Why are southern Thais the least integrated of all?

[ultimate weapon]

I mean they all seem to want to seperate the most and as you know other regions of thailand say issan or the north used to be a part of some other kingdoms like lanna or cambodia but they aren't resisting so much.

[pbay]

Probably because they are not Thai. I believe they were more Malay until about 100 years or so ago until the British handed it over to Thailand.

[ultimate weapon]

Probably because they are not Thai. I believe they were more Malay until about 100 years or so ago until the British handed it over to Thailand.

It's the same for the other regions of thailand right?

[bushwacker]

"It's the same for the other regions of thailand right?"

Wrong!

[Utley]

1. Because they tend to be Muslim and not Buddhist.

2. Because they are traditionally part of Indonesia and not part of the Thai culture. The British arbitrarily annexed them to the Kingdom of Siam in exchange for taking away much of what is today Cambodia.

[Leelas]

The separatists in the far south are not "southern Thais", they're "Thai Malays". "Southern Thais" generally refers to the Thai-speaking southerners, which form the majority in all southern provinces except for the three southernmost provinces. Thai Malays speak Malay as their native language, same as people in Malaysia. Southern Thais are generally of Chinese or Khmer origin, and speak Thai as their native language. They DO have their own history as well, and the entire south was not a predominantly Thai-speaking region until relatively recently. The people in the north and the northeast also have their own languages, but their languages are all Tai languages, which, truth be told, are similar enough to standard Thai that you could argue they're dialects rather than separate languages. A lot of people in the east and northeast speak Khmer dialects as well, but Tai-speakers and Khmer-speakers have historically mingled throughout the entire region of modern-day Thailand, so there isn't going to be much tension between such communities.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Leelas

[Leelas]

Note that "because they're Muslims" also isn't an entirely accurate answer. There's a difference between "Thai Malay" and "Thai Muslim". "Thai Muslim" = ethnically Thai, religiously Muslim. The separatists in the south are entirely ethnic Malay separatists, and they generally want nothing to do with Thai Muslims, and vice versa. It's an ethnic insurgency, 100%, not religious.

[Interman]

How can it be an "insurgency" if they are ethnic ?

On another side if the coin they are referred to as freedom fighters.

[Bkungbank]

About Malaysian Malays are more sincere and honest people but have weakness of it there took life easy not so progress in economy so as you know Malay 65 % Chinese 23% in Malaysia 28 Millions population but the Chinese are holding 60-70% of the economy so as Thailand many rich Chinese descendant like Thaksin, CP group ,red bull and many more.

Same as southern Thailand the language and Kelantan border the essence are the same , since many years lack of economy progress they feel suppress but the actual is not the government really trying to take care but it's own effort and blaming lack behind for politic reason, it's not about the politic since many parties try to improved but due to some incident happen it's more deepen the gap in between.

They won't like to be called' keuk ' mean foreigner this should be improved too .

[nontabury]

1. Because they tend to be Muslim and not Buddhist.

2. Because they are traditionally part of Indonesia and not part of the Thai culture. The British arbitrarily annexed them to the Kingdom of Siam in exchange for taking away much of what is today Cambodia.

You learn something new everyday, there was I unaware that Cambodia had been a British colony, for some reason I always thought of it as a French colony.

[Utley]

1. Because they tend to be Muslim and not Buddhist.

2. Because they are traditionally part of Indonesia and not part of the Thai culture. The British arbitrarily annexed them to the Kingdom of Siam in exchange for taking away much of what is today Cambodia.

You learn something new everyday, there was I unaware that Cambodia had been a British colony, for some reason I always thought of it as a French colony.

My understanding is that the western portion of what is now Cambodia was once part of the Kingdom of Siam. In an unwritten agreement with the French, the British colonized Burma while the French colonized Vietnam and what is now Cambodia; both countries used Thailand as a buffer zone. To compensate the Kingdom of Siam for the loss of their "Cambodian" territories, they gave Siam a portion of Malaysia which is now Southern Thailand.

[kiwiinasia]

Its religion.

[SteveB2]

1. Because they tend to be Muslim and not Buddhist.

2. Because they are traditionally part of Indonesia and not part of the Thai culture. The British arbitrarily annexed them to the Kingdom of Siam in exchange for taking away much of what is today Cambodia.

You learn something new everyday, there was I unaware that Cambodia had been a British colony, for some reason I always thought of it as a French colony.

My understanding is that the western portion of what is now Cambodia was once part of the Kingdom of Siam. In an unwritten agreement with the French, the British colonized Burma while the French colonized Vietnam and what is now Cambodia; both countries used Thailand as a buffer zone. To compensate the Kingdom of Siam for the loss of their "Cambodian" territories, they gave Siam a portion of Malaysia which is now Southern Thailand.

///

Yes - Confirmed - even as late as WWII, American military analysts concluded as follows:-

'Thailand, or Siam, a weak buffer state between colonies of Great Powers, has traditionally played one off against the other while leaning toward the dominant one of the moment'.

Ref:

Exhibits of the joint Committee Pha. Pt14, Exhibit no #33, military Intelligence estimates prepared by G-2, War Department, United States of America. I.B. 159-A

Edited April 23, 2014 by SteveB2

[LawrenceN]

1. Because they tend to be Muslim and not Buddhist.

2. Because they are traditionally part of Indonesia and not part of the Thai culture. The British arbitrarily annexed them to the Kingdom of Siam in exchange for taking away much of what is today Cambodia.

Check your facts. Cambodia was a French colony not British. You may be thinking of the exchanges of territory that went on in the deep South between British Malaya and Siam. The British tended to negotiate with the Siamese, and brought a lot of useful technology to the region, for example. surveying and mapping. The French were much more confrontational, including blockading Bangkok to take territory to add to what is now Laos and Cambodia. Read Thongchai Winichakul's excellent book, "Siam Mapped" for more info. It's available at the Siam Society.

Cambodia was a major power in the region ~1000 years ago, but was gradually beaten back by the Siamese as this nation gained strength and unity, mainly due to the rise of Ayuthaya as a center of trade. Siam pushed the border with Cambodia back as that empire collapsed. Some of that was recovered (by the French) and returned to Cambodia. Siem Reap and Battambang used to be in Siam.

[Maggusoil]

This turned out to be a very interesting thread. Thanks gentlemen and others

[Utley]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

1. Because they tend to be Muslim and not Buddhist.

2. Because they are traditionally part of Indonesia and not part of the Thai culture. The British arbitrarily annexed them to the Kingdom of Siam in exchange for taking away much of what is today Cambodia.

Check your facts. Cambodia was a French colony not British. You may be thinking of the exchanges of territory that went on in the deep South between British Malaya and Siam. The British tended to negotiate with the Siamese, and brought a lot of useful technology to the region, for example. surveying and mapping. The French were much more confrontational, including blockading Bangkok to take territory to add to what is now Laos and Cambodia. Read Thongchai Winichakul's excellent book, "Siam Mapped" for more info. It's available at the Siam Society.

Cambodia was a major power in the region ~1000 years ago, but was gradually beaten back by the Siamese as this nation gained strength and unity, mainly due to the rise of Ayuthaya as a center of trade. Siam pushed the border with Cambodia back as that empire collapsed. Some of that was recovered (by the French) and returned to Cambodia. Siem Reap and Battambang used to be in Siam.

In my lame defense I never said that Cambodia was a British colony - only that they agreed that the French could have it rather than the Kingdom of Siam. As compensation, Siam got what is now Thailand's southern provinces.

[Smurkster]

Siem Reap means "Siam Defeated" In Khmer.... The borders of modern Thailand last changed I think in 1941 with three provinces being ceded back to Cambodia from Siam....also Sayaburi province in Laos was briefly part of Thailand in the 40's under the name "Lan Chang province"

Edited April 23, 2014 by Smurkster

[ultimate weapon]

1. Because they tend to be Muslim and not Buddhist.

2. Because they are traditionally part of Indonesia and not part of the Thai culture. The British arbitrarily annexed them to the Kingdom of Siam in exchange for taking away much of what is today Cambodia.

For number 2 it's wrong. FYI more malaysian states like kelantan etc used to be a part of siam and it was the brits that caused the siamese to give them up.

no mention of british giving it to the thais

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

Historically, Pattani Province was the centre of the Sultanate of Patani, a semi-independent Malay kingdom that paid tribute to the Thai kingdoms of Sukhothai and Ayutthaya. After Ayutthaya fell under Burmese control in 1767, the Sultanate of Patani gained full independence, but under King Rama I (reigned from 1782 to 1809), the area was placed under Siam's control in 1785.^{[citation needed]}

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

It was later under Siam, until it was conquered by the Malay sultanate of Malacca in the 15th century. In the 17th century, Kedah was attacked by the Portuguese after their conquest of Malacca, and by Aceh. In the hope that Great Britain would protect what remained of Kedah from Siam, the sultan handed over Penang and then Province Wellesley to the British at the end of the 18th century. The Siamese nevertheless invaded Kedah in 1821,^[13] and it remained under Siamese control until transferred to the British by the Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909.

No mention of the brits annexing kedah it was already under siamese rule they managed to obtain those lands themselves.

[ultimate weapon]

Siem Reap means "Siam Defeated" In Khmer.... The borders of modern Thailand last changed I think in 1941 with three provinces being ceded back to Cambodia from Siam....also Sayaburi province in Laos was briefly part of Thailand in the 40's under the name "Lan Chang province"

why do they name their capital like that. Ok i get it.

Edited April 23, 2014 by ultimate weapon

[pbay]

more malaysian states like kelantan etc used to be a part of siam and it was the brits that caused the siamese to give them up.

They were certainly under Siamese rule but not a part of Siam,they were like colonies I believe with their own rulers.

[tullynagardy]

"It's the same for the other regions of thailand right?"

Wrong!

Its exactly the same for other regions, in particular Issan, so its you thats wrong.

The process of Thaification - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaification - was directed at various regions of Thailand, not just the south. It still amazes me how the people of Issan never revolted against this, being left with the ludicrous situation of not being able to use the Lao script for their language and having to speak a different language in government posts.

The reason the South is different is almost certainly because of religion as mentioned above.

[Leelas]

"It's the same for the other regions of thailand right?"

Wrong!

Its exactly the same for other regions, in particular Issan, so its you thats wrong.

The process of Thaification - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaification - was directed at various regions of Thailand, not just the south. It still amazes me how the people of Issan never revolted against this, being left with the ludicrous situation of not being able to use the Lao script for their language and having to speak a different language in government posts.

The reason the South is different is almost certainly because of religion as mentioned above.

Yes. Thaification was directed at the northeast, but it was directed at the Khmer populations of the northeast. The Tai-speaking populations of the north and the northeast are considered to be Thai. Thus, we say they speak "Northern Thai" and "Thai Isaan" rather than speaking "Lanna" and "Lao". On the contrary, the Khmer population of the northeast have had their language banned. So, too, have the Khmer population of the center - Bangkok and Ayutthaya included - which is and always has been a largely Khmer region. The predominantly Tai-speaking population in the northeast, as well as the fact that the Khmer population has been largely assimilated, is the reason it's stable, for now.

And incidentally, it hasn't always been stable. The fighting in Laos from the 1950s until the 1970s frequently spilled over into northeastern Thailand.

[ultimate weapon]

"It's the same for the other regions of thailand right?"

Wrong!

Its exactly the same for other regions, in particular Issan, so its you thats wrong.

The process of Thaification - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaification - was directed at various regions of Thailand, not just the south. It still amazes me how the people of Issan never revolted against this, being left with the ludicrous situation of not being able to use the Lao script for their language and having to speak a different language in government posts.

The reason the South is different is almost certainly because of religion as mentioned above.

It's funny why didn't the western rights activists condemn this.

Oh yes cos they are hypocrits and only do things that have some sort of political gain. Like say china and tibet oh that's a bad thing. When russians do it to say ethnic minorities it's ok, same with the thais on the khmers and other non thais and of course when western ppl do it on the natives of aus, south america, USA and so on.

[Mojomor]

Many people commenting here are confused, and quite incorrect in many cases.

The people of Southern Thailand had a large degree of local autonomy, as per Scotland, and had control over their own educational system, and many other freedoms. Egotists in Bangkok decided it should be Thaicised and then the problems started --- hence all the schools being burnt and teachers killed.

The Sultanates of Pattani and Kelantan were Thai suzerenties, and with agreement from the British Thailand annexed Pattani and the British took Kelantan into Malaysia.

Cambodia was not involved in any way whatsoever.

[rhythmworx]

I retract my post and post this video instead. (it cleared things up for me...providing it's all true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIcCVkjlCPc

Edited April 23, 2014 by rhythmworx

[JusMe]

Many people commenting here are confused, and quite incorrect in many cases.

The people of Southern Thailand had a large degree of local autonomy, as per Scotland, and had control over their own educational system, and many other freedoms. Egotists in Bangkok decided it should be Thaicised and then the problems started --- hence all the schools being burnt and teachers killed.

The Sultanates of Pattani and Kelantan were Thai suzerenties, and with agreement from the British Thailand annexed Pattani and the British took Kelantan into Malaysia.

Cambodia was not involved in any way whatsoever.

Mojomor is quite correct.

Easy to confuse - be very clear of the differences between sovereignty and suzerainty.

Pattani (like some other areas that ended up part of Thailand) was suzerain. It lost that completely when annexed by Thailand. In effect, the people woke up one morning to discover that they were no longer in control of their internal affairs but controlled by Bangkok.

[MyFriend You]

My favorite ex-wife is from down there, she looks more Indian or malay than Thai - she says all her family talks about is how the northern Thai's treat them so badly. I think the Malay's treat them like neighbors and the northerners don't, so they want to be like the Malay's . Simple?? It wasn't always like that, I think it escalated when Malaysia started turning Islamic back in the early eighties - that movement was defeated by the Banking Industry I have always wondered why Thailand kept that part of the country, let Malaysia and Burma fight over it, problem solved./

[wolf5370]

1. Because they tend to be Muslim and not Buddhist.

2. Because they are traditionally part of Indonesia and not part of the Thai culture. The British arbitrarily annexed them to the Kingdom of Siam in exchange for taking away much of what is today Cambodia.

You learn something new everyday, there was I unaware that Cambodia had been a British colony, for some reason I always thought of it as a French colony.

My understanding is that the western portion of what is now Cambodia was once part of the Kingdom of Siam. In an unwritten agreement with the French, the British colonized Burma while the French colonized Vietnam and what is now Cambodia; both countries used Thailand as a buffer zone. To compensate the Kingdom of Siam for the loss of their "Cambodian" territories, they gave Siam a portion of Malaysia which is now Southern Thailand.

The "unwritten agreement" bit - I think it more of a case that they were staying clear of each other. France had lost India to Britain after a long drawn out series of campaigns via puppet kings. Once Britain rule India, Burma was no obstacle - a far less evolved country than India. The Dutch were also major players in Asia too. Siam became a "buffer zone" by the cleverness of the Siamese King at the time (Monkut of King and I fame) - who played them off against each other, but allowed the foreigners to trade (using the Indo-China trade route which was important due to the loss of the northern Indo-China Trade route to the Ottoman Turks) - silk, ivory, exotic wood, spices and tea were the riches all were after. Siam ceded land to both the French and the British. Britain ceded some back to Siam as part of one of the many agreements - rather than returning coastal land that was now part of British Burma (the elephant's trunk), lands in northern British Malay were ceded (Yala etc) - land less important or useful to the British at the time. Britain had a history of this - swapping lands with Spain and France in the Americas also - even whist officially enemies (its how Britain got all of Canada - swapped for French mainland - and even the Falkland Islands, swapped with Spain).

Siam was a difficult terrain - both countries had a lot of jungle already to contend with - and was more use as Asia's Switzerland (same reasons - a country with little in the way of benefit to holding, but a useful neutral ground) - neither wanted another front to fight on - these were mostly traders with army backing, and profit was the aim. China was notoriously hard to deal with, but a major source of profit back home - Siam offered a trade route that had existed centuries - Siam was just geographically and historically lucky in that respect - it was a feeder to both British India and French Indo-China, a goose that laid golden eggs.

With respect to Cambodia - that was French, and no way would the British give compensation for that!

Edited April 23, 2014 by wolf5370

[ultimate weapon]

It's well known among thais that khun tai jai dum, literal translation is people of the south aka southern thais have black hearts. Not thais from other regions. The southern thais are one of the most impolite people around and somehow it can be seen in the way they speak and act.

It isn't racist or anything i mean some of you here probably wouldn't mind calling chinese from china as loud noisy, rude due to the way they behave on tours to thailand for example and that doesn't represent all chinese.

[rwdrwdrwd]

It's well known among thais that khun tai jai dum, literal translation is people of the south aka southern thais have black hearts. Not thais from other regions. The southern thais are one of the most impolite people around and somehow it can be seen in the way they speak and act.

It isn't racist or anything i mean some of you here probably wouldn't mind calling chinese from china as loud noisy, rude due to the way they behave on tours to thailand for example and that doesn't represent all chinese.

My wife's Southern Thai, as in from the South of Thailand, not from the provinces in the deep south. I mention her because she's mentioned the criticism of Southern Thai's being 'impolite' to me before - she felt that the reason behind this was that Southerners don't tend to use flowery words or default to 'deferential' to the same degree as people from further North, and that the regional dialect is more... staccato perhaps (if I had to pick a word).

I don't think Southern people are impolite at all, to me they seem easier to 'read' from tone and body language, coming from a Western (well, North of Watford, English) culture. Often they tell it how it is, no messing around.

The animosity toward Northerners is of course widely returned by Southerners - same regional rivalry can be seen in many countries, lots of Northern Brits and Southern Brits take every opportunity to criticise each other, for example.

Edited April 24, 2014 by rwdrwdrwd