Thai confusion

[Johpa]

the Isaan people are essentially "Thaified" Lao-speaking people.

Even more than that: they are Lao people in Thailand! Or thaified Lao people. Just like the thaified Lanna people. But what this has to do with the original -ทัย / ไทย / ไท matter? They are just different words.

Err, to distinguish themselves from Laos proper that they are “free people”? Northern Thailand (Lanna) has been part of the kingdom since ancient times.

Not everywhere. The courts in Bangkok, and prior in Ayuttaya, did maintain influence in Muang Chiang Mai, but some of the outer provinces, such as Phrae, were in rebellion against the court until just over 100 years ago. Fang was under the influence of the court in Burma in relatively recent times as can be seen in the Burmese architecture of the older temples in that region. And the hill regions, which are most of the north, would be likely to be part of what Prof. James Scott refers to a Zomia because, well I don't know why he chose that one Chin language group, but I must say, after teaching a host of young Burmese refugees this summer the Zomie girls were really sweet. But I digress. When I first crossed the relatively recently built bridge across the Kok River in Thaton back in the early 1980s the lingua franca of the lands north of the river was still Lahu. And many people up north still refer to Isaan people as Lao.

If interested one should read Achaan Thongchai's most excellent read Siam Mapped to get a better understanding as to how the local folks perceived themselves.

[Mole]

The reason why I chose to write "Siamese" and not "Thai/Tai" is that so there is no confusion what I really mean.

The Lao as well as the Muang has really never considered themselves "Thai/Tai". They are khon lao and khon muang, while they call others the thai (ไทน) or thai yai [shans] (which calls themselves tai ไต). So we have the เมือง, ลาว, ไท and ไต.

Then in 1939 times, in part to strengthen the national identity between the different groups of people which westerners would later call "Tai people", the term ไทย was coined to try to encapsule all the people living within the borders of now new country or ประเทศไทย.

This so called grouping of people to the so called "Tai group" is something you westerners has done in recent times. Culturally, these people have considered themselves distinct from each other. Although they probably knew very well they were related, for example more in common than from say the Khmer or Burmese, I don't think they did really have that same notion that they were "khon tai".

This also reflects how their kongdoms has always been a separate entities, lan xang, lan na, sibsong-pan na. In fact, because of the Thais tends to romanticize and sometimes even fake their own history, one can really be quite sure exactly how great influence Auyutthaya had over the various kingdoms in this area such as อู่ทอง, pattani, phimai, etc etc. It's not even sure if Sukhothai ever was a kingdom in its own right because majority of the "historical" info that we have is from this Ram Kamhaeng "bautastein".

The notion of "Thai" is something of recent history.

Even today, their identity as Muang or Lao is still quite strong and they consider themselves first and foremost khon muang/lao, but of Thai nationality.

Even I myself am very proud of my Muang ancestry from my mother and I am never shy to let people know of this fact. For example when they ask เป็นคนที่ไหน (where are you from) I always say ผมเป็นคนเชียงใหม่.

I beg to differ, lanna became part of Siam in not too distant past, and even then, they were more like vassal state with their own royals. I think if wasn't before in recent history with the start of the Rattanakosin period that they became really under control of the nation of Siam.

You look into a freaking dictionary to come up with your conclusions?

Maybe try to talk with REAL PEOPLE to get a grip on reality?

[Mole]

In additional, Pallegoix's dictionary is from 1854 which is coincidentally during king Mongkut's reign not long after the Ramkhamhaeng stele was "discovered".

We can't really be sure who "ไท The Thai" exactly means. If the "Thai" are just the Siamese people or all "Tai group" (in modern terms) of people.

The various group of Tai people also have a habit of calling their culture with different names than their land. For example, the "Muang" of Lanna, "Lao" of Lan Xang. So perhaps the Ayutthaya people called their culture for ไท but their land also for "เมืองไท"??

There's just too much inconsistencies in exactly how "great" the history of the Thais are and I have a feeling it really isn't as glorious as the Thai would like it to be, so a bit of forged propaganda was necessary.

Even today, you can see that the Thais are still doing their propaganda and lies.

[cdnvic]

I need to remind you that in the current political climate you need to be very careful about how some of these issues are discussed.

[Johpa]

I need to remind you that in the current political climate you need to be very careful about how some of these issues are discussed.

Not just a current matter. Back in the old usenet days of SCT I once made a posting that speculated that the Isaan folks could easily switch their ethnic identity back to a Lao identity, especially if the Lao court had remained in existence. A few days later I received an e-mail from an unknown source that was nothing less than a government position paper on the matter making it crystal clear that Bangkok maintained unambiguous suzerainty over Isaan and the people could only be seen as Thai subjects.

[Richard W]

The reason why I chose to write "Siamese" and not "Thai/Tai" is that so there is no confusion what I really mean.

The Lao as well as the Muang has really never considered themselves "Thai/Tai". They are khon lao and khon muang, while they call others the thai (ไทน) or thai yai [shans] (which calls themselves tai ไต). So we have the เมือง, ลาว, ไท and ไต.

Then in 1939 times, in part to strengthen the national identity between the different groups of people which westerners would later call "Tai people", the term ไทย was coined to try to encapsule all the people living within the borders of now new country or ประเทศไทย.

This so called grouping of people to the so called "Tai group" is something you westerners has done in recent times. Culturally, these people have considered themselves distinct from each other. Although they probably knew very well they were related, for example more in common than from say the Khmer or Burmese, I don't think they did really have that same notion that they were "khon tai".

This also reflects how their kongdoms has always been a separate entities, lan xang, lan na, sibsong-pan na. In fact, because of the Thais tends to romanticize and sometimes even fake their own history, one can really be quite sure exactly how great influence Auyutthaya had over the various kingdoms in this area such as อู่ทอง, pattani, phimai, etc etc. It's not even sure if Sukhothai ever was a kingdom in its own right because majority of the "historical" info that we have is from this Ram Kamhaeng "bautastein".

The notion of "Thai" is something of recent history.

Even today, their identity as Muang or Lao is still quite strong and they consider themselves first and foremost khon muang/lao, but of Thai nationality.

But what of the notion of 'Tai'?

So how old is the word 'Lannat(h)ai'?

The names of the Tai groups in Vietnam frequently start with 'Tai', and I don't think the French would be keen to stress a connection with Thailand. On the other hand, before his accession, Rama IV had made a study of Sipsongchutai, so possibly a concept of Tainess could have been a recent arrival. And culturally, it's worth noting that the Tai people of Vietnam use a form of the Thai/Lao alphabet, even it is very hard to read the letters on the basis of Thai or Lao.

You look into a freaking dictionary to come up with your conclusions?

Maybe try to talk with REAL PEOPLE to get a grip on reality?

I saw claims that the Lao sometimes called themselves 'Thai' (something like 'Thai Lungprabang' was given as an example), and I looked into the dictionary to check the plausibility of the claim. The only Lao round here are from Isan, and I think their views would be heavily influenced by Thai education.

[Mole]

Your argument of Tai people of Vietnam using a form of Thai/Lao alphabet is like me saying the Russians use an alphabet related to Latin alphabet and since Russians speak an Indo-European language, all Indo-European language speaking people thus belongs to the same group of people.

Or like claiming all Slavic people to be "Slavs".

The sense of unity of the various Thai groups of belonging to a "Tai people" is comparable to the Slavic people sense of belonging to "Slavic people".

[Mole]

There's even apparently Tai speaking people on Hainan, and who knows how far back in time those goes back. They are probably as much related to modern Thai language as Gaelic is to Hindi.

[Richard W]

Your argument of Tai people of Vietnam using a form of Thai/Lao alphabet is like me saying the Russians use an alphabet related to Latin alphabet and since Russians speak an Indo-European language, all Indo-European language speaking people thus belongs to the same group of people.

It is actually an argument for your thesis that the concept of 'Tai' as a higher level ethnic group is a recent concept. If they've borrowed the alphabet, they may have borrowed the concept of 'Tai'.

Or like claiming all Slavic people to be "Slavs".

It is very tempting to see an ethnic consciousness, especially with names similar to Slovene popping up across the Slavonic world. Of course, that wouldn't stop some groups thinking that other groups had sold themselves to the devil.