I do not intend this post to be read as a criticism of any individual or group responsible for creating the latest version of the Conflict in Indochina, 1954 - 1979 option for the new HSC Modern History course (2017). Without knowing what the process looked like it is impossible for me to know what restrictions were imposed on the design of the syllabus or who was responsible for the final version of the document. Even if I did know, I am not interested in the slightest in making this personal. I am simply interested in putting forward a few ideas about how I think this syllabus topic could be improved.
Problems in the current version
It is worth being clear from outset here that I do not think the current version of the Indochina topic is a disaster. It is a workable topic offering an interesting point of exploration of decolonisation and US foreign policy in the post-war era.
I would argue, however, that there are several odd points of the new version that could be improved. I have identified the four main issues below, briefly outlined a possible objection and then set out my proposed solution for each. At the end of the post I have offered my preferred version for the entire topic but kept this within the common structure, language and breadth of other topics in the peace and conflict study section of the course.
Problem #1: The new 'survey' is strange compared with other topics in the Peace and Conflict part of the NSW Modern History syllabus. For the Indochina topic, old Year 11 content (revolving around the first Indochina War) has been drawn into the year 12 material (and taken out of year 11). This would be like removing key parts of the 'Decline and Fall of the Romanovs' from year 11 and adding it as the three-hour 'survey' for the Russia/USSR National Study. Or, removing key parts of the 'Meiji Restoration' topic from year 11 and adding it as the 'survey' for 'Conflict in the Pacific'. This would render those topics either impossible to cover in year 11 because of potential overlap or so poor compared with their true potential that they would not be worth investigating with a class. Regrettably, that seems to be what has happened for Indochina.
In addition, the survey for this topic makes the period identified in the title look odd. The survey content covers events from 1946 – 1954 but the topic title suggests that it covers the period 1954 – 1979. If the current topic title were to properly match the content covered it should be: Conflict in Indochina, 1946 - 1979.
No other conflict study I have looked at closely (Pacific, Europe and Arab-Israeli) have a mismatch between the period identified in the topic title and what students are required to cover in the content. At least, as far as I can see, none of them have eight years worth of history in the survey completely overlooked in the period identified topic title. Why is Indochina different?
Possible objection to problem #1: It is not the case that the entire content from the old 'Decolonisation in Indochina' topic from year 11 has been included as the 'survey' for the new Conflict in Indochina topic. True, but to my mind that makes it worse because now crucial content is only implied and this makes it harder to actually do anything meaningful with the current survey in the mandated three-hours.
Possible solution to problem #1: Return the 'Decolonisation in Indochina' topic to year 11 and develop a survey for the year 12 topic based around the Geneva Accords of 1954. This is something that could be easily dealt within three hours and makes a logical starting-point for the year 12 topic - it would be at least comparable in size, depth and complexity to the survey in the Core Study. It would also allow teachers to set up deeper background and context for the Conflict in Indochina topic in year 11.
Problem #2: One of the most glaring problems with this new version of the topic is an omission. At no point in the syllabus are students or teachers directed to grapple explicitly with the role of China and the USSR in Indochina during the period covered. The emphasis remains on the United States and its foreign policy. There is really no decent (and recent) history of the conflicts that emerged in Indochina following the Second World War that do not deal with the crucial role of these international powers in shaping the events that are the focus of this topic. For two quick examples see Mark Phillip Bradley's Vietnam at War (2009) and Mark Atwood Lawrence's The Vietnam War: A Concise International History (2008). For a little deeper analysis see Lien Hang Nguyen's Hanoi's War: An International History of the War for Peace in Vietnam (2012).
Possible objection to problem #2: It is possible to argue that this topic is already very 'full' – there is a lot of content to cover. By adding China and the USSR explicitly, this would expand the content too much and make the topic untenable for a 10-week (approximately) study. This issue with this observation is that to properly understand what already exists in the topic, students need to understand the role of China and the USSR anyway. The point is that this is a major issue explicitly discussed in the historiography but not even really implied in the syllabus as it stands.
Possible solution to problem #2: The main suggestion I would put forward for solving this would be to change the third 'Key features' point (currently: 'the nature and consequences of US involvement') to something broader such as: 'the nature and consequences of international involvement'. This would honour the historiography and alert students and teachers to the fact that they need to examine the role of other powers too.
Problem #3: The final section of the syllabus is odd. In this part students are required to examine 'the spread of the conflict to Cambodia and Laos' including 'the impact of conflict on civilians in Cambodia and Laos', 'the reasons for Communist victories in Cambodia and Laos' and 'Democratic Kampuchea under Pol Pot'.
This is odd because it sets up a strange narrative in the flow of the syllabus and almost requires anyone developing resources for the topic (such as textbooks, study guides, etc.) to deal with the topic in a disjointed fashion. I don't expect all syllabus points to be purely chronological but other topics do a better job of allowing teachers to move more sequentially through the issues (i.e. combining themes and the narrative).
Possible objection to problem #3: The obvious way to object to this would be to point out that students need to understand the way that the war spread into these parts of Indochina and that the Pol Pot regime rose to power partly as a result of the regional destabilisation caused by the escalation of the war in South Vietnam. I agree, but this does not mean that this bundle of issues is logically placed in the syllabus where they are currently situated.
Possible solution to problem #3: This suggestion is a little more radical than the first. I would argue that the final section of the syllabus (currently: 'the spread of the conflict to Cambodia and Laos') should be renamed and its current content redistributed throughout other sections of the syllabus. I would suggest creating a new final section with the following structure:
Main section heading: 'The conclusion and impact of the Second Indochina War, including:'
The reason for communist victories in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos (note that this is the chronological order in which the victories actually took place and they should be understood in that order)
The impact of the war on civilians in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (note that I have combined some dot-points from throughout the syllabus. I do not think that there is a need to separate them as they currently are)
Democratic Kampuchea under Pol Pot (1975 - 79) (this is retained from the current version but placed in the broader context of 'conclusion and impact' of the conflict)
Problem #4: Why on earth has 'Australia' been included in the dot-point covering the anti-war movements? Australia is not mentioned in any other part of the syllabus and then suddenly, about three-quarters of the way into the topic, it appears. One can only guess that this was some attempt to pay lip-service to our own national history within the Modern History syllabus which is completely unnecessary in the context of this conflict, at least in regards to the role of anti-war movements. It adds unnecessary and, frankly, unimportant content to an already dense topic.
Possible objection to problem #4: We should be including our national history in the syllabuses we teach students in NSW to ensure that they are familiar with our own past. Fair, but there is ample opportunity to do this in Stage 5 History in NSW where many schools already do a school-developed study on Australian and the Vietnam War era. There is no need to wind it up again in year 12 especially when it adds little of importance to the topic.
Possible solution to problem #4: Get rid of the reference to Australian anti-war movements for this particular topic. No historian I have read, and of course it is very possible I've missed something, argues that the Australian anti-war movements were important in changing the broader, international dynamics of the Second Indochina War. By far the largest contributor to the US war effort in South Vietnam (apart from the South Vietnamese themselves) was South Korea. If Australia pulled out of the war in the late 1960s I cannot see how the conflict would have come to a quicker end. In short, the addition of Australia into this dot-point is an unnecessary, unhelpful and awkward addition to the topic.
My preferred version
The following is one possible alternative to the current version of the Conflict in Indochina topic for HSC Modern History. It does not change everything about the current topic because, as I have already stated, I do not think that the current version is a disaster. I do think it needs improving and here is my suggestion for doing so.
I have no illusions that this version would please everyone. My hope is that it might make a small contribution to ongoing discussions about this topic and that, provided the history teaching community in NSW gets an opportunity to update the syllabus sometime, we might be ready to refine this topic to make it even better than it already is.
Comments