Entertaining and educational historical narrative, much of it was new to me. The main idea is that kings of Siam willingly and actively embraced European culture and modernization efforts, unlike other countries in Asia which resisted and implemented them reactively, often by force.

This included imposing unified national language and cultural homogeneity across their territory, with centralized government, laws, administration. The other side of that is the suppression of regional languages and culture, as it happened during European nation-building with Welsh, Gaelic, Breton, Occitan, Alsatian, German and Italian dialects. Similarly in China, Japan, and elsewhere.

The building of telegraph lines, railways, and schools helped solidify nation state authority. I wonder how that relates to the internet, as a tool of communication as well as social control and centralizing power.

A way to summarize how Thailand resisted colonization is that it colonized itself, and successfully adapted culturally to the wave of Europeanization and modern global order of nation states.

> A way to summarize how Thailand resisted colonization is that it colonized itself, and successfully adapted culturally to the wave of Europeanization and modern global order of nation states.

That feels true only inasmuch as adapting a bit to the realities of the nineteeth century and strengthening the state is synonymous with colonization, which I don't think it is really.

Thailand remained an absolute monarchy throughout the colonial period, studiously avoided converting to Christianity, wide adoption of European languages or even orthography, and did not become a major trade partner even after signing agreements favourable to Europeans. It abolished serfdom and introduced national education and railways at its own pace decades after the initial trade agreement and its culture remained rural and Buddhist. Modern international Bangkok and its financial centre is the result of changes that took place long after the colonial era, built around palaces, temples and canals that predated it.

The article downplays that Thais were also more powerful than their Lao or Cambodian neighbours to the point they treated them like colonies themselves (hence why the French could claim to be "protectors" of Laos, and why their colonizing of Laos and Cambodia was a defeat for Siam, but not a critical one). So its not surprising they were able to command more respect from Europeans, particularly when they were pragmatic and diplomatic enough to give those de facto colonies up to the more powerful colonizer. The parts of Siam that stayed independent to become modern day Thailand also formed a neat buffer between what was French Indochina and English India/Burma

It very definitely patterned its behavior on colonizer to survive - even becoming a local-sphere colonizer itself, interestingly. Definitely a case of "if you can't beat 'em, (temporarily) join 'em."

Japan did the same. And its colonies (Taiwan, Korea) became similar sucesses inheriting the institutions and infrastructure.