The first Thai Kingdom known to history was Nan-Chao in southern China, located near what is now Yunnan, which resisted the southward thrust of successive Chinese dynasties from roughly the 7th through the 12th centuries. However, it was shattered by the Mongol conquest in the 13th century. This latter event sped up a southward movement of Thai peoples that had been going on gradually for several centuries. Minor Thai kingdoms appear in what is now northern Thailand as early as the 11th century. In the 13th century, the Kingdom of Sukothai, although its capital was in the north, claimed control of much of the central and south of present-day Thailand, and frequently clashed with the Khmer.
In 1350 the Kingdom of Ayudhya, forerunner of the present Thai state, was founded on the lower reaches of the Chao Phraya river. The present capital was founded in 1782 by the first king of the present (Chakri) dynasty. In their southward movement, the Thai displaced and, to a degree, assimilated the Mon people, and drove out the representatives of the Khmer. Conflicts became sharper as the Thai pushed their control eastward, even raiding several times the ancient capital of Angkor Wat, which the Khmer abandoned to the jungle in the 15th century.
Source:The Geographer
Office of the Geographer
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
No. 40 (Revised) – November 23, 1966
3 comments:
False history highlighted to make the Thai superiority apparent [Thai ideology]
Thailand has promoted Thai history through school textbooks under an overriding royalist-nationalist theme (prawathisat baeb rachachatniyom). Thai students learn how the Siamese kingdom had to succumb to foreign invaders throughout its history, but the nation survived because of the wisdom and farsightedness of the Thai monarchs. The number-one enemy of the Thai kingdom has been the Burmese who sacked the old Ayutthaya kingdom not once, but twice. While the tale of Siam being a ruthless destroyer of Angkor is missing in Thai textbooks, humiliating images of the Cambodians, such as the Khmer King Satha (1576-1596) took the opportunity to attack Ayutthaya from the east. In revenge, according to the Thai chronicles, King Naresuan of Ayutthaya (1590-1605) ordered the capture of Lovek, the capital of the Khmer kingdom at the time, and beheaded Phraya Lovek. Naresuan then washed his feet with Phraya Lovek‘s blood,(this Thai Textbooks word was use by Thai current foreign minister kasit pirom in 2008"I will use Hun Sen blood to wash my feet") Thai false history highlighted to make the Thai superiority apparent. The issue of lost territories is also included in the historical textbooks, including the loss of Preah Vihear Temple to Cambodia in 1962. Indeed, the Thai name of Phra Viharn only appears in school textbooks, since the Thai state believed that the name was linked to ownership. The name Preah Vihear/Phra Viharn posed as a major stumbling block during the Thai-Cambodian Joint Boundary Commission (JBC) in February 2009; each side insisted on using their own dialect in reference to the disputed temple. But textbooks are not the only means employed to inculcate a sense of Thai nationhood and to construct Cambodia as enemy. State agencies in Thailand have issued countless press releases attacking the Cambodians when bilateral problems arose. Thai leaders talked about history, often discursively and arbitrarily, to contest the Cambodian leadership, through bureaucratic channels. In 1961, the Thai Foreign Ministry declared in its press release, ―As a matter of fact, Thailand has been in possession of Khao Phra Viharn since 1941 and, although France protested in 1949, Thailand has continued to be in possession of it without interruption. Moreover, Thai leaders also turn to news media as their latest political instrument and demean Khmer. Abhisit has launched his own interactive media channel called ―Abhisit.Org to communicate with his supporters. He often discusses Thailand‘s relations with Cambodia through this channel. Abhisit defended his foreign policy toward Cambodia and vowed that he would not allow PM Hun Sen to take advantage of Thai interests. Some of his interviews were posted on Youtube.
(note: this article intend for Khmer to understand Thai ideology, thanks from L.C)
Ayutthaya inherited much from Angkor
Among the neighbouring countries of Southeast Asia, none seems more similar to Thailand than Cambodia (perhaps not even excluding Laos and the ―Tai people
Thailand and Cambodia share an approximately 800-kilometre long border. Historically, their respective peoples, the Siamese and Khmers, had continually interacted through the exchange of culture, marriage and trade. Such interaction even predated the Sukhothai kingdom, the supposedly first Thai kingdom that came into being in 1238. From the period of Sukhothai to the rise of Ayutthaya, another Thai kingdom founded in 1351, the Siamese looked up to their Khmer neighbours and embraced their advanced civilisation. Successive Siamese kings were filled with tremendous admiration for anything Khmer, ranging from the art, architecture, language and royal rituals. David Wyatt said that Ayutthaya inherited much from Angkor as the former was rising to become a major power in mainland Southeast Asia.4 But the Khmer civilisation eventually sank into decline. In 1431, Ayutthaya‘s army invaded and destroyed Angkor, the seat of the Khmer Empire, transforming this ancient kingdom into one of Siam‘s vassals. but Thai historians have been reluctant to make this analogy as it would cast Thais in the role of "villains".
Relentless attacking and demean Khmer
While making Cambodia the enemy of the state, some Thai political figures tried to demonise the Cambodian leaders on a personal level. In October 2008, Kasit Piromya of the Democrat Party, a well-known sympathiser of the PAD, appeared on the televised political talk show ―Khom Chut Leuk and insulted PM Hun Sen. He called PM Hun Sen a kui, a derogatory term meaning a tramp, a vagrant or a gangster. He thought Hun Sen was bah, meaning deranged or mentally imbalanced. Kasit believed Hun Sen did not want good relations with Thailand and speculated that he was a khikha, or slave, of Thaksin. These disparaging terms were used against Hun Sen in order to satisfy the nationalistic need of the PAD and the Democrat Party. At various points in the interview, Kasit characterised Thailand as belonging to a higher class, in contrast to the unrefined Hun Sen. To him, Cambodia was sullied with corruption and Hun Sen was the gangster of Southeast Asia. Kasit also reportedly said, ―I will use Hun Sen‘s blood to wash my feet. His statement reminded many Cambodians of the tragic death of their King, Lovek. PM Hun Sen responded to Kasit with equally provocative language. He challenged, What if I insult your king? What would you say if I insulted your prime minister and your ancestors? I‘m not angry with you, but please use dignified words.
(note: this article intend for Khmer to understand Thai ideology, thanks from L.C)
thanks, good post.
Post a Comment