THE THAI'S UNIQUE VIEW OF KHMER PEOPLE AND HISTORY
I AGREE with the historical description by Kenneth T So in "The Khmer home in Southeast Asia: A Wider View", (Post August 6-19, 1999). I do not think that Mr So is obsessed about the Khmer past, as C Rabour has alleged. Rather, Mr So was provoked by Don Pramudwinai who has asserted that Battambang and Siem Reap were historically part of Thailand or Siam.
Battambang, Siem Reap and Srei Sophorn, (later Serei Sophom, or Sisophon as the Thai pronunciation of it) never belonged to Siam (known as Thailand since 1939). Those regions have always belonged to Cambodia, but have been attacked and at certain times in history, annexed by Thailand. Most recently, these regions were invaded and taken by Siam/Thailand in 1795 and 1941. They remained under Thai control until 1946.
The first Siamese invasion and looting of Angkor was in about 1352 and again in the 1430s. Ayuthaya, the Siamese capital, itself was built on top of the demise of Sri Dvaravati, former kingdom of the Mons.
The provinces taken from the Khmers in 1795 were Battambang, Siem Reap/Angkor, Bongkol-borei, Srei Sophorn, Siem Pang. In 1814 more provinces were annexed by Siam, namely Mlou Prei, Tole Peou, and Stung Treng.
Only in 1907 were most of these provinces returned to Cambodia. However, other Khmer borei, now called provinces or khet, such as Norkor Reachborie (Korat), Boreirom (Buriram), Sorint (Surin), Korkhan, Sisaket, Bascemborie (Prachinburi), Chantaborie (Chantaburi), Champasak and Trat annexed before 1790, have remained under Thai occupation till today.
Under the French-Thai treaty executed in 1907, the Thais were required to return to Cambodia only those provinces taken by the Thais after 1790. For this, Thais should thank the Anglo-French conflict, because Thailand was not part of French Indochina but was an ally of the English.
History from the Thai point of view, especially relating to the Angkorian legacy, was cultivated by King Mongkut and later his son, Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, the "father of Thai modern history" and the architect of the Thai modern state.
It has been reinforced by people like Luang Vichitr Vadhakarn, the director of Department of Fine Arts in 1932 and his successor Dhanit Yupho in the 1960s when the Thais were engaged in nationalist and prejudicial policies toward their neighbors, especially the Khmers.
History as told by the leaders of Thailand has been an attempt to reinforce Thai nationalism and to clarify the confused national identity of the Thai people. Confused because the Yunan Thais, the Vietnamese and the Chinese have, to use David Chandler's phrase, an identity crisis. The Chinese are not worried but the other two are. The Thais began their identity crisis during the 1908-1910 riots when Chinese residents refused to pay Thai taxes. The Vietnamese crisis started when they split from Qin or China. One way to try to distinguish themselves from Chinese, Vietnamese women dyed their teeth black, a very painful process.
After the Siamese victory, with Khmer military assistance, in the long and destructive wars with Burma (1548-1592, 1760-1767); and the founding of the current Chakkri dynasty in 1782 (the current King is the ninth King of the dynasty) the Siamese began to attack the traditional boundaries of Cambodia.
In the 1850s, King Mongkut hired a Welsh governess, Anna Leonowens, to educate his children. As a result of this different education, lifestyle and Western way of thinking, successive Thai kings began to view Khmer traditions and lifestyle as outdated. The Chakkri kings began to view the Khmers to be Khmamen padong or "the jungle Khmers", hence the uncivilized Khmers.
The term "contemptible Khmamen" lives on today. This prejudice was so strong that many of the successive Thai generations did not want to have any thing to do with the Khmer people, which has led to the propagation in Thailand of a uniquely Thai version of history relating to the Khmers. History as taught to Thai children has encouraged a terrible prejudicial stereotyping of Khmers which continues, in my experience, to this day.
I personally experienced discrimination by Thais. I was invited to the Thailand home of a Thai of Khmer origin. At first the whole family was nice and friendly, but once I was introduced as Khmer, the youngsters began to treat me with contempt. The parents were quite embarrassed and had to apologize, whispering to me that it was sad that the children did not know that they were of Khmer origin. When I asked if they told their children they were of Khmer origin, they told me that "it is not wise to do so in the circumstances".
The dinner went on. The children chose not to join us at the dinner table. I wondered why they would treat me this way. I realized that I was the "contemptible Khmer" they had heard about in classes on Thai history. Racial discrimination comes from two things: fear and/or ignorance. In the case of Thais, it stems from an ignorance about Khmer civilization.
Another reason for the manipulation of history by the Thais came from the amazing evidence of Khmer civilization which, according to historians, was well advanced by the time Christianity came into existence.
This civilization encompassed the lands taken by Thailand from Cambodia - the architecture, court etiquette, culture and traditional religion and language. (The Pali language, used in Khmer scripts, was used by the Siamese until the 19th century.)
The Thais have adopted or appropriated much of the great Khmer legacy as their own and due to their view of Khmers as uncivilized, refuse to link their "history" with Cambodian history.
A more recent example of appropriation of Khmer history by Thailand is found in Luang Vichitr Vadhakarn's book, Thailand's case, and Prince Damrong's Nirat Nakhorn Wat (Trip to Angkor Wat), treated as official historical texts by Thailand.
According to Vadhakarn's theory, the place now called Cambodia once belonged to an ethnic group called "Khom". They were eliminated by the Thais. The Khmers who lived in present-day Cambodia were part of the Thai race. This is, according to Vadhakarn, proven by the identical-ly similar civilization, culture, tradition and arts of the two countries.
Vadhakarn was not alone in this theory. A Thai nationalist newspaper, Chaothai, on 31 October 1959, stated the same thing. The newspaper quoted an opposition party leader, Seni Pramoj, a Thai lawyer in the Khmer-Thai dispute in the Preah Vihear case (1962), saying that there was an ethnic group called "Khom" living in the areas now called Thailand and Cambodia. The article continued to say that Thais had killed most of them and the rest were chased away, retreating to India where they once belonged. As a result of this Thai victory, the Thais were divided into groups: one group was concentrated in the lower part, now called Cambodia; and the other one lived in upper part now called Thailand. The proof of this was that the arts and the traditions were strikingly similar.
Vadhakarn also stated "it is an established fact that the Khmers and Cambodians are not the same people... The coming into existence of this new name 'Cambodja' marked the end of the old Khmer Race and the birth of a new people who have 90% of Thai blood". (Thailand's Case, p129).
Contrary to Vadharkan's assertion, the term "Khom" was an ancient word used by Thais and Laos for the Khmer people. According to the historian Charles Keyes, in his article "The Case of the Purloined Lintel: The Politics of a Khmer Shrine as a Thai National Treasure", this term was used in "the popular press - with semi-official backing - to disassociate the modern Khmer from the heritage of Angkor" (p278). The term "Khom" was Thai and Laotian pronunciation and transliteration of "Khmer".
Many peoples have used different terms or pronunciations to describe the Khmer: in about AD 70, Pliny, the Roman author and his exploring son called the Khmer Camarini (Historica Naturalis), they were called Kumar by the Arabs; Kui kmi by the Chams, Coa Mein, or Mein, by the Vietnamese.
Khom have not been terminated as some Thais have claimed. The current Cambodians are the Khom.
In my view, the statement made by Don Pramudwinai of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs in July in the Nation newspaper indicates that Mr Don has been taught history from a Thai perspective.
His statement is indicative of the continuation of the Thai policy of expansionism of his previous leaders, especially the late Phibul Sangkram, the Thai Prime Minister who in World War II, with Japanese assistance, again occupied the Battambang, Serei Sophoan (Sisophon) and Siem Reap provinces between 1941-1946.
Hopefully, the traditional Thai take on history will not prevail in the current Thai-Cambodian border discussions. The Thais may think that saying that these provinces traditionally belonged to Thailand would pressure the Khmers, inducing them to agree to the border proposed by the Thais rather than the original map drawn by the French in 1904.
This Thai attitude arises not from facts, rather from arrogance. It is a rule of thumb now that when you are rich and you have power you can manage to be arrogant. You don't need to care what you utter.
Full Version: Thai Unique view of Khmer?
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 29 2011, 01:51 PM) 
THE THAI'S UNIQUE VIEW OF KHMER PEOPLE AND HISTORY
I AGREE with the historical description by Kenneth T So in "The Khmer home in Southeast Asia: A Wider View", (Post August 6-19, 1999). I do not think that Mr So is obsessed about the Khmer past, as C Rabour has alleged. Rather, Mr So was provoked by Don Pramudwinai who has asserted that Battambang and Siem Reap were historically part of Thailand or Siam.
Battambang, Siem Reap and Srei Sophorn, (later Serei Sophom, or Sisophon as the Thai pronunciation of it) never belonged to Siam (known as Thailand since 1939). Those regions have always belonged to Cambodia, but have been attacked and at certain times in history, annexed by Thailand. Most recently, these regions were invaded and taken by Siam/Thailand in 1795 and 1941. They remained under Thai control until 1946.
The first Siamese invasion and looting of Angkor was in about 1352 and again in the 1430s. Ayuthaya, the Siamese capital, itself was built on top of the demise of Sri Dvaravati, former kingdom of the Mons.
The provinces taken from the Khmers in 1795 were Battambang, Siem Reap/Angkor, Bongkol-borei, Srei Sophorn, Siem Pang. In 1814 more provinces were annexed by Siam, namely Mlou Prei, Tole Peou, and Stung Treng.
Only in 1907 were most of these provinces returned to Cambodia. However, other Khmer borei, now called provinces or khet, such as Norkor Reachborie (Korat), Boreirom (Buriram), Sorint (Surin), Korkhan, Sisaket, Bascemborie (Prachinburi), Chantaborie (Chantaburi), Champasak and Trat annexed before 1790, have remained under Thai occupation till today.
Under the French-Thai treaty executed in 1907, the Thais were required to return to Cambodia only those provinces taken by the Thais after 1790. For this, Thais should thank the Anglo-French conflict, because Thailand was not part of French Indochina but was an ally of the English.
History from the Thai point of view, especially relating to the Angkorian legacy, was cultivated by King Mongkut and later his son, Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, the "father of Thai modern history" and the architect of the Thai modern state.
It has been reinforced by people like Luang Vichitr Vadhakarn, the director of Department of Fine Arts in 1932 and his successor Dhanit Yupho in the 1960s when the Thais were engaged in nationalist and prejudicial policies toward their neighbors, especially the Khmers.
History as told by the leaders of Thailand has been an attempt to reinforce Thai nationalism and to clarify the confused national identity of the Thai people. Confused because the Yunan Thais, the Vietnamese and the Chinese have, to use David Chandler's phrase, an identity crisis. The Chinese are not worried but the other two are. The Thais began their identity crisis during the 1908-1910 riots when Chinese residents refused to pay Thai taxes. The Vietnamese crisis started when they split from Qin or China. One way to try to distinguish themselves from Chinese, Vietnamese women dyed their teeth black, a very painful process.
After the Siamese victory, with Khmer military assistance, in the long and destructive wars with Burma (1548-1592, 1760-1767); and the founding of the current Chakkri dynasty in 1782 (the current King is the ninth King of the dynasty) the Siamese began to attack the traditional boundaries of Cambodia.
In the 1850s, King Mongkut hired a Welsh governess, Anna Leonowens, to educate his children. As a result of this different education, lifestyle and Western way of thinking, successive Thai kings began to view Khmer traditions and lifestyle as outdated. The Chakkri kings began to view the Khmers to be Khmamen padong or "the jungle Khmers", hence the uncivilized Khmers.
The term "contemptible Khmamen" lives on today. This prejudice was so strong that many of the successive Thai generations did not want to have any thing to do with the Khmer people, which has led to the propagation in Thailand of a uniquely Thai version of history relating to the Khmers. History as taught to Thai children has encouraged a terrible prejudicial stereotyping of Khmers which continues, in my experience, to this day.
I personally experienced discrimination by Thais. I was invited to the Thailand home of a Thai of Khmer origin. At first the whole family was nice and friendly, but once I was introduced as Khmer, the youngsters began to treat me with contempt. The parents were quite embarrassed and had to apologize, whispering to me that it was sad that the children did not know that they were of Khmer origin. When I asked if they told their children they were of Khmer origin, they told me that "it is not wise to do so in the circumstances".
The dinner went on. The children chose not to join us at the dinner table. I wondered why they would treat me this way. I realized that I was the "contemptible Khmer" they had heard about in classes on Thai history. Racial discrimination comes from two things: fear and/or ignorance. In the case of Thais, it stems from an ignorance about Khmer civilization.
Another reason for the manipulation of history by the Thais came from the amazing evidence of Khmer civilization which, according to historians, was well advanced by the time Christianity came into existence.
This civilization encompassed the lands taken by Thailand from Cambodia - the architecture, court etiquette, culture and traditional religion and language. (The Pali language, used in Khmer scripts, was used by the Siamese until the 19th century.)
The Thais have adopted or appropriated much of the great Khmer legacy as their own and due to their view of Khmers as uncivilized, refuse to link their "history" with Cambodian history.
A more recent example of appropriation of Khmer history by Thailand is found in Luang Vichitr Vadhakarn's book, Thailand's case, and Prince Damrong's Nirat Nakhorn Wat (Trip to Angkor Wat), treated as official historical texts by Thailand.
According to Vadhakarn's theory, the place now called Cambodia once belonged to an ethnic group called "Khom". They were eliminated by the Thais. The Khmers who lived in present-day Cambodia were part of the Thai race. This is, according to Vadhakarn, proven by the identical-ly similar civilization, culture, tradition and arts of the two countries.
Vadhakarn was not alone in this theory. A Thai nationalist newspaper, Chaothai, on 31 October 1959, stated the same thing. The newspaper quoted an opposition party leader, Seni Pramoj, a Thai lawyer in the Khmer-Thai dispute in the Preah Vihear case (1962), saying that there was an ethnic group called "Khom" living in the areas now called Thailand and Cambodia. The article continued to say that Thais had killed most of them and the rest were chased away, retreating to India where they once belonged. As a result of this Thai victory, the Thais were divided into groups: one group was concentrated in the lower part, now called Cambodia; and the other one lived in upper part now called Thailand. The proof of this was that the arts and the traditions were strikingly similar.
Vadhakarn also stated "it is an established fact that the Khmers and Cambodians are not the same people... The coming into existence of this new name 'Cambodja' marked the end of the old Khmer Race and the birth of a new people who have 90% of Thai blood". (Thailand's Case, p129).
Contrary to Vadharkan's assertion, the term "Khom" was an ancient word used by Thais and Laos for the Khmer people. According to the historian Charles Keyes, in his article "The Case of the Purloined Lintel: The Politics of a Khmer Shrine as a Thai National Treasure", this term was used in "the popular press - with semi-official backing - to disassociate the modern Khmer from the heritage of Angkor" (p278). The term "Khom" was Thai and Laotian pronunciation and transliteration of "Khmer".
Many peoples have used different terms or pronunciations to describe the Khmer: in about AD 70, Pliny, the Roman author and his exploring son called the Khmer Camarini (Historica Naturalis), they were called Kumar by the Arabs; Kui kmi by the Chams, Coa Mein, or Mein, by the Vietnamese.
Khom have not been terminated as some Thais have claimed. The current Cambodians are the Khom.
In my view, the statement made by Don Pramudwinai of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs in July in the Nation newspaper indicates that Mr Don has been taught history from a Thai perspective.
His statement is indicative of the continuation of the Thai policy of expansionism of his previous leaders, especially the late Phibul Sangkram, the Thai Prime Minister who in World War II, with Japanese assistance, again occupied the Battambang, Serei Sophoan (Sisophon) and Siem Reap provinces between 1941-1946.
Hopefully, the traditional Thai take on history will not prevail in the current Thai-Cambodian border discussions. The Thais may think that saying that these provinces traditionally belonged to Thailand would pressure the Khmers, inducing them to agree to the border proposed by the Thais rather than the original map drawn by the French in 1904.
This Thai attitude arises not from facts, rather from arrogance. It is a rule of thumb now that when you are rich and you have power you can manage to be arrogant. You don't need to care what you utter.
I AGREE with the historical description by Kenneth T So in "The Khmer home in Southeast Asia: A Wider View", (Post August 6-19, 1999). I do not think that Mr So is obsessed about the Khmer past, as C Rabour has alleged. Rather, Mr So was provoked by Don Pramudwinai who has asserted that Battambang and Siem Reap were historically part of Thailand or Siam.
Battambang, Siem Reap and Srei Sophorn, (later Serei Sophom, or Sisophon as the Thai pronunciation of it) never belonged to Siam (known as Thailand since 1939). Those regions have always belonged to Cambodia, but have been attacked and at certain times in history, annexed by Thailand. Most recently, these regions were invaded and taken by Siam/Thailand in 1795 and 1941. They remained under Thai control until 1946.
The first Siamese invasion and looting of Angkor was in about 1352 and again in the 1430s. Ayuthaya, the Siamese capital, itself was built on top of the demise of Sri Dvaravati, former kingdom of the Mons.
The provinces taken from the Khmers in 1795 were Battambang, Siem Reap/Angkor, Bongkol-borei, Srei Sophorn, Siem Pang. In 1814 more provinces were annexed by Siam, namely Mlou Prei, Tole Peou, and Stung Treng.
Only in 1907 were most of these provinces returned to Cambodia. However, other Khmer borei, now called provinces or khet, such as Norkor Reachborie (Korat), Boreirom (Buriram), Sorint (Surin), Korkhan, Sisaket, Bascemborie (Prachinburi), Chantaborie (Chantaburi), Champasak and Trat annexed before 1790, have remained under Thai occupation till today.
Under the French-Thai treaty executed in 1907, the Thais were required to return to Cambodia only those provinces taken by the Thais after 1790. For this, Thais should thank the Anglo-French conflict, because Thailand was not part of French Indochina but was an ally of the English.
History from the Thai point of view, especially relating to the Angkorian legacy, was cultivated by King Mongkut and later his son, Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, the "father of Thai modern history" and the architect of the Thai modern state.
It has been reinforced by people like Luang Vichitr Vadhakarn, the director of Department of Fine Arts in 1932 and his successor Dhanit Yupho in the 1960s when the Thais were engaged in nationalist and prejudicial policies toward their neighbors, especially the Khmers.
History as told by the leaders of Thailand has been an attempt to reinforce Thai nationalism and to clarify the confused national identity of the Thai people. Confused because the Yunan Thais, the Vietnamese and the Chinese have, to use David Chandler's phrase, an identity crisis. The Chinese are not worried but the other two are. The Thais began their identity crisis during the 1908-1910 riots when Chinese residents refused to pay Thai taxes. The Vietnamese crisis started when they split from Qin or China. One way to try to distinguish themselves from Chinese, Vietnamese women dyed their teeth black, a very painful process.
After the Siamese victory, with Khmer military assistance, in the long and destructive wars with Burma (1548-1592, 1760-1767); and the founding of the current Chakkri dynasty in 1782 (the current King is the ninth King of the dynasty) the Siamese began to attack the traditional boundaries of Cambodia.
In the 1850s, King Mongkut hired a Welsh governess, Anna Leonowens, to educate his children. As a result of this different education, lifestyle and Western way of thinking, successive Thai kings began to view Khmer traditions and lifestyle as outdated. The Chakkri kings began to view the Khmers to be Khmamen padong or "the jungle Khmers", hence the uncivilized Khmers.
The term "contemptible Khmamen" lives on today. This prejudice was so strong that many of the successive Thai generations did not want to have any thing to do with the Khmer people, which has led to the propagation in Thailand of a uniquely Thai version of history relating to the Khmers. History as taught to Thai children has encouraged a terrible prejudicial stereotyping of Khmers which continues, in my experience, to this day.
I personally experienced discrimination by Thais. I was invited to the Thailand home of a Thai of Khmer origin. At first the whole family was nice and friendly, but once I was introduced as Khmer, the youngsters began to treat me with contempt. The parents were quite embarrassed and had to apologize, whispering to me that it was sad that the children did not know that they were of Khmer origin. When I asked if they told their children they were of Khmer origin, they told me that "it is not wise to do so in the circumstances".
The dinner went on. The children chose not to join us at the dinner table. I wondered why they would treat me this way. I realized that I was the "contemptible Khmer" they had heard about in classes on Thai history. Racial discrimination comes from two things: fear and/or ignorance. In the case of Thais, it stems from an ignorance about Khmer civilization.
Another reason for the manipulation of history by the Thais came from the amazing evidence of Khmer civilization which, according to historians, was well advanced by the time Christianity came into existence.
This civilization encompassed the lands taken by Thailand from Cambodia - the architecture, court etiquette, culture and traditional religion and language. (The Pali language, used in Khmer scripts, was used by the Siamese until the 19th century.)
The Thais have adopted or appropriated much of the great Khmer legacy as their own and due to their view of Khmers as uncivilized, refuse to link their "history" with Cambodian history.
A more recent example of appropriation of Khmer history by Thailand is found in Luang Vichitr Vadhakarn's book, Thailand's case, and Prince Damrong's Nirat Nakhorn Wat (Trip to Angkor Wat), treated as official historical texts by Thailand.
According to Vadhakarn's theory, the place now called Cambodia once belonged to an ethnic group called "Khom". They were eliminated by the Thais. The Khmers who lived in present-day Cambodia were part of the Thai race. This is, according to Vadhakarn, proven by the identical-ly similar civilization, culture, tradition and arts of the two countries.
Vadhakarn was not alone in this theory. A Thai nationalist newspaper, Chaothai, on 31 October 1959, stated the same thing. The newspaper quoted an opposition party leader, Seni Pramoj, a Thai lawyer in the Khmer-Thai dispute in the Preah Vihear case (1962), saying that there was an ethnic group called "Khom" living in the areas now called Thailand and Cambodia. The article continued to say that Thais had killed most of them and the rest were chased away, retreating to India where they once belonged. As a result of this Thai victory, the Thais were divided into groups: one group was concentrated in the lower part, now called Cambodia; and the other one lived in upper part now called Thailand. The proof of this was that the arts and the traditions were strikingly similar.
Vadhakarn also stated "it is an established fact that the Khmers and Cambodians are not the same people... The coming into existence of this new name 'Cambodja' marked the end of the old Khmer Race and the birth of a new people who have 90% of Thai blood". (Thailand's Case, p129).
Contrary to Vadharkan's assertion, the term "Khom" was an ancient word used by Thais and Laos for the Khmer people. According to the historian Charles Keyes, in his article "The Case of the Purloined Lintel: The Politics of a Khmer Shrine as a Thai National Treasure", this term was used in "the popular press - with semi-official backing - to disassociate the modern Khmer from the heritage of Angkor" (p278). The term "Khom" was Thai and Laotian pronunciation and transliteration of "Khmer".
Many peoples have used different terms or pronunciations to describe the Khmer: in about AD 70, Pliny, the Roman author and his exploring son called the Khmer Camarini (Historica Naturalis), they were called Kumar by the Arabs; Kui kmi by the Chams, Coa Mein, or Mein, by the Vietnamese.
Khom have not been terminated as some Thais have claimed. The current Cambodians are the Khom.
In my view, the statement made by Don Pramudwinai of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs in July in the Nation newspaper indicates that Mr Don has been taught history from a Thai perspective.
His statement is indicative of the continuation of the Thai policy of expansionism of his previous leaders, especially the late Phibul Sangkram, the Thai Prime Minister who in World War II, with Japanese assistance, again occupied the Battambang, Serei Sophoan (Sisophon) and Siem Reap provinces between 1941-1946.
Hopefully, the traditional Thai take on history will not prevail in the current Thai-Cambodian border discussions. The Thais may think that saying that these provinces traditionally belonged to Thailand would pressure the Khmers, inducing them to agree to the border proposed by the Thais rather than the original map drawn by the French in 1904.
This Thai attitude arises not from facts, rather from arrogance. It is a rule of thumb now that when you are rich and you have power you can manage to be arrogant. You don't need to care what you utter.
Are you really loas?
QUOTE (Suriin1234 @ Aug 29 2011, 01:02 PM)
Are you really loas?
Yes! I am "Laos".
Why? 
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 29 2011, 02:05 PM)
Yes! I am "Laos". Why?
Why? Because you seem like the only laos to be backing up khmer in this forum.
QUOTE (Suriin1234 @ Aug 29 2011, 01:07 PM)
Because you seem like the only laos to be backing up khmer in this forum.
I'm not backing up anyone Suriin1234. I'm just telling you from the truth. I think everyone needs to open up their eyes especially the Lao people who might also suffer the same faith as the Khmer people. Which is also why you see Thai's member here are very offensive for telling you the truth. Also why Thai member "NoKhamen" never said I disgust him like he is towards the khmer members. You see? Thai's are afraid we tell everyone from the truth. I'm sure the Thai's hate the Lao people like most of its neighbors anyways. We can never be nice to these people ever! It's been two decade that the Lao people had kept its own business among themselves with the Thais. Lao people are very patient people on earth. When these Thai push comes to shove. Then we will prevail our knowledge with the international community. Many have done so not online, but out in the real world. Soon everyone will see the real Thai people and is manipulation.
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 29 2011, 02:14 PM)
I'm not backing up anyone Suriin1234. I'm just telling you from the truth. I think everyone needs to open up their eyes especially the Lao people who might also suffer the same faith as the Khmer people. Which is also why you see Thai's member here are very offensive for telling you the truth. Also why Thai member "NoKhamen" never said I disgust him like he is towards the khmer members. You see? Thai's are afraid we tell everyone from the truth. I'm sure the Thai's hate the Lao people like most of its neighbors anyways. We can never be nice to these people ever! It's been two decade that the Lao people had kept its own business among themselves with the Thais. Lao people are very patient people on earth. When these Thai push comes to shove. Then we will prevail our knowledge with the international community. Many have done so not online, but out in the real world. Soon everyone will see the real Thai people and is manipulation.
one question thats off topic, why does lao ppl some what looks diff from thai or tai ppl?
QUOTE (Suriin1234 @ Aug 29 2011, 01:28 PM)
one question thats off topic, why does lao ppl some what looks diff from thai or tai ppl?
What do you mean?
Every Human being are different in looks. Unless they are mix with certain type of ethnic.
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 29 2011, 02:30 PM)
What do you mean?
Every Human being are different in looks. Unless they are mix with certain type of ethnic.
Every Human being are different in looks. Unless they are mix with certain type of ethnic.
Know I mean the majority of lao ppl in laos don't look like thai ppl like in ching mai or bangkok except isaan. Like lao ppl looks lighter skin then thai it seems .
QUOTE (Suriin1234 @ Aug 29 2011, 01:36 PM)
Know I mean the majority of lao ppl in laos don't look like thai ppl like in ching mai or bangkok except isaan. Like lao ppl looks lighter skin then thai it seems .
Well that's because the real Thai and Siamese actually have dark skin.
They were always well known to be for many generation. But these Thais members here are irritated by us for telling everyone the truth. If you go to Thailand. You will see a lot of Thais who are majority of the time very dark in skin complexion. While if you go to Laos we are light because we are true to ourselves. Which is why Thai's in the past tried to make everyone think we are dark skin people on media to drama movies. Thais are a shame of their own skin color and their own heritage by leeching on to Lao culture and people because they want to be us. Also when watch Thai tv show and such etc Now. You will start to realized that Thai's are trying to speak Lao language with Lao accent.
Thai can trick their mindless people. But they cannot trick the Lao people.
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 29 2011, 02:44 PM)
Well that's because the real Thai and Siamese actually have dark skin. They were always well known to be for many generation. But these Thais members here are irritated by us for telling everyone the truth. If you go to Thailand. You will see a lot of Thais who are majority of the time very dark in skin complexion. While if you go to Laos we are light because we are true to ourselves. Which is why Thai's in the past tried to make everyone think we are dark skin people on media to drama movies.
Thais are a shame of their own skin color and their own heritage by leeching on to Lao culture and people because they want to be us. Also when watch Thai tv show and such etc Now. You will start to realized that Thai's are trying to speak Lao language with Lao accent. Thai can trick their mindless people. But they cannot trick the Lao people.
They were always well known to be for many generation. But these Thais members here are irritated by us for telling everyone the truth. If you go to Thailand. You will see a lot of Thais who are majority of the time very dark in skin complexion. While if you go to Laos we are light because we are true to ourselves. Which is why Thai's in the past tried to make everyone think we are dark skin people on media to drama movies. Thais are a shame of their own skin color and their own heritage by leeching on to Lao culture and people because they want to be us. Also when watch Thai tv show and such etc Now. You will start to realized that Thai's are trying to speak Lao language with Lao accent.
Thai can trick their mindless people. But they cannot trick the Lao people. Ahaha and thai make fun of how dark khmers are
QUOTE (Suriin1234 @ Aug 29 2011, 02:06 PM)
Ahaha and thai make fun of how dark khmers are
Which is why I don't understand Thai's mentality of making fun of others who are dark while they, themselves are dark too!
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 29 2011, 07:44 PM)
Well that's because the real Thai and Siamese actually have dark skin. They were always well known to be for many generation. But these Thais members here are irritated by us for telling everyone the truth. If you go to Thailand. You will see a lot of Thais who are majority of the time very dark in skin complexion. While if you go to Laos we are light because we are true to ourselves. Which is why Thai's in the past tried to make everyone think we are dark skin people on media to drama movies.
Thais are a shame of their own skin color and their own heritage by leeching on to Lao culture and people because they want to be us. Also when watch Thai tv show and such etc Now. You will start to realized that Thai's are trying to speak Lao language with Lao accent. Thai can trick their mindless people. But they cannot trick the Lao people.
They were always well known to be for many generation. But these Thais members here are irritated by us for telling everyone the truth. If you go to Thailand. You will see a lot of Thais who are majority of the time very dark in skin complexion. While if you go to Laos we are light because we are true to ourselves. Which is why Thai's in the past tried to make everyone think we are dark skin people on media to drama movies. Thais are a shame of their own skin color and their own heritage by leeching on to Lao culture and people because they want to be us. Also when watch Thai tv show and such etc Now. You will start to realized that Thai's are trying to speak Lao language with Lao accent.
Thai can trick their mindless people. But they cannot trick the Lao people. Your such an idiot lol
Thai people come in all shades. Because Thai is a national identity. You wan't to see true Lao people? look up the pictures from the 1930's. they are blaaaaaaaaack lol as black as the Khmer.
Lao people white? you got to be fu-king kidding me right? lol Real Lao people are dark as the night, Tai people are light skinned
Tai = light skinned
Austro-Tai = Brown
Khmer Thai = Dark
Did you think Thai was its own race? lol fu-king kidding me right? you guys are retarded.
Thai is not a race, neither is Lao. Both are national/Tribal identity.
Khmers are confused because they have no national Identity. No Khmer ever refer to themselves as Cambodian. Khmers are the ones with Identity crisis
Austro-Tai = Brown
Khmer Thai = Dark
Did you think Thai was its own race? lol fu-king kidding me right? you guys are retarded.
Thai is not a race, neither is Lao. Both are national/Tribal identity.
Khmers are confused because they have no national Identity. No Khmer ever refer to themselves as Cambodian. Khmers are the ones with Identity crisis
QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Aug 29 2011, 07:24 PM)
Your such an idiot lol
Thai people come in all shades. Because Thai is a national identity. You wan't to see true Lao people? look up the pictures from the 1930's. they are blaaaaaaaaack lol as black as the Khmer.
Lao people white? you got to be fu-king kidding me right? lol Real Lao people are dark as the night, Tai people are light skinned
Thai people come in all shades. Because Thai is a national identity. You wan't to see true Lao people? look up the pictures from the 1930's. they are blaaaaaaaaack lol as black as the Khmer.
Lao people white? you got to be fu-king kidding me right? lol Real Lao people are dark as the night, Tai people are light skinned
The Lao people were only dark when we were invaded and mix with the Siamese and some other natives. But we still hold on to that notion of a Siamese being dark people ever since then.
QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Aug 29 2011, 07:28 PM)
Tai = light skinned
Austro-Tai = Brown
Khmer Thai = Dark
Did you think Thai was its own race? lol fu-king kidding me right? you guys are retarded.
Thai is not a race, neither is Lao. Both are national/Tribal identity.
Khmers are confused because they have no national Identity. No Khmer ever refer to themselves as Cambodian. Khmers are the ones with Identity crisis
Austro-Tai = Brown
Khmer Thai = Dark
Did you think Thai was its own race? lol fu-king kidding me right? you guys are retarded.
Thai is not a race, neither is Lao. Both are national/Tribal identity.
Khmers are confused because they have no national Identity. No Khmer ever refer to themselves as Cambodian. Khmers are the ones with Identity crisis
We never said that we were a race you smart @$$. LOL! We have always been trying to compare Nationality versus ethnicity in which some Thai member's here thinks Nationality is the same thing as ethnicity. LMAO!!! Also for the skin color issue. Thai's seem to take offensive about calling them dark Asian people. But hey! That's how their ancestor was the real natives back then. And when we referred to Thai. We automatically pointing at them Siamese darky with a nappy curly oiled up hair you see walking around in Bangkok today in the street.
Also they are known to have dark lips and puffy eyes. LOL! That's you're true Thai/Siamese native right there!
QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Aug 29 2011, 08:28 PM)
Tai = light skinned
Austro-Tai = Brown
Khmer Thai = Dark
Did you think Thai was its own race? lol fu-king kidding me right? you guys are retarded.
Thai is not a race, neither is Lao. Both are national/Tribal identity.
Khmers are confused because they have no national Identity. No Khmer ever refer to themselves as Cambodian. Khmers are the ones with Identity crisis
Austro-Tai = Brown
Khmer Thai = Dark
Did you think Thai was its own race? lol fu-king kidding me right? you guys are retarded.
Thai is not a race, neither is Lao. Both are national/Tribal identity.
Khmers are confused because they have no national Identity. No Khmer ever refer to themselves as Cambodian. Khmers are the ones with Identity crisis
We khmer arn't black your just jelous cause our very brown skin can build such a wonder temple in the mainland indochina ahaha!!!!
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 30 2011, 02:00 AM)
We never said that we were a race you smart @$$. LOL! We have always been trying to compare Nationality versus ethnicity in which some Thai member's here thinks Nationality is the same thing as ethnicity. LMAO!!! Also for the skin color issue. Thai's seem to take offensive about calling them dark Asian people. But hey! That's how their ancestor was the real natives back then. And when we referred to Thai. We automatically pointing at them Siamese darky with a nappy curly oiled up hair you see walking around in Bangkok today in the street. Also they are known to have dark lips and puffy eyes. LOL! That's you're true Thai/Siamese native right there!
Also they are known to have dark lips and puffy eyes. LOL! That's you're true Thai/Siamese native right there! Dark oily curly hair? The only people like that I've seen in Bangkok are Khmer construction workers lol You are living a fantasy. You think Bangkok is the whole Thailand? quite absurd.
Further north you go, the lighter you get. Further south you go the Darker you get. Now why does going east Also mean getting darker? whats to the east of Thailand? oh yeah thats right, cambodia and Laos. Well done you
QUOTE (Suriin1234 @ Aug 30 2011, 02:02 AM)
We khmer arn't black your just jelous cause our very brown skin can build such a wonder temple in the mainland indochina ahaha!!!!
Your brown skin got so brown from being sun burnt when your Khom masters instructed you to drag them stones to build Khom Temples
Khmers didn't have the know how to build it or most importantly when the Khmers came to power...MAINTAIN it. If you built Angkor Wat, would you abandon it? lol
QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Aug 29 2011, 08:44 PM)
Dark oily curly hair? The only people like that I've seen in Bangkok are Khmer construction workers lol You are living a fantasy. You think Bangkok is the whole Thailand? quite absurd.
Further north you go, the lighter you get. Further south you go the Darker you get. Now why does going east Also mean getting darker? whats to the east of Thailand? oh yeah thats right, cambodia and Laos. Well done you
Further north you go, the lighter you get. Further south you go the Darker you get. Now why does going east Also mean getting darker? whats to the east of Thailand? oh yeah thats right, cambodia and Laos. Well done you
But Laos is on top if Thailand. Of course we are light. Very well done with you're logic. I am applaud by you're logistical view.
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 30 2011, 02:47 AM)
But Laos is on top if Thailand. Of course we are light. Very well done with you're logic. I am applaud by you're logistical view.
If Im not mistaken, Laos is East of Thailand. only a part of Laos is situated at a higher point on the map then Thailand. Like I said. The further East you go, the Darker you get.
Did not understand my english? buk haa Lao
Seems simple logic is beyond you. Did they not teach you how to use a compass in school?
QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Aug 29 2011, 08:51 PM)
If Im not mistaken, Laos is East of Thailand. only a part of Laos is situated at a higher point on the map then Thailand. Like I said. The further East you go, the Darker you get.
Did not understand my english? buk haa Lao
Seems simple logic is beyond you. Did they not teach you how to use a compass in school?
Did not understand my english? buk haa Lao
Seems simple logic is beyond you. Did they not teach you how to use a compass in school?
Logically the Earth is round. Which mean Laos is on top of Thailand and leaning on it as well.
And yes I have seen the globe at school its just obvious. And now you're piss off at me so much. You called me Buk Haa Lao? Wow!!! That does hurt!!! Not!
Remember this. When things gets very rough we will make it a hardcore situation.
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 30 2011, 02:58 AM)
Logically the Earth is round. Which mean Laos is on top of Thailand and leaning on it as well. And yes I have seen the globe at school its just obvious.
And now you're piss off at me so much. You called me Buk Haa Lao? Wow!!! That does hurt!!! Not!
Remember this. When things gets very rough we will make it a hardcore situation.
And yes I have seen the globe at school its just obvious. And now you're piss off at me so much. You called me Buk Haa Lao? Wow!!! That does hurt!!! Not!
Remember this. When things gets very rough we will make it a hardcore situation.
lol Im not pissed off in the slightest. Can you translate for me what buk haa lao means? lol
Logically the earth is not actually round. Only the atmosphere surrounding the planet makes it look that way from space
the earth is spherical but not a complete perfect sphere.Laos can be leaning on Thailand for all I care but thats just taking it away from the whole point of the comment. Avoiding the truth a bit aren't we?
QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Aug 29 2011, 09:07 PM)
lol Im not pissed off in the slightest. Can you translate for me what buk haa lao means? lol
Logically the earth is not actually round. Only the atmosphere surrounding the planet makes it look that way from space the earth is spherical but not a complete perfect sphere.
Laos can be leaning on Thailand for all I care but thats just taking it away from the whole point of the comment. Avoiding the truth a bit aren't we?
Logically the earth is not actually round. Only the atmosphere surrounding the planet makes it look that way from space
the earth is spherical but not a complete perfect sphere.Laos can be leaning on Thailand for all I care but thats just taking it away from the whole point of the comment. Avoiding the truth a bit aren't we?
I'm sure you are smart enough to know what Buk Haa Lao means. Most Thai like you used them at school anyways by degrading Lao as a slang word. Also logically if you are right it is a sphere and isn't perfect like you Thai people are. But it is also round in terms of its physical shape for a human eyes can see and determine of the shape in a general sense.
And who is the one turn 180 degree with most of our conversation here tonight? You're the one who is trying to avoid us you silly lopsided d!ck head. LMAO!!!!
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 30 2011, 03:13 AM)
I'm sure you are smart enough to know what Buk Haa Lao means. Most Thai like you used them at school anyways by degrading Lao as a slang word. Also logically if you are right it is a sphere and isn't perfect like you Thai people are. But it is also round in terms of its physical shape for a human eyes can see and determine of the shape in a general sense.
And who is the one turn 180 degree with most of our conversation here tonight? You're the one who is trying to avoid us you silly lopsided d!ck head. LMAO!!!!
And who is the one turn 180 degree with most of our conversation here tonight? You're the one who is trying to avoid us you silly lopsided d!ck head. LMAO!!!!
But can you translate what Buk Haa Lao means?
Ive already made my point on the main topic. Ive just been answering the side tracked comments you keep coming up with
ignorant much?Judging by what you have said so far its probably right to assume you were bullied by Thai kids when you were younger and now you hold nothing but hate to the Thai people. Your not really Lao anyway. Lao people are so nice and chilled. Have you even been to Lao? Lao people love Thai people and vice versa. only Lao nok and the communist government of Laos hates Thailand. Even though Thailand is in the top 2 countries pumping money into Laos.
You people need to get a grip on reality. Thai don't hate Laos. Those that do are just ignorant. But then you find those in any peoples.
QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Aug 29 2011, 09:37 PM)
But can you translate what Buk Haa Lao means?
Ive already made my point on the main topic. Ive just been answering the side tracked comments you keep coming up with ignorant much?
Judging by what you have said so far its probably right to assume you were bullied by Thai kids when you were younger and now you hold nothing but hate to the Thai people. Your not really Lao anyway. Lao people are so nice and chilled. Have you even been to Lao? Lao people love Thai people and vice versa. only Lao nok and the communist government of Laos hates Thailand. Even though Thailand is in the top 2 countries pumping money into Laos.
You people need to get a grip on reality. Thai don't hate Laos. Those that do are just ignorant. But then you find those in any peoples.
Ive already made my point on the main topic. Ive just been answering the side tracked comments you keep coming up with
ignorant much?Judging by what you have said so far its probably right to assume you were bullied by Thai kids when you were younger and now you hold nothing but hate to the Thai people. Your not really Lao anyway. Lao people are so nice and chilled. Have you even been to Lao? Lao people love Thai people and vice versa. only Lao nok and the communist government of Laos hates Thailand. Even though Thailand is in the top 2 countries pumping money into Laos.
You people need to get a grip on reality. Thai don't hate Laos. Those that do are just ignorant. But then you find those in any peoples.
But you already know what Buk Haa Lao mean. So why should I explain it? Its the reason why you first brought it up right?
And also why are you contradicting yourself? You are the main issue for making some of us hate you Thai for trying to lie you're ways into the situation in terms of culture,history and language we know what you Thais are doing and we will keep this to our grand kids in the future so they can remember the true fact about Thais in the past. I'm sure not all Thai hate Lao people like the Isan Thai, but most do especially from Bangkok or southern central of Thailand and most are very mindless and ignorant because I've experience myself many times myself. It also shown that notion here as well. Also I have family in Laos still. It's something that I rather not bring into this situation because its non of your business.
Also SabaiSabai. When you say Buk Haa Lao. That mean you are calling every single Lao person on the planet as a negative element. You obviously hate Lao people for saying this in a general sense. Now I know why not many Lao have anything nice to say here in AF about Thailand and Thai's.
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 30 2011, 04:06 AM)
But you already know what Buk Haa Lao mean. So why should I explain it? Its the reason why you first brought it up right?
And also why are you contradicting yourself? You are the main issue for making some of us hate you Thai for trying to lie you're ways into the situation in terms of culture,history and language we know what you Thais are doing and we will keep this to our grand kids in the future so they can remember the true fact about Thais in the past. I'm sure not all Thai hate Lao people like the Isan Thai, but most do especially from Bangkok or southern central of Thailand and most are very mindless and ignorant because I've experience myself many times myself. It also shown that notion here as well. Also I have family in Laos still. It's something that I rather not bring into this situation because its non of your business.
And also why are you contradicting yourself? You are the main issue for making some of us hate you Thai for trying to lie you're ways into the situation in terms of culture,history and language we know what you Thais are doing and we will keep this to our grand kids in the future so they can remember the true fact about Thais in the past. I'm sure not all Thai hate Lao people like the Isan Thai, but most do especially from Bangkok or southern central of Thailand and most are very mindless and ignorant because I've experience myself many times myself. It also shown that notion here as well. Also I have family in Laos still. It's something that I rather not bring into this situation because its non of your business.
I know what buk haa lao is used for. But honestly when i translate it, it doesn't make sense to me
perhaps a true laos like you can translate for me 555If you cannot see what new evidences have come to light because of the advancement in technology such as carbon dating and new archeological evidence has uncovered then my friend you are just a closed minded person. Myths and legends have been proven wrong already and yet you cling to them even when knowing they are false?
What I am doing is trying to find a logical connection for the Khom people through my research. What people know today such as yourself and just about every Khmer person is that the Khom were the Khmer. If so, then why does the only eyewitness source contradict this?
I would rather find history that is backed up by evidence rather then just assumption based history.
QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Aug 29 2011, 09:47 PM)
Your brown skin got so brown from being sun burnt when your Khom masters instructed you to drag them stones to build Khom Temples
Khmers didn't have the know how to build it or most importantly when the Khmers came to power...MAINTAIN it. If you built Angkor Wat, would you abandon it? lol
Khmers didn't have the know how to build it or most importantly when the Khmers came to power...MAINTAIN it. If you built Angkor Wat, would you abandon it? lol
Who knows? only the ppl in that time knew. You just can't accept our dark brown skin built Angkor Wat. Why don't you write up a book about how the powerful Khom empire came to built the almighty Angkor Wat and that it wasn't the khmer because we was the slaves lets see how that works. Your one of the only few who seriously believe that Khmer ppl did not built it.
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 30 2011, 04:08 AM)
Also SabaiSabai. When you say Buk Haa Lao. That mean you are calling every single Lao person on the planet as a negative element. You obviously hate Lao people for saying this in a general sense. Now I know why not many Lao have anything nice to say here in AF about Thailand and Thai's.
Naa real Lao people love Thai people. Just like Thai people love real Lao people.
Lao nok don't count. Your not actually Lao. Your an american. May not be by blood, but blood is the only thing you have that links you to your people. Your culture and history has been eroded away by your commie government.
AiLao is the Tai progenitor lol first time i heard it i laughed. Still laughing now.
Your not real Lao, stop pretending
QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Aug 30 2011, 08:47 AM)
Your brown skin got so brown from being sun burnt when your Khom masters instructed you to drag them stones to build Khom Temples
Khmers didn't have the know how to build it or most importantly when the Khmers came to power...MAINTAIN it. If you built Angkor Wat, would you abandon it? lol
Khmers didn't have the know how to build it or most importantly when the Khmers came to power...MAINTAIN it. If you built Angkor Wat, would you abandon it? lol
Dear after i read some of your comments here, you really lack of knowledge.. I suggested you to go back and study well again!
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 30 2011, 10:08 AM)
Also SabaiSabai. When you say Buk Haa Lao. That mean you are calling every single Lao person on the planet as a negative element. You obviously hate Lao people for saying this in a general sense. Now I know why not many Lao have anything nice to say here in AF about Thailand and Thai's.
Dude, I just got a feeling that this this guy and Nokhmen are the same person..
SabaiSabai?? Seem like his name is not.. come with that.. i feel that he full of suffering~ that he want to make him self happy but he can't.. So sorry about that
QUOTE (KhmerBoi @ Aug 30 2011, 01:00 AM)
Dude, I just got a feeling that this this guy and Nokhmen are the same person..
SabaiSabai?? Seem like his name is not.. come with that.. i feel that he full of suffering~ that he want to make him self happy but he can't.. So sorry about that
SabaiSabai?? Seem like his name is not.. come with that.. i feel that he full of suffering~ that he want to make him self happy but he can't.. So sorry about that
Usefulless to discuss , If your hostory(Khmer) are correctly or Thai correct. How could you change thai view to Khmer? Unless you Khmer will improve or develope your country to be leader like Thai. and bring Khemer begger back to your country . Thai peoloe dislike discuss about nonstop story because everyone all love their land, nothing to blame each other
ผมไม่เก่งภาษาอังกฤษ นะครับ
I am not good at englins and just register member.
QUOTE (KhmerBoi @ Aug 30 2011, 12:00 AM)
Dude, I just got a feeling that this this guy and Nokhmen are the same person..
Dumbass as usual. I always wonder how big is your brain compared to Dingdong's.
You and your gay-lover Dingdong are so dumb. Seriously do you really think I am Sabaisabai? Do you know the word *analysis*??? haha I guess not cos Khmen and Lao can't think. LMAO!!!DingDong & Khmenboi, the gay lover dumbass
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 29 2011, 05:52 PM)
The Lao people were only dark when we were invaded and mix with the Siamese and some other natives. But we still hold on to that notion of a Siamese being dark people ever since then.
Here's what real Siamese looks like in late 1890s:
Even Siamese royalty were mostly dark skin (some were light, but mostly dark). This is a totally different view in their movie however (see Naresuan).
Also this (white face, sure, but look at the color of their arms and legs)...
Siamese were obsessed with light skin. I'm not saying this condescendingly. That's just their view of aesthetics (light skin=more beautiful). So they were naturally open to Chinese and Northern Tai admixture. And they also love their luk krueng in entertainment.
Central Thai today love to stereotype everyone around them. That's why they have their 4 culture region idea (for example, the portrayal of Issan is about is pong lang music and the women like to wear slutty short sarong). But really, it is more diverse than that.
They think Cambodian culture have to be about Angkor era and renounce any post-Angkor changes in Cambodian culture.
QUOTE (JoveejuOoOo @ Aug 29 2011, 02:05 PM)
Yes! I am "Laos". Why?
Why? NO, every body here knows you are absolutely NOT!
You are an American troll living in Minnesota.
QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Aug 29 2011, 11:15 PM)
I know what buk haa lao is used for. But honestly when i translate it, it doesn't make sense to me perhaps a true laos like you can translate for me 555
If you cannot see what new evidences have come to light because of the advancement in technology such as carbon dating and new archeological evidence has uncovered then my friend you are just a closed minded person. Myths and legends have been proven wrong already and yet you cling to them even when knowing they are false?
What I am doing is trying to find a logical connection for the Khom people through my research. What people know today such as yourself and just about every Khmer person is that the Khom were the Khmer. If so, then why does the only eyewitness source contradict this?
I would rather find history that is backed up by evidence rather then just assumption based history.
perhaps a true laos like you can translate for me 555If you cannot see what new evidences have come to light because of the advancement in technology such as carbon dating and new archeological evidence has uncovered then my friend you are just a closed minded person. Myths and legends have been proven wrong already and yet you cling to them even when knowing they are false?
What I am doing is trying to find a logical connection for the Khom people through my research. What people know today such as yourself and just about every Khmer person is that the Khom were the Khmer. If so, then why does the only eyewitness source contradict this?
I would rather find history that is backed up by evidence rather then just assumption based history.
Why you waste your time dealing with a Laowannabe loser living in the US to talk about Laos issues!
You talk to dead dog!!!
QUOTE (NoKhmen @ Aug 30 2011, 02:32 PM)
Dumbass as usual. I always wonder how big is your brain compared to Dingdong's. You and your gay-lover Dingdong are so dumb. Seriously do you really think I am Sabaisabai? Do you know the word *analysis*??? haha I guess not cos Khmen and Lao can't think. LMAO!!!
DingDong & Khmenboi, the gay lover dumbass
You and your gay-lover Dingdong are so dumb. Seriously do you really think I am Sabaisabai? Do you know the word *analysis*??? haha I guess not cos Khmen and Lao can't think. LMAO!!!DingDong & Khmenboi, the gay lover dumbass
I've been trolling these forms years ago lol just came back recently after more khmer research led me back here lol I probably know more about khmer history then the Khmers do lol
QUOTE (mushrooms @ Aug 30 2011, 01:02 PM)
Here's what real Siamese looks like in late 1890s:
Even Siamese royalty were mostly dark skin (some were light, but mostly dark). This is a totally different view in their movie however (see Naresuan).
Also this (white face, sure, but look at the color of their arms and legs)...
Siamese were obsessed with light skin. I'm not saying this condescendingly. That's just their view of aesthetics (light skin=more beautiful). So they were naturally open to Chinese and Northern Tai admixture. And they also love their luk krueng in entertainment.
Central Thai today love to stereotype everyone around them. That's why they have their 4 culture region idea (for example, the portrayal of Issan is about is pong lang music and the women like to wear slutty short sarong). But really, it is more diverse than that.
They think Cambodian culture have to be about Angkor era and renounce any post-Angkor changes in Cambodian culture.
Even Siamese royalty were mostly dark skin (some were light, but mostly dark). This is a totally different view in their movie however (see Naresuan).
Also this (white face, sure, but look at the color of their arms and legs)...
Siamese were obsessed with light skin. I'm not saying this condescendingly. That's just their view of aesthetics (light skin=more beautiful). So they were naturally open to Chinese and Northern Tai admixture. And they also love their luk krueng in entertainment.
Central Thai today love to stereotype everyone around them. That's why they have their 4 culture region idea (for example, the portrayal of Issan is about is pong lang music and the women like to wear slutty short sarong). But really, it is more diverse than that.
They think Cambodian culture have to be about Angkor era and renounce any post-Angkor changes in Cambodian culture.
pictures from Naresuan movie.
Pictured with HM the queen
Actors and actresses
I see them having a typical Thai skin tone.
I heard the casting team has to recruite the main actor from real soildier who have an old "Thai look" and the main actress, the one who has a Thai beauty only.
Taksaorn is one of the most famous Thai actress now.
I appreciate your knowledge about Thai classical dance but this comment from you is not just right though.
Traditional Thai classical dance have unique face and make up. The eyebrows and white face resemble puppet.
this episode of the movie is about king Naresuan (left) and king Nantabureng of Burma (right)
face resembles puppet
Traditional Thai classical dance in the court.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wns0IZKDeMw...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAnVGAiqNJE...feature=related
This year performance of Thai classical court dance. You can see their face and make up the same as hundred years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWMXkxRfUII&NR=1
another dance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAewkfQDVjc...feature=related
I think this is the same eyes, eyebrows and smile face of Simese Buddha image since Sukhothai and becomes trademark of Thailand.
you can see this in Traditional Burmess dance too.
QUOTE (Suriin1234 @ Aug 29 2011, 07:36 PM)
Know I mean the majority of lao ppl in laos don't look like thai ppl like in ching mai or bangkok except isaan. Like lao ppl looks lighter skin then thai it seems .
Wow i just been rereading some old posts whilst researching some stuff and found this.
Do you realise that Isan people are not light skin at all? It is people in Chiang Mai and Bangkok who are light skinned roflmao you have it completely backwards.
And the idiot that replied also has no Idea lol he accepts being light skin roflmao both of you are dumbasses. Welldone for showing you both know sweet F all about Thailand
QUOTE (SabaiSabai @ Aug 30 2011, 07:28 AM)
Tai = light skinned
Austro-Tai = Brown
Khmer Thai = Dark
Did you think Thai was its own race? lol fu-king kidding me right? you guys are retarded.
Thai is not a race, neither is Lao. Both are national/Tribal identity.
Khmers are confused because they have no national Identity. No Khmer ever refer to themselves as Cambodian. Khmers are the ones with Identity crisis
Austro-Tai = Brown
Khmer Thai = Dark
Did you think Thai was its own race? lol fu-king kidding me right? you guys are retarded.
Thai is not a race, neither is Lao. Both are national/Tribal identity.
Khmers are confused because they have no national Identity. No Khmer ever refer to themselves as Cambodian. Khmers are the ones with Identity crisis
I think you lost!!! Khmer is national identity and Cambodian is what English people refer to the people of Cambodia. That idea doesn't really work in a great civilization people like Khmer!!! if I speak English I might say Cambodian! unless a foreigner say Oh are you Khmer? Yes sometime foreigner who know about Khmer will point to us like that and we proudly say Yes I am Khmer!! ^^ But most Cambodian will say I am Khmer because they want those foreigner know our name is Khmer better then let them name us as what they want!!! we are not lost identity but you (Thai!!!)!!!
the reason they painted their faces white, because they got japanese influences. its called thai ladyboys geisha.
they are getting ready to entertain their farang master.
QUOTE (KhmerBoi @ Sep 22 2011, 10:21 PM)
I think you lost!!! Khmer is national identity and Cambodian is what English people refer to the people of Cambodia. That idea doesn't really work in a great civilization people like Khmer!!! if I speak English I might say Cambodian! unless a foreigner say Oh are you Khmer? Yes sometime foreigner who know about Khmer will point to us like that and we proudly say Yes I am Khmer!! ^^ But most Cambodian will say I am Khmer because they want those foreigner know our name is Khmer better then let them name us as what they want!!! we are not lost identity but you (Thai!!!)!!!
Agree, Khmer is nationality, Khmer is not ethnic. So what it's called Khmer culture is not authentic.
QUOTE (mushrooms @ Aug 30 2011, 01:02 PM)
Here's what real Siamese looks like in late 1890s:
Even Siamese royalty were mostly dark skin (some were light, but mostly dark). This is a totally different view in their movie however (see Naresuan).
Also this (white face, sure, but look at the color of their arms and legs)...
Siamese were obsessed with light skin. I'm not saying this condescendingly. That's just their view of aesthetics (light skin=more beautiful). So they were naturally open to Chinese and Northern Tai admixture. And they also love their luk krueng in entertainment.
Central Thai today love to stereotype everyone around them. That's why they have their 4 culture region idea (for example, the portrayal of Issan is about is pong lang music and the women like to wear slutty short sarong). But really, it is more diverse than that.
They think Cambodian culture have to be about Angkor era and renounce any post-Angkor changes in Cambodian culture.
Even Siamese royalty were mostly dark skin (some were light, but mostly dark). This is a totally different view in their movie however (see Naresuan).
Also this (white face, sure, but look at the color of their arms and legs)...
Siamese were obsessed with light skin. I'm not saying this condescendingly. That's just their view of aesthetics (light skin=more beautiful). So they were naturally open to Chinese and Northern Tai admixture. And they also love their luk krueng in entertainment.
Central Thai today love to stereotype everyone around them. That's why they have their 4 culture region idea (for example, the portrayal of Issan is about is pong lang music and the women like to wear slutty short sarong). But really, it is more diverse than that.
They think Cambodian culture have to be about Angkor era and renounce any post-Angkor changes in Cambodian culture.
We have our Thai old proverb says that, Lao is smaller, Khmer is darker, Chinese is whiter. I am sure we know how we look like. And western travelers in the past recorded Siamese complexion is yellowish brown. It's not too light or too dark. High class Thai/Siamese and royalty were lighter than their subjects. I think this is the reason why today lighter skin fondness are among us. Everybody love to look like rich people, high class peopole. I think it's true in every nations.
About you Khmer culture, LIke I said you have almost 700 years to develop your Angkorean culture, but why the result of that development is so much similar to Siamese/Thai culture?
QUOTE (KhmerBoi @ Sep 23 2011, 04:21 AM)
I think you lost!!! Khmer is national identity and Cambodian is what English people refer to the people of Cambodia. That idea doesn't really work in a great civilization people like Khmer!!! if I speak English I might say Cambodian! unless a foreigner say Oh are you Khmer? Yes sometime foreigner who know about Khmer will point to us like that and we proudly say Yes I am Khmer!! ^^ But most Cambodian will say I am Khmer because they want those foreigner know our name is Khmer better then let them name us as what they want!!! we are not lost identity but you (Thai!!!)!!!
I think your confused more than anyone lol Khmer is not your national Identity lol Cambodian is your National Identity. Your country is called Cambodia, your Ancient poeple called it Kambuja. The word Khmer doesn't even related to the country lol
You are a Khmer of Cambodia. You are not a Khmer of Khmerland
although that is what srouk Khmer means lol but then changing it to Srouk Khmer would mean your copying us again then isn't it lolKhmer is your ethnic identity. Other ethnics in Cambodia do not refer to themselves as Khmer but can refer themselves as Cambodian. Hell, its just like the Burmans naming the country Burma after themselves. And Thailand naming the country after their own ethnic group.
Exactly the reason why the people of Siam were Siamese but their ethnic identity was Tai. Get it? I doubt you do because Khmers are the only ones that associate EVERYTHING with the word Khmer. The word is so important to Khmers but it is not a word used in ancient times....why?????
QUOTE (NoKhmen @ Sep 23 2011, 10:49 AM)
We have our Thai old proverb says that, Lao is smaller, Khmer is darker, Chinese is whiter. I am sure we know how we look like. And western travelers in the past recorded Siamese complexion is yellowish brown. It's not too light or too dark. High class Thai/Siamese and royalty were lighter than their subjects. I think this is the reason why today lighter skin fondness are among us. Everybody love to look like rich people, high class peopole. I think it's true in every nations.
How damn of Thai proverb Lao is smaller?? see that how look brain is.. Khmer is darker, mean Siam is also Dark you dark because you are mixer of Khmer and Tai Refugee.. (Tai Refugee is Siam) (but I am so ashamed to say this Damn Siam got Khmer blood ^^ but no choice because that is real) Chinese is lighter because Chinese is much pure (Tai also Chinese) ^^
QUOTE (NoKhmen @ Sep 23 2011, 10:49 AM)
About you Khmer culture, LIke I said you have almost 700 years to develop your Angkorean culture, but why the result of that development is so much similar to Siamese/Thai culture?
Yes!! because you only know a small pieces of Khmer culture.. (especially Royal dance) you are not focus on other rich culture of Cambodia ^^ you loser!!
In Khmer proverb we say MOR BANG' mean Evil Cover off You!! You can't see something good!!!
Thai People (nationalism) is the Worst Species on Earth!!!!
QUOTE (KhmerBoi @ Sep 22 2011, 11:28 PM)
How damn of Thai proverb Lao is smaller?? see that how look brain is.. Khmer is darker, mean Siam is also Dark you dark because you are mixer of Khmer and Tai Refugee.. (Tai Refugee is Siam) (but I am so ashamed to say this Damn Siam got Khmer blood ^^ but no choice because that is real) Chinese is lighter because Chinese is much pure (Tai also Chinese) ^^
hahaha, calm down. It's our old Thai proverb. nobody can deny that. We also have a proverb says that, Indian eyes are beautiful. These are what our ancestors look our neighbors.
And we got Ancient Syam who were Khom, not your Khmer blood. LOL
Tais are not Chinese, you dumbass learn some knowledge.
QUOTE (KhmerBoi @ Sep 22 2011, 11:28 PM)
Yes!! because you only know a small pieces of Khmer culture.. (especially Royal dance) you are not focus on other rich culture of Cambodia ^^ you loser!!
In Khmer proverb we say MOR BANG' mean Evil Cover off You!! You can't see something good!!!
Thai People (nationalism) is the Worst Species on Earth!!!!
In Khmer proverb we say MOR BANG' mean Evil Cover off You!! You can't see something good!!!
Thai People (nationalism) is the Worst Species on Earth!!!!
Your royal dance is Thai/Siamese dance. Why argue? LOL
Khmer is real culture thieves. Get over it.
QUOTE (NoKhmen @ Sep 22 2011, 10:49 PM)
We have our Thai old proverb says that, Lao is smaller, Khmer is darker, Chinese is whiter. I am sure we know how we look like. And western travelers in the past recorded Siamese complexion is yellowish brown. It's not too light or too dark. High class Thai/Siamese and royalty were lighter than their subjects. I think this is the reason why today lighter skin fondness are among us. Everybody love to look like rich people, high class peopole. I think it's true in every nations.
About you Khmer culture, LIke I said you have almost 700 years to develop your Angkorean culture, but why the result of that development is so much similar to Siamese/Thai culture?
About you Khmer culture, LIke I said you have almost 700 years to develop your Angkorean culture, but why the result of that development is so much similar to Siamese/Thai culture?
you forgot to add to the proverb, thai is gayer and culture thieves.
no such thing is high class siamese, they were all slaves.
QUOTE (NoKhmen @ Sep 22 2011, 11:51 PM)
hahaha, calm down. It's our old Thai proverb. nobody can deny that. We also have a proverb says that, Indian eyes are beautiful. These are what our ancestors look our neighbors.
And we got Ancient Syam who were Khom, not your Khmer blood. LOL
Tais are not Chinese, you dumbass learn some knowledge.
Your royal dance is Thai/Siamese dance. Why argue? LOL
Khmer is real culture thieves. Get over it.
And we got Ancient Syam who were Khom, not your Khmer blood. LOL
Tais are not Chinese, you dumbass learn some knowledge.
Your royal dance is Thai/Siamese dance. Why argue? LOL
Khmer is real culture thieves. Get over it.
our royal dance is uniquely khmer, because we dont swing our arms like monkeys and we dont have any ladyboys doing royal dances.
QUOTE (ladyboyfarang @ Sep 23 2011, 12:33 AM)
you forgot to add to the proverb, thai is gayer and culture thieves.
no such thing is high class siamese, they were all slaves.
no such thing is high class siamese, they were all slaves.
Khmer is slaves who can't maintain Angkorean master culture. They have to steal Thai/Siames culture.
QUOTE (ladyboyfarang @ Sep 23 2011, 12:35 AM)
our royal dance is uniquely khmer, because we dont swing our arms like monkeys and we dont have any ladyboys doing royal dances.
Thai/Siamese teach you how to dance. That's all.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.