchy-feely movement to give other countries a better life, it was subjugation pure and simple.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

Historically there isn't one. Colonialism wasn't a touchy-feely movement to give other countries a better life, it was subjugation pure and simple.

I'm certainly not at all in the camp of the apologists for colonialism, in fact my perception is that most military conquests are much more benign for the subjugated population than colonialism's more thorough exploitation.

However, even though the distinction in meaning is a fine one it is a real and useful one. "Occupation" and "genocide" are also related terms, and often just as intertwined with the other two.

Distinguishing between the meanings of these terms in no way says anything about the relative immorality of the very different behaviors so labeled.

[SteeleJoe]

The topic of hypothetical colonisation seems to be a particular favourite with Bangkok taxi drivers. The vast majority of them say they wish Thailand had been colonised by Britain, "then we'd be like Singapore!".

Are you sure your Thais that good? are you sure they did not say "more like Pakistan, or Myamar"

Yes, I'm pretty sure my Thai is that good.

Are you REALLY sure? Just because you've been speaking it all your life, don't get cocky.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[BigJohnnyBKK]

I've been trying, but still haven't found any taxi drivers in Bangkok that know which countries in the region were colonized by whom. I would think one with that level of education/knowledge would most likely be speaking English wouldn't they, maybe Burmese?

[SteeleJoe]

I've been trying, but still haven't found any taxi drivers in Bangkok that know which countries in the region were colonized by whom. I would think one with that level of education/knowledge would most likely be speaking English wouldn't they, maybe Burmese?

I know plenty of relatively uneducated people who know that Singapore was a British colony. I know plenty of taxi drivers that are relatively educated. Moreover, the "they were colonized, so that's why their English/ government/ infrastructure is better" is a common excuse by lots of Thais who have no idea that powers other than the British were colonizers.

And they wouldn't be likely to speak English to Trembly (or anyone else who could speak Thai fluently for that matter)

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Sing_Sling]

Historically there isn't one. Colonialism wasn't a touchy-feely movement to give other countries a better life, it was subjugation pure and simple.

I'm certainly not at all in the camp of the apologists for colonialism, in fact my perception is that most military conquests are much more benign for the subjugated population than colonialism's more thorough exploitation.

However, even though the distinction in meaning is a fine one it is a real and useful one. "Occupation" and "genocide" are also related terms, and often just as intertwined with the other two.

Distinguishing between the meanings of these terms in no way says anything about the relative immorality of the very different behaviors so labeled.

I like your debating style, thanks.

It is indeed a fine one but I think you then use an incorrect example to underline your argument. Occupation and genocide are not at all related, bar in a few cases (Tibet springs to mind - and how about internal (self-) genocide like in Cambodia, Ruanda etc...) Occupation is a completely different kettle of fish as it does not bring with it genocide, and the examples would fill a book.

As for Thai taxi drivers knowing anything about history outside of Thailand . . . I'd be amazed. To have a discussion about the French use of sports in cultural imperialism in French-Africa with Somchai from Loei would make me believe in God. Any God.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

Occupation and genocide are not at all related, bar in a few cases

You mean little ones like the americas and down under?

I was only pointing out that these are separate but related terms, mixed in various degrees at different places and times, and much abused by propagandists of all shades of the political spectrum.

As for Thai taxi drivers knowing anything about history outside of Thailand . . . I'd be amazed.

Actually I have met some very well-educated professionals that happen to have fallen on hard times and were temporarily driving cabs at the time. But it's the exception that proves the rule so they say. . .