Siamese lakhon troupes at the end of the 19th century

I am trying to make sense about how Siamese mahorasop (dance, drama, and theater) has developed during the Bangkok period (the second half of the 19th century).

The more I try to get into the topic the more I feel how little I know about Thai art. So, if anyone know anything, please throw in your ideas and corrections.

My main purpose is I want to have a picture of the interactions between the performers and the audiences back then.

The performers were large dance troupes owned by Siamese aristocrats. Main types of performances were lakhon nok (showed outside the royal court) and lakhon nai (showed inside the royal court).

lakhon nai was originally associated with the symbol of high status in the society, that of the king. So King Mongkut issued a decree forbid the lakhon nai to be performed outside of the royal court.

Dancers of the troupes tended to be female because under the Sakdina system, male phrai and tad were liable to work in drudgery.

Here there were two types: the lakhon luang (royal) troupes and the private lakhon troupes. The latter one seemed to be closely associated to the gambling halls which scattered all over.

So, The audiences were the King and nobles and those people who went to gamble. Private troupe could be one of the source of revenue for the aristocrats apart from those who gained income from other economic activities. This needs to be explore further since I don't have any idea how much the audiences were charged for each performance.

The interesting thing came at the end of the 19th century, when there were two things that, I think, affected performers directly.

First, the abolition of slavery. What I really want to see is what those people who belonged to the lakhon troupes in the sakdina period did after they were released. Though they were no more obliged to their nai, I am not sure they just abandoned their performing skills they had.

Second, the suppression of the gambling halls. Some academics see that private lakhon troupes declined after they couldn't find a place to perform. I wonder if that was the case.

I will come back to this topic when I have a clearer picture.

(This ideas are from Mattani Mojdara Rutnin, Dance, drama, and theatre in Thailand: the process of development and modernization, 1993)

Satchmo and the Cold War

Cultural dimension has been on the interest of many Cold War historians for quite sometimes, especially since the latter half of the 1990s onwards.

They see that the US domination in the global scale during the height of the Cold War (after the 1950s) did not come by accident. It was well planned. In order to protect the US led capitalism to other places of the world, a line was drawn to prevent the spread of Russo-Sino Communism (so called the Containment policy).

Cold War in Southeast Asia began after the area of conflict moved from the Korean War down to Vietnam.

By preventing the spread of communism, solid cultural policies were needed in order to fight against the Communist propaganda.

Including jazz.

Satchmo blows up the word: Jazz ambassadors play the Cold War (2004) is one of the recent works trying to point out how American jazz musicians were one of the forces to assimilate American values (democracy, freedom, etc.) abroad. Jazz was picked by Washington seeing as fit to the image of the US, as it is a distinct form of art unlike Europe's Ballet, Classical music and all that.

However, jazz ambassadors carried more that what they were assigned to do. Read this interesting book and you'll see why.

I think it should be good to end with this quote :

From 1955 on, Armstrong was greeted enthusiastically by foreign audiences wherever he went. Whether on official State Department tours such as his 1960-61 African trip, or on unofficial journeys such as those to Ghana in 1956, Latin America in 1957, and East Berlin, Armstrong was Ambassador Satch. (p.12)

If you love jazz, and if you love history, this book is worth reading, indeed.

The inheritance of Empire

Legacies of the British Empire are still visible today. In Southeast Asia, we can see what colonialism has left for the native people.

Take territorial sovereignty for example. How can we explain the demarcation of Southeast Asian countries today without taking into account the roles of colonial powers? Singapore-Malaysia, Indonesia-Malaysia, Siam-Lao/Cambodia, Vietnamese-Khmer Krom.

Sure, Furguson is not wrong by saying "[o]f course, no one would claim that the record of the British Empire was unblemished..." (p.358), "...the fact remains that no organization in history has done more to promote the free movement of goods, capital and labour than the British Empire in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries" (p.XXIV).

But it is disturbing to read:

without the spread of British rule around the world, it is hard to believe that the structures of liberal capitalism would have been so successfully established in so many different economies around the world. Those empires that adopted alternative models - the Russian and the Chinese - imposed incalculable misery on their subject peoples. Without the influence of British imperial rule, it is hard to believe that the institutions of parliamentary democracy would have been adopted by the majority of states in the world, as they are today. India, the world's largest democracy, owes more than it is fashionable to acknowledge to British rule. Its elite schools, its universities, its civil service, its army, its press and its parliamentary system all still have discernibly British model. Finally, there is the English language itself, perhaps the most important single export of the last 300 years. Today 350 million people speak English as their first language and around 450 million have it as a second language. That is roughly one in every seven people on the planet (p.358)

Southeast Asian countries are no exception.

Instead of being the revisionist version of history, Empire: The rise and demise of the British world order and the lessons for global power became another promoter of empire.

By stressing how the world has become a better place by the British Empire, Ferguson fails to ask the most fundamental question: where are the voices of the native people?

The intention of the British Empire was the spread of British-led capitalism to other areas of the globe, for the betterment of Britain, NOT the world. In order to sustain such system, liberalism was needed to be established.

It was rather like sticking a piece of meat into someone's mouth.

It seems to Ferguson that, at any time in history, there must be someone acting as an Empire to regulate world order. It is the duty, and the US is doing that job at the moment (with a genuine goodwill).

No, Ferguson. We don't want it.

The British Empire has not yet demised. This book is the proof.

(Niall Ferguson, Empire: The rise and demise of the British world order and the lessons for global power, 2002)

p.s. There's a review of this book here.

make coffee, not war

I have stumbled across a little news piece on the Bangkok Chronicles ( an English language daily est.1939 reporting the situation of the war to the European readers in Thailand) about how the battle was also fought over coffee consuming. The report goes :

Coffee for Hitler is seized, report
London, September 24th.

The power of the British blockade has now been brought home personally to Herr Hitler.
The British contraband authorities have just seized two tons of coffee from Arabia personally consigned to him.
The coffee was order on August 12th. - BBC Radio

(The Bangkok Chronicles, 26 Sep 1939)

The champion of coffee consuming during the WWII was no one else but the Ally, especially Britain and the US. A demand for coffee from the military camps was so high that it exceeded the domestic production in the US. So coffee export was mainly from Latin America (to the Ally soldiers in Europe). In this way, Latin American countries were being guaranteed that their coffee would be bought (and that helped sustain their economies). So Latin America wasn't only a workshop, but also a cafe for the rising American Empire.

Well, the Ally wasn't the only side that wanted to have a sip of coffee. The Axis struggled to import coffee from the Arab producers (because they couldn't get Latin American coffee). Because the Arabian Peninsular was no more the main coffee export like it once was in the 16th century, Germany found it hard to find a chance to drink some coffee when Britain was still world's no.1 in Navy in the 1930s.

So this is the lesson: make coffee, not war

The reborn of old documents

All the credit to Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Antrhopology Center (ศูนย์มานุษยวิทยาสิรินธร)!

A Seminar, "the reborn of old documents" (หนังสือเก่าชาวสยาม), was arranged at the Center (9 Jun 09) and was attended by academics, historians, librarians, and the public who share their concern about the ways to preserve old documents. 

In the morning, librarians and staffs from 5 organizations gathered to discuss about ways in which the public could make use of their collections (The Thai National Archives, Chula's Rarebook collection, Siam Society, Muang Boran database, and Ton-Chabab Publishing House). It was very interesting knowing the names of documents stored in these places. To give some examples, in Chula's rarebook collection there are Somyapithan Ramakian (สมญาภิธานรามเกียรติ์), Mulbot Banpakit (มูลบทบรรพกิจ), the online full text of Mattana Patha (มัธนะพาธา), and etc. At Muang Boran Database, they store a large collection of b/w photos. These photos are architectures, temples, and lots of views of Siam when photography is still new to the Siamese. Historians should find these useful in portraying an image of Siam in the period of their interest. At the end, the panelists called for more use of these sources, which is know little in public. 

After a modest lunch, the seminar continued. The topic concerned the use of old documents and how they benefit researchers. The whole excerpt will not be put here, but an interesting thing came from Ajarn Chalong Soontravanich. He called for the storage of political pamphlet, which is the periodicals from governmental organizations, army divisions, or famous temples. Statistical Year Book, for instance, could show us the big picture of Siam's socioeconomic context in the past. These are some of the examples he gave: Tesaphibanthai (เทศาภิบาลไทย), Senasuksa (เสนาศึกษา) Yuttagoad (ยุทธโกศ), Wittayajarn (วิทยาจารย์), Ekkasarn Sataranasuk (เอกสารสาธารณสุข), Khao Pad (ข่าวแพทย์), Dula Paha (ดุลพาหะ), Bot Bundit (บทบัณฑิต), Talangkarn Khana Song (แถลงการณ์คณะสงฆ์), Nangsue Wat Koh (หนังสือวัดเ กาะ). Ajarn concluded that we coould make an enormous use of these documents if they began to be collected. 

After coffee break, the last seminar went to the hands of Anake Nawigamune, a milestone of Thailand's past. He told us the special thing about Vajirayan Vised (วชิรญาณวิเศษ) that has been put online by PMCS Anthropology Center.(This seminar was also an opening ceremony for the website siamrarebooks.com) All the deatils about this online version as well as the text itself can be found here. 

After the seminar, we all agreed that there are so many more old documents that should be put online, in order to preserve Siamese past for many generations to come. 

  

The competition of Coffee colony

Recently, I was trying to find the way in which coffee could make its mark in world history. Before coffee has become the world's second largest export after oil today, there should be a process that initiate such phenomenon.  

I found some interesting facts leading to an assumption. 

Eventhough coffee was founded in Africa, presumably in Ethiopia, it only began to spread and became an export crop from the Arab world to Europe in the 17th century. Coffee-houses had become an urban scene in Constantinople only around the beginning of the century and London was the next destination. Coffee trading during the time was mainly under the Levant Company.   

The first coffee-house in England, in fact in the Christendom, was established in London perhaps around 1652-1654 at Cornhill. This claim confutes the old one that the first coffee-house was set up in Oxford. (Markman Ellis, The Coffee-House: A Cultural History, 2004, 29-30) Throughout the 17 th century, coffee was mainly from Southern Arabia or the port at Mocha. 

An important change occured at the turn of the century, when the Dutch East India Company (VOC) set up a coffee plantation in Java, in which the first coffee tree was planted in 1696. In 1711, the first coffee export from Java under the VOC was 900 ponds. The figure breathtakingly increased into 6 million ponds per year only two decades later! Coffee value had overrun other cash crop e.g. pepper and cloves. (John Keay, The Spice Route, 2005, 252)

So the Dutch colony in Java(and some other parts of the archipelagos), was the coffee colony throughout the first half  of the 18th century. The main destination of coffee from Java was Europe. 

Nothing is certain. Towards the end of the 18th century, coffee had become a hot prospect in Brazil. After the Belgian monk introduced coffee to Rio de Janeiro in 1774, he found that coffee loves Brazil's terra roxa. The consequence was inevitable; money flowed into coffee plantation business very quickly. 

From Rio to Sao Paulo, and then to the caribbeans; coffee moved from Java to Brazil at the beginning of the 19th century, and is still there to the present. This left Java with the new crop: sugar (which was also quite successful under the cultivation system). 

Maybe the competition between European power generated this phenomenon? Or was it the work of the invisible hand? What do AP readers think? 

 

the leisure class

I've begun reading Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure class (1973) for a couple of chapters now. 

It is interesting how his approach (in early chapters) is an anthropological and sociological observation, which is different from his comtemporary economists. 

The earliest stage of human society, the primitive savagery or the peaceable, did not enable the emergence of the leisure class. Yet the leisure class began to build up during the transition from such peaceable society into barbarism, or warlike habit of life. 

There were two natures of work in consequense: exploit and drudgery. 

'Exploit' belonged to those of a higher place in society and 'drudgery' was on the opposite. 

The important change was not the frequent of war or how the war was fought, but human's perspective had changed: fight was used to justify or judge facts and events in the society. 

Accordingly, after the emergence of 'ownership', Veblen introduces the concept of 'pecuniary emulation'. It is when human competed to possess private property. People with large ownership (wealth) belonged to the 'exploit'. 

The demand had arisen: the weathy wanted to divorce from productive work. This is not to say that they were indolence, but rather they must maintain their esteem (as a wealthy bunch) by making their wealth evidenced (in non-productive consumption of time)!  

This is the leisure class. 

I have just a question to discuss with AP readers: What about the writer(in Southeast Asia) today? If he already has a full-time job (which is a productive work) but he considers writing as his leisure, whereas he could earn some money by publishing his books. 

Is he a member of Veblen's  leisure class? 

 

      

Something from Malaysia

It seems that Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Malaysia's new PM, begins his office aiming for a big change.

Let me put into points; 

1) He will tackle the country's most controversial law, the Internal Security Act (ISA). This law allows detention without trial. He said the law needs to be reviewed. 

2) According to the law revision, 13 detainees will be released. These detainees are activists, members of political movements, or they were accused of something. Some of the detainees are leaders of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), which raises vioce for the Indian minority in Malaysia.

 

3) He has lifted 3-month ban on the two opposition newspaper. 

Sure, this can be seen as nothing but a propaganda building up government's credibility. But if we are to be optimistic enough, we can see that what seems to be an important issue for this new PM is freedom of expression. 

According to the news, he said "It must be a government with new approaches for new times - a government that places a priority on performance because the people must come first" 

This might relect something to Malaysia's neihbour. 

"THE PEOPLE MUST COME FIRST" - A slogan of the Democrat Party, Thailand's political party. But how has this slogan been practiced? 

Let me put into points;

1) Not only one of the most controversial law of the country, the Lese Majeste, has been untouched, there is a potential to increase penalty on such law. Recently, Suwicha Thakor is going to jail for 10 years on Lese Majeste. Also, an Australian journalist has a lot to tell when he was in prison due to the same accusation. (New Mandala host a campaign on LM's reform in which you could find a lot of details) 

2) Prachatai.com, an alternative online newspaper, was raided and the editor, Khun Chiranuch, was arrested and charged with computer crime act (the news is here and a reflection is here). 

3) The Rohingya incident was still in public scrutiny, but not much has been done, only lip service from Thailand's PM. 

In terms of freedom of expression and human rights problems, I see Malaysia is hoping to get back on track. 

Historic Asia visit: a reflection

Hillary Clinton is scheduled to visit East Asian countries including China, Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia. This will be her first overseas trip as the US Secretary of State. 

It is interesting that the US chose Indonesia as a destination to demonstrate its foreign policy in Southeast Asia. It can be seen that the superpower  is seeing Indonesia as a representative for the whole region. 

But why Indonesia? 

Of course, Barack Obama's childhood in Indonesia may be a factor. There is a personal link between the new US President and Southeast Asia. Or in other words, it made the US approach this region easier. 

But I don't think it is an important point.  

Lest not forget some facts about Indonesia. It is the world's largest Muslim-majority nation. Indonesian Muslims comprise of 15 per cent of the total Islam population in the world. This is a crucial point; the US under Obama would have to approach Muslim countries for talks and develop trade partnership. It cannot pursue a preemptive attitude like it once was under Mr.Bush. So where is the better place if not Indonesia? A tight relationship with Indonesia show the Middle-East that the US is willing to negotiate with any Muslim nations. This is for the sake of neo-liberalism, unfortunately. 

Moreover, let's consider Indonesia's performance since the economic bust in 1997. Among countries in Southeast Asia, Thailand and Indonesia were to two most severely hit by the crisis. However, ten years later, Indonesia under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono improved considerably well.  The conflict between religions seems to decrease. Even though he is struggling to gain real power in the administration, Yudhoyono seems to do well in his office. Compare to countries in the region, Indonesia is seen as the most promising.

P.S. It's the Shan's National Day on Saturday. 

Coffee and Rice

For the past couple of days, I was reading about how coffee plantation arrived in Latin America and how it became such an important export for the region, especially for Brazil, since the mid-19th century onwards. It is said that coffee makes modern Brazil. 

It reminds me of how rice played the same role for countries in mainland Southeast Asia during the same period. 

Coffee was widely planted in Brazil from the beginning of the 19th century, when European capitalists (especially the British) poured into Rio de Janeiro, and later in Sao Paulo to invest in coffee farming. From the 1850s onwards, Brazil flooded the world with coffee. 

After the second Anglo-Burmese War in 1852, Burma's rice production increased rapidly. Foreign investments reinforced this expansion. European merchants, shippers, and financiers invloved deeply in economic activities ranging from milling to money-lending. As a result, Burma became the world's no.1 rice producer only a few decades later. 

I have some comments:

1) The situation occured in two regions around the same time demonstrats how Pax Britannica expanded its capital all over the world.     

2) But there are many differences in detail. The most obvious is in terms of labour. Brazil imported millions of slave to work in coffee plantation whereas Burmese cultivator moved from the upper Burma to the Irawaddy-Sittang Delta to seek a better opportunity.  However, the situation in Siam was a bit different; Because Siam's Sakdina system was still dominating the society, Tad were forced to work for their Nai. The emancipation of Tad by King Chula shows how the need for labour in the expansion of Siam's rice frontier (Though this is debatable). 

3) Environmental impact from coffee plantation in Brazil is devastating. This is because a large area of land was cleared and burned. Also, coffee tired the land. Although lands were cleared in Burma as well, but the delta area in mainland Southeast Asia is perfect for planting rice. 

4) Both regions were exploited. Even though an increase in agricultural export generated income for the native people, those who became prospered were the British capitalists. Except in the case of Siam, where most profit ran into the royal and elites' purses (and later on, +Chinese capitalists'). 

Just some shallow observations. 

P.S. An ANN's list of must-go temples is interesting, not only for the Buddhists. 

   

Striking similarity

An audience of Abhisit, a new Thai PM, with the King reminds me of Thailand some fifty years ago. 

There is a criticism towards Abhisit that he should not sit on the same level as the King. However, it is believed that the position has been arranged beforehand. 

Which means something? 

Back in the late 1950s, Sarit used to sit at the same level as the King. I believe that some might have seen the picture. 

These two images, one from the 1950s and another from present, poses a striking similarity: After Sarit staged a coup in 1957, the power was brought back to the monarchy after it was challaenged by Phibun. 

At present, the power was brought back to the monarchy by "an invisible coup" led by the army leaders (e.g. Three "P"s and Big Bung) after it is believed that Thaksin regime brought it away  in the last 5-10 years. Abhisit is someone who will stablize the monarchy once again. 

However, as we all have known, today the development of democracy in Thailand has come to the point that political conflict cannot be solved in the same way as it used to fifty years ago. Take Lese Majeste law for example, the world desperately wants to know why Thailand still tighten such law when this is a crucial time to discuss about the role of the monarchy in the constitutional system. Ultimately, this law has been used as a tool to discredit, criticize, and attack political oppositions, rather than to stabilize the monarchy itself.  

What happend proves that while the stream of democray is moving forward, Thai authorities choose to halt the process of change. The mass would still have nothing in hand and cannot think for themselves, but to look upon the role model in order to rely their lives on. I think this is an unhealthy way of rasing your "children".     

It shows that Thailand seeks sudden change, rather than a smooth, non-violent one.