The ethnic groups of the chao lay or ‘sea people’ living in the border regions between Thailand, Myanmar and Malaysia are among the several indigenous and ethnic minority groups that will be affected by man-made climate change the heaviest. However, unlike the so-called Hill Tribes in the mountainous areas in the north of Thailand these groups were more or less ignored by Thai politics and the public, but also by science, until the tsunami in 2004.
A Moken village on Ko Surin (left) and an aerial view of a small island in the Phayam District (right) | (Photos by: Kwanchit Sasiwongsaroj (left) and Tomas Malik (right))
When academics, politicians, the media and the public discuss the problems of these communities, terms such as ‘sea nomad’, ‘sea gypsies’ or the Thai word chao lay are often used – or the name of one of the three subgroups that are grouped together in these larger ethnonyms: Moken, Moklen and Urak Lawoi. However, these terms are assigned by outsiders and very often have negative and derogatory connotations or are neutral at best; these connotations in turn depend heavily on the cultural background of the societies and individuals who use them.
For example, in the context of the so-called ‘West’, the word ‘nomad’ has a fairly neutral and very orientalist meaning, evoking images of camel caravans in the Middle East transporting exotic goods from oasis to oasis. In the Thai context, on the other hand, the words ‘nomad’ (re-ron) and ‘nomadic lifestyle’ have a strongly negative connotation, like the word ‘gypsy’ in the West. The term is connected to the practice of slash-and-burn-cultivation (tam rai leun loy). The hilltribes in northern Thailand were seen as practicing this type of agriculture due to their frequent shifted in their farming areas. Their nomadic life was viewed as encroaching and destroying the forest. This also shows that sedentary societies view non- or semi-sedentary groups as something to worry about; groups that are beyond the reach of the state and are therefore seen as a potential threat due to their mobility. The hilltribes were uncomfortable with this term and argued to change to ‘cycling cultivation’ (tam rai mun wian), which describes a practice of relocation to another area temporarily and return to the same location once the soil has naturally regained its fertility.
Therefore, activist groups such as the Chao Lay Andaman Network discourage to call them as ‘sea gypsy’ or ‘nomads’ (re-ron) because they do not see themselves as ‘nomads’. The term chao lay, on the other hand, meaning ‘sea people’, seems to have a more neutral meaning and preferable. One of our key informants from the network, told us in an interview in preparation for upcoming fieldwork on Surin and Phayam islands; in addition to being a minority group that is not well included to the Thai society, the term re-ron also has the image of being a destroyer of natural resources. Therefore, our key informant also suggests to use the term ‘cycling’ to describe the lifestyle of the chao lay, since – to him – it is less discriminating since it implies sailing to different places in a revolving manner, instead of wandering around aimlessly. To a certain degree this debate is also an example of how marginalized and discriminated communities repurpose external descriptions that were once intended as racist slurs or derogatory terms to label and describe themselves.
Given the above information, it is crucial for scholars studying minorities of any kind – ethnic, social, etc. – to be aware of the cultural meanings behind certain names that are very often assigned to these groups from outside. The consideration of how groups such as chao lay, ‘sea nomads’ or Moken, etc. refer to themselves could be addressed in further posts and articles. These considerations are particularly crucial for a project that explores various forms of ‘ethnic’ and ‘indigenous knowledge’.
