What do you think?
Rate this book
The Colonial Bastille: A History of Imprisonment in Vietnam, 1862-1940
Peter Zinoman's original and insightful study focuses on the colonial prison system in French Indochina and its role in fostering modern political consciousness among the Vietnamese. Using prison memoirs, newspaper articles, and extensive archival records, Zinoman presents a wealth of significant new information to document how colonial prisons, rather than quelling political dissent and maintaining order, instead became institutions that promoted nationalism and revolutionary education.
- GenresHistory
372 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2001
79 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 17, 2021
The ill-disciplined and irregular Vietnamese prison derived from the chaotic French colonial government as a whole. Just as there never was a united colonial Vietnam, so there never was a universal Vietnamese prison system. The three colonial provinces – Cochinchina, Tonkin, and Annam – had their own prison administrations that significantly differed from each other. On top of that, since the prisons were usually located in remote places, the arm of the government could not reach them, and they remained exclusively at the mercy of the local authority. In addition, unlike European prisons, colonial penitentiaries were never designed to perform disciplinary functions. Indochinese prisons were still based on old Chinese traditions in which discipline played an insignificant role. Also, while European prisons evolved from the monastery, the hospital, and the workhouse, whose purpose was salvation, the Vietnamese prison traced its origins to the prisoner-of-war camps, which were fundamentally coercive, not disciplinary. French racism was another major reason: the French believed that Vietnamese lawbreakers were incorrigible, and that employing discipline to reform them would not achieve any results whatsoever. Last but not least, the colonial government simply refused to provide the money and resources needed to modernize the colonial prison system.
While the central (urban) prisons had been at least partially modernized, the provincial prisons and the remotely located penitentiaries were still prounouncedly colonial. Due to the tragic lack of funding, provincial prisons consisted not of separate cells, but of one or two communal dormitories in which male and female, common and political prisoners of all ages coexisted. This arrangement allowed social intercourse among them and helped them create lasting bonds, which often continued after their release. The unwillingness of the French to apportion funds for the construction if additonal dormitories led to political prisoners' influencing the rest of the inmate population. Thus, the colonial prison system inadvertently encouraged the emergence of Vietnamese sense of national identity and anti-colonial tendencies.
Another part of the system that caused the French authorities much headache was the employment of Vietnamese as guards. Because there were not enough French to use as prison warders, the local authorities requested each village or city to provide a number of men proportionate to the number of tax payers to work as mata (indigenous staff). Usually, those Viets were neither prepared nor willing to perform their duties in prison, and because they were often assigned to supervise their fellow villagers or even members of their family, they almost never commanded any respect among the inmate population. Furthermore, they shared all the vices widespread among the prisoners – opium, alcohol, prostitutes, gambling – so they often colluded with them behind the French supervisors' backs. Mata and inmates skipping working hours together in order to smoke opium was a common occurrence. In 1925, the warden of the Kien An Provincial Prison reported that a guard and a group of bootleggers he was escorting to the prison had “arrived, after an unusually long time, in a state of utter drunkenness.” Fraternization of this kind fully undermined all institutional norms – escapes of inmates staged by the mata themselves were frequent, especially around Tet (Vietnamese New Year) when the sense of Vietnamese solidarity prevailed over duty. On top of that, fraternization led to rivalries for opium and bribes among the prisoners and guards, which often resulted in assaults and even murder committed by both inmates and staff.
Unlike prisons in France, colonial prisons also generated large waves of collective resistance. The identical treatment of political and common prisoners and their coexistence contributed to the easy spread of communist and nationalist ideologies. Many a common convict became a communist sympathizer in prison. The communist prisoners made special efforts to include ideological subtexts into the plays the inmates created in their free time and which were staged on holidays, as well as to ignite prison rebellions. Between 1862 and 1930, episodes of collective violence such as riots and mass uprisings occurred regularly in Indochinese prisons. The corrupted and unreliable colonial judicial system was a frequent source of discontent. When, in the aftermath of a major revolt, French inspectors were sent to investigate the source of discontent, they were appalled to discover that some prisoners had never stood trial, had arrived in the prison without case files, and did not know the length of their sentences. Another major reason for the rebellions was prison labor. The employment of prison inmates on public works projects undermined security by disseminating dangerous and desperate prisoners throughout the neighboring countryside. Because indigenous guards were often prohibited from bearing arms, security at work sites was easily breached. Moreover, tools provided to laboring prisoners such as shovels, hoes, and spades could be used as deadly weapons and were crucial for the outbreak of revolts. The colonial authorities never resolved the issue because prison labor was far too economically efficient.
With the rise of nationalism in Vietnam, the prison system came under intense scrutiny in the press. The overcrowded dormitories, wretched food, filthy living conditions, and torture of prison inmates were all a sad reality, but the newspapers exaggerated them further in order to use them as a potent tool in their anti-colonial propaganda. To confirm the authenticity of their claims, editors printed letters of inmates, excerpted diaries, and asked prisoners to write memoirs upon release. These publications provoked public outrage at the colonial administration and – for the first time – checked the power of prison officials, providing a measure of protection for the inmate population. Because of its ability to influence public opinion while also restraining the power of the colonial state, according to the author, press coverage of the prison system may be seen as one of the the earliest and most significant expressions of civil society in colonial Indochina. In the collective consciousness of the Vietnamese readers, the oppressive prison system was a stand-in for the oppressive colonial regime as a whole.
Peter Zinoman's short but highly informative study creates a well-rounded portrait of Vietnamese colonial prisons. In fact, his work is so meticulously detailed that it is impossible to summarize all the facts and insights he has included. What makes THE COLONIAL BASTILLE even more readable is its compelling and easily graspable style. It will prove enjoyable not only for Vietnamese history buffs, but for anyone who would like to catch a glimpse of prison life in a colonial society.
While the central (urban) prisons had been at least partially modernized, the provincial prisons and the remotely located penitentiaries were still prounouncedly colonial. Due to the tragic lack of funding, provincial prisons consisted not of separate cells, but of one or two communal dormitories in which male and female, common and political prisoners of all ages coexisted. This arrangement allowed social intercourse among them and helped them create lasting bonds, which often continued after their release. The unwillingness of the French to apportion funds for the construction if additonal dormitories led to political prisoners' influencing the rest of the inmate population. Thus, the colonial prison system inadvertently encouraged the emergence of Vietnamese sense of national identity and anti-colonial tendencies.
Another part of the system that caused the French authorities much headache was the employment of Vietnamese as guards. Because there were not enough French to use as prison warders, the local authorities requested each village or city to provide a number of men proportionate to the number of tax payers to work as mata (indigenous staff). Usually, those Viets were neither prepared nor willing to perform their duties in prison, and because they were often assigned to supervise their fellow villagers or even members of their family, they almost never commanded any respect among the inmate population. Furthermore, they shared all the vices widespread among the prisoners – opium, alcohol, prostitutes, gambling – so they often colluded with them behind the French supervisors' backs. Mata and inmates skipping working hours together in order to smoke opium was a common occurrence. In 1925, the warden of the Kien An Provincial Prison reported that a guard and a group of bootleggers he was escorting to the prison had “arrived, after an unusually long time, in a state of utter drunkenness.” Fraternization of this kind fully undermined all institutional norms – escapes of inmates staged by the mata themselves were frequent, especially around Tet (Vietnamese New Year) when the sense of Vietnamese solidarity prevailed over duty. On top of that, fraternization led to rivalries for opium and bribes among the prisoners and guards, which often resulted in assaults and even murder committed by both inmates and staff.
Unlike prisons in France, colonial prisons also generated large waves of collective resistance. The identical treatment of political and common prisoners and their coexistence contributed to the easy spread of communist and nationalist ideologies. Many a common convict became a communist sympathizer in prison. The communist prisoners made special efforts to include ideological subtexts into the plays the inmates created in their free time and which were staged on holidays, as well as to ignite prison rebellions. Between 1862 and 1930, episodes of collective violence such as riots and mass uprisings occurred regularly in Indochinese prisons. The corrupted and unreliable colonial judicial system was a frequent source of discontent. When, in the aftermath of a major revolt, French inspectors were sent to investigate the source of discontent, they were appalled to discover that some prisoners had never stood trial, had arrived in the prison without case files, and did not know the length of their sentences. Another major reason for the rebellions was prison labor. The employment of prison inmates on public works projects undermined security by disseminating dangerous and desperate prisoners throughout the neighboring countryside. Because indigenous guards were often prohibited from bearing arms, security at work sites was easily breached. Moreover, tools provided to laboring prisoners such as shovels, hoes, and spades could be used as deadly weapons and were crucial for the outbreak of revolts. The colonial authorities never resolved the issue because prison labor was far too economically efficient.
With the rise of nationalism in Vietnam, the prison system came under intense scrutiny in the press. The overcrowded dormitories, wretched food, filthy living conditions, and torture of prison inmates were all a sad reality, but the newspapers exaggerated them further in order to use them as a potent tool in their anti-colonial propaganda. To confirm the authenticity of their claims, editors printed letters of inmates, excerpted diaries, and asked prisoners to write memoirs upon release. These publications provoked public outrage at the colonial administration and – for the first time – checked the power of prison officials, providing a measure of protection for the inmate population. Because of its ability to influence public opinion while also restraining the power of the colonial state, according to the author, press coverage of the prison system may be seen as one of the the earliest and most significant expressions of civil society in colonial Indochina. In the collective consciousness of the Vietnamese readers, the oppressive prison system was a stand-in for the oppressive colonial regime as a whole.
Peter Zinoman's short but highly informative study creates a well-rounded portrait of Vietnamese colonial prisons. In fact, his work is so meticulously detailed that it is impossible to summarize all the facts and insights he has included. What makes THE COLONIAL BASTILLE even more readable is its compelling and easily graspable style. It will prove enjoyable not only for Vietnamese history buffs, but for anyone who would like to catch a glimpse of prison life in a colonial society.
October 16, 2014
Peter Zinoman’s book provided a compelling argument on how the colonial prison system in Vietnam (1862-1940) played a role in stirring Vietnamese nationalism and anticolonial resistance. The colonial penal institution, “founded to quell political dissent and maintain law and order” was in turn appropriated by the imprisoned into “a site that nurtured the growth of communism, nationalism, and anticolonial resistance” (p.4). Shared predicament of incarceration generated common identities, discipline and fierce loyalty amongst the native prison population (prisoners and prison guards), and enabled the Indochinese Communist Party (ICP) to recruit new cadres, plan and organize anticolonial resistance strategies. Zinoman elaborated on the conditions of the prison system, featuring communal space management (overcrowding and extensive interaction amongst prisoners), disordered grouping of prisoners (not differentiating between political prisoners and other criminals), harsh conditions (poor food, hygiene, healthcare) and brutal forced labour, all of which enforced limitations but provided possibilities for the inmates to manoeuvre and exercise agency in anticolonial resistance. These harsh prison realities generated affinities amongst prisoners that transcended social backgrounds and identities, heightened national consciousness, and bridged allegiance differences for a more unified politicised and activist community.
Drawing from extensive sources like colonial records, newspapers and prisoner memoirs, Zinoman’s highly readable book persuaded me with its clear explication of arguments, range of themes, statistics, prisoner accounts, and multiple case studies.
Summary of Key Arguments
Zinoman situated prisons as decentralized and autonomous institutions ran in different territories in Annam, Tonkin, Cochin China, Cambodia and Laos due to different legal and administrative frameworks, low budgets, and unprofessional staff running the prisons. Within the prisons, personnel was divided into small European administrative elite and a large corps of Vietnamese warders. Zinoman argued that the colonial prison was ill-disciplined. The rehabilitative orientation within colonial punishment was absent (p.91) as there was no discernible effort to reform the prisoners by discipline or provision of “total care”. Zinoman discussed how prisoners experienced communal living and social mixing, with little segregation premised on a classificatory and differentiating system. Even with the introduction of Article 91 of the Indochinese criminal code in the 1890s that sought to differentiate political offences with other crimes, prisoners were still subjected to a common regime.
Zinoman also discussed the flexible roles native guards assumed in the prison context. While the native guards are ethnically and socially closer to the inmates than with the European prison officials (who were brutal against both prisoners and native guards), the guards did not automatically sided with the prisoners as they acted as self-interested middlemen and assumed multiple roles of predation and collusion. Prisoners could exercise varying degrees of mobility and contact with outside environment (urban-mainland for some prisons) through collusive arrangements with prison guards. Under such environment, rules of surveillance were fluid and being violated frequently. Discipline of the prisoners and the guards was mostly absent.
Zinoman highlighted prison labour can be life-threatening and subjected to abuse by guards, and ill-hygiene conditions drove up rate of infections and mortality. He provided ethnographic details of the prison experience such as squalid quarters, backbreaking work and prisoners’ coping strategies. Under such adverse conditions, the incarceration experience intensified prisoners’ sensations of inter-connectedness, built strength and confidence of character, and the will to fight against the colonial state responsible for this injustice. Zinoman studied the rise in numbers and case studies of prison revolts (such as Poulo Condore 1918 and Lai Chau 1927) and attributed such phenomena to distrust of the colonial legal and juridical system, harsh and erratic local administrative systems, organization of prison labour, and attacks on prisons led from outside forces (secret societies, peasants).
Zinoman explained prisoners shared a collective emotional experience involving loss of freedom and disengagement from family ties, thereby they were able to imagine themselves as individuals working for a modern and national goal of defeating the French rather than parochial family or status-conscious societal concerns; what Zinoman termed as a “transgressive liberation” (p.133). He highlighted the Thai Nguyen uprising of 1917 as a prequel to the modern nationalist movements in the 1930s, as it managed to transcend the regional and social limitations that hampered the development in earlier anticolonial movements. Zinoman then tracked how these unchanged prison conditions coupled with the rise in prisoner population in the 1930s (following significant events such as the Depression, the Yen Bai and Nghe An-Ha Tinh rebellions), assisted the growth of the disciplined ICP organization adopting a long term strategy of anticolonial resistance and arousing modern nationalism within the prison context. These included the ICP’s finesse in appropriating the mass media portrayal of the repressive prison system as a matter of popular and national significance, highlighting political prisoners and their sacrifice as national heroes with legitimate claim to power (p.301), and penetration into grassroots organizations such as trade unions.
Evaluation/Analysis/Conclusion
Zinoman’s book provided a comprehensive study of the prison context and the prisoners’ experience. He conducted extensive research and provided useful background information such as the political developments in France, women and juvenile prisoners, and statistics on numbers imprisoned in various states. Another strength (or weakness if one may interpret) is Zinoman did acknowledge the gaps in his research, such as details on prison subcultures (grouped by age, class, gangs), their hierarchies and antagonism amongst prisoners (and guards). However, the net effect of these divisions and rivalries did not prevent the eventual rise of ICP indoctrination of partisan commitment, operations and coordination within prison quarters, which is one of the central tenets of this book.
Zinoman also gave good coverage from the French’s perspective. Clearly the French were aware of developments in the prisons; there were inspections, security reports, and the Sûreté kept tabs. The French tried to adapt to ground conditions and retain control but they could not forestall the “fundamental shift in balance of power from taking place in the colonial prisons” (p.238).
For me what is most admirable in Zinoman’s research and analysis of prison conditions and dynamics is his approach to studying the prison as an institution. He adeptly avoided relying upon a deductive predisposition when studying the prison environment as an institution that possessed overpowering control over the subjects and their bodies considering the ‘obvious’ power differentials between the prison overseers and the inmates. Having observed the colonial prison as an antiquated and ill-disciplined institution which resulted in the growth of anticolonial activity therein, Zinoman effectively argued against studying colonial imperialism and the exercise of colonial power from a theory-laden discursive approach, but rather to study colonial institutions with an honest and comprehensive assessment of its actual workings and degrees of efficacy. This book provides a valuable insight into the Vietnamese psyche and their determination in striving for independence during the fight against colonial imperialism.
Drawing from extensive sources like colonial records, newspapers and prisoner memoirs, Zinoman’s highly readable book persuaded me with its clear explication of arguments, range of themes, statistics, prisoner accounts, and multiple case studies.
Summary of Key Arguments
Zinoman situated prisons as decentralized and autonomous institutions ran in different territories in Annam, Tonkin, Cochin China, Cambodia and Laos due to different legal and administrative frameworks, low budgets, and unprofessional staff running the prisons. Within the prisons, personnel was divided into small European administrative elite and a large corps of Vietnamese warders. Zinoman argued that the colonial prison was ill-disciplined. The rehabilitative orientation within colonial punishment was absent (p.91) as there was no discernible effort to reform the prisoners by discipline or provision of “total care”. Zinoman discussed how prisoners experienced communal living and social mixing, with little segregation premised on a classificatory and differentiating system. Even with the introduction of Article 91 of the Indochinese criminal code in the 1890s that sought to differentiate political offences with other crimes, prisoners were still subjected to a common regime.
Zinoman also discussed the flexible roles native guards assumed in the prison context. While the native guards are ethnically and socially closer to the inmates than with the European prison officials (who were brutal against both prisoners and native guards), the guards did not automatically sided with the prisoners as they acted as self-interested middlemen and assumed multiple roles of predation and collusion. Prisoners could exercise varying degrees of mobility and contact with outside environment (urban-mainland for some prisons) through collusive arrangements with prison guards. Under such environment, rules of surveillance were fluid and being violated frequently. Discipline of the prisoners and the guards was mostly absent.
Zinoman highlighted prison labour can be life-threatening and subjected to abuse by guards, and ill-hygiene conditions drove up rate of infections and mortality. He provided ethnographic details of the prison experience such as squalid quarters, backbreaking work and prisoners’ coping strategies. Under such adverse conditions, the incarceration experience intensified prisoners’ sensations of inter-connectedness, built strength and confidence of character, and the will to fight against the colonial state responsible for this injustice. Zinoman studied the rise in numbers and case studies of prison revolts (such as Poulo Condore 1918 and Lai Chau 1927) and attributed such phenomena to distrust of the colonial legal and juridical system, harsh and erratic local administrative systems, organization of prison labour, and attacks on prisons led from outside forces (secret societies, peasants).
Zinoman explained prisoners shared a collective emotional experience involving loss of freedom and disengagement from family ties, thereby they were able to imagine themselves as individuals working for a modern and national goal of defeating the French rather than parochial family or status-conscious societal concerns; what Zinoman termed as a “transgressive liberation” (p.133). He highlighted the Thai Nguyen uprising of 1917 as a prequel to the modern nationalist movements in the 1930s, as it managed to transcend the regional and social limitations that hampered the development in earlier anticolonial movements. Zinoman then tracked how these unchanged prison conditions coupled with the rise in prisoner population in the 1930s (following significant events such as the Depression, the Yen Bai and Nghe An-Ha Tinh rebellions), assisted the growth of the disciplined ICP organization adopting a long term strategy of anticolonial resistance and arousing modern nationalism within the prison context. These included the ICP’s finesse in appropriating the mass media portrayal of the repressive prison system as a matter of popular and national significance, highlighting political prisoners and their sacrifice as national heroes with legitimate claim to power (p.301), and penetration into grassroots organizations such as trade unions.
Evaluation/Analysis/Conclusion
Zinoman’s book provided a comprehensive study of the prison context and the prisoners’ experience. He conducted extensive research and provided useful background information such as the political developments in France, women and juvenile prisoners, and statistics on numbers imprisoned in various states. Another strength (or weakness if one may interpret) is Zinoman did acknowledge the gaps in his research, such as details on prison subcultures (grouped by age, class, gangs), their hierarchies and antagonism amongst prisoners (and guards). However, the net effect of these divisions and rivalries did not prevent the eventual rise of ICP indoctrination of partisan commitment, operations and coordination within prison quarters, which is one of the central tenets of this book.
Zinoman also gave good coverage from the French’s perspective. Clearly the French were aware of developments in the prisons; there were inspections, security reports, and the Sûreté kept tabs. The French tried to adapt to ground conditions and retain control but they could not forestall the “fundamental shift in balance of power from taking place in the colonial prisons” (p.238).
For me what is most admirable in Zinoman’s research and analysis of prison conditions and dynamics is his approach to studying the prison as an institution. He adeptly avoided relying upon a deductive predisposition when studying the prison environment as an institution that possessed overpowering control over the subjects and their bodies considering the ‘obvious’ power differentials between the prison overseers and the inmates. Having observed the colonial prison as an antiquated and ill-disciplined institution which resulted in the growth of anticolonial activity therein, Zinoman effectively argued against studying colonial imperialism and the exercise of colonial power from a theory-laden discursive approach, but rather to study colonial institutions with an honest and comprehensive assessment of its actual workings and degrees of efficacy. This book provides a valuable insight into the Vietnamese psyche and their determination in striving for independence during the fight against colonial imperialism.
October 28, 2025
My favorite book we've read so far in Southeast Asian History. A perfect balance between French and Vietnamese sources, and paints a vivid picture of the experiences of colonial prisoners. Zinoman's argument had a clear through-line, demonstrating how the institutional and social structures of prisons and penitentiaries fostered a nationalist identity amongst disparate Vietnamese regional and ethnic identities. It is incredibly fascinating to see how French rule of colonial administrations would eventually lay the groundwork for their ultimate demise in the Vietnamese movement for independence.
March 27, 2009
This is a really great book. It examines the prison system in French Indochina (Vietnam mainly). Particularly, how this system, by tossing previously unfamiliar peoples into a corrupt colonial prison system, contributed to and encouraged the spread of communist ideology amongst the population. This was a great read.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews