My friend asked me via Skype from London the other day, and I couldn't really answer him. Is there a reason or simply many theories to this?
Printable View
My friend asked me via Skype from London the other day, and I couldn't really answer him. Is there a reason or simply many theories to this?
Because France and Britain needed a buffer state between the SE Asian parts of their respective Empires.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gentleman Scamp
^
wot he said
and the Hierarchy of the era was wise enough to realise this .................Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
But Thailand was colonized.................by the Straits Chinese.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gentleman Scamp
Nowt here that anybody really wanted....
^^Overseas Chinese colonization came later, and apparently doesn't count. Perhaps, according to the logic used for example by the Japanese during their run of colonization, it is not colonization in Asia when it is other "Asians" doing it. Nearly every Japanese I know who lives/works here points out the colonization of Thailand by ethnic Chinese, by the way. It's amusing because the "never colonized" thing is constantly mentioned in the context of Thai-Japanese relations as a mutual trait, although I am not sure it is entirely true of the Japanese either, who expected to be colonized by the Americans after the war and behaved even more obsequiously than the US demanded because it benefited them.
The curious thing I think is the extent to which the interests of overseas Chinese will be seen as dovetailing with those of the PRC, especially in places like Thailand. Right now things seem pretty peachy, but something like China's coming to the aid of Cambodia or taking the side of Burma or Laos in some future dispute might tarnish that. Speaking of Straits Chinese, rather ironically unlike Taiwan, which gets closer to the PRC all the time, Singapore seems rather leery of PRC intentions in Asia.
^ What he said. A Chinese colony and a kind of Disneyland for the world.
I thought it would be clear what is meant when Thailand claims it was never colonized but apparently it's not. For those who have difficulty understanding things from context it means that Thailand has never been annexed or formally planted by a foreign power.
For the context-less majority here it should be obvious that Thailand has been colonized many times, by ants, bees, humans, lizards, plants, and many others. For those who understand that the word colonize is here being used in the political context of annexation, plantation, and formalized subjection to the rule of a foreign power then no, Thailand has never been colonized.
Seems to be a bit of a mix up here between "colonization" and "colonialism" - i.e the actual take over and possible supplantation of a native population and the ruling of a native population by another group....
..but I am sure I will be corrected if wrong...
Does that mean that the Japs never ruled them when they invaded ?Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
Occupied territories are not considered colonized.
Yeah whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by madjbs
On the one hand, insofar as the Japanese made a show of treating the Thais as allies and rewarded them with conquered territories, not really. On the other, the Japanese did here pretty much what they would without having to ask permission.Quote:
Originally Posted by superman
So does that mean understanding things from context or understanding your specific definition of colonization? The question was "Why wasn't Thailand colonized?" If we are speaking strictly of military conquest and subjugation, the larger part of Thailand did find itself conquered and subject to Burmese rule for a good portion of its history.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
So Thailand doesn't claim that it was never economically colonized? No, I suppose not. Nonetheless, it happened.
I thought colonized meant having decent-ish fresh bread. And beer.
Tell your mate he's a sad boring cnutQuote:
Originally Posted by The Gentleman Scamp
And Khmer and Laos.Quote:
Originally Posted by robuzoThe question was "Why wasn't Thailand colonized?" If we are speaking strictly of military conquest and subjugation, the larger part of Thailand did find itself conquered and subject to Burmese rule for a good portion of its history.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
My vote goes for Thailand was colonized by the Chinese. Colonization doesn't always refer to violence. Like it or not Thailand is a country that is controlled by people who came from abroad. The question is what Thais allowed this to happen and how have those Thais benefited from this.
Thai land, Chinese government.
This area of land now called Thailand has been taken over forcefully by various groups in history, that is clear...
Have a look at the various kingdoms over the last 500 years or so, sometimes 3, 4 or more kingdoms existed at the same time - which ones were Thais? None might be the best answer.
Sukhothai was a kingdom that Thais love, and it existed within Central Thailand, Northern Thailand and present day Burma (Thais don't like this addition). It was encroached upon and finally over-run by the Ayutthaya kingdom that came out of Eastern Thailand and Cambodia (you can follow the architecture westwards from Siem Reap, but Thais don't like this thought...). You could look westwards towards Nakhon Pathom for an interesting kingdom too, and further south for some Sultanates...
So, from the 1930's only the Japanese really...
As a note on the Chinese: 12th century Chinese pottery has been found around Sukhothai, so certainly the Chinese were trading with Thailand at that time. As we also know, the Chakri kings (commonly accepted as having significant Chinese genetic quantities) kicked out Chinese traders from Bangkok to build the grand palace. The kings originally settled on the Thonburi side before moving across the river and moving the Chinese, firstly to the flower market area, then, when they wanted that area too, to Yaowarat... Bangkok seems to have been a Chinese built city originally (by traders), just as Beijing was Mongolian...
Because everyone needs a knocking shop and secret treaties were arranged so that no one country colonized Thailand and ruined the fun for everyone. A bit like Switzerland, but instead of bags of gold Thailand had bags of fresh fanjita. It was like a free trade zone for short times. Do you know that in the second world war there was a secret treaty with ze germans not to bomb Amsterdam for the same reason. :yup:
The Thais gave in to all the economic concessions that the British demanded, trade being the main purpose of the British presence in the region, otherwise things would probably have been different.
It was also viewed as a useful buffer state after the French created their Indochinese empire, but the British were already exerting their influence on Thailand before this.
If the British hadn't already been so involved there it's highly likely the French would of taken control of the country.
Seems to me MTV et al have conquered it.
What Thais generally say is that Thailand is the only country "ในภูมิภาคอุษาคเนย์ที่ไม่ได้ตกเป็นอาณานิคมของตะวัน ตก" (shouldn't be a space before dtok but I can't get rid of it) which is not the same thing as saying it's never been colonized.
Is quite correct. A region of SE Asia which was never colonized by a Western power.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
No one wanted it
Bob changed his post. It originally said "Thai history books say.."Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
Well I guess a Thai history book might have more creedence than what "Thais generally say.." but obviously Bob isn't so sure about standing on the shaky ground of Thai history whatever the source.. and who can blame him. :mid:
I mentioned that to my Grandfather when I returned from my first visit years ago, he just laughed and said "There is nothing there, thats why"
:UK:
More like he knows that is what the bunch of idiots who have no idea about anything will use to try and twist the truth to their narrow little way of seeing things.....
Anyhow, many Thai history books were written by westerners, I doubt many on here have read them though.
Apart from some of the best conditions to grow rice in surplus of the population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Periphiral Vision
How can you colonize something that is already a colon ?
If they were freely available and not punishable by LM charges, then I might have read a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by madjbs
You are correct madjbs with your statement. I think Thai history (recent and past) has been distortred somewhat by the powers that be due to conflicting interests.
Same as with all history actually.
Colonized by the Chinks and then the Japs then bcak to the Chinks. Still colonized today, Thais are just too stupid to know.
Ethnic Thais are little more than slaves and whores to their Chinky colonist masters.
Has anyone noticed the massage place called Colonize, it has big neon lights and you can see it if you get a taxi to the airport via the tollway
I think its a massage place.
Anyone know ?
Apparently the OP's definition of colinization requires annexation.
Thailand has never been annexed. They've just gave away parcels of land instead.
I changed it because what I first wrote wasn't entirely accurate. Thais learn history from history books in school, therefore their general understanding of Thai history comes from those books. Therefore they generally say what those books say when they talk about Thai history. Thais are taught, from books, that Thailand is the only SE Asian nation that wasn't colonized by the West, when discussing this with them they repeat what they learned from those books. Is that too difficult for you to understand? Judging by the shallowness and ignorance displayed posts I have to assume that you're one of those people who think that books only come in bright colours and have 9 panels of pictures on every page.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoBob changed his post. It originally said "Thai history books say.."Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
Well I guess a Thai history book might have more creedence than what "Thais generally say.." but obviously Bob isn't so sure about standing on the shaky ground of Thai history whatever the source.. and who can blame him. :mid:
I doubt many people on here have read any book that didn't have the author's name in 4-inch-high silver letters on the front. The vast majority of Thai history books are written by Thais. Many Thai academic history books are excellent, (though that might be changing with what now appears to be a crackdown on Thai academics who don't toe the party line). I get the impression that many people here have only ever seen elementary school Thai history books and the popular nonsense sold on discount book stalls at the mall.Quote:
Originally Posted by madjbs
You really are a condescending knob Bob.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
The Chinese, Japanese, French and British all realised, in turn, what the women were like and though better of it.
True. That really irritates you, doesn't it, little man?Quote:
Originally Posted by nidhoggYou really are a condescending knob Bob.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
Why not be condescending when faced with wanton ignorance and stupidity. Condescension and sarcasm is a hell of a lot better than what I really want to do when faced with one of TD's many geniuses who believe that their combination of ignorance, bigotry, and egomania is a substitute for knowledge and understanding, which is gas them.