Although beautiful is an apt word, overwhelming is the first word that comes to mind when describing the Grand Palace and Wat Pha Kaeow - the fantastic set of Buddhist shrines and places of prayer that are part of the palace complex. People around the world associate the sparkling emerald roofs, and gold covered shrines with Bangkok and Thailand itself.
They do for Thais as well, given they are among the holiest sites in Thailand and a symbol of national and cultural pride.
Unlike so many other holy sites, Wat Pha Kaeow doesn't seek to inspire, teach or humble. There's no sharing the ecstasy of St. Theresa, the awe of St. Peter's or Notre Dame, nor the somber ancientness of Old Jerusalem or even the Temple of the Goddess of Destruction in Kathmandu.
The Grand Palace wants to dazzle you with its size, sparkle and splendor - which express the greatness of Siam and Siamese kings that built it. In short, it was built to say to the European world, "We get it, we got it and it's on, boyeeee!"
It makes perfect sense for a complex begun by the first king of the current Chakri Dynasty when he moved the Siamese capitol from Ayuttaya to Bangkok in 1790. In an age of increasing European imperialism, Asia was being slowly conquered and claimed. The Siamese monarch had enough exposure to the European world to know that if his kingdom had any hope of surviving, it would need to command European respect.
One of the key things Europeans admired was the power of a monarch - expressed largely through his grandeur. Thus, a Grand Palace was in order. Not the beautiful Sukkothai stuff from Ayutthaya, but something that that could truly dazzle and overwhelm - something that could be seen from the river and would sparkle in the sun.
So it did, and does to this very day. Over time, the addition of smaller palaces and mansions within the complex took on European designs as Rama V, the "King and I" king - the one largely responsible for preventing the colonization of Siam - aimed to show Britain and France that his kingdom was powerful, sophisticated, forward looking and worthy.
Rama V more than anyone, understood that if you want the role, you have to dress the part - from palaces to his very attire. He was the first to don a suit and military-style uniform like the kings of Europe. He also made drastic changes to Thai culture including the use of utensils for eating (forks and spoons for everything except noodles for which Thais use chopsticks - had to impress the Chinese too) and using western-style furniture including tables and beds.
Rama V remains the most venerated king of all time next to the current king, Rama IX. Despite the loss of absolute rule in the 1930s, the kings of Thailand - and especially the current king - have continued to shape Thailand's destiny through the direction of culture. They've done this because they kept the hearts and minds of the people. Rama IX has the absolute adoration of his people and when he speaks, people listen. In fact, he has what no prime minister or government figure has ever had - the ability to galvanize the Thai people and rule without power, but through words and respect.
Over the past few days and months, I've thought about what it is I like so much about The Thai king. Of course, he's done a great job in his 60+ years on the throne. He's an enlightened monarch if ever there was one, with a talent for jazz, several scientific patents, and skill at captaining ships large and small. He's multilingual - fluent in English and oddly enough an American citizen as he was born in Boston General - a published author and an advocate of compassion, moderation and liberalization.
But there's something more. I love what he represents.
Thais love their monarch in part because he brings them together in a way no political leader could. He's their constant throughout the political and social storms of time. The king gives a voice to the Thai people and is a symbol of unity. The fact that this king also advocates for the welfare of his people, gives generously to worthy causes and has been influential in the development of human and civil rights only strengthens their love and respect.
Nonetheless, it's the role he plays that's of so much value.
And I realized how America and much of the western world is missing that. We used to have it. Franklin D. Roosevelt held the nation's hand through the Depression and a world war. With "fireside chats," great speeches and sweeping programs, Americans felt someone was in charge - someone had their backs. There was a figure they could trust who was steering the ship through the storm.
For several decades, it continued this way. The American president and the media - first radio and later television - were friends. There was a respect for the office and presidents were leaders. Some, including Truman, Kennedy - and I would argue Reagan, especially during the early years - captured imaginations and influenced public opinion.
Watergate began a change that led to a new, and sometimes healthy antagonism between press and president. However, as media has progressed - bringing not only more competitors in television news, but numerous news and information sources in new media - the president is always under the microscope. We have daily approval ratings, media criticism, talking heads supporting and denigrating him and a constant hunt for dirt and weakness.
The president is a celebrity subject to the same fluctuations in popularity as movie and television stars.
As a former newspaper reporter, I have a huge appreciation for the value the press can play in keeping government honest. An honest, free press is necessary to democracy and our very rights and liberties.
However, I wonder if the pendulum hasn't swung too far. Perhaps we're missing something. America has no one to trust or believe in. We have no galvanizing or inspirational force left. That's because the second that a leader captures our imagination or stirs a spark, the media has to dig the dirt, dispel the myth before it begins and lay the person's human faults naked before us - making sure we never make the leap of faith for fear of being foolish or naive.
Were the 1930s media like it is today, it would have focused on Roosevelt's affairs and medical problems. The public would have heard all about his handicap and know about his coronary disease right down to the details of each medical procedure. The tabloids would expose Elanor as a lesbian and she might have to "come out" about her sexuality and loveless marriage to someone like Ellen or Oprah.
Would we have been better off?
Of course, we're not the only ones who have lost that lovin' feeling with our leaders. There hasn't been a French president who has commanded untouchable respect since Pompidou or a venerated British leader since perhaps Wilson?
The days of trust and respect are over. Throughout the developed world, we scrutinize our leaders with distrust and skepticism. Yet I believe that we secretly yearn for someone to see us through the dark times and inspire us once again. People want to be led - and the want it to be great, inspiring and unifying.
I've heard many westerners mock the Thais' undying love of their king. Several have told me how absurd it is that they treat him almost like a god (he is by tradition, supposed to be an incarnation of the Hindu god Rama who rules in essence, by divine right). But I wonder if the mockers aren't the foolish ones. Perhaps something needs to be left holy and respected in our political landscapes. Perhaps there has to be enough room to believe and trust. Maybe it takes a little myth to make the man.
They do for Thais as well, given they are among the holiest sites in Thailand and a symbol of national and cultural pride.
Unlike so many other holy sites, Wat Pha Kaeow doesn't seek to inspire, teach or humble. There's no sharing the ecstasy of St. Theresa, the awe of St. Peter's or Notre Dame, nor the somber ancientness of Old Jerusalem or even the Temple of the Goddess of Destruction in Kathmandu.
The Grand Palace wants to dazzle you with its size, sparkle and splendor - which express the greatness of Siam and Siamese kings that built it. In short, it was built to say to the European world, "We get it, we got it and it's on, boyeeee!"
It makes perfect sense for a complex begun by the first king of the current Chakri Dynasty when he moved the Siamese capitol from Ayuttaya to Bangkok in 1790. In an age of increasing European imperialism, Asia was being slowly conquered and claimed. The Siamese monarch had enough exposure to the European world to know that if his kingdom had any hope of surviving, it would need to command European respect.
One of the key things Europeans admired was the power of a monarch - expressed largely through his grandeur. Thus, a Grand Palace was in order. Not the beautiful Sukkothai stuff from Ayutthaya, but something that that could truly dazzle and overwhelm - something that could be seen from the river and would sparkle in the sun.
So it did, and does to this very day. Over time, the addition of smaller palaces and mansions within the complex took on European designs as Rama V, the "King and I" king - the one largely responsible for preventing the colonization of Siam - aimed to show Britain and France that his kingdom was powerful, sophisticated, forward looking and worthy.
Rama V more than anyone, understood that if you want the role, you have to dress the part - from palaces to his very attire. He was the first to don a suit and military-style uniform like the kings of Europe. He also made drastic changes to Thai culture including the use of utensils for eating (forks and spoons for everything except noodles for which Thais use chopsticks - had to impress the Chinese too) and using western-style furniture including tables and beds.
Rama V remains the most venerated king of all time next to the current king, Rama IX. Despite the loss of absolute rule in the 1930s, the kings of Thailand - and especially the current king - have continued to shape Thailand's destiny through the direction of culture. They've done this because they kept the hearts and minds of the people. Rama IX has the absolute adoration of his people and when he speaks, people listen. In fact, he has what no prime minister or government figure has ever had - the ability to galvanize the Thai people and rule without power, but through words and respect.
Over the past few days and months, I've thought about what it is I like so much about The Thai king. Of course, he's done a great job in his 60+ years on the throne. He's an enlightened monarch if ever there was one, with a talent for jazz, several scientific patents, and skill at captaining ships large and small. He's multilingual - fluent in English and oddly enough an American citizen as he was born in Boston General - a published author and an advocate of compassion, moderation and liberalization.
But there's something more. I love what he represents.
Thais love their monarch in part because he brings them together in a way no political leader could. He's their constant throughout the political and social storms of time. The king gives a voice to the Thai people and is a symbol of unity. The fact that this king also advocates for the welfare of his people, gives generously to worthy causes and has been influential in the development of human and civil rights only strengthens their love and respect.
Nonetheless, it's the role he plays that's of so much value.
And I realized how America and much of the western world is missing that. We used to have it. Franklin D. Roosevelt held the nation's hand through the Depression and a world war. With "fireside chats," great speeches and sweeping programs, Americans felt someone was in charge - someone had their backs. There was a figure they could trust who was steering the ship through the storm.
For several decades, it continued this way. The American president and the media - first radio and later television - were friends. There was a respect for the office and presidents were leaders. Some, including Truman, Kennedy - and I would argue Reagan, especially during the early years - captured imaginations and influenced public opinion.
Watergate began a change that led to a new, and sometimes healthy antagonism between press and president. However, as media has progressed - bringing not only more competitors in television news, but numerous news and information sources in new media - the president is always under the microscope. We have daily approval ratings, media criticism, talking heads supporting and denigrating him and a constant hunt for dirt and weakness.
The president is a celebrity subject to the same fluctuations in popularity as movie and television stars.
As a former newspaper reporter, I have a huge appreciation for the value the press can play in keeping government honest. An honest, free press is necessary to democracy and our very rights and liberties.
However, I wonder if the pendulum hasn't swung too far. Perhaps we're missing something. America has no one to trust or believe in. We have no galvanizing or inspirational force left. That's because the second that a leader captures our imagination or stirs a spark, the media has to dig the dirt, dispel the myth before it begins and lay the person's human faults naked before us - making sure we never make the leap of faith for fear of being foolish or naive.
Were the 1930s media like it is today, it would have focused on Roosevelt's affairs and medical problems. The public would have heard all about his handicap and know about his coronary disease right down to the details of each medical procedure. The tabloids would expose Elanor as a lesbian and she might have to "come out" about her sexuality and loveless marriage to someone like Ellen or Oprah.
Would we have been better off?
Of course, we're not the only ones who have lost that lovin' feeling with our leaders. There hasn't been a French president who has commanded untouchable respect since Pompidou or a venerated British leader since perhaps Wilson?
The days of trust and respect are over. Throughout the developed world, we scrutinize our leaders with distrust and skepticism. Yet I believe that we secretly yearn for someone to see us through the dark times and inspire us once again. People want to be led - and the want it to be great, inspiring and unifying.
I've heard many westerners mock the Thais' undying love of their king. Several have told me how absurd it is that they treat him almost like a god (he is by tradition, supposed to be an incarnation of the Hindu god Rama who rules in essence, by divine right). But I wonder if the mockers aren't the foolish ones. Perhaps something needs to be left holy and respected in our political landscapes. Perhaps there has to be enough room to believe and trust. Maybe it takes a little myth to make the man.
That's a lot of gold!
Posted by: Lauree Feigenbaum | 06/12/2011 at 07:53 PM