Viet Nam: Borderless Histories

7. Transnationalism and Multiethnicity in the Early Nguyễn Ánh Gia Long Period

194 W Y N N W I L C O X 7 Transnationalism and Multiethnicity in the Early NguyӼn Ánh Gia Long Period W Y N N W I L C O X During the war fought between the Tây Sхn dynasty and the NguyӼn dynasty for control of ViӾt Nam (1773–1802), both the NguyӼn emperor NguyӼn Ánh Gia Long (r. 1782–1820) in southern ViӾt Nam and the Tây Sхn emperor Quang Trung (r. 1788–92) in northern ViӾt Nam found it useful to seek technology, diplomatic support, and mercenaries from outside ViӾt Nam. For the NguyӼn, however, this task took on a particular urgency because of their dire situation in the early 1780s. Desperate to maintain a flicker of hope that they would again rule from Phú Xuân, the capital of their ancestors, in a part of modern-day HuӴ, the remnants of a once-proud NguyӼn scholar-elite forged rivers, avoided crocodiles, ate tubers and grasses to avoid malnutrition, and ran out of fresh water in their attempts to keep their dynasty alive.1 To alleviate their desperate supply situation, between 1777 and 1789 NguyӼn Ánh sent his officials on diplomatic missions to Cambodia, 194 Transnationalism and Multiethnicity 195 Siam, India, France, and Melaka. NguyӼn officials were involved in attempting to negotiate direct assistance from the Dutch and the Portuguese . They did in fact successfully negotiate a treaty of assistance with the French monarch Louis XVI, even though this treaty did not come to fruition. Moreover, NguyӼn officials frequently purchased supplies, munitions, and ammunition from Spanish, Dutch, Chinese, and especially English outposts. Finally, during this period NguyӼn Ánh appeared to be willing to accept support from any person with ability, regardless of his education or nationality; as a result, Chinese pirates, Spanish mercenaries, and French missionaries, among others, not only assisted the NguyӼn regime but became integrated into NguyӼn official life. The best-known of these figures is the Frenchborn Bishop of Adran, Pierre Pigneaux de Béhaine (1740–99), known in Vietnamese sources as Bá /a LԐc. Many of these figures fought with distinction for the NguyӼn during the Tây Sхn war and were rewarded with special ranks and honors by NguyӼn Ánh Gia Long. Thus, in the late eighteenth century, officials at the southern Vietnamese (NguyӼn) court came from all parts of the world, including Europe. However, since at least the 1860s, a decade which by no coincidence also inaugurated the French colonial era in ViӾt Nam, historians have understood those largely responsible for molding and forging history in ViӾt Nam in the late eighteenth century to be “the French,” understood as a group of adventure- and power-seeking missionaries and military deserters, and “the Vietnamese,” who usually are represented in two groups: NguyӼn HuӾ Quang Trung, or the “northern” emperor and his officials, on the one hand, and NguyӼn Ánh Gia Long, or the “southern” emperor and his officials, on the other. The first, characteristic of historians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century who were supportive of French colonization, assign to “the French” the impetus for changing Vietnamese history. They do this to the disadvantage of NguyӼn Ánh Gia Long, who is regarded as an emperor enlightened by the influence of his French mercenaries and advisors but who failed to nominate a successor who would follow along the same path of progress, and also to NguyӼn HuӾ Quang Trung, who is generally regarded as an uncivilized rebel.2 The second approach, characteristic of Vietnamese nationalists, assumes that the eighteenth-century French in ViӾt Nam were colonizers and uses them to criticize Gia Long, who is viewed as a puppet, and to revitalize 196 W Y N N W I L C O X Quang Trung, now viewed as a hero.3 Finally, a third approach, most notably taken by North American scholars of the last four decades, emphasizes the insignificance of French actors in the late eighteenth century and treats both Gia Long and Quang Trung as effective emperors . This approach, by constantly repeating the claim that the French are insignificant, paradoxically gives their insignificance a kind of significance.4 All three of these narrative strategies have a single element in common: they all read...