Mr John K. Whitmore

Entry for November 07, 2008
Mr John K. Whitmore,


Brian gave me your paper Viet Nam. First, I would like to express my gratitude, it is also an honor for me that you have asked me to read it. The following are a few comments on your paper.


In general, the paper’s approach is quite original – to look at Chinese history through Vietnamese history, and particularly to look at the history of Chinese-Vietnamese diplomacy through the geographic development of the feudal Vietnamese state. However, this unusual approach requires the mastery of the field combined with research methodology in order that the paper will be truly remarkable. Therefore I suggest that you examine the how the combination of parts A, B and D create a topic “Development and problems of the Vietnamese administration (or feudal state)”. You clearly raise an interesting point that after the Ly-Tran period, the literati of Thanh Nghe overpowered the Dong Kinh literati. I find that this point becomes a hypothesis that fits with Vietnamese history before the 19th century: the movement of the center of economic activity, and especially commerce, to the south led to the movement of the “center of political power” that was firstly the practical power of the political forces of each locality. We have seen that Thanh Nghe was a poor region with respect to agricultural production, its people had to live by other economic means than the Hong river delta, and their political thinking (not only among the literati class) was therefore more lively and practical. After this, the commercial center moved entirely to Dang Trong (Hoi An, Gia Dinh), but due to the civil war and division of Vietnam, the principle stated above could not be applied in a complete manner. But it is clear that whichever polity had more merchants (or the offspring of merchants) and more commercial activity would achieve prominence in Vietnamese history before the 19th century, as evidenced by the victory of the Tay Son movement and dynasty, and then the Gia Dinh regime of Nguyen Anh before 1802. Following this logic immediately leads to part D of the paper: the political crisis in Vietnam before 1802 was in reality a conflict between the demands of firmly establishing a unified national market (and not enough the representatives of this demand were merchants) and the the limited ability of the regime to unify the country politically. By understanding this conflict, one can easily explain the formation of the “military form” of the regime in Viet Nam from the Le restoration to 1832 – a model completely incompatible with the spirit of orthodox Chinese Confucianism.


On the basis of “the development and problems of the regime” (A+B+D) like a clear miniature picture of that Vietnamese historical development, one can move beyond the part “Development in Chinese relations” very easily: diplomatic relations between the two countries was not just the affair of the regime, and also not only limited to the sphere of politics. Furthermore, the commercial model of Southern China, the spirit of orthodox confucianism of the Minh Loyalists that opposed the Qing..., in short, the cultural and material factors and the cultural spirit of the Southern Chinese that was Vietnamized in the commercial center of Gia Dinh still played an important part in the struggle to unify the country in 18th century Viet Nam. Here you may return to one of the points raised in the introduction (different segments of Vientam had contact with different parts of the Chinese empire), and can expand on the Southeast Asian elements in Southern Chinese culture, as well as the combination of Southeast Asian and East Asian elements in the culture and history of Viet Nam, in the Vietnamese administration, etc., and from there proceed to the part “the rise of a New Viet Nam”.


Regarding some details: I eagerly hope that you will change the sentence (page 1) that literati supported the Ming occupation, and write instead “Some strictly orthodox literati who were politically naive”, because it has never been the case that the entire Vietnamese literati have followed a foreign country to oppose their own people. I also suggest you change the sentence “The Mac to the North” (page 2), because the principle reason that the Trinh did not claim the throne was that they wished to use the fame of the Le to oppose the other forces such as the Nguyen and Mac..


These are a few humble opinions, I have that they can help you in some small way. In the case that there is anything you are not satisfied with, please forgive me, since although it is only my attempt to respond to your generous request.


Warmest regards,


26. 11. 2002
Tags: | Edit Tags



Friday November 7, 2008 - 05:28am (ICT) Edit | Delete

Next Post: Entry for November 07, 2008