Why are southern Thais the least integrated of all?

[Leelas]

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.

Yeah, my SO's a northerner, but she has lots of southern friends. She says the reason that northern Thais don't like them is basically because they don't kiss ass in the same way. But, she appreciates this (as do I, and, it would seem, you), because they're honest, and you always know exactly where you stand with them.

Incidentally, there's a significant ethnic difference between the southern Thais (not from the deep south) and the northerners. I'm sure you've realized this by now, though.

[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.

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.

Yeah, my SO's a northerner, but she has lots of southern friends. She says the reason that northern Thais don't like them is basically because they don't kiss ass in the same way. But, she appreciates this (as do I, and, it would seem, you), because they're honest, and you always know exactly where you stand with them.

Incidentally, there's a significant ethnic difference between the southern Thais (not from the deep south) and the northerners. I'm sure you've realized this by now, though.

When you say northern thais do you mean thais from the north or as in all thais north of where your gf comes from?

Cos northern thais aka chiang mai for example dont' have a reputation for being nasty and issan aka north eastern thais have a reputation for being kind hearted. The saying khun tai jai dum is only reserved for southern thais and not thais from other regions.

Btw do you think these china tourists whom i would say you think are really rude and impolite truly so? I mean i suppose saying thank you and please to a server is considerer kissing ass cos that is how you call southerners.

[Coppernicussing]

Islam.

[daveAustin]

The southern thais are one of the most impolite people around and somehow it can be seen in the way they speak and act.

I agree and having lived in both the north and south, it really is blatant. Though of course there are good and not so good in both regions (and the odd southerner can be warm indeed), they are just generally more civilized in the north, being more accepting with little of that scowl/vacant look. There is just no sugar-coating it guys; dissing northerners so as to not make them look so bad is just silly--northerners are nicer people because they 'kiss azz'? lol Edited May 6, 2014 by daveAustin

[rwdrwdrwd]

The southern thais are one of the most impolite people around and somehow it can be seen in the way they speak and act.

I agree and having lived in both the north and south, it really is blatant. Though of course there are good and not so good in both regions (and the odd southerner can be warm indeed), they are just generally more civilized in the north, being more accepting with little of that scowl/vacant look. There is just no sugar-coating it guys; dissing northerners so as to not make them look so bad is just silly--northerners are nicer people because they 'kiss azz'? lol

I don't consider that defaulting to smiling and deferential when in reality one is confused, dissaproving or disinterested means that someone is actually nicer. I do however appreciate that others consider it to be polite. There is some validity to the issue of different dialects - Taking Britain as an example, Cockney sounds more aggressive than West Country, for example.

Edited May 7, 2014 by rwdrwdrwd

[phuketsub]

This thread is all over the place; not surprising given the lack of specificity in the subject heading and OP:

Ref: "I mean they all seem to want to seperate the most"

From what? The nation-state? (that hardly seems to be the case on the streets of Bangkok)

Other ethnic groups?

Lots of ill-informed stereotyping going on, too, regarding "Muslims", only some of which are Patanian -- and Southern Thai personality traits.

I thought this thread might touch on certain aspects of a generalized southern Thai identity that encompasses both Buddhist and Muslims and is very nationalistic (not separatist) and is asserting itself very strongly at the moment.

If anyone can add insight on that I would like to hear it...why are they so much more anti-Thaksin than the rest of the country? Does it just go back to continually being shafted by the Thaksin administration (and its various reincarnations)? Or is it more than that? If so what are the historical antecedents? Are they really more outraged by blatant corruption, or are they just angry that they aren't getting to wet their own beaks enough?

[IMA_FARANG]

The ignorance of Thai history shown on this forum is appalling for supposedly educated people.

Cambodia was never a British colony, It was part of French Indochina as was Laos, and Vietnam.

The British Empire controlled much of what is today Malaysia and also Burma (now Myanmar).

In 1900, with the Treaty of Bangkok, the British Empire ceded control to the Kingdom of Siam (now Thailand) the control of those areas the Thais now call the southern Thai provinces or Southern Thailand.

For the control of these nominally Moslem provinces the then Kingdom of Siam renounced all it's claims to other parts of Malaya (now called Malaysia).

The British Empire then gained complete control of Malaya, as the Kingdom of Siam renounced all claims to the eastern provinces of Malaya.

Before 1900, under the control of the British Empire, a parallel administration allowing Moslem schools and some local government was allowed by the British .... mainly to keep the Moslem population happy in those Moslem provinces.

When the Thais took over from the British they allowed this parallel education system and administrative system to continue. So for about 30 years there was two systems in those Thai Moslem provinces.... one for the Thais that settled there, and another for the Moslems that lived there.

In about 1930 a very nationalistic and military dominated hard line Thai Prime Minister took over Thailand's government.

He abolished the parallel Moslem schools and administration in those Thai provinces, and instituted a Thai only government run from Bangkok. {Look up what the so-called Democracy Monument in Bangkok is really about).

That's part of the reason those provinces are less integrated than the rest of Thailand ..... because until 1930 or so, they had basically their own parallel Moslem schools and civil administration structure..... first under the British, and later under the early Thai control.

Although the Thais hate to admit it, much of the problems in those southern provinces of Thailand started (but in a limited way then) with that suspension of the parallel Moslem administration and Moslem schools in the 1930's by the hardline nationalistic Thai government in power then.

Google it, see if I'm not right.

Edited May 13, 2014 by IMA_FARANG

[rwdrwdrwd]

The ignorance of Thai history shown on this forum is appalling for supposedly educated people.

Cambodia was never a British colony, It was part of French Indochina as was Laos, and Vietnam.

The British Empire controlled much of what is today Malaysia and also Burma (now Myanmar).

In 1900, with the Treaty of Bangkok, the British Empire ceded control to the Kingdom of Siam (now Thailand) the control of those areas the Thais now call the southern Thai provinces or Southern Thailand.

For the control of these nominally Moslem provinces the then Kingdom of Siam renounced all it's claims to other parts of Malaya (now called Malaysia).

The British Empire then gained complete control of Malaya, as the Kingdom of Siam renounced all claims to the eastern provinces of Malaya.

Before 1900, under the control of the British Empire, a parallel administration allowing Moslem schools and some local government was allowed by the British .... mainly to keep the Moslem population happy in those Moslem provinces.

When the Thais took over from the British they allowed this parallel education system and administrative system to continue. So for about 30 years there was two systems in those Thai Moslem provinces.... one for the Thais that settled there, and another for the Moslems that lived there.

In about 1930 a very nationalistic and military dominated hard line Thai Prime Minister took over Thailand's government.

He abolished the parallel Moslem schools and administration in those Thai provinces, and instituted a Thai only government run from Bangkok. {Look up what the so-called Democracy Monument in Bangkok is really about).

That's part of the reason those provinces are less integrated than the rest of Thailand ..... because until 1930 or so, they had basically their own parallel Moslem schools and civil administration structure..... first under the British, and later under the early Thai control.

Although the Thais hate to admit it, much of the problems in those southern provinces of Thailand started (but in a limited way then) with that suspension of the parallel Moslem administration and Moslem schools in the 1930's by the hardline nationalistic Thai government in power then.

Google it, see if I'm not right.

The points you raise are quite correct, but it's worth highlighting that Southern Thailand does not refer purely to the provinces in the deep south - it is everything south of and including Chumphon - I understood the OP to be referring to Southern Thais, ie all of the provinces in Southern Thailand rather than purely inhabitants of the deep south.

The British empire only included what is present day Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat - the very extreme south of the country.

Edited May 13, 2014 by rwdrwdrwd

[rajyindee]

The ignorance of Thai history shown on this forum is appalling for supposedly educated people. ...

In 1900, with the Treaty of Bangkok, the British Empire ceded control to the Kingdom of Siam (now Thailand) the control of those areas the Thais now call the southern Thai provinces or Southern Thailand ...

Quite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Siamese_Treaty_of_1909

Google it, see if I'm not right.

Correct. You're not right.

Just saying.

[phuketsub]

The ignorance of Thai history shown on this forum is appalling for supposedly educated people.

Cambodia was never a British colony, It was part of French Indochina as was Laos, and Vietnam.

The British Empire controlled much of what is today Malaysia and also Burma (now Myanmar).

In 1900, with the Treaty of Bangkok, the British Empire ceded control to the Kingdom of Siam (now Thailand) the control of those areas the Thais now call the southern Thai provinces or Southern Thailand.

For the control of these nominally Moslem provinces the then Kingdom of Siam renounced all it's claims to other parts of Malaya (now called Malaysia).

The British Empire then gained complete control of Malaya, as the Kingdom of Siam renounced all claims to the eastern provinces of Malaya.

Before 1900, under the control of the British Empire, a parallel administration allowing Moslem schools and some local government was allowed by the British .... mainly to keep the Moslem population happy in those Moslem provinces.

When the Thais took over from the British they allowed this parallel education system and administrative system to continue. So for about 30 years there was two systems in those Thai Moslem provinces.... one for the Thais that settled there, and another for the Moslems that lived there.

In about 1930 a very nationalistic and military dominated hard line Thai Prime Minister took over Thailand's government.

He abolished the parallel Moslem schools and administration in those Thai provinces, and instituted a Thai only government run from Bangkok. {Look up what the so-called Democracy Monument in Bangkok is really about).

That's part of the reason those provinces are less integrated than the rest of Thailand ..... because until 1930 or so, they had basically their own parallel Moslem schools and civil administration structure..... first under the British, and later under the early Thai control.

Although the Thais hate to admit it, much of the problems in those southern provinces of Thailand started (but in a limited way then) with that suspension of the parallel Moslem administration and Moslem schools in the 1930's by the hardline nationalistic Thai government in power then.

Google it, see if I'm not right.

The points you raise are quite correct, but it's worth highlighting that Southern Thailand does not refer purely to the provinces in the deep south - it is everything south of and including Chumphon - I understood the OP to be referring to Southern Thais, ie all of the provinces in Southern Thailand rather than purely inhabitants of the deep south.

The British empire only included what is present day Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat - the very extreme south of the country.

Re: Last sentence. I think you need to include the four southernmost districts of Songkhla as well...