Comments on: Counterinsurgency http://larison.org/2007/09/18/counterinsurgency/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:07:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2007/09/18/counterinsurgency/#comment-7664 Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:53:33 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/09/18/counterinsurgency/#comment-7664 Of course, I welcome corrections when merited, and I don't claim any extensive expertise in much of Asian history. It makes sense that Chinese nationalism would be a strong factor in the insurgency. I should have been more careful in talking about the motivations of the insurgents, and I obviously exaggerated the smallness of the Chinese community. However, the main points would seem to remain intact: the lessons of this insurgency for us are limited because it was limited to the Chinese population and opposed by other ethnicities. Its number of men under arms was small and the insurgency could be effectively politically isolated from a large part of the population. Of course, I welcome corrections when merited, and I don’t claim any extensive expertise in much of Asian history.

It makes sense that Chinese nationalism would be a strong factor in the insurgency. I should have been more careful in talking about the motivations of the insurgents, and I obviously exaggerated the smallness of the Chinese community. However, the main points would seem to remain intact: the lessons of this insurgency for us are limited because it was limited to the Chinese population and opposed by other ethnicities. Its number of men under arms was small and the insurgency could be effectively politically isolated from a large part of the population.

]]> by: ducinaltum http://larison.org/2007/09/18/counterinsurgency/#comment-7663 Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:59:59 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/09/18/counterinsurgency/#comment-7663 No, quite wrong. Although many Western (English largely) historians have made the mistake of viewing the Malayan insurgency as driven largely by a desire to establish a communist client state of Moscow or Bejiing. More and more of the actors in Malaysia and Singapore are giving accounts of this time and they veer wildly from the generally accepted view. Unfortunately many of these are not yet in English but should soon be. A good place to start would be the First Volume of Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs. Now to your posts. First, it is not as if it were the Indians of Malaya who were involved in the insurgency (a very small percentage of the population in both Malaya and Singapore), it was the Chinese, who were almost on par in terms of population with the Malays (if you include Singapore, which one should). Indeed, most of the leadership and funding for the insurgency originated in Singapore. Second, the insurgency recieved direct or tacit support from a vast number of Chinese throughout Southeast Asia, not because they were ideologically Communist but because they were by and large Chinese nationalists and almost to a man Chinese chauvinists (see any history of Lee Kuan Yew, Chinese language curriculum wars throughout the Peninsula, the early PAP, the establishment and disestablishment of Nanyang University). Their ultimate goal and primary reason for supporting the insurgency was to prevent their domination in a sea of Indonesians/Malay and the ultimate establishment of a Chinese dominated/run state in South Asia (Singapore). I am an avid reader of my blog, and only have a few critiques. -A bit armchair historian-ish when it comes to Asia (see my critique of your Thai comment). -Your comments on the situation in Iraq are well written and quite powerful but perhaps a bit more diversity of topic (it would be great to read more posts on the life issue, your thoughts as an Orthodox on Benedict XVI and his papacy so far, etc....) Anyway, your blog and everything. No, quite wrong. Although many Western (English largely) historians have made the mistake of viewing the Malayan insurgency as driven largely by a desire to establish a communist client state of Moscow or Bejiing. More and more of the actors in Malaysia and Singapore are giving accounts of this time and they veer wildly from the generally accepted view. Unfortunately many of these are not yet in English but should soon be.

A good place to start would be the First Volume of Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs.

Now to your posts.

First, it is not as if it were the Indians of Malaya who were involved in the insurgency (a very small percentage of the population in both Malaya and Singapore), it was the Chinese, who were almost on par in terms of population with the Malays (if you include Singapore, which one should). Indeed, most of the leadership and funding for the insurgency originated in Singapore.

Second, the insurgency recieved direct or tacit support from a vast number of Chinese throughout Southeast Asia, not because they were ideologically Communist but because they were by and large Chinese nationalists and almost to a man Chinese chauvinists (see any history of Lee Kuan Yew, Chinese language curriculum wars throughout the Peninsula, the early PAP, the establishment and disestablishment of Nanyang University). Their ultimate goal and primary reason for supporting the insurgency was to prevent their domination in a sea of Indonesians/Malay and the ultimate establishment of a Chinese dominated/run state in South Asia (Singapore).

I am an avid reader of my blog, and only have a few critiques.

-A bit armchair historian-ish when it comes to Asia (see my critique of your Thai comment).
-Your comments on the situation in Iraq are well written and quite powerful but perhaps a bit more diversity of topic (it would be great to read more posts on the life issue, your thoughts as an Orthodox on Benedict XVI and his papacy so far, etc….)

Anyway, your blog and everything.

]]>