Embedded Files
From: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 6:09 AM
To: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Dear all,
I’ve been looking for mentions of the Paracel and Spratly Islands in the wonderful CRL East Asian Newspapers archive https://gpa.eastview.com/ and come across some early mentions - from 1938 - but only in one Vietnamese language newspaper - Tràng an Báo, published in Hue.
Can anyone tell me anything relevant about Tràng an Báo? Why would it have paid close attention to sovereignty disputes when none of the other newspapers (at least those currently available in the archive) do?
Many thanks
Bill Hayton
From: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 4:51 PM
To: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>; VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi Bill,
Not only Tràng An báo but also Saigon báo in 1938 had extensive reports on Hoang Sa. The reports were written by Hoang Văn Tiếp (Saigon), Trương Lập Táo (Tràng An báo), Thúc Dật (Tràng An báo). They were well-known journalists at that time. Here is some information on Trương Lập Tạo that probably is the author of the articles you read on Tràng An báo. This information is extracted from a chapter on Hoang Sa of my book "Sài Gòn và Nam kỳ trong thời kỳ Canh tân 1875 – 1925”, NXB Văn Hóa – Văn Nghệ, 2019
"Loạt bài của ông Trương Lập Tạo, “Một vấn đề quốc tế nghiêm trọng hiện thời. Lịch sử cận đại của quần đảo Paracels”, trên Tràng An báo trong các số ngày 22/7/1938, 26/7/1938, 29/7/1938, có thể nói là những bài đầu tiên, cùng với các bài của ông Hoàng Văn Tiếp trên tờ Saigon, và bài của ông Thúc Dật trên Tràng An báo, phổ biến trong dư luận ở ba miền về chủ quyền của Việt Nam trên quần đảo Hoàng Sa
Trương Lập Tạo là nhà báo ở Sài-Gòn trong giai đoạn từ năm 1936 đến 1945. Theo tờ Écho Annamite (2/8/1939) đưa tin thì ông Trương Lập Tạo là ký giả của tờ Dân Mới (Le people nouveau) hay Mai (Demain) và bị chính quyền bắt nhốt trong chiến dịch bắt rất nhiều nhà hoạt động chính trị khi thế chiến xảy ra. Hồ Hữu Tường trong quyển "41 năm làm báo, Nxb Trí Đăng 1972" có nhắc đến việc tiếp xúc với Trương Lập Tạo nhà báo ở Sài-Gòn để đăng tin về Đông Dương Đại Hội năm 1936 (ông Hồ Hữu Tường là tổng thư ký cho Đông Dương Đại Hội) "
Some more information if you don’t have the book is on here
https://www.baoquocdan.org/2022/08/nguyen-uc-hiep-nghien-cuu-khoa-hoc-o.html
Best
Dr Hiep Nguyen
Principal Scientist, NSW
From: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 7:09 AM
To: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi Hiep,
Many thanks for those extra names, they’re very helpful. My current hypothesis is that July 1938 was when discussion about the islands appeared in the Vietnamese language press for the first time. It had been in the French language press since the mid-1920s but Vietnamese society doesn’t seem to have been particularly interested. However, when Japan occupied the Paracels in June/July 1938 it seems to have triggered a reaction - at least in two newspapers.
Best wishes
Bill
From: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 9:12 AM
To: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi Bill, Hiep,
In response to China's contract, awarded to mine guano deposits in the Paracels, the French Government claimed the islands in a Note given to the Chinese in Paris in December 1931. The French filed a protest in April 1932, citing Vietnam's historical titles and the evidence of the occupation by Vietnam and then by France. (See "La souveraineté sur les archipels Paracels et Spratleys", Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, 1996, p. 41).
"Nam phong tạp chí", in its May 1932 issue, reran articles from “Ngọ Báo” and “Tiếng Dân”, stating that France claimed the Paracels for Vietnam. The claim was based on the following facts: Since 1816, Vietnam occupied the islands, set up the flags, and took other actions. In response to two British shipwrecks in 1898, the Chinese said since the Paracels were not their territory, they were not responsible for the accidents.
Besides "Tràng An báo", starting on July 12, 1938, “Tiếng Dân” ran a series of articles, written by Huỳnh Thúc Kháng, the editor-in-chief, reasserting Vietnam's sovereignty over the Paracels.
Cheers,
Calvin Thai
Independent
From: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 10:42 AM
To: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi Calvin,
Interesting, thanks. Wikipedia tells me that Nam phong tạp chí was "Used by the French colonialists to propagate the colonial regime, the magazine's political program received little attention”
https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nam_Phong_tạp_ch%C3%AD
This appears to be more evidence that the sovereignty disputes were a French colonial concern until 1938, when the issue starts to move into the Vietnamese-language press (just a little). Hence my interest in knowing more about the political orientation of Tràng An báo and Saigon báo…
Cheers
Bill
From: Shawn McHale <mchale@gwu.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 11:10 AM
To: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
I don't think we can conclude at all that Vietnamese did not pay attention to the Paracels issue before 1938. the first issue -- no pun intended -- is that not all Vietnamese newspapers from the 1930s have been digitized, ergo there could be articles not available unline. Second, Calvin Thai specifically notes that Nam Phong reran articles from Tiếng Dân, a well-known newspaper run by the Vietnamese literatus and nationalist Huỳnh Thúc Kháng. This is the same Huỳnh Thúc Kháng who would be invited to take part -- admittedly for show -- in the DRV government in 1945 or 1946. Tiếng Dân, or "Voice of the People," did not have the same political orientation as Nam Phong.
Shawn McHale
From: Davis,Bradley C.(History) <davisbrad@easternct.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 12:01 PM
To: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>; mchale@gwu.edu
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
The Hoang Sa/Truong Sa also appear in Nguyen paperwork as early as the 1830s, mostly in reports to the imperial court from the coast that claim to pass on oral testimony from people traveling through the HS/TS. There is also a piece, I think in Tap Chi Han Nom a few years ago, about the establishment of an inspection circuit or đạo there.
Although imperial paperwork had limited circulation compared to newspapers, these mentions give us a sense that HS/TS was not an issue that sprang from the twentieth century. Whether or not newspapers provide a basis for judging whether "society" values something might be another question.
Brad
Bradley Camp Davis (he/him/his)
Associate Professor
Department of History
Coordinator of Asian Studies Minor (Fall 2022)
Webb Hall 333 - Fall 2022 Office Hours: MF3-5, W4-5
Eastern Connecticut State University
83 Windham Street
Willimantic, CT 06226
US
Book Review Editor, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
Series Co-Editor, HdO Section 3 - Southeast Asia, Brill
https://brill.com/view/serial/HO3
From: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 12:25 PM
To: Davis,Bradley C.(History) <davisbrad@easternct.edu>
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi Brad,
Yes, exactly this. There’s quite a difference between the different states asserting sovereignty and the population caring about these assertions. For this piece, I’m interested in the latter.
It’s not surprising, to me, that no-one in the Vietnamese population cared what the French were up to in the Paracels in late 1926 - because anyone minded to be nationalistic was presumably out in the street protesting the jailing of Phan Boi Chau or mourning the death of Phan Chu Trinh. They weren’t cheering on the French in their flag-planting antics or denigrating the Chinese for their sovereignty claims. What I’m trying to discern is when interest in the rocks shifted from being a colonial preoccupation to a Vietnamese one. It’s a gradual shift that doesn’t really reach fruition until 1974.
I’d be interested to see those early articles. My suspicion is that more recent writers have made more of their content than what is actually in the text…
All the best
Bill
From: Hue-Tam Tai <huetamtai@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 1:06 PM
To: mchale@gwu.edu; bill@billhayton.com
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi, Bill et al,
Trang An Bao began publishing in January 1936. The publisher was Bui Huy Tin, a successful businessman. The editor-in-chief was Phan Khoi, whom the authorities pressured in getting fired the following month. I did not find information on his successor (s). I did not find information on Saigon Bao either.
Phan Khoi would have been closer politically to Huynh Thuc Khang than to Pham Quynh. Even so, there were issues on which Vietnamese of different political persuasions could agree upon, and national sovereignty would be one of them. Just see the confluence of anti-Chinese protests re: Paracels among Vietnamese at home and abroad.
Hue-Tam Ho Tai
Harvard University emerita
From: Davis,Bradley C.(History) <davisbrad@easternct.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 2:46 PM
To: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi Bill,
Just replying to stress that you seem to have missed my point and managed to imply something about the intentions of historians along the way. I am not trying to encourage an exchange, but feel the need to state this for the record. Email is indeed a poor venue for conversation and perhaps an even worse one for scholarly allusions.
Brad
Bradley Camp Davis (he/him/his)
Associate Professor
Department of History
Coordinator of Asian Studies Minor (Fall 2022)
Webb Hall 333 - Fall 2022 Office Hours: MF3-5, W4-5
Eastern Connecticut State University
83 Windham Street
Willimantic, CT
US
Reviews Editor, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
Series Co-Editor, HdO Section 3 - Southeast Asia, Brill
https://brill.com/view/serial/HO3
From: Hue-Tam Tai <huetamtai@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 3:42 PM
To: Davis,Bradley C.(History) <davisbrad@easternct.edu>; bill@billhayton.com
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi, Brad
Mentions of HS/TS in the 1830s in bureaucratic reports ("paperwork") would suggest that the islands were considered part of the Nguyen territory, would you agree?
I find interesting as well the 1898 Chinese statement reported by Cau that China bore no responsibility for a British shipwreck since the islands were not part of the Chinese territory.
Hue Tam Ho Tai
Harvard University emerita
From: Davis,Bradley C.(History) <davisbrad@easternct.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 6:11 PM
To: Hue-Tam Tai <huetamtai@gmail.com>; bill@billhayton.com
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hue-Tam,
That's an excellent question. I took some time this evening to revisit the documents and notes that I have here, which are from the Nguyễn archives in Hanoi (the Châu Bản materials). "Documents" is probably a better term than "paperwork" for these. The main distinction for me is that these materials are circulated handwritten reports (memorials and edicts) as opposed to edited works of imperial historiography (like the Đại Nam Thực Lục, a source that exerts a heavy influence on Nguyễn history, ironically just as its editors intended!). If anyone reading this is interested, Brian Zottoli's dissertation has a useful discussion of the ĐNTL and its compilation.
Incidentally, some colleagues and I will be discussing Nguyễn sources at the Engaging with Vietnam conference in Saigon next month in case anyone will be there.
Within the Châu Bản materials, many reports contain quotations and summaries of other reports, so it can take some time to piece together the entire story. However, it seems clear that Hoàng Sa 黃沙 was important for the imperial state. There are two cases that support this claim.
1837 - An edict, probably authored by the Privy Council but signed by the Minh Mạng emperor, commanded a patrol to sail to Hoàng Sa and report back. Soldiers from Binh Định and Quảng Ngãi, the latter being a military outpost during this period, worked with four people who knew the route. According to the memorials summarized within the document, the four people who assisted were all once flogged (or caned) for unauthorized travel abroad, so this may have been a case of outlaws made useful.
1838 - The Board of Works 部工 in Huế authorizes materials to build an outpost on Hoàng Sa for the purpose of monitoring pirates. Hoàng Sa is also made a "route" or đạo 道, which put it in the same category as other "routes" such as those in the borderlands with China. Reports about this work continued into the following year.
There are probably many more cases, but these are just the two I have at hand. Given how imperial documents circulated, we may not have a complete picture - these sources show cases that involved the Court and emperor, but not all cases necessarily did.
A more complete picture of these events could be developed through combining all available imperial sources (including geographies and travel accounts) with ethnographic research, similar to Edyta's work on Lý Sơn.
The bigger question about territory or sovereignty might be a bit trickier, but I feel comfortable claiming that Hoàng Sa was understood as part of the Vietnamese empire, meaning the realm governed by the Vietnamese imperial state, as early as the 1830s. Since these reports circulated throughout the Boards and Court at Huế, and were likely quoted and summarized for officials in other provinces, other officials would have been aware of this as well. The four sailors, who had been involuntary guests of the Binh Định authorities at one point, would have certainly understood this too.
Nguyễn political discourse tended to stress "ordering the country/realm" from the 1820s onward, so the work on Hoàng Sa tracks with that theme. However, I think we should be careful about terms like sovereignty. There is a vast amount of research on this of course, but perhaps a good reminder might be that so much of the evaluative vocabulary we use today stems from a very particular moment in the late nineteenth century. It would be a shame to revive the judgments of, say, the Tianjin Treaties or the Congress of Berlin in the course of historical research on Hoàng Sa. Ultimately, we might do better to situate ideas like sovereignty or territory within a wider context that attends to the improvisations and fluidity that some legal definitions displace. Historical sources can help us with that.
Thanks, Bill and Hue-Tam! Happy Weekend.
Brad
Bradley Camp Davis (he/him/his)
Associate Professor
Department of History
Coordinator of Asian Studies Minor (Fall 2022)
Webb Hall 333 - Fall 2022 Office Hours: MF3-5, W4-5
Eastern Connecticut State University
83 Windham Street
Willimantic, CT 06226
US
Book Review Editor, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
Series Co-Editor, HdO Section 3 - Southeast Asia, Brill
https://brill.com/view/serial/HO3
From: Hue-Tam Tai <huetamtai@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 6:48 PM
To: davisbrad@easternct.edu; bill@billhayton.com
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Dear Brad,
I agree with you about the changing meanings of territory and sovereignty, especially as these terms are applied to offshore real estate.
I wonder whether Bill's interpretation of the valence of HS/TS in Vietnamese public discourse of the 1930s
reflectsa the current media over saturation instead of the still fairly limited circulation of journals and newspapers, that in turn were limited by available space in what they could cover.
Incidentally, journals such as Nam Phong were subsidized qby forcing villages to buy issues. My father claimed that most residents in his village were illiterate, so bundles of Nam Phong sat in his illiterate father's home.
my equally illiterate grandmother did not wish to use pages that bore Chinese characters (chu cua thanh hien) to wrap fish or for other unsanitary purpose, so my French-educated father learned Chinese by reading the Chinese section of Nam Phong (and modeled his early writing style on the quoc ngu section).
Hue-Tam
From: Anthony Morreale <amorreale22@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 4:08 PM
To: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi Bill,
I wouldn’t take Wikipedia’s word that Nam Phong’s “political program” (or anything for that matter) received “little attention”. It was a hugely important and long running journal published in French, quoc ngu, and Chinese. Also, though it hurts to hear it, it seems unarguable to me thar once upon a time many Vietnamese, if never a numerical majority, were very much into propagating the colonial regime.
I also would be reluctant to conclude that an issue was less ‘Vietnamese’ because it was in French language. Some of the most stridently nationalist anti - French publications were in French language after all.
Sent from my iPhone
Anthony
Berkeley History PhD Candidate
From: Hue-Tam Tai <huetamtai@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 4:48 PM
To: Anthony Morreale <amorreale22@gmail.com>; bill@billhayton.com
Cc: vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Were the Nam Phong articles in French or quoc ngu? most of the latter had nothing to do with propagating the French colonial program.
Hue-Tam Ho Tai
Harvard University emerita
From: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 4:45 PM
To: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Dear all,
Apologies for winding everyone up on a Saturday with my loose language. To be clear…
Yes, there’s good evidence that the Nguyen state performed acts of sovereignty on the islands in the 19th century. (It’s interesting to think about why they would do so. Some suggest it was the influence of European mariners who were members of Gia Long’s court.)
Yes, there’s good evidence that the Qing disclaimed responsibility for the islands in the 1890s. I found the British documents in the National Archive that appear to confirm this (and I have an article on the subject coming out shortly)
However, there’s no evidence (that I have yet seen) that the wider ‘public’ in Indochina/VN was interested in the islands until 1974.
In the 1920s the ‘island lobby’ was limited to a few French businesspeople who worked for many years to persuade the governor-general and Paris to risk the ire of China and pursue the claim. The French formal claim to the Paracels in December 1931 and their claim to the Spratlys in July 1933 were met with shrugs and cynicism in the Indochina media and absolutely no nationalist passion (that I have yet found). However, it is highly likely that the French would have tried to interest the public in what they were doing in 1932 - and if Nam Phong was a colonial mouthpiece, then that fits very well.
It appears that 1938 saw some stirrings of interest in the face of Japanese moves on the island. There was another round of interest in 1956 as France attempted to cling on to the Spratlys and Diem asserted ownership of them. Only in 1974, and the Chinese invasion, does evidence of nationalist passion appear.
My point about "more recent writers" making more of the content of these early newspaper articles than what is actually in the text is not aimed at historians who carefully sift the evidence but at those who grab at any mention of islands in old documents to assert that they have ‘always’ belonged to a particular state or people.
Best wishes
Bill
From: Hue-Tam Tai <huetamtai@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 4:57 PM
To: bill@billhayton.com; vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Bill,
Were ordinary Brits even aware of the existence of the Falklands? But the UK and Argentina went to war over those islands. I would not take popular knowledge ( or lack.of knowledge ) of particular events or issues as a gauge of their importance or even existence.
Hue-Tam
From: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 2:14 AM
To: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Dear all,
The analogy with the Falklands is exactly right. I remember a friend of mine thinking Argentina had invaded Scotland when the news first broke! Almost no-one in the UK knew or cared about the Falklands at the beginning of 1982. But by the middle of the year large numbers were willing to kill and die for those faraway islands. They became a symbol for a sense of national belonging.
Something similar happened in Indochina/VN. Those seeking a sense of national belonging in the early 20th century had plenty of other symbols to venerate, ones that were not associated with the French. The islands were unimportant to the emerging sense of VNese identity. They only became important to the general public in 1974 in the context of the abandonment of the RVN by the US, the impending sense of doom about the trajectory of the war and rising anti-China feeling.
So this isn’t about when administrations planted flags, it’s about when the ‘people’ began to care about administrations planting flags - two different things.
My emerging argument is that it’s all about humiliation. When states are calmly getting on with claiming territory, no-one cares. It’s only when there’s a sense of loss and humiliation that the people begin to get emotional.
And if anyone can point me to the actual editions of "Ngọ Báo”, “Tiếng Dân”, and "Nam phong tạp chí“ with those articles, I’d be very grateful!
Bill
From: Hue-Tam Tai <huetamtai@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 6:19 AM
To: bill@billhayton.com; vsg@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
interesting to contrast popular interest in HS/TS in 1930s, 1974 with Falklands in 1980s.
these were very different media environment s(let's not forget the role of the BBC in shaping popular culture and perception of events). It brings me back to Anderson's Imagined Communities.
Too much importance may be attached to private capitalism and not enough to the role of state dominated media in creating popular support for specific policies or social trends.
The readership for newspapers in the 1930s was very limited. Even when issues of Nam Phong were set to villages with orders to buy them (to compensate for the subsidies the journal received from the colonial regime), there were few villagers literate enough to read them. Literacy increased by the 1970s, and radio played a role as well.
And it increased still further since then, as did the role of state-sponsored media.
Interest in specific events goes through fallow and intense periods. It might be interesting to learn what gave rise to journalistic interest in TS/HS in the 1930s. Was it just the result of scholarly research in the past or some other origin?
Hue-Tam Ho Tai
Harvard University emerita
From: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 7:00 PM
To: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Bill,
I would like to get some facts straight:
1. After the signing of the Treaty of Huế in June 1884, France was to represent Annam (Vietnam) in all foreign affairs. That was why the French Government in Paris and the Governor General of Indochina took actions when China made claims over the Paracels and the Spratlys in the early 20th Century. The Treaty of Huế was in effect until March 1945.
2. In March 1925, Thân Trọng Huề, one of Annam's highest-ranking officials, clearly stated that the Paracels belonged to Annam.
With respect to your original post, included here as reference:
"I’ve been looking for mentions of the Paracel and Spratly Islands in the wonderful CRL East Asian Newspapers archive https://gpa.eastview.com/ and come across some early mentions - from 1938 - but only in one Vietnamese language newspaper - Tràng an Báo, published in Hue.
Can anyone tell me anything relevant about Tràng an Báo? Why would it have paid close attention to sovereignty disputes when none of the other newspapers (at least those currently available in the archive) do?"
In my previous post, I listed at least 3 Vietnamese-language newspapers: "Ngọ Báo”, “Tiếng Dân”, and "Nam phong tạp chí“, that had articles with facts supporting Vietnam's claims ("Nam phong tạp chí“ reran articles from the other two) in May 1932, 6 years before the articles in "Tràng an Báo" that you brought up.
Then in 1938, the articles in "Tràng an Báo" came 10 days after the articles in “Tiếng Dân”.
While we still have to deal with the fact that Shawn pointed out: not all Vietnamese newspapers from the 1930s have been digitized, there were known articles in the following decades that were about the Paracels, up to 1974.
Calvin Thai
Independent
From: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 3:19 AM
To: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>; VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi Bill,
You can go to baochi.nlv.gov.vn to search for the articles on Hoang Sa.
I tried before but could not locate any articles before 1938 (the year when Japan escalated the war with China and threatened to attack Hainan island from South China sea).
The Paracel archipelago became the flash point and hence all these articles appeared in Tràng An báo and Saigon.
“Hà Thành Ngọ báo” does not contain article on Hoang Sa before 1938. The National Library of Vietnam does not have Tiếng Dân on their digitised records.
Perhaps Nam Phong Tạp Chí has.
Hiep
Principal Scientist
EPA, NSW
From: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 5:55 AM
To: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>; VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi Bill and all,
I found the article on Hoàng Sa in 1932 (June 1932) in “Hà Thành Ngọ Báo”
(keyword search is Tây Sa rather Hoàng Sa)
This article was also printed in Nam Phong Tạp Chí May 1932 in the news section (page 110-113)
http://ndclnh-mytho-usa.org/KhoSachCu/Nam%20Phong%20Tap%20Chi%20Q30_QN_168-173_T172.pdf
Nam Phong also reprinted an article from “Tiếng Dân” immediately following the article from “Hà Thành Ngọ Báo”.
These 2 articles in 1932 were written in the context of a diplomatic dispute between Quang Dong government and France on Paracel islands
Hiep
From: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 6:13 AM
To: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi Hiep,
Thank you! That’s extremely helpful. The articles were printed in the middle of the exchange of letters between the French and RoC governments over the sovereignty of the Paracels. The last paragraph in the article does seem to be an expression of hope that “the French government will return the islands to us” - if I translate it correctly.
I’m also interested in the use of "Tây Sa (Siosan)" for the name of the islands. It suggests a translation of the Chinese Xisha and a lack of familiarity with the name Hoàng Sa.
Al the best
Bill
From: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 6:29 AM
To: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi Bill,
There was a debate on whether “Tây Sa” or “Hòang Sa” should be used in the satirical paper “Vịt Đực” in 1938 during this period of sudden interest on Hoang Sa sovereignty in the contest of Sino-Japan War.
Interesting read.
Hiep
From: Hiep Duc <Hiep.Duc@environment.nsw.gov.au>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 7:05 AM
To: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi Bill and all,
From the debate in 1938 on the usage of “Tây Sa” and “Hoàng Sa” in Vịt Đực, we now know that nearly all the major papers in Tonkin, Annam and Cochinchina did report on the Paracel Island in 1938: Thời Vụ, Hà Thành Ngọ báo, Điện Tín, Nhật báo, Tiến Bộ, Tràng An, Trung Bắc tân văn, Ngày Nay, Đông Pháp, Việt Báo, Saigon.
So the sovereignty issue of the Paracel Island in 1938 was not limited to a few papers but widespread from north to south. The press in Cochinchina in 1930s was very burgeoning and robust with deep penetration to the populace getting used to Quoc Ngu. Many of these papers were pollical in nature even with some moderate ones such as Đuốc Nhà Nam, Công luận báo, Phụ Nữ Tân Văn, Trung lập báo, Saigon…
Hiệp
From: David Marr <david.marr@anu.edu.au>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2022 5:09 PM
To: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hello all,
I’ve enjoyed reading this extended exchange over the Paracels. More than four decades ago, when researching what became ‘Vietnamese Tradition on Trial’, I was puzzled at the late 1930s paucity of written discussion of Japanese expansion beyond China. French censorship must have been a factor.
Cheers,
David Marr
ANU
From: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 1:11 AM
To: David Marr <david.marr@anu.edu.au>
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Dear David,
Here’s an interesting example of censorship from 18 October 1938…
"Một cơ quan ngôn luận bị đình chỉ. Báo "Dân" bị đưa ra trước tòa Nam Án”
The newspaper ‘Dân’ - based in Hue, so not protected by French press laws - is shut down and its editors jailed for its reporting of the occupation of the Paracels by the Japanese. That might give us some clues about why coverage of the issue dramatically decreases in late 1938.
Needs further research…
Best wishes
Bill
From: Cau Thai <cvthai75@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 9:25 AM
To: billhayton <bill@billhayton.com>
Cc: VSG <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Hi Bill,
For ease of following the discussion, your key points are recaptured as numbered below. Please let me know if anything significant is missing.
#1. I’ve been looking for mentions of the Paracel and Spratly Islands in the wonderful CRL East Asian Newspapers archive
and come across some early mentions - from 1938 - but only in one Vietnamese language newspaper - Tràng an Báo, published in Hue.
Can anyone tell me anything relevant about Tràng an Báo? Why would it have paid close attention to sovereignty disputes when none of the other newspapers (at least those currently available in the archive) do?
...
My current hypothesis is that July 1938 was when discussion about the islands appeared in the Vietnamese language press for the first time. It had been in the French language press since the mid-1920s but Vietnamese society doesn’t seem to have been particularly interested. However, when Japan occupied the Paracels in June/July 1938 it seems to have triggered a reaction - at least in two newspapers.
#2. Wikipedia tells me that Nam phong tạp chí was "Used by the French colonialists to propagate the colonial regime, the magazine's political program received little attention”
https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nam_Phong_tạp_ch%C3%AD
This appears to be more evidence that the sovereignty disputes were a French colonial concern until 1938, when the issue starts to move into the Vietnamese-language press (just a little). Hence my interest in knowing more about the political orientation of Tràng An báo and Saigon báo…
#3. However, there’s no evidence (that I have yet seen) that the wider ‘public’ in Indochina/VN was interested in the islands until 1974.
In the 1920s the ‘island lobby’ was limited to a few French businesspeople who worked for many years to persuade the governor-general and Paris to risk the ire of China and pursue the claim. The French formal claim to the Paracels in December 1931 and their claim to the Spratlys in July 1933 were met with shrugs and cynicism in the Indochina media and absolutely no nationalist passion (that I have yet found). However, it is highly likely that the French would have tried to interest the public in what they were doing in 1932 - and if Nam Phong was a colonial mouthpiece, then that fits very well.
It appears that 1938 saw some stirrings of interest in the face of Japanese moves on the island. There was another round of interest in 1956 as France attempted to cling on to the Spratlys and Diem asserted ownership of them. Only in 1974, and the Chinese invasion, does evidence of nationalist passion appear.
My point about "more recent writers" making more of the content of these early newspaper articles than what is actually in the text is not aimed at historians who carefully sift the evidence but at those who grab at any mention of islands in old documents to assert that they have ‘always’ belonged to a particular state or people.
#4. There’s quite a difference between the different states asserting sovereignty and the population caring about these assertions. For this piece, I’m interested in the latter.
It’s not surprising, to me, that no-one in the Vietnamese population cared what the French were up to in the Paracels in late 1926 - because anyone minded to be nationalistic was presumably out in the street protesting the jailing of Phan Boi Chau or mourning the death of Phan Chu Trinh. They weren’t cheering on the French in their flag-planting antics or denigrating the Chinese for their sovereignty claims. What I’m trying to discern is when interest in the rocks shifted from being a colonial preoccupation to a Vietnamese one. It’s a gradual shift that doesn’t really reach fruition until 1974.
I’d be interested to see those early articles. My suspicion is that more recent writers have made more of their content than what is actually in the text…
Here is my $.02 on the key points above:
#1-2:
In the spring of 1932, six years before the 1938 time mark in your hypothesis, there were at least 3 newspapers with articles about the Paracels: Tiếng Dân, Hà Thành Ngọ báo, and Nam Phong Tạp chí. This reaction was in response to China's contract awarded to mine guano deposits in the Paracels and France's protest. Note that not all Vietnamese-language newspapers from the 1930s, let alone the 1920s, are available online.
In the summer of 1938, there were not one, not two, but at least 11 newspapers with articles about the islands: Tiếng Dân, Tràng An báo, Saigon báo, Thời Vụ, Nhật Báo, Điện Tín, Tiến Bộ, Trung Bắc, Ngày Nay, Đông Pháp, and Việt Báo. This reaction was in response to Japan's annexation of the islands in the earlier months.
Regarding your comment based on what was written in Wikipedia, "Nam phong tạp chí was "Used by the French colonialists to propagate the colonial regime, the magazine's political program received little attention" ", I think Wikipedia should never be the sole source of information for researchers and scholars. We should read it with a grain of salt since misinformation or disinformation does not help in our search for truth.
#3-4:
In the 1900-1930 period, there were a few actions taken by the Chinese and the French with respect to the Paracels:
-in 1909, two small Chinese gunboats visited some islands in the Paracels for one day.
-in 1921, a local Chinese government, not recognized by the Central Chinese Government, placed the Paracels under the control of Hainan Island authority. The French Government did not protest in either cases.
-in 1925, in response to an inquiry from Resident-Superior of Annam Pierre Pasquier, Annam's Minister of War Thân Trọng Huề clearly stated that the Paracels belonged to Vietnam. Shortly after, the Governor General of Indochina declared the Paracels (and Spratlys) to be French territory.
-since 1925, a 5-year scientific study of the Paracels was conducted by a team based in Central Vietnam. The result was several publications in the first half of the 1930s.
-since the second half of the 1920s until his death in 1934, Henri Cucherousset, the editor-in-chief of L’Eveil Économique de l’Indochine, had many French-language articles about the values of the Paracels, and to call for the French Government to do more to protect Vietnam's interests in the islands. These articles likely caused some debates in Paris.
Since this period was rather uneventful for the Paracels, one would not expect a nation-wide Vietnamese public interest in the islands in the 1920s or earlier. Things changed in the 1930s when the need arose.
Attached for reference is the May 1932 Nam Phong Tạp chí article (rerunning articles from Tiếng Dân and Hà Thành Ngọ báo). In other words, the evidence of "the population caring about these assertions" many decades ago is there if one digs a bit deeper. :-)
I hope your key points in this discussion have been addressed adequately.
Best,
Calvin Thai
Independent
PS: On a much lighter note, the same Thân Trọng Huề was “chủ hôn“ who performed the marriage ceremony of my grandfather and grandmother. My maternal and paternal grandfathers were childhood friends in Huế and both completed Medical School study in Hà-Nội before the start of WWI. Coincidentally, the first page of the attached Nam Phong Tạp chí article has a brief mention of my great-grand-uncle. I was told about the fire incident but didn't see the news until now!
From: Oscar Salemink <o.salemink@anthro.ku.dk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 12:56 PM
To: vsg@u.washington.edu
Cc: Edyta Roszko CMI (edyta.roszko@cmi.no) <edyta.roszko@cmi.no>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Tràng an Báo
Dear Brad and all,
In your post, Brad, you mention Edyta Roszko’s work. Last year she published an article in the Anthropological Quarterly that does just what you propose: namely combining historiographic and ethnographic approaches with regards to her recent research on Phu Quy island. Titled “Navigating Seas, Markets, and Sovereignties: Fishers and Occupational Slippage in the South China Sea”, it is partly based on “two sets of unpublished temple documents that are kept by village elders”, basically petitions by various Phu Quy population groups to the court in Hue from the late 18th to early 20th centuries. And by tracing those historical records she detects patterns that in different form still obtain today.
I figured that some VSGers might be interested; for those who are, the article can be found here https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.2021.0046.
All best,
Oscar Salemink
Professor
University of Copenhagen
Department of Anthropology
Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entrance E, office 16.0.24
1353 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Page updated
Report abuse