Would Thailand be better off if it was colonized by a Western power?

[tw25rw]

Well if history is any example, Great Britain was colonized by the Romans in the First Century, and then again partially colonized by Denmark in the Tenth Century and Great Britain is still uncivilized.

But we did have central heating in the UK a thousand years back thanks to the Romans.... ....................

You forgot the French, they colonised England in 1066.

The French that Invaded England were themselves Normans descended from Norse Vikings!

[poweratradio]

You mean , lets turn the east into the west, no thanks.

It already is by virtue of the western neon jungle that is here KFC McDonalds Starbucks Movies fashion Lets all be white Thais oh and Guns and bombs and murders the USA has arrived. Ha ha ha

[poweratradio]

What are the prospering countries now that were colonized before, by the West?

Panama, Porto Rico and US.Virgin Island are examples.:-)

[AYJAYDEE]

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

Zimbabwe ( Rhodesia ) is another great example.

Uganda another success story.

In fact the vast majority of colonial Africa is a basket case

Take out New Zealand, Oz and Canada and the rest was an utter failure, but still the colonel blimps come out with this piffle

Maybe because the Colonel Blimps has some idea of history??? How can an imperial power be responsible for bad governments years after their withdrawal? If the country is in good order at the time they leave, they cannot be responsible for policing it decades after.

Zimbabwe was a very wealthy country when England left - it was a member of the Commonwealth and a democracy. It was a tin pot dictator many years later that made it what it is today - and the world watched on (including whatever country you are from!).

Much of Africa was not controlled by the British Empire - many of the "fruit baskets" are ex-French states (just like they were in Asia) - the French just pull out and run and the void is always chaotic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonisation_of_Africa#mediaviewer/File:Colonial_Africa_1913_map.svg

because the colonization process destroyed the culture of the original inhabitants

[Docno]

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

Funny - good Indian friend of mine tells me that the place would now be in much worse shape if the Brits had never shown up (and he's not an Anglophile). Yes, there were some nasty massacres (I've been to the site of the Amritsar Massacre), and decolonisation was a nightmare for people in the north. But his argument is that without the Brits as a unifying force in the 19th century, you'd now have a multitude of India-Pakistans instead of the improbably democratic and unified state of India. Don't forget that India is incredibly diverse in terms of language, culture, religion, and ethnicity, and a lot of these peoples have been at each others' throats for centuries. If those divisions were reflected in national boundaries, he argues, the subcontinent would be a mess. He also talks about the British did in terms of eliminating certain forms of slavery, sati (widow burning), and thuggery, as well as constructing the railroad system, etc etc. [And no, I'm not British nor an Anglophile].

[AYJAYDEE]

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

Funny - good Indian friend of mine tells me that the place would now be in much worse shape if the Brits had never shown up (and he's not an Anglophile). Yes, there were some nasty massacres (I've been to the site of the Amritsar Massacre), and decolonisation was a nightmare for people in the north. But his argument is that without the Brits as a unifying force in the 19th century, you'd now have a multitude of India-Pakistans instead of the improbably democratic and unified state of India. Don't forget that India is incredibly diverse in terms of language, culture, religion, and ethnicity, and a lot of these peoples have been at each others' throats for centuries. If those divisions were reflected in national boundaries, he argues, the subcontinent would be a mess. He also talks about the British did in terms of eliminating certain forms of slavery, sati (widow burning), and thuggery, as well as constructing the railroad system, etc etc. [And no, I'm not British nor an Anglophile].

europe is a collection of ethnic states, why not the indian subcontinent?

[shadmo63]

Let's face it. The colonial powers are there to enrich themselves and nothing else. Canada, Oz and NZ can't be compared to an India, Burma or Rhodesia as they weren't raped of their wealth in quite the same manner. In those countries new society's were built from scratch in the image of Britain, rather than subjugating the local populace to meet their aims.

[shadmo63]

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

Funny - good Indian friend of mine tells me that the place would now be in much worse shape if the Brits had never shown up (and he's not an Anglophile). Yes, there were some nasty massacres (I've been to the site of the Amritsar Massacre), and decolonisation was a nightmare for people in the north. But his argument is that without the Brits as a unifying force in the 19th century, you'd now have a multitude of India-Pakistans instead of the improbably democratic and unified state of India. Don't forget that India is incredibly diverse in terms of language, culture, religion, and ethnicity, and a lot of these peoples have been at each others' throats for centuries. If those divisions were reflected in national boundaries, he argues, the subcontinent would be a mess. He also talks about the British did in terms of eliminating certain forms of slavery, sati (widow burning), and thuggery, as well as constructing the railroad system, etc etc. [And no, I'm not British nor an Anglophile].

Not just the 19th century - they were there for 400 years. I agree with everything else you say though and you capture it perfectly in the line "improbably democratic and unified state of India." Such a contrast to Thailand which on the whole is homogenous in language, culture, religion and ethnicity but improbably undemocratic. Maybe there lies the problem, not enough diversity. Thailand needs some other means of dividing people politically into more equal sides than the lopsided red-yellow divide.

[tw25rw]

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

Funny - good Indian friend of mine tells me that the place would now be in much worse shape if the Brits had never shown up (and he's not an Anglophile). Yes, there were some nasty massacres (I've been to the site of the Amritsar Massacre), and decolonisation was a nightmare for people in the north. But his argument is that without the Brits as a unifying force in the 19th century, you'd now have a multitude of India-Pakistans instead of the improbably democratic and unified state of India. Don't forget that India is incredibly diverse in terms of language, culture, religion, and ethnicity, and a lot of these peoples have been at each others' throats for centuries. If those divisions were reflected in national boundaries, he argues, the subcontinent would be a mess. He also talks about the British did in terms of eliminating certain forms of slavery, sati (widow burning), and thuggery, as well as constructing the railroad system, etc etc. [And no, I'm not British nor an Anglophile].

europe is a collection of ethnic states, why not the indian subcontinent?

That would make sense. Same in China. But the European borders are only very roughly that of the ethnicities that live there, but there are a lot of ethnicities that don't have a state, and it has taken centuries of bloodshed to achieve the generally stable situation you see now.

[AYJAYDEE]

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

Funny - good Indian friend of mine tells me that the place would now be in much worse shape if the Brits had never shown up (and he's not an Anglophile). Yes, there were some nasty massacres (I've been to the site of the Amritsar Massacre), and decolonisation was a nightmare for people in the north. But his argument is that without the Brits as a unifying force in the 19th century, you'd now have a multitude of India-Pakistans instead of the improbably democratic and unified state of India. Don't forget that India is incredibly diverse in terms of language, culture, religion, and ethnicity, and a lot of these peoples have been at each others' throats for centuries. If those divisions were reflected in national boundaries, he argues, the subcontinent would be a mess. He also talks about the British did in terms of eliminating certain forms of slavery, sati (widow burning), and thuggery, as well as constructing the railroad system, etc etc. [And no, I'm not British nor an Anglophile].

europe is a collection of ethnic states, why not the indian subcontinent?

That would make sense. Same in China. But the European borders are only very roughly that of the ethnicities that live there, but there are a lot of ethnicities that don't have a state, and it has taken centuries of bloodshed to achieve the generally stable situation you see now.

and if britain hadnt meddled perhaps india would have as well

[wolf5370]

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

Zimbabwe ( Rhodesia ) is another great example.

Uganda another success story.

In fact the vast majority of colonial Africa is a basket case

Take out New Zealand, Oz and Canada and the rest was an utter failure, but still the colonel blimps come out with this piffle

Maybe because the Colonel Blimps has some idea of history??? How can an imperial power be responsible for bad governments years after their withdrawal? If the country is in good order at the time they leave, they cannot be responsible for policing it decades after.

Zimbabwe was a very wealthy country when England left - it was a member of the Commonwealth and a democracy. It was a tin pot dictator many years later that made it what it is today - and the world watched on (including whatever country you are from!).

Much of Africa was not controlled by the British Empire - many of the "fruit baskets" are ex-French states (just like they were in Asia) - the French just pull out and run and the void is always chaotic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonisation_of_Africa#mediaviewer/File:Colonial_Africa_1913_map.svg

because the colonization process destroyed the culture of the original inhabitants

Yes, for good and bad. Slavery existed in Africa since the dawn of man and was rampant - indeed western slavers used to "purchase" the slaves off tribes as much easier than rounding them up. I am not arguing in favour of colonisation, but it happened - the context is really, when they left did they leave a working, functional, state behind or utter chaos (as was the claim) - with France it was the latter generally, with Britain is was the former - with Spain, it was the former (move to self rule rather than pulling out directly).

[AYJAYDEE]

Yes, for good and bad. Slavery existed in Africa since the dawn of man and was rampant - indeed western slavers used to "purchase" the slaves off tribes as much easier than rounding them up. I am not arguing in favour of colonisation, but it happened - the context is really, when they left did they leave a working, functional, state behind or utter chaos (as was the claim) - with France it was the latter generally, with Britain is was the former - with Spain, it was the former (move to self rule rather than pulling out directly).

it was an unstable society and could not remain functional because the underpinnings of the culture were no longer there

Edited June 10, 2014 by AYJAYDEE

[philw]

To answer the OP.

Too late, nobody wants it.

[Docno]

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

Funny - good Indian friend of mine tells me that the place would now be in much worse shape if the Brits had never shown up (and he's not an Anglophile). Yes, there were some nasty massacres (I've been to the site of the Amritsar Massacre), and decolonisation was a nightmare for people in the north. But his argument is that without the Brits as a unifying force in the 19th century, you'd now have a multitude of India-Pakistans instead of the improbably democratic and unified state of India. Don't forget that India is incredibly diverse in terms of language, culture, religion, and ethnicity, and a lot of these peoples have been at each others' throats for centuries. If those divisions were reflected in national boundaries, he argues, the subcontinent would be a mess. He also talks about the British did in terms of eliminating certain forms of slavery, sati (widow burning), and thuggery, as well as constructing the railroad system, etc etc. [And no, I'm not British nor an Anglophile].

europe is a collection of ethnic states, why not the indian subcontinent?

Exactly - look what those 'ethnic states' did to each other last century... oh, and the century before that ... wait, the one before that also....

[doctorproc156]

like laos, cambodia, burma and vietnam??

I would say Malaysia and Singapore did benefit in some way, because of the British there is a high level of English proficiency there and there is also respect for the constitution and the rule of law to some extent.

Malaysia and Singapore did not benefit from the colonization, but from the Chinese who were brought as labourers there. Thanks to the working spirit of the Chinese immigrants, these countries gained wealth. See Hong Kong as well. In most cases colonization was only to take as much benefit and profit of the colonized countries as possible. I doubt that Thailand would have been better off. It might have been worse. Look at all the colonized countries. How well are they doing? What suffering had the population of these countries to go through, to get rid of the colonialists...?

And if you think that countries like the US, Canada, and many countries in South America benefited from colonization, then you're wrong too. The local population has been murdered and decimized and now the "locals" are all descendents from Europe.

They most certainly did benefit, the school curriculum is in English and still is the de facto official business language in Malaysia. Everyone I know in Malaysia is fluent in English and that is a rare thing for a south east asian country, Malaysia also has the highest levels of English proficiency in Asia. The British brought in a lot of Indians and they were the ones favored to be professionals, that's why you see an overwhelming amount of the doctors, engineers and lawyers in Malaysia are Indian. If the British did not colonize Malaysia, it would be a backward Islamic state and the constitution written with the help of the British is what is keeping that from happening today.

And regarding UMNO changing articles in the constitution, they still cannot change the fundamentals as the constitution is fundamentally secular, no matter how hard they try to islamitize it. Being a British colony taught the lay Malaysians to respect the constitution as the highest rule of the land, Thais on the other hand have no basic respect for a constitution as they keep changing it every few years, Thailand still has yet to shake off the absolute monarchy.

Edited June 10, 2014 by anantha92

[AYJAYDEE]

like laos, cambodia, burma and vietnam??

I would say Malaysia and Singapore did benefit in some way, because of the British there is a high level of English proficiency there and there is also respect for the constitution and the rule of law to some extent.

Malaysia and Singapore did not benefit from the colonization, but from the Chinese who were brought as labourers there. Thanks to the working spirit of the Chinese immigrants, these countries gained wealth. See Hong Kong as well. In most cases colonization was only to take as much benefit and profit of the colonized countries as possible. I doubt that Thailand would have been better off. It might have been worse. Look at all the colonized countries. How well are they doing? What suffering had the population of these countries to go through, to get rid of the colonialists...?

And if you think that countries like the US, Canada, and many countries in South America benefited from colonization, then you're wrong too. The local population has been murdered and decimized and now the "locals" are all descendents from Europe.

They most certainly did benefit, the school curriculum is in English and still is the de facto official business language in Malaysia. Everyone I know in Malaysia is fluent in English and that is a rare thing for a south east asian country, Malaysia also has the highest levels of English proficiency in Asia. The British brought in a lot of Indians and they were the ones favored to be professionals, that's why you see an overwhelming amount of the doctors, engineers and lawyers in Malaysia are Indian. If the British did not colonize Malaysia, it would be a backward Islamic state and the constitution written with the help of the British is what is keeping that from happening today.

so explain burma's mess

[PHP87]

NO. I don't want to see Thai women turned into a bunch of Femanazi's for one and I can think of numerous other reasons why I don't want Thailand colonized/westernized.

I'm sure Thailand doesn't want so either.

Thailand is not a perfect country and no country is. Leave well enough alone.

[chipmarley]

Haha ask the Original Americans, ask the Aborigines,ask the Maoris ask the Mayans ask all of Africa I think you will find that countries have a great history,fantastic culktures,skills beyond Western comprehension Thailand for all its faults would never deserve an outcome you suggest

[clinique]

like laos, cambodia, burma and vietnam??

I would say Malaysia and Singapore did benefit in some way, because of the British there is a high level of English proficiency there and there is also respect for the constitution and the rule of law to some extent.

Do you think the people and the country as a whole would be better off if they had gone through 50-100 years of Western colonization?

I don't think it would of made things worse!

Lack of a reasonable education is holding Thailand back.

A quality education is the privileged of the empowered elite.The masses do not have access to a decent standard of education, and are socially prevented from benefiting from any meaningful advancement. When will an educated population (an informed electorate), be in the best interests of the powers that be ? Perhaps when the centrally controlled system finds itself falling behind Burma or Vietnam.

Sorry but i believe you are confusing apples and oranges in Thailand by equating educated population with informed electorate. IMO the electorate is very well informed right down to grass roots level,, but that doesn't mean they have been or are afforded a quality education.

[clinique]

like laos, cambodia, burma and vietnam??

I would say Malaysia and Singapore did benefit in some way, because of the British there is a high level of English proficiency there and there is also respect for the constitution and the rule of law to some extent.

england was in dozens of other countries . what happened to them?

Well , what happened was, as soon as we gave them back the natives screwed it all up.

Perhaps we were just a little irresponsible in the 'way' we gave them back - especially since it wasnt ours to take in the first place!

[clinique]

A brief history lesson will show that invading nations to Thailand definately left a positive effect...yes its a shame the invasions didnt run to full colonisation as we may be living in a more organised environment.

Nonsense! Thailand is organised, the Thai way.

Just because you or I or other foreigners don't think so is our problem.

[clinique]

@ sticky.

It's free for a non tax payer too.................

so an adult, who has never worked (not paid taxes), and does not intend to work (which is perfectly ok for me btw!), and who is not physically disabled or mentally ill, can get free healthcare in that country u are refering to. i don't believe that.

and if it is true, tell me the name of the country so i can marry a woman there ASAP and start my new cheapo life....

England......................

DO you mean Great Britain/UK per chance?

[clinique]

We, the British, 'managed' many countries before leaving them to their own devices. Leaving because they thought they were up to running the show on their own or better. Look at Kenya, Zimbabwe, India...the list goes on. When the British were in 'charge' the people had a sense of order........now look at them. Thailand would have had a far better rail service around the country that's for sure.

Rubbish... we left because we felt like it or were kicked out or the motherland couldnt afford its colonies any more [after rape and pilage in most cases that is]!

[clinique]

They would have the problems that exist now, plus a bunch of other problems created by others to deal with.

Not sure if it would be better overall...probably not!

I can't think of any place except for Singapore that is better off today because of colonization. Maybe Hong Kong. Seems to be tiny countries or areas (since Hong Kong is now China, but with a different set of governance rules), take the good and leave the bad when the West shuts off the lights. In those two cases anyway.

Can't think of any better examples in the East anyway.

Not meaning to go offpost about LOS, but Singapore is better off becuase of Minister Mentor Lee, not the British.

[PattayaPhom]

A brief history lesson will show that invading nations to Thailand definately left a positive effect...yes its a shame the invasions didnt run to full colonisation as we may be living in a more organised environment.

Nonsense! Thailand is organised, the Thai way.

Just because you or I or other foreigners don't think so is our problem.

He he

Sent from my TRUE BEYOND 4G using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[sustento]

@ sticky.

It's free for a non tax payer too.................

so an adult, who has never worked (not paid taxes), and does not intend to work (which is perfectly ok for me btw!), and who is not physically disabled or mentally ill, can get free healthcare in that country u are refering to. i don't believe that.

and if it is true, tell me the name of the country so i can marry a woman there ASAP and start my new cheapo life....

England......................

DO you mean Great Britain/UK per chance?

All four constituent countries of the UK have different health systems so it's not possible to make blanket statements about healthcare in the UK.

[doctorproc156]

Malaysia and Singapore did not benefit from the colonization, but from the Chinese who were brought as labourers there. Thanks to the working spirit of the Chinese immigrants, these countries gained wealth. See Hong Kong as well. In most cases colonization was only to take as much benefit and profit of the colonized countries as possible. I doubt that Thailand would have been better off. It might have been worse. Look at all the colonized countries. How well are they doing? What suffering had the population of these countries to go through, to get rid of the colonialists...?

And if you think that countries like the US, Canada, and many countries in South America benefited from colonization, then you're wrong too. The local population has been murdered and decimized and now the "locals" are all descendents from Europe.

They most certainly did benefit, the school curriculum is in English and still is the de facto official business language in Malaysia. Everyone I know in Malaysia is fluent in English and that is a rare thing for a south east asian country, Malaysia also has the highest levels of English proficiency in Asia. The British brought in a lot of Indians and they were the ones favored to be professionals, that's why you see an overwhelming amount of the doctors, engineers and lawyers in Malaysia are Indian. If the British did not colonize Malaysia, it would be a backward Islamic state and the constitution written with the help of the British is what is keeping that from happening today.

so explain burma's mess

Not all colonies were developed in the same way, Burma was obviously neglected by the British even though it was a colony. The decades of military junta rule didn't help too much either. You could say the same with the state of Mississippi compared to the state of Washington, both have a similar population but just look at how much wealthier and more educated Washington state is.

[clinique]

Look at India to see what a mess was left behind by a colonizing power (yes, I'm a Brit and not proud of what we did there), 60 years on and it's still broken in so many ways

Zimbabwe ( Rhodesia ) is another great example.

Uganda another success story.

In fact the vast majority of colonial Africa is a basket case

Take out New Zealand, Oz and Canada and the rest was an utter failure, but still the colonel blimps come out with this piffle

Maybe because the Colonel Blimps has some idea of history??? How can an imperial power be responsible for bad governments years after their withdrawal? If the country is in good order at the time they leave, they cannot be responsible for policing it decades after.

Zimbabwe was a very wealthy country when England left - it was a member of the Commonwealth and a democracy. It was a tin pot dictator many years later that made it what it is today - and the world watched on (including whatever country you are from!).

Much of Africa was not controlled by the British Empire - many of the "fruit baskets" are ex-French states (just like they were in Asia) - the French just pull out and run and the void is always chaotic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonisation_of_Africa#mediaviewer/File:Colonial_Africa_1913_map.svg

because the colonization process destroyed the culture of the original inhabitants

+1

[clinique]

To answer the OP.

Too late, nobody wants it.

Actually,,,not true! and your comment is offensive to the Thai people.

[AYJAYDEE]

Malaysia and Singapore did not benefit from the colonization, but from the Chinese who were brought as labourers there. Thanks to the working spirit of the Chinese immigrants, these countries gained wealth. See Hong Kong as well. In most cases colonization was only to take as much benefit and profit of the colonized countries as possible. I doubt that Thailand would have been better off. It might have been worse. Look at all the colonized countries. How well are they doing? What suffering had the population of these countries to go through, to get rid of the colonialists...?

And if you think that countries like the US, Canada, and many countries in South America benefited from colonization, then you're wrong too. The local population has been murdered and decimized and now the "locals" are all descendents from Europe.

They most certainly did benefit, the school curriculum is in English and still is the de facto official business language in Malaysia. Everyone I know in Malaysia is fluent in English and that is a rare thing for a south east asian country, Malaysia also has the highest levels of English proficiency in Asia. The British brought in a lot of Indians and they were the ones favored to be professionals, that's why you see an overwhelming amount of the doctors, engineers and lawyers in Malaysia are Indian. If the British did not colonize Malaysia, it would be a backward Islamic state and the constitution written with the help of the British is what is keeping that from happening today.

so explain burma's mess

Not all colonies were developed in the same way, Burma was obviously neglected by the British even though it was a colony. The decades of military junta rule didn't help too much either. You could say the same with the state of Mississippi compared to the state of Washington, both have a similar population but just look at how much wealthier and more educated Washington state is.

it was not neglected