"Why wasn't Thailand colonized?"

**The Gentleman Scamp** · 01-06-2011, 10:18 AM

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?

**DrB0b** · 01-06-2011, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by The Gentleman Scamp

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.

**Thetyim** · 01-06-2011, 10:20 AM

^
wot he said

**Mid** · 01-06-2011, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Because France and Britain needed a buffer state between the SE Asian parts of their respective Empires.

and the Hierarchy of the era was wise enough to realise this .................

**Attilla the Hen** · 01-06-2011, 10:25 AM

But Thailand was colonized.................by the Straits Chinese.

**nidhogg** · 01-06-2011, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by The Gentleman Scamp

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?

Nowt here that anybody really wanted....

**robuzo** · 01-06-2011, 11:05 AM

^^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.

**9999** · 01-06-2011, 11:20 AM

^ What he said. A Chinese colony and a kind of Disneyland for the world.

**DrB0b** · 01-06-2011, 11:22 AM

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.

**nidhogg** · 01-06-2011, 11:34 AM

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...

**superman** · 01-06-2011, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

and formalized subjection to the rule of a foreign power then no

Does that mean that the Japs never ruled them when they invaded ?

**madjbs** · 01-06-2011, 11:50 AM

Occupied territories are not considered colonized.

**The Gentleman Scamp** · 01-06-2011, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

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.

Yeah whatever.

**superman** · 01-06-2011, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by madjbs

Occupied territories are not considered colonized.

Thank you.

**robuzo** · 01-06-2011, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by superman

Originally Posted by DrB0b

and formalized subjection to the rule of a foreign power then no

Does that mean that the Japs never ruled them when they invaded ?

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.

**robuzo** · 01-06-2011, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

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.

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.

So Thailand doesn't claim that it was never economically colonized? No, I suppose not. Nonetheless, it happened.

**kmart** · 01-06-2011, 01:05 PM

I thought colonized meant having decent-ish fresh bread. And beer.

sabaii sabaii · 01-06-2011, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by The Gentleman Scamp

"Why wasn't Thailand colonized?" My friend asked me via Skype from London the other day, and I couldn't really answer him

Tell your mate he's a sad boring cnut

**Marmite the Dog** · 01-06-2011, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by robuzo

Originally Posted by DrB0b

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.

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.

And Khmer and Laos.

**Hampsha** · 01-06-2011, 04:06 PM

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.

**Bettyboo** · 01-06-2011, 04:08 PM

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...

**Neo** · 01-06-2011, 04:12 PM

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.

**Fast Eddie** · 01-06-2011, 04:28 PM

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.

**alwarner** · 01-06-2011, 04:30 PM

Seems to me MTV et al have conquered it.

**DrB0b** · 01-06-2011, 04:35 PM

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.

Thread: "Why wasn't Thailand colonized?"

Thread Tools

Display

"Why wasn't Thailand colonized?"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions