從暹羅到泰國：失落的土地與被操弄的歷史

Southeast Asia: Politics, Meaning, and Memory

by Shane Strate, 夏恩‧史崔特, 譚天 (Translator)

泰國人民一直深信他們的國家從未淪為殖民地；泰國史學者更是為國家光榮的獨立史自豪不已。但另一方面，泰國政治領袖與媒體人，總是痛斥西方殖民主義，說帝國主義者盜了泰國領土，把西方看成威脅，將泰國描繪成一個犧牲者。

何以有兩造的極端說法？這凸顯泰國與西方之間撲朔迷離的關係。

《從暹羅到泰國》深入探討這個難題，檢驗這兩個重要又對立的史學論點：一是千百年來不曾間斷、頌揚獨立的「王室─國族主義論」；一是史崔特所謂的「國恥論」，把泰國描述成西方帝國主義霸凌下的受害者，認定西方國家表面上大談支持與合作，背地裡在阻撓泰國發展，國家成了苦難與外力壓迫下造就的悲劇英雄。

史崔特深入分析，泰國政界人士如何運用國恥論，支持他們的種族沙文主義與軍事擴張，並鼓吹一種反西方的國家主義形式。他揭露泰國如何以國恥論為意識型態基礎，建立民族統一策略、發動反天主教運動；泰國政界人士如何運用這種史觀重塑泰國認同，提升軍方角色，把軍隊說成民族救主。

「操控歷史記憶」如何做到，史崔特提供全面、精闢的分析，並深刻呈現從暹羅到泰國的完整史觀。

Genres: History

344 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 2015

Reviews

[WaldenOgre · Rating 4 out of 5]

作者试图通过仔细回溯历史来表明，泰国如今盛行的历史观是由泰国从未遭受过殖民这一“选定神话”和泰国因遭受西方殖民列强欺压而逐步丧失领土这一“选定创痛”共同组成的。但相较之下，后者的动员能力要强得多。

然而，所有一切史观，同时也都是由人为遴选出的需要记住的历史和需要遗忘的事实这两者构成的混合物。Shane Strate 进一步认为表面上丧权辱国的《鲍林条约》其实也在暹罗的建国过程中扮演了重要的角色。暹罗并没有因此而失去主权，而是构建了一套和传统的纳贡体系完全不一样的主权观念。甚至治外法权也因为曼谷垄断了和英国人打交道的权力，而在实际上起到了加强中央权威的作用，因为曼谷从此可以借英国人的威势而使其附庸国臣服。

这样的外部视角，必然不会被大多数泰国人认同。但至少作者的这句话说得一点也没错了：“选定创痛一旦重启，损伤的历史真实性就不再重要，因为这记忆的功能已经改变。”

关于这一点，作为中国读者的我们也是有着切身体会的了。

[Binit · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Xiahou · Rating 4 out of 5]

歷史總是受到選取粉飾而成爲工具，民意更是永遠逃不掉被引導和操弄的命運。在國際關係中，爲了自身利益而爾虞我詐恃強凌弱也不是什麼新鮮事，但最重要的大概還是得想辦法讓自己強大吧。否則自己沒有實力又喜歡做春秋大夢，實際只能投機抱各種大腿，當其投奔的「主子」沒如其所願時又氣急敗壞地上竄下跳，就顯得像個精神病了。
作者雖然提出了「國恥論」，但似乎認爲這僅僅只是團結國民，轉移內部矛盾的方法。我覺得這大概還是因爲他自所在的「陣地」是殖民者一方。當年亞洲被歐美殖民，當地人很多時候根本沒有被當作人來看待，這也是民族主義容易被煽動起來的原因。從曾經的殖民者的角度自然無法理解。