I used to teach a course on modern Vietnamese history (19th and 20th centuries), but I stopped teaching it a few years ago because I got really bored with it.
I got bored of the general narrative of Vietnamese history that I was presenting to students. The way I was teaching Vietnamese history is the way that I suspect a lot of people in North America teach it (or have taught it), and that is to see a pretty sudden decline of “traditional” Vietnam and the gradual emergence of a modern Vietnam.
Topics covered in the first half of the course included ones such as the following:
1) “Traditional” Vietnam and the Nguyen Dynasty;
2) The French conquest and the Cần Vương movement (with the failure of the Cần Vương movement symbolizing the end of traditional ways);
3) The first generation of revolutionaries, Phan Bội Châu and Phan Chu Trinh, people who had one foot in the traditional world and one foot in the modern world, having been exposed to Western ideas through Japanese and Chinese writings (and their failure to bring about change signifying the need for a completely modern generation);
4) The emergence of a modern generation of Vietnamese who knew French and wrote the Vietnamese vernacular using the Romanized script (quốc ngữ), who embraced individualism, and who started to form secret political organizations to resist French colonial rule.
We can think of this general narrative of modern Vietnamese history as a “revolutionary” history. It is a narrative that is designed to explain where the August Revolution of 1945 came from and why there were decades of war after that.
From our perspective in the present, this narrative can help us understand how the world we live in today was created, and there is merit in that.
However, when you look at historical materials from say the 1910s or 1920s or 1930s, it’s difficult to see signs of the future that would eventually emerge. Instead, you see signs everywhere of a world that the revolutionary history of modern Vietnam doesn’t teach about.
Take, for instance, the young and very modern intellectuals who formed a group in Hanoi in the 1930s known as the Tự Lực Văn Đoàn (Self-Strength Literary Group). This group of intellectuals sought to promote the modernization (which for them basically meant Westernization) of Vietnam through their writings which they published in a couple of journals Phong Hóa (Mores) and Ngày Nay (These Days).
In the revolutionary narrative of modern Vietnamese history, these intellectuals “fit” in that they represent the modern generation that was needed to transform Vietnam, but because they were very bourgeois in their outlook and lifestyle, they could not inspire the peasants to action.
Therefore, like Phan Bội Châu and Phan Chu Trinh, in the revolutionary narrative of modern Vietnamese history the members of the Self-Strength Literary Group represent a stage in the development of revolution. The big story comes later.
This is what I used to teach students. However, whenever I read the journal, Mores, I was always surprised to come across references to Nguyễn Dynasty officials. The members of the Self-Strength Literary Group regularly ridiculed Nguyễn Dynasty officials, and that seemed odd to me.
In the revolutionary narrative of modern Vietnamese history, the Nguyễn Dynasty quickly loses its importance once the French conquer Vietnam. However, that the members of the Self-Strength Literary Group felt the need to criticize Nguyễn Dynasty officials and their policies in the 1930s demonstrates that the dynasty was still very much a part of people’s lives (and it definitely was!).
The more I came across information like this, the more I felt that what I was teaching students was different from what I actually understood. However, I couldn’t find a way to “rethink” modern Vietnamese history. So I stopped teaching the course.
Now, however, I might have to start teaching it again because Christopher Goscha has brilliantly “rethought” modern Vietnamese history in his new book, Vietnam: A New History (outside of the US it is called The Penguin History of Modern Vietnam).
For the period of history that I’ve been discussing here, rather than telling a story of the gradual emergence of “true revolutionaries,” Goscha demonstrates that the most important trend in the first few decades of the twentieth century was the effort to try to create a form of “colonial republicanism.”
Essentially what Goscha demonstrates is that there were many prominent Vietnamese who tried to work with the French in order to transform and modernize Vietnam. These men didn’t seek independence, as they felt that Vietnam was not ready to compete in the modern world yet. What they tried to do was to get the French to create some form of “colonial republic” first.
Phan Chu Trinh tried to do this. Nguyễn Dynasty emperors tried as well. Phan Bội Châu wrote an essay promoting it. Bùi Quang Chiêu and the Constitutionalists in Cochinchina tried. The “Revendications du peuple annamite” (“The Demands of the Annamese People”) that Nguyễn Ái Quốc tried to present to the world leaders at the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919 was an effort to do this. And many different people tried to get the French to transform Vietnam during the Popular Front period in the 1930s.
All of these people, Goscha also demonstrates, ended up disappointed. Despite these many efforts to push the French to transform their ideals into reality, the French never allowed a “colonial republic” of any form to emerge, and this opened the door for revolution.
Because that is what ended up happening, the revolutionary narrative of modern Vietnamese history dismisses all of these efforts as insignificant, or depicts them in ways that fit the revolutionary narrative: Phan Chu Trinh was a patriot but he was misguided in thinking that he could work with the French. Nguyễn Dynasty emperors were puppets. Phan Bội Châu never should have written that essay encouraging Franco-Vietnamese collaboration. The Constitutionalists were insignificant. Nguyễn Ái Quốc’s document was the start of a revolutionary struggle for independence, etc.
However, if we stand in the shoes of people who lived in the 1910s or 1920s or 1930s we can see that they believed (or at least hoped) that there was a non-revolutionary way out of colonialism. So they pushed the French to create some form of colonial republic.
In hindsight we can also see that such a view was usually right. As a means to bring an end to colonial rule, colonial republicanism worked more often than it failed. It worked in India, Burma, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaya, Cambodia, Laos, and one could argue that it was working in South Vietnam in the 1950s as well.
To be fair, there were other factors in some of these places that contributed to the end of colonial rule, however these places did not require a revolution to bring an end to colonialism. That is why it is important to take seriously the people who tried to transform Vietnam through non-revolutionary means.
Christopher Goscha takes these people and their efforts very seriously. And in so doing he “rethinks” modern Vietnamese history in ways that now make it possible for me to teach a course on modern Vietnamese history again, as his book brings what we know about modern Vietnam together in a way that makes much better sense than the revolutionary narrative of modern Vietnamese history.
The story of the first three decades of the twentieth century is not the story of “the rise of nationalism and communism,” as I taught students for years. It is the story of “the failure of colonial republicanism” (the title of Chapter 5 in Goscha’s book).
This Post Has 8 Comments
I’ve changed my stance alot since I was first introduced to the school taught history about modern Vietnam, but I still think that wars and violence vindicated their virtue. French are (and probably were) very different from UK. I think some blood must be shed to shake the French off their clinging to the colonial power. Whenever I see French struggle with the immigrant problems, I can help laugh sadistcally: they reap what they sow.
_ the French stubbornly refused till the bitter end to yield ; hundreds of thousands of VN lives were lost . But there is a silver lining to be found in the tragedy . At least,it gave the Vietnamese an opportunity to pay back for the colonization by a loud and clear military victory . It’s a most important salve for the psyche of a colonized people,it redeems the past De Gaulle in 1944 insisted in participating in the Normandy disembarcation , he said that the French must pay that kind of blood tax (reading French postwar history,one had the feeling , the French liberated themselves with just a puny helping hand from the Anglosaxons ).The Koreans did not have the opportunity to strike back at the Japanese , they were liberated by someone else ,they are still enraged against the Japanese
_ speaking of the Cân vuong insurrection , I have the feeling It is nowadays foreshadowed , nearly forgotten ; while it was the forerunner of the Vietminh . The mandarins and literati who were the leaders of the movement all knew each other by sight or hearsay ; the organisatinn did not disappear , it just retreated in the background where it stayed clandestine as a kind of VCI ( VC infrastructure ) .The literati were held in high esteem by the population, who kept alive the memory of their accpmplishments and sacrifices by oral transmission .
The majority of the initial Vietminh leaders were the sons or nephews of the Can vuong literati ; most iconic is Vo nguyên Giap ,whose both grandfathers participated in the Cân vuong . So when the Vietminh snatched power in August 1945 , they succeeded astoundingly fast in rallying the population , it was thanks to the reactivated Can vuong network ( one may say , Vietminh = Can vuong 2.0 )
Sad to say , later on , as usual in any revolution , the Can vuong were purged by the Communist extremists.
Sorry for not responding sooner. I wanted to read what Goscha wrote about the First Indochina War, I still haven’t finished that part, but yes, I agree with you. One thing that Goscha documents very clearly is the absolute refusal of the French to share any power whatsoever with Vietnamese all the way up until almost the end. At the very, very end they finally agreed to give Bao Dai a tiny bit of authority, but by that time it was far, far too little and far, far too late.
_ has Pr Goscha broached the disttant past , the 2000 year before and after independance ? where does he stand on the Gaulois- Han viet divide ?
_ the VN communists as the ultimate victors and with the benefit of hindsight belittled the preceding generations ofindependance strivers ; while it should be considered that the red thread of VN history since the fall of Huê is the struggle for independance ,the preceding fighters did the most as they can . The communists having found a new lens for reading history , a new Procustian bed , chopped out all the historical facts that did not fit their approach . It’s a most prevalent evil , the evil of hindsight , of ” hồi tô’ ” ( retroactive application ) .The holders of the Gaulois / essential VN culture did the same , they collect selectively facts to fit their theory ( they enlisted to their cause Hô quy Ly as a parangon of VN independance while Hô considered himself more Chinese as Chinese )
_ [Pr Goscha takes these people and their efforts very seriously ]
When one reads his book about Nguyen van Vinh the ” Modern Barbarian , one has rather the feeling , the VN colonial republicans were “taken for a ride” by the colonists , most prominent among them A.Sarraut and Louis Marty who dangled in front of the colonial republicans the carrot of some autonomy in the long distant future . As diemhentamhon said , the French clung to their possessions to the bitter end , they had to be dragged out , kicking and screaming ; in reality, the dead-enders consisted only of the rubber plantation owners and the Vatican Catholics. The businessmen had moved their assets away at the start of the 50s . The French officers were tired of the fighting
where no conclusive battle could be won and no promotion or medal could be gained ; and the then French government signaled the “end of the game ” by cutting down the ” trafic de la piastre” in 1953 .
Interesting article and commentary. I think I would have preferred gradual independence through negotiations than a bloody senseless war that ultimately created a Stalinist regime in North Vietnam. The “colonial republicanism” was better way as it did not follow the shallowness and barbarity of Maoist China and the emptiness of a dead end of the USSR. That’s why I was an admirer of Phan Chu Trinh. He forewarned the use of violence to achieve independence. Additionally, he warned about aligning one’s cause for independence with an outside foreign power. Ho Chi Minh and the communists did both of that. Vietnam has suffered because of dogmatism and narrow mindedness ever since. I have read Goscha’s book and I was surprised that the book did not take the standard Western academic narrative that the communists were only ones involved in the fight for independence. It was very refreshing to see that sort of balanced and non-political point of view.
@Sid T
_ PC Trinh was a most honorable patriot but it takes two to tango . For colonial republicanism , for a Gandhi to succeed , you need to have a Clement Attlee . When PC Trinh died , he has utterly failed in his “appeasement ” stance ; it would be evident to the next generation of VN that the time for revolutionary violence has come ..At that time , the only available tools were communists tactics and organisation
You speak of dogmatism and narrow mindedness ,you seem to suffer of kneejerk anti communism .You disapprove of ” aligning one’s cause for independence with an outside foreign power ” ; how about the US independance fighters calling France to the rescue .?
How the VN tragedy was started ? you forgot that the VN catholcs called Napoleon III to help them subvert their heathen brethren ( sic )
“VN has suffered from HCM and the communists “!!! I thought, the millions of dead VN people were the victims of the colonialists and US imperialism barbarity
You may be right talking of the barbarity of the URSS and Maoist China but such things happen when one country is in political chaos as it was in France during the Revolution ; anyhow the Russians and the Chinese killed only their own compatriots .
You conveniently omit the innumerable criles and genocide perpetrated by the USA all over the world outside of their country ; one should not forget the genocide of the Native first peoples of USA ( tens of millions )
This article unmasks Ken Burns’ s anticommunism , his hypocrisy , his false balancing and whitewashing of US crimes .
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/12/history-blinded-by-anti-socialism-ken-burns-vietnam/
Matter for reflexion for anti- communists :has it never occurred to them that basically the Americans were not anticommunists at all ? it’s has always been a ploy , to smear whoever stands in their way and taken at face value by gullible people ( now anti communism is replaced by | muslim ] terrorism ). They supported Tito’s Yougoslavia when it opposed Stalin , they jilted Chang kai Shek ‘ China and gave his UN seat to Maoist , etc …
@riroriro,
With an rigid attitude like that I can see why communist Vietnam is at the very, very, bottom of the world. Btw, the laughable idea which Vietnamese communists thought was so good came from Europe. Marx, Engels, and Lenin were a bunch of European losers! Vietnamese communists are themselves have a colonial mindset as they slavishly sing silly communist songs and wear ugly communist clothes. All communist countries ended with bloodshed, wars, economic mismanagement and economic retardation. Vietnamese communists = fools! They followed European fools and Chinese fools to the communist dead end.
@Sd T : You repeat the same old rationalizations fed to you by the quite subtle US brainwashing , told since 1975 to redeem their defeat : we won on moral grounds , we fought with one hand tied , Têt was a military victory , we never lost any pitched battles , communist countries always ended with bloodshed, wars, economic retardation , communist songs are silly and communist clothes are ugly , etc ..
I’ m amazed by the stubborness , die-hard , never surrender mind of the VN anti communists even after more than 40 years of defeat . Normally , a vienamese would say : such conflicts happened in the past , likewise the Nguyên conquered the Trinh ; so what , we’re just common people , it was a quarrel between rulers .
The Vietnamese anticommunists are crazed by their manic infatuation of the USA , they have
such a idolatry of all things American that they still believe in anticommunism . You could tell them for 1000 years , they will never open their eyes ; they mindlessly didn’t notice antiicommunism was a sheer pretext for Americans , who have moved to other targets , other people to bomb . VN anticommunists have been left out on a limb , history has passed them by .They can’t give up anticommunism , it has become part of their psyche ; renouncing it would cause them a mental breakdown .Maybe , it would be interesting for a historian to work together with a psychiatrist to analyze that kind of neurosis , of PTSD .How long have White Russians , Chinese Nationalistsnurtured their bitterness ?