In an important public debate concerning recent events in Thailand, a series of international scholars have discussed the rather odd idea of changing Thailand’s name back to Siam. The discussion was kicked off earlier this week when prominent Thai historian Charnvit Kasetsiri argued that ”Siam” was more ethnically inclusive than “Thailand.” The discussion has been picked up on the Thailand-Laos-Cambodia (TLC) email list. New Mandala readers who are interested in the implications and origins of the word “Siam” can consult the TLC archive for April 2007. (An early New Mandala post may also be of interest.)
New Mandala is pleased that such a pressing issue is getting concerted scholarly attention! At least 15 contributions in just a few days.
A look at the September 2006 TLC archive shows not a single mention of the coup.
18 responses so far ↓
1 jonfernquest // Apr 6, 2007 at 4:40 pm
“…the odd idea of changing Thailand’s name back to Siam. …prominent Thai historian Charnvit Kasetsiri argued that ‘Siam’ was ***more ethnically inclusive*** than ‘Thailand.’”
It’s a nice idea, along with hill tribes being “stewards for the forest” as they supposedly were in the past, but I doubt that peoples’ attitudes towards ethnic minorities would change without a concerted government policy in this direction.
That students laugh at the ethnicity of Akhas (Ikhaw) and Isan (Lao) and do so with impunity from school officials, is what perpetuates this behaviour. Many of them change their names to Thai names to conform, perhaps out of shame or maybe officially, I’m not sure. What I am sure of is that concrete steps should be taken to give these people some self-respect. Not to do so, will simply wipe out some of the wonderful diversity that Thailand is gifted with. These ethnic minorities will simply become Thais and lose their language and culture or become born-again Christians where they can get some self-respect.
2 jeplang // Apr 6, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Andrew ,see the October 2006 Tlc archive for mentions of the coup.
Patrick Jory certainly shoots straight from the hip.
3 somsak jeamteerasakul // Apr 6, 2007 at 11:54 pm
it’s good to read Khun Andrew’s sensible comment on this “campaign”. I was thinking of writing something myself but was too busy with other things. I’d like to make just two brief points:
(1) “Siam” as it was used prior to 1938 ESPECIALLY during the time of the Absolute Monarchy was NOT an ethnically inclusive name as Charnvit suggests. In fact, like the name “Thai”, it refered MANINLY to an ethnic group (Rama VI, for instance, used “Siamese race” and “Thai race” interchangeably). Even during the brief period between the 1932 Revolution and the 1938 change of name to Thailand, “Siam” was taken as largely synonymous with “Thai”. There was no real “contrast” between the two as Charnvit implies.
(2) More importantly, SUPPOSE the junta’s Constitution Drafting Council agree with Charnvit and use Siam instead of Thailand, would Charnvit and all those who signed this petition support this Constitution, regardless of its provisions on other “smaller” issues (like the structure of the parliament, the role of the militarty, etc.)?
4 thai news // Apr 7, 2007 at 1:04 am
much ado about nothing to my view point…
5 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Apr 7, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I, for one, would welcome the change back to Siam. The sound of “Siam” is just so much more romantic than that horrible half-breed neologism “Thailand.”
6 Thailand » Blog Archive » Continuing Haze and English Abilities // Apr 7, 2007 at 10:10 pm
[...] Not to do so, will simply wipe out some of the wonderful diversity that Thailand is gifted with. These ethnic minorities will simply become Thais and lose their language and culture or become born-again Christians where they can get … – more – [...]
7 Pig Latin // Apr 8, 2007 at 10:30 am
How old is Charnvit? Surely this is a nostalgic outburst?!
8 Bystander // Apr 8, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Charnvit is a historian of pre-industrial Thailand, what do you expect? There’s no such thing as Thailand in those days.
I think he has a good point, and I will also welcome the return to the name ‘Siam’. If nothing else, it’s because I’m never a big fan of that fascist Por Pibulsongkram.
9 Tosakan // Apr 9, 2007 at 12:09 am
There is a lot of myths concerning the name Thailand/Siam.
Thais have always called themselves Thai and called their country “muang thai” which means Thailand. Actually, muang can mean other things than just “land” but in this context it is a literal translation.
Siam is what foreigners called Thailand. Some say that Siam come from the Malays, some say that it is bastardization of the word Shan, and some say that it comes from the “Siam kok” Angkor Wat stele.
I’m not a linguist, so I don’t know the real answer, but these are reasons I have seen from different sources.
If you read the old traveling texts written by foreigners, they always point this out: When you say the word Siam, most Siamese have no idea what you are talking about. They call themselves Thai, which means free, and they call their country Muang Thai, which means “land of the free.”
La Loubere points this out in his book about Siam written in the 1680s.
I also think Van Vliet, Schoeten, and other early Dutch travelers mention this.
Bowring, Crawfurd mention it.
Another interesting factoid is that central Thai used to refer to anybody outside the central Chao Phraya valley as Lao.
So people from the North or Lanna were called Lao Phung Dum, or the black bellied Lao, and the Lao Lao were called Lao Phung khao or White beliied Lao.
Regardless, I don’t think it is that important.
But Charnvit and Sulak like to make a big deal about it.
Aesthetically, I prefer Siam over Thai.
There are a coupls articles in the book National Identity and its Defenders if anybody is interested in this topic.
Also, I was glancing through Kukrit Pramoj’s Four Reigns lately, and I noted that the characters refer to Thailand as Muang Thai instead of Siam before the legal name change.
10 Amateur // Apr 11, 2007 at 2:17 am
From an intellectual and aethetical standpoint I do favour “Siam”, as I do not support Phibulsongkram’s notion of a ethnonational Thai state and the name “Siam” does not contain any notion of the ethnic Thai.
However, the problem is that the whole discussion is entirely a intellectuals’ discussion far removed from most of the common Thai who simply call the country “Muang Thai”. I don’t believe that an official change would impact on the Thai usage of “Muang Thai” at all. I may mention the fact that the Shan call their (non-existing) state as “Mong Tai” as well, regardless of the other ethnic groups inhabiting the area.
It is actually more interesting to explore about the origin of the word “Lao”…
Having written my MA thesis on Thai nationalism I indeed appreciate this discussion.
11 Jon Fernquest // Apr 11, 2007 at 4:33 am
“Siam” as it was used prior to 1938 ESPECIALLY during the time of the Absolute Monarchy was NOT an ethnically inclusive name as Charnvit suggests. In fact, like the name “Thai”, it refered MANINLY to an ethnic group…”
That’s not really the point, the point is that before the late 19th century most ethnic minorities were ruled indirectly, which means they might have had a fair bit of autonomy (of course this is something that must be proven, since most of the pre-modern sources I am aware of hardly mention them)
What has been happening in recent times is that the owner of their land by law, the forestry department, often plants trees right over ther land and divests them of their land, after which they become lowland wage earners on plantations, this is pretty visible in many places in the north, and is well documented in books and especially the work of Matthew McDaniel, who basically observed everthing that was going on.
As for ethnicity, Siam is even found in the inscriptions of Burma to describe Tai raiders in the 13th-14th centuries.
12 Michael Jerryson // Apr 11, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Andrew, the TLC listserv is relatively new. There were people who responded to the coup, as well as to the on-going conflict in the South. As a new listserv, it has been gaining members through the months. To criticize scholars for engaging in a debate concerning a name change instead of debating over the coup misses the point. Most people on the listserv were in agreement over condemning the coup. I think I was perhaps the only one who was dubious to condemning them outright. So the ‘lack of debate’ was not a lack of concern, but a lack of disagreement.
I would save your ire for much more pressing matters, such as the recent slaughter of Malay Muslims by Thai Buddhist volunteers– and the given justifications for that.
13 Scott Hipsher // Apr 11, 2007 at 3:56 pm
I also found it interesting that this topic has sparked so much discussion. As far as I can see, no one here is Thailand is debating the issue. Seems like the whole idea was just a filler article for an English Language newspaper, The Nation. I can’t detect any interest in the topic at all amongst the citizens of the country.
Historical orgins of words are interesting for scholars, but have little to do with how the words are currently perceived by the public at large. The word America may have originated from an obsure Italian map maker, but the current meaning of the word is obviously quite different.
Thais perceive the term Siam to be a foreign title imposed on them, rather that is actually true or not is not very important to the majority.
“Most people on the listserv were in agreement over condemning the coup. ” Really? Seems like there were many supporting the coup if memory serves me right, they seemed to have had the attitude anything, even a military dictatorship, was better then having Thaksin in charge.
Of course, now the tone is beginning to change.
14 Thailand » Blog Archive » Thailand // Apr 11, 2007 at 10:09 pm
[...] Siam as it was used prior to 1938 ESPECIALLY during the time of the Absolute Monarchy was NOT an ethnically inclusive name as Charnvit suggests. In fact, like the name Thai , it refered MANINLY to an ethnic group … – more – [...]
15 Michael Jerryson // Apr 11, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I agree, names are interesting and demonstrate a lot of ‘rewriting’ of history. Amerigo Vespucci does present a dilemma for the current designation of “America,” since he did not arrive in North America, yet for some reason the U.S.A has for some reason claimed “America” as its own (whereas Chile, Argentina, Canada, Mexico, etc. all are America– and the southern countries more so due to Vespucci’s voyage).
If you are a member of the TLC you can view the history off the list website. For the October 2006 emails, all were either neutral or negative regarding the coup, save for mine– which sparked severe retorts from Albritton, Jory, et. al.
16 Amateur // Apr 14, 2007 at 2:52 am
sorry for this late addition, but obviously Charnvit has initiated a petition on this:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/petition-sign.cgi?siam2007
If you look on the signatures you are not sure whether all take that for serious….
17 Panom // Apr 5, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Siam Riep, the name of a old city where the khmer defeated the Siam in early ages. The name might be chinese or khmer.
Very low chances of being malay… since its a community that is in the island. When evolution came from inda or china first… or whatever.
To me Siam is just a khmer word thats been used forever. It might even be just a Siam word….. Thai is just an invented word that doesnt mean FREE.
18 ian // Sep 9, 2008 at 12:22 pm
A change of a name ( especialy when changing the name of a country)
can have an amazing effect. And that is what i think the scholars are trying to suggest. since a government was created in thailand in 1932 , at last count there have been 18 coups . And when i think of future coups that will take place , the change of name is just the beginning for future decisions that will be made on the behalf of thai people. I also believe that what effects the people of thailand can cause a ripple for the rest of the developed world. So its not just in the interest of the thais only. !!! lets hope things improve for the better.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.