Talk:Siamese revolution of 1932

Untitled
See also: Talk:1932 Siamese coup d'état

Areas for improvement

 * The article as a whole gives an almost utopian impression to pre-1932 Siam, especially pre-R.6.
 * More balanced discussion of various social structures under the system of absolute monarchy: slavery, feudalism, etc.
 * More balanced discussion of R.5's reforms. The loss of territory to France.  Criticisms and calls for reform from within the palace.
 * More balanced discussion of criticisms to R.6's unique style of rule.
 * No explanation as to the difference between the Treasury and the Privy Purse.
 * R.7 a "sympathetic monarch"? Let's keep things factual.
 * There is another view as to R.7's attempts at constitutionalism - that he was against reform.
 * The Legacy section is not very NPOV: very critical of the Peoples' Party. On what basis to eliminate "real honourable intention" from their motivations? Patiwat (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Legacy Section
The legacy section does indeed need citations, but it will be a bit difficult to dig them up. I have a few that may be relevant already in my computer, but it is my bedtime. Some good background material is in Just a battle of elites in Thailand? --Pawyilee (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: With regard to the influence of the military, Google this quote: "When I opened my mouth, they (the generals) would say, ‘Your Majesty, you don’t know anything,’" Bhumibol once recalled. "So I shut my mouth. I know things, but I shut my mouth." --Pawyilee (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)



This article cites 46 references. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Stowe it
Personal name: 	Stowe, Judith A. Main title: 	Siam becomes Thailand : a story of intrigue / Judith A. Stowe. Published/Created: 	Honolulu : University of Hawaii Press, c1991. Description: 	xii, 394 p. : ill. ; 22 cm. ISBN: 	0824813936 0824813944 (pbk.) —Pawyilee (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The article states that: [quote] Thongchai Winichakul. His hypothesis on the emergence of the modern Thai geobody is widely accepted by scholars in Thai and Southeast Asian studies.[3] He argues that the traditional Hindu-Buddhist paradigms of culture, space, governance and power were being challenged by a significantly different civilization that mainly arose from Latin Christianity tempered by Humanism of the Enlightenment.[4] The rising power and confidence in Europe saw a corresponding increase in Western chauvinism.[5] The East now became increasingly caricaturised as 'barbaric', ‘naïve’, 'childish' and 'inferior'. The mission to 'civilise' these 'barbaric Asiatics' became the raison d'être for colonialism and imperialism. [/quote]

It seems to me as an absolutely victimistic rant, since Thais, Chineses, Japaneses and everybody in the whole world considers itself as superior. Just consider the value of the words, "farang", "kwailoon", "gaijin" all these words have an intrisic meaning of inferiority, dirtiness, ignorance and so on. Just ask to a common Thai how are the Chineses (dirty), to a Chine how is the rest of the word (inferior), to a Japanese (smelly, inferior etc). Furthermore the Hindu-Buddhist values didn't avoid the most ruthless governance based on the power of the sword, from India to Japan. Asian nations didn't colonized the rest of the world simply because they had not the techonology to do so, but when they had the means they colonized and ransacked each other without mercy despite those Hindu-Buddhist values, which, by the way are not described in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.212.195.31 (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Siamese revolution of 1688 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't add up
"The Assembly of People's Representatives was expanded to include 156 members, 76 elected and 76 appointed." CulturalSnow (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)