Thailand colonized

[stickylies]

IMO the OP asks if thailand ever was a colony (of a western state). the answer is no (and all the rest here is blah blah and showing off what u read on wikipedia).

an interesting thing to discuss is WHY thailand was never colonised.

Edited November 22, 2013 by stickylies

[stickylies]

Thailand was and still is colonised by the Chinese..

economically the whole west is currently colonised by the Chinese...

[Africanteacher]

We are colonising Thailand NOW

[Gandtee]

Were not the Southern provinces given by the British for logging concessions in the North and other trading agreements?

[osiboy]

The British did take Burma and a good part of Malaysia away from Thailand.

I guess you could say they colonized them after taking .them from Thailand.

After WWII the Brits walked away from both, but they were not returned to Thailand.

Some Brit expats I know claim they are not treated as well by the Thai government ( immigration ) as other expats.

I wonder if the Thais still hold a grudge?

Probably not.

Most Thais I know don't know much of their countries history.

or at least anything negative they dont know , many have no idea of what the japanese or french did to thais , they probably are tought that they were so powerful the brits/french were scared to invade , but truth is thailand were used as a political pawn during western colonization of SE Asia , bb guns are no match for a tommy gun , they had to pay the french for the return of chanthaburi and surrounding areas.

[osiboy]

IMO the OP asks if thailand ever was a colony (of a western state). the answer is no (and all the rest here is blah blah and showing off what u read on wikipedia).

an interesting thing to discuss is WHY thailand was never colonised.

as i said,...........they were a political pawn , if the french invaded from vietnam/cambodia the brits would help from the bumese side for money/gold and visa versa.i think i read it was 4 or 5 french ships to take control of trat/chanthaburi ,.....sling shots were not very effective against cannons !

[Benmart]

I think it is a ridiculous thing to take pride on. Almost any country in the world has some period when it was dominated by some other place. Ok, Thailand escaped being a "colony" in the technical sense when the whole mercantilism idea was all the rage and later on when the pillage really got to new levels. That said, they aren't an exception from history and I think being proud of that is a ten-year-old's version of being proud. They have plenty to be proud about, but that idea is overly simplistic and simple minded. Basically, people cut up time and events as is necessary in ways that are convenient for their national mythology. I have seen it in almost every place I have been (although some places are more realistic than others). I was told lies in history class as a child. When I found out that they were lies, I had this idea that other countries told their people the truth. Then I traveled and studied more. Guess what. Every place has its mythology and the people tell themselves stories about how their history.

Thanks for the post and I enjoyed your thoughts. I agree that oversimplification of a nations history is common place. I believe that it is so, in part, due to the nature of peoples ability and willingness accept it.

Histories are written by humans and subject to gratuitous editing based on the writers preferences, understandings, prejudices, references and insight.

All the more reason to do diligent research and scratch at the veneer and gilded coating of mythology that is sometimes presented as historical fact.

"The old are a precious resource. If only we could distill their knowledge and fill the reservoirs of our young! Then perhaps the world would get better mileage and less engine knock".

Me - 2013 ..LOL.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Benmart

[Westaurel]

Thailand was never colonized but very much inflluenced by Westerners as USA (BKK lifestyle) or UK (left driving) and copy everything coming from Europe.

[Mudcrab]

The British did take Burma and a good part of Malaysia away from Thailand.

I guess you could say they colonized them after taking .them from Thailand.

After WWII the Brits walked away from both, but they were not returned to Thailand.

Some Brit expats I know claim they are not treated as well by the Thai government ( immigration ) as other expats.

I wonder if the Thais still hold a grudge?

Probably not.

Most Thais I know don't know much of their countries history.

"Most Thais I know don't know much of their countries history."

Neither do you, it seems.

The British did not "take Burma and a good part of Malaysia away from Thailand". The exhanges of territory were much more complicated that this, and Thailand (or 'Siam') itself gained much territory and influence up to the early 20th century.

Although Thailand/Siam was not actually colonised by foreign powers, there are historians who now argue that the country has effectively colonised itself, with some classes and ethnic sub-groups dominating others. Factors such as the 'sakdina' system and Chinese immigration need to be considered - among several other factors.

I don't pretend to have made a detailed study of this - and those who are interested should read books by David Wyatt, Thongchai Winichakul and others - but I might just summarise part of the situation, as I see it, by asking: 'Who needs British colonials in pith helmets riding on decorated elephants when you have Thaksins in Prada riding in Mercedes?'

And furthermore... I guess that an underlying and very interesting question about whether Thailand/Siam was ever colonised is this:

'Is there evidence that formerly colonised countries fare worse, in the subsequent years, than uncolonised countries?' This is, I'd say, more than a clever exam question; it's worth an entire book or even TV documentary, but I have never seen this question discussed seriously in a book or on TV, with statistics and proper data.

Interesting question indeed....I'm dumb......what's the answer (so I can't cheat )?

[Mudcrab]

IMO the OP asks if thailand ever was a colony (of a western state). the answer is no (and all the rest here is blah blah and showing off what u read on wikipedia).

an interesting thing to discuss is WHY thailand was never colonised.

Nobody wanted it??

[7by7]

IMO the OP asks if thailand ever was a colony (of a western state). the answer is no (and all the rest here is blah blah and showing off what u read on wikipedia).

an interesting thing to discuss is WHY thailand was never colonised.

Both Kings Rama IV and V were concerned about European colonisation and made various treaties with both France and Britain in, successful, efforts to avoid this; but did have to cede territory to both powers.

Although not the official history, I can't help wondering if the main reason Siam, as it was then, was not colonised by either the British or the French was because both powers wanted a buffer state between British India and French Indochina.

[A1Str8]

No. They seem to be very proud of it. So proud that they have failed to notice that meanwhile the Chinese took over their country.

[DrTuner]

Thailand was and still is colonised by the Chinese..

economically the whole west is currently colonised by the Chinese...

+ Africa. Ghenghis would be proud.

[TheSpade]

I can't help wondering if the main reason Siam, as it was then, was not colonised by either the British or the French was because both powers wanted a buffer state between British India and French Indochina.

I believe it's fairly well known that's what the reason was.

[TheNativeSon]

One could say the country is controlled by the Japanese right now.

WRONG! Whomever controls the banking system, controls the country. The physical facts speak for themselves.The ethnic Chinese totally control Thailand.

[Water Buffalo]

No no no. Thailand was never colonized by anyone.

[Dap]

The British did take Burma and a good part of Malaysia away from Thailand.

I guess you could say they colonized them after taking .them from Thailand.

After WWII the Brits walked away from both, but they were not returned to Thailand.

Some Brit expats I know claim they are not treated as well by the Thai government ( immigration ) as other expats.

I wonder if the Thais still hold a grudge?

Probably not.

Most Thais I know don't know much of their countries history.

Some of Siam was reorganized but that was a fair time before WW2 not as a result of it.

Interesting website here: http://www.csmngt.com/thailand_history.htm

1809 siam.jpgcolonail expansion by year.jpg

Looks like France chewed up more than Britain!

thaicbr, what are the 2 color (purple and yellow) distinctions of the left map (1809 Siam) that you posted here?

I checked the reference but couldn't find that map. Would appreciate your input.

Cheers, dap

[TheNativeSon]

We are colonising Thailand NOW

If you are not a member of the ethnic Chinese klan in Thailand, then you definitely are not a part of that "we are colonizing" equation

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed. Other posts in which the reply has been made within the quoted post have been removed as well. When replying to a post, make your reply outside of the

tags.

[TheNativeSon]

We are colonising Thailand NOW

Are you an African who teaches, or a teacher to African students? Just curious.

[Kevin1908]

I know that the allies were poised to invade but that was abandoned after the Japanese surrender. Are there any references any where to what invasion plans the allies had. I know that the Japanese relocated may POWs to the east of the country in expectation of invasion.

[bigbamboo]

thailand (or siam) was controlled by burma (from ~1550 to ~1800) and by japan (1941 to 1945)

parts of the country were taken by british and french empires and later became part of other countries

i recommend not to discuss this subject with thai people as they can get a bit emotional about it

Well for starters the burmese never controlled siam for that long. People get emotional because you're full of ****

But this did happen

"

• • To totally destroy an entire city.. destruction of such magnitude, multiple huge stone temples . without bull dozers.. it must have been quite a demolition project!

The Burmese destruction of Ayutthaya in 1767 resulted in the loss of all official Thai government paperwork & records.

Off topic a bit but it's amazing what can be done with the right incentive.

When the Taj Mahal was finally completed after twenty years there was still the problem of all the attendant materials.... supports, stones, ramps, scaffolding etc. which littered the site and blocked the view of the palace from all sides. When he asked the master builder how long it would take to clear everything away he was told it would take several months and cost a small fortune. Unhappy with this he announced to the populace that anyone who helped to remove the materials could have them for free.

The next day the site was completely cleared.

[TheNativeSon]

i just love this line from the Thai history pages i linked to:

"The Dutch were negotiated out, the French were thrown out, the British were bought out, the Japanese were nuked out & the Americans voted themselves out ... but they're all back on vacation now ;-)."

[Hugh Jarse]

One could say the country is controlled by the Japanese right now.

You surely mean Chinese since they are the biggest investors and likely to continue to be so.?

[Ulic]

"Tilac2 quote"

'Is there evidence that formerly colonised countries fare worse, in the subsequent years, than uncolonised countries?' This is, I'd say, more than a clever exam question; it's worth an entire book or even TV documentary, but I have never seen this question discussed seriously in a book or on TV, with statistics and proper data.

This would make for an interesting analysis. Haiti is very proud to be the first in the Caribbean to throw out the

French Colonials. I bet they wish they could bring the French back now. Not the same I know. I had a Kenyan

lawyer friend lament to me that the only reason South Africa was ahead of Kenya economically was the was the former Apartheid govt and there investment in infrastructure. I did point out that the problem in Kenya was no

money had been spent on infrastructure (untilrecently), since the British were kicked out. To many government

officials lining there pockets. Colonization was certainly was not all good but it was not all bad either.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Ulic

[Foggy Bottom]

.... Unfortunately democracy may even overcome Hadrians wall.

NEVER!!!

Here in God's Garden (Northumbria) we are debating rebuilding "The Waal" to keep out the Cameronian French and their ilk.

We're also in talks with Jockland to rebuild the Antonine Waal and keep out the Immigrant enclave in Aberdeen.

[super22k]

All of Asia including Thailand should should thank the USA and Britain for destroying the Japanese war machine. If the Japanese had succeeded Thailand would have been enslaved pretty quickly. Also,did I read that apart from the deaths of many European servicmen at the Bridge over the river Kwai and Burmese death railway, there were thousands of Thai people killed,too,by the Japanese.

[dighambara]

By a western power, no; and it is the only country in S.E. Asia which wasn't. Although it did cede some territory to both the British and the French.

Large parts were conquered by the Burmese in the late 18th century before the Burmese were later expelled.

Much of what is modern Thailand was part of the Khmer empire from the 9th to 15th centuries.

The country was occupied by the Japanese during WW11, with the consent of the government at the time; but there was much resistance to this.

History of Thailand may be of interest and gives much more detail.

Excellent synopsis. Thailand is the only country to have never been dominated by a western power - hence their complete lack of understanding of western methods.

Per some sources, Following the capture of Black Tai slaves from Tonkin, they were resettled along the Chao Praya River and Ayuttaya was founded as a small city-state by Prince U-Thong of Divaravati, as a farming center and source of servants. After the fall of Divarivati (some say plague in the late 13th century), Ayuttaya allied with the Khmer (similar outer Indian culture). REF: ''The Indianized States of Southeast Asia', by G. Coedes

With the fall of the Khmer Empire (also plague - 14th century), Ayuttaya became independent and powerful, absorbing and losing: Malaya, Northern Burma, Tumasik (Singapore), Yunnan, Cambodia, Laos (Lan Chang), Annam (Central Vietnam) and for a while Tonkin (North Vietnam).

The British took Northern Burma, Yunan, Malaya and Singapore, while the French moved Cambodia, formed Vietnam, then took Siam's SouthEastern Provinces including the ruins at Angkor and all of Laos. Modern day Cambodia is half old Cambodia (not to be confused with Khmer) and half Siam. Over 80% of the country that was South Vietnam had been taken from Cambodia by the French.

Rama IV, being a well educated Monk, he knew the history of both the French and British, and the real possibility that he could play off one against the other. He was quite successful at parlaying defeats into minor victories - as he spoke both English and French, it was difficult to pull the wool over his eyes.

Although many still blame Thailand for attrocities commited dutting WWII, It was the Japanese who controlled the unwilling Thai Soldiers.

Much of the Thai Government and military secretly supported the Resistance and Japanese supplies readily found their way into Seri Thai hands.

[dighambara]

By a western power, no; and it is the only country in S.E. Asia which wasn't. Although it did cede some territory to both the British and the French.

Large parts were conquered by the Burmese in the late 18th century before the Burmese were later expelled.

Much of what is modern Thailand was part of the Khmer empire from the 9th to 15th centuries.

The country was occupied by the Japanese during WW11, with the consent of the government at the time; but there was much resistance to this.

History of Thailand may be of interest and gives much more detail.

Excellent synopsis. Thailand is the only country to have never been dominated by a western power - hence their complete lack of understanding of western methods.

Per some sources, Following the capture of Black Tai slaves from Tonkin, they were resettled along the Chao Praya River and Ayuttaya was founded as a small city-state by Prince U-Thong of Divaravati, as a farming center and source of servants. After the fall of Divarivati (some say plague in the late 13th century), Ayuttaya allied with the Khmer (similar outer Indian culture). REF: ''The Indianized States of Southeast Asia', by G. Coedes

With the fall of the Khmer Empire (also plague - 14th century), Ayuttaya became independent and powerful, absorbing and losing: Malaya, Northern Burma, Tumasik (Singapore), Yunnan, Cambodia, Laos (Lan Chang), Annam (Central Vietnam) and for a while Tonkin (North Vietnam).

The British took Northern Burma, Yunan, Malaya and Singapore, while the French moved Cambodia, formed Vietnam, then took Siam's SouthEastern Provinces including the ruins at Angkor and all of Laos. Modern day Cambodia is half old Cambodia (not to be confused with Khmer) and half Siam. Over 80% of the country that was South Vietnam had been taken from Cambodia by the French.

Rama IV, being a well educated Monk, he knew the history of both the French and British, and the real possibility that he could play off one against the other. He was quite successful at parlaying defeats into minor victories - as he spoke both English and French, it was difficult to pull the wool over his eyes.

Although many still blame Thailand for attrocities commited dutting WWII, It was the Japanese who controlled the unwilling Thai Soldiers.

Much of the Thai Government and military secretly supported the Resistance and Japanese supplies readily found their way into Seri Thai hands.

[ib1b4]

Just showing this map from years gone bye,