What is a Lao word?

[iGotNoTime]

Steve the link to Richard's post is here.

Dogo has hit on something,. 100 years ago thailand over ran laos and claimed lao territory as their own.

Yes this part of modern history is usually ignored by one of the parties involved but has even been mentioned here on these forum before. I don't think it is so much Thailand at fault though (of course they could have simple given back the land to Laos as a child would have to return a stolen package of gum) but lest we not forget the reason it came into Thai control was because the French gave it to Thailand.

[UpToYou_inUdonThani]

Your historical facts are incorrect about Laos, France and Siam (Thailand). I do not have a textbook in front of me but can provide a general interpretation of the events leading to Issan becoming part of Siam.

If you go back into early Tai history and the founding of Sukhothai by King Ramkhamhaeng, there seems to be little historical controversy. However, now as detailed in an article in the Nation, the validity of the stone inscription that our knowledge of early Sukhothai is based on, might be a myth. The inscription might have been written in the mid-19th century. Some historians now argue that Sukhothai was actually a Lao, not a Thai, kingdom.

And there have been three key centres of political power in Laos: Luang Prabang, Vienchan (the Lao and Thai spelling, but Vientiane in French) and Champansak (sp?).

In the late 15th century much of the Lan Chang (a million elephants) kingdom (centred at Luang Phrabang) came under the control of the northern Thai kingdom of Lan Na (a million rice fields). Later, in the mid-16th century, Chiang Mai and its satellites were ruled by a Lao king. The Lao took a number of important Buddha images to Lan Chang. Then both Lan Na and Lan Chang fell under Burmese control. Nan was mixed up in this too.

I forgot about the origins of the Vienchan kingdom.

Anyway, after the fall of Ayutthaya to the Burmese, and the re-birth of the Thai kingdom at Thonburi under Taksin (not Thaksin), the Thais expanded into northern Thailand and brought Lan Na under their control. In the early Bangkok period, the Thais successfully invaded Vienchan and brought the Jade Buddha to Wat Phra Kaeo in Bangkok (pronounced Glungthep in Lao).

After Siam maintained the three separate Lao kingdoms under their nominal and more direct control during much of the 19th century, the French began a forward movement in Indochina. Laos was part of this. Somewhere around 1893 the French and Thais fought a battle or two or more and defeated Siam. In their retreat the Thais brought many people from Laos into Siam (Issan) and founded cities such as Udon Thani, Khon Kaen, Kalasin and Yasothon to name a few.

The goal of the French, who now controlled Laos, was to take Issan from Siam under the flimsy excuse that the Lao wanted to be re-united with their better governed brethen in French-controlled Laos. This probably would have succeeded but a new, less imperialist, administration was formed in France. Jules Ferry had led the forward policy in French Indo-china helped by Pavie.

By this time the British had become interested and realised that French goal of men like Ferry and Pavie was to bring all of Siam under French control. This the British did not want as a French-controlled Siam would border British controlled Burma. Thus, the British goal was to create a neutral Siam much like Afghanistan in central Asia. The new government in France was ready to co-operate with the British as they wanted Britain as an ally in Europe.

In fact, but for the French, all of what is Laos would probably be part of Thailand today, or, if men like Pavie and Ferry had got their way, a French colony comprising Siam and Laos would have been created.

For their efforts in helping to keep the Chao Phraya river valley intact, the British detached the four southern Muslim provinces of Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis and, I think, Negrei Sembelan from Thailand and created the Four Protected States of British Malaya, also known as the Unfederated Malay States. This was in 1909.

Thai expertise in diplomacy also played a role in keeping much of Thailand intact including the Lao-speaking region of Issan. The term Issan is of recent use. I think it began in the 1950s but I might be wrong. Previously, the Issan people of places like Udon Thani were known as Lao, and they were said to speak Lao, not Issan.

[iGotNoTime]

Thank you for taking all the time to type this all out, I don't see where or how this is conflicting with anything that was said by anyone else here. The only difference I see is you show the 'other' side of the same story to be polite to the French, giving them excuse. Being in Toronto you are forgiven.

Uptoyou it was a good excuse, I never considered the fact that they might have wanted to some cushion space between them and Burma. But was not Siam itself enough? Siam certainly was not under British rule.

I have another question....You said "However, now as detailed in an article in the Nation, the validity of the stone inscription that our knowledge of early Sukhothai is based on, might be a myth. The inscription might have been written in the mid-19th century."

Do you have any link on this? I have never even heard this before. I certainly am not doubting you, I am eager to see what else the article has said.

Thank you again for such a great post.

[Mike]

I have another question....You said "However, now as detailed in an article in the Nation, the validity of the stone inscription that our knowledge of early Sukhothai is based on, might be a myth. The inscription might have been written in the mid-19th century."

Do you have any link on this? I have never even heard this before. I certainly am not doubting you, I am eager to see what else the article has said.

Here's some -
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/print.php?id=1546
http://board.212cafe.com/freewebboar...update&id=1012
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi...ealang-l&P=878

The last one (sealang article) is formatted in a way that makes it difficult to read, so I've copied it below -

“So what we are left with is a pathetic, deeply ostentatious society deliriously saturated in hallucinated, forged national cultural pride. The real threat of national collapse comes, not from the academic investigation of a historical document, but from decayed cultural politics and the retarded mentality of the bureaucratic authority and Thai official culture.”

Wham!

In 1986–7, two scholars suggested the block known as the Ramkhamhaeng Stone or Sukhothai Inscription One might not have been inscribed in 1292 as the stone claims and as every Thai history book repeats. Michael Vickery argued the language, architectural detail and much else just was not thirteenth century Sukhothai. Piriya Krairiksh suggested King Mongkut (Rama IV) had crafted the stone between 1850 and 1855.

This was a bit like claiming the US Declaration of Independence is a hoax. If it were true, would all the school history textbooks have to be recalled and their most memorable line erased (“There is fish in the water and rice in the fields”)? Conservatives shrieked in horror. Other scholars piled in, hurling arguments at one another through three talkfests and two fat academic tomes. Politicians, press columnists and even royalty had their say.

Then in 1991, both sides of the debate declared victory and quit the battlefield. For 12 years, the incident seemed almost forgotten. Then last year, UNESCO announced it was adding the stone to its register of world heritage. The two sides regrouped, returned to the arena with their old weapons unchanged, and fought another engagement for old time’s sake.

In the meantime, Mukhom Wongthes had written her Cornell University MA dissertation on the Ramkhamhaeng controversy in 1999. After the UNESCO-inspired reprise, she added an epilogue, and Silpa Watthanatham rushed it into print. It’s lots of fun.

Mukhom claims to have no interest whether the inscription is “authentic” or not. Rather she is interested in the 1980s controversy itself, and what it says about Thai society and about Thai history, as practised by both Thai and farang academics.

First off, she notes the emotions and abusive language used in the debate strayed far beyond the usual confines of academic decorum. Sulak Sivaraksa called those challenging the stone “lizards and geckos or barking, howling dogs”. The normally sedate linguist, William Gedney, labelled the two camps as angels and devils, and accused the devils of “flashy shallow sensationalism”. The devils replied by sneering at “cheap-shot wisecracks”, “back-stabbing” and “wishy-washy iconolatry”.

The problem was not really the inscription but the meanings that people have found in it over the last hundred years. For Mongkut, it showed Siam had a long and civilised past. For King Rama VI it described a perfect society subject to a perfect king. For Luang Wichit Wathakan, it was Thailand’s first constitution, and a tract on free trade. Above all, it had become a symbol of “Thainess”, whatever that meant.

Because there are no contemporary documents which can be used to judge the stone’s authenticity, most of the arguments are internal to the text itself. As Mukhom shows, on both sides these arguments have lots of assumptions, little evidence, and a strong tendency to be circular. Angels argue the stone proves Ramkhamhaeng was a genius for inventing the Thai alphabet; devils argue it shows Mongkut was a genius for crafting the illusion that Ramkhamhaeng did so. Angels suggests it was created to celebrate thirteenth century Sukhothai; devils say it was designed to impress the colonial British. Angels say Mongkut was too honest to imagine such a thing; devils point out Mongkut invented a new national spirit (Phra Sayam Thewathirat), so why not a new national history too. Devils suggest similarities to later inscriptions indicate Mongkut’s sources; angels argue those similarities prove the stone’s authenticity. And so on.

Mukhom comes to two conclusions about the debate. First, it was really about “academic career defense”. The angels had all somehow tied their academic careers to the stone, and were bound to defend its authenticity. Second (and more gingerly), the controversy was about attitudes to the modern role of monarchy. Since this issue cannot be debated openly, the controversy was transplanted onto the stone. She ends the MA part of the book by reminding us that academia is never “ideology-free”.

Although Mukhom claims to have no interest in whether the stone is authentic or not, the reader is left with a clear impression that her head is in the angel camp but her heart firmly with the devils. As the debate was fading, the Fine Arts Department published a scientific test claiming the wear-and-tear on the stone was similar to other inscriptions of the period, and hence it was genuine. As Mukhom notes, the devils took no notice of such “proof” by a government body which was firmly in the angel camp.

The MA part of the book is rather restrained by its academic context. In the epilogue on the UNESCO-inspired reprise, Mukhom cuts loose. Those defending UNESCO are treated to language every bit as colourful as that used by the 1980s academics. She focuses specially on Bowornsak Uwanno, who used to be considered an intellectual, and is now secretary to the cabinet. In defence of the UNESCO nomination, Bowornsak accused the devils of challenging the stone “just for fun”, and warned them not to “destroy national identity”. Mukhom calls his contribution irrelevant, subtly pretentious, ridiculous, flawed, kitschy and “blatant official nationalism”.

In this epilogue, she also clarifies what she thinks the whole controversy is about. On the one hand are those “who are opposed to ‘Thai official culture’”. On the other are “hardened orthodoxies” marked by “ideologically-loaded and anachronistic dogmatism for the worship of the Inscription”. Even if the inscription were found to be made in 1292 (or thereabouts), it would not justify the claims made about its meanings for the nation and for “Thainess”. Nor would it “add heroic glamour to the polemics of the official guardians of the Inscription’s authenticity and their sycophants”.

For those who know nothing about the controversy, this book is a good introduction. For anyone interested in Thai history and cultural attitudes, it is stimulating and very entertaining. The stone controversy is not over yet.

[UpToYou_inUdonThani]

Actually, my feeling is that France had no excuse for their imperialist intervention in Laos and wanting to incorporate not just Issan, but all of Thailand, into their empire. The French did not do much to improve Laos. The British, on the other hand, did improve Burma in some areas and did extend democracy to that country so that on the eve of the Second World War, Burma's democracy was more advanced than that of India since Burma had cabinet government at the centre whereas India only had it in the provinces.

If not for the French intervention, most of what is now Laos currently would have been part of Thailand.

I disagreed with the statement that the French gave Laos to Thailand. They did not. They took Laos from Thailand as France was a stronger imperial power than Siam. And the French did not give Issan to Thailand. The Thais/Siamese took it from Laos (Vienchan).

Michael Vickery, who is one of the historians who began the Sukhothai origin controversy is or was (he might be dead now) one of the few people conversant and able to read ancient Khmer and ancient Thai. He used this knowledge to argue that the Ramkhamhaeng inscription was forged. Others have now entered the fray and advance the theory that Sukhothai was a Lao, not a Thai, kingdom. It is very interesting stuff to read.

[iGotNoTime]

I disagreed with the statement that the French gave Laos to Thailand. They did not. They took Laos from Thailand as France was a stronger imperial power than Siam. And the French did not give Issan to Thailand. The Thais/Siamese took it from Laos (Vienchan).

Certainly I think this is one case where wikipedia needs edited then. Thank you for the suggestion.

[mangmum]

i can understan little bit in lao word but not to much because north language is look like lao language

[DogoDon]

Okay, putting aside the controversy over which history of the Isaan region is correct, can we at least agree that the language spoken in the Isaan region is, essentially, Lao? That is, it is not a dialect of central Thai, although it is often referred to as such. Of course, there are similarities even between central Thai and Lao, since they both belong to the Tai-Kadai family.

The historical controversy is very interesting, though. I wish I knew more about it. Thanks, UpToYou, for giving the other side of the story!

DogoDon

[UpToYou_inUdonThani]

Yes I would agree that Lao is a separate language in the Tai speaking family and that the northeasterners speak Lao. They were officially referred to as Lao people by the Thai government well into the 1950s.

As for the history of Laos, there is one of Laos by Martin Stuart-Fox, and a short history of Laos by Grant Evans that are excellent. Stuart-Fox follows an unashamedly pro-Lao bias whereas Evans is more balanced, but they are both great reads. And I am pleased that, like the Lao in Udon Thani, Yangtalad and other areas of Issan, Stuart-Fox refers to the capital of Laos as Vienchan, not the French Vientiane.

[iGotNoTime]

I too agree with that totally DogoDon, and too I am also appreciative of your posts UpToYou. Will certainly check this books out as soon as I can. Sort of to my limit on what I can spend at the bookstore this month but will as soon as I can. Thank you for the titles.