Pronouns, Translations, & Representations

During our visit to the Museum of Da Nang on Monday, the use of pronouns in one part of the exhibition connected me back to last week’s visit to the Vietnam Military History Museum in Hanoi. It was mentioned by Jo as well: The use of the word “their” to refer to the coastal culture of the fishermen.

The use of pronouns first struck me at the Vietnam Military History Museum, which displayed two battle models: one for the Battle of Dien Bien Phu (“chiến dịch Điện Biên Phủ”) in 1954; and one for the 1975 Spring Offensive or the Ho Chi Minh Campaign (“chiến dịch Hồ Chí Minh”). 

The two battle models were an impressive investment from the museum with videos and diorama’s light bulbs illustrating how each battle happened step-by-step; and during our group work time I lingered near them for some time listening to the narration for the two battles, which was in English. The pronoun “our” was featured frequently before words such as “army”, “troops”, or “soldiers”. This made me wondered if international visitors read the Museum’s “our” as the voice of the Vietnamese people, or as the voice of the Viet Cong only. Would they really be on “our” side in both battles? What happens when the expectations of visitors do not match the intention of museum and how do the visitors cope with this gap?

Unlike the Vietnam Military History Museum, the Museum of Da Nang separated itself from its subject in the English translation. As mentioned above, local fishermen would be referred to as “fishermen” or “them.” The city of Da Nang was referred to as “Da Nang.” While the Vietnamese caption for one of the house models stated that “due to the limitation in space, we can only illustrate certain parts of the house,” the English translation removed the “we.” In fact, the English translation seems to take a more neutral tone than the Vietnamese caption. For example, in the War Remnants section, there was a panel listing out atrocities committed by U.S. troops in Central Vietnam. While the original Vietnamese caption can be translated into “massacres of ordinary/innocent citizens,” the English translation was “the killings of civilians in Quang Nam – Da Nang” – adding the location but leaving out the emphasis that these people were ordinary citizens and not related to any military activities. Although some nuances of one language will undoubtedly be lost when translated to another; it is hard to think that this is an unintentional mistake by the museum, considering the trauma and political implications this exhibition might evoke.

While it is obvious that a national museum wants to create a sense of unity and nationalism in the visitors, the reasons behind a state museum’s decision to separate itself from its subjects, to me, can be an interesting research project. In the case of the Museum of Da Nang, this can imply that there are some sides to the rapid development of Da Nang not present in the exhibition. One example can be the street vendors, who are prominent actors in postcards and past photos, but missing from any other part in the exhibition. In the past ten years Da Nang has enacted policies to restrict street vendors and activities such as shoe-shining or selling lottery tickets. The signs of this policy are displayed throughout the main streets in Da Nang, but they are only in Vietnamese. On the other hand, while street vendors are restricted and sometimes fined, they still continue their activities because these activities are the only ways they can make a living. This is a problem that Da Nang is still struggling with. As a result, there can be different explanations for the signs: On one hand it can be because the people undertaking these activities are mainly Vietnamese; on the other hand it can be understood as the city’s decision not to inform foreigners that such activities are prohibited.

Both the Museum of Da Nang and the city itself seem to present a different image to English/foreign visitors and to Vietnamese people. This is only my personal interpretation and it certainly needs further factchecking, but it is a fascinating case study about what is included and excluded from a museum.