: Thank you my friend and answer all the questions

[tomc12]

jjsushi,

 

 

 

"Colonizers generally enslave, segregate,drive off, kill, or use the indigenous people for labor". That description fits both the Inca and the Spanish-which were you referring to? What had more effect on the New World-the loss of some gold or the introduction of the horse?

 

 

 

If America had been left in the hands of the Native Americans, there would have been no America to speak of. Indians weren't into the concept of building countries, railroads, science, etc. All they wanted to do was roam the plains and hunt buffalo. They certainly weren't interested in participating in building the economy or politics.

 

 

 

Thailand has never been colonized? Crapola! It has been colonized by Western ideas. What changed the country from an absolute monarch to a constitutional monarch? Why did the monarch give up his harem? What happened to the sarong?

 

 

 

Sure, the colonizers were motivated by profit and yes, many times there were adverse effects on the native cultures and people. But there were also many positive effects-the most important being changing the way the people viewed the world.

 

 

[Guest]

Some historical facts need to be gotten straight. This thread has become confusing, so excuse me if I alerady missed these.

 

 

 

artie: Of those three, only California was "annexed" by the U.S. after seizure from Mexico. Texas was an independent country after a successful revolution in 1836. The Americans who had settled in Texas at the invitation of Mexico became harassed by the paranoid leader Santa Ana, resulting in the revolution and breakaway (Remember the Alamo!). Texas was a country for 9 1/2 years until the U.S finally agreed to take it in (Texas was a Slave state, and they had to wait for another Free state, Iowa, to counterbalance it.) Mexico never recognized Texas' right to independence, and then started shit it couldn't stop, but Texas had left Mexico LONG before entering the U.S. Florida was PURCHASED from Spain through the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819, before there ever WAS a Mexico.

 

 

 

Whoever here said that California was seized in 1820 or 1821: That was about the time of the revolution from Spain that created Mexico; California then became part of Mexico, then part of the U.S. in 1848. (Once again, you can blame that idiot Santa Ana for leading his people into a war that he was not able to win.)

 

 

 

db: American independence was declared in 1776, but the Revolution is recognized as having begun in April 1775, with Lexington and Concord.

[Guest]

Thailand was never colonized in the literal sense ONLY because it suited the British and French to have a buffer zone between their spheres of influence. French still took half of Thailand's territory under Rama V (present day Laos and Cambodia) and the British shaved off what it damned well wanted.

[gobbledonk]

tomc12 said :

 

 

 

Thailand has never been colonized? Crapola! It has been colonized by Western ideas

 

 

 

People of Thailand:

 

 

 

I know you already have McDonalds and MTV, but thats just the tip of the iceberg. The multinationals literally want your children, and they wont stop until they have their hearts and minds.

 

 

 

I think Tom Boswell summed it up in True Lies, when he explained to Arnie that 'She's not your daughter anymore, man. Her parents are Axl Rose and Madonna'. Slightly dated, I know, but the armies of youth marketers are doubtless planning their assault on the sensibilities of eight-year old Thai kids as I type this ...

 

 

 

Dont take it personally. Its just business.

 

 

 

Resistance is futile - you will be assimilated.

 

 

 

 

[thalenoi]

Artiew,

 

 

 

Yes it's too late, Thailand is spoiled by "western values" and it can only get worse.

 

 

 

I am trying to hide and maybe need to move from Chumpon to a more remote village in Udon or Nan province.

 

 

 

There is not much I can wish to humanity, it's sad.

 

 

[gobbledonk]

thalenoi,

 

 

 

I know its cold comfort, but many civilizations were overrun before Thailand. Australia lost the battle at least 15-20 years ago.

 

 

 

I am told that Hanoi has not yet been completely subsumed - I am planning to visit as part of my China adventure in September.

[JJsushi]

Thailand has never been colonized? Crapola! It has been colonized by Western ideas. What changed the country from an absolute monarch to a constitutional monarch? Why did the monarch give up his harem? What happened to the sarong?

 

 

 

[color:blue] Now your reaching and clutching at straws for an argument. According to your logic every nation that has either coca-cola, McDonalds, MTV or is a member of the UN has been colonized. color=blue>

[jingjoh]

Rubbish, he is insinuating that they have colonized themselves through their greed and materialism, and uncontrolled access to Western products and trends that we have developed over decades and decades. He is not sayign every country with McDonalds is colonized.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The primary debate in this thread was caused by a poster who inferred that Thailand is not a great country or prosperous as a result of not having been colonized by a European country. They did not reap the rewards of European culture, education and government. This in a roundabout way makes it difficult for Thais to adapt to Western culture."

 

 

 

I never mentioned that colonization was a good thing, you have surmised far too much from such a simple comment.

 

I do believe the educatiuon system in Thailand is sadly lacking free thought and lateral thinking, this is a key factor in the countries inability to move forward in business practices.

 

Would it have been this way colonized? who knows, probably not. It might be a great country for certain things, but start listing them, hmm, interesting list isnt it

[oldian]

I am not sure that being colonized/noncolonized is better or worse....look at the histories and present realities of Laos and Myanmar....both have had brutal oppression, war, dictatorships, and heavy colonization.....yet i think of the number of Laotians and Burmese i have met, who have been to Thailand or elsewhere, and who have told me that despite the fact that they can earn a lot of money in those countries, that the governments seem less authoritarian, and that the standard of living is much better, that they think that the people in those countries (Thai, US, Europe) have completely lost their spirit and way to live, a way they think they still have at home

[Guest]

"despite the fact that they can earn a lot of money in those countries, that the governments seem less authoritarian, and that the standard of living is much better, that they think that the people in those countries (Thai, US, Europe) have completely lost their spirit and way to live"

 

 

 

That's fair enough. But what else are poor, oppressed and opportunity-less people going to say, really? Most people won't slag their own country in front of foreigners, so if they need to talk up a bright spot in the interest of national pride "spirit" is sufficiently vague and un-disprovable.