Thais unite the race and blood of Thais
Sujit Wongthes once told me that the name “Thai-Tai” (“Thai-Tai”) never existed in Thailand before. Western scholarship in the late 19th and early 20th centuries combined a diverse group of people who spoke closely related languages ​​into a single ethnic group that Westerners called Thai or Tai. The name comes from the Siamese who call themselves “Thai” as well as the people of Shan State and Sip Song Chu Tai who call themselves “Tai” because they are the most well-known groups to Westerners who have studied the subject.
I always listen with an open mind, half-believing, because the only people I have ever met or spoken to are Shan State and Sip Song Chu Tai (excluding the Siamese). Sujit’s disbelief led me to think, “There must be people who call themselves that, and they have probably been calling themselves that long before Western scholarship began.”
The people of Shan State probably call themselves “Tai Long,” which is a Shan language. Similarly, the Tai Dam and Tai Khao of Sibsong Chu Tai may have called themselves "Tai" for a long time.
But recently I have been compelled to study the Tai-Tai speakers outside Thailand. My disbelief has disappeared, leaving me half-believing Mr. Sujit completely.
Sir James George Scott said that the Khen and Lue of Chiang Tung, as well as Chiang Rung, call themselves Khen and Lue, steadfastly denying that they are not "Tai" (which in their view probably refers to "Tai Long" or Shan).
Moreover, according to Dr. Doc's report, when he was travelling east from Sireisophon, he met a number of people who called themselves by various names, without using the names "Thai" or "Tai", although they spoke the Tai-Tai language. Dr. Doc, who spoke the northern dialect, was able to communicate (to some extent) with them, such as "Kanyai", "Leng", "Nong" and many others. Dr. Dodd himself put the word Tai or Tai before his name so that the reader would know that he was referring to the group of people that Dr. Dodd (and other English and French scholars) considered to be the Tai minority.
In many (or perhaps all) Tai-Tai language groups… I don’t know for sure) as Chit Phumisak explained, Thai or Tai means “people”. So if the Lue are called “Tai Lue”, it is understandable, because they are indeed “Lu”.
Back in Siam, I and other Thais met many people who spoke Tai-Tai but did not call themselves Thai-Tai. This fictional Thai name, created by the West, has been adopted and instilled in our minds by the Thai state, blinding us.
When I was young, some of my ethnic minority friends would joke, “I am not Thai, I am Lao”. In fact, the "Lao" are a distinct group of Thai-Tai speakers who do not use the name Thai-Tai to refer to themselves. Their real ethnic name is "Lao" and they have probably referred to themselves this way for ages (as is the case in Chinese, Vietnamese and Western documents).
When Lao historians claim that they are the same ethnic group as the Tai, they are not referring to the Siamese. They are referring to a fictional ethnic name given by Western scholars.
Another group of Thai-Tai speakers who never call themselves Thai-Tai are the Yuan or Yun. When I first arrived in Chiang Mai, I was struck by how the people here use the word "Thai" as if it were someone else. For example, "There are many Thais living in Chiang Mai today" refers to people from the central and southern regions (including the northeast). I am sure I am not mistaken: in ancient documents from the north, people always called themselves Yan or Yun, never Thai or Tai.
The Sukhothai inscription also refers to people from the Nan region (and perhaps Phraya as well) as "Kao". However, since the reign of King Talakrat of Chiang Mai, they have been assimilated by the Yuan or Yun people to the point where the "Kao" and "Yun" in Phra and Nan are indistinguishable. At one time, Bangkok called the "Kao" "Lao", even though they were not Lao. However, Bangkok could not distinguish between the Lao and Yan, because they had once been united as one kingdom. Therefore, the "nobles" of Bangkok mistakenly believed that the northerners were "Lao" like the Isan.
So Thailand has a majority of people who have never called themselves "Thai" before. However, I don't see any objection to this. There are many countries around the world that use ethnic names and claim their own territory. It is important to understand that the name "Thai" in the name of the country is a pseudonym recently created by Western scholars to unite the diverse (and supposedly different) groups that speak the Thai-Tai language under one ethnic group.
There is no "Thai" that has existed since ancient times and is an inalienable common property of the people of this country that must be respected and honored.
It is not surprising that Thai-Tai speakers lack a single ethnic name. This is because they were scattered over a large area before they formed their own state-level political entity. They referred to themselves or were referred to by their neighbors with different words.
Only when the Tai-Tai states emerged, especially those with a large territory, did they adopt a unified ethnic name. However, this did not mean Tai or Tai. Just as the majority of the people of Sipsongpanna called themselves "Lue", Chiang Rai and Chiang Mai called themselves "Yuan", and Luang Prabang called themselves "Lao", the Nongzhi Gao group in Guangxi called themselves Nong, Nung or Lung, based on the name of the Trak.Their leaders. Only in the four major states in the south - Mao-Kong, Ahom, Suphanburi, Lopburi, Ayutthaya and Sipsong Chu Tai - did the people call their ethnic group Tai or Tai?
However, it would be absurd to say that Tai-Tai was the ethnic name in these four states. In fact, it was a social condition. The evidence clearly shows that, at least in Sipsong Chu Tai and Ahom, those who called themselves Tai-Tai had privileges over those who did not. Since privileges were based on limited resources (such as land), it is questionable whether the Tai-Tai were a minority who simply had superior social and political organization over the indigenous non-Tai and therefore had greater power.
While there is no clear evidence for the other two states, there are some similarities. The ancient words in Suphanburi, Lopburi and Ayutthaya state: "Thai who are not slaves" (or "Tat").
Note that minorities and privileges are inseparable in traditional states, and this becomes an insoluble problem in modern states.
...When the country was first divided into provinces during the reign of King Rama V, the names of provinces were initially used based on certain ethnic groups, such as Lao Kao, Lao Chiang, and Malay Province. However, later it was seen that this was too divisive, and the names were changed to geographical names such as Man Than, Payap, Udon Thani, and Isan, or to the names of major cities such as Nakhon Si Thammarat and Phuket, etc. They also tried to claim that the population of this province was all "Thai".
The problem with the Siamese monarchy was that even though it united the entire population with the Thais, it could not turn them into "citizens" (except in the literal sense of "city power"), because the true meaning of the word "citizen" was to be the joint owners of the "nation". They were all still just "citizens".
Abhisit’s hierarchy remained important in the Kingdom of Siam; the names of the common people could not be erased.
In fact, when Field Marshal P. Phibunsongkhram changed the name of the country from Siam to “Thailand”, he encouraged the nationalism-nationalism that was the trend in European states at the time. This followed the path of the absolute monarchy and followed it closely, maintaining a hierarchy of privileges (despite the change of elite from the monarchy to the common people). As can be seen, his Thai identity did not emphasize equality.
(The Thai government has long insisted on using the term “ratsadon” instead of “prachachon”. )
What Field Marshal P. added was an expansion of the hierarchy of rights to include minority groups. “Thai” citizens received the full rights that his regime provided, but non-Thai citizens received reduced rights both through law and official practice.
This is not to say that Thais are not foreigners, who by nature inevitably have fewer rights than citizens. Instead, these people are not “Thai” for other reasons, such as not being Buddhist, having a Chinese or other national father, or not speaking the Central Thai language clearly.
This is the government’s petition that has been extended to my youth. In addition to stating their “nationality”, petitioners must also state their “race”. Race is determined by the nationality of their father. Thus, a person with a foreign father, even if they are Thai, is only half Thai. This creates an unequal hierarchy of legal and practical rights. It may be recalled that one of Thailand’s many constitutions clearly states that the political rights of persons with a foreign father must be limited, for example, preventing them from holding ministerial positions.
However, Thai political society has changed over the past three or four decades. The hierarchy of civil rights has become increasingly untenable, especially among the “full citizens”, the majority of the country’s population. Citizens’ elections have become more secure and efficient, effective negotiations. The patronage relationship has changed into a hidden market exchange, and “full citizens” are increasingly becoming “full citizens.”
Among this negotiation among Thai citizens, I find the negotiation of the half-Thai particularly interesting. The Chinese, Indians, foreigners, Vietnamese, and others have gained full Thainess through loyalty to their nation. However, their familiar nation has old institutions that have represented the nation since the totalitarian monarchy: nation, religion, and monarchy. Thus we see the Indians leading the PAD, the “Chinese patriots” in the PAD, and the Farang who show strong loyalty to the Thai monarchy.
At the same time, the nation, defined by these old institutions, has excluded certain groups of citizens, especially those who are not Buddhists, and especially those who are not Buddhists but still want to maintain their ethnic and cultural identity. These people’s negotiations take two forms: they publicly demonstrate their loyalty to the nation and monarchy, or they campaign to redefine what the nation and monarchy mean. The nation can refer to the diverse ethnic and cultural makeup of the people, or the nation can refer to some degree of separation from the Thai state. The monarchy refers to a powerful elite that can protect the people from threats.