Batchelor 1

Jordan Batchelor
ENG 413 Final
Mother of Writing: A rhetorical approach to the Pahawh Hmong messianic script
Shong Lue Yang, given the title Mother of Writing, did something unparalleled in all of
history. Living his entire life unable to read or write, Shong Lue miraculously created two
complete tonal, alphabetic languages (for Hmong and Khmu peoples, respectively). He
created four versionseach successive one simpler to learn and more sophisticated in its
linguistics. All versions and both languages are called under one name, the Pahawh
Hmong messianic script1. Shong Lue had no help from any person in developing his
script; however, he did claim divine assistance, the Source Version being directly given to
him by two sons of God. The events surrounding the creation of Shong Lues language,
which directly led to his assassination at the hands of the Royal Lao Army, are multilayered and highly political. Life in 1960s Southeast Asia was tumultuous, and the
realities of warring within countries and between countries were impossible to escape.
But the origin and purpose of Pahawh Hmongs coming-into-being calls on Platonic
rhetoric and philosophy, making itself a beacon of Truth in a time where ideals and hope
were often crushed by reality.
Historical account in English of the Pahawh Hmong (hereafter referred to as
Pahawh Hmong, Pahawh Hmong language, Pahawh Hmong script, and Pahawh Hmong
messianic script interchangeably) is largely monopolized by one group of authors and
their monographs. Cultural anthropologist William A. Smalley is the chief author of

1 It is called Pahawh Hmong and not Pahawh Hmong and Pahawh Khmu because the former is the only
one of the two languages that made it through all three revisions. It is unclear when and why Pahawh
Khmu stopped or how less influential it has been in its respective communities as opposed to Pahawh
Hmong

Batchelor 2
Mother of Writing, the dominant published source of Shong Lue Yang and Pahawh
Hmong, along with Chia Koua Vang, chief disciple under Shong Lue while in Southeast
Asia, and his associate and co-author Gnia Yee Yang. All three authorsworking with
translator Mitt Mouadeveloped Mother of Writing to be the most comprehensive and
accurate representation of the events surrounding Shong Lue, and in fact is the principle
source I worked with for this paper. However, certain realities should be considered for
both Mother of Writing, the historic monograph, and Mother of Writing: A rhetorical
approach, my paper. Smalley was largely interested in writing the major account of
Shong Lue from the cultural and linguistic perspective, whereas Chia Koua, being a
former disciple of Shong Lue, wished to provide the absolute truthful account of Shong
Lues life. Although the three authors, translator, and board of the project worked
together to form something informative, accurate, and culturally sensitive, a prospective
that speaks toward Shong Lues validity as divine or god-like certainly shines through in
Mother of Writing, and therefore does so in my paper as well. In the pages to follow, I
will example perspectives from within the Shong Lue camp and the competing parties
that surrounded himtaking what is said in the original text as actually what occurred in
mid-to-late 20th century Southeast Asia.
The Hmong peoples represent roughly six million throughout Southeast Asia,
Southern China, North America, as well as parts of Europe, Africa, and Australia
(Smalley 3). The modern origins cite the Hmong ethnics in the highlands of South China,
Northern Vietnam and Northern Laos, but due to ramifications proceeding the many
battles taking place in mid-to-late 20th century Southeast Asia, the Hmong diaspora has
branched out to nearly all parts of the globe, including a major faction in St. Paul,

Batchelor 3
Minnesota. Historically, the Hmong have been treated poorly and subjugated wherever
they lived. First, by Chinese antagonism that led to a Hmong migration southward
toward Vietnam and Laos; then by colonial French, the Japanese military, and specific
groups within Laos and Vietnam (Smalley 6). The political nature of the Vietnam War
had massive effects on the Hmong, as the communism versus anti-communism struggle
became a major theme that required all peoples to commit to a side or agenda. For Shong
Lue and most Vietnamese and Lao, the results were devastating and life threatening. This
theme will be picked up toward the end of the paper.

Reincarnation, Form, and Kairos

Shong Lue Yang was born in 1929 in a small Hmong village in Vietnam. Growing up
learning only the farming skills of a typical Hmong villager, Shong Lue neither had any
education nor even the opportunity for education (Smalley 18). This fact has been
intensely studied and cross-examined to determine its absolute validity. And yet, in a
small Vietnamese village in 1959, Shong Lue began his creation of two complete writing
systems.
One day farming his plot, Shong Lues wife was struck by a strong whirlwind that
knocked her unconscious. Believing that the whirlwind may be a divine sign, he
consulted a Hmong shaman to determine its meaning. But before Shong Lue could do so,
he heard a voice saying, I am God, your Father, who sent you to be born on earth as a
human being. You are not crazy, but you must do what I tell you (Smalley 20). Shong
Lue followed the directions as described to him by the voice, and when his wife and
children had fallen asleep, two sons of God approached him. They then began to teach

Batchelor 4
Shong Lue the Source Version (original) Pahawh Hmong and Khmu on bamboo paper.
This continued for nine months, until Shong Lues wife gave birth to twins (who were
thought to be the very two sons of God visiting Shong Lue every night, and were put into
his wifes womb by the whirlwind) (Smalley 22).
At this point, an important distinction that separates who Shong Lue was prior to
the divine intervention and after it is made. For it is because of the intervention that
Shong Lue came to his recollection of his previous lives.

When Shong Lue had finished reading the message which Xa Yang (one of his twins) had left for
him, it all came back. He remembered that God the Father had twelve sons, of which he was one,
and that God had chosen three of them to come down to earth to teach the Pahawh to the Hmong
and Khmu peoples. And so from that day on Shong Lue Yang was totally awakened, knowing
everything in the universe from the beginning to the end. He remembered also that his name had
earlier been Shong Lue Yang, and that he had the title of Savior of the Common People, a name
and title which he then assumed for this life also. He began teaching the Pahawh Hmong to the
Hmong and Pahawh Khmu to the Khmu, as God had commissioned him to do. (Smalley 24)

In fact, God had sent saviors down on four previous occasions sprawling across time, all
of which were killed for various reasons. Because of this, the Hmong people incurred a
long-standing penalty period of which they were to live downtrodden and difficult lives
(Number Nine 11-14). Once the penalty period passed, God chose Shong Lue Yang (only
referred to as a son of God in his divine state) to be the final savior. Shong Lues first
incarnation in human form was unsuccessful as well. Nevertheless, Shong Lue still
remembered all of the things his Father had told him, and that he was the savior of the
people (Number Nine 15). Then, He took off his Shong Lue form and started back [to
Heaven] (Number Nine 16). In this passage and in another shortly following it, Shong
Lue speaks of forms. This enters us into a discussion on Platonic and Aristotelian form;

Batchelor 5
of whichthe two disagree with each other. The difference between Aristotelian forms
and Platonic Forms is that for Aristotle forms are not separate: any form is the form of
some actual individual (Kenny 217). The study of either figure and their corresponding
philosophy and rhetoric will be further discussed, but here we must make our first claim.
Does Shong Lues origin story call more on Plato or Aristotle? The easy answer would be
the latter, as the Platonic Form is not something to be shucked like the skin of Shong
Lues first incarnation. In fact, Platos Forms are the very opposite: they are the unique,
Truthful essences of those things that earthly things merely participate in. However, it is
Shong Lues implicit Form (capital F) that I would like to introduce. Shong Lues
taking off of his humanly form is the outward and earthly appearance of Form, a mimic
of Form. Therefore, Shong Lues human form is the non-complete participation in the
Platonic Form that resides in the very place he started back towards. For deeper
consideration, it should be considered whether, in Shong Lues rhetoric, the shucking of
form leading to Form is something all Hmong could accomplish, or merely the twelve
sons of God.
Both the theological and historical dimension of Shong Lues life in regards to
timing is important, and worth comparing with the Aristotelian kairos. Aristotles rhetoric
was a remedy or reconciliation of Platonic and Sophistical worldviewsAristotle placing
himself somewhere between (perhaps related to his ethnical golden mean) the two
polarities. Kairos brings timeless ideas down into the human situations of historical
time (Kinneavy 62). Timing as a consideration in producing effective rhetoric was
crucial for Plato, too. Because, for Plato, rhetoric had the ability to carry absolute Truths,
it was the audience who needed to be adjusted to the rhetoric, not the other way around.

Batchelor 6
Sophistical kairos is the very oppositerhetoric having the power to move hearts and
change knowledge, and in this sense is not concerned with any absolute Truth (because
that did not exist) but with the altering of rhetoric and ideas to the audience (see Gorgias
Encomium to Helen, where the subtle climax is a hint by Gorgias that he could just have
easily convinced the audience that Helen was guilty in her part of destroying Troy).
However, the story of Mother of Writing is neither of those kairos, but the Aristotelian
reconciliation of the two. A blending of Shong Lues God and the political time period
tells us this.

[Shong Lue] replied, I waited for a long time and didnt see the two of them follow me, so I came
back to check.
The Father said, It was not time yet; you just hurry back, and when the time comes I will
tell them to follow you. The Father ordered him back, so he came back to be born as a human
being the second time. (Number Nine 17)

Shong Lues description of God portrays an omnipotent figure, but one that has given
humans the free will to ignore their Gods saviors (Number Nine 11-15). In this sense, the
God figure himself only has the probable knowledge that Shong Lue will be the final
savior, and it is relatively unclear that, when the dust settled over a half-century later,
Shong Lue fulfilled his task as the final Hmong savior. Whereas Gods knowledge
represents the timeless ideas, the seriously tumultuous period that was 1960s and 70s
Southeast Asia is the human situations in historical time (see earlier Kinneavy quote). It
was clearly stated by God that Shong Lues reincarnation was the right time for spreading
the Pahawh Hmong messianic script, but it was the historical time of Shong Lues
Vietnam and Laos that decided the outcome. However, the question about the outcome is
still begging: did the historical moment inspire or suffocate the spread of Shong Lues
divine writing system?

Batchelor 7

The Hmong Soul and the Chariots Descent

In Phaedrus, Plato depicts Socrates as a man not merely skeptical of rhetoric, but
someone hostile toward the very act of writing itself. Socrates, speaking to Phaedrus,
provides an example of king Thamus in the region of Naucratis in Egypt:
But when it came to writing Theuth said Here, O king, is a branch of learning that will make
the people of Egypt wiser and improve their memories: my discovery provides a recipe for
memory and wisdom. But the king answered and said O man full of arts, to one it is given to
create the things of art, and to another to judge what measure of harm and of profit they have for
those that shall employ them. And so it is that you, by reason of your tender regard for the writing
that [275] is your offspring, have declared the very opposite of its true effect. If men learn this, it
will implant forgetfulness in their souls: they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on
that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by
means of external marks; (Plato 274E-275A)

Plato clearly prioritizes speech over writing. The latter provoking forgetfulness and is
damaging to the soul and capacity for knowledge. Thus far, the story of Shong Lue Yang
and the Pahawh Hmong language has been linked numerously with Platonic rhetoric and
thought. Now we must notice a crucial divide from that prior track. The Pahawh script is
merely a form of writingits verbal articulation identical to any other Hmong written
system2. What makes the Pahawh more divine is its written text, not its spoken.
Therefore, Platos denigration of written form must be wholly disregarded in Shong Lues
account of things. However, I do not suggest doing the very opposite of Plato (i.e. raising
written form and subjugating speech), and in that sense, making the same mistake as
Plato did. Instead, Shong Lueunknowingly, I suggestdeconstructs the hierarchy
between verbal articulation and written word, as made possible by Platos account of
writing, as well as Structuralist Ferdinand de Saussure, who suggested that speaking

2 E.g. The more widely used Romanized Popular Alphabet that was developed years before the Pahawh
script (Smalley 158-159)

Batchelor 8
voice, as distinct from the written, was capable of directly representing features of the
external world (Berlin 61-62). Although the Pahawh script is the most divine of the
Hmong writings, it is not to assume that the spoken language is beneath the written. The
two are to be used one-in-the-same, as Shong Lue did not promote a Hmong spiritual life
complete solely in writing and devoid of speech, but rather a spiritual life as
supplemented with the Pahawh script. That is, in a loose manner, Shong Lue created
significance in writing by means of speech, and speech by means of writingalways
relying on their relation, and removing the hierarchy.
Often I have mentioned the historical time of Shong Lue as being one of turmoil and
unrest. I have claimed it to be an essential factor in Pahawh Hmongs coming-into-being
and its reception. It is documented fact thateven without Shong Lues theological
claimsthe mere function of his language led to his assassination in February 1971.
Perhaps most unfortunate is that the pressure that led to his death was not external to
Southeast Asia or the Hmong people, but internal, and largely out of unfounded
speculation. It is because of the tug-of-war between pro-Pahawh Hmong and skeptical
Lao militaries3 that I want to liken Shong Lues struggle to that of Platos charioteer and
two horses analogy of the soul.
Let [the soul] be likened to the union of powers in a team of winged steeds and their winged
charioteer. Now all the gods steeds and all their charioteers are good, and of good stock; but with
other beings it is not wholly so. With us men, in the first place, it is a pair of steeds that the
charioteer controls; moreover one of them is noble and good, and of good stock, while the other
has the opposite character, and his stock is opposite. Hence the task of our charioteer is difficult
and troublesome. (Plato 246A-B)

Platos analogy is descriptive of each individual person and their corresponding soul.
Throughout life, a person fights to gain control of the steed of bad stock, and those who
3 Both General Vang Pao-led Royal Lao Army and communist Pathet Lao and North Vietnamese Armies.
The latter always was against Shong Lue, but the former supported him right up until his death

Batchelor 9
are able to do so reach a sort of philosophical nirvana, or in a more Platonic sense, the
realm of Ideas. Plato says this is easy for the gods and achievable for humans well
schooled in driving their steeds, but for the others it is hard, by reason of the heaviness
of the steed of wickedness, which pulls down his driver with his weight (Plato 247B).
Shong Lue was tasked to be the charioteer not just of himself, but also of the Hmong
ethnicity4a collective soul.
Initial word of Shong Lues Pahawh script spread through small villages in Laos and
Vietnam, where important people would come to Shong Lue and question his validity.
But as the news kept spreading it was heard also by people in the communist
government, which was in control of Vietnam and of the area of Laos near the
Vietnamese border. The communist authorities began to say that his Pahawh was part of a
plot by the American CIA, which was supporting the non-communist forces in Laos
(Smalley 27). Communist forces claimed that Shong Lue and General Vang Pao of the
non-communist Royal Lao Army were in collusion with American forces, and were thus
able to solidify an inaccurate and politically charged aura surrounding Shong Lue and the
Pahawh script. To Shong Lue, the script was an essential Truth, an eternal Ideal of written
language; but to communist Vietnam and (partially) Laos, it was an act of war, an attempt
to undermine their own people.
Over the years of Shong Lues teaching the Pahawh script, communist troops
would track his location and attack the village and its inhabitants (Smalley 29). He was
often on the move, using those who supported him as sources of knowledge of where to
go next. Occasionally, Shong Lue was able to enlist General Vang Paos help, who would

4 Although I have no reason to believe that Shong Lue was reluctant to teach non-Hmong his script
(beyond linguistic barriers as reason), Shong Lue and Chia Koua Vangs testimony seems to indicate a
Hmong-exclusive theology, as the former was the savior of the Hmong people, not of Vietnam and
Laos

Batchelor 10
either counter-attack communist forces or simply provide badly needed money (Smalley
29; 31). For the most part, a narrative runs through Shong Lues struggles: himself being
the charioteer, non-communist Royal Lao government being the good steed, and the
communist forces as the weighty steed. That narrative would often bring moderate
successas Shong Lue, though on the run and getting into occasional gunfights, was
able to teach and spread his language. Unfortunately, all narratives come to an end, as so
did this one.
Shong Lue more than once had predicted the time and place of communist attacks and prepared
people for them. At first this added to his stature, and was received with great appreciation by
military officersBut one time the general sent [money] in the care of the commander of the
forces in the area which included Kiaw BouaThe officer kept the money for himself and became
very angry when Shong Lue found this out and asked for the money. Two of the top officers then
spread the word that Shong Lue was able to predict the communist attacks only because he was a
communist sympathizerThey reported this story to their superiors, and seeds of suspicion were
sown. (Smalley 31-32)

Continued influence of Shong Lues script began worrying Hmong military leaders, who
began to believe his alphabet was Russian or Chinese and a plot to undermine their
government (this time the non-communist one too) (Smalley 35). In 1967 Shong Lue was
arrested by the non-communist Royal Lao Government for being a communist
subversive. He was in prison for three years, during which he drafted his final revision of
the language, which was given to Chia Koua (co-author of this papers chief source) in
1971.
In mid-February 1971, two spies bribed by General Vang Paoprevious
supporter of Shong Luedisguised as students of Shong Lue snuck into his village
where he was teaching and alerted a team of assassins when the time was right. Shong
Lue (age forty-one), his wife, and his neighbor were killed, his three-year-old son also

Batchelor 11
shot but survived (Smalley 37). On that day in mid-February, Shong Lue lost the fight
against the bad and wicked steed, and with it, the soul of the Hmong.
After Shong Lues death, one of his students continued spreading the Pahawh
Hmong script until he too was assassinated not ten months afteralso by General Vang
Pao-led forces. These events completely extinguished the flame Shong Lue created as a
Hmong farmer in 1959, as the Pahawh script was unable to be taught anymore until the
Royal Lao Government collapsed in 1975 and Hmong began to leave Laos (Smalley 39).
For Shong Lue Yang and his followers, his writing system as handed down by god
formed a link connecting the human situation of the Hmong people in the mid-to-late 20th
century with the timeless idea of the divine. Though including elements of Sophistical
and Aristotelian rhetoric and philosophy, Shong Lues Platonic rhetoric created a
sanctuary for the minds of Hmong, who, as a people, had been subjugated for decades
and were entering a period of Southeast Asian history in which death and war was about
to increase drastically.
Works Cited
Berlin, James A. Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring College English Studies.
West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2003. Print.
Kenny, Anthony. Ancient Philosophy. New York: Oxford Press, 2004. Print.
Kinneavy, James L. Kairos in Classical and Modern Rhetorical Theory. Rhetoric and
Kairos: Essays in History, Theory, and Praxis. Eds. Phillip Sipiora and James S.
Baumlin. New York: State University of New York Press, 2002. 58-78. Print.
Plato. Phaedrus. Philosophy Classics. Ed. Walter Kaufmann. New Jersey: PrenticeHall, Inc., 1968. 158-198. Print.
Smalley, William A., Chia Koua Vang, Gnia Yee Yang. Mother of Writing. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1990. Print.
---. Mother of Writing: Number Nine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1990. Print.

Batchelor 12