Is Thai an Ethnic?

[maidai]

Thailand used to be Laos, didn't it?

No, I believe big part of Lao today, used to be Siam Kingdom until the French Colonized.

Anyway, my current nationality is Thai, my ethnic is Asian.

At least that's what my teacher always told me to fill the card.

Asian is more of a Race of ppl, not an ethnic, especially if you live in an Asian country. If you live in a farang country then i guess just saying asian is sufficient, but not in an asian country.

You seriously dont know what ethnic you are? Mon, Khmer, Chinese, Burmese, Karen, Malay, Thai? Im pretty sure you one of those or a mix of them. Why dont you ask you parents or grandparents, im sure they have a clure.

[maidai]

Can you provide any translation of that link? It seems to be sort of revisionistic history. Have to realise that Isan in general has been fighting ground between Khmers, Lao and Siamese. So it is narrow to present view that would say that most Lao has been part of Thailand when that is not true and the truth is actually in bigger view vice versa. I recommend seeing other sources than Thai web boards.

wow thats what im talking about hotsnowman, you know what your talking about, i hope other ppl have a wider view on how things were.

i think isaan has only been apart of "thailand" in recent history, before it use to be apart of "Laos" for 400 years, before it belong to "Laos" parts of it was apart of Sukothai for 100 or so years, before that apart of land Chenla or Khmer empire. But the current population of Isaan mostly came from "Laos" during those 400 years.

The Kingdoms that made up Siam were semi independent even though they were vassals to Siam. But thoughout history one kingdom was either apart of one or another, Lanna was apart of Lanchang during several points in history, as parts of Lanchang was apart of Lanna during sevearl points in its history, being that they were of the same Dynastic Clan.

The Chankri Dynasty was the only dynasty with no relationship with the dynasties of the past, Ayutthya, Sukothai, Lanna, lanchang who were All related by lineage and came from the same dynastic clan. After the New Dynasty was formed in central thailand, they no longer had any blood loyalties to the old dynasties, which for the first time finally conquered these other regions, uniting most of the Tai states. Only 3 main groups, the Tai of sipsongchaotai went to Vietnam, sipsongpanna went to China, and the Shan in Burma, were not apart of Siam.

So I guess, the victor gets the spoils of war, everyone else can only complain but i think the lao are one of the oldest Tai groups, if not the oldest Tai group who arrived in Southeast asia.

[2508]

The red area used to be the part of the Kingdom of Siam.

For 14 times totally we had lost for the imperialism.

It can support why we have so many races in our kindom. :roll:

ÅÒÇ à¢Ãà ¾ÃèÒ ¨Õ¹ ÃÒàÅÂì àÇÕµ¹Òà ...·Ñ駹éÒ¹¹¹àŤéÒº¾Õè¹éç

The last one is à¢Ò¾ÃÃÇÔËÒà :twisted: äÃèÃÂÒ¡¨Ãà»ç¹­ÒµÔ¡ÑºÃÒ¹¹¹... :twisted:

[2508]

Thailand (previously known as Siam) has been populated ever since the dawn of civilization in Asia. There are conflicting opinions of the origins of the Thais. It presumed that about 4,500 years. the Thais originated in northwestern Szechuan in China and later migrated down to Thailand along the southern part of China. They split into two main groups. One settled down in the North and became the kingdom of "Lan Na" and the other one is in further south, which afterward was defeated by the Khmers and became the kingdom of "Sukhothai".

However, the Thai history has been changed by the archaeological excavations in the village of Ban Chiang in the Nong Han District of Udon Thani province in the Northeast. From the evidence of bronze metallurgy, it now appears that the Thais might have originated here in Thailand and later scattered to various parts of Asia, including China.

The controversy over the origin of the Thais shows no sign of definite conclusion as many more theories have been put forward and some even go further to say that Thais were originally of Austronesian rather than Mongoloid. What the outcomes of the dispute may be, by the 13th century the Thais had already settled down within the southeast Asia.

http://sunsite.au.ac.th/thailand/thai_his/origin.html

From that link...The origins of Thais.

It might be true only some parts. I dont think we're from khmers>>>ÃѺäÃèä´é..à¡ÅÕ´ÃÒ¹¹ :twisted:

Since taking the Thai history class...We never known before we're from khmers.

But the origins of Thais started from the Sukhothai period ONLY!!!!! :idea:

[PJack]

some even go further to say that Thais were originally of Austronesian rather than Mongoloid.

I would adamantly disagree with this

[hotsnowman]

Thais are like Chinese. Childishly nationalistic generation after generation. Have to thank the awesome revisionistic school system in both countries for that. Wickeeed! Me, I just think I should go back to that 100 things you like to do in Thailand. Mmmm, water buffalo hamburger!

[pandorea]

some even go further to say that Thais were originally of Austronesian rather than Mongoloid.

I would adamantly disagree with this

Very few percents (I guess) of Thai people in the south (for exp, in Yalaa, and Naratiwan) are Austronesian origin. King Rama V had put the Austrinesian character in Thai literature, it calls "à§ÒûèÒ".

[PJack]

some even go further to say that Thais were originally of Austronesian rather than Mongoloid.

I would adamantly disagree with this

Very few percents (I guess) of Thai people in the south (for exp, in Yalaa, and Naratiwan) are Austronesian origin. King Rama V had put the Austrinesian character in Thai literature, it calls "à§ÒûèÒ".

mongoloid?

[Stramash]

some even go further to say that Thais were originally of Austronesian rather than Mongoloid.

I would adamantly disagree with this

PJack - I think the Austronesian link has been put forward (though not proven or agreed upon) regarding the Thai language rather than ethnicity.

[PJack]

The red area used to be the part of the Kingdom of Siam.

For 14 times totally we had lost for the imperialism.

It can support why we have so many races in our kindom. :roll:

ÅÒÇ à¢Ãà ¾ÃèÒ ¨Õ¹ ÃÒàÅÂì àÇÕµ¹Òà ...·Ñ駹éÒ¹¹¹àŤéÒº¾Õè¹éç

The last one is à¢Ò¾ÃÃÇÔËÒà :twisted: äÃèÃÂÒ¡¨Ãà»ç¹­ÒµÔ¡ÑºÃÒ¹¹¹... :twisted:

thats interesting.

why did they not include Burma as well?

i love the nationalist rhetoric.

I used to have a painting of this same concept with similar language but the red was in the shape of a person eating or about to eat Thailand. it was anti communist propoganda. i loved that painting. it went down in a flood in chiang mai years ago.

[Oo.Cloud.oO]

you can find really really old maps on national geographic website and im sure alot of others

seems siam was bigger ( or at least ppl made it bigger on the older maps of the world and south east asia

hmm

interesting indeed

good learning

[digitalcat]

The red area used to be the part of the Kingdom of Siam.

For 14 times totally we had lost for the imperialism.

It can support why we have so many races in our kindom. :roll:

ÅÒÇ à¢Ãà ¾ÃèÒ ¨Õ¹ ÃÒàÅÂì àÇÕµ¹Òà ...·Ñ駹éÒ¹¹¹àŤéÒº¾Õè¹éç

The last one is à¢Ò¾ÃÃÇÔËÒà :twisted: äÃèÃÂÒ¡¨Ãà»ç¹­ÒµÔ¡ÑºÃÒ¹¹¹... :twisted:

thats interesting.

why did they not include Burma as well?

i love the nationalist rhetoric.

I used to have a painting of this same concept with similar language but the red was in the shape of a person eating or about to eat Thailand. it was anti communist propoganda. i loved that painting. it went down in a flood in chiang mai years ago.

Actually they are not that far off. As some given point each empire conqured the neighbor and extended its territory. The same map can be drawn from Mayamar perspective where they conquered much of the Lana kingdom and Chiang Mai... From Cambodian Perspective where they conquered much of present day Thailand during the Angkor Empire or even the Lao perspective when they had their brief shiny moment of domination. Thailand had to surrender most present day Cambodia, and Lao to the frenchinese, as well as a little chunk of Malaysia.

[PJack]

The red area used to be the part of the Kingdom of Siam.

For 14 times totally we had lost for the imperialism.

It can support why we have so many races in our kindom. :roll:

ÅÒÇ à¢Ãà ¾ÃèÒ ¨Õ¹ ÃÒàÅÂì àÇÕµ¹Òà ...·Ñ駹éÒ¹¹¹àŤéÒº¾Õè¹éç

The last one is à¢Ò¾ÃÃÇÔËÒà :twisted: äÃèÃÂÒ¡¨Ãà»ç¹­ÒµÔ¡ÑºÃÒ¹¹¹... :twisted:

thats interesting.

why did they not include Burma as well?

i love the nationalist rhetoric.

I used to have a painting of this same concept with similar language but the red was in the shape of a person eating or about to eat Thailand. it was anti communist propoganda. i loved that painting. it went down in a flood in chiang mai years ago.

Actually they are not that far off. As some given point each empire conqured the neighbor and extended its territory. The same map can be drawn from Mayamar perspective where they conquered much of the Lana kingdom and Chiang Mai... From Cambodian Perspective where they conquered much of present day Thailand during the Angkor Empire or even the Lao perspective when they had their brief shiny moment of domination. Thailand had to surrender most present day Cambodia, and Lao to the frenchinese, as well as a little chunk of Malaysia.

the misleading part is that never was Thailand any such nationstate with all the land mass including the red. at any given time over thousands of years there were kingdoms that included parts of that land mass but nothing significantly larger than today.

[maidai]

The red area used to be the part of the Kingdom of Siam.

For 14 times totally we had lost for the imperialism.

It can support why we have so many races in our kindom. :roll:

ÅÒÇ à¢Ãà ¾ÃèÒ ¨Õ¹ ÃÒàÅÂì àÇÕµ¹Òà ...·Ñ駹éÒ¹¹¹àŤéÒº¾Õè¹éç

The last one is à¢Ò¾ÃÃÇÔËÒà :twisted: äÃèÃÂÒ¡¨Ãà»ç¹­ÒµÔ¡ÑºÃÒ¹¹¹... :twisted:

thats interesting.

why did they not include Burma as well?

i love the nationalist rhetoric.

I used to have a painting of this same concept with similar language but the red was in the shape of a person eating or about to eat Thailand. it was anti communist propoganda. i loved that painting. it went down in a flood in chiang mai years ago.

Burma was busy fighting Britian in the British Burmese War. Burma became a british colony after Burma lost, dont think Siam wanted to fight with Britian, which was the most powerful world empire at this time.

Im a little confused however, when was Vietnam ever apart of Siam? Wow, thats amazing, Siam reached all the way to Tokin, Hanoi? I've never seen this before.

I dont think the history of the Tai ppl is that simple, The Tai ppl settled down in Nothern Thailand and Nothern Laos. The first Kingdoms of the Tai in Southeast Asia was Chiangsean Yonok, XiengdongXiengThong (Loungprabang), Shan state and XiengKhouang, around the year 700AD. The oral history of the Tai explains this migration. Those same ppl started to migrate into central Thailand and central laos in large numbers some 400-500 years later, and in the 13th century fought the Khmers for the city of Sukothai. Sukothai was the first Tai kingdom in central Thailand and Laos.

Sukothai Kingdom included central thailand(not including Davaradi/Lopburi), Southern Thailand, Nothern Isaan, Vientiane(Laos) and Loungprabang(Laos). The Sukothai inscriptions say Ramkhamhaengs ppl come from the Ou river and the Kong(mekong) river, which is located in Nothern laos. Ayutthya then emerged from the former Davaradi Mon Kingdom, founded by a prince from the Chiangsean Yonok Royal Bloodline.

When King Uthong Ramathidbhodi became King he expanded Ayutthya by conquering Sukothai. When Sukothai broke apart, Loungprabang and Vientiane became independent. A prince from Loungprabang who was exiled to the Angkor court gathered up an army in Angkor and started marching North to Capture his Uncles Thrown in Loungprabang. On the way to Loungprabang, the Prince captured Xiengkhouang Kingdom, he captured a few Vietnamese towns also and finally captured Loungprabang form his uncle. He later went to capture Chaingsean Yonok, Chiangrai, Sipsongchaotai, Sipsongpanna, and later Chiangmai.

After capturing all of Nothern Thailand and Nothern Laos, he went to conquer Vientiane, and Isaan (took this land from Ayutthya), stoped his conquest at Roi et, which was on the edge of the Khmer empire, maybe out of respect for his father in law who was ill and fighting Ayutthya. After conquering Viengchan(chantaburi) the now King of Loungprabang renamed his kingom Lanchang.

At this point, there were only 2 Tai Kingdoms, Ayutthya and Lanchang. Uthong started to expand his Kingdom into the Khmer empire. The King of Lanchang even took land from the king of Ayutthya, the King of Ayutthya busy in a war with Angkor sent a letter to the king of Lanchang saying, "We are brothers since Kun Boulom, if you want to take land then you can, i will send you my daughter as a bride and bearing gift." The king of Lanchang satisfied with the offerings from Ayutthya returned to Loungprabang.

Ayutthya and Lanchang never directly fought in open warfare until King Taksin of Thornburi who was a commoner of Chinese descent came into power and sacked Vientiane.

So there has always been a Kin btw the Siamese and Lao, there is a famous stupa in Leoi, Isaan called "Phra That Si Song Rak," that was erected by the kings of Ayutthya and Lanchang saying, "The generations to come must not violate and dispossess territory of the other. They must not be greedy or act in a deceitful manner in their interaction until the sun and the moon fall down on this land." Too much nationalism btw the two sides, need more love for our pi nong.

[PJack]

The red area used to be the part of the Kingdom of Siam.

For 14 times totally we had lost for the imperialism.

It can support why we have so many races in our kindom. :roll:

ÅÒÇ à¢Ãà ¾ÃèÒ ¨Õ¹ ÃÒàÅÂì àÇÕµ¹Òà ...·Ñ駹éÒ¹¹¹àŤéÒº¾Õè¹éç

The last one is à¢Ò¾ÃÃÇÔËÒà :twisted: äÃèÃÂÒ¡¨Ãà»ç¹­ÒµÔ¡ÑºÃÒ¹¹¹... :twisted:

thats interesting.

why did they not include Burma as well?

i love the nationalist rhetoric.

I used to have a painting of this same concept with similar language but the red was in the shape of a person eating or about to eat Thailand. it was anti communist propoganda. i loved that painting. it went down in a flood in chiang mai years ago.

Burma was a busy fighting Britian in the British Burmese War. Burma became a british colony after Burma lost, dont think Siam wanted to fight with Britian, which was the most powerful world empire at this time.

Im a little confused however, when was Vietnam ever apart of Siam? Wow, thats amazing, I think someone is misreading a map? Siam reached all the way to Tokin, Hanoi? First time I have ever heard of this, this must be only map ever produced in the world.

I dont think the history of the Tai ppl is that simple, The Tai ppl settled down in Nothern Thailand and Nothern Laos. The first Kingdoms of the Tai in Southeast Asia was Chiangsean Yonok, XiengdongXiengThong (Loungprabang), Shan state and XiengKhouang, around the year 700AD. The oral history of the Tai explains this migration. Those same ppl started to migrate into central Thailand and central laos in large numbers some 400-500 years later, and in the 13th century fought the Khmers for the city of Sukothai. Sukothai was the first Tai kingdom in central Thailand and Laos.

Sukothai Kingdom included central thailand(not including Davaradi/Lopburi), Southern Thailand, Nothern Isaan, Vientiane(Laos) and Loungprabang(Laos). The Sukothai inscriptions say Ramkhamhaengs ppl come from the Ou river and the Kong(mekong) river, which is located in Nothern laos. Ayutthya then emerged from the former Davaradi Mon Kingdom, founded by a prince from the Chiangsean Yonok Royal Bloodline.

When King Uthong Ramathidbhodi became King he expanded Ayutthya by conquering Sukothai. When Sukothai broke apart, Loungprabang and Vientiane became independent. A prince from Loungprabang who was exiled to the Angkor court gathered up an army in Angkor and started marching North to Capture his Uncles Thrown in Loungprabang. On the way to Loungprabang, the Prince captured Xiengkhouang Kingdom, he captured a few Vietnamese towns also and finally captured Loungprabang form his uncle. He later went to capture Chaingsean Yonok, Chiangrai, Sipsongchaotai, Sipsongpanna, and later Chiangmai.

After capturing all of Nothern Thailand and Nothern Laos, he went to conquer Vientiane, and Isaan (took this land from Ayutthya), stoped his conquest at Roi et, which was on the edge of the Khmer empire, maybe out of respect for his father in law who was ill and fighting Ayutthya. After conquering Viengchan(chantaburi) the now King of Loungprabang renamed his kingom Lanchang.

At this point, there were only 2 Tai Kingdoms, Ayutthya and Lanchang. Uthong started to expand his Kingdom into the Khmer empire. The King of Lanchang even took land from the king of Ayutthya, the King of Ayutthya busy in a war with Angkor sent a letter to the king of Lanchang saying, "We are brothers since Kun Boulom, if you want to take land then you can, i will send you my daughter as a bride and bearing gift." The king of Lanchang satisfied with the offerings from Ayutthya returned to Loungprabang.

Ayutthya and Lanchang never directly fought in open warfare until King Taksin of Thornburi who was a commoner of Chinese descent came into power and sacked Vientiane.

So there has always been a Kin btw the Siamese and Lao, there is a famous stupa in Leoi, Isaan called "Phra That Si Song Rak," that was erected by the kings of Ayutthya and Lanchang saying, "The generations to come must not violate and dispossess territory of the other. They must not be greedy or act in a deceitful manner in their interaction until the sun and the moon fall down on this land." Too much nationalism btw the two sides, need more love for our pi nong.

yawn........

but thanks for enlightening me

[maidai]

Thailand (previously known as Siam) has been populated ever since the dawn of civilization in Asia. There are conflicting opinions of the origins of the Thais. It presumed that about 4,500 years. the Thais originated in northwestern Szechuan in China and later migrated down to Thailand along the southern part of China. They split into two main groups. One settled down in the North and became the kingdom of "Lan Na" and the other one is in further south, which afterward was defeated by the Khmers and became the kingdom of "Sukhothai".

However, the Thai history has been changed by the archaeological excavations in the village of Ban Chiang in the Nong Han District of Udon Thani province in the Northeast. From the evidence of bronze metallurgy, it now appears that the Thais might have originated here in Thailand and later scattered to various parts of Asia, including China.

The controversy over the origin of the Thais shows no sign of definite conclusion as many more theories have been put forward and some even go further to say that Thais were originally of Austronesian rather than Mongoloid. What the outcomes of the dispute may be, by the 13th century the Thais had already settled down within the southeast Asia.

http://sunsite.au.ac.th/thailand/thai_his/origin.html

From that link...The origins of Thais.

It might be true only some parts. I dont think we're from khmers>>>ÃѺäÃèä´é..à¡ÅÕ´ÃÒ¹¹ :twisted:

Since taking the Thai history class...We never known before we're from khmers.

But the origins of Thais started from the Sukhothai period ONLY!!!!! :idea:

Tai ancestors were from ancient Baiyue people who was the ancestor of all Tai-Kaidai language family and lived south of Yangtze River to northern Vietnam, all Tai speaking language is from Xi'ou and Luo-yue Tribes of Baiyue

[LakeGeneve]

I remember reading someones post saying that Thai was just a Nationality.

Just wondered what ppl thought about what is Thai,

Another great article in the Sunday Post by Khun Vorani on what is means to be Thai.

Sorry but I am going to post the whole article for those TFers who may wish to read it in the future. I also highly recommend a read of the numerous posts at the bottom of the page as there are some very interesting comments and it is a good discussion.

The unbearable lightness of being Thai Published: 7/02/2010

I had an interesting conversation with a couple of gentlemen this past week. One was French and one was half Thai, half French.

These gentlemen work extensively throughout rural Thailand, among the villages and in the rice paddies. Through their working and travelling, their meetings and having conversations with various Thai persons and communities of the different regions, one question nags their mind:

What is a Thai person? To be more precise, what is the Thai identity? A question which I also find quite perplexing.

We live in a rather divided nation. Up north is an enclave belonging to one man. Down south _ well, apparently many of those living down south would rather have a separate state. In the islands, we have the locals that would rather make a toast with a tourist than look at a fellow Thai from the city in the face _ and they probably have good reason, too.

In uppity Bangkok, we thumb our nose at everyone else, including the majority of those living in the capital that isn't of a certain social status. In the Northeast, the village head is god-anointed and the village is the Garden of Eden unto itself.

For a medium-sized country, the many social and cultural gaps are startling. A Bangkok person would understand very little, if at all, of the Isan dialect. Stand a Chiang Mai woman next to a Yala woman and you wouldn't know they are from the same country. In fact, they are separated not only by geography, but also by ethnicity, religion and language. Not to mention the fact that, they would likely never have travelled to each other's regions.

The Thai-Chinese business elites (and common folk) certainly have a different outlook and different interests from your typical Bangrajan-style Thai folks. Even the half Thai, half western individuals _ whom society views as being privileged _ have their own complaints about acceptance and stereotype.

Then there are the legions of those who have lived in this country for generations and centuries, but without rights and recognition.

So what makes us all Thais? What is the Thai identity? Ask a Thai and there are certain expected answers. Cliches, if you will.

A typical answer may be that it's our smile. Well, everybody in the world including the village idiot can smile. And, on the world happiness index, we rank quite low. So it's just a marketing gimmick to attract tourists, not an issue of national identity. At least is shouldn't be.

Another popular answer is our collective love for the royal institution. Which is great, we all love and are devoted to the royal institution - and there's nothing cliched about that. But an ''identity'' is the condition of being oneself, and I'm pretty sure most of us haven't a drop of royal blood in our veins. As such, we shouldn't mistake a ''love'' for an ''identity''.

There's also a gem of an answer which I love. Part of our identity is never having been conquered by outside powers, but of course with a proviso that we're not counting the Ayutthaya period and beyond. But that is either delusional or simple ignorance of history.

On Dec 8, 1941, the Imperial Japanese armed forces invaded Thailand. We sued for peace. They occupied our country. A lot of people want to spin that in a lot of different ways. But those are the facts. Deal with it.

So what makes us all Thais? What is the Thai identity? A passport and an identity card are just paper and plastic. Watching the different people of the different regions singing the national anthem with Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is just good propaganda, but not national identity.

Thailand is a country divided into fiefdoms with governing mandarins. Some have real power, most do not. The villages are an entity unto themselves which answer to the local strongman, who in turn answers to several other people all the way up the ladder to individuals sitting in parliament (or outside of it due to the banning of Thai Rak Thai party politicians).

Political individuals whom academics like to refer to as ''country bumpkins'', with their own vested interests.

Bangkok may be a melting pot where people from all regions come to find work and opportunities. Yet the social gap here is wider than the gulf between the talents of an Academy Fantasia contestant and a real singer. All the other regions are separated by not only geography, but also by ethnicity, religion and language. Not to mention the fact that most people would never have travelled to another region that isn't Bangkok.

So what makes us all Thais? What is the Thai identity? What do we stand for? Are we having an identity crisis? Is this something like a mid-life crisis which a middle-age person goes through? What is our common ground? Where is our synergy? What makes us ''related''?

Whenever I go on to the website prachatai.com, I read heated debates between the red UDD and the yellow PAD. An interesting observation is that, a lot of the reds do not care for Thaksin Shinawatra, while a lot of the yellows do not care for Sondhi Limthongkul.

What they care about is a ''change'' from the status quo. A change from how Thailand has been operated. Which means, they don't care for a government to which the military kowtows and which is influenced by old politics and the mandarins in order to maintain the status quo.

Yet, they wear either red or yellow because there isn't anything else. There isn't an alternative. There isn't another leader. A leader, an ideology that recognises what Thailand is, how Thailand became this way and understands the limitless capabilities of what Thailand could become. Thailand's identity crisis, it seems, is most apparent in those who are lost, but passionate.

Sitting that one night with the two gentlemen, I listened to them speak constructively and passionately about Thailand and Thais. Our strengths, our weaknesses. Our problems and overcoming those problems.

The all-French gentleman speaks of Thailand with care, sincerely wanting to explore ways of helping this country becoming a better place. And he's a complete foreigner.

The half Thai, half French gentleman admitted that people don't always heed his opinions because he looks western and speaks Thai with an accent.

Yet, his love and passion for wanting to make Thailand a better place for us and our future generations, his sincere frustrations with the present situation were genuine. They both care.

At the same time, I know too many of my fellow Thais _-people of privilege, wealth and of influence, those in a position to effect real changes. But they only show such passions for personal/business interests, social /business connections and their ''gigs'' - and are always scathing about the ''real'' issues.

And it just makes me think: What makes a person Thai?

What is our identity? If any of you dear readers have any idea, please let me know.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/32468/the-unbearable-lightness-of-being-thai

[R.Win]

There is one simple answer to all this wondering to WHAT or WHO are we? It isn't about who or what you are. It's what you do! IT IS WHAT YOU DO!!! That defines you. ...and where you're from obviously to let you know where you belong.

If you wai when you say hello, if you look asian, if you speak Thai, if you consider the Thai anthem to be "your" anthem, if you're proud if other Thai are succesful in sports, if you like tom yum gung and som tam mak mak, if you go to a buddhist temple rahter than a church, if you put the Thai king first ahead of all other kings, if you like to sit on the floor when you eat, give food to the monks in the morning, smile when you don't know something, call everyone who is older Pi and everyone who is younger Nong or kids you don't even know Look, pretend you like everyone but never really tell it to their face if you don't etc. etc.... you sound pretty Thai to me :idea:

...I'm pretty sure you're not German if the things above apply to you.

People have habits usually related to where they grow up and/or stay, these habits plus other things make you what you are... did someone else already let the readers in on this secret? SORRY, I'm too lazy to read EVERYTHING since I am Dutch... lazy, greedy ...oh and smart and handsome and from the Netherlands :wink:

[PeeMarc]

Interestingly, Australia (for very different reasons) went through a little of this in the middle of last century with the "Cultural Cringe", and to some small degree this still lingers until the country finally makes itself a republic and takes the Union Jack off its flag.

Interesting article LG and I find it fascinating, although I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for an answer tho what actually makes Thai people Thai identity.

Perhaps, like Australia, Thailand needs time and a more holistic view over long periods to reach some conclusions. Taking snap shots at any one point in time will never answer sufficiently.

[English_Bob]

Britain has had its own identity crisis for years.

For a long time, people were ashamed to be British - we were known for our football hooligans and terrible behaviour abroad while holidaying.

The huge numbers of immigrants contributed to this, with white Brits considering the immigrants as a negative influence. We had race riots and ghettos.

England seemed more affected by this shame than Scotland, Wales or Ireland... no-one, it seemed, was proud to be English. The cross of St George was the sole property of racists and bigots.

But over the past few years, England has taken back its flag. We wave it proudly at sporting events (which we nearly win - all the time). We displayed it after the Queen Mother's death. We began to celebrate our successes rather than dwelling on our failures.

Britain HAS racially integrated pretty successfully. We cheer our black and Asian sportsmen. We love our gay singers. We applaud our resigning, adulterous politicians. We produce an inordinate amount of popular music, technology and art. Our films are cheap, but quaint. We are successful in genetic engineering and banking and engineering and gun running. The English Premiership is internationally loved and watched by billions of people weekly.

The much maligned NHS is, in my opinion, ******* fantastic... just try getting sick or injured in a country without healthcare. The education system, although underfunded, does a great job.... at least it did with me.

I grew up in a time when it wasn't cool to love my country - but love it I did. I was proud that a little country had achieved so much. And I was proud that, despite the awful weather and dire food (our national dish, now comes from India), people flocked from all over the world to live there.

And living away from it for so long has only made me appreciate the positives even more. Rule Britannia and all that patriotic stuff.

[Stramash]

Interestingly, Australia (for very different reasons) went through a little of this in the middle of last century with the "Cultural Cringe", and to some small degree this still lingers until the country finally makes itself a republic and takes the Union Jack off its flag.

is Australia a ship??

:wink:

[Stramash]

Britain has had its own identity crisis for years.

For a long time, people were ashamed to be British - we were known for our football hooligans and terrible behaviour abroad while holidaying.

The huge numbers of immigrants contributed to this, with white Brits considering the immigrants as a negative influence. We had race riots and ghettos.

England seemed more affected by this shame than Scotland, Wales or Ireland... no-one, it seemed, was proud to be English. The cross of St George was the sole property of racists and bigots.

But over the past few years, England has taken back its flag. We wave it proudly at sporting events (which we nearly win - all the time). We displayed it after the Queen Mother's death. We began to celebrate our successes rather than dwelling on our failures.

Britain HAS racially integrated pretty successfully. We cheer our black and Asian sportsmen. We love our gay singers. We applaud our resigning, adulterous politicians. We produce an inordinate amount of popular music, technology and art. Our films are cheap, but quaint. We are successful in genetic engineering and banking and engineering and gun running. The English Premiership is internationally loved and watched by billions of people weekly.

The much maligned NHS is, in my opinion, f*cking fantastic... just try getting sick or injured in a country without healthcare. The education system, although underfunded, does a great job.... at least it did with me.

I grew up in a time when it wasn't cool to love my country - but love it I did. I was proud that a little country had achieved so much. And I was proud that, despite the awful weather and dire food (our national dish, now comes from India), people flocked from all over the world to live there.

And living away from it for so long has only made me appreciate the positives even more. Rule Britannia and all that patriotic stuff.

Hate to say I agree with you, but a lot of good points there, especially regarding both the NHS and the education system. We still have the best University system in the world, even if it relies more and more on the exorbitant fees charged to international students.

One small correction however; our national dish actually comes from Glasgow.

[English_Bob]

Sorry - I didn't distinguish between Britain and England on that point...

The English national dish comes from India.

The Scottish national dish comes from a distillery.

[Stramash]

Sorry - I didn't distinguish between Britain and England on that point...

The English national dish comes from India.

The Scottish national dish comes from a distillery.

Still wrong however; if you want to be like that, the English national dish comes from Glasgow.

Since I presume you mean Chicken Tikka Masala, which originated not in India, but in a little restuarant not 3 miles from where I'm sitting!!

:twisted:

[PeeMarc]

Sorry - I didn't distinguish between Britain and England on that point...

The English national dish comes from India.

The Scottish national dish comes from a distillery.

Still wrong however; if you want to be like that, the English national dish comes from Glasgow.

Since I presume you mean Chicken Tikka Masala, which originated not in India, but in a little restuarant not 3 miles from where I'm sitting!!

:twisted:

The chips served with it are the English bit perhaps.