Slavery

[qualtrough]

I am sure that most forum members are aware that at one time long ago a form of chattel slavery was practiced in Thailand, finally being abolished shortly after the turn of the century. In form it was somewhat different than slavery as practiced, say, in the USA, but still slavery. I also recall that slaves were marked by tatoos to indicate their ownership. As a long-term resident here I do not recall this ever being an issue with anyone, whereas back in the USA there continue to be repercussions from that era to this day, and it is always the elephant in the room in black/white relations. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who can help answer the following questions:

1. Is there any stigma attached to belonging to a family that were once slaves?

2. Do Thais even know who does or does not come from a family with a slave background?

3. Does this issue, or issues related to this, even come up in Thailand in any way, shape, or form?

[sbk]

I think the difference might be that slavery wasn't race based.

[qualtrough]

I think the difference might be that slavery wasn't race based.

Another nightowl?

I am sure that is part of the different response. But I am curious as to whether or not the slavery issue might be present in ways that the average farang might not be picking up on.

[fxm88]

I am sure that is part of the different response. But I am curious as to whether or not the slavery issue might be present in ways that the average farang might not be picking up on.

And interesting question, perhaps something similar to Burakumin of Japan?

They are communities of descendants of outcast communities of the feudal era, which mainly comprise those with occupations considered "tainted" with death or ritual impurity (such as executioners, undertakers or leather workers) and traditionally lived in their own secluded hamlets and ghettos. They were legally liberated in 1871 with the abolishment of the feudal caste system, however this did not put a stop to social discrimination and their lower living standards. In certain areas of Japan, there is still a stigma attached to being a resident of such areas, who sometimes face lingering discrimination in matters such as marriage.

[IMA_FARANG]

I am sure that is part of the different response. But I am curious as to whether or not the slavery issue might be present in ways that the average farang might not be picking up on.

And interesting question, perhaps something similar to Burakumin of Japan?

They are communities of descendants of outcast communities of the feudal era, which mainly comprise those with occupations considered "tainted" with death or ritual impurity (such as executioners, undertakers or leather workers) and traditionally lived in their own secluded hamlets and ghettos. They were legally liberated in 1871 with the abolishment of the feudal caste system, however this did not put a stop to social discrimination and their lower living standards. In certain areas of Japan, there is still a stigma attached to being a resident of such areas, who sometimes face lingering discrimination in matters such as marriage.

Frankly in Thailand I don't think that most Thais today don't have much knowledge of their actual history....at least in Bangkok. I take this from my Thai GF and family who live in BKK. Except for a small percentage of the college educated population they seem to have forgotten or be unaware of any history except for the propaganda passed out by the current government.

Not that they are the only country where the REAL history has ben forgotten in favor of the history being passed off as true by certain political groups or their own benefit.

As for example in the United States at the present time.

Texans...the first revolt against the Mexican army in what is now Texas was in 1830 by the then Mexican settlers of Texas. They were protesting the system of taxation by the government of Mexico that required Texas residents to travel to Mexico city to pay their taxes.

Bet not one in a 100 Texans can tell you that part of their history.

But getting back to the subject. Yes, chattel slavery was common in Thailand before the beginning of the 20th century. I may be wrong, but I think it was abolished by Rama I as part of the reforms he made.

A lot of Thai families take their Family names back to that time. Many Thais only used one name until the king decreed that each Thai had to take a family (last) name, as part of his moderniztion of Thailand. My Thai GF's name is Pungcharoen...from Pung (her great grandfather) and Charoen (or loosely translated..prosperity) because her grandfather felt that his children and grandchildren would be his prosperity. Hence Pungcharoen.

Edited September 16, 2006 by IMA_FARANG

[sbk]

Not nightowl qualtrough, on the other side of the planet right now

Anyway, I agree, to some extent, with what Imafarang has to say. However, I do believe they were taught about slavery in school, hence, IMO, the near idolization of King Rama 5 who is quite famous for abolishing slavery as well as other important reforms.

However, I doubt many dwell on it or even consider it relevant to their lives today. Thus, the lack of stigma attached, or even, as far as I have ever heard, the near complete absence of discussion about it.

[fxm88]

Anyway, I agree, to some extent, with what Imafarang has to say. However, I do believe they were taught about slavery in school, hence, IMO, the near idolization of King Rama 5 who is quite famous for abolishing slavery as well as other important reforms.

Yes, it says here that "King Chulalongkorn wanted to make the people less subservient, thus, in 1873 after the coronation, he proclaimed that prostration in front of the king was to be abolished. Later, in 1905 he abolished slavery." But wait! Prostration seems to be back and popular. Might slavery be coming back into vogue, too?

[sbk]

Anyway, I agree, to some extent, with what Imafarang has to say. However, I do believe they were taught about slavery in school, hence, IMO, the near idolization of King Rama 5 who is quite famous for abolishing slavery as well as other important reforms.

Yes, it says here that "King Chulalongkorn wanted to make the people less subservient, thus, in 1873 after the coronation, he proclaimed that prostration in front of the king was to be abolished. Later, in 1905 he abolished slavery." But wait! Prostration seems to be back and popular. Might slavery be coming back into vogue, too?

Excuse me? I'm afraid I don't see your point at all.

Please remember to read the forum rules, specifically read the second sentence at the top.

This is not a discussion of current laws but rather a discussion of Thai attitudes regarding their history. Your post doesn't address this at all but comes dangerously close to getting yourself in trouble with the forum.

Please address the topic at hand, thanks

[bmanly]

In the 17 years that I have been married to my Thai wife I can say that we have never really had any call to talk about it nor has it ever been brought up. Out of the circles of her family I have never met or have had anyone talk about it either. It is a non issue to Thai people I would think and to answer your questions I would say no to all 3.

I would tend to agree with SBK, in the USA slavery was race based, that is the difference. Thais do not dwell that much on what happened a 100 years ago and in fact it if they do it would only be that the great King Chulalongkorn successfully abolished slavery over a 37 year period. More can be found about that on THIS SITE.

[qualtrough]

Thanks to all of you who have replied so far. Does anyone know of any scholarly papers that have touched on this topic, by either local or foreign academics?

I agree that the average Thai has only a very vague knowledge of their history, strictly in line with what they are taught in school. That would not be too different from the case in my home country judging from the ocassional history surveys results I have seen. I also agree that the racial aspect was an important factor differentiating slavery here from slavery in the US and elsewhere. The fact that Thais only adopted family names after the abolition of slavery also means that those names would not be helpful in identifying former slaves, etc. All that being said, I find it hard to imagine that there are no vestigial remnants of the slavery experience here in some form. I suspect there are, but that they may be too subtle for most farangs to detect, or we may see them but not realize their origin.

[sbk]

I just don't know qualtrough. So many Thai people I know seem to base so much of their living on a "for the day" aspect that historical issues seem to be nil.

Also, it would be interesting to note how the slavery system worked. My limited understanding of it was that it was more similar to the feudal European system from the Middle Ages than it was to the slave owning system of the Southern US. ie absentee owners as opposed to very involved owners.

[otherstuff1957]

The 100th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in Thailand occured recently. I was surprised that there was virtually no official notice or celebration of the fact.

I'm just guessing that there are two reasons:

1 - embarassment that slavery actually happened and that it wasn't totally abolished until the 20th century.

2 - lack of interest in the past. I once asked several Thais what victory the victory monument was named after. Not only did they not know the answer, but they were amazed to hear that they had actually fought a war with the French!

[fxm88]

I just don't know qualtrough. So many Thai people I know seem to base so much of their living on a "for the day" aspect that historical issues seem to be nil.

Also, it would be interesting to note how the slavery system worked. My limited understanding of it was that it was more similar to the feudal European system from the Middle Ages than it was to the slave owning system of the Southern US. ie absentee owners as opposed to very involved owners.

I'd agree that Thai people seem to "live for the day" but it was also my understanding that e.g. a Thai woman will generally not marry beneath their class. If ancestral slaves in the family tree implicitly lowered her potential husband's class, then this might be something she (or maybe her parents) would try to determine before making such a commitment, no?

If you're right that the "slavery" was more like indentured servitude then yeah I can see how it might not make much/any difference to their descendants.

[qualtrough]

I just don't know qualtrough. So many Thai people I know seem to base so much of their living on a "for the day" aspect that historical issues seem to be nil.

Also, it would be interesting to note how the slavery system worked. My limited understanding of it was that it was more similar to the feudal European system from the Middle Ages than it was to the slave owning system of the Southern US. ie absentee owners as opposed to very involved owners.

I'd agree that Thai people seem to "live for the day" but it was also my understanding that e.g. a Thai woman will generally not marry beneath their class. If ancestral slaves in the family tree implicitly lowered her potential husband's class, then this might be something she (or maybe her parents) would try to determine before making such a commitment, no?

If you're right that the "slavery" was more like indentured servitude then yeah I can see how it might not make much/any difference to their descendants.

While not like slavery in the US, from what I have learned it was somewhat more onerous than indentured servitude. The fact that slaves were tatooed with their owner's or master's name seems to be one indication of that. I think one of the problems too is that there does not seem to have been much scholarship on this, and that some of what I have seen tends to be written in such a way as to minimize the slavery, for the obvious reasons.

[otherstuff1957]

OK, I just checked with my wife, who's pretty good about knowing this sort of thing. Yes, people will generally be aware of whether or not their ancestors were slaves. No, it won't make much or any difference in their current social status.

I suspect that the differences between Thai slavery and Western slavery would explain this attitude. From all that I've read & heard, serfdom might be a better word than slavery.

[cwilliam]

I think the difference might be that slavery wasn't race based.

[Off topic and deleted. Please have another look at the forum rules. Thank you. /Meadish]

Edited September 17, 2006 by meadish_sweetball

[cwilliam]

I think the difference might be that slavery wasn't race based.

What about the white slavery in the former USSR?Reagan freed them all,I don't hear them crying.Maybe I am death? ?

Edited September 18, 2006 by cwilliam

[boppia]

I'd say that the slaves of Thailand's past have blended into the system. Was slavery ever that big here? Were average non-slaves of that time that much better off?

I'd say that 'slavery' exists right now. The workers here are often treated like dogs. The haves including most of us often don't see it this way. Capitalism as it is means that many poor people and their children's lives will not improve for generations to come. Slaves were at the bottom of the economic system back then and there is a bottom to the system we use today. For some reason, the people higher up don't see a problem with the working poor at the bottom.

[sbk]

I think the difference might be that slavery wasn't race based.

What about the white slavery in the former USSR?Reagan freed them all,I don't hear them crying.Maybe I am death? ?

yes, extremely off-topic. If you have something relevant to post regarding Thailand and its citizens attitudes towards slavery in Thailand then feel free. Otherwise, please do not post completely irrelevant stuff. Thanks

I didn't realize that people were tatooed. Interesting, because there were many very old people on my island when I first arrived and I don't recall ever seeing someone tattoed (outside of the usual tattoos, that is). Perhaps it was only limited to the mainland? Or certain regions of Thailand? Anyone know?

[tom yum goong]

i remember reading in "Thailand: Economy & Politics" - (Pasuk & Baker) that the majority of the population were basically serfs, with all men having to pay corvée.

I think slaves were seperate from this and were wholly owned by their masters. I can't remember how someone became a slave though, but i don't think it was based on race.

[fxm88]

http://www.wangdermpalace.com/kingtaksin/e...ltifarious.html

Control of manpower, or phrai, was central to the administration of the country. The phrai system broke down when Ayutthaya fell to the Burmese. Titled officials took the opportunity to pass phrai luang (the king's soldiers) off as their own men, depriving the country of labor and tax. King Taksin therefore, had the phrai system revived. He ordered that all phrai luang and phrai som (fresh recruits) have their wrist tattooed. This was the first time that men in every division and department were required to be tattooed.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:fTajQ...99/cairo-04.pdf

The main system of population registration was the compilation of lists of phrai. All men aged 18 to 60 who were not slaves were required to register as phrai. These men were supposed to carry out 3 to 6 months of corvée each year for local nobles or the king, and to serve in the army at times of war. Lists of phrai were not centralised. Instead, nobleman or government departments all had their own separate lists. The phrai system was also not territorial. Different men in the same village, or even in the same household, could owe their ervices to different masters (Piyachat 1983: 13, 19; Terweil 1989: 277-8).

Anyone have access to a library?

Reid, Anthony, ed. Slavery, Bondage and Emancipation in Southeast Asia. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983.

Feeny, David. “The Demise of Corvee and Slavery in Thailand, 1782-1913.” In Martin A. Klein, ed. Breaking the Chains: Slavery, Bondage, and Emancipation in Modern Africa and Asia. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993, 83-111.

Turton, Andrew. “Thai institutions of slavery.” In Georges Condominas, ed. Formes extrêmes de dépendance: Contributions à l'étude de l'esclavage en Asie du Sud-Est. Paris: Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales, 1998, 411-57. (Revised from a previous article in James L. Watson, ed. Asian and African Systems of Slavery. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980, 251-92).

Bowie, Katherine A. “Slavery in Nineteenth-Century North Thailand.” In E. Paul Durrenberger, ed. State Power and Culture in Thailand. New Haven: Yale Southeast Asia Studies Monographs 44, 1996, 100-138.

Thanet Aphornsuvan. “Slavery and Modernity: Freedom in the Making of Modern Siam.” In David Kelly and Anthony Reid, eds. Asian Freedoms: The Idea of Freedom in East and Southeast Asia. Cambridge University Press, 1998, 161-86.

Lehman, F.K. (Chit Laing). “Freedom and bondage in traditional Burma and Thailand.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 15.2 (1984), 233-44.

Source: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:zrRqv...228readings.doc

Also, "Siamese 'slavery' the institution and its abolition", by Chatchai Panananon

[pete_r]

Regarding leftovers from slavery times, there is a fossil word in the Thai language that was used at the end of the sentence when addressing a slave, instead of the normal "krub" and "kaa".

Today, it is highly insulting, but can sometimes be used affectionately between *very* good and old friends (which is how I noticed it).

[katana]

Regarding leftovers from slavery times, there is a fossil word in the Thai language that was used at the end of the sentence when addressing a slave, instead of the normal "krub" and "kaa".

Today, it is highly insulting, but can sometimes be used affectionately between *very* good and old friends (which is how I noticed it).

Hi,

What is the word?

[Johpa]

If I remember my Thai history correctly, most of the population were "slaves" until their emancipation in the latter part of the 19th century. Thus I doubt there would be much stigma, if any, attached to a family having once been slaves. I don't think that the slavery, as practiced in Thailand, was as commoditized to the extent that it was practiced in North America. The slaves would work the fields ownd by the "lords", thus the term Cao Chiwit, Lord of Life. Land further afield would be either owned by lesser lords or worked by low ranking commoners the Phrai with very low Sakdina ranking. Although free, the men were still liable for 6 months corvee labor each year, scarecely better than the slaves owned by the Lords.

The lords were expected to offer both slaves and the local peasants protection against others, as most wars during that time were not for land but for populations. The lords also organized and maintained the irrigation systems a la Wittfogel. The region was somewhat underpopulated and there was always land to be had, but few people to work the land in order to develop food surpluses. So waring factions would move in and forcably relocate people back to the winner's domain, both farmers and artisans, who thus became slaves. One result of these military actions are the numerous dialects often spoken in villages and regions resulting from a population being resettled elsewhere, one example being the dialect of Tai spoken around Lamphun after the lords of Chiang Mai relocated some Tai populations from Muangs far further to the north in what is now Burma.

Thai history as taught in the schools does tend to gloss over the slavery aspect. Thais are certainly aware that slavery once was common. But I doubt that the abolution of slavery changed the lives of the slaves that much, they were still poor and powerless, and thus it is not seen as a big deal.

[gburns57au]

I am sure that most forum members are aware that at one time long ago a form of chattel slavery was practiced in Thailand, finally being abolished shortly after the turn of the century. In form it was somewhat different than slavery as practiced, say, in the USA, but still slavery. I also recall that slaves were marked by tatoos to indicate their ownership. As a long-term resident here I do not recall this ever being an issue with anyone, whereas back in the USA there continue to be repercussions from that era to this day, and it is always the elephant in the room in black/white relations. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who can help answer the following questions:

1. Is there any stigma attached to belonging to a family that were once slaves?

2. Do Thais even know who does or does not come from a family with a slave background?

3. Does this issue, or issues related to this, even come up in Thailand in any way, shape, or form?

The answer is ...

No

No

No

End of topic

[qualtrough]

The answer is ...

No

No

No

End of topic

I assume you must not be a moderator or you would have closed the thread? With few exceptions the contributors to this thread have provided some very useful and interesting information. 'No, no, no' might be a suitable answer in kindergarten but it contributes nothing towards answering the original question. If the topic doesn't interest you or offends you in some way please move on to another topic that suits you.

[Maizefarmer]

SBK

While I see where you are coming from, I do not believe your concerns to be a problem if this subject is discussed in its correct academic context - as it not only is it discussed in social science classes in Thai Uni's, it is also in Thai high school Histroy ciriculem(s).

QUALTHROUGH

To answer your question - in an academic manner - I put it to the wife.

She says - no, there is no stigma attached to Thai families who can trace a forbearer back to been a slave.

In reality, she adds, few Thai's can trace their family history back that far, and within that group who have interest in genealogy, those who can identify a former slave in their family are no more concerned than if that member had been a tailor or cobbler.

Those who can identify a slave in the family, do often express interest in knowing if that person was a slave to a fuedal landlord or the royal court - with some "pride" been expressed if they can confirm a link to the royal household - however humble that connection may have been.

So - no stigma and nothing to be ashamed of - it is accepted for what it was i.e. part & parcel of social history.

Tim

[englishoak]

Another example of Thai's getting on with life rather than living in the past........

[gbt71fa]

[ As for example in the United States at the present time.

Texans...the first revolt against the Mexican army in what is now Texas was in 1830 by the then Mexican settlers of Texas. They were protesting the system of taxation by the government of Mexico that required Texas residents to travel to Mexico city to pay their taxes.

Bet not one in a 100 Texans can tell you that part of their history.

But getting back to the subject. Yes, chattel slavery was common in Thailand before the beginning of the 20th century. I may be wrong, but I think it was abolished by Rama I as part of the reforms he made.

Uhm, actually, they do teach that in American schools...and in Texas schools...otherwise, how would I have known ....

Edited October 9, 2006 by gbt71fa

[gbt71fa]

I

I didn't realize that people were tatooed. Interesting, because there were many very old people on my island when I first arrived and I don't recall ever seeing someone tattoed (outside of the usual tattoos, that is). Perhaps it was only limited to the mainland? Or certain regions of Thailand? Anyone know?

[/quote

]

Also, isn't there a thai tele show about a royal family that has slaves. The story is based mostly around the slaves, I think. Maybe it was closer to indentured servitude...