French Colonialism in Laos, 1893-1954

Date: Apr 4, 2008

French Colonialism in Laos, 1893-1954

Date: Apr 5, 2008

What the hell? These pictures are very suggestive and misleading. Where are those pictures where these neo-fascist Farang killed Lao people fighting for independence and brainwashed people. Do you think they were in here to help building country and make our lives easier? They were the problem not only in Laos but in other parts of Asia and Africa. The negative impacts are way exceed positive. No one country should be under foreign occupation. stupid post.

Date: Apr 5, 2008

good riddens to them, our lao blood runs too deep to be brainwashed. no one will rule over laos accept laos people. dont worry the era of asians is just begining we will influence the world very soon.

Date: Apr 5, 2008

I believed Laos was under Thai as Esan 100% for sure, if Laos had not been colonized by French. That is the reality. If someone has a better idea, please share. Now Laos is under Vietnam,the new colony era, it ran deep not only to be brainwash,but inside your bone merrow, look around you right now.

Zak · Senior Member

Anonymous wrote:

I believed Laos was under Thai as Esan 100% for sure, if Laos had not been colonized by French. That is the reality. If someone has a better idea, please share. Now Laos is under Vietnam,the new colony era, it ran deep not only to be brainwash,but inside your bone merrow, look around you right now.

I partly agree. If the French did not come, the Siamese would have overtaken Laos for sure. But this is where we can only hypothesize what could have happened. I would think either two things would have happened if the French didn't come.

1: The Lao people would have eventually revolted because the three principalities of Lan Xang, though weak, if united, could have been a good fight against the Siamese, taking back the Lao lands. The Khmers could have joined in also, but wasn't their court pretty loyal to the Chakri dynasty?

2: The Lao monarchs could have reigned their small principalities such as the Chiang Mai monarch did, and eventually at the turn of the 20th century lose power to the powerful Chakri dynasty to create a whole "Tai land" for the Tai ethnic groups... which eventually what we see today except that "Tai Land" is in favor for the Siamese.

Date: Apr 5, 2008

just wondering but didnt the french introduce guns to the saimese and just my imaginations but maybe when the lao would revolt against siam if they didnt have guns it would be different i donno does any one have ne thing to say ?

Date: Apr 5, 2008

Who is still stupid missing the French colony ruler, I just wonder?

No doubt, this guy should have gotten something good from France, if not he is French in nationality, although he is Lao race.

Yes, no doubt there were good and bad impacts for Laos, when it was a French colony. However, there were more harm than good. To start with, France built nothing in Laos except to take our resources to development France.

The railroad built in 1898 in southern Laos was to transport our woods to the port in Cambodia. They could not transport the woods by ship any more, there was Khon Pha Pheng, ship could not pass. If there was no Khon Pha Pheng, they would have not bothered to build the railroad.

Yes really, now is 21 century. I really don't understand the purpose of the person posted this topic.

Why does not he be happy with the fact that now Laos is an independent country?

It could be the case if Laos become a colony of France again, he would be the big boss.

Oh lord! Forget it, don't be selfish. I know that some Lao people are still thinking like you man. They really like to serve foreigners to gain their own benefits, as long as they can big bosses in Laos. The old regime of Laos before 1975 was a clear example.

But then, this would never happen, to say for certain.
Let me tell you something for your own benefit. That you would have to wait until your next-next-next life, probably. idea

paris_vientiane · Guru

Those photos show the positive impact of colonialism, that is something real and true.
But other comments are right to remind that there were also negative impact.

Personnaly, i don't know in details how things where during this past period of history, but i read a few books about this anyway, and this is my feeling :

When French arrived, Laos was in a very difficult situation: weak, poor ,and dominated by siamese (south) and Chinese (north). At this time, the arrival and influence of French have been very benefical to Laos. Remember that French didn't "take" Laos by force, but just help the old king of LuangPrabang to protect is country from Siamese and Chinese (who had very bad behaviour at this time toward lao people), and saving his live. So the king asked to put Laos under French protection.

But of course, the purpose of France were to get a benefit from this situation.... France didn't do that just for fun or to be gentle... so France exploited natural ressources while developping the country. But Laos is far from France, and was not easy to access at this time. So France didn't take care a lot Laos: they didn't exploited so much Laos, but didn't invest a lot too to develop the country... and little by little, they became clearly not the best managers the Laos could dream of.

After World War II, France was so weak that the country had to focus on it's own re-construction... France didn't have any possibility to take care the old colonies. Moreover, the geo-political and strategic situation in Laos were stabilised (chinese or siamese din't try any more to invade Laos), so it was clearly time for Laos to retrieve it's independancy... what happen without so many trouble.... before Indochina and Vietnam War... but this is another story, involving USA, war between "western world" and "communist world".... at this time Laos had retrieved it's independance yet (a few years before).... the end of the story is much more sad

Lan_Xang · Guru

We discussed this in an older topic maybe it was last summer.
Here is what I t hink.

1) French rule was good because if they didn't we would have been under Siamese rule as another Isan province. Yes, I am upset that huge chunk of Laos became part of Siam.

2) Don't feel alone. Cambodia also lost half of their country as well. Not many know this but almost the entire southern half of Vietnam (from Saigon southward) was Cambodia.

3) Laos and Cambodia was just a buffer States for France against British in Burma and Siam. France did introduce administrative/government structure but that was needed for them to rule Laos. France main focus is Vietnam.

Zak · Senior Member

Anonymous wrote:

Who is still stupid missing the French colony ruler, I just wonder?
But then, this would never happen, to say for certain.
Let me tell you something for your own benefit. That you would have to wait until your next-next-next life, probably.

I think every topic here posted is not personal. You shouldn't take it personal, its all for good debate and good talk. You shouldn't attack the Original Poster for a question, instead you should really focus on the topic.

Colonization is only for the good of the dominant country. Its good that they were there to protect, but I still believe there would have been something to keep the Lao people and Lao lands in the Lao hands if the French wasn't there.

Date: Apr 5, 2008

Just for someone who is so upset about Laos was colonized by French,I understood your petriotism, yes we do not want to be under French,but you should realized that there is not other better way. Take a look at Lanna, Arayan Prathed, Isan,and the three southern provinces right now. Were they revolt against Thai to take back their country? no,except the 3 provinces in the south.Please don't call someone stupid, if you have a very good idea please share. If you read the history about Laos,all of the loosing battle to Siam was the Lao itself. biting, betraying among themself, during Anouvong,Saysethatirat etc..LOOK AROUND YOU RIGHT NOW,WHERE YOU WORK, MARKET PL,DEPART. STORE, STREET ALSO YOUR NEIBORGHS, YOU WERE SURROUNDED BY THE VIETNAMES, EVERY DECISION MAKING, IT HAS TO BE APPROVE BY THE VIET ADVISORS, ARE YOU PROUD OF THAT? BS...

Date: Apr 6, 2008

If you are Lao then you under-estimate yourself here if you said France was a protector. Please do not use what if statement. Laos has a long history and always dig itself out of trouble. We are capable.

Date: Apr 6, 2008

Zak wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who is still stupid missing the French colony ruler, I just wonder?
But then, this would never happen, to say for certain.
Let me tell you something for your own benefit. That you would have to wait until your next-next-next life, probably.

I think every topic here posted is not personal. You shouldn't take it personal, its all for good debate and good talk. You shouldn't attack the Original Poster for a question, instead you should really focus on the topic.

Oh yes, thanks for reminding me. Actually, I did not consider that I attcked anyone and I don't want either. I just wrote my comment basing on what my audience had expected to see. I wrote it for my audience. Sometimes, I need to point out what is purpose of this topic.

I think now is the 21 century, we should have right to write what we want to express, although it might not suit you, but suit others.

Since I do not break any rules or law, probably I can do whatever I want. That is a real freedom, isn't it?

Regards,
...

Date: Apr 6, 2008

Lao race.
for the first time i hear, that it is a lao race.
maybe i ran out of school on the etnic hours.
it is a very well known as caucasian, mongolian, negrolian, later know as white, black, red, yellow races. nowsday it is lao race ?

please share your sources when and who establisheslao race ?!

Date: Apr 6, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

Lao race.
for the first time i hear, that it is a lao race.
maybe i ran out of school on the etnic hours.
it is a very well known as caucasian, mongolian, negrolian, later know as white, black, red, yellow races. nowsday it is lao race ?

please share your sources when and who establisheslao race ?!

I get an impression that some Lao people really need someone to establish the Lao race.

If you really lack of knowledge why don't look on dictionary about the meaning of "race"

race (PEOPLE) noun[C or U] = a group, especially of people, with particular similar physical characteristics, who are considered as belonging to the same type, or the fact of belonging to such a group.

race group noun[C] = a group of people who share the same language, history, characteristics, etc.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=65069&dict=CALD

Zak · Senior Member

Anonymous wrote:

Oh yes, thanks for reminding me. Actually, I did not consider that I attcked anyone and I don't want either. I just wrote my comment basing on what my audience had expected to see. I wrote it for my audience. Sometimes, I need to point out what is purpose of this topic.

I think now is the 21 century, we should have right to write what we want to express, although it might not suit you, but suit others.

Since I do not break any rules or law, probably I can do whatever I want. That is a real freedom, isn't it?

Regards,
...

I believe Freedom is the right to do as you please, but not upon others. Honestly, those who have not experience Freedom take it too literally when they hear about it. You don't take Freedom and tread all over others.

Its harsh to make such a generalization and assumption such as "No doubt, this guy should have gotten something good from France". I don't also see a purpose of questioning the Original Poster like he/she has some ill-intention.

I think what I am trying to get at is, why cannot we stay clear of personal comments with each other and instead of the topic at hand?

Date: Apr 6, 2008

Yes, I do agree with someone who said that there were good and bad impacts with being French colony.

Given my judgement, Thailand is the really worst colony ruler in our history. Vientiane was burned, Lao people were forced to leave Laos, our real king and his soldiers were forced to be like slave to dig " Klong Sen Seap" in Bangkok and later on they all were killed by Thai soldiers. That was really harash experience for Lao people.

USA is also the number two colony ruler after Thailand. Lao people were killed and its legacy is still can be seen. That is the bomb.

France is the best colony ruler for Laos. The reasons were mentioned above by many commentators. And please don't get me wrong.

Zak · Senior Member

Anonymous wrote:

USA is also the number two colony ruler after Thailand. Lao people were killed and its legacy is still can be seen. That is the bomb.

France is the best colony ruler for Laos. The reasons were mentioned above by many commentators. And please don't get me wrong.

I don't think the USA counts as a colonizer. They really wanted SE Asia to stay Communist free. Bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail within Laos isn't exactly the way to do it.

Date: Apr 8, 2008

Zak wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

USA is also the number two colony ruler after Thailand. Lao people were killed and its legacy is still can be seen. That is the bomb.

France is the best colony ruler for Laos. The reasons were mentioned above by many commentators. And please don't get me wrong.

I don't think the USA counts as a colonizer. They really wanted SE Asia to stay Communist free. Bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail within Laos isn't exactly the way to do it.

Oh! You are blind. Lots Lao people had died from the war, you still cannot see anything with your Boss.

No wonder, someone said you are .....

Zak · Senior Member

Anonymous wrote:

Zak wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

USA is also the number two colony ruler after Thailand. Lao people were killed and its legacy is still can be seen. That is the bomb.

France is the best colony ruler for Laos. The reasons were mentioned above by many commentators. And please don't get me wrong.

I don't think the USA counts as a colonizer. They really wanted SE Asia to stay Communist free. Bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail within Laos isn't exactly the way to do it.
Oh! You are blind. Lots Lao people had died from the war, you still cannot see anything with your Boss.

No wonder, someone said you are .....

What exactly do you expect from War? Bloodless hand holding and songs? I don't see how the definition of war and colonization is different between me and you. Not once did American forces during the whole war had troops based in Laos. I never said they didn't attack Laos, in fact, I said they DID attack Laos. I think you have "enemy" and "colonizer" mixed up.

Lol why are you going back to personal attacks? I am a... what? Thats very mature, bro. I don't see why that could not have been left out, since it was very irrelevant.

BTW: Who are you? Where do you reside? Me, I live in Minnesota, USA. 3rd largest population of Lao people in the States live here. And you?

Date: Jan 3, 2013

where is the negative effects of colonizing Laos.. disbelief