Unusual discussion of Thai "inclusion" and "exclusion" (re: the Malays, the Lao, etc.)
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Eisel Mazard
Nov 16, 2012, 6:08:39 PM11/16/12
to lao...@googlegroups.com
Although commenting on the New Mandala website is always a waste of time, I appended the comments below to a discussion of what could be (simply) summarized as a discussion of racism in Thailand.
The peculiar claim of the article that I'm responding to is that Thai racial categories uniquely exclude "Falang Khaek" (such as the Malay-Muslims), but are inclusive of, "…ethnic Lao, Khmer, Vietnamese and Chinese as they were closer, as Buddhists, to the Siamese race."
Here's the link to the peculiar article:
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2012/11/13/review-of-buddhist-fury-tlc-nmrev-xlvi
Below follows my response to it.
----------
It's a detailed review, giving me the impression that the book is factually wrong about a long list of things. However, as it now stands, I can't really address these points with the assumption that they directly reflect Jerryson's thesis (rather than the reviewer's opinion, or an admixture of the two). Nevertheless, in this forum, it may be worth noting that there are many "red flags" as to flaws in the factual basis of the argument (specialists should notice them without my pointing them out).
The assertion (in this review) that Thai propaganda about racial purity warmly includes (i) the Lao, (ii) the Khmer, (iii) the Burmese or even (iv) the Chinese (or Sino-Thais) is both absurd, and controverted (if not contradicted) by all of the specialized studies on each of those respective groups within the history (and politics) of Thailand.
Seriously: you can't read anything about the history of <b>any</b> of those groups (within Thailand) without reading about the history of racism against them. To say that the fact of their "shared Buddhism" is embraced is controverted by the suppression of all forms of Buddhism other than the one issued by Bangkok's central authorities (including regional variations of Buddhism native to Thailand, but seen even more starkly with "rival Buddhisms" from neighboring states).
A Lao specialist can easily rattle of a list of sources on the extent to which Thai nationalism excludes (and is even defined in contradistinction to) the Lao --and so on for Burmese specialists, Khmer specialists, etc.
Reciprocally, the Lao, Khmer and Burmese all have to describe their own recent history in terms of their wars with the Thais, and so on.
The extent to which Thai nationalism presumes racial animosity toward precisely these groups (Lao, Burmese, etc.) has been a frequent topic of discussion on this same website (New Mandala) and is almost impossible to ignore in the history and politics of any given period of any of these countries. Yet, nevertheless, here it is ignored (in this summary of Jerryson's work, I cannot say if the work itself really reflects this summary).
The contrast here offered between some kind of <b><i>pan-Buddhist inclusion</i></b> and the exclusion of Muslims would be difficult to demonstrate in any historical period, both because the inclusion on one side of the equation is so flawed, and also because the Thai Royal Family's relationships with specific Sultanates (governing specific coastal towns, etc.) does not hold up the other side of the equation.
Racism in Thailand is a huge subject; however, an argument that the attitude toward the "khaek" is <i>toto genere</i> different from (e.g.) attitudes toward the Vietnamese or Burmese seems to proceed on a very false footing.
Incidentally, the history and meaning of <b>khaek</b> is not hard to know. What's stated above <b>isn't it</b> (and this is another red flag). Again, I can't ascribe blame to Jerryson without seeing what he actually claims on the matter (as opposed to this reviewer's synopsis, etc.).
Among other obvious contradictions, take a look at the Lao border: there's a town called "Tha Khaek". Now take another look at the history of the word "Khaek".
Along with many other questionable details, the material on "chat" <i>qua</i> "jati" also seems to me amateurish in the extreme (I'm guessing that neither Pali nor Sanskrit are Jerryson's forté) --but, again, I haven't seen the original book, so I have to suspend my judgement.
The peculiar claim of the article that I'm responding to is that Thai racial categories uniquely exclude "Falang Khaek" (such as the Malay-Muslims), but are inclusive of, "…ethnic Lao, Khmer, Vietnamese and Chinese as they were closer, as Buddhists, to the Siamese race."
Here's the link to the peculiar article:
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2012/11/13/review-of-buddhist-fury-tlc-nmrev-xlvi
Below follows my response to it.
----------
It's a detailed review, giving me the impression that the book is factually wrong about a long list of things. However, as it now stands, I can't really address these points with the assumption that they directly reflect Jerryson's thesis (rather than the reviewer's opinion, or an admixture of the two). Nevertheless, in this forum, it may be worth noting that there are many "red flags" as to flaws in the factual basis of the argument (specialists should notice them without my pointing them out).
The assertion (in this review) that Thai propaganda about racial purity warmly includes (i) the Lao, (ii) the Khmer, (iii) the Burmese or even (iv) the Chinese (or Sino-Thais) is both absurd, and controverted (if not contradicted) by all of the specialized studies on each of those respective groups within the history (and politics) of Thailand.
Seriously: you can't read anything about the history of <b>any</b> of those groups (within Thailand) without reading about the history of racism against them. To say that the fact of their "shared Buddhism" is embraced is controverted by the suppression of all forms of Buddhism other than the one issued by Bangkok's central authorities (including regional variations of Buddhism native to Thailand, but seen even more starkly with "rival Buddhisms" from neighboring states).
A Lao specialist can easily rattle of a list of sources on the extent to which Thai nationalism excludes (and is even defined in contradistinction to) the Lao --and so on for Burmese specialists, Khmer specialists, etc.
Reciprocally, the Lao, Khmer and Burmese all have to describe their own recent history in terms of their wars with the Thais, and so on.
The extent to which Thai nationalism presumes racial animosity toward precisely these groups (Lao, Burmese, etc.) has been a frequent topic of discussion on this same website (New Mandala) and is almost impossible to ignore in the history and politics of any given period of any of these countries. Yet, nevertheless, here it is ignored (in this summary of Jerryson's work, I cannot say if the work itself really reflects this summary).
The contrast here offered between some kind of <b><i>pan-Buddhist inclusion</i></b> and the exclusion of Muslims would be difficult to demonstrate in any historical period, both because the inclusion on one side of the equation is so flawed, and also because the Thai Royal Family's relationships with specific Sultanates (governing specific coastal towns, etc.) does not hold up the other side of the equation.
Racism in Thailand is a huge subject; however, an argument that the attitude toward the "khaek" is <i>toto genere</i> different from (e.g.) attitudes toward the Vietnamese or Burmese seems to proceed on a very false footing.
Incidentally, the history and meaning of <b>khaek</b> is not hard to know. What's stated above <b>isn't it</b> (and this is another red flag). Again, I can't ascribe blame to Jerryson without seeing what he actually claims on the matter (as opposed to this reviewer's synopsis, etc.).
Among other obvious contradictions, take a look at the Lao border: there's a town called "Tha Khaek". Now take another look at the history of the word "Khaek".
Along with many other questionable details, the material on "chat" <i>qua</i> "jati" also seems to me amateurish in the extreme (I'm guessing that neither Pali nor Sanskrit are Jerryson's forté) --but, again, I haven't seen the original book, so I have to suspend my judgement.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages