The 1880s-1900s was one of the most critical periods in the entire history of Siam when it faced the serious threat from the European colonial powers. In the eyes of the ruling elite, the country was not colonized because the Thai monarchs undertook the self- civilizing process modernizing the Thai state and society until it earned recognition from the civilized world, and because the great leaders made necessary sacrifices of some territories to preserve the country’s independence. Every Thai, regardless of their educational background, knows the first axiom of Thai history -- that is, thanks to the great leadership of the Chakri monarchs, Siam was never colonized by the Westerners.
As a matter of fact, it was not simply a history of the Big Bad Wolf versus the Helpless Lamb. The conflict was not an anti-colonial one as it pretends, nor was Siam an innocent victim. Siam fought the French to protect its aged old imperial supremacy over Laos, Cambodia and parts in the peninsula. It was an uncontestable contest of an old empire of the region versus a global colonial power for the supremacy over the region. The culmination was Franco-Siamese conflict in 1893 in which the outcome was decided when two French gunship pointing their weapons to the Grand Palace in Bangkok. The territorial “sacrifices” were the traditional vassals whose people never considered themselves parts of Siam. In case of Laos, its later historiography even thanks the French for liberating it from Siam.

Then, Siam was saved from colonization by several factors. The most important one was probably the agreement between the two superpowers of the time, Britain and France, to guarantee Siam’s sovereignty in order to make it the buffer between their major colonies (British India/Burma and Indochina respectively). These had nothing to do with the brilliant Thai monarchs and their self-civilizing mission, but to geo-politics and the timing that Siam became an issue after its neighbors were already colonized. Siam was not colonized because in the superpowers’ plan, it was not supposed to.
On the other hand, Siam could not escaped from the colonial economy. In fact it was gradually integrated to the colonial economy and its division of labor since the mid-19th c. as it brought mutual benefits to both the Thai elite and the Europeans. The modernization of the Thai state and society by the Thai elite themselves in many respects also brought Siam into fold of the global systems. Extraterritoriality in particular forced Siam to transform its entire legal system to meet the standards set by Western countries. Territorial administration, mapping, the functionalized bureaucracy were fundamental changes to fit the global systems. Many parts of the transformation were under the strong influence of the ideas and models from the West or even took place under the supervision of the Europeans employed by the Siamese government. Siam was not colonized, because it was not needed.
In short, Siam was independent in the sense that it was not formally or directly colonized. But it was responsive to colonial economy and performed a necessary function for the colonial system in the region without having to be colonized. This peculiar condition and
its consequences have not been adequately examined. A semi-colony normally refers to the condition of partial colonization. In this case, it is a crypto-colonial condition -- a colonial situation that did not appear so, or even claims independence as its virtuous legacy. Siam as a crypto-colony bore some peculiar characteristics that also shape its nationalism.
First of all, while the reform faced a resistance from the conservatives within the ruling class, and from some local powers that were suppressed by the new territorial rule, the state faced re no serious challenge for an alternative or a different direction of transformation. Let alone the destruction of the ancien regime. Nor were other fundamental institutions of the old regime, such as Buddhism and the sangha, radically challenged for change. Let alone a religious revolution. Instead, the major transformations in the name of reform, modernization, and civilization (considered “revolution” by some Thai historians) were initiated and undertaken by the ruling people within those institutions. The old regime were in charge of major “reforms”, for example, the absolute monarchy created the modern state and bureaucracy, the “reformed” Buddhist sangha was in charge of the foundation of modern education.
The conventional history suggests that the self-civilizing process was the monarchs’ visions to save the country’s independence by earning recognition from the European powers. This is only partly true. Becoming civilized was a self-serving desire of the Thai royal elite to earn recognition of themselves among the world’s elites. While the Thai elite believed that they were successful, thus the country was saved, there was no
evidence that Siam was recognized on the same level among the civilized elites of the world or that its recognition helped save the country’s independence. Instead, the assumed recognition was for domestic consumption to reaffirm the superiority of the royal elite among their subjects.
The 1880s-1900s was one of the most critical periods in the entire history of Siam when it faced the serious threat from the European colonial powers. In the eyes of the ruling elite, the country was not colonized because the Thai monarchs undertook the self- civilizing process modernizing the Thai state and society until it earned recognition from the civilized world, and because the great leaders made necessary sacrifices of some territories to preserve the country’s independence. Every Thai, regardless of their educational background, knows the first axiom of Thai history -- that is, thanks to the great leadership of the Chakri monarchs, Siam was never colonized by the Westerners.
As a matter of fact, it was not simply a history of the Big Bad Wolf versus the Helpless Lamb. The conflict was not an anti-colonial one as it pretends, nor was Siam an innocent victim. Siam fought the French to protect its aged old imperial supremacy over Laos, Cambodia and parts in the peninsula. It was an uncontestable contest of an old empire of the region versus a global colonial power for the supremacy over the region. The culmination was Franco-Siamese conflict in 1893 in which the outcome was decided when two French gunship pointing their weapons to the Grand Palace in Bangkok. The territorial “sacrifices” were the traditional vassals whose people never considered themselves parts of Siam. In case of Laos, its later historiography even thanks the French for liberating it from Siam.

Then, Siam was saved from colonization by several factors. The most important one was probably the agreement between the two superpowers of the time, Britain and France, to guarantee Siam’s sovereignty in order to make it the buffer between their major colonies (British India/Burma and Indochina respectively). These had nothing to do with the brilliant Thai monarchs and their self-civilizing mission, but to geo-politics and the timing that Siam became an issue after its neighbors were already colonized. Siam was not colonized because in the superpowers’ plan, it was not supposed to.
On the other hand, Siam could not escaped from the colonial economy. In fact it was gradually integrated to the colonial economy and its division of labor since the mid-19th c. as it brought mutual benefits to both the Thai elite and the Europeans. The modernization of the Thai state and society by the Thai elite themselves in many respects also brought Siam into fold of the global systems. Extraterritoriality in particular forced Siam to transform its entire legal system to meet the standards set by Western countries. Territorial administration, mapping, the functionalized bureaucracy were fundamental changes to fit the global systems. Many parts of the transformation were under the strong influence of the ideas and models from the West or even took place under the supervision of the Europeans employed by the Siamese government. Siam was not colonized, because it was not needed.
In short, Siam was independent in the sense that it was not formally or directly colonized. But it was responsive to colonial economy and performed a necessary function for the colonial system in the region without having to be colonized. This peculiar condition and
its consequences have not been adequately examined. A semi-colony normally refers to the condition of partial colonization. In this case, it is a crypto-colonial condition -- a colonial situation that did not appear so, or even claims independence as its virtuous legacy. Siam as a crypto-colony bore some peculiar characteristics that also shape its nationalism.
First of all, while the reform faced a resistance from the conservatives within the ruling class, and from some local powers that were suppressed by the new territorial rule, the state faced re no serious challenge for an alternative or a different direction of transformation. Let alone the destruction of the ancien regime. Nor were other fundamental institutions of the old regime, such as Buddhism and the sangha, radically challenged for change. Let alone a religious revolution. Instead, the major transformations in the name of reform, modernization, and civilization (considered “revolution” by some Thai historians) were initiated and undertaken by the ruling people within those institutions. The old regime were in charge of major “reforms”, for example, the absolute monarchy created the modern state and bureaucracy, the “reformed” Buddhist sangha was in charge of the foundation of modern education.
The conventional history suggests that the self-civilizing process was the monarchs’ visions to save the country’s independence by earning recognition from the European powers. This is only partly true. Becoming civilized was a self-serving desire of the Thai royal elite to earn recognition of themselves among the world’s elites. While the Thai elite believed that they were successful, thus the country was saved, there was no
evidence that Siam was recognized on the same level among the civilized elites of the world or that its recognition helped save the country’s independence. Instead, the assumed recognition was for domestic consumption to reaffirm the superiority of the royal elite among their subjects.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
The 1880s-1900s was one of the most critical periods in the entire history of Siam when it faced the serious threat from the European colonial powers. In the eyes of the ruling elite, the country was not colonized because the Thai monarchs undertook the self- civilizing process modernizing the Thai state and society until it earned recognition from the civilized world,และเพราะผู้นำที่ยิ่งใหญ่สร้างความเสียสละของบางดินแดน เพื่อรักษาเอกราชของประเทศ คนไทยทุกคน ไม่ว่าพื้นหลังการศึกษาของพวกเขา รู้ก่อน ความจริงของประวัติศาสตร์ไทย นั่นคือ ต้องขอบคุณผู้นำที่ดีของจักรีพระมหากษัตริย์สยามไม่เคยตกเป็นเมืองขึ้นของชาวตะวันตก .
เป็นแท้มันไม่เพียง แต่ประวัติของหมาป่ากับลูกแกะ หมดหนทาง ความขัดแย้งไม่ใช่ต่อต้านอาณานิคมหนึ่งมันแกล้ง และ สยามเหยื่อผู้บริสุทธิ์ บริษัท สยาม สู้กับฝรั่งเศสเพื่อปกป้องอายุเก่าหลวงอำนาจสูงสุดเหนือ ลาว กัมพูชา และชิ้นส่วนในคาบสมุทร It was an uncontestable contest of an old empire of the region versus a global colonial power for the supremacy over the region. The culmination was Franco-Siamese conflict in 1893 in which the outcome was decided when two French gunship pointing their weapons to the Grand Palace in Bangkok.น่าน " เสียสละ " เป็นแบบดั้งเดิม vassals ที่มีคนเคยพิจารณาตัวเอง ส่วนของ สยาม ในกรณีของลาว ซึ่งต่อมาประวัติศาสตร์แม้ขอบคุณฝรั่งเศสที่ปลดปล่อยมันจากสยาม 
แล้วสยามถูกบันทึกไว้จากการล่าอาณานิคมโดยหลายปัจจัย ที่สำคัญที่สุดอาจเป็นข้อตกลงระหว่างสองมหาอำนาจของเวลา , อังกฤษ และฝรั่งเศสรับรองอธิปไตยของสยามเพื่อให้บัฟเฟอร์ระหว่างอาณานิคมใหญ่ของตน ( อังกฤษอินเดีย / พม่า และอินโดจีน ตามลำดับ ) เหล่านี้ไม่ได้เกี่ยวข้องกับพระมหากษัตริย์ไทยและตนเอง brilliant Civilizing ภารกิจ แต่กอการเมืองและระยะเวลาที่สยามกลายเป็นประเด็นหลังจากประเทศเพื่อนบ้านได้เมืองขึ้น สยามไม่เป็นเมืองขึ้น เพราะในประเทศมหาอํานาจ ' แผน it was not supposed to.
On the other hand, Siam could not escaped from the colonial economy. In fact it was gradually integrated to the colonial economy and its division of labor since the mid-19th c. as it brought mutual benefits to both the Thai elite and the Europeans.ความทันสมัยของสังคมไทย รัฐไทย และจากยอดตัวเองในหลายประการ ก็เอาสยามเข้าพับของระบบโลก การส่งผู้ร้ายข้ามแดนโดยเฉพาะในบังคับสยามเพื่อเปลี่ยนระบบของกฎหมายทั้งหมดเพื่อให้ตรงกับมาตรฐานที่กำหนดโดยประเทศตะวันตก การบริหาร , แผนที่น่าน , ที่มีพื้นฐานการเปลี่ยนแปลงเพื่อให้พอดีกับระบบราชการเป็นระบบสากลหลายส่วนของการแปลงร่างอยู่ภายใต้อิทธิพลที่แข็งแกร่งของความคิดและรูปแบบมาจากตะวันตก หรือแม้แต่เอาสถานที่ภายใต้การดูแลของชาวยุโรปที่ใช้โดยรัฐบาลสยาม . สยามเป็นเมืองขึ้น เพราะมันไม่จำเป็น .
ในสั้น สยาม คืออิสระในความรู้สึกว่ามันไม่ได้เป็นโดยตรงหรือเมืองขึ้น
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..