Thailand Was South East Asia

[Tahnil]

Reduced to its present small size in the center by British and French colonialism:

[Jiu-Jitsu]

Waiting for the rebuttals...if anyone can be bothered.

[Tahnil]

Waiting for the rebuttals...if anyone can be bothered.

It's pretty straightforward.

[Tahnil]

[Richard W]

There are complaints that the British and French were too restrained.

The British could have liberated more Malay areas, though I don't know if the Sultanate of Patani was up for grabs, and the Lao of Laos have complained that more Lao territory wasn't liberated. Indeed, most of the ethnic Lao are still under Thai rule (with mutual dissatisfaction - some in Bangkok loathe the effects of Lao votes, and one hothead threatened that Isan and Lana would secede if there were a coup), but I'm not sure how much Siamese slave-raiding (open to terminological correction) had to do with it.

Of course, if Laos were still part of Thailand, Thailand might have switched from Siamese to Lao, as Lao would have been the most widely spoken language!

Border readjustments with Cambodia appear to have been based on geography too much, though the ethnic situation may simply have been too messy to take into account.

[Tahnil]

There are complaints that the British and French were too restrained.

The British could have liberated more Malay areas, though I don't know if the Sultanate of Patani was up for grabs, and the Lao of Laos have complained that more Lao territory wasn't liberated. Indeed, most of the ethnic Lao are still under Thai rule (with mutual dissatisfaction - some in Bangkok loathe the effects of Lao votes, and one hothead threatened that Isan and Lana would secede if there were a coup), but I'm not sure how much Siamese slave-raiding (open to terminological correction) had to do with it.

Of course, if Laos were still part of Thailand, Thailand might have switched from Siamese to Lao, as Lao would have been the most widely spoken language!

Border readjustments with Cambodia appear to have been based on geography too much, though the ethnic situation may simply have been too messy to take into account.

[There are complaints that the British and French were too restrained.

The British could have liberated more ...]

Ah, yes, the French and the English went around the world on the do good mission of liberation.

Burma was also liberated from Burmese.

Closer to home, it would be interesting if Germany similarly succeeded in liberating Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and of course, England from the English.

[Richard W]

Burma was also liberated from Burmese.

It probably was a mistake to allow the Burmese to (re-)take control of the frontier areas - Kachin and the Shan States. And, of course, there was a failure to free the Mon from Burmese domination.

[Tahnil]

Of course, if Laos were still part of Thailand, Thailand might have switched from Siamese to Lao, as Lao would have been the most widely spoken language!

Look at the map again, what became Laos was just a small part of the great kingdom of Siam which stretched from parts of now Myanmar in the west, to parts now China in the north, to all of Vietnam and Cambodia to the east, and all of the Malay peninsula to the south including the island of Singapore in the 15th century.

To suggest that Lao could have become the central language of Thailand would be ignorant of that geopolitical reality.

And it is a less rich language by far.

[Richard W]

Waiting for the rebuttals...if anyone can be bothered.

That requires a careful analysis of what is meant by being part of 'Siam' as opposed to merely being an area paying tribute.

[Tahnil]

Burma was also liberated from Burmese.

It probably was a mistake to allow the Burmese to (re-)take control of the frontier areas - Kachin and the Shan States. And, of course, there was a failure to free the Mon from Burmese domination.

The mistake is everything that has gone wrong in the region.

Burma was a competing power.

Colonialism reduced it to what it is today, with Burmese still coming to Thailand to sell their physical labor.

But this is small misfortune compared to what transpired in Vietnam and Cambodia with hair-raising human sufferings and horrible bloodsheds.

Laos was fortunate to enjoy a much tighter connection to the central Thai culture through the Isan provinces.

[Briggsy]

It should be added too, that the Bangkok government waived the offer of the Shan States following the end of British colonial rule in Burma, the Thais not wanting a border with China.

[Tahnil]

Waiting for the rebuttals...if anyone can be bothered.

That requires a careful analysis of what is meant by being part of 'Siam' as opposed to merely being an area paying tribute.

That was how money was raised in the olden days.

There were no income taxes and such.

[Richard W]

Of course, if Laos were still part of Thailand, Thailand might have switched from Siamese to Lao, as Lao would have been the most widely spoken language!

Look at the map again, what became Laos was just a small part of the great kingdom of Siam which stretched from parts of now Myanmar in the west, to parts now China in the north, to all of Vietnam and Cambodia to the east, and all of the Malay peninsula to the south including the island of Singapore in the 15th century.

To suggest that Lao could have become the central language of Thailand would be ignorant of that geopolitical reality.

And it is a less rich language by far.

First language numbers are, according to Ethnologue

Thailand:

Central Thai speakers: 20.2m

Southern Thai speakers: 4.5m

Northern Thai speakers: 6.0m

Northeastern Thai (i.e. Lao) speakers: 15.0

Laos:

Lao speakers: 3.1m

Other SW Tai: 0.6m

Total population: 6.8m

I'm not sure if I overestimated the number of people with Lao as their first language in Laos, or if counts of NE Thai speakers have included other languages of Isan (e.g. the 1.4m Northern Khmer). The Ethnologue count of speakers of NE Thai is the smallest count I've seen.

[Johpa]

Of course, if Laos were still part of Thailand, Thailand might have switched from Siamese to Lao, as Lao would have been the most widely spoken language!

Look at the map again, what became Laos was just a small part of the great kingdom of Siam which stretched from parts of now Myanmar in the west, to parts now China in the north, to all of Vietnam and Cambodia to the east, and all of the Malay peninsula to the south including the island of Singapore in the 15th century.

To suggest that Lao could have become the central language of Thailand would be ignorant of that geopolitical reality.

And it is a less rich language by far.

I suggest that you read Achaan Thongchai Winichakul's masterpiece "Siam Mapped" to better understand how Southeast Asians, including Thais, perceived nation-states prior to the modern era. Then read more Thai history regarding the rebellions up north around Nan, Song, and Phrae against the Bangkok polity. Perhaps visit the regions up north (Fang, Khun Yuam, Mae Hong Song) where the temples are built in the Burmese style and where one of the favorite dishes is Khao Soi, a Burmese dish. Using your logic one could argue that Lanna Land "was just a small part of the great kingdom of Burma". And then ponder why the the "red provinces" are largely populated by Khon Muang and Lao (Isaan) where the term เขาเป็นคนไทย refers to someone being from Bangkok or the Central Plains and not being Khon Muang or Lao, in effect "not one of us".

If history had been different and there was still a monarchy in Laos then I think that there would be a good chance of the Lao folks up in Isaan having switched allegiances and without Isaan the Thai polity would be significantly weakened, especially in consideration that the Khon Muang and the Lao are more closely related to each other, both linguistically and culturally, than to Central Thais (Siamese). But this is not a popular concept in Bangkok. Many years ago I wrote about this in the old SCT usenet group and received a lengthy reply by e-mail that was nothing less that a government position paper arguing for the different "political reality" that you advocate.

As far as Lao being a less rich language, that is simply subjective opinion on your part.

[Tahnil]

Of course, if Laos were still part of Thailand, Thailand might have switched from Siamese to Lao, as Lao would have been the most widely spoken language!

Look at the map again, what became Laos was just a small part of the great kingdom of Siam which stretched from parts of now Myanmar in the west, to parts now China in the north, to all of Vietnam and Cambodia to the east, and all of the Malay peninsula to the south including the island of Singapore in the 15th century.

To suggest that Lao could have become the central language of Thailand would be ignorant of that geopolitical reality.

And it is a less rich language by far.

First language numbers are, according to Ethnologue

Thailand:

Central Thai speakers: 20.2m

Southern Thai speakers: 4.5m

Northern Thai speakers: 6.0m

Northeastern Thai (i.e. Lao) speakers: 15.0

Laos:

Lao speakers: 3.1m

Other SW Tai: 0.6m

Total population: 6.8m

I'm not sure if I overestimated the number of people with Lao as their first language in Laos, or if counts of NE Thai speakers have included other languages of Isan (e.g. the 1.4m Northern Khmer). The Ethnologue count of speakers of NE Thai is the smallest count I've seen.

Several problems with the above suggestion and justification.

"Northeastern Thai" speakers also speak Central Thai.

Similarly, Northern and Southern Thai speakers.

They don't all speak Northeastern Thai.

Next, Northeastern Thai speakers don't write Lao, they read and write Central Thai.

Today's Northeastern Thai speakers also do not refer to their verbal accent as "Lao" but Eesaan.

That there are a lot of people in Thailand with Eesaan heritage has to do with the geo-economic history.

Eesaan used to be the poorest region of the country by far with poor healthcare.

Large number of children numbering ten or more would be a family's social security.

The large number of offsprings far exceed available land and the children of Eesaan relocate all over the country.

They learn the language of the area they relocate to, not the other way around.

There is no domination of the Eesaan dialect in the rest of the country.

Laos is small and has always been under the influence, not the other way around,.

The people of Laos typically can speak and understand Central Thai, they watch Thai TV.

[Tahnil]

Of course, if Laos were still part of Thailand, Thailand might have switched from Siamese to Lao, as Lao would have been the most widely spoken language!

Look at the map again, what became Laos was just a small part of the great kingdom of Siam which stretched from parts of now Myanmar in the west, to parts now China in the north, to all of Vietnam and Cambodia to the east, and all of the Malay peninsula to the south including the island of Singapore in the 15th century.

To suggest that Lao could have become the central language of Thailand would be ignorant of that geopolitical reality.

And it is a less rich language by far.

I suggest that you read Achaan Thongchai Winichakul's masterpiece "Siam Mapped" to better understand how Southeast Asians, including Thais, perceived nation-states prior to the modern era. Then read more Thai history regarding the rebellions up north around Nan, Song, and Phrae against the Bangkok polity. Perhaps visit the regions up north (Fang, Khun Yuam, Mae Hong Song) where the temples are built in the Burmese style and where one of the favorite dishes is Khao Soi, a Burmese dish. Using your logic one could argue that Lanna Land "was just a small part of the great kingdom of Burma". And then ponder why the the "red provinces" are largely populated by Khon Muang and Lao (Isaan) where the term เขาเป็นคนไทย refers to someone being from Bangkok or the Central Plains and not being Khon Muang or Lao, in effect "not one of us".

If history had been different and there was still a monarchy in Laos then I think that there would be a good chance of the Lao folks up in Isaan having switched allegiances and without Isaan the Thai polity would be significantly weakened, especially in consideration that the Khon Muang and the Lao are more closely related to each other, both linguistically and culturally, than to Central Thais (Siamese). But this is not a popular concept in Bangkok. Many years ago I wrote about this in the old SCT usenet group and received a lengthy reply by e-mail that was nothing less that a government position paper arguing for the different "political reality" that you advocate.

As far as Lao being a less rich language, that is simply subjective opinion on your part.

Not sure how any of your argument amounts to Thailand likely switching to Lao if Laos were to remain a part of Thailand?

As for Lao being less rich or not, maybe you can do a further exposition.

We may all learn something here.

[Tahnil]

I suggest that you read Achaan Thongchai Winichakul's masterpiece "Siam Mapped" to better understand how Southeast Asians, including Thais, perceived nation-states prior to the modern era. Then read more Thai history regarding the rebellions up north around Nan, Song, and Phrae against the Bangkok polity. Perhaps visit the regions up north (Fang, Khun Yuam, Mae Hong Song) where the temples are built in the Burmese style and where one of the favorite dishes is Khao Soi, a Burmese dish. Using your logic one could argue that Lanna Land "was just a small part of the great kingdom of Burma". And then ponder why the the "red provinces" are largely populated by Khon Muang and Lao (Isaan) where the term เขาเป็นคนไทย refers to someone being from Bangkok or the Central Plains and not being Khon Muang or Lao, in effect "not one of us".

If history had been different and there was still a monarchy in Laos then I think that there would be a good chance of the Lao folks up in Isaan having switched allegiances and without Isaan the Thai polity would be significantly weakened, especially in consideration that the Khon Muang and the Lao are more closely related to each other, both linguistically and culturally, than to Central Thais (Siamese). But this is not a popular concept in Bangkok. Many years ago I wrote about this in the old SCT usenet group and received a lengthy reply by e-mail that was nothing less that a government position paper arguing for the different "political reality" that you advocate.

Let's separate the above into two periods, the modern and the ancient.

For the modern, as I pointed out earlier, Eesaan Thais refer to their spoken language as Eesaan and not Lao.

Eesaan Thais definitely think of themselves as Thais and not Laotians.

As for the "red provinces," this "red" identifies the supporters of Taksin whose government brought initial prosperity to poor Eesaan.

There is no aim to secede and join Laos.

There is ZERO benefits for anyone to become Laotian as the people of Laos have to come to Thailand for jobs.

If allowed Thai citizenship, a great many people of Laos would in stead become Thai citizens for the clear advantages.

This rather betrays the English and French apologists' insistence that they did anybody a favor but their countries' economies.

Particularly Laos, had it remained a part of Thailand by today it would enjoy similar prosperity.

And needless to say, the official language would still be central Thai.

Of the 6 million people of Laos, only 3 million are said to speak only Lao.

6.7 million people versus 67 million, but more than half the size of present day Thailand, it is rather clear to any objective observer what the colonialists had done.

As for the ancient, look no further than England to understand the fallacy of such colonialists view.

Just on the little island that is England, Scotland and Wales alone, even not mentioning Ireland, perhaps we can write how justified it would be for Germany to break up Britain.

And Germany would indeed have more authority as the English were nothing more than a collection of Germanic peoples who invaded the island and subjugated the Britons.

English is a Germanic language and displaced the previous British language.

The other day I made the mistake of referring to a Welsh person as English, singing Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore: For He Is An Englishman.

He was not pleased.

[tgeezer]

We are going to have this thread shut down if those of us who know history contradicts the errant nonsense you write Tahnil, are you simply 'trolling'?

[Johpa]

I have met many Isaan folks who refer to the language they speak as Lao at the same time identifying themselves as having Thai nationality. But I am am older fart who tends to drink Sang Som or lao khao with other older farts and not with the younger generation who perhaps may indeed call their language Isaan. But I still tell Isaan folks that I "waa lao bo pen" and not "waa Isaan bo pen" and I don't recall ever being corrected.

Currently in Muang Lao there is nothing that would attract Isaan folks to identify a national identity with the country of Laos and so we are in complete agreement. I only speculated that if history had developed differently and that Lao had maintained a monarchy then things might be different as at a linguistic and cultural level the Isaan folks share far more with the Lao than with the Siamese of the Central plains.

Bottom line is that there is nothing in history to suggest that Thailand was Southeast Asia any more than Burma was Southeast Asia. Maybe an argument can be made that in the 12th century the Khmer Empire was Southeast Asia and that the long gone classical Khmer culture continues to have a profound impact on modern Thai culture and politics. Modern Cambodia seems to also be the current role model for all of Southeast Asia. But I digress.

[Richard W]

First language numbers are, according to Ethnologue

Thailand:

Central Thai speakers: 20.2m

Southern Thai speakers: 4.5m

Northern Thai speakers: 6.0m

Northeastern Thai (i.e. Lao) speakers: 15.0

Laos:

Lao speakers: 3.1m

Other SW Tai: 0.6m

Total population: 6.8m

I'm not sure if I overestimated the number of people with Lao as their first language in Laos, or if counts of NE Thai speakers have included other languages of Isan (e.g. the 1.4m Northern Khmer). The Ethnologue count of speakers of NE Thai is the smallest count I've seen.

Several problems with the above suggestion and justification.

"Northeastern Thai" speakers also speak Central Thai.

Similarly, Northern and Southern Thai speakers.

They don't all speak Northeastern Thai.

Next, Northeastern Thai speakers don't write Lao, they read and write Central Thai.

Today's Northeastern Thai speakers also do not refer to their verbal accent as "Lao" but Eesaan.

Older ethnic conciousnesses might have led to Northern Thai speakers grouping with the Lao. For example, they have been called 'Western Lao', and D.G Collins' An English-Laos Dictionary is actually an English-Northern Thai dictionary.

The repression of the NE Thai script seems to date to the 1930's. It's difficult to assess how much the regional Tai languages are written. Much of the current writing is probably to be found in social media, which are more difficult to eavesdrop on. I've seen claims that NE Thai is written, in Thai script, using the etymological version of the tone rules rather than the Bangkok version, which are etymological for Central Thai and pot luck for anything else.

That there are a lot of people in Thailand with Eesaan heritage has to do with the geo-economic history.

Eesaan used to be the poorest region of the country by far with poor healthcare.

Large number of children numbering ten or more would be a family's social security.

The large number of offsprings far exceed available land and the children of Eesaan relocate all over the country.

I wonder if there is any trustworthy information on the history of the number of speakers. Do the Chinese distribute evenly over the dialects, or have Chinese speakers' children disproportionately adopted Central Thai?

There is no domination of the Eesaan dialect in the rest of the country.

Laos is small and has always been under the influence, not the other way around,.

The people of Laos typically can speak and understand Central Thai, they watch Thai TV.

You sound as though you're planning to re-establish a Siamese empire! A lot of the area didn't get mains electricity until the 1960's.

I get the impression that it was the division into three kingdoms that weakened Laos, with Vientiane eventually losing the Khorat plateau. Obviously I can't dispute the cultural influence from Lan Na, which seems to have led to the introduction of both the alphabets used.

[Richard W]

That requires a careful analysis of what is meant by being part of 'Siam' as opposed to merely being an area paying tribute.

That was how money was raised in the olden days.

There were no income taxes and such.

Compulsory labour comes close.

King Chan of Cambodia paid tribute to both Siam and Vietnam. At one time, Luang Prabang was paying tribute to both Siam and China, and there was also a time when it was paying tribute to both Siam and Vietnam.

[kriswillems]

These videos are incorrect.
The message of these videos - the great Thai kingdom always had to make sacrifices and lost land to have only what is left today - was created during the time of dictator Phibunsongkhram after Luang Wichitwathakan went to visit Vietnam and he saw that Vietnam used a similar strategy to encourage nationalism. It all about the creation of the Thai identity and Thainess in which Luang Wichitwathakan played a central role.
It's kinda strange that nowadays some Thai people still so easily believe in this kind of nationalistic propaganda spread via e-mail.

Edited February 10, 2016 by kriswillems

[Saastrajaa]

These videos are incorrect.

The message of these videos - the great Thai kingdom always had to make sacrifices and lost land to have only what is left today - was created during the time of dictator Phibunsongkhram after Luang Wichitwathakan went to visit Vietnam and he saw that Vietnam used a similar strategy to encourage nationalism. It all about the creation of the Thai identity and Thainess in which Luang Wichitwathakan played a central role.

It's kinda strange that nowadays some Thai people still so easily believe in this kind of nationalistic propaganda spread via e-mail.

Thank you. It always amazes me (well, not really...I've been around Thailand too long now to be truly amazed by anything, haha) how Thais can, with a straight face, talk about land "lost to Cambodia" when it's a simple, easily verifiable historical fact that in, say, the 1100s, when the people who became the "Thais" were just wandering down, half-naked, from the forests of southern China, making their way into Southeast Asia for the first time, the Khmers were at the height of their complex empire, extending an influence over a huge part of Southeast Asia (notice I didn't say "whose borders covered..." since there WERE no borders back then!)

[Johpa]

...... it's a simple, easily verifiable historical fact that in, say, the 1100s, when the people who became the "Thais" were just wandering down, half-naked, from the forests of southern China, making their way into Southeast Asia for the first time, the Khmers were at the height of their complex empire, extending an influence over a huge part of Southeast Asia.....

This is also reflected in the Thai language. The royal vocabulary, คำราชาศัพท์, is heavily borrowed Cambodian from the Khmer court days. We need not go into the Khmer influences on Thai arts and architecture. I would guess that the Thai language has more influence from Khmer than Khmer has from Thai (e,g. the -am infix in ตำรวจ). And then there is the interesting long standing reference to the much earlier Tai migrants into the region, the Shan, as the Tai Yai. Again, it is far easier to make the argument that the Khmer Empire of Jayavarman II and his successors was once Southeast Asia than to make the argument that the polity in Bangkok or Ayuttaya was ever Southeast Asia.

[gk10002000]

Kind of depends on when you draw the map and what time period you want to consider and what actually constitutes control or ownership of a region