And that is why I hunt down books such as ‘Debunking History – 152 Popular Myths Explained’ and ‘Don’t Know Much About History, everything you need to know about American history but never learned’.

When I took Civics I was lucky in that the two teachers sharing the class chose to take us through the snafus of US history. But that was California and that was then. Schools have certainly changed, and perhaps not for the better?

For the other information you shared, I’ll see if I can track it down in the books I have here. Thanks!

This is true for anywhere, of course, not just Thailand. Things change with the times, but in America, for example, certainly until rather recently you would’ve gotten a distorted picture of the despicable treatment of the Native Americans. The idea of “manifest destiny” is still prevalent. I’m a young’un, and in high school we were taught that the U.S. had never lost a war. We just “pulled out” of Vietnam. So Thailand is by no means alone.

The Phibunsongkhram era *created* Thailand. Literally and figuratively. Field Marshal Phibun admired Mussolini, so much that he directly imitated many of his policies, aggressively westernizing the country and promoting extreme nationalism. It was during this era that the country’s name was changed (to assert cultural supremacy over the ever-growing Chinese immigrant population).

Phibun’s “cultural mandates” (รัฐนิยม) and other strictly enforced policies effected drastic changes to the basic Thai way of life. He and his chief propagandist Luang Wichitwathakan (หลวงวิจิตรวาทการ) were essentially the architects of Thai history still largely believed today.

This era created some enduring myths. For one, that Thailand means “land of the free”. This is misleading for a couple of reasons. At the same time, the name Siam was stigmatized by claiming it derives from the Sanskrit word ศยาม meaning “black” — only possible but relatively unlikely etymology. Another popular myth holds that the Thais were the true originators of the Kingdom of Nanzhao (a musical play by Wichit popularized this notion). It was essentially a work of fantasy and serious historians reject it as entirely unfounded, but it still holds some popular sway.

It was also Luang Wichit who in his 1941 book “Thailand’s Case” made the claim that the modern Khmer are not actually the ancestors of the builders of Angkor Wat. He claimed that anciently there was another group living in the area called the Khom (ขอม), which the Thais had attacked an eliminated. So the modern Khmer were, he said, really part of the Thai race. This was accepted as historical fact.

To this day, the ancient Khmer are virtually always referred to by Thai academics as ขอม “Khom”, because this myth has not lost popular favor yet. In the 1960s this was a central point to the argument made by Seni Pramoj (who had and would later serve again as Prime Minister) as to why Preah Vihear should belong to Thailand. This exact same point was raised again in the recent reiteration of the Preah Vihear debate.

The situation is very similar with Laos. Official Thai history basically teaches that Siam was a large historical empire. The facts do not really support this. For one, the Lao do not accept the Thai national position that Laos is historically a part of Siam/Thailand any more than the Khmer do. Even the national Thai account of the history of “core” Siam — Sukhothai>Ayutthaya>Bangkok — is broadly disputed by important Southeast Asian historians.

So you have a fundamental problem here. Objective truth and nationalism do not mix. The academic community or the public at large is not welcoming to anyone who challenges major tenets of national historical beliefs. Professor Thongchai is a rarity, because he is sufficiently removed from the local scene. But look at, say, Giles Ungpakorn, as an example of what happens to local academics who challenge official dogma.

Note: History is not my field, so I have no particular expertise or in-depth knowledge of these topics. I welcome reasoned criticism of any claim I’ve made. I know this sort of topic tends to get people’s dander up.

‘…a historical oversimplification…’

So maybe someone should create a new one using the information from ‘Siam Mapped’. One with clearer explanations. And I imagine Thais will also want a map they can use with history books.