Hmong Acr oss Bor der s or Bor ders Acr oss Hmong?
Social and Political Influences Upon Hmong People: Keynote Speech by Dr . Prasit Leepreecha, at the Hmong Acr oss Bor der s Confer ence, Univer sity of Minnesota, October 4, 2013.
Hmong Studies Jour nal, 15 (2 ): 1-12.
Abstract
The Hmong ar e a tr ansnational ethnic people, because of their di sper sal fr om China into Southeast Asia in the ear ly 19th century and fr om Southeast Asia to Western countr ies fr om 1975 onwar d. How ever, even w ithin the context of Southeast Asia and southern China, the Hmong ar e a
tr ansnational ethnic gr oup, due to state boundar ies and the enfor cement of i nter national laws. Scholars speak as though the Hmong population has crossed politi cal and legal bor ders by their movement acr oss state boundar ies and inter nat ional border s. How ever , I ar gue that it is the political , social, and legal bor ders that have cut acr oss the Hmong people and subjected them to be citizens of di ffer ent moder n nation-states. Even in the present time, these bor der s stil l, and continuously, pl ay impor tant r oles that cr oss and divide the Hmong people into di sti nctive subgr oups and fragments. In this ar ticle, I wil l star t by descr ibing the general ly understood situation of Hmong bei ng acr oss national border s, and then wil l explain my ar gument that bor der s ar e acr oss the Hmong.
Keywords: Hmong, ethnic gr oup, cr oss bor der, tr ansnationalism Hmong Acr oss Border s
Many r ecent social sci ence studies about the Hmong emphasi ze and explor e the tr ansnational state of Hmong in Asi a (Tapp, et al, 2004, Millett 2002) and in Wester n countr ies (Schein 2004, Tapp and Lee 2010, Vang 2010, and Yang 2008). The key concepts these scholar s tak e to explain transnational Hmong include the diaspor a and transnationali sm. One common issue t hese studi es emphasize is the exi stence of state boundar ies and sover ei gnty, w ith the Hmong people having r ecently mi gr at ed acr oss such boundar ies (Cul as and Mi chaud 2004). The image of “Hmong acr oss bor der s” has been overst ated by r ecent studies on Hmong netw or ks acr oss Southeast Asi a and
Wester n countr ies in the globalization context (Lee 2006, Leepr eecha 2008, Schein 2002, Vang 2010). Impor tantly, the Hmong themselves have been exposed to this same per ception as w ell.
If I can r ecall my memor y as a Hmong boy w ho li ved close to the bor der of Thai and Laos in Nan province of Nor ther n Thailand, Hmong peopl e in my vil lage wer e Thai citizens, w hile our
w ith thei r valuable belongi ngs on the leaving day. At the park ing lot, w hi ch w as also the camp’s soccer field, both those w ho wer e leaving and those w ho w er e staying behi nd cr ied and couldn’t imagine if they would ever get a chance to meet again (see pictur es and contents, Yang 2008).
For tunately, the r esettlement of Hmong r efugees from Laos to thir d countr ies in the West occur r ed duri ng the t r ansiti on of both gl obal politi cs and communication technologies. In ter ms of global poli tics, the end of the Col d War r educed political tensions betw een the tw o opposite
ideol ogical poles of democr acy and communi sm, such that the Hmong i n Wester n countr ies, especially scholar s and business ow ner s, had the oppor tunity to r eturn and visit their ow n people in communist countr ies, including China and later in Laos and Vietnam. Such r eunificati on was possible because of moder n communicati on methods, w hich is par t of globalization. To the tr ansnational Hmong, the means of communication in 1980s and ear ly 1990s r elied on tape cassettes, letter s, and ver y rar e and expensive long-distance telephone cal ls. From the late 1990s up to the pr esent, people have adopted var ious modern means of communication, w hich have united Hmong i n West er n and Asian countr ies together . Today w e can have live conver sations, even when w e l ive in differ ent countr ies and ti me zones.
In Asian countr ies, fr om w hat w e lear ned fr om our par ents and gr and-par ents, Hmong people lived in the two di ffer ent ar eas of “Tuam Tshoj” (big empir e) and “Xov Tshoj” (small empi r e). Cultur al ly, those w ho lived in mainland China w ere identifi ed as “Hmoob Suav” Chinese Hmong (Hmong in Chi na) or “Hmoob Tuam Tshoj ” (Mai n kingdom Hmong), w hile Hmong in upper mai nland Southeast Asi a w er e known as “Hmoob Xov Tshoj” (Small k ingdom Hmong), due to geogr aphical and cultur al distinctions. Political ly, Hmong had been subjected to citi zenship of differ ent moder n nation-states since the colonial per iod. Fur thermor e, politi cal confr ontations dur ing the Col d War per i od— indeed the Vietnam War w as a hot w ar in upper mai nland Southeast Asia-- caused tr emendous conflict between Hmong w ho had been pr essur ed to join the opposite pol itical sides of communism and democr acy.
Per haps w ith the exception of the Hmong w ho lived close to the Vi etnam and China-Laos bor der s, those w hose gr andpar ents took them far aw ay fr om China (lik e myself i n Norther n Thailand), k new China thr ough folk tales, l egends and myths, w hich meant that China w as another w or ld for us. We learned about Hmong peopl e from the Chi nese car avan tr ader s w ho sold fabr ic and other goods fr om Yunnan pr ovince in our mountainous vil lages in Nor ther n Thailand. In addition, our par ent s and grandpar ent s told us about the long mi gr atory jour ney from Southw ester n China t o Nor ther n Thailand, when our ancestor s separ ated themselves from the major ity Chinese people. After being separ at ed for 5-6 gener ations, most of us had entir ely lost contact with our r el atives in China, and had lost connection w ith those w ho settled in Laos. My lineage gr oup didn’t have the opportunity to contact and k now our r elatives in Laos w ho shar e the same gr eat-gr andfather w ho or iginally migr at ed fr om China and settled down in Udomsai pr ovince of Laos, due to communication
di fficulties. How ever , in the post-Cold War per i od w ith moder n communication and tr anspor tation methods, we w er e able to travel and find our r el atives i n Laos. Unfor tunatel y, it has been impossible for us to find our r elatives in China, as the tr ail has long gr own cold.
late 1980s, not only in terms of family r eunion for cultur al issues but also in ter ms of economic connections as w ell. For example, mass pr oduction of Hmong dr esses in Southw ester n China pr ovinces have r esul ted in this clothing being expor ted thr ough Nor ther n Vietnam and Laos to mar kets in Chiang Mai, Thail and. In addi tion, Hmong in Thail and and Laos have sent their food and her bal medici ne to r elati ves and fr iends in Amer ica, Canada, Fr ance, and Austr alia. Si mi lar ly, inter national mobility among Hmong per sons has occur r ed after visi ts and through the pr ocess of tr ansnational mar r i age between Hmong in Southeast Asi a and Wester n countr ies. Impor tantly, the tr ansnational movement of goods and peopl e is not as smooth as peopl e thought it w ould be, due to inter national law s and r egulations. For instance, Hmong in Thailand and Laos often do not have inter national passpor ts, due to financial and distance bar r ier s in applying for passpor ts and visas in major ci ties. And w hile Hmong in Wester n countr ies ar e easily able to obtain per missi on to enter Thailand and Laos, Hmong i n Thail and and Laos are often deni ed visas to visit r el atives i n West er n countr ies.
The physical disper sal of Hmong per sons fr om China to moder n nation- states of Laos and Thailand and to Wester n countr ies r esul ted in the Hmong gr adually per ceivi ng themselves as a people w ho live acr oss bor der s of pol itical entities. Hmong studies in the r ecent year s have explor ed “Hmong acr oss bor der issues” or t ransnational Hmong i ssues. Scholar s in differ ent disciplines have focused on the flow of capital, technologies, goods, and peoples acr oss national bor der s. How ever, to my point of vi ew , such studi es still follow the Wester n concepts of transnationalism, w hich means taking Wester n concepts and outsider s’ per spectives to expl or e, descr ibe, and analyze empi ri cal phenomena i n the tr ansnational Hmong society, r ather than attempting to investigate ext ernal contexts, such as soci o-political border s w hich have been imposed on Hmong people. It seems to me that scholar s hav e built their analyses upon an under lyi ng assumption or assessment that stat e boundar ies w er e demar cated long befor e Hmong people mi gr ated to settle in mainland Southeast Asia countri es, which ignor es the hi stori cal fact that Hmong had occupied these areas befor e stat e bor der lines w er e dr aw n dur ing the colonial per iod in Southeast Asia. Further mor e, no scholar s have expl or ed the development of Hmong people’s ow n concepts or explanations of such phenomena, as Ni cholas Tapp challenged us i n his 2004 ar ticle entitled “The State of Hmong Studies” in hi s book “Hmong/ Miao in Asi a”. He pointed out that “Indeed, it must be ever ybody’s hope, and hopefully i n a w ay w hich needs no longer be
patr oni zing, that an i ncr easing proporti on of these r esear cher s can be Hmong themselves, …” (2004: 22). Therefore, as a Hmong Social Science scholar , I w ould like to pr opose an opposite view on understanding the t r ansnational Hmong--by explor ing the outside contexts or border s that have been imposed upon the Hmong people.
Bor ders Across Hmong
Accor ding to Lamont and Molnar (2002: 167), “In r ecent year s, the idea of “boundar ies” has come to play a key r ole in impor tant new lines of scholar ship acr oss the social sci ences. ……
expansion of European colonies, in or der to divide and rule over l ocal geogr aphical ar eas. Such
ideol ogies and str ategies w er e concomitantly implement ed w ith the moder n technology of mappi ng. It w as the expansion of pow erful Eur opean colonies upon local kingdoms. On the other hand, in ter ms of social and cultur al aspects, a bor der is defined as the edge wher e the pr actices of tw o distinctive cultur al for ms or ethnic groups meet, such as Barth’s “ethnic boundar ies” (1969). According to Bar th, “ethnic disti nctions do not depend on an absence of soci al interaction and accept ance, but ar e quite to the contrar y often the ver y foundation in w hich embr acing social systems ar e buil t. Inter action in such a social system does not lead to its l iqui dati on thr ough change and accultur ation; cultural differ ences can per sist despi te i nter -ethni c contact and independence” (Bar th 1969: 295). The importance of social and cultur al boundar ies is that they ar e natur ally occur ri ng and have existed among different cultur al gr oups in human society, rather than bei ng imposed by outsiders. Ther efor e, in the case of the Hmong ethnic gr oup, I w ould like to ar gue that t hr oughout the Hmong histor y in Southw ester n China and upper mainland Southeast Asia, exter nal influences, w hich her e I mean both political and social bor der s, have divided the Hmong peopl e i nto separ at e spher es and opposite identiti es and gr oups. The i nfor mation I’m going pr ovide to suppor t my ar gument i s based on chronol ogical evi dence that have had political, social, and cultural i nfluences on Hmong society.
Moder n nat ion-st at e bor der lines
The earth land sur faces ar e mostly divided into national ter r itori es. Accor di ng to Thongchai (1994), border lines of moder n states in mainl and Southeast Asia had been clear ly demar cated by European colonies in the ear ly 20th century. The emer gence of moder n nation-states in Southeast Asi a
has divided the Hmong peopl e into ci tizens of differ ent countr ies. Accor ding to Mottin (1980: 42), the Hmong star ted to migr ate i nto the Tonkin ar ea, w hich is at pr esent the nor ther n par t of Vi etnam, in tw o migration w aves from 1800 to 1860. As for mi gr ati on into Laos, especi ally in Nong Hat city of Xieng Khoung pr ovince, Yang Dao pointed out that the Hmong people star ted to mi gr ate and settle fr om 1810 to 1820 (see Culas 2000: 35). The migr ation into Norther n Thailand happened dur ing the ni neteenth centur y. Mottin (1980) noted that Hmong people tr avelled into Norther n Thailand fr om 1830 to 1840. I point out that our Hmong ancestor s settled in thi s ar ea befor e the cr eation of the moder n nation-states of Southeast Asia, when t he pr esent day boundar ies of countri es had not yet been set, as the Fr ench did not officially tak e contr ol over Laos until 1893. Pr ior to the colonial influence of moder n nati on-states, mainland Southeast Asi a w as a “galactic polity”, to use Tiambiah’s ter m (1977). The pow er of k ingdoms emphasi zed manpow er r ather than geogr aphical featur es. Through decades of negotiation between the Fr ench and Br itish colonies, together w ith the Si amese ki ngdom, state boundar ies w ere clear ly demar cated in the ear ly 20t h centur y. Thongchai Winichak ul
(1994) i dentified such a pr ocess and the emer gence of the Siam k ingdom as the cr eation of a “Geo-body”.
r estr iction on mi gr ati on acr oss the new st ate boundar y, so Hmong r elatives often moved across i t, being that i t w as a ver y r emote ar ea. How ever , later on, modern nation-states gr adually played the essential r ole of imposing the “imagi ned community” (to use Benedict Anderson’s t er m (1991)) on Hmong people who wer e subjects of each new countr y. Fi nally, Hmong people w er e identifi ed accor di ng to thei r residence in the moder n nation-states, as Hmoob Thaib (Thai Hmong), Hmoob Los Tsuas (Lao Hmong), Hmoob Nyablaj (Vietnam Hmong), Hmong Suav (Chinese Hmong), etc.
Following state emer gence w as sover ei gnty. Nati on-states in Southeast Asia adopted inter national law s and poli cies about deal ing w ith people w ho move acr oss state boundar ies. Such laws and policies obstr ucted Hmong r elatives w ho w er e subjected citizens of differ ent countr ies fr om vi si ting each other or r euniti ng. Cr ossing bor der lines to the other side, Hmong relatives have to ask for official per mi ssion fr om l ocal author ities. Presently, among Hmong in Southeast Asi a countr ies, passpor t s, visas, and bor der passes ar e r equir ed. How ever , for the Hmong people, moving acr oss bor der s, especi ally betw een Laos and Thailand, has its ow n r est r icti ons and limitati ons. In 2012, about 120 Chr istian Hmong fr om Laos wer e t r avelling to Thail and for a meeting of the Yexus Fest in Chiang Mai w hen the officers at the Laotian bor der checkpoint questioned their crossi ng, despi te their holding passpor ts and offici al appr oval; only after much discussion w er e they allowed to cr oss.
Another situation occur red in 2004-2009, w hen 8,200 Hmong w ere pr evented fr om tr aveling fr om Huay Nam Khao in Phetchabun, Thailand, by Thai state officer s because they w er e seen as “Lao Hmong in Thailand” aiming to enter Thamk rabok monaster y and be r esettl ed in Amer ica. The gr oup w as for ced to settl e in Huay Nam Khao for a few years befor e bei ng r epat r iated back to Laos in 2009 (Supang and Taw in 2011). Such phenomena implies that to the Hmong peopl e, state boundar ies ar e not as impor tant as family and ethnic r eunion, so they ar e wi lling to str uggle in their attempt to escape stat e r egulations.
State law s and policies of mor e developed countri es i mpose r ules against people fr om less developed countr ies w ho w ant to enter their countr ies, w hile in contr ast, gover nments of l ess developed countr ies pri vilege people fr om mor e developed countr ies. In the case of Hmong in Southeast Asi a countr ies, r estr ict ed policies of Wester n countri es bl ock them fr om visiting thei r r el atives, while policies of Southeast Asia countri es are w ide open for Hmong to visit from Western countr ies. Pr acticall y, in the vi sa offices of US ambassador in Vientiane and US Consulate in Chiang Mai, ther e i s at least one Hmong applicant w ho walk s in for a vi sa inter vi ew ever y w or k ing day, but ver y few people r eceive a US visa to visit thei r families in Amer ica. Conver sely, Hmong i n Amer ica ar e gener all y w elcomed to freel y tr avel to Thailand and Laos (except some Amer ican Hmong w ho ar e suspected by the Laotian government to be a national secur ity thr eat).
Ideologi cal and cultur al influences ar e the tw o mai n consequences of moder n nation-states upon fr ontier ethnic minor ities, especi ally the Hmong ethnic gr oup. The Hmong peopl e who have become citizens of differ ent countri es have been influenced by each state’s nation building pr ojects. They have gr aduall y adopted their state’s nati onal identity to identify distinctiveness among
w hich have been imposed by outsider s, have now also become essential bor der s that separ at e Hmong people.
Polit ical bor der s
I defi ne “pol itical bor der s” as the nati onal and inter nati onal politi cal r egimes i mposed upon the Hmong people in differ ent segments of space and ti me. Such poli tical bor der lines have cut acr oss the Hmong people and have segr egated them to be i n opposi te or in differ ent political fr agments. In China, the Hmong/ Mi ao people w er e political ly divided i nto “Hmoob nyoos” (r aw Hmong) and “Hmoob siav” (cook ed Hmong), based on their r efusal of acceptance of the integr ation policy of the Chinese
gover nment. Mor eover , the poli cy of building nation-states and imposing high taxes by centr al or local gover nments caused the Hmong people to resist the contr ol and domination of the central Chinese gover nment. Hmong, and other ethnic mi nor ity groups, w ho wer e then accused of being r ebel lious (see Jenks 1994); in every r ebel lion against the gover nment, w er e severely suppressed which r esul ted in the migr ation of Hmong people fr om Southw ester n China into the nor thern par t s of Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and Bur ma in the late 1800s. Among the Hmong our selves, w e are k now n as “Hmong Tuam Tshoj” and “Hmoob Xov Tshoj”. Among the Hmong ethnic gr oup i n China, they w ere subsumed under the broad category of Miao national ity, under the stat e’s classificati on pr oject in ear ly 1950s (Br ow n 1996). Ther e w er e distinctive ethnic gr oups under the Mi ao national ity, including Hmong, Hmu, Ahmao, Koshiong, Qanao, Ge, etc. Under such a fixed and br oad categor y of Miao, each subgr oup tr ied to identify itself in or der to gain offi cial r ecognit ion by Chinese government (Chueng 1996).
In Southeast Asi a, parti cular ly in Laos, the Fr ench colonial r egime played cr ucial r ol es in segr egating Hmong leader s into two opposite sides. The Fr ench administr ati on appointed and
suppor ted Touby Lyfoung to al ly with Lao Royal gover nment, w hile the Pathet Lao or Communist side suppor ted Lo Bl iayao. These exter nal political opponents, w hich had been imposed upon them, eventually divided the Hmong in Laos, especi all y the tw o cl ans of Lee and Lo, to be member s of opposite political gr oups. Although the Fr ench left Laos aft er the Second Wor ld War , its legacy conti nued to affect Hmong poli tical divi sions in Laos.
Dur ing the Col d War per iod, the conflict w as hot in the battlefields of upper mai nland Southeast Asi a, w hich is know n as the “Vietnam War ” among Wester ners and the “Amer ican War ” among the Laotian and Vi etnamese. The tw o main worl d political ideologies caused Hmong people in Laos and Thailand to tak e up w eapons to fight against each other , fr om the late 1950s thr ough 1975, know n to Amer icans as the Secr et War in Laos. In addi tion to Touby Lyfoung, w ho played an essential r ole in the Royal Lao gover nment, Vang Pao became a pr ominent Hmong ar my l eader entir ely
Fa gr oup w ho wer e based i n the jungle and betw een the leader s of Lao Hmong and Amer ican Hmong. In the case of the confli ct between both sides in Laos, fr om 1975 to mid-2000s, it was know n among Hmong people that those Lao soldier s and pol icemen who cr uelly killed the Chao Fa Hmong w er e Hmong. Meanw hi le, the Hmong i n Wester n countr ies and Laos have been r eunited aft er the Laotian gover nment opened the country for for eigner s, especially touri sts, in the ear ly 1990s, and after General Vang Pao passed aw ay in Amer ica in ear ly 2011.
In the case of Thailand, political border s played cruci al roles in dividing the Hmong people, especially dur ing the Col d War . The opposing w orl d political ideologies of communism and democr acy cr eated pol itical divisions amongst Hmong fami ly gr oups in Nor ther n Thailand. Star ting dur ing the late 1950s and earl y 1960s, Communist pr opagators from China and Laos tar get ed Hmong and other ethnic gr oups al ong the bor der of Laos and Thailand. Concur r entl y, Thai officer s, especi ally the Bor der Patr ol Poli ce, w er e sent to per suade the Hmong and other fr ontier peoples to side w ith the Thai gover nment. In r esponse to negative experi ences wi th Thai state officer s, some Hmong in Chiang Rai, Nan and Petchabun pr ovi nces fled to join the Communist movement i n the j ungle, w hil e their relatives joined the gover nment side. The r ecr uited Hmong w er e tr ained both as Communist fighter s and as Thai soldier s, such that they fought against each other from earl y 1960s until 1982 (see mor e i n Yuepheng Xiong’s documentar y film and the movi e “Hmong: Blood for Fr eedom”). Political conflict amongst the divided Hmong ended when the Thai gover nment issued an amnesty act, in the national context, and Communism collapsed in Easter n Eur ope and the former Soviet Uni on, in inter national context. The essenti al poi nt is that wor ld politi cs dr ew political boundar ies that separ ated the Hmong people into tw o opposi te gr oups, killing each other for one and a half decades. Fur ther mor e, the r ecent democr atization of the Thai gover nment on one side all ow s Hmong vil lager s to be involved w ith local politics but on the other causes politi cal divisions among peopl e, especial ly betw een and w ithin clan and lineage member s. As I have descr ibed, in the case of Hmong i n Laos and Thail and, the political border s imposed by outsider s di vided the Hmong people into tw o opposi te poli tical sides and caused ser ious conflicts among them.
Soci al and cult ur al boundar ies
Pr ior to the adoption of development in the ear ly 1960s, ther e w as l ittle social and economic hi er ar chy amongst the Hmong people in Thailand and Laos, w hich is exemplified by mari tal pr ocesses. When young men and w omen w anted to mar ry, thei r families didn’t r ai se any objections based on hi gher and low er social st atus or ri cher and poor er fami ly back gr ounds. Rather , the obstacles that caused par ental di sagr eement s w er e or phanage, l epr osy, seizur es, mental incapaci ty, and unr esolved conflicts betw een the famil ies.
ki nship titles adopted from mainstr eam soci eties that have r eplaced Hmong kinship ter ms, such as the Thai “Phij ” (elder br other or sist er), Laotian “Aib” (elder brother), and Ameri can “uncle” (elder and younger br other of either father or mother’s side). Secondly, adoption of outsi de cultur al featur es has caused cultur al division in Hmong society, such as conver si on to Chr istianity, w hich has happened in every countr y. Chr istian Hmong generally vi ew their r elati ves who still follow Hmong tr aditional beliefs as pr imi tive people who l ive in a dar k, dir ty, and devil-led wor ld. Meanw hile, those who stil l follow Hmong t r aditional r el igious customs see their Chr isti an r elatives as people w ho di sr espect Hmong culture and thr eaten t r aditional Hmong beliefs and r ituals. Lastl y, economic boundar ies now exist among the Hmong, cr eating divi sions betw een rich and poor Hmong. For exampl e, back in the self-sufficient economy system in Southeast Asi a, Hmong didn’t hir e Hmong to be laborers but
pr acti ced l abor exchanges w hen many people w er e needed to complete far ming and vi llage acti vities, such as pl anti ng r ice fi elds or buildi ng a house. If they had been pai d, Hmong people w ould have felt that they had l ost their dignity. How ever, after capitalism w as imposed on Hmong, an economic hi er ar chy w as cr eated. Villager s who have mor e access to outsi de infor mation and mar k et netw or k s have mor e oppor tunities to mak e a higher income and gain mor e benefi t s from cash cr op pr oduction and trading. Meanw hile, villager s w ho lack infor mation and netw or k s with outsiders ar e mor e di sadvantaged peopl e r esi ding in mountainous villages. As ti me has passed by, the poor Hmong have become cheap laborer s for r ich Hmong and non-Hmong people. To my observati on, no matter
w hether in Laos, Thail and, or Amer ica, compensation by cash has become a necessity when ask ing for help wi th an agri cultur al activity, even if the laborer and ow ner ar e cl ose relatives.
I w ant to say mor e about Chr istianity, as a si gnificant social and cul tur al boundar y that has r ecently divided Hmong peoples into opposi ng identities and gr oups. Academically speaking, simi lar to other par t s of the w or ld, Chri stianity w as pr opagat ed side-by-si de wi th the coloni al regime ( Savina 1924, Andr inoff and Andr ianoff 2000, Bar ney 1957, Clar k 1911, and Mottin 1980) and the
development ideology of Wester n countr ies (see Tam 2011 and Vang 1998). Chri sti ani ty came to Hmong society r epr esent ed as a super ior and moder n or civi lized belief. Wester ner s, incl uding Chri sti an mi ssionar ies, view ed Hmong t r aditional kev nt seeg dabqhuas as backw ar d, ir r ational, and infer ior with the new w ay kev nt seeg t shiab seen as mor e civili zed than the old w ay kev nt seeg qub. Pr actically, in many cases that I have observed in Thailand and Laos, those relatives w ho become Chri sti ans see themselves as people who have been pur ifi ed to be cl ean and w hite, w hi le thei r non-Chri sti an relatives still live in a dir ty Satan’s w or ld. These ethno-religious identities of Hmoob Yesxus and Hmoob Dabqhuas have deeply divided Hmong peoples into opposing cultur al gr oups.
Amer ica. The way Amer ican Hmong expr ess themselves as richer per sons w hil e visiting Laos, by using Amer ican dollars and buying gifts for young Laotian Hmong, doesn’t only draw attention from young Hmong w omen in Laos but also influences thei r parent s to offer their daughter s in mar r iage to ol der Amer ican Hmong men. Consequently, it causes hear t-br eak and anger among young Laotian Hmong w ho ar e boyfr iends to these gir ls, some of w hom develop differ ent str ategies to take money from the Amer ican Hmong. In the meantime, in the United States, Laotian Hmong who visit r elatives ar e seen as labor er s by Amer ican Hmong. Such social and cultur al differences and for ms of domination also entail conflict among Hmong in the t wo countri es. These conflicts often ar e apparent in var ious for ms of medi a, such as the popul ar Hmong chat r oom pathtal k.
Conclusion
Contempor ar y Hmong peopl e per ceive that, in r eality, they ar e citizens of differ ent countr ies, due to the diaspor a of the Hmong ethnic group in Southw estern China, upper Southeast Asia and Wester n countr ies after the Communists took over Laos in 1975. Scholar s of Hmong studies have examined Hmong people as a t r ansnational ethnic gr oup and the w ay they, as diaspor ic people, adapt to new soci al and political environments in their r espective countr ies. In additi on, Hmong studi es have investi gated the w ays that t r ansnational and diaspor ic Hmong connect w ith one another in di ffer ent countr ies. In mul tiple w ays, contempor ar y Hmong studies imply that bor der s of modern nation-states, including politi cal and cultur al bor der s, have been in existence for a long time, wi th the Hmong subsequently moving acr oss such bor der lines.
How ever, to my point of view, Hmong became a transnational ethnic group and spli t into di ffer ent socio-poli tical gr oups because the moder n-state bor derl ines cut acr oss them. In addition, it w as the socio-political border lines that w er e i mposed upon them by outsider s and not bor ders of their own maki ng. Such pow er ful influences w ere gr aduall y adopted by state officer s and the public in gener al, including the Hmong peopl e. In details I have el abor ated above, the roles of moder n nation-state bor derl ines, political border s, and socio-cul tur al boundar ies subjected Hmong people to be citizens of different countr ies and divided them into differ ent social and pol itical gr oups, thr oughout the entir e w or ld. Look ing at this cr itical angle, fr om inside-out, I hope that my per spective and the content I have demonstr ated wil l contr ibute to a new fr amew or k for understanding Hmong studies.
Among the Hmong per sons who have scatter ed in differ ent countr ies, I hope that my work w ill not just remind people about the exter nal influences bei ng i mposed upon them and the negative connotations of these imposed events, but also aw aken them to the possibl e benefi ts of being a tr ansnational ethnic people. Today, Hmong li ve in the globalized w or ld w ith lesser domination, in comparison to the past. The tr end is that stat es’ r estr icti ons on Hmong people are mor e r elaxed, due to the openness of r egional and global countri es. In addi tion, moder n communication technologies in the globali zed w orld pr ovide mor e mechani sms for Hmong people to connect wi th and help one another . Though var ious border s cut acr oss Hmong people and divide them to be subjects of differ ent countr ies and socio-political groups, I believe our tr ansnational status can be mor e useful than
Refer ences Cited
Ander son, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communit ies. London and New Yor k: Ver so. Fi rst published in 1983.
Andr ianoff, Jean w ith Ruth Andr ianoff . 2000. Chosen by t he God of Grace: The St or y of t he Bir t h of t he Hmong Chur ch t hr ough t he Eyes of Ted and Rut h Andr i anoff. Camp Hill, PA: Chri stian
Publications, Inc.
Bar ney, George L. 1957. Chri stiani ty: Innovation in Meo Culture, A Case Study in Missionization. Master Degr ee Thesi s, University of Minnesota.
Bar th, Fr edri k. 1969. “Intr oducti on” in Ethni c Gr oups and Boundar ies: t he Social Organi zat ion of Cult ur al Differ ence. Fredr ik Barth (ed.). Ber gen: Uni versitet sfor lag and Boston: Little Br ow n & Co. Pp. 9-38.
Br ow n, Meli ssa J., ed. 1996. Negotiat ing Et hnicities in China and Taiwan. Ber keley, CA: Institute of East Asian Studi es, Univer sity of Cali for nia and Center for Chinese Studies.
Cheung, Siu-w oo. 1996. “Repr esent ation and Negotiation of Ge Identities in Southeast Guizhou,” i n Negot iat ing Et hni ci t ies in China and Taiwan. Melissa J. Br ow n, ed. Ber k eley, CA: Institute of East Asian Studi es, Univer sity of Cali for nia and Center for Chinese Studies. Pp. 240-273.
Cl ar ke, Samuel R. 1911. Among t he Tr ibes in Sout h-West Chi na. London: Mor gan & Scott, Ltd.
Culas, Chr istian and Jean Mi chaud. 2004. “A Contr ibution to the Study of Hmong (Miao) Migrati ons and Histor y”, Hmong/ Miao in Asia. Nichol as Tapp, et al, (ed.). Chiang Mai: Sil kw or m Books. Pp. 61-96.
Jenks, Rober t D. 1994. Insur gency and Social Disor der in Guizhou: The ‘Miao’ Rebel lion 1854-1873. Honolulu: Univer sity of Haw ai i Pr ess.
Lee, Gar y Y. 2006. “Dr eaming Acr oss the Oceans: Globalization and Cultural Reinvention in the Hmong Diaspor a”, Hmong St udies Journal 7(1): 1-33.
Leepr eecha, Pr asit. 2008. “The Role of Medi a Technology in Reproducing Hmong Ethnic Identity”, in Li ving in a Globalized Wor ld: Ethnic Minor ities in t he Gr eat er Mekong Subr egion. Don McCaskill, Pr asi t Leepreecha, and Her Shaoying (eds.). Chiang Mai: Mek ong Press. Pp. 89-113.
Millett, Sandr a. 2002. The Hmong of Sout heast Asia. Singapor e: Ti me Edi tions.
Mottin, J. 1980. Histor y of t he Hmong. Bangkok: Odeon Stor e.
Savina, F. M. 1924. Hist oir e des Miao. Hong Kong: Impr i mer ie de la Societe des Missions-Etr anger es.
Schein, Loui sa. 2002. The Mapping Hmong Medi a in Diaspor ic Space”, in Medi a Wor lds: Ant hropology on New Ter r ain. Faye D. Ginsbur g, Lila Abu-Lughod and Br ian Lar ki n (eds.). Ber keley:
____________. 2004. “Hmong/ Miao Tr ansnational ity: Identity and Beyond”, Hmong/ Miao in Asia. Nicholas Tapp, et al, (ed.). Chiang Mai: Si lkw or m Books. Pp. 273-290.
Supang Chantavanich and Taw in Pleansr i (eds.). 2011. The Lao Hmong in Thailand: Stat e Policies and Oper at i ons (1975-2009). Bangkok: Sr iboon Computer-Pri nting Limited Partner ship.
Tam, Ngo Thi Thanh. 2011. The New Way: Becoming Hmong Protestants in Contempor ar y Vietnam. PhD disser tation, The Vu Univer sity, Amster dam.
Tambiah, Stanley J. 1977. “The Galactic Pol ity: The Str uctur e of Traditi onal Ki ngdoms in Southeast Asia”, Annals of the New Yor k Academy of Sciences, 293: 69-78.
Tapp, Nicholas, et al, (ed.). 2004. Hmong/ Miao in Asia. Chi ang Mai: Silkw orm Book s.
Tapp, Nicholas and Gar y Y. Lee (eds.). 2010. The Hmong of Aust r alia: Cult ur e and Diaspora. Canber r a: ANU E Pr ess, the Austr alian National Univer sity.
Vang, Chia Youyee. 2010. Hmong Amer ican: Reconst r uct ing Communi t y in Diaspora. Ur bana, Chicago, and Spr ingfield: Uni ver sity of Illinois Press.
Vang, Her . 2010. Dr eaming of Home, Dr eami ng of Land: Displacement s and Hmong Tr ansnational Politics, 1975-2010. PhD disser tation, the Univer si ty of Minnesota.
Vang, Timothy T. 1998. Coming a Full Cir cle: Histor ical Analysis of the Hmong Chur ch Gr ow th 1950-1998. D.M. Disser t ation, The Faculty of the School of Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary.
Winichak ul, Thongchai. 1994. Siam Mapped: A Hist or y of the Geo-Body of a Nat ion. Honolulu: Uni versity of Haw aii Pr ess.
Yang, Kao Kal ia. 2008. The Lat ehomecomer : A Hmong Fami ly Memoir . Mi nneapolis: Coffee House Pr ess.
About the Author:
Dr . Pr asit Leepr eecha is a faculty member at the Depart ment of Soci al Science and Development and a senior r esear cher at the Cent er for Ethnic Studies and Devel opment, Faculty of Social Sciences, Chi ang Mai Univer sity. He ear ned his doctoral degr ee i n Cul tur al Anthropol ogy from the Univer sity of
Washington, Seattle, in 2001. His i nter est includes Hmong and other ethnic minor ities in Mainland Southeast Asi a, focusing on ethnic tour ism, indi genous peopl es’ r espond to national for mation and development pr ojects, and global ization and ethnic r esponses. He is a co-editor of Chal lenging t he Li mit s: Indigenous Peoples of t he Mekong Region, Li ving in a Globalized World: Ethnic Minor ities in t he Gr eat er Mekong Subr egi on and Pict ur ing Highlander s: A Half-Cent ury Photogr aph in Nor t her n Thai land.
Contact Infor mation: Dr . Pr asit Leepr eecha
Depar t ment of Social Sciences and Development, Faculty of Soci al Sciences, Chiang Mai Univer sit y Chiang Mai 50200, THAILAND
