Paracels, Spratlies and Nation

Our thousands-of-years history is made up of marvellous stories about the development of the Vietnamese nation in the long course of struggle for survial. These heroic pages have cultivated in the mind of generations of Vietnamese people the perception of Biển Đông (East Sea) as our living and cultural space, especially with regard to Hoàng Sa (Paracel) and Trường Sa (Spratly) as part and parcel of our country. "Vietnamese seas and islands: their long-standing roots," features genuine and objective evidence of how the Vietnamese feudal dynasties Vietnam established and exercised their sovereignty over the sea areas and islands in Biển Đông (East Sea), which are traced back not only within Vietnam but in the documents of many countries around the world, and from that we can affirm that Việt Nam has been the true master of the concerned sea areas and islands for thousands of years.

English version

Episode 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTfnz7TSedk

Episode 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu00mR9X_NE

Episode 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i93hfKUrZP0

Episode 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYFCshLoEDY

Episode 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B22KfiCfDcU

On Jul 9, 2015 5:15 PM, "Bill Hayton" <bill.hayton@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

I don’t want to rain on people’s parades but ‘sovereignty’ for thousands of years. Really? Established nation states projecting authority over islands hundreds of miles out to sea three thousand years ago. Please let’s move beyond this.

Bill Hayton

Indeed. A thousand years ago, i.e. circa 1015, the Vietnamese would not have reached to Hue let alone Quang Ngai.

Hue Tam Ho Tai

Harvard

Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 1:22 AM

To: Hue-Tam Tai

Cc: Vietnam Studies Group

Subject: Re: [Vsg] Documentaries on Hoang Sa, Truong Sa, Bien Dong

Although, this does lead me to ask a related question - when did the words 'nation' and 'sovereignty' first appear in the Vietnamese language?

Joe Buckley

On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Shawn McHale wrote:

The modern notions of "independence" (độc lập), "nation" (dân tộc) and "sovereignty" (chủ quyển) were NEVER uttered by Lý Thường Kiệt. The questions, then, are: 1) did he mean something functionally equivalent to "independence"? In a world defined by tributary relations, not quite 2) is "Nam quốc" functionally equivalent to the modern concept of the nation? I defer to the experts on this list, but I would assume that "quốc" here refers to a state, not a nation in the modern sense. And how much could we call Đại Cồ Việt/ Đại Việt a state like the Song one in the 11th century? Rule was more personalistic, relying on networks of followers 3) is Lý Thường Kiệt referring to what is essentially the modern notion of sovereignty (chủ quyền)? And here I thjnk the answer has to be no. Just as China's claims to historically have "sovereignty" over the Spratly's are balderdash, because it projects back in time modern concepts of sovereignty, so Lý Thường Kiệt is not talking about "sovereignty" in a modern sense. I would think it is something akin to saying to the Song rulers, you stay on your side of the mountains, I'll stay on mine.

My two cents' worth.

Shawn McHale

George Washington University

From: Vsg [vsg-bounces@mailman11.u.washington.edu] on behalf of Nhan Ngo [nhan@temple.edu]

Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:54 PM

To: mchale@gwu.edu

Dear all,

I wonder if the word "nation" which is translated as "dân tộc" is in the Engel's

tradition? and not as "nation" used in "national", "nationalist", etc. is "quốc gia",

"quốc dân" (like quốc dân đảng). They all point to 國 "quốc". There were many

I wonder if the word 國 in the first line is glossed over in the translation

and the discussion. If it does not mean "nation", "country", "nation-state" as

in UniHan… then what should we translate into English?

While there were many 國 "quốc" in the history of China, why this concept

could not have been "transferred" to Vietnam after many years of domination?

If we say that the first line ends with 居 cư "reside"… then does the rest of the

poem defines what the king meant by 居 cư -- i.e. rather actively, not just

passively residing?

Best,

Nhan

Center for Vietnamese Philosophy, Culture & Society

Temple University

nhan@temple.edu

On Jul 10, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Dror, Olga wrote:

I am not sure that we can talk about a "state" at the time in China either. Other meanings of the "guo" character in English include such ideas as "area" or "region." What if China at the time was "The Central Region" and Vietnam "The Southern Region," if we must render the ideas of that time into modern English.

As for interpreting "cư" as "reigning" instead of "dwelling or residing" due to the context (which is not necessarily evident from this particular context), are we than talking about "interpretation" or "translation"? Why then the author did not choose the word "reign," to begin with, and are we entitled to take over the author's prerogative over a text, inserting our own way of interpretation without the author's consent? :)

Oh, travails of translation! :)

_____________________________________________

Olga Dror

Dept. of History,

103D M. Glasscock Bld.,

Texas A&M University,

College Station, TX 77843-4236

Fax : 979-862-4314

e-mail : olgadror@tamu.edu

webpage: http://history.tamu.edu/faculty/dror.shtml

-----------------------------------------------------------

I would like to comment on Lý Thường Kiệt’s poem.

It is totally irrelevant whether LTK has written or not this text. What we must do, in 2015, is to interpret it the best we can with every hindsight we may have of the past of the country.

It would be against the historian’s code to summarily dismiss any interpretation, be it “nationalist” or even non-sensical.

Why do we complicate the problem by asking whether “quốc” means “nation” or “nation-state.” Does the use of that work imply independence?

To me, ther work “quốc” simply means kingdom or country. Vietnam –or whatever its name was at the time—unquestionably was a “quốc” because its ruler had the title of “quốc vương”, as it has been again and again conferred by China.

It would be a mistake to disqualify LTK’s poem as a declaration of independence made in the world of tributary relationship. Every historian of Vietnam would know that for Vietnam, tributary and indepenedence do not eliminate each other. and the poem under discussion shows it plainly:

Nam quốc could mean Nam [thuộc]quốc which could be translated into Southern [tributary] state

Nam Đế surely designates Southern [Independent] emperor for an emperor could not be anything but independent.

Let us now go back to the entire poem and K. Taylor’s interpretation as offered by Gadcar-Wilcox.

In the first line, [...] the original speaks only of “dwelling”. Sure, that is the primary meaning of the word. But here, it seems to me, the meaning of the word cư depends on its subject. What does the emperor do when he “dwells”? His job is to “rule” or “reign”. Similarly would it be wrong to translate the following sentence: Giáo sư Gadcar-Wilcox cư Connecticut into Professor Wilcox teaches at the Western Connecticut State University?

In the second line, [...] the original simply affirms that it has already been clearly decided by powers beyond human agency.” Again, the meaning of the word định depends where it has been decided. It is in “thiên thư”. If it has been decided in the celestial books, then why would it be wrong to translate it as “written” or “registered”. What’s wrong with human agency?

Assessing the entire poem Pr. Taylor writes: “The mood is simply passive; it is motionless, utterly at peace, without human volition.” I am puzzled, because this poem was purportedly an exhortation to take up arms again against an invader. It is a text addressed not to the lierati imbued with notions of Heaven’s business, Heaven’s will, Heaven’s disposal , but to the ranks and files of a demoralized army.

Truong buu Lam, Retired Prof., Univerity of Hawaii.

---------------------------

Dear anh Lam

great to hear from you. I hope you enjoy your retirement but would love to hear from you more often.

I wish to question your assertion that Ly Thuong Kiet's piem (if indeed it was his) was directed at the rank and file of his army. If we recall Tran Hung Dao's Hich Tuong Si written more than 300 years later, it was directed at generals (many of whom belonged to the royal clan) and officers. Many of the "rank and file" soldiers were slaves with the characters "Sat That" branded on their foreheads to prevent them from surrendering to the Mongols.

Slavery was an integral aspect of Dai Viet society in the Ly era.

Another issue. The Ly (and the Tran) were originally from Min (present-dau Fujian) and quite conscious of that. There was not then the same consciousness of ethnic diffetence as exists now. Indeed as others have suggested, it was more a case of "Stay on your side of the fence, don't you dare come onto my property."

Hue Tam Ho Tai

Harvard

Dear all (especially linguists)

Anh Ngo Thanh Nhan observed in a private email that in Chinese, "ha" is used in the north and " giang" in the south. I confess I had never given this any thought before.

It seems to me that son ha and giang san are used interchangeably in Sino-VIetnamese, the choice depending largelyon euphony. But I could well be wrong. Can one think of reasons for preferring giang san over son ha and vice- versa in Vietnamese?

Hue-Tam Ho Tai

Harvard

On Jul 10, 2015 10:52 PM, "John Phan" <jdp49@cornell.edu> wrote:

Dear Professor Tai,

This doesn't quite answer your question, but the north/south distribution of "ha" and "giang" derives from the fact that "ha" was probably the Sinitic word for "river" in the Yellow River plain, and was often used to denote the river (the Hoang Ha) in early Chinese civilization. "Giang" was a southern word for "river" often used to designate the most important river in the south (the Truong Giang), and Jerry Norman and Mei Tsu-lin suggested it was cognate with, and possibly a borrowing from Vietnamese "song." That would make "giang" a re-borrowing of a Chinese borrowing of a Proto-Vietic or other Austroasiatic root.

But anyway, both words for "river" were current by classical Chinese times, and the compound "giang san" is used in the Zhuangzi. So I can't think of any real reason why one might be used over another, except for poetic or stylistic reasons.

Best, John Phan

On Jul 10, 2015, at 11:02 PM, Hue-Tam Tai wrote:

Thank you John. I, too, have the feeling that the two are used pretty much interchangeably and we should not read too much in the use of "son ha" in Ly Thuong Kiet's poem!

Hue Tam Ho Tai

Harvard

On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Nhan Ngo <nhan@temple.edu> wrote:

Dear Anh Phan and Prof. Huệ Tâm,

Thanks. I agree that we should not read too much in the use of "sơn

hà" in Lý Thường Kiệt's poem today.

Except for 紅河 Hồng Hà "Red River" in Vietnam, but the section of

this river in China is called 元江 "Nguyên giang" ;-)

Somehow, we say "sơn hà" but we don't say "hà sơn", we say "giang

sơn" but we do not feel sure about "sơn giang". However, we say both

"sông núi" and "núi sông" to mean the same.

-- Nhan

Center for Vietnamese Philosophy, Culture & Society

Temple University

nhan@temple.edu

On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Dinh Lu Giang <lugiangdinh@gmail.com> wrote:

Prof. Tam, Prof. Nhan and Dr. Phan John

I strongly agree with Dr. John Phan on the root of Giang/Hà and would like to add Xuyên in the list for further discussion.

"Sơn hà" and "giang san" can be exchangeably used when they are not in expressions like "sơn hà xã tắc" or "sơn hà nguy biến". While "giang san" is not much used (san is rarely found in Vietnamese as mountain), a much more popular variation is "giang sơn" which is used in "giang sơn gấm vóc" etc.

Remark on the order of the syllables in the words by Prof. Nhan is very very interesting. Thank you very much.

Dinh Lu Giang

Dept. of Literature & Linguistics

University of Social Sciences and Humanities (Vietnam National University -

HCMC - Vietnam)

Dear all,

Just one quick addendum: Norman & Mei's position on giang, while famous, has not by any means been universally accepted, and it is very possible that the term has nothing to do with the Austroasiatic root.

Best, JDP