Would Thailand have benefited if it had been Colonized?

[richard]

Beat me to it Pete

[jimk]

Richard had it right. Siam was colonised by the Thai (sometimes written as Dai), a tribe from Yunnan, China, who consolidated their hegemony over the territory in 1939 by changing the name to Thailand. They maintain a stranglehold over the place to this day, and even deny citizenship to many of the original inhabitants of the 'Golden Land'.

[Dannie Boy]

I'm speaking as a Brit and our forefathers who managed to colonise nearly 25% of the world. Can we claim to have improved the world as a result, well my read on it is yes and no, although I think we can claim more +v's than -v's. Not everybody will agree and I have no intention of trying to draw up a list of the pros and cons.................but maybe it is by no coincidence that so many of the former/current commonwealth nationals and recent EU member nationals want to relocate to the UK?

Not sure if other forum members who have Thai wives have asked them for their opinions, but my wife firmly believes that Thailand would be a better place had we set foot here maybe 150 years ago!!

[BaaBaa.]

Yes.

It might have introduced good bread, potatoes and cheese to their cuisine.



Would you like Rice with that?

[gandalfinthai]

I wonder what lies under the curiosity. It is difficult to comprehend why anyone would move here and then wish it were different. There are no perfect paradises on this planet (thankfully.)

[BaaBaa.]

I wonder what lies under the curiosity. It is difficult to comprehend why anyone would move here and then wish it were different. There are no perfect paradises on this planet (thankfully.)

You can still love the place and people but wish they had the equivalent of Naan Bread can't you? Bombay potatoes maybe?

Boiled Rice is the bane of my life.

[dtaai-maai]

I agree with the scouse git. Unless of course you consider Mussaman curry and roti to be the equivalent of Bombay potatoes and naan.
Apparently Vietnam does great French bread and croissants, etc.

I don't think anyone wishes that Thailand had been colonised. Pete was just wondering how different it might be.

It is also obviously true that colonisation is hardly a recent phenomenon. Go back far enough and you'll find homo sapiens colonising neanderthal-occupied areas. Probably a fair bit of ethnic cleansing too.
Of course, we know better now...

[PeteC]

I wonder what lies under the curiosity. It is difficult to comprehend why anyone would move here and then wish it were different. There are no perfect paradises on this planet (thankfully.)

There is no curiosity or wishes gandal, it's an academic exercise. It's quite clear what the outcome would have been concerning the systems and institutions everyone complains about constantly. What is not clear is what damage would have been done to the culture and other aspects of life. We'll never know that answer. Pete

[margaretcarnes]

Some refreshing words of honesty there from Voranai. (Who should surely be nominated for a Nobel by now?)
If other countries are willing to plough money, resources and expertise in to Thailand then yes - snap their hands off and make the most of it. If it works - fine. If it is wrong for the country throw it out. Pick out the best bits - or rather the bits which fit with the culture,development need, or whatever, and discard the rest.
I wholeheartedly agree. Shame the UK doesn't treat the EU in the same way!

[lomuamart]

I recently read "Empire" by Jeremy Paxman which shed quite a bit of light on the British mentality towards colonisation. Not everyone would agree with all of his points but I thought he shed some light on the situation.
First and foremost, colonisation was all about money whether through silk, tea, rubber, spices, opium and so on.
Secondly, at the beginning, most of the top administrators were actually quite able people - well educated and with experience of management, practical expertise (ie farming) and over time an affinity with the country and people they were involved with. During those times, The Empire flourished and generally speaking the host country did OK out of it as well. There were exceptions to this rule and Gordon in The Sudan was one that stuck out to me - he was a loon.
Thirdly, the Brits could never have successfully governed without the tacit approval of the locals. India was a case in point where the support of the rajas and other nobles was essential.
Unfortunately, as time went on and especially after WW1, the people being sent out to the far flung corners of the world didn't have the qualities that their predecessors had. Central government in London took more control over the running of the colonies so the head honchos weren't able to run their administrations with the free hand that they had had before. In other words, they weren't able to make their fortunes. As a knock on effect, they just didn't care and the host country didn't benefit. The Empire collapsed.
I'm not making this post as an apology for colonisation or even to support it. However, the colonised countries did benefit to a large extent at the beginning. Most of what I ever thought about that chapter of history was negative before reading the book and was shaped by what the Empire became in its latter stages. And it wasn't just The Brits who had that initial attitude - the French, Dutch and Germans had it as well.
Certainly, there were bad episodes - The Black Hole of Calcutta, The Indian Mutiny, atrocities in Africa and elsewhere in the world but there were also good "things".
Would Thailand have benefited from colonisation? Before reading Paxman's book I would have said no. Now I'm not so sure, especially if a decent administrator had been in charge and had allowed some degree of self-rule which would have been essential for any sort of success and the future of the country.
I havn't done justice to Jeremy Paxman's book and the whole situation was a lot more complicated than I am able to convey. It's worth a read though.
From personal experience, I was a little concerned about traveling India for the first time, mainly by train over 30 years ago. As a Brit, I wondered how the Indian people would accept me bearing in mind some of the bad things that happened during the Raj. I shouldn't have worried because, almost without exception, all I ever got were words of praise for the Brits. The locals thankfully decided to leave out some of the more sinister aspects.
Now, where's left to colonise? Pluto sounds good. Anyone got a rocket for hire?

[BaaBaa.]

Interesting read that Lomu.