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

[Bruce Lockhart]

Yes, I would agree with Jim completely on this. I do not think it is
likely that Charnvit is adopting a narrowly "royalist" point of view.

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: tlc-bounces at lists.ucr.edu [mailto:tlc-bounces at lists.ucr.edu] On
Behalf Of James Ockey
Sent: Thursday, 05 April, 2007 13:38
To: HJonsson at asu.edu; tlc at lists.ucr.edu; Michael Montesano;
ralbritt at olemiss.edu; mjerryson at yahoo.com
Cc: eric_rubin at compuserve.com; ganesan at peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp;
danfineman at gmail.com; lianchoo7 at yahoo.co.uk; Alex M. Mutebi
Subject: RE: [Tlc] Re: Historian wants country called 'Siam'


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.  Charnvi! t
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



_______________________________________________
Tlc mailing list
Tlc at lists.ucr.edu
http://lists.ucr.edu/mailman/listinfo/tlc