Guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 In a world where an estimated 6,500 languages are spoken in some 200 countries, Canada is not alone in having more than one official language. About one in four countries has more than one official or semi-official language. These countries include Switzerland, Belgium, Finland, Malta, and Kenya. Major international organizations, such as the United Nations, NATO, and the European Economic Community, all have several official languages. http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/lo-ol/publications/mythes/english/abc.html But I am sure that you know this allready :: Best regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasmine Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 [color:"red"] Bottom line is that if you want to assimilate a people and make your culture the dominant one then you have to kill off most of the other. This what the central Thais did and continue to do. [/color] I never look at it that way. I have always looked at it as Central Thai is an official language and people should be competant in the official language. The people in the South and Northern also have to learn the central Thai, especially the South which has many dialects and old, own dialects and cultures. Perhaps I don't know as much as you about it. Jasmine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Issan has never been a country in itself. It certainly never belonged to France or even laos, and squarely in the influence of the siamese kingdoms, ever since they prevailed over cambodian kingdons and armies. The lack of communication roads to the place, same as with Chiang Mai or the south, made for a loosely governance from the Siamese who had to fight off the burmese, themselves with an interest in driving the siamese and their culture to the ground (sack of Ayutthaya). Once the burmese were out of the picture, and Siam looked to the west for proper administration and technology, including improving communications (railway), it finally could make of all the fiefdoms with an alliegiance to the King of Siam, one country. If lao people moved to Issan, they entered the sphere belonging to the siamese kingdom. Or tell me that Laos fought wars with Thailand way beyond the mekong, to retain this region. It very simply never belonged to laos, and was up for grab only if foreign powers wished to colonialize or "protect" it as their own. The mekong is actually quite a natural border, and since Issan was never a country, a natural border for Siam on the western side. I am interested nonetheless in examples of cultural genocide you talk about. I am quite aware of loss of culture due to BKK/central thais making the rules, but loss of issan identity, or lao roots, was never and could never be a goal. A sure testimony to that is that very few thais from other regions were "emigrated there to affect the balance of Issan region being the region of issan-born or lao-displaced people, as happened in tibet and thru China, or Indonesia with "emigrasi". You are the one, BTW, who is romantic about this purported great culture killed by forced genocide. Thanks for our monthly argument, BTW. Always enjoy it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJsushi Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Says jasmine: [color:"red"] Bottom line is that if you want to assimilate a people and make your culture the dominant one then you have to kill off most of the other. This what the central Thais did and continue to do. [/color] I never look at it that way. I have always looked at it as Central Thai is an official language and people should be competant in the official language. The people in the South and Northern also have to learn the central Thai, especially the South which has many dialects and old, own dialects and cultures. Perhaps I don't know as much as you about it. Jasmine It is called empire building. The Romans and the British were very adept at it at the height of their own empires. You conquer the local people, militarily or diplomatically, give them citizenship, allow them to keep some vestiges of their own culture but make them communicate in the official language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 <<and the British were very adept at it at the height of their own empires>> Where did it all go tits up :: ...Just left with Gibraltar and such crummy places Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Now, mind you, I will not debate on the King or colonization, do you understand? Neither I!!! I didn't make any statement about the question if it was good or bad to force isaan people to learn thai!!! My only statement was that you can't say that it is indispensable to have only one official language to unit a country. Besides of that I don't know enough about thai history to decide if the reasons which let the king decide to do this were good or bad. And I certainly respect that the king managed to spare thailand from colonization. (Maybe a good reason to force isaan people to learn thai was to spare them from colonization?) Best regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 <<spare thailand from colonization>> Malaya as it was known didn't do too badly under the British and with the help of the SAS they prevented any disasters like with the French in Indo-China. Malaysia is far better off than LOS right now and much more of a mixed race/tolerant society. Maybe a bit of high tea and cricket could've done LOS some good??...the British legacy in Malaya isn't so bad is it? Or Singapore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Actually the british way to manage colonies was sometimes quiet succesful. But what if the french would have colonized Thailand?!? That Malaysia is more tolerant than thailand was maybe true some years ago, but it won't be true in 20 years from now. Best regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 [color:"blue"]I have not yet read the posts below this so forgive me if I am precognitive. [/color] [color:"red"]but a "beautiful" theory doesn't have to be true. [/color] agreed. But if your understanding of Quantum mechanics is as profound as it is in fractal math...............you sir, are blowing wind from a place that normally has more substance than theory. Fair enough. I await "your" defination of beautiful.........>>>>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp1 Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Says LaoHuLi: [color:"blue"] Ever been to Montreal? [/color] or San Diego or KL or dozens of other 'Cosmopolitan' cities in the world. Cultural diversity and the ability for a society to grow and thrive from it and the keystones to progress IMO. It may be a global village, but we are not all from the same suburb. or Belgium (3 official languages), Switzerland (4 official languages) Finland (2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.