[Tlc] T-"Siam"

[justinm at ucr.edu]

Forwarded from a member.
Thanks,
justin

Dear TLC

While I appreciate Professor Charnvit's attempts of reconciling the various ethnic groups in Thailand, I wonder whether a name change towards Siam is the right way.

Indeed, Thai/Tai nationalism and discrimination against ethnic minorities in Thailand is very alarming. In the light of this, proponents of a name change towards Siam argue that while the country name "Thailand" is derived from the Tais who (supposedly) constitute the dominant ethnic group, the name "Siam" bases its legitimacy on territorial grounds. However, as many historians - including Professor Charnvit himself -  have noted in their books and articles on early Siamese history, up to the 19th century Siam had no fixed state boundaries. In other words, the Siam (s) of the past is/are not identical with the Thailand of today. We must not overlook the fact that in the past, Siam was almost constantly warring with peripheral or neighbouring states in an effort to assert its hegemony over the region. Hence, it is still open to debate, for instance, to what degree the Kingdom of Lan Na (today: Chiang Mai) or the Sultanate of Patani belonged to Siam during the Ayutthaya period.
 
The oldest record found in which the term "Siam" is used to refer to a kingdom in nowadays Thailand is Chinese and dates back to the 13th century. During the Ayutthaya period, the people of this kingdom preferred to call their country "Ayutthaya" or "mueang Thai" instead of "Siam". Thus "Siam" does not seem to be an indigenous name but a name primarily used by foreigners. Just as the concept of "Thailand" was promoted by the government in the first half of the 20th century, "Siam" was in the second half of the 19th century. Having foreign roots does not necessarily disqualify a name for a country. However, not only "Thailand" discriminated against ethnic minorities but also "Siam".  Given that Siam did apply extensive (military) force to the submission of minorities and border people, it does not seem very likely that those who have been continously suppressed to date would be happier with "Siam".than with "Thailand".   
Another reason that is often cited for the call of a name change towards Siam is that in 1939 the name change towards "Thailand" was illegitimately brought about by Phibun Songkram and Luang Wichit, who ignored strong resistance in the cabinet and also did not hold a referendum on this issue. Phibun is said to have been fascinated by irredentist movements in Europe so that by changing the country name to Thailand he set out to unite the ethnic Tais in Southeast Asia (Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and China) - very much as Hitler was doing with Germans in Europe. Nevertheless, it would be rash to conclude that for this reason the name of "Thailand" should now be abolished. In fact, all country names are set in a historical context.  For example, France - unlike its name suggests - is not exclusively populated by the Franks. Nor does anyone in America complain about the fact that the country's name is derived from the  Florentian Amerigo Verspucci. Countries should not constan!
!
tly change their names to adapt to current political situations, since otherwise world chaos might break out.
 
Rather than choosing the "right" name for a country, it is crucial to shape its meaning. It is striking that in the North and Northeast the Thai Rak Thai party gained much support in spite of its name and the fact that there exists great ethnic diversity and suppression. This suggests that it is not so much the country name ethnic minorities find fault with but how they are affected by discrimination on the side of the Tai majority and the Thai government. While in the first part of the 20th century, Chinese people and Thais of Chinese decent were still harshly discriminated by Thai society, in the 1980s their economic success led to the re-appearance of Chinese pride. Yet, be it through intermarriages or through extensive connections with Tais, Chinese Thais have been very much integrated into Thai society so that many look upon themselves as both Chinese and Thai. Therefore I don't recommend a name change, but rather a debate on what constitutes "Thailand" and being "Thai". !
!
Integration cannot be achieved by simply changing a country's name but it depends on how ethnic minorities are treated by both the bureaucrats and the common people of the ethnic majority.

Anonymous
______________
Dr. Justin McDaniel
Dept. of Religious Studies
3046 INTN
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
951-827-4530
justinm at ucr.edu