The book narrates the history of Thailand by tracing the contours and contents of, what the author calls, 'National Humiliation discourse' which is presented as central to Thai nationalist consciousness. In this discourse, the memories of humiliation at the hands of the foreign powers are preserved by the state and are used to instill nationalist passions among people. The instances of humiliation are the chosen traumas of Thailand. The imagery of these chosen traumas is lost territories - the lands that Thailand had to cede to French Indochina at different points of time in history beginning from 1893, when Thailand lost a war to France which led to a series of territorial loss over the years. While the territorial loss has been justified as a measure to protect sovereignty by Thailand in the mainstream accounts of history, the propagators of nationalist humiliation discourse highlight that the loss of territories took place under humiliating circumstances and hence, it is implied that the lost territories are to be reclaimed under favorable circumstances.
By describing various relevant events, the book chronicles the evolution of Thai nationalism under the shadows of unequal treaties and territorial loss. One of the turning points in the modern history of Thailand was the overthrow of the absolute monarchy which elevated Phibun Songkram to power in 1930s. Phibun's regime was a departure from the previous regime, so the Monarchy-centered nationalist narratives would not serve the regime's purpose. In this context, he strategically nurtured the Nationalist Humiliation Discourse which also contained an irredentist agenda. He thus stirred up the nationalist passions over the lost territories which Thailand supposedly possessed ownership of, prior to the incursions of European powers in the region. An opportunity arose during the second world war when France suffered a defeat early on and was no longer military powerful. Taking advantage of this weakened position of France, Phibun successfully invaded French Indochina and annexed four provinces from French Indochina in 1941 in accordance with Thailand's historical claims.
Thailand's redemption of its lost glory through territorial annexation wouldn't last long. In the second world war, Thailand had fought on the side of Japan. Part of the reason why Thailand supported Japan was because of the existential threat that Japan had posed at the start of the war with its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. However, Thailand also supported Japan because Thai elites knew that Japan's mission to get Asia rid of European powers could advance Thailand's own territorial ambitions in the region. Unfortunately, it soon turned out that Thailand was fighting on a losing side. Japan got defeated and in the post-war world, Thailand narrowly escaped from the same fate as Japan. Nevertheless, Thailand didn't emerge unscathed from the war. It had to return the earlier annexed territories to French Indochina in 1946, reopening the old wound of humiliation at the hands of colonial France.
In the mid-20th century, the exit of France from Indochina put Cambodia and Thailand face-to-face over some disputed territories. The focal point of dispute was Preah Vihear Temple, which both countries claimed as their own. Unable to find a solution, Cambodia took the dispute to ICJ. Based on a map prepared by French Indochina in the early 20th century which Thailand seemed to have endorsed back then, the ICJ ruled in favor of Cambodia. Grudgingly, Thailand accepted the court verdict and recognized the sovereignty of Cambodia over the Temple in 1960s. However, this went down in history as another instance of humiliation at the hands of ICJ and Europeans - portraying Cambodia as a pawn of the imperialist forces. The Temple again became a bone of contention in 2008 after Cambodia's successful bid to declare it a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Though earlier supported by Thailand in this bid, the political mood changed soon afterwards in the country and Nationalist Humiliation Discourse was again invoked to (re)claim the Temple, which only shows how relevant and potent the discourse continues to be in contemporary Thailand.
Overall, the book is a very engaging read and succeeds in presenting a fascinating account of Thailand's history through the lens of nationalist discourse.