Periodization

From: hue-tam ho tai <hhtai@fas.harvard.edu>

To: "Vietnam Studies Group" <vsg@u.washington.edu>

Subject: Re: Periodization

All of the periodization schemes I've read about so far are about what happened in the North. Is (was) South Vietnam a foreign country?

Hue-Tam Ho Tai

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:20:28 -0500

From: mchale <mchale@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>

To: "Vietnam Studies Group" <vsg@u.washington.edu>

Subject: Periodization

David's question on periodization is interesting -- but his own book shows, I think, that sticking with 1945 as a fault-line is fraught with problems. The August General Uprising was clearly an important event, but it was no Russian Revolution.

Perhaps just to be ornery, I have toyed with seeing 1941-1958 as a piece. 1941, because the foundation of the Vietnam and the shift away from class against class ideology to a more inclusive revolutionary nationalist one re-oriented the communist cause. 1958, because we can conceivably argue that up to that year, the PArty had not succeeded in imposing its will on the populace (witness the dissent in the army and among intellectuals up to 1956 and on into 1957). But 1958 is when the Party, if I remember my NHAN DAN articles correctly, launched its attacks on revisionism, definitively cracked down on dissent, and thus found its authoritarian voice once again. I imagine that my schema can be attacked. (I am certain that it can!)

Everything depends on your definition of revolution, of course. If we accept that we are only talking about political transformations, many of these schemas make sense. Culturally and intellectually, they do not. In that sense,the period under French colonial rule is far more revolutionary, and the 1930s is key: many of the trends often ascribed to post-1945 thinking find their genesis in thes and early 1940s.

Shawn McHale

Assistant Professor of History and International Affairs

The George Washington University

e-mail address: mchale@gwu.edu

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:17:03 -0800

From: Oscar Salemink <O.SALEMINK@FORDFOUND.ORG>

To: "Vietnam Studies Group" <vsg@u.washington.edu>

Subject: RE: Periodization

I like to be simplistic. If people here say "theo cach mang" I have the impression they usually refer to the period before 1975, when that doing that was still risky and problematic, both in the north and in the south. After 1975 there is of course lots of revolutionary public discourse but people would not say "theo cach mang" now, I guess. If they would, I don't meet them. The question then becomes: who decides about periodization, and what are the criteria? Is it the experience of people? Or certain watershed events? Both?

I agree. "Theo cach mang" implies participating in a supposedly altruistic/noble endeavor to remake society for the better at great personal risk. In this sense, I don't see it's possible to fit the changes brought about by French colonial rule as "revolutionary", unless by "revolutionary" we mean "drastic", good or bad.

The August 45 event is a defining moment, carrying momentous meanings, both symbolic and real, for the Vietnamese at the time. For 70-odd years all the uprisings against the French were crushed, the old scholar-literati class repeatedly tried to no avail, the newly French-trained nationalists carried out no effective schemes than suicidal attacks. Many lost hope and turned to cooperation or collaboration. The August 45 event changed all that. For the first time in almost a hundred years the Vietnamese knew that they could win. It marked the beginning of the unshakeable hold HCM and the Vietminh had on the national imagination, a hold that could not even be broken during the Vietnam war. It's almost like poetry.

The class against class ideology was a bit more complicated, finessed dependent upon the needs of the time. It was the raison-d'etre behind the Land reform campaign in the mid 1950s, and remained the guiding light for admitting and promoting cadres within the party hierarchy. Its long term effect could be felt today, with the absence of the old "petit bourgeoisie" at the top level of the leadership, the likes of all first generation leaders - from HCM, Truong Ching, PVDong, Le Duc Tho to Vo Nguyen Giap. Yes, 1958 is indeed a watershed event, marking the complete crushing of party dissent. However, it's interesting to note that this does not mark the end of dissent, only the end of open dissent. Dissent simply went underground and quietly gathered strength until the 1986-7 with the works of Nguyen Minh Chau, Nguyen Huy Thiep, Hoang Ngoc Hien, To Nhuan Vy, etc. and a whole generation of Doi Moi writers/some elder party leaders.

As Shawn already put it - "culturally and intellectually, they do not" quite make sense.

Oscar Salemink

From: "Chung Nguyen" <chung.nguyen@umb.edu>

To: "Vietnam Studies Group" <vsg@u.washington.edu>

Subject: Re: Periodization

Oscar Salemink wrote:

>

> I like to be simplistic. If people here say "theo cach mang" I have the

> impression they usually refer to the period before 1975, when that doing

> that was still risky and problematic, both in the north and in the south.

> After 1975 there is of course lots of revolutionary public discourse but

> people would not say "theo cach mang" now, I guess. If they would, I don't

> meet them. The question then becomes: who decides about periodization, and

> what are the criteria? Is it the experience of people? Or certain

> watershed events? Both?

I agree. "Theo cach mang" implies participating in a supposedly altruistic/noble endeavor to remake society for the better at great personal risk. In this sense, I don't see it's possible to fit the changes brought about by French colonial rule as "revolutionary", unless by "revolutionary" we mean "drastic", good or bad.

The August 45 event is a defining moment, carrying momentous meanings, both symbolic and real, for the Vietnamese at the time. For 70-odd years all the uprisings against the French were crushed, the old scholar-literati class repeatedly tried to no avail, the newly French-trained nationalists carried out no effective schemes than suicidal attacks. Many lost hope and turned to cooperation or collaboration. The August 45

Event changed all that. For the first time in almost a hundred years the Vietnamese knew that they could win. It marked the beginning of the unshakeable hold HCM and the Vietminh had on the national imagination, a hold that could not even be broken during the Vietnam war. It's almost like poetry.

The class against class ideology was a bit more complicated, finessed dependent upon the needs of the time. It was the raison-d'etre behind the Land reform campaign in the mid 1950s, and remained the guiding light for admitting and promoting cadres within the party hierarchy. Its long term effect could be felt today, with the absence of the old "petit bourgeoisie" at the top level of the leadership, the likes of all first generation leaders - from HCM, Truong Ching, PVDong, Le Duc Tho to Vo Nguyen Giap.

Yes, 1958 is indeed a watershed event, marking the complete crushing of party dissent. However, it's interesting to note that this does not mark the end of dissent, only the end of open dissent. Dissent simply went underground and quietly gathered strength until the 1986-7 with the works of Nguyen Minh Chau, Nguyen Huy Thiep, Hoang Ngoc Hien,

To Nhuan Vy, etc. and a whole generation of Doi Moi writers/some elder party leaders.

As Shawn already put it - "culturally and intellectually, they do not" quite make sense.

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:31:58 -0800 (PST)

From: joseph j hannah <jhannah@u.washington.edu>

To: "Vietnam Studies Group" <vsg@u.washington.edu>

Subject: RE: Periodization

Interesting discussion.

Oscar brings up a good point: who decides about periodization? Clearly, it is an artificial framework designed to make historiography coherent. As such, is is part of the discourse of historiography, used to create power/knowledge. The "winners" write the history, thus their power in converted to knowledge, reinforcing their power...

This said, I find it interesting that the term "revolution" is being used as the critical organizing principle. It is certainly the term used by the victorious Vietnamese regime -- the "winners." But by organizing western historical scholarship using the same framework, we are accepting their world view, acknowledging their "knowledge," and denying voice to competing"knowledges." (See Hue-Tam Ho Tai's comment below: where is southern/South VN in this framework?)

So I would like to suggest dropping the "revolutionary" terminology, except when explicitly analyzing the political discourse of the "winners." Personally, I find that in seeking to understand the conflict(s) and social changes in Vietnam for the last century, viewing this history as a (series of) "struggle(s) for liberation" is more useful than trying to frame it as a "revolution." Certainly I do not avoid buying into a set of assumptions and biases, but, if I may paraphrase Shaun Mchale (below), this process "was no Russian Revolution," regardless of how Hanoi has characterized it.

(In for a penny, in for a pound...) My second thought has to do with "slashes" -- as in "pre/rev/post-rev." It is tempting to allow these typographical devices to become hard lines, immovable, definable. I doubt such divisions could ever be agreed upon. In fact, for the sake of scholarship, I hope they never are. I hope they are constantly contested and blurred. They are useful devices, but they are only that: devices.

Your placement of the slash (definition of the historical "period") may meet your needs and your particular analysis. My "take" will be different, and I will define the period differently. In fact, I find the division of the modern history of VN into only 3 periods (pre/rev/post) inadequate for my understanding of the events. I tend to conceptualize things in roughly 5 or 6 periods. These divisions reflect what I perceive as important. They are not useful to everybody.

Climbing down from my soap box, now.

Joe Hannah

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:17:02 -0500

From: "Chung Nguyen" <chung.nguyen@umb.edu>

To: "Vietnam Studies Group" <vsg@u.washington.edu>

Subject: Re: Periodization

> Joseph j Hannah wrote:

> This said, I find it interesting that the term "revolution" is being used as the critical

> organizing principle. It is certainly the term used by the victorious Vietnamese regime > - the "winners." But by organizing western historical

> scholarship using the same framework, we are accepting their world view, acknowledging their "knowledge," and

> denying voice to competing "knowledges." (See Hue-Tam Ho Tai's comment below:

> where is southern/South VN in this framework?)

I am a bit puzzled by this - "organizing western historical scholarship" as opposed to "their": are we still fighting the Cold war ? Perhaps as a person of Vietnamese origin, I am more sensitive to the "western/non-western" paradigm. In the pre-postcolonial period, "western" in Asian history is synonymous with "imperialism/exploitation." Edward Said's critique of this state of affairs is well known.

Returning to Oscar's question: who then determine and based on what principle ? Should we in principle oppose any winners' worldview, or only "theirs" ? Excessive oppression leads to excessive anti-oppression. To what extent should we give voices to "competing knowledges" ? And how can define them ? The SVNese, the French, the American, the Japanese, the Chinese ? In what way can one be simply a proxy for the others, albeit unintendedly ? The SVNese government never had control of the war, and the SVNese people never had control of their government. Is there any known principle, any mutually agreeable guideline, or all a matter of individual tastes ? Historians can include and study lots of competing voices. But realistically, how true is it practiced ? How much American history taught in highschools and colleges include the voices of the Indians, the Torys during the 1776 revolution, or the Mexicans during the campaigns to annex Texas and California ?

For the VN war, American historians, however, have done an outstanding job in this regard.

Nguyen Ba Chung

From: David Marr <dgm405@coombs.anu.edu.au>

To: "Vietnam Studies Group" <vsg@u.washington.edu>

Subject: periodization

Shaun Malarney and I have exchanged a couple of emails on the question of when the Vietnamese Revolution begins and ends, and we thought others might have something interesting to say on this. If we employ pre-rev/rev/post-rev periodization, almost everyone would put

the first forward slash at August 1945. But what about the second? Shaun and I suggest 1979, and each can give reasons. Do others prefer a

different date? Has anyone published on this or related questions? Of course, all of this privilages the Revolution. In some circumstances,

retaining the old Can Dai/Hien Dai rubric may be preferable, but as Hien Dai gets longer there will be a need to divide somewhere. The VN

party-state often propounds 1986 as the beginning of a new era (Doi Moi), while prefessing that the Revolution continues unabated. Be that as it may, there are many things happening from 1979, if not earlier, which are better characterized by historians a post-revolutionary. Another enticing question about the Vietnamese Revolution: when was its Thermidor? I propose the December 1963 Politburo-Central Committee meeting for consideration.

David Marr

From: William Turley <wturley@siu.edu>

To: "Vietnam Studies Group" <vsg@u.washington.edu>

Subject: Re: periodization

I suspect David is having fun...and why not?

Much hangs on what one means by "revolution." If merely the extra-constitutional transfer of power from one ruling elite to another, then 1945 has a strong claim. But if one includes the transformation of social relations in the definition, then clearly this began under the French around the turn of the century, accelerated during the 1930s, and did not take a new turn under communist auspices (undoing much that the French had done) until after the 2nd party congress. Some would question whether "the" revolution was really singular, too, considering the (putative) revolutionary aims of the communists' opponents and the impact of American intervention in the south. As for Thermidor, 1979 is about right, although it did not take hold in policy until 1985. I'd be interested to hear David's rationale for December 1963, considering that was when the party came out against revisionism and for continuing revolution, albeit on the side of what was arguably Confucian neo-traditionalism in revolutionary guise.

Cheers,

Bill Turley

William S. Turley

Dept. of Political Science

Southern Illinois University

Carbondale, IL 62901-4501

tel: (618) 453-3182

fax: (618) 453-3163