Britain didn't give the southernmost states to the thais.

[ultimate weapon]

in post 13 i meant occupied in the early 1700s more than 200 years. of course thais were know as siamese back then so pls dont use some cheap bs technicality.

you mean to tell me prior to 1909 they were independent and not under thai/siamese rule?

proof pls and not from your ass.

I mean exactly what I wrote. They were not part of Thailand, as you claimed. What's so difficult to understand?

You see the key issue here is people always posting about the anglo siamese treaty of 1902

People? Who, exactly? The only person who has mentioned it on this forum is your good self.

I mean people in this forum probably you.

Could you care to elaborate?

You just take one small post and then post it to me without saying anything else trying to be a "smartass" so to speak.

[ultimate weapon]

I never said otherwise.

In fact that treaty in 1900 dropped all Thai claims in other areas of Malaysia as you correctly stated..

In return the British agreed to not contest the Thai claims to that area which are now those Thai Moslem

provinces.

The important part is that for a period the Thais allowed a parallel joint administrative system in which the Moslems were allowed a lot of autonomy in governmental authority by the Thais.

They were allowed separate Muslim schools, for example.

This kept those areas relatively peaceful.

In the 1930's,aThai military government with more Thai nationalist attitude began to remove those parallel administrative structures.

This hardening of the Thai nationalist attitude, was resented by the Moslem majority in those area.

This began the Moslem resentment of Thai control, which ultimately to the formation of a Moslem resistance to Thai control.

I am NOT saying they were right to resent the Thai control,I'm just saying that is how the problems began.

And I am certainly NOT ignoring the escalation of the problem from OUTSIDE, of the area in later times by non-residents from other Moslem areas.

(Indonesia and Malaysia come to mind here).

I'm just saying that with a more enlightened attitude, the problems could have possibly been eliminated already.

But that's just history.

The chance for a peaceful settlement went by, with both sides not taking that chance...... and what they have now is the result.

For both sides.

I guess everyone has topay the price for past mistakes.

Ok i understand those regions have been a part of simaese rule since the 1700s before the 1st king of the chakri dynasty during the rule of king thaksin the great. So prior to the 1930s even from the days of king thaksin they were allowed some automnomy?

Anyway you see how the situation is potrayed when this issue arises. You always read that this region became a part of thailand in the early 1900s which gives the impression that it was only ruled for a 100 odd years but then it's not true because it's been under siamese rule since the 1700s hence the burney treaty on lands further south.

Might i ask why is 1902 the date and the years prior to siamese/thai rule over the region ignored?

You see by posting the region came under thai aka foreign rule in 1902 makes it more recent and the mention of the treaty makes it appear that it was the spoils of western colonism but given over to the siamese govt. This obviously is false. You want to know which region fits that more likely? West papua also known as iran jaya or something along those lines. As you know before indonesia got colonized by the dutch no indonesian or rather javanese kingdom took control of west papua. Hence when the dutch granted the entire area of the dutch east indies independence guess what the javanese who are the majority and control the govt of indonesia sought to bring the entire colony of the dutch east indies under their rule not only that they wanted malaysia and singapore too. Thus due to the colonial actions of the dutch west papua is a part of indonesia today.

This isn't the case with the southern thai states. Without any western intervention they are still a part of siam.

In terms of religion and culture it makes no difference take russia for example. The russian far east has many chinese, japanese looking type of people who are obviously different from the european looking types of russians in moscow. Russia is mostly christian but there are a lot of muslim russians too mostly from the caucasus. They are so different not only in culture and religion but appearance too but they are all considered russian in nationality. This is the same case with southern thailand.

[rajyindee]

I mean people in this forum probably you.

Could you care to elaborate?

You just take one small post and then post it to me without saying anything else trying to be a "smartass" so to speak.

As I said, only one person on this forum has ever mentioned the "Anglo Siamese Treaty of 1902". You, and you alone. Oh, and you can cut out the personal crap.

Edited November 17, 2014 by rajyindee

[ultimate weapon]

I mean people in this forum probably you.

Could you care to elaborate?

You just take one small post and then post it to me without saying anything else trying to be a "smartass" so to speak.

As I said, only one person on this forum has ever mentioned the "Anglo Siamese Treaty of 1902". You, and you alone. Oh, and you can cut out the personal crap.

Nope if you read all over this forum including the general forum people always mention only the anglo siamese treaty of 1902 only.

[rajyindee]

As I said, only one person on this forum has ever mentioned the "Anglo Siamese Treaty of 1902". You, and you alone. Oh, and you can cut out the personal crap.

Nope if you read all over this forum including the general forum people always mention only the anglo siamese treaty of 1902 only.

Examples? There's no need to read, there's a perfectly good search function.

Edited November 17, 2014 by rajyindee

[Amr]

Hi there, first of all, i was really pulled to this thread in a try to learn something new - History - but found that the discussion was diverted to personal insult which really demolished the goodness of such a thread but any way ... Wiki is not a reliable source of information when it comes to real hardcore history, you need to read heavyweight historian books to realy figure out what has happened back then. I once read about the south but this was when i was abroad in a business trip away from the thai censorship on such topics. So next time you talk about the south, please post the reference to what you are posting here L & G. And yes, Thailand never been invaded nor controlled by any other nation. Been living here in the south since 2000. You need to get closer to the southern people here and listen to their part of the story, your prospective about the south history and what has happened back then would diffenetly change. Sorry for my poor english skills.

can such history books be found online? Can a more "legit" website on this topic be linked here and its contents be posted?

You see someone earlier had mentioned the same thing.

Ok fine. Wiki isn't legit. Fine. So could you post the link to a more credible source and post the information there to counter what wiki has on this subject? That was what i asked. Nothing. He couldn't post a more credible source. All he did was rant wiki is fake. Wiki isn't credible BUT had no other source to disprove the information from wiki. I mean what a laugh riot that is. It's almost like a reflex action with these guys.

The minute someone posts something from wiki they'll just claim wiki isn't credible but they don't have any source to prove their point. Like they can simply make stuff up from their ass and prove that wikipedia information is wrong. It's actually quite disgusting.

It's in my OP. Hope you read my OP before commenting but i guess i'll need to repeat it again for like maybe the 20th time.

My post is the southernmost states of thailand have already been under thai control at that time they were called siam (cos some ppl want to take advantage of this technicality cos when i wrote thai rule i mean siam). This was before 1909. It's like more than 200 years since they have been under thai rule so they are thai.

The issue some people have is they want to spread misinformation that the british gave those states to the thais in 1909 which is fairly recent. They want to give the impression that it was due to western colonial mismanagement that a supposed free land was thus passed on for the siamese to control which is absolutely wrong. The land was already a part of siam. In fact the siamese gave up the middle half of present day malaysia to the british in 1909.

So can anyone prove that i am wrong that prior to 1909 the southern thais states were actually free. Comeon post from a more "credible" source.

I doubt it instead there will be more name calling, subjects changed talking about morality of "freedoms" that type of shtick or on nit picking like technicalities like calling siamese thais which doesn't change the argument at all.

You might want to read this link and some attention to the last few lines ...

http://www.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/2014/05/viewing-deep-south-thailand-from-a-historical-perspective/

[phuketsub]

Hi there, first of all, i was really pulled to this thread in a try to learn something new - History - but found that the discussion was diverted to personal insult which really demolished the goodness of such a thread but any way ... Wiki is not a reliable source of information when it comes to real hardcore history, you need to read heavyweight historian books to realy figure out what has happened back then. I once read about the south but this was when i was abroad in a business trip away from the thai censorship on such topics. So next time you talk about the south, please post the reference to what you are posting here L & G. And yes, Thailand never been invaded nor controlled by any other nation. Been living here in the south since 2000. You need to get closer to the southern people here and listen to their part of the story, your prospective about the south history and what has happened back then would diffenetly change. Sorry for my poor english skills.

can such history books be found online? Can a more "legit" website on this topic be linked here and its contents be posted?

You see someone earlier had mentioned the same thing.

Ok fine. Wiki isn't legit. Fine. So could you post the link to a more credible source and post the information there to counter what wiki has on this subject? That was what i asked. Nothing. He couldn't post a more credible source. All he did was rant wiki is fake. Wiki isn't credible BUT had no other source to disprove the information from wiki. I mean what a laugh riot that is. It's almost like a reflex action with these guys.

The minute someone posts something from wiki they'll just claim wiki isn't credible but they don't have any source to prove their point. Like they can simply make stuff up from their ass and prove that wikipedia information is wrong. It's actually quite disgusting.

It's in my OP. Hope you read my OP before commenting but i guess i'll need to repeat it again for like maybe the 20th time.

My post is the southernmost states of thailand have already been under thai control at that time they were called siam (cos some ppl want to take advantage of this technicality cos when i wrote thai rule i mean siam). This was before 1909. It's like more than 200 years since they have been under thai rule so they are thai.

The issue some people have is they want to spread misinformation that the british gave those states to the thais in 1909 which is fairly recent. They want to give the impression that it was due to western colonial mismanagement that a supposed free land was thus passed on for the siamese to control which is absolutely wrong. The land was already a part of siam. In fact the siamese gave up the middle half of present day malaysia to the british in 1909.

So can anyone prove that i am wrong that prior to 1909 the southern thais states were actually free. Comeon post from a more "credible" source.

I doubt it instead there will be more name calling, subjects changed talking about morality of "freedoms" that type of shtick or on nit picking like technicalities like calling siamese thais which doesn't change the argument at all.

You might want to read this link and some attention to the last few lines ...

http://www.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/2014/05/viewing-deep-south-thailand-from-a-historical-perspective/

Thanks for that interesting link. I'd like to ask everyone involved in this thread to remember that 'history is always a bit of a mystery' and to please refrain from getting personal.