******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/ Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-rev...@lists.h-net.org> > Date: March 8, 2020 at 10:17:53 AM EDT > To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > Cc: H-Net Staff <revh...@mail.h-net.org> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Asia]: Guerin on Aso, 'Rubber and the Making of > Vietnam: An Ecological History, 1897-1975' > Reply-To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > > Michitake Aso. Rubber and the Making of Vietnam: An Ecological > History, 1897-1975. Flows, Migrations, and Exchanges Series. Chapel > Hill University of North Caroline Press, 2018. Illustrations, maps, > tables. 426 pp. $32.95 (e-book), ISBN 978-1-4696-3716-7; $32.95 > (paper), ISBN 978-1-4696-3715-0; $90.00 (cloth), ISBN > 978-1-4696-3714-3. > > Reviewed by Mathieu Guerin (INALCO - Institut national des langues et > civilisations orientales) > Published on H-Asia (March, 2020) > Commissioned by Bradley C. Davis > > Michitake Aso's book is neither a history of Vietnam nor an > environmental history of rubber plantations. Aso is foremost a > historian of technology and science in Vietnam. In large part, his > previous publications focus on the history of medicine, rubber, and > technology in Vietnam from the colonial era to the end of the Vietnam > War. Rubber and the Making of Vietnam is the published version of his > PhD dissertation, "Forests without Birds: Tropical Agriculture and > Medicine in French Colonial Vietnam, 1890-1954," which he defended at > the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 2011. In Rubber and the > Making of Vietnam, Aso explores the relationship between technology, > science and the manufacturing of knowledge, capitalistic > exploitation, and human bodies through the lens of rubber production > in Vietnam from the colonial era to the reunification of Vietnam in > 1975. He studies how rubber production was used by successive > regimes--the French colonial administration, the State of Vietnam > (SV, which Aso calls the "Associated States of Vietnam"), the first > and second Republics of Vietnam (RVN), the Democratic Republic of > Vietnam (DRV), and finally the Socialist Republic of Vietnam > (SRV)--and their opponents, as a means to develop Vietnam's economy > and an idea on which to build a "modern" nation. > > His language skills allowed him to draw data and analysis from a > large collection of archives and literature in French, Vietnamese, > and English. To conduct his research, Aso explored archive material > in France, Vietnam, Cambodia, the United States, Singapore, and > Switzerland, and he read an amazing number of books and papers on > French Indochina and twentieth-century Vietnamese history. Using > French, American, and Vietnamese archives, as well as interviewing a > few witnesses, enabled him to record different sides of the history > of rubber in Vietnam: those of the state, plantation owners, workers, > and scientists of different backgrounds. > > The book is divided into seven chapters and three parts: "Red Earth, > Grey Earth" on the ecology of rubber in Vietnam, "Forests without > birds" on the rubber industry during the colonial era before the end > of World War II, and "Rubber Wars" on rubber production during the > First and Second Indochina Wars. After a promising introduction, the > first chapter and first part appear a bit confused. In trying to > explain how the introduction of the latex tree _hevea brasiliensis_, > and the technologies needed to grow it, have redefined the > relationship between human societies and the environment in Cambodia > and the southern part of Vietnam, it would have been useful to read > the work of such researchers as Nguyễn Thị Hải, who questioned > the perception of nature and malaria by the Vietnamese in the > nineteenth century.[1] A few mistakes appear during the discussion of > highlanders, who are not all Austroasiatic, and the treatment of > Khmer concepts or practices, such as _sruk_ or swidden cultivation. > The impressive works edited by Malcolm Cairns on swidden in Southeast > Asia, _Shifting Cultivation and Environmental Change: Indigenous > People, Agriculture and Forest Conservation_ (2015) and _Shifting > Cultivation Policies: Balancing Environmental and Social > Sustainability_ (2017), would have been useful here. Nevertheless, > Aso can claim a very good understanding of French colonial discourse > on nature and disease. > > The second part focuses on the development of _hevea_ plantations > during the colonial era. Although Aso does not provide his own > account of the history of rubber production in Vietnam under French > rule, he does rely on the PhD dissertations of Marianne Boucheret and > Webby Silupya Kalikiti.[2] These dissertations remain unpublished and > are not easy to come by. Aso's book will be useful for those > interested in the history of rubber in Indochina and who do not have > access to this doctoral research. > > Aso presents an analysis of science and the development of rubber. He > shows that, contrary to official discourse, French investment in > research on agriculture and rubber remained underfunded and very > limited. His critical analysis of the work of French tropical > scientists, such as agronomist Yves Henri and geographer Pierre > Gourou, allow readers to better understand some of the most commonly > used sources on agriculture in Vietnam in the first decade of the > twentieth century. Aso reminds us that Vietnamese scholars did not > wait for the French to get involved in science, technology, or > medicine. Many considered mastering science as a way to resist French > domination. Linking research, production, malaria, and the condition > of workers, he contradicts colonial officials and planters' discourse > on the modernization of Vietnam. The colonial government, even during > the leftist Popular Front, had been inefficient in protecting workers > against the abuses of planters despite its claims to act on behalf of > _mise en valeur_ or _mission civilisatrice_. > > Aso explains how the French made it difficult for the Vietnamese to > invest in rubber production and how racial discrimination played a > role in the management of plantations. Highlander, Vietnamese, and > Cambodian workers were not assigned the same tasks. Highlanders were > considered skilled workers for clearing operations and more > resilient, or even immune, to malaria, and therefore a possible > source of contamination for Vietnamese workers who constituted most > of the tappers. The Pasteur Institute supported the plantations in > their attempts to lower the prevalence of malaria. However, as Aso > explains, "practical steps were taken to reduce the effects of this > disease only where modernization projects were in danger" (p. 141). > French medicine was not as efficient as claimed by its proponents. > For many French colonists, even medical doctors, malaria was > perceived as coming from water, a quite common belief in Vietnamese > culture as well.[3] The French "scientific" medicine could overlook > the effectiveness of traditional Sino-Vietnamese medicine. In the > interwar years, foreign expertise on malaria was channeled to Vietnam > through the Far Eastern Association of Tropical Medicine and the > Health Organisation of the League of Nations. The French lost their > monopoly on scientific knowledge on malaria. In the decades preceding > World War II, Vietnamese agriculture engineers and medical doctors > developed their own understanding of the disease and its relation to > plantations. Many of them got involved in the anti-colonial struggle > and built a nationalist discourse on the failure of the colonial > state to protect Vietnamese lives. > > The third part is about _hevea_ production and its relation to > science in the context of the First and Second Indochina Wars. > Despite the context of unrest, rubber production, which almost > stopped in 1945, returned to and exceeded prewar levels in 1954. > Rubber plantations were pictured as colonial hells in DRV propaganda > and were first targetted for destruction. The discourse changed after > the DRV government received extensive support from China in 1949-50 > and understood that independence was within reach. Plantations then > appeared as possible tools for the construction of the future > socialist Vietnam. Aso explains clearly how plantations benefited > from their usefulness for both the French and the DRV. Even after the > French handed over part of their government responsibilities to the > SV in 1949, rubber plantations remained under their control. After > independence, the "decolonisation of plantations" has proven almost > impossible to achieve (p. 206). In the 1950s, the condition of > workers improved a bit but were still not that different from the > late 1930s. Plantations were then used by President Ngô Đình > Diệm to resettle migrants from the North. > > In the American Vietnam War, plantations became a fighting ground > between the National Liberation Front (NLF) and pro-RVN forces. The > infrastructures of plantations could be used by both sides. According > to Aso, French-owned _hevea _plantations became a source of cash, > manpower, food, medical equipment, and more for the NLF, while the > RVN still needed the French to manage these important components of > the economical and sociological landscape of southern Vietnam. > Strikes and social conflicts in a context of political unrest led to > an improvement of conditions for workers in terms of salaries, > lodging, and medical care in the early 1960s. But when the war > intensified after 1964 with the full involvement of US troops, the > economic depression, bombing campaigns, and spraying of herbicides > badly affected rubber plantations. They were no longer in a position > to provide for their workers' needs. The competition of synthetic > rubber and production by neighboring countries made it even harder > for Vietnamese plantations to survive. In 1975, rubber production > collapsed. The only real improvement was with malaria infection > rates, which rapidly declined with the widespread use of DDT and > synthetic drugs. Unfortunately, Aso does not assess the ecological > consequences of the widespread use of DDT on plantations, an > insecticide that was eventually banned in most countries in the 1970s > after the publication of Rachel Carson's book, _Silent Spring > _(1962). To assess the situation of plantations, their workers, and > science in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Aso uses fascinating > surveys that he found in the US National Archives. However, DRV views > on these issues would have been welcome as well. > > Aso's research shows that smallholdings of rubber trees were never > really important in Vietnam. The large estates model developed by the > French, which also granted them an almost monopoly on scientific > knowledge relevant to rubber plantations and associated diseases, > proved economically viable and was not challenged after independence. > It remains the main model for rubber production in Vietnam in the > present-day. Between the end of the nineteenth century and 1975, the > main problem for plantation management was finding suitable manpower. > Land could easily be taken from the forest or swidden farmers. > Despite the terrible conditions for workers on most of the > plantations during the colonial era, the French succeeded in keeping > control over them and "rubber science" when their political > domination over Vietnam ceased in 1954. The "shift from colonial to > tropical ecology" did bring little improvement for Vietnamese > workers, investors, and researchers (p. 151). > > Aso's book is a welcome addition to the prolific publications on > twentieth-century Vietnam that have appeared over the last two > decades. It is also one of the few works that deals with the > environmental history of the French colonial empire in Asia. > > Notes > > [1]. Nguyễn Thị Hải, "La forêt de la marche frontière > sino-vietnamienne: Le cas de Cao Bằng," _Péninsule_ 75 (2017): > 11-36. > > [2]. Marianne Boucheret, "Les Plantations d'hévéas en Indochine" > (PhD diss., University Paris 1 Pantéhon-Sorbonne, 2008); and Webby > Silupya Kalikiti, "Rubber Plantations and Labour in Colonial > Indochina" (PhD diss., School of Oriental and African Studies, > University of London, 2000). > > [3]. See Nguyễn, "La forêt de la marche frontière > sino-vietnamienne," 13-15. > > Citation: Mathieu Guerin. Review of Aso, Michitake, _Rubber and the > Making of Vietnam: An Ecological History, 1897-1975_. H-Asia, H-Net > Reviews. March, 2020. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54627 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
