Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- From Works in Progress, a media company promoting economic growth.
I'm sure a credible argument could be made in the opposite direction with a different case study - i.e. celebrating their own identity even if it bemuses international markets / imperialists (Japan and manga/anime for example).
Of course, it's an interesting study, but do all remember to resist the temptation to take too much from it!
by tmgldn - It depends whether one considers Thailand to have been part of informal empire or not, much like the British influence over Portugal, Chile and Argentina.
Either way, Thailand was also a Cold War hold out. It bordered Cambodia, Laos and Burma, and Vietnam by sea, all of which became Communist-run. The west helped prop it up.
There is a whole other argument about Thailand's current relationship with the west, which is complex to say the least.
by nephihaha - Thailand's rapid modernization and giving up 40% of its territory gave it time to embrace guns and a modern military. Sadly the widespread adoption of guns during this time period has a lasting impact today. Thailand has the highest number of gun deaths per capita of any asian country today. Resisting colonization in Thailand and overthrowing colonization in the US have embracing fire arms in common.by sinoue
- Comparing this article's description of Siam definitely not getting colonized:
> In the face of overwhelming military force, Chulalongkorn ceded the territory, making a necessary concession to preserve the kingdom as a whole. Siam was forced to cede territory to the French in what is now Laos and Cambodia, creating much of the modern borders of Thailand. The French established a demilitarized zone along the Mekong, and the Siamese had to pay an indemnity of three million francs. European powers readily resorted to gunboat diplomacy but even here, France felt compelled to frame its demands in terms of legitimate Vietnamese territorial claims rather than naked conquest.
> Between 1893 and 1909, Siam would cede around 40 percent of its territory to France and Britain. But the strategic retreat meant Chulalongkorn preserved what mattered most: the political independence of Siam’s core territories.
with its contrasting description of Burma definitely getting colonized:
> Following its defeats in the Anglo-Burmese Wars of 1824–26 and 1852, Burma had been forced to surrender four provinces, pay a crippling £1 million indemnity (about $160 million today), and accept the presence of a British overseer with veto power over the king’s decisions.
...
> When Britain manufactured border disputes to complete Burma’s annexation in 1885, Mindon’s modernization efforts provided no protection against a colonial power that was, by that point, committed to conquest.
It rather seems to me like Siam was about two decades into a process that would usually take a few decades more, but got a respite due to World War I distracting the colonizers. (Maybe an even better counterexample to the article's thesis that adopting the trappings of Western civilization protected against invasion by European powers.)
by yorwba - Always interesting to read how something very difficult was done very well. Understanding the West's true and purported motivations, bending their own culture - choosing what to adopt or not and how - without breaking, ceding some land, and it all working out in the end. Quite remarkable.
There's a lot of stuff there that needed to succeed in several different ways (technical, local population, foreign image) to work, and it did.
by ahartmetz - An interesting and standard narrative for how Thailand avoided colonization. There's a lot to commend it.
The biggest criticism I usually see of this narrative is that the British and the French may have also seen Thailand as a neutral buffer zone between their respective empires. By staying out of Thailand, they reduced the risk of conflict between them, supposedly.
I have no idea how valid this idea is, or how much of a factor it would have been, I'm not a historian.
by KingMob - Entertaining and educational historical narrative, much of it was new to me. The main idea is that kings of Siam willingly and actively embraced European culture and modernization efforts, unlike other countries in Asia which resisted and implemented them reactively, often by force.
This included imposing unified national language and cultural homogeneity across their territory, with centralized government, laws, administration. The other side of that is the suppression of regional languages and culture, as it happened during European nation-building with Welsh, Gaelic, Breton, Occitan, Alsatian, German and Italian dialects. Similarly in China, Japan, and elsewhere.
The building of telegraph lines, railways, and schools helped solidify nation state authority. I wonder how that relates to the internet, as a tool of communication as well as social control and centralizing power.
A way to summarize how Thailand resisted colonization is that it colonized itself, and successfully adapted culturally to the wave of Europeanization and modern global order of nation states.
by lioeters