Image of a map of ancient kingdoms (Lanna etc.) ca. 1750
The regular Thailand-goer will probably be familiar with the term 'Thainess', but who are actually Thai? Who was labeled that? Thailand and the Thai were not always as united as some would have people believe. Below is a brief explanation of who 'Thai' were, became and are.
Only the civilized people are T(h)ai
The peoples who spoke 'Tai' (Thai, Lao and Shan) languages - although according to some theories the term Lao is more appropriate than the term Tai - migrated from southern China to Southeast Asia between the seventh and twelfth centuries. The Mon-Khmer were expelled from this area or assimilated with the Tai speaking peoples. Today, the Tai still predominate in Thailand and Laos, but are also significant minorities in Vietnam and Myanmar (Burma). But not everyone was labeled Tai! It only described a part of the population: only those who had reached a certain level and status were called Tai. These were 'socialized people' (khon thaang sǎngkhom, คนทางสังคม). This as a distinction from the 'simple people' of nature (khon thaang thammáchâat, คนทางธรรมชาติ).
The Thai kingdoms had a feudal system with masters and serfs: Sakdina. The word Tai came to mean 'free people' (sěrichon, เสรีชน): those who were not slaves or serfs, who practiced Theravada Buddhism, spoke 'central Thai' and lived under a polity with laws and regulations. This in contrast to the khàa (ข่า) and the khâa (ข้า). The khàa were illiterate, animistic, forest people who lived outside the civilized world. The khàa were the peoples who lived outside the city/city-state: the muuang (เมือง). The city stood for civilization, the countryside for uncivilized. The khâa were those who served either as serf plebs (phrâi, ไพร่) or slaves (thâat, ทาส). In ancient inscriptions we find the text 'phrâi fáa khâa tai' (ไพร่ฟ้าข้าไท): 'The plebs of the celestial sky, servants of the Tai'. From -presumably- the Ayutthaya era (1351 – 176) people no longer spoke about Tai (ไท) but Thai (ไทย).
Isaaners are not Thai but Lao
Until the nineteenth century, the word Thai was used to indicate the people of class (the elite). These were the people with a certain status, civilized way of life and common culture with equal norms and values. It was not particularly applicable to the people of ordinary descent and not at all to the people of the Khorat Plateau (modern day Isan). She and the inhabitants of the Lanna kingdom (อาณาจักรล้านนา) in the north, were seen as Lao. But "Thai" also did not apply to the immigrants: Chinese, Persians and various displaced people from the region. A local minority could work their way up to Thai if they obtained a noble status and shared the norms and values of the elite.
This changed under the Siamese King Nangklao (Rama III, 1824-1851) and King Mongkut (Rama IV, 1851-1868). 'Thai' now became those who spoke the Thai language. This in addition to other (language) groups such as the Lao, Mon, Khmer, Malaysians and Cham. Nineteenth century Thailand was more ethnically diverse than Thailand today! There was no specific ethnic characteristic for Thai, and little effort was made to impose cultural or ethnic homogeneity on the population. Unassimilated Chinese lived by their own rules, tribal peoples experienced a lot of discrimination, but other minorities experienced more or less the same treatment as everyone else.
By ArnoldPlaton, .svg based on this map (from UTexas under Public Domain “Courtesy of the University of Texas Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin.”) – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/ w/index.php?curid=18524891
The emergence of the Thai nation at the end of the 19th century
Until well into the nineteenth century, the government made it clear to Europeans that the Thai and the Lao did not belong to the same people. 'The Lao are the slaves of the Thai' King Monkut said to them. The Thai made no secret of the fact that Siam was a great empire with many vassal states under its sphere of influence, but that Siam itself did not extend much further than the central plain (the river valley of the Chaophraya river). The areas beyond, such as Lanna, were still (freely) independent, tributary, kingdoms and city-states. But at the end of the nineteenth century the picture started to shift, race/ethnicity was now seen as a thorny issue. There was growing concern that the Western powers would lay claim to the areas indebted to Bangkok. Under King Chulalongkorn (Rama V, 1868-1910), annexation of the territories was started from Bangkok. For example, the Lanna Empire was appointed a viceroy from Bangkok in 1877 and would be completely annexed in 1892. For example, King Chulalongkorn, when installing the first Commissioner of the King of Chiang Mai in 1883, warned that: "You must remember that when you talk to a Westerner and a Lao, you must make it clear that the Westerner is 'them' and that the Lao is a Thai. But if you talk to a Lao and a Thai, you have to make it clear that the Lao are 'them' and that the Thai are 'we'.
A few years later, the king came to a new understanding of Thai and Lao. He advised the commissioners in the 'Lao provinces' that the Thai and Lao belong to the same 'Châat' (nation), speak the same language and belong to the same kingdom. With this, the king sent a clear signal to, for example, the French: the areas including Phuthai, Lao, Lao Phuan and the Chinese fell under the jurisdiction of Bangkok. It was not until the late nineteenth century that the term 'Châat Thai' (ชาติไทย) was embraced to refer to the 'Thai nation'.
Prince Damrong shared his concerns with King Chulalongkorn whether the term Châat Thai would not cause too much unrest among non-ethnic Thais as the term 'châat' (birth) in the past only referred to someone's characteristics at the time of birth, and it the government had not yet succeeded in turning the minority groups into 'Thai'. Faced with territorial and ethnic forms of resistance to centralization (internal colonization) by Bangkok, even Chulalongkorn showed some sympathy for self-government by the insurgents in the south, north and northeast: 'We consider these provinces to be ours, but that is not true , as the Malays and the Lao regard the provinces as their own'.
Source: Wikipedia
Centralization from Bangkok
Due to the trend towards further centralization of the administration and the demarcation of national borders, Thai-ification continued. According to Crown Prince Vajiravudh, the ethnic minorities, the peasantry, had to be 'tamed' and 'domesticated'. In 1900 there was still the image of a diverse Thailand in which many peoples lived. The elite in Bangkok refer to the inhabitants of modern-day northern and northeastern Thailand as 'Lao'.
But the Lao were large in size, possibly even the majority of the people (so is the name Thailand actually correct, we may ask, if the Thai are not the largest group of citizens?). Under Prince Damrong, who headed the newly established Ministry of the Interior, the idea that the Lao were actually Thai became an official part of policy. He spoke out for the end of the vassal and semi-vassal states, to make all people Thai and no longer label them Lao or Malaysian. As if it had all been a misunderstanding, he said that the Lao speak Thai in a strange way, so the people of Bangkok saw them as Lao. But now it is common knowledge that they are Thai, not Lao'. According to the prince, there were many peoples outside Siam, such as the Lao, Shan and Lue, who have given themselves all kinds of names, but in fact all belong to the Thai people. They all belonged to the Thai race and saw themselves as Thai according to the official statements
At the first census in 1904, the government stated that the Lao should be seen as Thai, concluding that Siam was a 'largely mono-ethnic country with 85% Thai'. The colonial powers could not use this against the Bangkok by doing away with the Lao identity. But if Lao had been included as a separate class, the Thai would not have formed the majority of the ethically diverse people. In the 1913 census, residents could simply no longer state that they were Lao, but were "part of the Thai race." Prince Damrong renamed Lao provinces and the entire Lao region was stamped 'Isaan' or 'north-east'.
In 1906, King Chulalongkorn discussed education policy in the former Lanna kingdom, saying 'the wish is that the Lao understand the benefits of uniting with the Thai. Therefore, those responsible for education should not look down on the Lao as inferior to the Thai in all respects. She must find a way for government officials and the common people to be one with the Thai. If the Lao are good, they will be rewarded like the Thai'.
However, this unification and the imposition of nationalistic and patriotic images did not always go smoothly, see for example this presentation by Professor Andrew Walker about the Shan uprising:
See also: www.thailandblog.nl/background/shan-opstand-noord-thailand/
The 20th century, Thailand united into one people
Miraculously, several years after the 1904 census, all who spoke a Thai language (central Thai, Lao, Shan, Puthai, etc.) became "Thai citizens" and members of the "Thai race." Thai now formed the majority in the nation. Deviant, regional identities were suppressed. History was rewritten and all inhabitants were now Thai and always had been. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the term 'Thai' no longer indicated a person's social class, but his or her nationality.
According to the 1912 Education Act, teachers throughout the empire had to teach their students "how to behave like a good Thai", the history of the Thai and the Thai nation and how to protect and maintain the nation . Languages other than Central Thai were banned in the classroom.
Under the extreme nationalistic policies of dictator Field Marshal Phibun Songkraam in the 30s and early 40s, Thainess was once again hammered in. Were in the 19de century the terms 'Châat Thai' (ชาติไทย), 'Muuang Thai' (เมืองไทย), 'Pràthêt Thai' (ประเทศไทย) and 'Sàyǎam' (สย าม) used interchangeably to refer to the country, several years after the World War II, the country was definitively called Thailand. This is how Thailand became a united, homogeneous country where almost everyone has the Thai nationality, is part of the Thai race, is a Buddhist and of course abides by law to the Thai state.
Sources:
– The Political Development of Modern Thailand, Federico Ferrara. 2015.
–Truth on Trial in Thailand, David Streckfuss, 2010.
– An 'ethnic' reading of 'Thai' history in the twilight of the century-old official 'Thai' national model, – David Streckfuss, 2012.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_languages
– https://pantip.com/topic/37029889
About this blogger
-
Regular visitor to Thailand since 2008. Works in the accounting department of a Dutch wholesaler.
In his spare time he likes to go cycling, walking or reading a book. Mainly non-fiction, especially the history, politics, economy and society of the Netherlands, Thailand and countries in the region. Likes to listen to heavy metal and other noise
Read the latest articles here
DossierJanuary 21 2025The role of 'Information Supported Decision Making' (IOB) in the Schengen visa process
BackgroundOctober 9, 2024The scars of captivity
Culture28 September 2024Khun Chang Khun Phaen, Thailand's most famous legend – part 5 (final)
Culture25 September 2024Khun Chang Khun Phaen, Thailand's most famous legend – part 4
On the map with ethnic groups, we see how strikingly many 'Thai' there are… with pen in hand, history has literally been scratched. In the last few years of the 19th century, the area in the north east was still 'Monthon Lao Kao' (มณฑลลาวกาว): the Laotian provinces that fell under Bangkok. And within a few years Prince Damrong got here 'Monthon tawan tok chiang nuea' (มณฑลตะวันออกเฉียงเหนือ): the province(s) of the north-east. And not much later (ca 1900) they came up with Isaan ( มณฑลอีสาน ), which also means north-east.
Around this time, people were also collecting history in the Prachoem Phongsawadan (ประชุมพงศาวดาร ). In an earlier version they still talked about Lao, but under Prince Damrong the line was crossed and they changed this to 'Thai' for a newer edition. Sometimes crooked texts came out.
Example where A changes to B:
1A: The indigenous people of the region (khon phuen mueang) are Lao,
Khmer (Khamen), and Suai, race (chat), and [in addition] there are people of other
countries (prathet uen), such as Thai, Farang [Westerners], Vietnamese, Burmese,
Tongsu, and Chinese, who have settled to engage with trade in large numbers.
คนพื้นเมืองเปนชาติ, ลาว, เขมร, ส่วย, แลมีชนชา วประเทศอื่นคือไทย, ฝรั่ง, ญวน, พม่า, ตองซู,
song, song
1B: The indigenous people are basically Thai. In addition to the Thai,
there are Khmer, Suai, and Lawa,16 and people of other countries such as Farang,
Vietnamese, Burmese, Tongsu, and Chinese have settled, but they are not many.
More information More information ,
ญวน, พม่า, ตองซู, จีน, เข้าไปอยู่บ้าง แต่ไม่มา กนัก
2A: “When the people of the Lao race (chon chat lao) who had been in the
country (prathet) to the north, .." งเหนือ)
2B: “When the people of the Thai race (chon chat thai) who had been
in the country to the north” เหนือ).
About rebellion (Lao rebels become Thai rebels??):
3A: At that time, on the part of those Lao and Khmer families, who,
by order of Chao Pasak (Yo), had been rounded up and remained in the city of
Champasak, on getting the news that the Bangkok army went on an offensive …
in the year of the pig, 1189 of the Lesser Era [1827 AD], those Lao and Khmer
families all joined in setting fire to torch the city of Champasak.
( ) โย่) ให้กวาดส่งไปไว้ยังเมืองจำาปาศักดิ์นั้ ครั้นรู้ข่าว
ว่ากองทัพกรุงยกขึ้นไป ครั้น… ปีกุนนพศก จุลศ More information
More information
3B: At that time, on the part of those Thai and Khmer families, who,
by order of Chao Champasak (Yo), had been rounded up and remained in the city
of Champasak, on getting the news that the Bangkok army went on an offensive …
in the year of the pig, 1189 of the Lesser Era [1827 AD], those families all joined
in setting fire to torch the city of Champasak.
More information ดิ์ (โย่) ให้กวาดส่งไปไว้ยังเมืองจำาปาศักดิ์ more
ข่าวว่ากองทัพกรุงยกขึ้นไป ครั้น ... More information
จำาปาศักดิ์ลุกลามฃ
In this way you end up with a map, as we see halfway through the piece, where the Thai 'ethnic' groups dominate the country. You can no longer see that the country is in reality very diverse.
Sources:
–The Invention of “Isan” History (Akiko Iijima)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monthon
nice story. my wife is from Uttaradit. claims to be Thai herself, but also speaks and writes Laotian. like many people here. even goes so far that the real old people, including my 78-year-old mother-in-law, speak Laotian among themselves.
Even have "distant" family living on the other side of the border with whom there is even incidental contact, especially at funerals.
The "older" family also all live in an area along the border with Laos.
Chiang rai, Phayao, Nan, etc up to Ubon Ratchatani
Nice to find an explanation here.
Nice article, Rob V.! It clarifies a lot about the problems Thailand still faces.
The first card reads 'Tai Lue' in light green. Their habitat is shown in southern China where they are called 'Dai', and in northern Laos. But the many living communities of the Thai Lue in northern Thailand, immigrants in the past 100-150 years, are not shown.
My son is a 'half' Thai Lue. His mother used to say her first identity is 'Thai Lue' and then 'Thai'. I suspect that this also applies to many Isaners.
What is not so clear here is that over the centuries the "borders" between the peoples (and especially the Khmer and the Burmese, who are barely mentioned here) have shifted considerably. Furthermore, there has been quite strong mixing of the nations, after one had conquered the other once again.
Along the TH-KH (=Cambodia) border, most of them still speak Khmer among themselves, and precise anthropological studies reveal more typical Khmer characteristics.
Furthermore: here in NL - and certainly at d'n BEls - the same phenomenon has occurred over the years, Dutch gradually became the standard language for everyone and Frisian, Twents, Drents, Limburgs etc. were pushed aside. EN BE has not even existed for 200 years.
In a next piece I will talk about the boundaries, or rather the lack of them. There were city-states (muang, เมือง), with kings or nobles. These did have a hold on the area directly around the muang and occasionally went on expeditions into the jungles to plunder other inhabited areas (especially to enslave people) and/or to subdue other muang so that they became tributary. Some muang were indebted to more than 1 higher muang. So there was no talk of clear boundaries until well into the 19th century. There was also overlap of areas, several muang counting an area under their sphere of influence. It goes without saying that because of these looting, wars and refugees, the populations also ended up here and there. Siam itself was a great plunderer and annexator. The infamous map on which pretty much all of Southeast Asia from Malaysia to China were 'Thai' is laughable propaganda. Thongchai Winichakul explains all this well in his book 'Siam mapped'. I will write something more on the basis of that book, among other things, but that will not be done in an instant. Although some Thais still shed big crocodile tears over lost/taken territory and deny the great diversity among the peoples if it does not suit them (or make the Thai from various corners of the world as un-Thai traitors if it suits them).
But thanks for your feedback. Again, this is just a brief summary, but feel free to elaborate on certain aspects.
To illustrate what Change writes; Earlier this year, my partner's great-grandmother passed away. She was well into her eighties and lived in a village between the city of Buriram and the border with Cambodia. This great-grandmother spoke only Khmer and, apart from a rare visit to the city, had never left the region. My partner, born in 1991, was educated in the Khmer language at primary school. Thai was the language of instruction at secondary school in Buriram and high school in Bangkok.
On her deathbed, he tried to say goodbye to his great-grandmother in Khmer via the mobile phone and discovered that he actually no longer mastered the active use of Khmer, while he still says he understands it well. When I speak to him the few Khmer words and phrases I learned in Cambodia, he doesn't really understand them either. From this I understand that the Khmer spoken in Cambodia differs considerably from the Khmer spoken in Buriram.
I still forget the punchline; this great-grandmother only spoke Khmer and never learned the Thai language.
Strange that small Thai minority peoples are not mentioned anywhere, peoples like the Mani.