All right, the Australians managed this without a coup. Message received. Now lets transfer her political structures to Thailand so that people here can emulate this good example. After all, you can reproduce structures in a certain place only if they exist there. It is a harder act to create them.
“What do Thais really know about the king other than what has been carefully fed to them?” >> The first sentence of Niklas Luhmann’s book on “The Reality of the Mass Media” reads, “Whatever we know about our society, or indeed about the world in which we live, we know through the mass media.”
Honestly, it is not very difficult to be popular if the papers, the radio the TV and every other variety of mass media is censored to the extent that criticism of a figure, or figures, is punishable with imprisonment. You only have to look a t Mao, and Stalin and the north Korean leadership to see how an astonishing personality cult can arise when you control what people can read and hear. The king is not actually popular if you take a pragmatic view: the ‘icon’ is popular.
What do Thais really know about the king other than what has been carefully fed to them?
How do you have an identity without a ‘culture’ (which at least now includes nationality)? Especially when individual economic progress depends greatly on national growth. The main problem that I have with Sidh S and Teth’s rationality though does concern ‘pride’. What is a culture to be proud of? Maybe it is ok (and not so universally damaging) for one to be proud of merit they have achieved within a culture, but culture itself only allows for individuals to choose options which eventually define a life. It’s like me now saying “I am proud that I have achieved all of these options simply by sitting on the beach, wearing a Batik shirt and sipping from an ice tea.” Pride is only there to be wounded.
However, LSS, maybe Thailand and many other countries developing their capacity for greed need an overarching pride to define themselves (just as those in Rome, or revolutionary America and France) amongst this international rat race so as to economically progress to a point where citizens are able to enter post material deconstructionalism with suede mochisans, lima beans, avocado wallpaper and Steve Jobs? Wait! An Idea! I think Bhumibol has tried to implement Sufficiency Economy to stave off this need for economic equilibrium with the ‘West’ so as to promote multiculturalism and being able to afford post materialism without the former bigotry prerequisite. Wow. LSS, did you know Bhumibol is really an agent of your cosmopolitanism!? If only people would get off his back there would be no need for group rights and silly exceptionalism which creates this cascading essentialism… *regains consciousness* Oh yes, that’s right… nobody is really on Bhumibol’s back. Back to my iced tea…
“Why did they assimilate?” > What, the Chines assmiliated to the “Thais” (Lao, Siamese, or whatever), or the “Thais” assimilated to the Chinese? What is Thai about Buddhism, and what does the practice of Thai Buddhism has to to with Buddhist teachings, etc., etc.? It is largely hopeless to argue against myths and segmented layers of ideological historiography. Bringing in a classical humanistic education might then end up as overdosed and wordy elaborations.
LSS: You have a sick mind, but that is understandable to some extent because being a child with such a name would not have been easy.
Hopefully the virtual world of the internet is sufficient release for you, and you don’t need to act out your fantasy’s in real life.
As a non Thai, I prefer not to interfere in serious discussions between Thais, and therefore think it better to let Sidh & Teth sort out their differences themselves, but I’m happy to call you a wanker whenever the cap fits.
I think it is only fair that you let Teth explain himself why, as a Thai, he sees Thai history in such extreme negative light. There’s no need to be over-dramatic here. I am trying to be transparent about my thinking, I am curious what life events lay behind Teth’s transformation from being once a ‘royalist’ to becoming a ‘republican’.
I do not view Thai history in any extreme negative light. Show me instances where the so-called “extreme negative light” can be repudiated by actual facts instead of your perception that I am a disloyal, unpatriotic Thai. Even if I am, does it matter?
In fact, I am proud of my country and its distinctiveness that borders on the “think along nationalistic/racist” line put forward by LSS, but I do realize its faults and that Thailand is not particularly exceptional in many ways. But the fact remains that you have never been able to adequately address the points I raise and instead choose to focus on my patriotic credentials. I do not need to explain to anyone why I view Thai history in your so-called negative light because the facts in which I raise have never been disputed. Unless, of course, you want to prove my “negative light” wrong. This is not just a case of viewpoints, it is a case of you failing to address what I raise but trivializing it and instead focusing on your own fairy tale beliefs about Thailand. Fairy tale beliefs which have been exposed again and again for lack of clear-cut evidence.
re: nganadeeleg>
I humbly apologize for my polyglottery; being a linguist, it is an occupational hazard. Nevertheless, I feel it necessary to point out that it was Sidh, who claim I had “mastered” Latin and Thai, not myself.
Nevertheless, in honor of your ad hominem attack, I dedicate this to you:
[with apologies to Catullus….]
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,
Sidh pathice et cinaede Nganadeeleg,
qui me ex versiculis meis putastis,
quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum.
Nam castum esse decet pium philologum
ipsum, versiculos nihil necesse est;
qui tum denique habent salem ac leporem,
si sunt molliculi ac parum pudici,
et quod pruriat incitare possunt,
non dico pueris , sed his hominibus Thaienibus pilosis
qui duros nequeunt movere lumbos.
Vos, quod milia multa basiorum
legistis, male me marem putatis?
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo.
“to the Mons, Khmers, Chinese, Persians, Malays, Vietnamese, Burmese…etc…etc…, who bought their wonderful cultures to this charming mix. Why are they here – and, more often than not, free to retain their cultural practices and religious believes (something relatively quite recent in the Western world)? Why did they assimilate? Add “stability” to the ingredient provided by the Siamese-Thai kings and we have the package we have today…”
What history books have you read? Sounds very “royal-centric” history like the way they taught me in school! You have to look at migration and assimilation in a specific time and place. Have you ever read anything by G. William Skinner?
What you call “stability” in the Siamese period up until 100 years ago was in fact “slavery, corvee labor, and taxes”.
Now I have a question for you, what do you think of Thai Nationalism ideology = Nation + Religion + King
Hopefully this is not quibbling over details. But just wondering: “20,000 communities scattered on the rim of protected forests countrywide”. Does this refer to communities located inside National Forest Reserve? And any idea where this number comes from, or how reliable it is?
In my 2005 report “At the Supply Edge: Thailand’s Forest Policies, Plantation Sector and Commodity Export Links with China”, I wrote:
“There are varying estimates of the actual number of farmers living within National Reserve Forests without full tenure rights. Most observers place the number between 5 and 10 million, although Mahannop (2002) places the number at 12 million and Lohmann (1995) places estimates as high as 15 million. Vandergeest (1996) suggests that 1 million households (5-6 million people) had moved into forest reserves by 1982, implying that between 20 and 30 percent of all Thai farmers were thus working land that was officially demarcated as forest reserve.”
With 20,000 communities, if you assume 50 households per community and 5 members per household, this comes to about 5 million residents.
If you assume 100 households per community you get 10 million residents.
So I assume that these 20,000 excluded households mentioned above refer to those living in Forest Reserves. But it would be interesting to know how this number was generated. Sometimes population numbers get repeated often enough they become accepted, even though they might be based on rather tenuous assumptions.
Secondly, it seems to me that many households would have moved into Protected Forest or 1A Watershed Forest areas prior to the “promulgation” (i.e. dissemination of the first draft?) of the Community Forest Bill. The first draft of the bill was tabled in 1990. So that means if your “community” (everyone?) moved into the present location, (inside Protected Forest), prior to 1980, the community is “eligible to obtain rights to manage and use protected forest.”
I wonder how are the authorities going to adjudicate whether a specific community moved into a particular protected area in e.g. 1979, or 1981? What if some households moved in during 1979, but many others followed in 1981? What if the forest in question was legally declared a Protected Forest after 1980? (how many Protected Forests or 1A Watershed might that apply to?)
While representing a kind of a step forward, this “10 year before CFB promulgation rule” seems like it may add a new layer of confusion and potential dispute about historical settlement and claims, into an already Byzantine situation with legal forest-land tenure in Thailand.
It does not seem to address the longstanding concerns of residents and communities located in Forest Reserve territory.
And, as you argue Andrew, it does not seem to address the question of permanent upland agriculture being conducted inside Protected Areas, which can lead to other unintended problems, insofar as this can be unreflective of local concerns and actual practices.
The devil is in the details…. (as well as in the invariably uneven application of those legal details)!
But perhaps there is room for more optimism regarding the Permanent Secretary’s “step by step” approach.
Ah yes, Christianity, that Oriential cult, which now defines the “West”. My comments were merely putting things in historical perspective, not denigrating how Tai/Siamese/Thai civilization evolved. It is not fair claim the mythical “West” does not possess certain values, when civilizations that possessed such values existed before your example even existed. Save your Said-esque mythopoeisis for impressing undergraduates in their first literary crit. class.
As for “racism,” let me clarify. I acknowledge that you state your opposition to bigotry and prejudice; however, “racism”, to me and many others, is thinking along racial/ethnic national lines. This thinking may contain aspects that are hateful or xenphobic, but not necessarily. “Race” and “Nationality,” are social constructs with no true meaningful existance. Thusly, I do not call you a racist because you merely disagreed with me, I call you a racist due to the fact that a consistant theme of your commentary is the uniqueness of Thais, which leads to a political and cultural (and moral/ethical?) exceptionalism.
Furthermore, you buttress these arguments by contrasting supposed “Western” values (of which you focus on what you perceived to be the negative aspects them more often than not) to “Eastern” values, which the Thais share by merely existing in Eastern Asia. (Even though the average Thai wouldn’t know a K’ung-fu-tzu from a Okakura Kakuz┼Н.) For a through de-bunking of “Asian Values” I would recommend one to the work of Amartya Sen, Francis Fukuyama [the only thing he’s ever been correct about], and Xiaorong Li.
I don’t claim to have entered the path of the Bodhisattva, I’m currently trying to clear the woods before me so I can find the path! I never mean to offend (although I’m still human), I just call things as I see them. Until you drop your “partisanship,” I feel within my rights to acknowledge that your thinking is racist. [and yes, does have the potential to lead to hate].
You write, “I am trying to be transparent about my thinking, I am curious what life events lay behind Teth’s transformation from being once a ‘royalist’ to becoming a ‘republican’.” Again, you claim that a Thai must, ab origine be a royalist and that some horrific event must cause his or her fall to the degenerated state known as “republicanism”. What mystical property does Thai DNA possess to cause a person to be born with a preference for a certain system of goverance? Are Thais like the humble ant, who is born into a certain caste and gives her entire life for the good of the collective? Privy Councilor Ampol Senanarong seems to think so. If I understand your thinking correctly, it is racial/ethnic exceptionalism.
Finally, I don’t believe I have intentionally misrepresented what you have wrote. If you have a specific complaint, please elucidate by providing the proper context. And I would courteously ask that next time, when listing my many accomplishments, you would add “passionate lover” and “possess excellent sartorial sense” as well. Thank you.
BTW… stercum tauri means “waste of the bull,” you can figure it out from there.
“You are a genius linguist/philosopher Lleij Samuel Schwartz who has mastered English, Thai, Latin (which I don’t understand – pity me!) amongst others – we all know and accept that.” >> That’s a nicely sarcastic ego-deflation.
Crosby (1945, pp. 77) noted: “At the very outset of his reign he [Prajadhipok] consented to a departure from the prudent policy of his two immediate predecessors [Kings Chulalongkorn and Vajiravudh] in permitting commoners to share with the Royal Family a good proportion of the high offices of state… [They became] a monopoly of the princely caste, and the great resentment created thereby amongst the educated class was not only a contributory factor to what occurred subsequently [the coup of 1932], but had the further regrettable effect of making the Royal House very unpopular.”
Crosby (p. 111) bemoanes that King Prajadhipok did not follow “his own superior instinct anf judgement” but yielded to the “reactionary influence” (p. 77) of his royal relatives.
I agree with you on Rome, Lleij Samuel Schwartz – until Christianity came into the picture, as you mentioned, let’s not forget. Let’s also not forget when Siam came in the picture a millenia or so later, Europe was in the midst of the Inquisition (and a Christian civil war too?)… Give the poor Siamese some credit mate – I plead of you!
And mate, the only crime I committed for being accused of being “the worse kind of racist” was also disagreeing with you! More patience please, why accuse anyone of racism so casually, so easily?? I would expect much more of a person who has ‘entered the path’ of the Bodhisattva (my apologies if I remember wrongly). But you’ll tell me you haven’t lost your patience, nor do you intend to offend! I am beginning to have serious doubts…
I think it is only fair that you let Teth explain himself why, as a Thai, he sees Thai history in such extreme negative light. There’s no need to be over-dramatic here. I am trying to be transparent about my thinking, I am curious what life events lay behind Teth’s transformation from being once a ‘royalist’ to becoming a ‘republican’.
“Perhaps, being a cosmopolitan by philosophy, I am being too harsh. Yet, time and time again, you defend your points through an appeal of chauvinistic nationalism and patriotism. You state that none can criticize you unless they possess Thai DNA and/or experience living abroad. You claim to be a non-dualist, yet you constantly pit Siam/Thailand versus a monolithic “West”. You introduce yourself to this board as a “devaraja worshipper” and then claim to be a “critical royalist” when painted into a corner. Make no mistake, concerning you, Sidh, Senatus haec intellegit. Consul videt; hic tamen vivit.”
It’s also not very nice to selectively refer to my writings way, way out of context. Please go back and read each of my comments you refered to very carefully and also see what they were responding to! You are a genius linguist/philosopher Lleij Samuel Schwartz who has mastered English, Thai, Latin (which I don’t understand – pity me!) amongst others – we all know and accept that. But please have some courtesy.
re: Sidh> To paraphrase that great statesman, Cicero,Quo usque tandem abutere, Sidh S., patientia nostra?
Indeed, for how long will you abuse our patience? In past discussions on this board, you categorically denied my charge that you harbor, consciously or unconsciously, racist beliefs. However, when you employ slimy rhetorical tricks like, in your response to Teth, “From your response, you are obviously ashamed of your own culture, your own skin and centuries of Tai-Siamese-Thai history, ” I can only conclude that you are indeed the worst kind of racist. How dare you engage in this faux-psychoanalysis when the only “crime” the man has committed is disagreeing with you. And after that you have the chutzpah to write ” Teth, I respect and accept your views”?
O tempora, o mores!
Perhaps, being a cosmopolitan by philosophy, I am being too harsh. Yet, time and time again, you defend your points through an appeal of chauvinistic nationalism and patriotism. You state that none can criticize you unless they possess Thai DNA and/or experience living abroad. You claim to be a non-dualist, yet you constantly pit Siam/Thailand versus a monolithic “West”. You introduce yourself to this board as a “devaraja worshipper” and then claim to be a “critical royalist” when painted into a corner. Make no mistake, concerning you, Sidh, Senatus haec intellegit. Consul videt; hic tamen vivit.
You state to be proud that you were indoctrinated with an ethnocentric and paternalistic (complete with the almost incestuous motherhood-cult that pervades Thai culture) world view through the educational system of a dictatorship? Of that, I can only feel pity. Perhaps if you received an education that encouraged critical thought and exploration of other cultures you would know that “Multi-culturalism”, “Fusion food”, “Tolerance for other races/religion” – relatively ‘new’ concepts in the West, openly and proudly practiced for centuries in Siam” is complete and absolute Occidentialist stercum tauri.
Perhaps it would do you some good to read up on Ancient Rome, especially the time of the res publica. You will learn of concepts like “tolerantia universa,” that is the policy universal tolerance of religion and culture that was practiced by Rome. (Although, the tolerance had its limits, as the Judeans found out. Nevertheless, the Romans always dealt with the Judeans as a people as opposed to a religion). You would learn of the many “fusion” foods the Romans enjoyed. You might also learn about the fact that after a certain time, Roman citizenship was open to people of any race or nation.
And all of this occurred while the “Siamese” were still barely a Bronze-age tribe living in the far South of China.
Vale,
Lleij Samuel Schwartz/Numerius Cassius Niger
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
How to get rid of a government
All right, the Australians managed this without a coup. Message received. Now lets transfer her political structures to Thailand so that people here can emulate this good example. After all, you can reproduce structures in a certain place only if they exist there. It is a harder act to create them.
How to get rid of a government
Yeah, good riddance.
I hope Howard himself will be unemployed soon.
Well, I guess on the 24th of December you will have a post called ‘How to say no to military coup’ (that might be premature, but let’s hope not).
How to get rid of a government
Maybe Thaksin can release his diaries for the PPP to kick against?!
Election calendar in Chachoengsao
The ECT has posted IFES-produced translations of the ECT Act, the Election Act, and the Political Parties Act on its web site at
http://www.ect.go.th/english/upcoming.html
I haven’t had the time to check the translations. The translation of the constitution by IFEAS and the US Embassy contained a number of mistakes.
The King Never Smiles?
“What do Thais really know about the king other than what has been carefully fed to them?” >> The first sentence of Niklas Luhmann’s book on “The Reality of the Mass Media” reads, “Whatever we know about our society, or indeed about the world in which we live, we know through the mass media.”
The King Never Smiles?
Honestly, it is not very difficult to be popular if the papers, the radio the TV and every other variety of mass media is censored to the extent that criticism of a figure, or figures, is punishable with imprisonment. You only have to look a t Mao, and Stalin and the north Korean leadership to see how an astonishing personality cult can arise when you control what people can read and hear. The king is not actually popular if you take a pragmatic view: the ‘icon’ is popular.
What do Thais really know about the king other than what has been carefully fed to them?
The King Never Smiles?
LSS, Teth & Sidh S,
How do you have an identity without a ‘culture’ (which at least now includes nationality)? Especially when individual economic progress depends greatly on national growth. The main problem that I have with Sidh S and Teth’s rationality though does concern ‘pride’. What is a culture to be proud of? Maybe it is ok (and not so universally damaging) for one to be proud of merit they have achieved within a culture, but culture itself only allows for individuals to choose options which eventually define a life. It’s like me now saying “I am proud that I have achieved all of these options simply by sitting on the beach, wearing a Batik shirt and sipping from an ice tea.” Pride is only there to be wounded.
However, LSS, maybe Thailand and many other countries developing their capacity for greed need an overarching pride to define themselves (just as those in Rome, or revolutionary America and France) amongst this international rat race so as to economically progress to a point where citizens are able to enter post material deconstructionalism with suede mochisans, lima beans, avocado wallpaper and Steve Jobs? Wait! An Idea! I think Bhumibol has tried to implement Sufficiency Economy to stave off this need for economic equilibrium with the ‘West’ so as to promote multiculturalism and being able to afford post materialism without the former bigotry prerequisite. Wow. LSS, did you know Bhumibol is really an agent of your cosmopolitanism!? If only people would get off his back there would be no need for group rights and silly exceptionalism which creates this cascading essentialism… *regains consciousness* Oh yes, that’s right… nobody is really on Bhumibol’s back. Back to my iced tea…
The King Never Smiles?
“Why did they assimilate?” > What, the Chines assmiliated to the “Thais” (Lao, Siamese, or whatever), or the “Thais” assimilated to the Chinese? What is Thai about Buddhism, and what does the practice of Thai Buddhism has to to with Buddhist teachings, etc., etc.? It is largely hopeless to argue against myths and segmented layers of ideological historiography. Bringing in a classical humanistic education might then end up as overdosed and wordy elaborations.
The King Never Smiles?
LSS: You have a sick mind, but that is understandable to some extent because being a child with such a name would not have been easy.
Hopefully the virtual world of the internet is sufficient release for you, and you don’t need to act out your fantasy’s in real life.
As a non Thai, I prefer not to interfere in serious discussions between Thais, and therefore think it better to let Sidh & Teth sort out their differences themselves, but I’m happy to call you a wanker whenever the cap fits.
The King Never Smiles?
I do not view Thai history in any extreme negative light. Show me instances where the so-called “extreme negative light” can be repudiated by actual facts instead of your perception that I am a disloyal, unpatriotic Thai. Even if I am, does it matter?
In fact, I am proud of my country and its distinctiveness that borders on the “think along nationalistic/racist” line put forward by LSS, but I do realize its faults and that Thailand is not particularly exceptional in many ways. But the fact remains that you have never been able to adequately address the points I raise and instead choose to focus on my patriotic credentials. I do not need to explain to anyone why I view Thai history in your so-called negative light because the facts in which I raise have never been disputed. Unless, of course, you want to prove my “negative light” wrong. This is not just a case of viewpoints, it is a case of you failing to address what I raise but trivializing it and instead focusing on your own fairy tale beliefs about Thailand. Fairy tale beliefs which have been exposed again and again for lack of clear-cut evidence.
The King Never Smiles?
re: nganadeeleg>
I humbly apologize for my polyglottery; being a linguist, it is an occupational hazard. Nevertheless, I feel it necessary to point out that it was Sidh, who claim I had “mastered” Latin and Thai, not myself.
Nevertheless, in honor of your ad hominem attack, I dedicate this to you:
[with apologies to Catullus….]
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,
Sidh pathice et cinaede Nganadeeleg,
qui me ex versiculis meis putastis,
quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum.
Nam castum esse decet pium philologum
ipsum, versiculos nihil necesse est;
qui tum denique habent salem ac leporem,
si sunt molliculi ac parum pudici,
et quod pruriat incitare possunt,
non dico pueris , sed his hominibus Thaienibus pilosis
qui duros nequeunt movere lumbos.
Vos, quod milia multa basiorum
legistis, male me marem putatis?
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo.
The King Never Smiles?
Sidh S.
You’ve gotta be kidding with this statement:
“to the Mons, Khmers, Chinese, Persians, Malays, Vietnamese, Burmese…etc…etc…, who bought their wonderful cultures to this charming mix. Why are they here – and, more often than not, free to retain their cultural practices and religious believes (something relatively quite recent in the Western world)? Why did they assimilate? Add “stability” to the ingredient provided by the Siamese-Thai kings and we have the package we have today…”
What history books have you read? Sounds very “royal-centric” history like the way they taught me in school! You have to look at migration and assimilation in a specific time and place. Have you ever read anything by G. William Skinner?
What you call “stability” in the Siamese period up until 100 years ago was in fact “slavery, corvee labor, and taxes”.
Now I have a question for you, what do you think of Thai Nationalism ideology = Nation + Religion + King
Will the Community Forest Act be good for farmers?
Andrew:
Hopefully this is not quibbling over details. But just wondering: “20,000 communities scattered on the rim of protected forests countrywide”. Does this refer to communities located inside National Forest Reserve? And any idea where this number comes from, or how reliable it is?
In my 2005 report “At the Supply Edge: Thailand’s Forest Policies, Plantation Sector and Commodity Export Links with China”, I wrote:
“There are varying estimates of the actual number of farmers living within National Reserve Forests without full tenure rights. Most observers place the number between 5 and 10 million, although Mahannop (2002) places the number at 12 million and Lohmann (1995) places estimates as high as 15 million. Vandergeest (1996) suggests that 1 million households (5-6 million people) had moved into forest reserves by 1982, implying that between 20 and 30 percent of all Thai farmers were thus working land that was officially demarcated as forest reserve.”
With 20,000 communities, if you assume 50 households per community and 5 members per household, this comes to about 5 million residents.
If you assume 100 households per community you get 10 million residents.
So I assume that these 20,000 excluded households mentioned above refer to those living in Forest Reserves. But it would be interesting to know how this number was generated. Sometimes population numbers get repeated often enough they become accepted, even though they might be based on rather tenuous assumptions.
Secondly, it seems to me that many households would have moved into Protected Forest or 1A Watershed Forest areas prior to the “promulgation” (i.e. dissemination of the first draft?) of the Community Forest Bill. The first draft of the bill was tabled in 1990. So that means if your “community” (everyone?) moved into the present location, (inside Protected Forest), prior to 1980, the community is “eligible to obtain rights to manage and use protected forest.”
I wonder how are the authorities going to adjudicate whether a specific community moved into a particular protected area in e.g. 1979, or 1981? What if some households moved in during 1979, but many others followed in 1981? What if the forest in question was legally declared a Protected Forest after 1980? (how many Protected Forests or 1A Watershed might that apply to?)
While representing a kind of a step forward, this “10 year before CFB promulgation rule” seems like it may add a new layer of confusion and potential dispute about historical settlement and claims, into an already Byzantine situation with legal forest-land tenure in Thailand.
It does not seem to address the longstanding concerns of residents and communities located in Forest Reserve territory.
And, as you argue Andrew, it does not seem to address the question of permanent upland agriculture being conducted inside Protected Areas, which can lead to other unintended problems, insofar as this can be unreflective of local concerns and actual practices.
The devil is in the details…. (as well as in the invariably uneven application of those legal details)!
But perhaps there is room for more optimism regarding the Permanent Secretary’s “step by step” approach.
cheers,
Keith Barney
Toronto
The King Never Smiles?
What’s the Latin word for ‘intellectual wanker’ ?
The King Never Smiles?
Re: Sidh>
Ah yes, Christianity, that Oriential cult, which now defines the “West”. My comments were merely putting things in historical perspective, not denigrating how Tai/Siamese/Thai civilization evolved. It is not fair claim the mythical “West” does not possess certain values, when civilizations that possessed such values existed before your example even existed. Save your Said-esque mythopoeisis for impressing undergraduates in their first literary crit. class.
As for “racism,” let me clarify. I acknowledge that you state your opposition to bigotry and prejudice; however, “racism”, to me and many others, is thinking along racial/ethnic national lines. This thinking may contain aspects that are hateful or xenphobic, but not necessarily. “Race” and “Nationality,” are social constructs with no true meaningful existance. Thusly, I do not call you a racist because you merely disagreed with me, I call you a racist due to the fact that a consistant theme of your commentary is the uniqueness of Thais, which leads to a political and cultural (and moral/ethical?) exceptionalism.
Furthermore, you buttress these arguments by contrasting supposed “Western” values (of which you focus on what you perceived to be the negative aspects them more often than not) to “Eastern” values, which the Thais share by merely existing in Eastern Asia. (Even though the average Thai wouldn’t know a K’ung-fu-tzu from a Okakura Kakuz┼Н.) For a through de-bunking of “Asian Values” I would recommend one to the work of Amartya Sen, Francis Fukuyama [the only thing he’s ever been correct about], and Xiaorong Li.
I don’t claim to have entered the path of the Bodhisattva, I’m currently trying to clear the woods before me so I can find the path! I never mean to offend (although I’m still human), I just call things as I see them. Until you drop your “partisanship,” I feel within my rights to acknowledge that your thinking is racist. [and yes, does have the potential to lead to hate].
You write, “I am trying to be transparent about my thinking, I am curious what life events lay behind Teth’s transformation from being once a ‘royalist’ to becoming a ‘republican’.” Again, you claim that a Thai must, ab origine be a royalist and that some horrific event must cause his or her fall to the degenerated state known as “republicanism”. What mystical property does Thai DNA possess to cause a person to be born with a preference for a certain system of goverance? Are Thais like the humble ant, who is born into a certain caste and gives her entire life for the good of the collective? Privy Councilor Ampol Senanarong seems to think so. If I understand your thinking correctly, it is racial/ethnic exceptionalism.
Finally, I don’t believe I have intentionally misrepresented what you have wrote. If you have a specific complaint, please elucidate by providing the proper context. And I would courteously ask that next time, when listing my many accomplishments, you would add “passionate lover” and “possess excellent sartorial sense” as well. Thank you.
BTW… stercum tauri means “waste of the bull,” you can figure it out from there.
The King Never Smiles?
P.S.: Erare humanum est! (or something like this)
The King Never Smiles?
“You are a genius linguist/philosopher Lleij Samuel Schwartz who has mastered English, Thai, Latin (which I don’t understand – pity me!) amongst others – we all know and accept that.” >> That’s a nicely sarcastic ego-deflation.
The King Never Smiles?
Crosby (1945, pp. 77) noted: “At the very outset of his reign he [Prajadhipok] consented to a departure from the prudent policy of his two immediate predecessors [Kings Chulalongkorn and Vajiravudh] in permitting commoners to share with the Royal Family a good proportion of the high offices of state… [They became] a monopoly of the princely caste, and the great resentment created thereby amongst the educated class was not only a contributory factor to what occurred subsequently [the coup of 1932], but had the further regrettable effect of making the Royal House very unpopular.”
Crosby (p. 111) bemoanes that King Prajadhipok did not follow “his own superior instinct anf judgement” but yielded to the “reactionary influence” (p. 77) of his royal relatives.
The King Never Smiles?
I agree with you on Rome, Lleij Samuel Schwartz – until Christianity came into the picture, as you mentioned, let’s not forget. Let’s also not forget when Siam came in the picture a millenia or so later, Europe was in the midst of the Inquisition (and a Christian civil war too?)… Give the poor Siamese some credit mate – I plead of you!
And mate, the only crime I committed for being accused of being “the worse kind of racist” was also disagreeing with you! More patience please, why accuse anyone of racism so casually, so easily?? I would expect much more of a person who has ‘entered the path’ of the Bodhisattva (my apologies if I remember wrongly). But you’ll tell me you haven’t lost your patience, nor do you intend to offend! I am beginning to have serious doubts…
I think it is only fair that you let Teth explain himself why, as a Thai, he sees Thai history in such extreme negative light. There’s no need to be over-dramatic here. I am trying to be transparent about my thinking, I am curious what life events lay behind Teth’s transformation from being once a ‘royalist’ to becoming a ‘republican’.
“Perhaps, being a cosmopolitan by philosophy, I am being too harsh. Yet, time and time again, you defend your points through an appeal of chauvinistic nationalism and patriotism. You state that none can criticize you unless they possess Thai DNA and/or experience living abroad. You claim to be a non-dualist, yet you constantly pit Siam/Thailand versus a monolithic “West”. You introduce yourself to this board as a “devaraja worshipper” and then claim to be a “critical royalist” when painted into a corner. Make no mistake, concerning you, Sidh, Senatus haec intellegit. Consul videt; hic tamen vivit.”
It’s also not very nice to selectively refer to my writings way, way out of context. Please go back and read each of my comments you refered to very carefully and also see what they were responding to! You are a genius linguist/philosopher Lleij Samuel Schwartz who has mastered English, Thai, Latin (which I don’t understand – pity me!) amongst others – we all know and accept that. But please have some courtesy.
The King Never Smiles?
re: Sidh> To paraphrase that great statesman, Cicero,Quo usque tandem abutere, Sidh S., patientia nostra?
Indeed, for how long will you abuse our patience? In past discussions on this board, you categorically denied my charge that you harbor, consciously or unconsciously, racist beliefs. However, when you employ slimy rhetorical tricks like, in your response to Teth, “From your response, you are obviously ashamed of your own culture, your own skin and centuries of Tai-Siamese-Thai history, ” I can only conclude that you are indeed the worst kind of racist. How dare you engage in this faux-psychoanalysis when the only “crime” the man has committed is disagreeing with you. And after that you have the chutzpah to write ” Teth, I respect and accept your views”?
O tempora, o mores!
Perhaps, being a cosmopolitan by philosophy, I am being too harsh. Yet, time and time again, you defend your points through an appeal of chauvinistic nationalism and patriotism. You state that none can criticize you unless they possess Thai DNA and/or experience living abroad. You claim to be a non-dualist, yet you constantly pit Siam/Thailand versus a monolithic “West”. You introduce yourself to this board as a “devaraja worshipper” and then claim to be a “critical royalist” when painted into a corner. Make no mistake, concerning you, Sidh, Senatus haec intellegit. Consul videt; hic tamen vivit.
You state to be proud that you were indoctrinated with an ethnocentric and paternalistic (complete with the almost incestuous motherhood-cult that pervades Thai culture) world view through the educational system of a dictatorship? Of that, I can only feel pity. Perhaps if you received an education that encouraged critical thought and exploration of other cultures you would know that “Multi-culturalism”, “Fusion food”, “Tolerance for other races/religion” – relatively ‘new’ concepts in the West, openly and proudly practiced for centuries in Siam” is complete and absolute Occidentialist stercum tauri.
Perhaps it would do you some good to read up on Ancient Rome, especially the time of the res publica. You will learn of concepts like “tolerantia universa,” that is the policy universal tolerance of religion and culture that was practiced by Rome. (Although, the tolerance had its limits, as the Judeans found out. Nevertheless, the Romans always dealt with the Judeans as a people as opposed to a religion). You would learn of the many “fusion” foods the Romans enjoyed. You might also learn about the fact that after a certain time, Roman citizenship was open to people of any race or nation.
And all of this occurred while the “Siamese” were still barely a Bronze-age tribe living in the far South of China.
Vale,
Lleij Samuel Schwartz/Numerius Cassius Niger