[Tlc] Re: Historian wants country called 'Siam'

[James Ockey]

For what it is worth, I think Professor Charnvit's point of view is not a royalist point of view, it comes from two other directions.  First, in Anderson's 1978 The State of Thai Studies, Studies of the Thai State, he argued that prior to the race based nationalism of Rama VI, Thailand had been a traditional kingdom, where ethnicity or "race" (whatever that is) was less important than loyalty to the throne.  So, as we well know, it was not unusual for a non-T'ai to become a member of the nobility or even to marry in to the royal family, and some of the most powerful noble families were non-Thai.  That changed with Rama VI.  Kasian Tejapira followed this up in his Sojourn article, Pigtail, pointing out the ways that race had become central to Thainess during the time of Rama VI.  Second, it was Phibun who changed the name to Siam, and Pridi later changed it back.  So changing the name back to Siam again can be seen as taking Pridi's side, rather than the royalist side.  Charnvit is a friend of Anderson, a colleague of Kasian, and a Pridi-ite, and is not taking a royalist stance here, I feel certain, though I can't speak for others who might want the name change, and really shouldn't speak for Charnvit, I suppose.  Ironically by about 1990, those on the left I talked to had largely abandoned interest in a name change, while some on the right had begun to advocate it, so now we appear to have come full circle.

Personally, I don't see how changing the name back would make any difference in the Bangkok/Thai centrist national identity.  After all, even in the Anderson/Kasian formulation, ethnicity/race became central to the identity well before the name change, and so was not related to it except perhaps symbolically.  And as Bob and Leif point out, Siam has its own problems as a symbol.

>>> Robert Albritton <ralbritt at olemiss.edu> 04/04/07 3:35 PM >>>
My own view is that this whole issue has a more insidious purpose. It 
is one of the many ways that royalist elites are attempting to draw 
Thailand back toward the traditional kingdom and undo the course of 
history begun in 1932. I have always been amazed at the revelations 
about the struggles between "democrats" and "royalists," for example, 
the effort to tear down the Democracy Monument because it was an 
"affront to the king." (See The King Never Smiles.) It may sound 
paranoid, but the whole Thaksin issue is about the survival of the 
Chakri dynasty.
Bob

To Nara Ganesan: I am so sorry I just now learned that you are in 
Hiroshima. I visited there last summer while attending the IPSA in 
Fukuoka. I would love to have a chance to visit with you!



At 01:50 PM 4/4/2007, Michael Jerryson wrote:
>In Craig Reynold's new book, Seditious Histories, on page 275 
>(endnote #2) he references Yoneo Ishii for pointing out that "sayam 
>was coined during Mongkut's reign and is thus as colored by 
>political considerations as the country's naming in 1939 or 1948."
>
>warmly,
>
>michael