It’s tough being an American. After the last eight years we…lack a certain moral standing in the world. Any comment or criticism directed at human rights or state behavior is met with the immediate response: “Yeah, but you guys invaded Iraq.” Nowhere, perhaps, is this witty rejoinder more commonly heard than in the PRC, with “China has NEVER invaded ANYONE” sure to follow.
Well, it does depend on what you mean by “invade” and “anyone,” but this isn’t a post about Τibet, it’s about Vietnam.
On this date in 1979, the PLA launched a massive invasion of Vietnam with 200,000 troops supported by artillery, and armor.* The assault was an attempt by Beijing to punish that country for toppling the PRC-backed Khmer Rouge government in Cambodia, developing closer ties with the Soviet union, and the treatment of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam.
The result was disaster. Fighting against battle-hardened guerrillas and having made a fateful decision to forgo air cover, PLA casualties were enormous with between 25,000 to 63,000 Chinese soldiers killed. Vietnamese figures range as high as 100,000 soldiers and civilian casualties. By comparison, the total number of US soldiers killed in action during the decade-plus American debacle in Southeast Asia was around 57,000. In any case, by the middle of March, the PRC had called it a draw, declaring Vietnam sufficiently chastened with the two countries engaging in low-level border skirmishes for the better part of the next decade.
The war is almost completely forgotten in China but in Vietnam it is remembered as the last in a series of brutal foreign invasions of their territory. In 1993 I traveled to the “War Crimes Museum” in Ho Chi Minh City and was surprised that almost as much wall space was devoted to the Chinese invasion as to the French and US occupation. Even ten years after the last foreign troops had left, the horrible scars of war still remained all over the country. Ideology aside, I think all can agree on the terrible tragedy suffered by the Vietnamese people during the long decades of occupation and conflict.
In The Guardian, D’arcy Doran interviews Chinese veterans of the conflict. They long for closure even as their government refuses to acknowledge the horrible mistakes and costs of the invasion.
After a year surrounded by death in Vietnam — gripping a machine gun between diving for cover from howitzer fire — Zhou Feng decided to spend the rest of his days protecting life, not ending it.
The former infantryman said the shame he felt at all the death pushed him to study animal medicine when he returned from the front.
Zhou, 45, now works at a veterinary clinic and at home he shelters 30 stray dogs — by coincidence one for each year since the war.
“In China, the government respects history about as much as they respect these dogs,” Zhou said.
Chinese academics are prohibited from studying the war, in part to avoid damaging relations with former foe Vietnam, said Xiaoming Zhang, an associate professor at the US military’s Air War College in Alabama.
Zhang is writing a book about the conflict that he hopes will be the closest thing to a Chinese account of what happened.
“It was Deng Xiaoping‘s war,” Zhang said, adding study of the bloody and inconclusive war may also be banned to prevent it from becoming a “black stain” on the record of the father of China’s economic reform.
The United States of course had its own war in Vietnam and many American veterans have found it difficult to achieve the kind closure that Mr. Zhou also seeks. But the whitewashing of the past for political and ideological purposes does not heal history’s wounds, it simply covers them and causes them to fester.
UPDATE: Also see Benjamin Lim’s post at Reuter’s Changing China blog.
———-
*And before anyone starts, I freely admit that the US has invaded many more countries (including ones like Japan and Germany) than China has in the 20th century. We lead the world in building bombs and finding places to chuck ‘em. That said, given the catastrophic stupidity manifested by the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979, one could argue (tongue in cheek, of course) that it’s not that the PLA doesn’t WANT to invade other countries, it’s just that they really suck at it. Not that US strategy in recent years has been a whole lot better.
The Historical Record for February 17, 2009: The 30th Anniversary of the Sino-Vietnamese War: It’s tough b.. http://tinyurl.com/bwhfje
But China never invaded any country: This week marks the thirtieth anniversary of the Sino-Vietnamese War. Jerem.. http://tinyurl.com/bwhfje
RT: @danwei But China never invaded any country: This week marks the 13th anniversary of the Sino-Vietnamese War. http://tinyurl.com/bwhfje
Job well done, Jeremiah.
“In 1993 I traveled to the “War Crimes Museum” in Ho Chi Minh City and was surprised that almost as much wall space was devoted to the Chinese invasion as to the French and US occupation.”
Quite right, too, especially in view of the alacrity with which China clings to its ’100 years of humiliation’.
Jeremiah, I disagree.
It was the greatest raw political calculation done by Deng. It required guts and careful analysis.
Deng also fully alerted Carter before undertaking such a military adventure as an insurance policy.
The objectives under which Deng ordered the “punishment” — although who ended up getting punished is arguable — as I understood it, is as follows:
1. nip the budding alliance between USSR and Vietnam before it blossoms. Face down the Vietnamese, prove to them that USSR will not support them in a war.
2. Prevent Vietnam from gaining critical mass and forming a mini-empire on the south-eastern front.
Unfortunately, after the numerous anti-rightist this, and great leap foward that, the PLA is but a shell of its former self. It was a humiliating defeat for the Chinese tactically (which Deng, being out of power for so long, could do nothing about).
But strategically, it was a bold move.
You had it wrong my friend.
If it’s such a bold move and makes Deng look so good, I’m surprised it doesn’t get more attention in the Chinese media…they’re usually pretty good about commemorating the anniversaries of bold successes. I’ll have to give them a call.
Notice I said it was a humiliating defeat, tactically. You said it was a disaster, and I won’t disagree. But my point was that it was strategically bold, for Deng to decide on such a course, with all the attendant risks, to break out of a potential north-south encirclement.
Further to why China doesn’t brag about it.
Take another war. The sino-indian border of ’62, in which the Chinese handily won. Did china brag about that, too?
Remember, it’s all about “peaceful development” these days. China definitely wouldn’t want to dig up all that ugly history.
Again, I don’t disagree with what you had said about the outcome of this war. I just thought Deng wasn’t as dumb as he might be portrayed.
Tian,
I see the disconnect here. When I say ‘stupidity’ I’m (mostly) talking about the PLA and tactics, for example the decision not to use air cover. The criticism of Deng is in the interview with Mr. Zhou, a veteran of the campaign, and is part of the Guardian article.
I agree it’s ugly, but history is history and it deserves to be studied and taught. It’s not meant to be a mere tool for contemporary politicians and their present-day campaigns and concerns.
How much more so when those involved in history are still alive and seek recognition of their sacrifice?
Thanks for stopping by.
What, no mention of the Chinese People’s Volunteers to Aid Korea? Actually, they weren’t volunteers at all, but mostly captured Nationalist troops who needed to be disposed of. How better than throwing them into the American meat grinder?
Tian, even if it was the most calculated and boldest move, still it’s an invasion. And it’s ridiculous for politicians to say that China have never invaded anyone. I think that was the point.
Strategically, I don’t think it was smart. After all, the USSR was on the verge of decline: it could not have helped Vietnam even if it wanted to. Moscow was, in Feb 1979, already being drawn into Afghanistan (its own Vietnam in a sense). Brezhnev died in 1982, beginning an internal succession crisis that would finally end in 1985 with Gorbachev. And underlying all of that was a fundamental economic weakness.
Thus, if the PRC had done nothing (a Taoist strategy?), Vietnam would have been isolated from the collapsing Soviet Union without the use and depletion of Chinese men and resources, and without revealing the weakness of the PLA…
Oh, and the troops that the PRC sent to Korea included many, many (tens of thousands) ethnic Koreans, committed communists, who had fought with the CCP. And many regular PLA units were drawn in as well. It was not simply a meat grinder for old KMT units….
The war itself was not pretty but Deng used it to get rid of the PLA generals who supported Mao and successfully blamed the incompetence of the whole campaign on the Cultural Revolution ,thus built a stronger case for the reform and opening.
“When I say ’stupidity’ I’m (mostly) talking about the PLA and tactics, for example the decision not to use air cover.”
Air force has never been a strong point in PLA history. In Korea War, PLA almost did not have its own air force. Russian provided the pilots. In India War, it was impossible for PLA to use air force at the time due to the circumstances. Then there was CR. Thus, just as the whole nation needs to open and learn, PLA itself also was at the steeping part of the learning curve. It was tragedy for those soilders, but it probably would happen anyway.
Vietnam War was discussed hugely in 1980s, lots of movies and TV dramas and novels. But, just as other wars fought after 1949, it seldom mentioned after 1990s. It was the same that you rarely saw the offcial publication on any conflicts with neighboring states. For one it is about diplomacy. For two, it is about controlling nationalism.
Finally about the win/lose in a war,I assume that you all understand that the results of wars depends whether they achieved the polictal goals set before the wars. American’s death in Vietnam war and Iraq was much much lower than the counterparties. Had these been considered as the sucessful wars?
Jeremiah,
War is an extension of politics. In that light, it is a “tool”. You are right. the ’79 conflict needs to be studied and the sacrifice by the people/soldiers, recognized.
Sam:
hindsight is 20/20. But at that time, who knew?
Who knew what the Vietnamese and Russian might do once they have consolidated their relationship in the face of Chinese inaction, and started coordinating in settling “border provocations the Chinese started”?
I think when you hear the Chinese say that “we have never invaded anyone” they are really referring to the word “侵略”, which usually means a country invading, seizing the control of, conquering another country with the purpose of expanding territory or taking over resources etc. In English, an invasion is simply the act of the armed forces of one country entering into the territory of another country forcefully for whatever reason, so I guess you could say “the US invaded Nazi Germany” in English but you wouldn’t want to say “美国侵略了纳粹德国”, it is very odd.
By the definition of “invasion” in English, of course China has invaded Vietnam. It also invaded Korea in the 7th century and again in 1950. But that’s pretty much it.
The PLA wants to invade other countries but they can’t because they suck at it? Wow Jeremiah, how do you know that?
By the way, Just my opinion, “incursion/入侵” might have been a better word to describe China’s war with Vietnam.
Hi Jeremiah,
I visited the war crimes museum about 15 years ago and it was not the case that the China section was given as much coverage as the American & French section. I am not surprised that they would revise their exhibitions, however. When were you there?
Regarding the invasion, I agree with Sam. At the same time, I never know what to say at times like this– have Americans achieved the transparancy and closure that you are urging upon the Chinese? If you agree that the answer is “no” then any annoyance shown by your Chinese counterparts could be understandable (as ringing of a certain hypocracy, really).
I suppose I remain skeptical– like many people really– of the “objective voice”– or the perspective from nowhere.
Not that history should not be studied– that is not what I am saying. But isn’t the overwelmingly important issue (and the issue which needs addressing) this bit below– talking about things creating festering wounds, that being the point of this post I think.
“We lead the world in building bombs and finding places to chuck ‘em. “
Pfeffer,
1) When 200,000 troops cross a border with total casualties in this event reaching six figures, that’s a little more than an incursion.
2) You might want to check the definition “tongue in cheek.”
PS:
Pfeffer makes an important point– which I assume he was offering to help explain your puzzlement at why your chinese students would say China never invaded another country. Different languages divide concepts up differently and the semantic usuage of “invasion” or “incursion” is not necessarily based on casualty numbers. In both languages it is called a “war” I believe. But there is a difference between 入侵 and 侵略 and to my knowledge (though you would know far more than me on this) we don’t distinguish the words in the same way in english…. So, even though your students were speaking in English, they might have been thinking of this topic in terms of Chinese. It’s just something to think about (tongue and cheek of course).
The English translation really ought to be “China has never launched an aggressive war of conquest against any other country.” (Although, as Zhou Enlai said, there needs to be an asterisk: “since feudal times”.)
Re: ex-KMT troops in the Korean War. During the Civil War, the PLA routinely absorbed large bodies of ex-KMT troops into their ranks. Entire divisions came over to the Communists, usually when their commanding general decided to switch to the winning side. Also, Peng Dehaui’s army had more ex-KMT troops in its ranks than Lin Biao’s. Insteading of marching into Korea at the head of his troops, Lin Biao instead feigned an illness and checked into a hospital. (This guy shows up in so many places, it makes your head spin.)
Americans have a preoccupation with airpower arising out of their own military’s tactics. The PLA’s troubles in the Sino-Vietnamese War came largely from its significant deficiencies on terra firma. They had outdated maps, poor communications, inadequate logistics, slow artillery support, and no military rank system. It’s not clear that the PLA could’ve put the PLAAF to good use in Vietnam. 1950s-era Migs against modern Soviet SAMS that had been practicing on the most advanced American airplanes? Close air support in the jungle using fighter jets? And how would the PLA call in the air support when they could barely call up artillery?
M.H.
The short response is yes, China invaded Vietnam. So all the talk about non-invasion is all B.S.
The longer response for you is:
China didn’t call it an invasion. It was termed a “punishment” of the Vietnamese, in line with what China historically does with surrounding states. The explicit objective for the 1979 invasion (there’s that word again), was to attack, storm around, then retreat. Compared that against Iraq, or Japanese Co-prosperity sphere, and therein lies the difference.
You can by all means call it an invasion if you wish. But that’s not the Chinese term for it.
Regarding transparency and closure, I have to gently suggest that you compare the current state of historical research and curriculum on subjects such as this (take Vietnam for example) and compare with it to the PRC.
I think BOTH countries need to continue their exploration and examination of historical events, good and bad.
We have a responsibility as human beings to look at human history, History is not the sole possession of any one group or people.
The relativism of your comment disturbs me a bit, as does your emphasis on ethnic and national identity, and with the idea that those criteria are the only arbiters of who gets to say what.
There is no objective voice, the only thing we can do is be aware of our perspectives when we write and do research and do our utmost to minimize the impact. You may have noticed that I went out of my way, almost over the top
really, to include the atrocious record of US invasions into the post. Why? Because I knew a straight ahead post on this subject would just devolve into “The US invades more.”
That’s fine, I agree “The US does invade more.” But such sentiments do not tell us anything about the history of the Sino-Vietnamese War, which is the subject of the post.
Are you suggesting I’m only allowed to write about history in China if I say happy things or from the perspective of the CCP?
If I were the type of writer from the “US can do no wrong” camp, then hypocrisy would be the right word. But I think I’ve been quite consistent and clear in my outrage at any number of events in US history.
Respectfully,
Jeremiah
Tian,
That’s a fair point because officially it was a 自卫反击 “defensive counterstrike.”
But here’s the thing…George Bush had his own terms/justifications for the invasion of Iraq, and Japan had their own way of expressing/explaining their actions in Asia. But I say again: When 200,000 troops and tanks cross a border into another country, resulting in war with up to 100,000 casualties, you can call it whatever you like, but it is what it is.
(And no, before the feeble minded jump on this bandwagon, there is no equivalency here, I’m talking purely in terms of rhetoric.)
Semantics aside, it’s hard to parse a body count. Goodness knows George Bush and his spin doctors have tried.
So basically Jeremiah just wants to tell us that:
(1) China invaded Vietnam.
(2) The US has invaded more.
OK, I think people here all agree with you. End of the discussion?
Jeremiah,
“When 200,000 troops and tanks cross a border into another country, resulting in war with up to 100,000 casualties, you can call it whatever you like, but it is what it is. ”
It is what? Invasion? OK. By the way, I want to know what you think the difference between “invasion” and “incursion” is? Number of casualties?
Second thought, would you really say “the US invaded Nazi Germany” or “the US invaded Korea”?
Pfeffer,
Basically. I do these “historical record” posts all the time so my goal was to note the occasion of #1, while reminding the usual suspects that I was perfectly aware of #2.
As to Korea and Germany. I would say the US invaded Nazi Germany (and Japan for that matter) and if you add the word “North” to the second, I would definitely agree with you there as well. Invasion could be justified in some cases (Germany being one), but I would also offer the caveat that such cases are very rare.
Wait a second, Jeremiah, I do think I have a valid point here: You might think an invasion is an invasion and there is no difference between what Nazi Germany did to Poland and what the US did to Korea or Vietnam, but the word 侵略 in Chinese does carry negative undertones which are usually associated with seizing territory, government office, resources and wonton killing of civilians. Ask your Chinese students. That’s why China’s invasion of Vietnam is not considered “侵略 “. Seriously, you should ask them what they meant by “invade” as in “China has never invaded anyone”.
Pfeffer,
I don’t think I said your point was invalid, I was just offering some thoughts in extension of what you said.
I’m obviously aware of the word’s implications and I wasn’t referring to Chinese students (I’m not sure where the idea there were Chinese students involved started…) I was directing that at the trolls on the internet (cf. Peking Duck) who make these kind of claims using English. In retrospect, that kind of sniping is really a tangential issue and was probably the wrong way to start the post. Live and learn.
But taking this a step further and considering actual students for a moment, I think part of the issue isn’t simply a question of how to parse/translate the term, but also because the event is significantly minimized in official and educational memory.
I also want to thank you Pfeffer for your reasonable and respectful commentary.
“Invasion could be justified in some cases (Germany being one)”
Here you go. “Invasion” in English might be a neutral act which might be justified sometimes, but “侵略” in Chinese is something can never ever be justified. Again it is very odd, if not completely impossible to see someone say 美国侵略了纳粹德国 in Chinese.
I bet those Chinese “trolls” (it is easy to dismiss those who we don’t agree as trolls) must be literally translating “中国从未侵略过任何国家” to “China has never invaded anyone”. In the Chinese sense “中国从未侵略过任何国家” might have been correct, but to say it in English “China has never invaded anyone” is clearly not.
This debate wouldn’t be happening if the Chinese Education Ministry incorporated “critical thinking skills” in their curriculum (oh, and a complete, well-rounded history). Notice how Jeremiah never defends American invasions (we know and have the resources to understand our country’s faults) but the Sinophiles rabidly defend all that would tarnish the near flawless history of the PLA/CCP that is taught in Chinese schools. There is no such thing as a “peaceful rise” ya’ll. Come to Chongqing and have lunch with me and my African foreign exchange students…learn about “invasion” from them…
Hi J
I didn’t realize you did go ahead and upload that… just one quick response: I would hope by now you would know that I agree with you about history. Yes, no one owns history and the more it is researched and written about the better. This post, however, was not really about reporting history was it? It was political commentary and opinion. And to make this difference clear is not an insignificant point. History and political opinion have very different projects and one should never be disguised as the other. I love the history in the post but had some issues with the political commentary– which in all fairness, my “relativism” is probably really related to the speaker not the subject (if you know what I mean)… Is it really snowing?
Phil,
“History is an endless debate…” Pieter Geyl
And uh..notice how you didn’t add to the substance of this discussion one iota.
“…but “侵略” in Chinese is something can never ever be justified.”
And yet, as Phil eludes to above, China’s soft power strategy in Africa carries with it all the negative criteria that you associate with the concept of invasion – but that doesn’t stop China justifying their African policy.
I diagree, Tian. I think I said all that needs to be said. Debating history could be easily facilitated if China provided a fact-based, critical-thinking university education for its citizens… It all goes back to education… Jeremiah is well-read and rounded.
Happy fuming…
“…notice how you didn’t add to the substance of this discussion one iota.”
Not so. Phil pointed out the straitjacketed environment in which history is taught in China. Students and teachers interested in nuance and critique need not apply.
The CCP are painting a picture of peace and harmony by whitewashing any acts of past aggression against other nations. Vietnam is a case in point; never acknowledged, never discussed, never happened.
@Jeremiah,
“But here’s the thing…George Bush had his own terms/justifications for the invasion of Iraq, and Japan had their own way of expressing/explaining their actions in Asia.”
Any comparisons sufficiently generalized become meaningless. What distinguished the Sino-Viet war is that Deng never deviated from his original objective, which was strictly a “punishment” of vietnam. The Iraq campaign, on the other hand, went from(and i am simplifying here) WMD->Al Qaeda -> Briging democrazy to Iraq. Imperial Japan undertook a brazen invasion, for which I doubt they expended much much propagandic energies into masking. We are comparing apples and oranges, here.
“…with up to 100,000 casualties, you can call it whatever you like, but it is what it is.”
Whether there were 1 or 100, 000 casualties seems less relevant here. The central proposition was whether that was an invasion.
I certainly think it was, under strict definition of the term. Pfeffer of course may disagree.
On an entirely different note, when covering the Sichuan earthquake I encountered a gang of five or six middle-aged, pot-bellied men marching down the hillside into Beichuan with the leader bearing a big dark flag with Chinese writing on. On closer inspection it turned out it said they were a branch of the Chinese Vietnam War Veterans Association (can’t remember the exact term). They told me that they spent weeks sheltering in a cave under gunfire after being cut off, and thought they had been abandoned. They swore then that they would never abandon anyone else in their hour of need, hence the reason why they took the long distance bus to Mianyang and walked from there. They were slightly upset because noone could really find much for them to you (the place by then was swarming not surprisingly with younger, fitter volunteers). But a sweet story, I thought.
I love the idea of the PLA indulging in wonton killing. No wonder they weren’t very successful.
I would like to know what all the fuss is about the use of these terms invasion and incursion. The fact of the matter is this. No matter what you call it, the moment someone says that China has never done X like the US has in Iraq/Vietnam/Germany or wherever, the speaker is consciously forming an analogy between the US act and a Chinese one. In this case, it doesn’t matter how much you dissect the terms 仅略 and 入略. The speaker has defined the comparison for you.
Even if the speaker is speaking in general terms and just says, “China has never invaded anyone,” whether in Chinese or in English, the speaker is also full of it because there are examples of both 仅略 and 入略 throughout Chinese history, although the 仅略 is less common. Regardless, the last time was the slow conquest and pacification of Taiwan. It included a military conquest and stages of pacification of “savages” along with a colonial discourse that slowly linked the assimilation to ancient assimilations of people along China’s southern frontier. And this assimilation effort only ended in 1895, a mere three years before the US annexed Hawaii. So this is hardly the distant past.
And whether you call it 仅略 or 入略, the fact remains that the PRC glosses over the Vietnam invasion to suit the nation’s modern diplomatic needs. That is practical, but I can see how it would not be satisfying to veterans of that war.
So much splitting of hairs doesn’t seem practical to me.
As a “well-read” person, J is just mad, as always, about the statement that “China has never…”, so he decides to do whatever and whenever he can to ventilate his indignity at this fallacy. The outcome is THIS POST.
Look, China invaded Vietnam! Hum.
cc,
Talk about a longtime listener, first time caller…nice to have you finally comment — even if I really have no idea what your point is, welcome to the party.
I do these This Date in Chinese History posts about three times a week. This one took 15 minutes and gets 37 responses, another one took 2 hours and gets nary a glance. The lesson, as always…well, you know.
what i found most surprising, both in the original telling as well as the way it’s been ignored in the subsequent discussion of the diary, is how many people were killed in that war that barely ever gets mentioned, either in china or american history classes on modern china (it did get mentioned, quite frequently, in my travels in vietnam, notably). tens and hundreds of thousands of people, and it’s treated like a passing storm.
that lacuna in everybody’s (sans the vietnamese, that is) memory of the late 70s is itself a story, and all the back and forth about philology sort of misses the point. or, rather, reinforces it by aversion to engaging it.
it might be interesting to think about what other incidents get forgotten like that. lots of work on the topic of historical memory, but somewhat less done on historical forgetting, as far as i know.
I guess Korea was a police action, not an invasion. Forgetting Tibet then can we think about mongolia or india?
Maybe their motto should be – China, we never invade anyone, we just screw ourselves.
I’ve found that a lot of military history is unsatisfactorily covered particularly by historians who themselves are unfamiliar with military terminology. A casualty is not singularly a KIA, but also covers wounded and missing. A really sloppy mistake that is often made causing what I call body count creep. 20000 casualties become 20000 killed, 20000 killed subsequently becomes 60000 casualties due to killed-wounded ratio. 60000 casualties become 60000 killed, etc. American historians really have a bad habit of doing this especially in light of how particular they are when it comes to their own casualties.
The Guardian article you linked to made a huge factual error at the get go by conflating two separate conflicts. The third Indo-China war lasted only 30 days as that was the operational timetable the Chinese Army was working with Unlike Bush, Deng had a withdraw plan, one he was willing to stick to. The veteran the author quoted from could not have been in theater for a year. The author may have indeed conflated two separate conflicts, the subsequent 1984 flare up with Vietnam with the previous 1979 invasion.
“And yet, as Phil eludes to above, China’s soft power strategy in Africa carries with it all the negative criteria that you associate with the concept of invasion – but that doesn’t stop China justifying their African policy.”
stuart,
Perhaps you and I should take our fight back to your “China rants” blog. But I can’t help wondering, what is your definition of “invasion”? Exactly how is China invading Africa at this moment?
Phil,
I hate to admit it, but both you and the guy I dread (stuart) had some good points. However, I am thinking that if different words mean different things to people, wouldn’t it be natural to expect different reactions?
“Even if the speaker is speaking in general terms and just says, “China has never invaded anyone,” whether in Chinese or in English, the speaker is also full of it because there are examples of both 仅略 and 入略 throughout Chinese history, although the 仅略 is less common.”
See? On one hand you are saying there is hardly any difference between the two and yet you confirmed yourself there is a difference.
What I have been trying to say is what “侵略” means to the Chinese is very different from what “invasion” to English-speaking folks.
J,
Perhaps I should have made my point clearer. I just find this argument about “XXX has never…” a bit pointless. I only know there is no angel.
Hi Wu Ming,
I have been interested in the same question– this idea of remembering and forgetting. Did you ever read Kapuscinski’s last book on Herodotus? BBC In Our Time also recently did a show on history (as remembering/as story telling) but like you said, there are also these places of historical forgetting. Not all that long ago I was talking to one of the philosophers on my blog about Japan’s stance with regard to certain matters of historical memory, and he immediately retorted: “yeah but look at how the native americans are whitewashed in our history– numbers killed and what was destroyed is really whitewashed don’t you think?” I don’t think I responded to him as honestly, I have lived overseas for almost 20 years so I don’t know how that is even being taught in schools nowadays.
When were you in Vietnam? I wrote this (link above) about my time in Hue– one of the most beautiful places I have ever seen.
(Maybe you can shed some light on the way 玄 became 元 and 元朝 as a description of the Mongol supremacy? )
Jeremiah,
Having read all the discussions above, I can imagine your frustration when you get most comments on the term usage instead of what were trying to convey.
That being said, I think you cannot expect people to SHOW their agreement with you over your main idea. I believe most readers of this blog are not trolls or so called ‘angry youth’ in China, especially after reading Tian and Pffefer’s comments. To me, your statement is clearly true, that China did invaded other countries, Vietnam included, and history should not be hidden and used as a political tool. However, that statement is not ‘surprisingly true’, neither does it provide me many new and interesting material. And different understanding of the term ‘invasion’ is clearly a problem, and that may add to your surprise when you hear some Chinese say ‘China has never invaded other countries’. People just want to point it out to make your article better, but not to argue with you by picking on the minor mistakes.