“Thailand is the only country in Southeast Asia that was never colonized. . .” – Le Minh Khai's SEAsian History Blog Reply “… how exactly does that make studying there attractive/better?” I would think things like great beaches, international nightlife or full-moon parties, delicious & cheap food, inexpensive housing costs, location (a geographic “crossroads” or gateway to SEA), historic & eco/tourist sites, etc would be more attractive to students, then a single historic event that never occurred more than 3 generations ago. On the other hand, those searching for superior academics will possibly go to other nations, when a google search “thailand education news” shows results like this: THAIS FAIL IN WEF EDUCATION REPORT Published: 4 Sep 2013 at 08.26 Bangkok Post Education Minister Chaturon Chaisaeng has ordered officials to look into a World Economic Forum’s (WEF) report which ranked Thai education bottom out of eight Asean countries surveyed. “We feel stunned because our ranking is very low,” said Phawit Thongrot, assistant to the minister, after reading the WEF’s Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013.

The report was prepared by the WEF, an annual gathering of business leaders, governments and civic groups at Davos in Switzerland that was formed 42 years ago. Among the 10 Asean countries, Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam take the top three spots, respectively, while Cambodia comes in sixth and Vietnam seventh, followed by Thailand. Myanmar and Laos were not included in the survey. The report also states that money is not the most important factor in guaranteeing a good education and that teachers with high salaries do not necessarily possess adequate teaching capabilities. Mr Phawit is furthering examining the report’s findings so he can discuss them with Mr Chaturon, who is interested in this issue. The report is an additional source of concern for education officials after Thai students recorded unsatisfactory test results under the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) in 2012. “The Pisa results clearly shows Thai children are not good at thinking,” Mr Phawit said. Reply I remember that the advertisement did mention some of those other things that you mention here.

It just surprised me that alongside those obvious “selling points” was the idea that “Thailand was never colonized.” It’s clear that this statement was meant to indicate that this somehow makes current-day Thailand special. But as for how that might be the case. . . ? Ultimately I think it’s a pretty common phenomenon. When people repeat something long enough it becomes something that they stop thinking critically about. “The US supports freedom and democracy,” “The Vietnamese have always united together and fought off foreign aggressors,” “Thailand was never colonized,” etc. Reply I am sure PISA advisors/consultants will now get a lot of work opportunities in SEA, particularly Thailand, after this report! The ranking fever is crazy now and a report like this can shake the whole nation and straightaway teachers are condemned for not being able to make students think! I can see some contradiction in the report already: On the one hand it says that “money is not the most important factor in guaranteeing a good education and that teachers with high salaries do not necessarily possess adequate teaching capabilities.” On the other, the three wealthiest countries “Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam take the top three spots, respectively”. So how reliable is such a report?

and what can it says about the educational situation in a country or a region? Reply One shouldn´t mix things up here. The foreign students such ads aim on will surely not attend normal Thai schools or universities for sure (which rank badly), but special institutions or at least international programs with teachers proficient in English because of these teachers´ own overseas education. What you get for the money then is not really “Thai education”, but something else. That Thai schools for Thai pupils are probably not that great is – I suppose – partly due to the reasoning that dull citizens are easier to govern. And when they speak no foreign languages either the government can successfully block almost all competing channels of [dis]-information, such as BBC or VOA too. Reply Japan may have never been colonized, literally meaning but still today it seems to be in half bondage . Its foreign policy seems most of the time in step ( to say it politely ) with the North Americans ‘ . Japan is regularly subjected to financial extortion from them ; it had to pay cash every time they went into their punitive operations , whether Irak , Afghanistan , war against terror .They have to pay for the costs of maintenance or relocation of US bases in Japan and the daily care of the GIs .

The Japanese are these days willly nilly enlisted in the ” containment ” of China ( or pivot to Asia ) … The US forbade the Japanese sophisticated armament since 1945 ; now , they are pushing Japan to change its constitution to allow for overseas operations as US army support troops The Okinawans suffer under the GIs ‘ rampage , that recalls them every day of their sufferings in 1945 and they can’t walk the steps to mourning and healing Reply Thanks for the comment. In actuality, there is nothing that I say in this post that hasn’t been written about before in much more professional publications, from the writings of Chit Phumisak to the following more recent articles: Michael Herzfeld, “The Absent Presence: Discourses of Crypto-Colonialism,” The South Atlantic Quarterly 101.4 (2002): 899-926.

Hong Lysa, “Extraterritoriality in Bangkok in the Reign of King Chulalongkorn, 1868-1910: The Cacophonies of Semi-Colonial Cosmopolitanism,” Itinerario 27.2 (2003): 125-146. _____, “‘Stranger Within the Gates’: Knowing Semi-Colonial Siam as Extraterritorials,” Modern Asian Studies 38.2 (2004): 327-354. Peter Jackson, “The Thai Regime of Images,” Sojourn 19.2 (2004): 1-39. _____, “The Performative State: Semi-coloniality and the Tyranny of Images in Modern Thailand,” Sojourn 19.2 (2004): 219-53. But as for your question, yes, I do think that I am the center of the universe. 🙂 October 14, 2016 at 7:37 am Really helpful if you could put a hyper-link to these references in the article.

I had the same thoughts as two of your posters…..your paraphrasing didn’t provide a compelling argument. Looking at just one reference, this quote doesn’t bode well for attempting a progressive conflation of the term “colonized” with other forms of bi-cultural relationships. Here’s the quote: “I mostly confine my remarks here to Greece, but the Thai case will be useful—albeit in necessarily sketchy form—for beginning the process of complicating the category of crypto-colonialism at its very point of genesis” from the the Crypto article. It had 187 citations…so it did gain some traction. Here’s the link to the full article. Do not in any way mean to be argumentative….hope it’s not taken that way. Nice way to deflate the “center of the universe” comment. Good on you, mate. Craig Here’s a quote from Crypto article. Maybe you could post something on this. Sounds intriguing “As Thongchai has shown, moreover, the attempts of the Siamese to present themselves as equal partners with Europe in the work of civilization, especially at the great world fairs of colonialism’s heyday, led to continual humiliation.

It was only when the Siamese pavilion was literally placed among those of colonies that they were able to address that humiliation directly and to any effect and succeeded in getting it reclassified and relocated; most of the time, Siam appeared as a country more imitative than productive.” Humiliation??? Really?? October 14, 2016 at 8:09 pm Thank you for your comments. With the recent passing of the king I don’t think this is an appropriate time to engage in discussions about the complexities of Thai history, even when those discussions are about the early twentieth century. Let’s give people time to grieve and to honor the late king’s many achievements. However, I will say that the concept of semi-colonialism is a well-established concept in academic writings, and that around the same time that some scholars wrote about semi-colonialism in Thailand there were many works published about Shanghai as semi-colonial. A simple google search for “Shanghai semi-colonialism” will reveal that. As for finding works online, you can check academia.edu. Some scholars make their works available on that site. Mot Reply What do people mean by colonized?

Never been ruled by a European power or never been ruled by any foreigner (whether by direct military conquest or simply a “Stranger King” taking the throne?) The purpose of these exercises is nationalist masturbation. Excuse my language but I can’t find any other appropriate word. If people mean never been ruled by any foreigner, the Thonburi King of Thailand was a Chinese. People say Afghanistan was never colonized, but it was conquered in ancient times by Persia, Alexander the Great, Mongols, and Turks. After the Second Anglo- Afghan War Afghanistan became a British protectorate. Japan was militarily occupied by the Allies and MacArthur was effectively their head of state during the occupation. The Arab world was ruled by the Ottoman Turks and British and the Saudi heartland of Najd was occupied by Muhammad Ali’s Albanian forces under Ottoman direction. The Ottoman Turks were Turkmen who themselves fled from Central Asia (modern day Turkmenistan) to Anatolia, because the Mongols defeated them, conquered the Turkmen and colonized their own homeland. The Ottoman capital at Constantinople (Istanbul) was placed under Allied occupiation by the British at the end of World War I.

Reply According to Wikipedia, there is yet another person whom you could have mentioned: The Chakri Dynasty (Thai: ราชวงศ์จักรี; rtgs: Ratchawong Chakkri, Thai pronunciation: [râat.tɕʰa.woŋ.tɕàk.krii], Pronunciation) is the current ruling royal house of the Kingdom of Thailand, while the Head of the house is the King of Thailand. The dynasty has ruled Thailand since the founding of the Rattanakosin Era and the city of Bangkok in 1782 following the end of King Taksin of Thonburi’s reign, when the capital of Siam shifted to Bangkok. The royal house was founded by King Rama I, an Ayutthayan military leader of Sino-Mon descent. Reply Although I agree that not being colonized has very little value as a selling point for education industry, there are things you get serious wrong about colonization. Firstly, you post about a country being or not being colonized, but you clearly have no idea about what it means to be “colonized.” Go research about the effects of British colonial policies, for example, be for making this type of comment.

Think about India, how a once great civilization of the world – a nation that invented the Sanskrit language – ended up an English speaking country, using English laws and legal system, with young people who are materialistic and largely have no deep connection with their own culture, with unabated poverty problems etc. Think also the difference between America and Canada: why the former considers itself a very proud and exceptional nation, whereas the latter barely have any of its own identity and constantly referred to as “the 51st state of USA.” Second, the fact that Thailand had to modernize and thus relied on the aid of European advisors was completely its own choice and had NOTHING to do with colonization. Japan (in the 19th and early 20th cent.) was likewise not colonized by any western power but had to do the same thing — i.e. hiring European advisors. You should also know that Thailand and Japan had to modernize itself as quickly as possible to keep out the colonial powers and that was why they need European expertise. For the same reason, Thailand (and Japan) had to give the “extra territorial judicial sovereignty” to colonial powers such as Britain and America. It was a part of the bargain to keep their countries free.

But unlike actual colonized nations, Thailand was able to determine the legal tradition it preferred – which is based on the Roman Law, not the common law of England. Both Japan and Thailand hired foreign jurists to draft their legal codes – Japanese code is based on German Law and Thai code is based on the French law. But both countries however have their own legal authority, developed their own case law, legal reasoning and did not accept any legal precedent based on European cases. If you look at the laws of Singapore or India or Malaysia, they are based on the English law and common law cases. Even the U.S. judges cite English common law regularly – so much for legal independence. Surviving colonialism was NOT a simple process, nor was it easy. Learning about it would give you a much broader worldview and an important lesson in world history. That may be why Thailand/Siam continues to have something to teach the world in that regard. “I am able to use English well, but I don’t want to use it.

[So] if you want to understand, translate it yourself.” ฉันสามารถใช้ภาษาอังกฤษได้ดี แต่ฉันไม่อยากใช้มัน ถ้าอยากรู้ก็แปลเอาเอง This is the philosophy/approach of Nidhi Aeusrivongse, and I have already expressed my admiration/appreciation of that approach on this blog: However, if you just write in Thai and don’t demonstrate that you สามารถใช้ภาษาอังกฤษได้ดี then I have no way of knowing if you are in the same category as Ajarn Nidhi or if you are simply someone who is pretending to know more than you know. When it comes to the question of law, I think you need to read the book and earlier dissertation by Tamara Loos (the book and dissertation are quite different, but they both show that Siamese law was deeply influenced by Western law). As for the question of language, yes, that is really interesting. Yes, people in the past and people today all learn “Thai,” but what did that mean in the 18th century and what does that mean today?

If you think about that, I think you will find that there has been enormous linguistic change in Siam/Thailand in modern times, just as we see in Vietnam, Burma, etc. However, in relation to the issue which led me to write this post – seeing an advertisement that encouraged foreigners to study in Thailand and which said that one of Thailand’s advantages was that it had never been colonized – the fact that Thais never had to learn a foreign language as part of their compulsory education in the twentieth century (like Vietnamese having to learn French) can actually be seen as a disadvantage which makes Thailand an undesirable place for foreign students to study because it is not as “international” as places that were once colonized. That said, now that 60 or so years have passed since the colonial period ended, it’s difficult to say that former colonies in Asia have a linguistic advantage over places that were never colonized, with the one exception of Singapore, which kept employing the language of the colonizer and which now has the highest ranked university in Asia, the National University of Singapore. Southeast Asian countries that have not been colonized | JUST INFO EVERITHING Southeast Asian countries that have not been colonized Do you know ...!!!

countries in southeast Asia that has never been invaded by another country. Yea Thailand, his own country tahiland better known as Thai Mueang, thailand capitals are conjoined (bangkok). Countries that have an area is 514.000 km2 embracing nature of government Constitutional Monarchy. led by a king named King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Sukhothai kingdom was the first empire in Thailand, established in 1238, but the kingdom is not long-lived. then continue the glory of the kingdom of Ayutthaya in Thailand, the kingdom was founded in the 14th century and its size is greater than thai royal sukhotai.kebudayaan greatly influenced by China and India. in the 16th century Thailand began nerhubungan with European countries, Thailand experienced strong pressure, royal thai remained as the only country in Southeast Asia never colonized by European countries. in 1932 the government initiated a Constitutional Monarchy is started from a bloodless revolution. This country formerly known as Siam, and in 1939 they changed their name to Thailand until now.

thai country had allied with the Japanese until they eventually allied with the United States after World War II ended. Thai kingdom was divided for 76 provinces (Changwat), which are grouped into 5 groups of provinces. The name of each province are from the name of the provincial capital-provinsinya.Provinsi is then subdivided into 795 districts (Amphoe), 81 sub-district (King Amphoe) and 50 districts of Bangkok (khet) (amount up to the year 2000), and subdivided into 7236 community (Tambon), 55,746 villages (Muban), 123 municipalities (Tesaban), and 729 sanitation districts (Sukhaphiban) (amount up to the year 1984). The cause of Thailand was never colonized have internal and external factors: Internal factors King of Thailand at that time are open to the outside world.

It's the people who are educated in Thailand at that time was primarily a family-friendly kerajaan.anak king, the royal family being sent abroad (to Europe) in order to seek knowledge, even bring in teachers from Europe to the kingdom to teach science. External factors State of Thailand at the time it became a buffer state (border) regions of the European colonialists, the British in the north and south, the French in Indochina and the Dutch in the Indies.

List of names who had become prime minister of Thailand : Phraya Manopakorn Nititada (1932-1933) General Large Plaek Phibunsongkhram (period 1) (1938-1944) Major Khuang Abhaiwongse (period 1) (1944-1945) Tawee Boonyaket (31 August 1945-17 September 1945) Art Pramoj (period 1) (17 September 1945-31 January 1946) Major Khuang Abhaiwongse (period 2) (31 January 1946-24 March 1946) Luang Praditmanutham (24 March 1946-23 August 1946) Rear Admiral Thawal Thamrong Navaswadhi (23 August 1946-8 November 1947) General Large Plaek Phibunsongkhram (period 2) (8 April 1948 (from March 

1, 1959 while) -16 September 1957) Pote Sarasin (21 September 1957-1 January 1958) Large General Thanom Kittikachorn (period 1) (1 January 1958-20 October 1958) Large General Sarit Dhanarajata (October 20, 1958 (while from February 9, 1959) -8 December 1963) Large General Thanom Kittikachorn (period 2) (9 December 1963-14 October 1973) Sanya Dharmasakti (14 October 1973-15 February 1975) Art Pramoj (period 2) (15 February 1975-14 March 1975) Kukrit Pramoj (14 March 1975-20 April 1976) Art Pramoj (period 3) (20 April 1976-6 October 1976) Tannins Kraiv

ixien (8 October 1976-20 October 1977) General Kriangsak Chomanan (12 November 1977-3 March 1980) General Prem Tinsulanonda (3 March 1980-4 August 1988) General Chatichai Choonhavan (4 August 1988-23 February 1991) Anand Panyarachun (period 1) (2 March 1991-7 April 1992) General Suchinda Kraprayoon (7 April 1992-10 June 1992) Meechai Ruchuphan (24 May 1992-10 June 1992) Anand Panyarachun (period 2) (10 June 1992-23 September 1992) Chuan Leekpai (period 1) (23 September 1992-13 July 1995) Banharn Silpa-archa (13 July 1995-25 November

 1996) General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh (25 November 1996-9 November 1997) Chuan Leekpai (period 2) (9 November 1997-9 February 2001) Thaksin Shinawatra (period 1) (9 February 2001-19 September 2006) Chitchai Wannasathit (acting) (5 April 2006-23 May 2006) Thaksin Shinawatra (2nd period) (23 May 2006-19 September 2006) General Surayud Chulanont (1 October 2006-29 January 2008) Samak Sundaravej (29 January 2008-8 September 2008) Somchai Wongsawat (18 September 2008-2 December 2008 Chaovarat Chanweerakul (acting) (2 December 2008-17 December 2008) Abhisit Vejjajiva

 (17 December 2008-5 August 2011) Yingluck Shinawatra (August 5, 2011-present) Yingluck Shinawatra What are the only countries that were not colonized by europe?

- The Student Room What are the only countries that were not colonized by europe? 16-04-2012 23:04 I can think of Thailand and Japan but that's it.Hmm China?Turkey? All of Africa and the Middle East were carved up between western european countries. All of North and South America were colonized, including Caribbean. Southeast Asia was colonized minus Thailand. I think China was colonized in parts. India was colonized or occupied by Britain for many years. Australia was a former British colony. All of the South Pacific was in German, french or British hands until after WW2 when the Germans had to turn over their territories to allies countries. I can't think of a place on earth where Europe didn't invade and take it over. Post rating: 2 16-04-2012 23:08 Iran was never colonised. Russia and Britain fought each other for power in Iran, but it was never colonised. Ethiopia was never colonised, it was "occupied" for about five?? years but not "colonised".

Last edited by Ferdowsi; 16-04-2012 at 23:09. Post rating: 3 16-04-2012 23:09 Ethiopia - only conquered for a few years prior to WW2 and many countries didn't recognise Italy's conquest. It didn't get conquered when most African countries were anyway. Liberia too, though that's a tricky one cause it was always very very influenced (and established as a haven for freed slaves) by America. Persia/Iran was never technically colonised, although the British ruled in all but name for a good 100 years just through having economic control. I suppose you can say that applies for any given country - the vast majority of China outside a few coastal cities was never colonised but the country was dependent on foreign companies who controlled its assets. EDIT: History nerd coming into action here, Afghanistan was never colonised, nor was the northern half of Yemen or what is now Saudi Arabia.

Most of the Gulf States (Oman, what is now the UAE, Kuwait) were protectorates of Britain but still had independence on the domestic level - they were never colonised in the sense of being annexed. Last edited by 12lightf; 16-04-2012 at 23:13. ( Original post by 12lightf) Ethiopia - only conquered for a few years prior to WW2 and many countries didn't recognise Italy's conquest. It didn't get conquered when most African countries were anyway. Liberia too, though that's a tricky one cause it was always very very influenced (and established as a haven for freed slaves) by America. Persia/Iran was never technically colonised, although the British ruled in all but name for a good 100 years just through having economic control. I suppose you can say that applies for any given country - the vast majority of China outside a few coastal cities was never colonised but the country was dependent on foreign companies who controlled its assets. EDIT: History nerd coming into action here, Afghanistan was never colonised, nor was the northern half of Yemen or what is now Saudi Arabia.

Most of the Gulf States (Oman, what is now the UAE, Kuwait) were protectorates of Britain but still had independence on the domestic level - they were never colonised in the sense of being annexed. The Middle East was never colonized nor Arabia. ( Original post by 99luft Balons) I can think of Thailand and Japan but that's it.Hmm China?Turkey? a All of Africa and the Middle East were carved up between western european countries. All of North and South America were colonized, including Caribbean. Southeast Asia was colonized minus Thailand. I think China was colonized in parts. India was colonized or occupied by Britain for many years. Australia was a former British colony. All of the South Pacific was in German, french or British hands until after WW2 when the Germans had to turn over their territories to allies countries. I can't think of a place on earth where Europe didn't invade and take it over. Thailand was never "colonised" per se, but it did fall under very heavy British and French influence; Thailand had very questionable suzerainty during the late 1800s.

Secondly it was occupied and colonised by Japan for four years, but I don't think that counts. China, perhaps. COLONIALISM AND NATIONALISM� IN SOUTHEAST ASIA COLONIALISM AND NATIONALISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA Rey Ty Introduction The major colonizers of Southeast Asia were Europeans, Japanese and the U.S. All in all, there were seven colonial powers in Southeast Asia: Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Great Britain, France, the United States, and Japan. From the 1500s to the mid-1940s, colonialism was imposed over Southeast Asia. For hundreds of years, Southeast Asian kingdoms had been engaged in international commercial relations with traders from East Asia (China), South Asia (India), and West Asia (the ï¿½Middle Eastï¿½). Asian sojourners also brought religion, customs, traditions, and court practices to the region. Hence, their relationship was economic and cultural at the same time. Moreover, local Southeast Asian rulers used and indigenized practices of kingship institutions from South Asia (rajadharma) and West Asia (sultanate).

European travelers did not only have economic relations with Southeast Asians but also imposed their politicalï¿½and in some cases, culturalï¿½domination over Southeast Asian peoples and territories. Hence, European colonialism covered a large chunk of Southeast Asian history. Aside from European colonials, Japanese and U.S. colonials controlled much of Southeast Asia. Japanese aggression took place during the ï¿½Pacific Warï¿½ of World War II. The Japanese occupied much of Asia, including Southeast Asia. The U.S. colonized the Philippines in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War of 1898. Southeast Asian response to colonialism was both collaboration and nationalism in all its forms. Historical Background Indigenous peoples practicing animism have lived in Southeast Asia (SEA) since historical times. Later, people from China moved southward to reach SEA (Barton 26). As early as 300 BC, the age of bronze and iron had passed from China into SEA (Fodor 64). The Chinese under the Sung Dynasty by the 12th century had become involved more and more in international trade, including with SEA (Fodor 67).

Hence, there were Chinese and Indian migrants who have reached and lived in SEA for a long time now. The Chinese and Indian civilizations have greatly impacted SEA societies. Many parts of SEA have been indianized from 500BC to 1000 AD (Barton 47). South and Southwest Asians used the monsoon seasonal-reversal wind route from Arabia and India to travel to Southeast Asia (Barton 46). SEA is home to several ancient civilizations, including the Angkor and the Sri Vijaya kingdoms. At about 1300, there were two major kingdoms: the Sukhotai in Mainland SEA and the Majapahit empire in insular SEA. During the 12th to the 14th centuries, there was an active spice trade in the region (Fodor 67-8). Hence, Southeast Asia was exposed to different civilizations, cultures and religions for thousands of years now: animism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism and Islam. Culture, trade, religion, and monarchy played a role in the state formation of SEAsian countries. COLONIALISM Colonialism is alien or foreign political rule or control imposed on a people.

Colonialism can take many forms: it can be political, legal, economic, cultural and social. A political, economic and cultural policy and practice by which several foreign states explored, conquered, settled, exploited, maintained and extended their control over large areas of foreign lands and its people who ceased to control their own territories, resources and national destiny. The age of colonialism began about 1500, following the European discoveries of a sea route around Africa's southern coast (1488) and of America (1492). LEGACY OF COLONIALISM European, American, and Asian powers colonized SEA. The major European colonizers in SEA included Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Britain, and France. The American power was the U.S.A. Europeans introduced Protestantism and Roman Catholicism to SEA. During World War II, Japan was the only major Asian country that colonized SEA. MOTIVES There are three motives for colonialism: political, economic, and cultural. Reasons for colonialism are manifold: to expand territory, to seek mercantilist profit, to import cheap raw materials, and to extract precious metals.

The booming economies needed an assured supply of raw materials, assured new markets and new places in which to invest. Political Aggrandizement Spain and Portugal spread Roman Catholicism to their colonies by converting the indigenous peoples local religions are inferior COLONIAL HISTORY On June 7, 1494, the Spanish and the Portuguese signed the Treaty of Tordesillas that divided the world in two spheres. The imaginary line ran through the Atlantic: Spain gained lands to the west, including all the Americas, except Brazil, which was granted to Portugal. The eastern half including Africa and India was given to Portugal. In the absence of accurate measurements of longitude , the issue of where the line should be drawn in Asia refused to go away. Portugal (1511-1641/1975): The Portuguese were the first Europeans to dominate trade in SEA and the first to set up trading posts in military-occupied ports (Barton 50). They defeated Moslem naval forces in 1509 and seized Malacca in 1511 (Barton 50), until the Dutch captured it in 1641. Southeast Asia felt Portuguese impact the least.

The Portuguese controlled only the small territory of East Timor. Spain (1565-1898): Ferdinand Magellan reached the Philippines in 1521. Spanish expeditions from 1525 to 1536 claimed the Philippines. In 1565, Spain conquered Cebu. In 1571, Spain established the city of Manila and by 1600 it had gained control of most of the archipelago (Barton 50). The Katipunan (KKK)ï¿½Filipino revolutionariesï¿½under Andrï¿½s Bonifacio fought against the Spaniards and became the first Asian country to be independent in 1898, except that the U.S. took the reigns of power thereafter. Magellan: Magellan led the first circumnavigation of the globe. He was born to a family of lower nobility and educated in the Portuguese court. Just like Columbus who came before him, Magellan believed the Spice Islands can be reached by sailing west, around or through the New World.

As Magellan did not get any support from the Portuguese monarchy, he sought and got the assistance of the teenaged Spanish king, Charles I (a.k.a. the Holy Roman emperor Charles V ) on March 22, 1518. Magellan got five ships. In September, 1519, he sailed with 270 men. His Italian crewmember, Antonio Pigafetta , kept a diary of and recorded the voyage. They sailed on to the Philippines, arriving on March 28, 1521. On April 7, 1521, he arrived in Cebu and befriended an island kingï¿½Datu Humabon. On April 14, 1521, Datu Humabon and 800 of his people were drawn in a mass baptism. Later, though, Lapu-Lapu killed Magellan in a battle in Mactan on April 27, 1521. Sebastian del Cano took over the remaining three ships and 115 survivors.

The two remaining ships sailed from the Philippines on May 1 and made it to the Moluccas (Spice Islands) in November, loaded with valuable spices. Hoping that at least one ship would return to Spain, the Trinidad went east across the Pacific, while the Victoria continued west. On September 6, 1522, the Victoria and 18 crewmembersï¿½including Pigafettaï¿½arrived in Spain. It was the first vessel to circumnavigate the globe. Spain and Portugal used the Cross and the Sword. The U.S. beat and replaced Spain. The Netherlands (1605-1799 & 1825-1940s): The Dutch arrived in Indonesia in 1596. Dutch colonialism was carried out initially by the Dutch East India Company (V.O.C.) from 1605 to 1799. Itï¿½s main preoccupation was profits in trade through monopolies, not political rule.

When it collapsed in 1799, the government of Netherlands took over VOCï¿½s assets in 1825 and put Indonesia under its administrative authority, the process of which was completed in the 1930s (Wilson). The Dutch had taken control of most of the commercial islands in the East Indies and occupied Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes, and Java (Barton 50). They built a port at Batavia and kicked out the Portuguese from the Indies, except for East Timor (Barton 50). The Dutch could not keep the Netherlands East Indies after WWII as they hoped to because the Indonesians fought a war of national liberation to set up a republic in 1945. The U.N. recognized Indonesian independence in 1949. The Dutch acquired their empire to protect their trade. And they were after commodities. But not as raw materials: these were spices, for resale. The Dutch were 250 years in Indonesia. Britain (1824-1957): Britain acquired parts of its empire through, or to aid, its traders.

Using their navies, the British penetrated SEA from the west side, while the French from the east (Barton 50). The British used force to annex Burma between 1826 and 1888 (Barton 50) in three Anglo-Burmese Wars. The British maintained Burma as a province of British India, unlike other colonies which kept their ethnic identities. Top British and middle Indian administrators ruled Burma. In 1935, Britain consented to separate Burma from India and this was put into force in 1937 (Wilson). In 1948, Burma negotiated with Britain for its independence. The British (Raffles) set up Singapore in 1819 and the Netherlands ceded Malacca to Britain in 1824 (Barton 50). Britain governed Penang (acquired in 1786), Singapore, and Malacca as the Straits Settlements from which Britain expanded into the Malay Peninsula from 1874 to 1914 (Wilson). The Malay States negotiated for and gained independence as the independent Federation of Malaya in 1957.

Penang, Malacca, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore became part of Malaysia in 1963, but Singapore was told to withdraw in 1965 (Wilson). Brunei decided to stay out of the new country and is now an independent country. France (1859-1954): The French, under Louis XIV, exchanged embassies with Siam from 1600 to 1700. European influence on SEA amplified. The French went to Vietnam in 1858 and seized Saigon in 1859 (Wilson). By 1867, the French annexed Cochin China (the south) and Cambodia. The French used Cochin China as the base from which they moved westward and northward. By 1893, they set up protectorates over Annam, Laos, and Tonkin, all of which became the ï¿½French Indochinaï¿½ (Barton 50). By 1907, the French completed their conquest of Indochina (Wilson). At the end of WWII, the French fought a war trying to maintain its control over its SEAsian territories.

French Indo-China ended with the French humiliation at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. At the Geneva Conference of 1954, Vietnam gained its independence. Myth about Thailand: There is a long-standing myth that Thailand was never colonized. Factually speaking, though, Siam was being squeezed from the west by the British and from the east by the French (Barton 58). Siam had to give up large chunks of land in exchange for keeping its territorial integrity. Only the middle core of Siam was unoccupied (Barton 58). U.S.A. (1898-1946): After the global triumph of the U.S. over Spain in 1898, the U.S. moved in to colonize the Philippines. Admiral Dewey defeated Spain in Manila Bay on May 1, 1898. Aguinaldo declared Philippine independence on June 12, 1898 and the Philippine Republic on January 23, 1899 but the U.S. did not recognize it. Hence, the Philippine-American War started in 1899 and went on for about 10 years.

About 400,000 to 600,000 Filipinos were killed and 10,000 Americans died. On Feb. 6, 1899, the U.S. Senate voted to annex the Philippines. On July 4, 1901, U.S. President McKinley set up civil government and appointment the Philippine Commission which was headed by William Howard Taft. Mark Twain was the most famous literary adversary of the Philippine-American War and he served as a vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League from 1901 until his death. The Philippines became a commonwealth in 1935 and independent in 1946 after World War II. The western colonial powers had economic, social, political, and cultural impact on the peoples and states of SEA. They brought about rapid changes in SEA. EFFECTS DECOLONIZATION Nationalism, Decolonization, and Independence Colonial experience had an impact on the rise of anti-colonial as well as anti-fascist (anti-Japanese aggression) nationalist fervor that spawned independence movements. Southeast Asian elites responded to western colonialism in a continuum anywhere from adaptation, collaboration, to resistance.

The traditional elite failed in their struggle. Many Filipino intellectuals identified themselves with colonial Spain and the U.S. Cultural and indigenous religious movements surfaced and emphasized a national identity based upon traditional religious and cultural values. For instance, the Young Manï¿½s Buddhist Association in Burma set up in 1906 aimed to bring down western influence. In Indonesia, the Sarekat Islam which was a nationalist political party (1912) aimed to bring Moslem Indonesians under its reformist agenda. Western-style political movements were created; they drew inspiration from western ideologies and models. Western education sons of the traditional aristocracy or the bureaucratic elite at the national level and school teachers, government officials and clerks at the local local level led nationalist movements. In Burma, University of Rangoon students formed the Dobayma Asiyone (ï¿½We Burmanï¿½) society in 1935. Dobayman Asiyone members called themselves Thakins (ï¿½Masterï¿½). Furthermore, Aung San, U Nu and Ne Win would rise to become key figures in independent Burma. In the Philippines, some leaders who were exposed to western ideals waged a revolutionary war against Spain.

Others later cooperated with the U.S. In Malaya, educated Malays joined the civil service and worked closely with the British rulers (Wilson). Dutch-educated Indonesians formed the Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI) in 1927. It later became a clandestine movement and the leaders went into political exile. In Indochina, only in Vietnam was the nationalist movement present. Communist leaders and parties rose in many parts of SEA. They were active in Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. Moreover, new economic, administrative and political elites emerged within which ideals of modernization and tradition competed. New national identities were created; they drew upon traditional cultural symbols and western systems. Charismatic national leaders such as Ho Chi Minh and Sukarno embody national resurgence. World War II in the Asia-Pacific Region Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Clark Air Base on December 7, 1941. Japanese aggression took place in many parts of Asia and the Pacific, including Southeast Asian countries. Japan occupied Indochina through a treaty with the pro-German Vichy government in France (Wilson). In the Philippines, the last U.S. forces surrendered to the Japanese in May 1942.

The Japanese set up an ï¿½independentï¿½ puppet ï¿½Philippine Republicï¿½. On October 20, 1944, US forces returned to the Philippines. On July 4, 1946, the U.S. granted independence to the Philippines. On March 29, 1942, Filipinos organized the Hukbalahap (Peopleï¿½s Anti-Japanese Army). In Southeast Asia, only the Filipinos fought the fiercest battle against the Japanese aggressors. At its height, there were 260,000 anti-Japanese guerrillas. The U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Approximately 130,000 were killed, wounded, or missing, while 90% of the city was flattened. On August 9, 1945, the U.S. dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki.

About 75,000 people were killed or injured, while more than 1/3 of the city was destroyed. On August 14, 1945, Japan surrendered to the Allied forces in Tokyo, Japan. Conclusion Modern Southeast Asian countries emerge from their rich history, diverse cultures as well as their social transformation from their anti-western colonial struggle as well as their anti-Japanese resistance during World War II. Bibliography Barton, Thomas F., Robert C. Kingsbury, and Gerald R. Showalter. Southeast Asia in Maps. Chicago: Denoyer-Geppert Company, 1970. Fodorï¿½s Southeast Asia. New York: Fodorï¿½s Travel Guides, 1984. Hall, D.G.E. A History of South-east Asia, 4th rev edn. London: Macmillan, 1981. Osborne, M. 2000, Southeast Asia : An introductory history, 8th edn. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, 2000. Reid, Anthony.

ï¿½An ï¿½Age of Commerceï¿½ in Southeast Asian History,ï¿½ Modern Asian Studies, 24, I (1990), pp. 1-30. Tarling, M. 2001, Southeast Asia:A Modern History. Melbourne: OUP, 2001. Wilson, Constance. ï¿½Colonialism and Nationalism in Southeast Asia.ï¿½ (Outline). colonialism.htm How did Siam (Thailand) avoid colonization by Europeans? : AskHistorians (9 children) Since this thread doesn't seem to have received any more detailed answers, I'll do as promised and try to flesh my prevoius reply out a bit. First, though, I'd like to point out that I'm not quite a historian: I have a BA in history and an MSc in conflict studies. I also don't consider myself to be a South-East Asia expert, although of course I know a bit about the region. That said, here goes: To begin with, it's necessary to outline the time period in question.

It was primarily during the reign of three Siamese kings that colonialism can be said to have been a real threat to the state. These are Mongkut (1851-1868), Chulalongkorn (1868-1910) and Vajiravudh (1910-1925), also known as Rama IV, Rama V and Rama VI respectively. Out of these, Chulalongkorn (or Rama V) was clearly the most significant by virtue of his long reign and emphasis on modernisation. European expansion into South-East Asia started around the middle of the 19th century. The British approached from India in the west and colonised Burma, as well as coming up the Malay peninsula, while the French came in from the east conquering Cambodia and what is today Vietnam as well as eventually gaining control over Laos (though this was not until a lot later). At the time, the entire region had a well established political system in place. This political system was quite different from the European idea of the nation-state, and was based on spheres of influence with weaker rulers paying tribute to more powerful rulers.

The system has been called the “mandala” system. The king of Siam was for a long time the most powerful ruler in today's Thailand, claiming tribute from a large number of local rulers. I won't go further into this system here, but if you want to read more on it check out Oliver Wolters, History, Culture and Religion in Southeast Asian Perspectives (1982). What the Siamese kings appear to have realised (and which I don't believe their neighbours caught up on, although this is outside my field) is that they needed to cement their rule in the image of European states in order to be accepted by them as (not quite) equals. They embarked on a massive nation-building exercise, defining a specific space in the world for Siam with its nation as Thai. This process was obviously very complex. Here I'm only going to mention two elements: Map-making and the concentration of power. First, map-making: An important element of European colonialism is the use of knowledge. The Brits and the French found it necessary to map the territories they ruled, and by mapping a territory they also claimed it as their own.

When borders are not clearly defined (which they were not in the mandala system) the first side to map an area also lays down the first borders. If any negotiations need to take place later, the borders already laid down on maps will be a starting point. The Siamese rulers realised this and started the process of mapping the territory which they felt belonged to Siam, thus significantly strengthening their bargaining position and their claims to legitimacy. Second, the concentration of power: In the mandala system power is very diffused. Local rulers exert their influence as much as they can, but large areas are outside the reach of any rulers and no ruler has the military means to exert direct control over huge swathes of land (more on that specific issue f.ex. in James Scott, The Art of Not Being Governed, 2009). Chulalongkorn established a standing professional military for the first time in Siamese history. While it would never have been able to stand up to western armies, it provided him with a strong muscleand enabled him to have more control over the local rulers.

Eventually the local rulers were all deposed or stripped of their powers, ending with the king of Patani in 1902, and power was transferred to Bangkok. Other elements were also very important, such as using historiography to create a sense of an eternal Thai nation, and the spread of the Thai language to areas which previously spoke different languages. If you want to read more about this nation-state-building process, I strongly recommend the book Thongchai Winichakul, Siam Mapped (1994). Siam became a state in the image of its European competitors. This made the position of the Siamese kings much stronger than it otherwise would have been. They were able to make treaties with France and Britain to deliniate borders, if not as equals in practice then at least as equals on paper. Siam was a much weaker country than France and Britain, and it got a lot less than it wanted – losing what is today Laos, for example. Nevertheless it was a legitimate sovereign country and the political discourse of the time would have made it very difficult to justify conquering it. All of this is not to say it would have been impossible for Siam to be colonised.

Had either France or Britain seen it to be in their interests to colonise Siam, they probably would have. That's where the Siamese kings might be said to have been lucky: Their state served as a useful buffer between the two European powers, ensuring that a confrontation between them would not occur in South-East Asia. In 1896 Britain and France codified this by signing an agreement that they would maintain Siam as a buffer between their two areas of control. Both of those countries were nevertheless able to exercise power over Siam and France, for example, sailed warships into Bangkok to force Siam to cede its claims to Laos in 1893. Western countries actually had a lot of economic influence in Siam during the period in question making them less interested in taking over politically as well. Through bi-lateral treaties, countries including France, Britain and the US had aquired very important concessions, such as extra-territoriality for their own citizens and very beneficial rules regarding trade and export. However this is a side of the issue which I don't know a lot about, so I won't go into further details.

Eventually, Siam managed to hold out as a sovereign country for a long enough time to survive the period of European colonial ambitions. They sided with the allies in World War I, earning some diplomatic respect, and by the end of that war the tide had turned against colonialism anyway. I'm sure others might give completely different versions of the story (maybe focusing more on hard military facts), but those are my two cents. Note that I deliberately didn't touch on previous periods, where Siam was definitely threatened by European powers. This is because at the time those European powers don't seem to have been interested in colonisation, only in trade. What I've written above wasn't directly taken from sources, it's written from memory. This is simply because unfortunately I don't have many sources at hand. However, I'll mention three reads you might like, in addition to the three mentioned in the text above: Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit, A History of Thailand. 2009. Craig Reynolds, Seditious Histories: Contesting Thai and Southeast Asian Pasts. 2006.

Eiji Murashima, “The Origin of the Modern Official State Ideology in Thailand”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 19(1). 1988. None of these is directly about colonialism as such, but all necessarily touch upon it. I hope this gives you some further insight into the whole matter. (9 children) I'm Thai and Thai people literally worship King Rama V. Many people have a picture of him next to their Buddha statues. He's credited with saving Thailand and Thai culture from being a kind of hybrid culture like Vietnam. Thai people give him all the credit because he ruled during the height of colonial expansion in SE Asia and he was skilled enough to cede land to the French but still keep the heart of Thai territory. Many Thais are still angry at how we had to give up Laos to the French because really Laos is Thailand. I don't mean that Laos used to be part of Thailand on the map... what I mean is their people speak Thai (northern Thai dialect), eat exactly the same food, and their culture is almost exactly like people from Northern Thailand. Many Laos people consider themselves to be Thai and want o be Thai. Its just the map says otherwise.

On another note, Thais say Rama V saved Buddhism in Thailand. If the French were able to colonize central Thailand, many believe they wouldve destroyed all the temples, sent French missionaries to convert everyone to Catholicism, and basically tried to whitewash Thailand. It wouldve been like s. Vietnam. Thais are very proud to be the only se asian country to never be colonized and i feel like its mostly due to the leadership of Rama V. 10 Countries That Were Never Colonized | AFKInsider 10 Countries That Were Never Colonized Print En.Wikipedia.org Colonial powers — traditionally European — have left lasting legacies in the countries they once controlled, and often, it’s not for the best. But while the majority of nations have to deal with colonial legacies in some respect, a select few managed to escape colonial rule altogether. The following non-European countries were never ruled by a European country for any significant period between the year 1400 and the present. These countries are currently operating as sovereign and independent states. Here are 10 countries that were never colonized.

Sources: TisdelsTirades.Blogspot.co.nz, Yahoo.com, AfricanHistory.About.com, eHow.com, Britannica.com, LinkedIn.com Pixabay.com Liberia Liberia officially became a country in 1847, but before that, several countries had set up trading posts throughout the region, including England, Portugal, and the Netherlands. Some claim the U.S. had set up colonial rule in Liberia for a period. The Cape Mesurado Colony on the Grain Coast was established in 1821 as a place to send former slaves from the U.S., but the short time-frame and lack of over-reaching American influence allows Liberia to qualify for this list. Pixabay.com Japan Japan was one of the only Asian countries to escape Western colonization, becoming a colonizing power itself in the region. As the country fought against foreign influence and intrusion, only the Dutch and Chinese managed to set up trading ports in Japan, despite the efforts of other nations. Japan, for its part, set up spheres of influence in the surrounding islands, as well as in Korea, Taiwan, and South Sakhalin.

Pixabay.com Thailand Thailand is well aware of its unique heritage that does not include a colonial legacy, and often uses the phrase “land of the freedom” to express pride in the fact that it has remained Thai-dominated since the first millennia B.C. Despite immense pressure from European powers, Thailand escaped colonial rule by maintaining strong rulers and exploiting the tension between colonizing powers – namely France and Great Britain – which had spheres of influence across neighboring countries in Asia. Pixabay.com Bhutan Bhutan is one of the few countries that has indisputably maintained complete sovereignty throughout history, even before its official consolidation as a nation state in 1616. Though it did have to fight several wars against the British during the 18th and 19th centuries, subsequently losing bits of its territory and political influence outside of its borders, Bhutan remained entirely autonomous throughout the colonial period. PIxabay.com Iran Iran suffered during the 1800s as the Russians and British fought to build their empires in the Middle East, but was never subjugated to colonization in any official sense.

The country did lose some of its territory during the Russo-Persian and Anglo-Persian Wars, and was briefly occupied by the Russians in 1911 and the British during World War I, but was still considered an autonomous state throughout history. Commons.Wikemedia.org Nepal Since Nepal was united by King Prithvi Narayan Shah in 1744 C.E., it has existed as a sovereign nation. While it was briefly a protectorate of Great Britain, it was never a British colony, even fighting a war and ceding a third of its territory to ensure its continued autonomy from the empire. It is thought that Nepal’s isolated geographical position high in the Himalayas helped it withstand colonial rule, though it is agreed that both India and China exerted some influence in the region. Pixabay.com Tonga In 1900, Tonga became a protected state under the Treaty of Friendship with Britain, setting up a British Consul in the state until 1970, but no higher permanent representative was permitted. The indigenous monarchy of Tonga has been maintained until the present day, and has enjoyed an uninterrupted succession of hereditary rulers from the same family since its inception.

PIxabay.com China China, not including Hong Kong and Macao, has never been an official colony of any other power. However, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, China did enter into trade agreements with most Western powers, including Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, and the U.S., that were largely considered disadvantageous to China, as it was forced to make some territorial concessions. This period of unequal treaties is sometimes considered semi-colonialist, though no one power ever exerted complete control across the coutry. PIxabay.com Ethiopia Apart from a five-year period when Ethiopia fell to Mussolini’s New Roman Empire, Ethiopia has maintained its autonomy throughout history. The Italians were ejected by the British in 1941, and Ethiopia regained its full independent status in 1944, but had existed independently way before then. Even during the Italian occupation from 1936 to 1941, Mussolini’s troops were under constant attack from Ethiopian guerrilla troops and Italy never maintained full order in the country. Commons.Wikimedia.org Korea Back when Korea existed as one nation state, it resisted colonial rule from Western powers.

It is somewhat difficult to consider Korea wholly independent throughout history, however, as it was under Japanese rule for more than 30 years until independence in 1945 during World War II. But in the lens of resisting Western colonization, Korea is said to have maintained its independence from European rule throughout history. Sign up for the AFKInsider newsletter — the most compelling business news you need to know from Africa and the African diaspora, delivered straight to your inbox. What would Southeast Asia be like today if the Europeans never colonized it? - Quora Quora Written May 22, 2015 I suspect that the many of the smaller SE Asian states would have been absorbed by other more powerful and centralized states from Asia. It is likely in my opinion that Thailand (Siam), which used to rule Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu, would have extended its control over an even larger portion of the Malay peninsula, possibly all the way to Singapore. Laos would still be a part of Siam. Siam would however be busy fighting with the Vietnamese and Burmese empires.

Japan would have expanded southwards beyond the Ryukyu Kingdom and Taiwan, taking over Luzon and other parts of the north of the Philippines archipelago and becoming a SE Asian power in the process. They probably would not have gone to war with the Qing empire because it would have been easier just to take over Luzon. Indonesia would have never existed. In its place, we might have a Javanese state, an Acehnese state, etc. There would also be many small island states in the different parts of Indonesia. Many of the smaller states/sultanates would have however coalesced to resist the Thais, the Javanese and other SE Asian powers. Many of the bigger states would have pursued a path of modernization like Meiji Japan, Qing China and Siam did, importing European legal systems, military technology and industry. Those that did not modernize fast enough would have been absorbed by those that did modernize successfully, like how Korea was taken over by Japan. Without SE Asia as a base for the European powers to interfere in China, Qing China would have modernized more successfully and crushed the nascent Han Chinese nationalism movement which arose in part because of its weakness vis a vis Japan and the European colonial powers.

This more powerful Qing China would have continued to 'boss' around SE Asian states like Burma, Siam and Vietnam at its periphery. 1.7k Views · View Upvotes · Answer requested by I can speak for Burma. TL;DR: The Burmese monarchy and kingdom may have survived to present times. Modern-day Burma's geography may have looked drastically different. The ethnic conflicts across Burma's borderlands may not have occurred. Burma may not have become such a big producer of illicit drugs (e.g., heroin and methamphetamines). Mass numbers of Indians and Chinese may not have immigrated to Burma. Point 1: In the mid-1800s, both Siam and Burma had forward-thinking kings (Chulalongkorn and Mindon Min) who tried to modernize their respective kingdoms' administration and economy to withstand European influence and presence in Asia. They also actively dispatched officials to obtain European educations and encouraged the introduction of Western-style reforms. However, a series of 3 unfortunate wars with the British (the Anglo-Burmese Wars) immensely reduced the Burmese kingdom's clout and territory size and eventual annexation of the whole kingdom.

Point 2: Until the 1800s, Burma was a regional Asian power, and an expansionist one at that. As late as the 1780s, it was still conquering independent kingdoms, including Arakan (which now forms the western coast of Burma, bordering Bangladesh), Tenassarim (annexed through wars with Thailand, forming the southeastern 'tail' of Burma), Assam and Manipur (now part of Northeastern India). It successfully fended off attacks from Qing China (Sino-Burmese Wars) and consistently eyed territories to the northeast (Laos and Lan Na). Lan Na had been subjected to Burmese rule (both direct and indirect), for over 2 centuries. Only in the late did Lan Na become a Siamese vassal state. Point 3: Ethnic nationalism and ethnic consciousness were a direct result of colonial rule. For instance, colonial rule led to the invention of a pan-ethnic 'Karen' identity among the S'gaw and Pwo peoples (who speak different languages and live in different parts of Burma).

Had the British not come in and converted large swathes of Burma's ethnic minorities to Christianity (through American missionaries), such separatist ethnic movements may have never emerged. Much of the ethnic conflict in Burma is a direct legacy of colonial rule. (On a side note, the clear historical trend in precolonial Burma was for highland peoples and ethnic minorities to assimilate to lowland Burman norms. The Shan peoples are a great example of this. They were intricately tied to the Burmese monarchy through intermarriages and alliances, and as time passed, adopted more and more Burman norms.) Point 4: Related to the ethnic conflicts in Burma's borderlands. The money from drug trafficking and production has funded these ethnic conflicts on both sides (the Burmese military and the ethnic minorities), and fueled associated problems, such as drug addiction, human trafficking, and the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Point 5: The British actively encouraged immigration from British India and from Southern China. Many Chinese immigrants entered Burma via British Malaya. Their influence has been greatly felt in modern Burmese cuisine, ethnic makeup, religion, and other traditions, especially in Lower Burma, which was subjected to British rule for a longer period of time.

During this period, hundreds of Hindi and Chinese words were imported into the Burmese vocabulary. There are obviously more, but these are the 5 big ones that come to mind.

Question: Which is the only country in Southeast Asia never to have been colonized by a European power?
Answer: Thailand