Talk:Lao rebellion (1826–1828)

Help!

This article is vitally important to the history of Thailand and of Laos all the way down to the present, but is only of passing interest to the history of Vietnam after the 1841–1845 Siamese–Vietnamese War. The article had major issues from the start.

Started in 2008 by an editor who got himself banned, it was then abandoned until I found it by accident while looking for Anou-related subjects in Lao Categories. Having an intense interest in the subject matter, but before I checked into the article's history, I added a new paragraph one that I lifted whole from the referenced LOC country study, the text of which is in public domain. Unfortunately, the original opening paragraph, now paragraph two, is not. It was lifted whole from a website that had lifted it from EB.

I also wrote the paragraph on Bodindecha, both here and at Yasothon. But I went to the chedi shown to get better pix, only to be told it isn't the origianl. That one was destroyed by lightening, the head monk said, leaving only the base on which the new structure was erected, but he couldn't say when. Dates don't mean much over here.

I've found newly published history of the rebellion:

Paths to conflagration fifty years of diplomacy and warfare in Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, 1778-1828. Author Mayurī Ngaosīvat [Mayuri Ngaosivat].; Pheuiphanh Ngaosyvathn. Publisher Ithaca, N.Y. Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publications, Cornell University, 1998. Series Studies on Southeast Asia, no. 24. Edition Format Book English ID Numbers Open Library OL433527M ISBN 10 0877277230 LC Control Number 98141866 OCLCWorldCat 38909607 Library Thing 4223523 Goodreads 4547558

also made available for free download on the author's website beginning here. I'm reading it. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Article has been rewritten- the above source was used in addition to others, Thanks StampyElephant (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Newly published source

Paths to conflagration : fifty years of diplomacy and warfare in Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, 1778-1828. Authors: Mayurī Ngaosīvat [Mayuri Ngaosivat] and Pheuiphanh Ngaosyvathn. Publisher: Ithaca, N.Y. : Southeast Asia Program Publications, Cornell University, 1998. Series: Studies on Southeast Asia, no. 24. Edition/Format: Book : English. ID Numbers: Open Library OL433527M | ISBN 10 0877277230 | LC Control Number 98141866 | OCLC/WorldCat 38909607 | Library Thing 4223523

Review

With this work, the authors, Mayoury and Pheuiphanh Ngaosyvathn, offer us a wealth of information on the history of a small kingdom, the Lao, centered at Vientiane, in modern Laos, caught between expanding core states (Burma, Thailand, and Vietnam) in the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth century. The authors draw upon a wide literature and an impressive range of languages to present a clear and careful picture of a very complex period in Lao and Southeast Asian history.

This book is really the story of Chou Anou, the last of the Lao kings of Vientiane and his struggle against rivals on all sides. Chou Anou played a political game between the expansionist Thai and Vietnamese states in the late eighteenth and ear]y nineteenth centuries, a game that his kingdom eventually lost. Because of the Tay Son, Vietnam was out of the picture for decades; the central Thai court was Chou Anou's chief antagonist. When Vietnam does enter the picture again under Minh Mang, it is as a supporter of Chou Anou, in the context of a larger Thai-Vietnamese competitive hostility. Fighting between Thailand and Vientiane appears on an extremely personal level in the text — the authors stressing at one point Rama III's anxiety that a massacre of Vietnamese emissaries and Lao guides by a Thai officer had not left enough dead, considering an earlier massacre of Thai by Chou Anou in Vientiane (p. 242); they stress also the personal nature of the fighting between Chou Anou and the Thai general Bodin. Further, the text seems almost to replicate, anachronistically, aspects of war more endemic to the post-World-War II conflicts in Indochina, including a reference to "sophisticated Siamese psychological operations" (p. 212).

Paths to Conflagration is organized into nine chapters, each covering a different episode of the period, examined step-by-step, and turns from one incarnation of Vientiane to another — from victim to provocateur to buffer state. Each page is heavy with documentation, but the narrative is lighter. This book has three real strengths. First, it discusses history at the point of intersection between three different polities and does not apply the nation-state "cookie-cutter" approach — looking only at developments as they relate to a state-centered narrative (thus framed by political borders). Instead of the history of Laos, we find here the history of a very turbulent period in which political borders did not mean very much in delineating the boundaries of action. Second, this book makes use of a very wide range of sources, especially from the Thai archives, spanning a large number of languages (including Lao, Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese, French, English, and German — both primary sources and secondary literature) and a multitude of perspectives. Third, this book focuses attention on developments sometimes left out of analyses of mainland Southeast Asian history, such as the all-important impact of migration, especially in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is no mistake that migration is referred to over and over again in chronicles of the period, from western Burma to Vietnam, and that migration is used as metaphor for political change and state reformation for far earlier periods in these chronicles. Here too, migration played a very important role, as the authors stress both migration into the Lao kingdom, and forcible expulsion by the Thais, as a basis for the well-being and even survival of the Vientiane-based state.

--Pawyilee (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Article title

The article title was originally Laotian Rebellion (1826-1828). It was then changed by User:Koavf to Laotian Rebellion because there weren't any other Laotian rebellions on Wikipedia. User:RJFF later renamed it to Chao Anu Rebellion. His reasons were, '"Laotian rebellion" is historically inaccurate, as the distinction of Lao and Thai was only created in 19th cent. In literature usually "Chao Anu Rebellion".' Recently, as part of his rewrite of the article, User:StampyElephant renamed it again to Laotian Rebellion 1826-1828, giving the reasons, 'Previous move was based on biased information. Also- the rebellion was a widespread insurrection with further reaching consequences than previous entry inclu...'

The formatting of the current title is incorrect. If the term Laotian Rebellion and the years are to be retained, the article should be moved to Laotian Rebellion (1826–1828) (with an en dash). I'm still not quite clear, though, why Chao Anu Rebellion would be undesirable as a title. Could someone clarify how the events are referred to in most reliable sources? --Paul_012 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Paul 012: It should definitely be moved per WP:DASH (which I am doing now). I don't understand why it needs years after it if there's no other Laotian Rebellion. We don't have American Civil War (1861–1865) or World War I (1914–1918). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A brief Google Books search reveals that "Laotian Rebellion" probably more often refers to the rebellion in 1959, for which we don't yet have an article. I think pre-emptive disambiguation is warranted here. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Martin Stuart-Fox (1997: A History of Laos) writes "Chao Anuvong's war of independence" (lower case spelling indicates that he means it as a description of the event, not a proper noun)
• Mayoury and Pheuiphanh Ngaosyvathn (1989: Journal of Southeast Asian Studies) call it "War between Bangkok and the Lao in 1827"
• Grant Evans (2003: Contesting Visions of the Lao Past) uses "1827–28 Chao Anou revolt" or (2009: The Last Century of Lao Royalty) just "Chao Anou revolt"
• Volker Grabowsky (1995: Regions and National Integration in Thailand, and 1997: Nationalism and Cultural Revival in Southeast Asia) writes "Cao Anu rebellion"

The only source I could find that uses "a Laotian rebellion" (lower case and with indefinite article, so intended as a description, not as a proper noun) is V. Largo (2002), Vietnam: Current Issues and Historical Background. But the author (unlike those mentioned above) is not a renowned expert on Lao history.

• "Anu's rebellion" is used by Marc Askew (2007: Vientiane)
• "Anouvong rebellion" by John Holt (2009: Spirits of the Place)
• "Chao Anu revolt" by Puangthong Rungswasdisab (2004: Water Frontier), Bernard Formoso (2005: Encyclopedia of the World's Minorities), Andrew Walker (2009: Tai Lands and Thailand) and Keyes (2014: Finding Their Voice)
• "Cao Anu revolt" by Neil A. Englehart (2001: Culture and Power in Traditional Siamese Government)
• "Anou revolt" by Charles F. Keyes (2000: Civility and Savagery)
• "Anuvong's revolt" by Victor Lieberman (2003: Strange Parallels) and James C. Scott (2009: The Art of Not Being Governed)
• "Chao Anou's 'revolt'" by Søren Ivarsson (2008: Creating Laos)

Therefore I would, in accordance with what I assume to be common practice in relevant literature, prefer any variant of "(Chao) Anu(vong) rebellion" or "revolt". I do not have a strong preference concerning the spelling of the name or the inclusion of the title Chao. --RJFF (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The literature is not so clear cut. In Mayoury and Pheuiphanh Ngaosyvathn's Paths to Conflagration pgs 17-19 and the prologue on page 15 explain the difficulty with Anouvong's title- Lao sources cite it as "Somdet Prachao" Thai sources usually use "Chao" the objection cited by authors is that "Chao" would be a reserved for lower-nobility and akin to "gentlemen." Most Western sources rely on only a few English translations of Thai works (eg Ivarsson, Keyes) or are based on other English language works (eg Holt). Thai sources reinforce the view of Anouvong as a traitor, Lao sources are ambivalent depending on the period, with the post 1975 period revising him as a nationalist hero. Scholarship is limited.

There really isn't much agreement even among authors as to what to call the three year period of 1826-1829. I've seen Lao-Siamese War (1827-1828) p. 124 of Stuart-Fox's "The Lao Kingdom of Lan Xang," Laotian Invasion of Siam "Imperial Wars 1815-1914", the Lao-Thai War of 1827 by Grabowsky p. 147 "Nationalism and Cultural Revival in Southeast Asia," Marc Askew called it the Lao-Siamese Conflict of 1827-1828, and I've also seen Chao Anu's Revolt or Chao Annouvong's Rebellion. David K. Wyatt, who was one of the most prolific Thai scholars referred to the period as the "Vientiane Rebellion" see "Siam and Laos 1767-1827" Journal of Southeast Asian History, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Sep., 1963), pp. 13-32. I don't really feel strongly any particular way, however ascribing the period to a single individual seems to be more problematic. Thanks StampyElephant (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

One of the issues I have with "Laotian Rebellion" is that, to me, the demonym Laotian (as compared to Lao) denotes connection with the modern nation created following independence from France. I think Lao would fit better with this article's historical context.

At any rate, the discrepancy seems to suggest that there is no common proper name. The R in Rebellion, at the very least, should probably be de-capitalised. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Paul- Would "Lao rebellion (1826-1828)" work? ThanksStampyElephant (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Royal Flag of Vietnam (1802–1885).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Chao Anouvong.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Phra Bang.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Bias in sources

The subject of this article is contentious between both Lao and Thai sources. Primary documentation is scarce or inaccessible on both the Lao and Thai side. Most versions of the history have been based on Thai historiography. Akiko Iijima in his article “The Invention of “Isan” History,” details how primary sources have been altered to delete references to “Lao” or to rewrite histories which differ from “official” versions. He includes photographic evidence to illustrate the point StampyElephant (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)