I think it’s time to start Vlogging. Here is my first Vlog, on Phan Bội Châu’s 1908 “Examination of Vietnamese History” (Việt Nam quốc sử kháo 越南國史考) and its Vietnamese translation.
There is a new hotel in the heart of Saigon that is unique. It is called “The Myst Dong Khoi,” and what makes it unique is that it demonstrates that I would call a “trans-contemporary approach to heritage.”
Let me explain what I mean by that.
Seven years after starting “Le Minh Khai’s Southeast Asian History blog,” I feel like all of the world has changed dramatically except for one part. . . the academic world.
I started this blog in an effort to adapt to the changes that the “digital revolution” was bringing to the world. Those changes have only intensified over the past seven years, but I do not see the academic transforming in order to adapt to these changes.
And unsurprisingly, I see plenty of signs of “decline” in the academic world (declining enrollment in various subjects, declining job opportunities for people trained in certain subjects that are not changing, and declining interest in some subjects, particularly those that are not participating in the digital world of the present).
I think about these issues A LOT, and I have decided to document some of the ideas that I have about this issue and to post them to a blog that I am calling “Content Asian Studies.”
At the moment, my idea is for “Content Asian Studies” to be a kind of “flash blog,” that is, a blog where over the next several weeks I will post the ideas that I have about (the need for) academic communication in the digital age (particularly as it pertains to Asian Studies), but then after that will stop and allow the blog to essentially serve as a reference for people.
That being the case, I will have less time over the next few weeks to post to “Le Minh Khai’s Southeast Asian History blog,” but I encourage interested readers here to venture over to “Content Asian Studies” and have a look.
In the second chapter of Việt Nam: A History from Earliest Times to the Present author Ben Kiernan has a passage where he writes about Việt society in the third century AD.
His point in this passage is to argue that even after a long period of Chinese rule, indigenous social and religious practices persisted.
To quote, he states that,
“Even after three hundred years and fifty years [sic] of imperial rule in Jiaozhi and Jiuzhen, and even as Confucianism took root among the emerging elite, the Chinese were still able to rule much of the countryside only indirectly, if at all. Việt customs and gender relations persisted.” (92)
What were some of these customs and gender relations? One, Kiernan argues, concerned the involvement of women in the performance of certain religious rites.
Engaging With Vietnam, the only annual Vietnam-focused multidisciplinary conference in the world will hold its ninth conference in Hồ Chí Minh City/Bình Dương/An Giang from 27 December 2017 to 4 January 2018.
Please see the program below for details.
I was reading the Annotated Classic of Waterways (Shuijing zhu 水經注), a sixth century text that contains information about the Red River Delta region and came across a passage about snakes.
The text mentions a kind of snake called a “ranshe” 髯蛇 (literally, a “whiskered snake”) that was very large and could eat boars and deer.
The text then says that when people confront one, they throw women’s clothing on it (搏之以婦人衣投之).
[12/11/2017. Note: Professor Kiernan has responded to this post and has graciously pointed out that a comment I made is incorrect. There is one character that is discussed in this post that is very important, and in my original post, I stated that in the “two” versions of the text that is discussed below that I consulted the character in question appears as “xuyên 川” meaning “river.” In fact, it is true that in “one” of the texts I consulted the character in question appears as “xuyên 川” but in the other it appears as “thủy 水” which in its most basic sense means “water” but which is also used (including in the context of this text) to mean “river.”
My apologies to readers for not including an image from the version of this text that does use the character “xuyên 川.” Here it is:
There are certain ideas about early Vietnamese history that one can easily find expressed on the Internet, such as the ideas that 1) Hòa Bình was one the site of one of the earliest agricultural societies on the planet, and that wet rice was grown there as early as 10,000 years ago, and 2) people of this Hòa Bình culture brought their knowledge of rice cultivation northward and introduced it to the place that we now refer to as “China.”
As evidence for the first point, on web page after web page (and in numerous books) we find a statement that American archaeologist Wilhelm Solheim made in 1971 that “the first domestication of plants in the world was done by people of the Hoabinhian culture, somewhere in Southeast Asia. It would not surprise me if this had begun as early as 15,000 B.C.” [Wilhelm G. Solheim, “New Light on a Forgotten Past,” National Geographic Vol. 139, No. 3 (March 1971): 339.]
As evidence of the second statement, we find that a 1998 article by a group of genetic scientists led by J. Y. Chu is repeatedly cited. [J. Y. Chu, et al., “Genetic Relationship of Populations in China,” PNAS Vol. 95 (1998): 11763-11768.]
The person who introduced this perspective on the past and who first used the articles by Solheim and Chu to support his argument has now largely been forgotten. His name was Cung Đình Thanh, and although he passed away in 2006, the ideas that he introduced before he died are today widely discussed and reproduced on Vietnamese-language web pages.
In the early nineteenth century, Trịnh Hoài Đức, a Vietnamese scholar-official of Chinese descent, compiled a geographical gazetteer of the Mekong Delta region entitled the Comprehensive Gazetteer of Gia Định Citadel (Gia Định thành thông chí 嘉定城通志).
In 1863, Gabriel Aubaret, a French Naval officer who knew Chinese, published a translation of this work as The History and Description of Lower Cochinchina (Country of Gia-dinh) (Histoire et description de la Basse Cochinchine [pays de Gia-dinh]).
Trịnh Hoài Đức compiled his text not long after the Nguyễn Dynasty had consolidated its control over the Mekong Delta region, and Gabriel Aubaret produced his translation as the French were gaining control over the area around Gia Định.
As such, both of these men were the first to produce knowledge about this region for their respective readers/governments. In reading what they wrote, it is fascinating to see the way in which each man’s worldview influenced how he wrote or translated.
Educated on classical (Chinese) texts, Trịnh Hoài Đức viewed and described the region in East Asian geomantic terms (what we now call phong thủy/fengshui). Unfamiliar with that worldview, Aubaret unwittingly omitted the geomantic information in Trịnh Hoài Đức’s text in his translation, and reorganized the text so that the information could be presented in a way that was more comprehensible to European readers. By doing this, Aubaret made it impossible for readers of his translation to access Trịnh Hoài Đức’s ideas.