Embedded Files
From: ryan nelson <sociolgst@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: vsg@u.washington.edu
Date: Sat, Feb 2, 2008 at 6:04 PM
I’m winding the clock back a bit, here, but what opinions are there regarding when French policy in Viet Nam (Cochin China, Annam and Tonquin) shifted from protection of Catholic missionaries (i.e. June 1862 and March 1872 treaties) to out and out colonialist expansionism? Did an appropriate event symbolize or facilitate the change from protectorate to colony? Is there an overlapping period? Perhaps when the French took up arms against the Black Flag Army around 1882? I ask because the available date I’ve encountered does not address the issue clearly.
Thanks.
Chuc Munh Nam Moi
Peace in Viet Nam
Ryan Nelson
College Grad, Student, Researcher, Writer
--------
From: Shawn McHale <mchale@gwu.edu>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, Feb 2, 2008 at 9:22 PM
Ryan,
May questions -- some of these could best be answered, because they are quite complex, by looking at a history of the period. But one clarification, because I suspect that all your questions are based on the idea that French policy shifted from that of protectorate to that of colony. In fact, it was exactly the reverse. Cochinchina was annexed (first) as a colony; both Annam and Tonkin were annexed later as protectorates.
Shawn McHale
Associate Professor of History and International Affairs
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
(on leave, 2007-08, at Vietnam National University --
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam)
--------
From: g.de-gantes@laposte.net <g.de-gantes@laposte.net>
Reply-To: "g.de-gantes@laposte.net" <g.de-gantes@laposte.net>, Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sun, Feb 3, 2008 at 6:55 AM
Ryan
As Shawn points it, the question of catholicism/colonialism is very complex. I agree with him: in the first stages (1859) Cochinchina was a colony (which means: French people have the hand on everything, how small these things are) and, after 1883, Tonkin and Annam were apparently governed by "indirect rule" (which means that native administrations had preserved a part of their previous powers), even if, on the field, French administration supervised everything.
1. Concerning catholicism, French policies have followed different stages, but you have to remember that, even if France is supposed (in France) to be the "eldest daughter of the Church", French governments through the ages (even in the Middle Age or under Louis XIV) have tried to be independant from the Church (to be short, this stream can be summarized under the word of gallicanism). Obviously, the distrust has been stressed in the XVIIIth (Enlightment, Voltaire and so on) and after 1789.
2. For the period where Asia is concerned (mainly the period after 1840), the French had no interest in the Far East and no power: they only opportunity to stay in Asia was to shelter on missionary networks (especially for translations: it is obvious for the Opium Wars, I have written a text in english about this topic for Academia Sinica, Taiwan, which is available on the Web), whatever the governments could think.
3. Between 1859 and 1870 and then between 1870 and 1879, the governments were close to catholic positions, but carefully: the French were not so numerous in Cochinchina and they had to obtain a kind of collaboration from buddhist/confucianist civil servants. On another hand, in the beginnings, the only available translators were catholics.
French administration had to maintain a subtle balance between catholics and buddhists (US diplomats had to solve the same equation with Diem in the 1950th). At home, French governments had to be carfull too: when the war between China and France occured in june 1884, the Ferry's government was accused to sacrifice Chinese friendship only for Catholic church pleasure.
4. After 1877 and after 1902 still more, the different governments had no sympathy with catholicism. A lot of French governors of Indochina (as Paul Bert, Jean-Marie de Lanessan or Paul Beau) thought that, because the French had landed in Vietnam to "protect" catholics, they were un-popular in Vietnam. De Lanessan tried to restaure traditional confucean administration pride (against catholicism) in the beginning of the 1890s.
To conclude,
1.French colonial administrateurs were not so favourable to catholic church positions, but they had to rely on the help of the catholic hierarchy.
2. As a consequence, on the field, French civil servants could act, against or in favour of Catholics, following their own opinions as far as no trouble resulted from their policy, that could be transmitted to a higher level.
Yours sincerely.
Gilles de Gantès
Aix-en-Provence. France.
--------
From: Tobias RETTIG <tobiasrettig@smu.edu.sg>
Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sun, Feb 3, 2008 at 7:43 AM
Dear Ryan,
I would like to add on to comments by Gilles de Gantes and Shawn McHale.
An article by Henri Eckert in South East Asia Research (2002) nicely describes the different positions that administrators, admirals, and generals could take, with e.g. the French navy being more Royalist (and hence Catholic) than the more Republican (and often anti-clerical) army. Not to mention the Masonic lodges. Bitter rivalries, and occasional fist-fights (if I recall) between members of different units were played out on the ground in the 1880s - sometimes one wonders how the French managed to establish and maintain rule despite all this infighting.
In terms of the administrative structure: Cochinchina is a colony; Annam and Tonkin are formal protectorates. Tonkin, however, would de facto be run more like a colony (i.e. more direct rule), whereas the French maintenance of the emperor in Hue would formally and to some extent also de facto maintain the semblance of a protectorate. As a result, arguably, during the Nghe Tinh soviet movement of 1930-31, those administrators and landlords identified as 'collaborators' were attacked rather than unprotected French civilians.
Best,
Tobias
Tobias Rettig, School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University
--------
From: Jean Michaud <michaudjean@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: jean.michaud@ant.ulaval.ca, Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Sun, Feb 3, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Dear Ryan,
In addition to what has been said so far, may I suggest
that you take a close look at the role of influencial
French Catholic Bishop Paul-François Puginier who ruled the
West Tonkin Vicariate (thus Hanoi) over the crucial period
from 1868 to 1892. His role in pushing French colonial
authorities into a all out conquest of Tonkin while
undermining the Mandarins' hold on the affairs of the
state, as well as denouncing Regent Thyuet, cannot be
underestimated. Governor De Lanessan explicitly lamented
the 'excessive' influence Puginier had on the way France
ruled its Indochina possessions. I have drawn a broad
picture of Puginier's actions in my article "French
Missionary Expansion in Colonial Upper Tonkin" Journal of
Southeast Asian Studies, 35(2), pp 287–310, 2004.
Jean Michaud
Anthropology
Université Laval
--------
Page updated
Report abuse