Keith Taylor Controversy 2
From: Dan Duffy <dduffy@email.unc.edu>
Date: Apr 14, 2006 3:48 PM
Subject: [Vsg] something nice about Bob Buzzanco: today's news
Hi all,
A lively long moment of last week's Journal of Vietnamese Studies'
inaugural conference at Berkeley was devoted to discussion led by Keith
Taylor, Edward Miller, and Peter Zinoman about Bob Buzzanco's printed
attack on the talk that Keith has given, in evolving forms, at several
conferences over the last year or so. You can read one version of
Keith's talk in Barbara Tran's issue of the Michigan Quarterly Review.
I won't rehearse the issues. I wrote about them a couple of times here
and had to stop. They push my buttons, the internal conflicts you might
expect someone who has read both men's books to have. I may have been
the first editor to publish work from what later became Bob's
dissertation and first book, in Viet Nam Generation, and not long after
that took my first course in Vietnamese history from Keith.
Bob's attack on Keith is founded on ignorance about Viet Nam. Keith and
Ed say it is further founded on philosophical commitments which make
this ignorance unteachable. I've got tapes if you want to hear about it.
The word they were using is "materialist." I took them to mean not the
materialism I teach as a scientist, but the determinist belief in
history which many Marxists affirm.
Surely the opposite of determinism is a faith that people can change.
Bob might, because he is a real scholar who wrote a good book about an
issue whose avatar is on the front page of the New York Times today,
Friday April 14, 2006.
Five retired generals are speaking out in dissent to the conduct of the
war in Iraq. Bob's substantive scholarship came out from Cambridge
University Press in 1996 as Masters of War: Military Dissent and
Politics in the Vietnam Era, about how Ridgeway, Gavin and Shoup did the
same thing, once upon a time.
So, you know, let's knock the guy down but not kick him in the head.
Dan
From: Ed Miller <Edward.G.Miller@dartmouth.edu>
Date: Apr 14, 2006 5:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Vsg] something nice about Bob Buzzanco: today's news
A couple of points in response to what Dan has written:
1. I invite anyone who disagrees with my characterization of Buzzanco as a
materialist to review his Bernath lecture, which he delivered in 1999 and
which was entitled "What happened to the New Left? Toward a Radical Reading
of American Foreign Relations." The published version can be downloaded
from Buzzanco's website:
http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/buzzancobernathlecture.pdf
The lecture contains the following:
"MATERIAL INTERESTS MATTER MOST. [Emphasis in original] While it is useful
and stimulating to study new approaches to diplomatic history, historians
should return to the foundation of politics among nations, namely
economic/material interests. Indeed, the search for trade and markets has
been the greatest impetus to interaction between states. Material
discourses not only have contribted to economic relations but they are also
the principal means of transmittal for literacy, languages, diseases, food,
work habits, gender roles, political systems, forms of labor, and types of
warfare, to name a few of the crucial needs of any society. Indeed the
basic structures of every major society in some way may be directly linked
to traits acquired via markets.... To this day, the need for markets and raw
materials and areas for capital investment remains a principal cause of
foreign policies, and even concepts that may appear to be non-economic, such
as anticommunism or credibility, generally have a materialist basis."
Call me crazy, but that sounds like a materialist point of view to me.
2. It is certainly true that I took issue at the workshop and in my paper
with some of the things that Buzzanco has written (both in his attack on
Keith and in other publications). However, such disagreements are the stuff
of normal scholarly exchange, and I don't feel that I was unfair or ad
hominem in anything I said. I therefore have to take issue with Dan's
suggestion that me and my fellow panelists were "kicking Buzzanco in the
head." Here, I would invite anyone who is interested to read the published
version of my article and Keith's when they appear in JVS in a few months
time. In my opinion, Keith's article in particular is a model of scholarly
decorum that carefully refrains from even appearing to stoop to ad hominem
or other types of unprofessional tactics.
Cheers,
Ed Miller
From: Philip Taylor <philip.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Date: Apr 15, 2006 12:47 AM
Subject: RE: [Vsg] something nice about Bob Buzzanco: today's news
The Keith Taylor deconstruction of Buzzanco’s work dealing with Diem/South
Vietnam was a model of meticulous scholarship and I agree with Ed Miller
that its tone was decorous and professional throughout. Yet do not these
laudable displays of civility and scholastic precision among academic
colleagues not strike anyone else as incongruous, given the topic of this
debate, which is about what many of us here in the periphery view with
horror and dismay as so much drunken arrogance, blindness to consequences
and destructive barbarity?
Philip Taylor
From: George Dutton <dutton@humnet.ucla.edu>
Date: Apr 15, 2006 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Vsg] something nice about Bob Buzzanco: today's news
I must agree with Philip that what appears to be lost in the
discussion, including in Keith's article, is the horrific
consequences of the policies being debated. One can disagree about
the objectives of US intervention in the wars in Vietnam, but it
strikes me that at some point one must consider the costs of these
policies and not merely consider them as abstract political
calculations. Can one really argue that attempting to promote
democracy or spread the benefits of freedom is worth causing the
deaths of millions of innocent civilians, not to mention hundreds of
thousands of soldiers (many of them unwilling recruits)? This does
not even factor in the wounded, the crippled, the displaced, the
subsequent generations of those deformed from chemical exposures,
etc. While Iraq is a different situation in many ways, the same
hubris and arrogance that drove US policy in Vietnam seems to be at
work now in the Middle East. The killing of innocents, the
destruction of a society, the environmental ravages, all seem to be
viewed by many policy-makers as an inconsequential sideline to a
noble purpose. In short, we cannot lose sight of the costs entailed
by these wars when we discuss them, for to do so is to lose our very
humanity.
From: Markus Taussig <markustaussig@mac.com>
Date: Apr 15, 2006 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Vsg] something nice about Bob Buzzanco: today's news
An argument that gives greater weight to these horrific consequences
would explicitly or implicitly also reflect a value judgement on
alternative, would it not? Popular opinion certainly has supported
the virtue of at least one war over the past century.
Which underscores that there's great complexity to maintaining a
semblance of academic rigor in an argument that weighs one type of
suffering versus another. Indeed, it seems like this weighing is
never actually done in any serious way by people on either side of
these arguments. This would be one of the arguments in favor of
academics striving for a civil, scholastic tone and trying to focus
on relatively more objective questions of, for example, when the
terrible and predictable consequences of war are such that the
claimed goals of the attacking state are partially or fully undermined.
The notion that more emotional issues don't seem particularly well
suited for what is termed academia (or academia well suited to the
more emotional issues) shouldn't be understood to denigrate the
importance of the emotional issues. Perhaps its better viewed as a
realistic understanding of the limitations of academia and our own
limitations as academics.
From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Date: Apr 15, 2006 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: [Vsg] something nice about Bob Buzzanco: today's news
I don't think it's only a view from the periphery. I was surprised when I had a chance to
watch the CSPAN rebroadcast of the JFK conference: the once "radical", then "left", analysis
of the Vietnam war has now gone main stream, in the most remarkable way. Keith Taylor's
effort to breathe life to the old view that the Vietnam war was a noble enterprise runs
against this public shift in mainstream re-orientation (1). The great majority of the
scholars on the Vietnam war have considered the war a mistake, but this has never been so
popularly presented (2).
The irony of all this is the fact the architects of the Iraq war are those who were
dissatisfied with the outcome of the Vietnam war, and believe that they would do better than
the decision makers of the past.
After the collapse of communism, the world has entered a new phase. This Taylor-
Buzzanco dispute, I think, may still have some resonance within the American context, more
in the public and political arena than in the academic scholarship. The rest of the world,
periphery or not, I believe, has already figured it out. As President Bush famously said,
"fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." The
worldwide protest against the Iraq intervention, even before it started, could not take
place without the context of the Vietnam war experiences.
Nguyen Ba Chung
(!) This is not to impugn the integrity or genuine efforts of many Americans in VN who tried
to do their best to carry out the government policy. Yes, individuals might have noble
intentions. It's, however, the nature of the war and the policies of the decision makers
that are under question, not the individual ethos.
(2) One of the issues that continues to create a lot of misunderstanding in any discussion
about the Vietnam war is the use of the term "South Vietnam." A real story: in a
conversation between an exile writer and a well known writer from VN visiting the US (who
came from central Vietnam), the exile writer kept repeating the phrase "mien nam Vietnam"
(South VN), "chung toi, nguoi mien Nam" (we, the South Vietnamese). After a while, the
writer from Vietnam could not stand it any more, interrupted: "You know, I am also from
South Vietnam. From 1950s to 1975 we hid in the graves outside the villages and only entered
the community at night. When our troops came by, they too, were hidden by the villagers
until we were ready to begin the operation. The villagers supported us all these years, at
great expense and at great risk to themselves. Even just one of them went to the other side
and informed on us, we would have been captured. But none did, all these years. So, when you
talk about the South, it's only the South in the cities and their periphery. The rest of the
South belonged to us. Those in the cities comprised about 15 to 20% of the population. The
majority of the rest were our supporters. That's how we could survive and regroup after all
the bombings, all the search and destroy campaigns."
The exile writer was taken aback, but after some reflection, admitted the truth of what had
just been said. If we continue to base our discussion on the views of that 15 to 20%
percent, we could never figure out how the other side could prevail. And a great majority of
them fought, not in support of any ideology, but because they did not want foreigners to run
their affairs. If it takes many Vietnamese until today to recognize that fact, it's
understandable that some still continue to argue otherwise.
From: John Balaban <tbalaban@earthlink.net>
Date: Apr 15, 2006 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vsg] something nice about Bob Buzzanco: today's news
I was relieved to read George Dutton's response to this thread. During the
war, I performed two years of alternative service, evacuating war-injured
children to hospital care in Vietnam and in the United States. More
civilians were killed in Vietnam than combatants of either side. More
children were killed than adults, as Vietnam's high birth rate coincided
with the defenselessness of children in village environments. But mere
numbers, even large ones, remain abstractions. I am attaching (does the
listserv accept attachments?) a page from my Senate testimony (Subcommittee
of the Judiciary for Refugees and Escapees, June, 1969) just to make this a
little more personal. Zoom up the pdf. and it becomes readable. If anyone
would like the full document, I would be happy to mail a copy.
Separately, I will send a page of sources for numbers of civilian
casualties.
http://mail.google.com/mail/?view=att&disp=attd&attid=0.1&th=10a9f2fba1316130
From: Dan Duffy <dduffy@email.unc.edu>
Date: Apr 18, 2006 5:23 AM
Subject: [Vsg] re: something nice about Bob Buzzanco: today's news
Hi all, well that wasn't so bad.
As to Ed's point about civility, I think that pointing to the way Keith
argues as a model of academic discourse is odd. The whole point about
the Buzzanco/Taylor debate is that it has taken place outside of usual
academic channels.
The Lubbock conference is oriented toward the public, and welcomes the
public in as speakers and interlocutors. Keith spoke there about the
Viet Nam war, something he has no research expertise in, but instead the
authority of his life.
Bob replied in Counterpunch, an aggressive journal of public opinion. A
"counterpunch" is a blow a boxer delivers when the opponent's guard is
down in the moment after an attack. It is a deadly technique, an
obscene title for an intellectual journal, which speaks of its editors'
social distance from actual fists.
Bob was in turn speaking outside of academic norms, writing about
something he does no research and apparently little reading on, the
Republic of Viet Nam.
Now Peter and Ed are normalizing the debate, bringing it into the pages
of a peer-reviewed journal, in Ed's area of actual research. That is
great. I was wondering when the grownups would get here.
As a social scientist of the United States and Viet Nam, who has
attended as many of the public meetings of this debate as I can afford,
I point out that this normalization is in contrast to the debate itself.
Bob and Keith are two aggressive thinkers who are dealing, as
intellectuals should, with public matters that are far beyond any
individual mind or professional ability but about which we each
nonetheless must decide and act.
As Philip and George and Chung and John point out, the inescapable
dramatic irony of this debate and others, what the audience can see but
the tragedian himself often cannot, is the gruesome destruction of life
while we all have opinions.
In this particular play Keith is the more interesting actor. He went to
war, and I am biting my tongue about the time he had there, waiting for
him to finally discuss it specifically and to relate those experiences
to his big ideas.
He is working his way toward that, by the evidence of the lectures I
have attended. The only enlisted combat veteran of the US war in Viet
Nam to work as a university researcher on anything in the humanities,
let alone Viet Nam, the conclusions he will arrive at will be a unique
contribution to general American literature.
I was upset and conflicted to see Bob interfere with Keith's progress.
I think that Bob is as ignorant about enlisted soldiers as he is about
Vietnamese. I agree with Bob's general view of war and the US role in
the world.
Bob is a materialist, often a crude determinist. The preface to his
book rings of millenarian faith in progress. I wouldn't want to report
to him after a revolution, or in a department now.
But he is a man, and a fellow scholar, and from my view as a
professional observer at that conference and a connoisseur of violence,
he was violently dealt with. I don't care if it was symbolic violence,
the professionalism Ed speaks of.
Civility keeps the gloves on, but to return to boxing, the only reason
we wear gloves in the ring is to avoid superficial cuts, to avoid
upsetting the civilians. We're still trying to kill the opponent by
punching him in the head.
I am objecting to that. To call a historian a materialist can be to
recognize his roots in Marxism, or it can be to say that he is a
determinist, committed to the denial of contingency, not a historian at
all, neither a researcher of the past nor a teacher of liberal subjects
who must make decisions as if they were consequential.
I suspect that Bob, with his passion for social justice, is a good
teacher, and I know from his book that he is a historian. I heard him
dismissed and I object to that.
I wouldn't bother making this point to Bob, if the situation were
reversed. He thinks it's okay to go around dismissing people. I am
bothering to make it to you all.
There are people who take the Viet Nam war as an excuse to pile on their
opponents, and there are the rest of us here who take those events as an
admonition to figure out what happened and to try to get along.
It's not an easy thing to do, inside an academic department, profession,
or journal or outside. Obviously, I take academics as individuals
operating in public, which it seems to me is the civic realm, where we
can aspire to be civil.
It will take me a week to get back to any replies about this.
Dan
From: Michele Thompson <thompsonc2@southernct.edu>
Date: Apr 18, 2006 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Vsg] re: something nice about Bob Buzzanco: today's news
Dear Dan,
While I agree with much of what you have to say here I'm simply astonished by one of
your statements below and I think that I must be somehow misunderstanding what you have to
say or else we have radically different definitions of what constitutes "research expertise"
in history. Personally I think that Keith Taylor has the necessary linguistic skills,
familiarity with the relevant archives, current knowledge of secondary scholarship, and
current familiarity with other researchers to constitute as "research expertise" for
political and military history of any time period in Vietnamese history up to and including
the American period. If this were about some specialized subfield of history requiring
outside techincal knowledge such as history of music or environmental history or history of
technology I might get your point but as it is I don't get it. Surely you don't mean that
scholars should never do research or publish on topics or time periods other than those
they've already published on?
cheers
Michele
From: Dan Duffy <dduffy@email.unc.edu>
Date: Apr 19, 2006 5:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Vsg] re: something nice about Bob Buzzanco: today's news
Michele,
Keith knows about as much as the Republic of Viet Nam as I do.
Secondary materials plus VN language abilities for random reading. He
reads more Chinese, I read more French.
He doesn't do archival research as an historian on RVN. Ed and Lien do
that. That is not a casual opinion, but my professional judgement in my
habitual manner as a acquisitions editor.
Of course people should write and teach about what they don't actually
know about. I said that in my post. I think it is our duty. I also
said that whatever it is Keith will come up with will be a contribution
to general American literature.
My first job out of college was to help create a library of criticism on
American literature that has been used now by three or four generations
of professors of that subject in their graduate educations. Later on at
PCA and VG I helped to create the study of US literature of the VN war.
So again, this is a professional opinion about the worth of the man's
project, that it will be a contribution to a cultural field I know. I
am not slighting Keith here, just sharing my workman's, disillusioned,
anti-prestige view of his potential accomplishment.
Keith's project excites me because it has to do with his sense of self
as a deliberate and active man with a realistic recognition of the
independent historical trajectory of southern Viet Nam, and the agency
of the people of Saigon and its connected cities.
Both aspects of this project are novel in the literature from the US
soldiers in Viet Nam. To take the only example that most people here
might know, the novelist Tim O'Brien has exerted tremendous influence
pushing the twin themes of the bulk of the literature.
The first theme is: I am damaged. The second theme is: I don't know
anything about history or about Viet Nam. In his only good book,
O'Brien dramatizes these themes in the flight of Cacciato away from Viet
Nam and into fantasy.
The rest of O'Brien's work, as his My Lai book, rehearses these themes
in a less dramatized way, much like most of the rest of the field.
There is a body of work that addresses the impotence and the ignorance
of the American actor with more intelligence, coming from authors such
as Bill Ehrhart and David Willson.
What they run up against is the facts that they are indeed ignorant and
impotent. Bill struggles through a few history books to master the
received version of the Vietnam War. David, a wider reader, finally
isn't interested in mastering Vietnamese history.
Both are further stunted in their professional development in that they
must puruse their writing as a hobby. The Viet Nam veteran author who
is neither a pro-warrior like James Webb or a basket case like O'Brien
has no place in corporate publishing.
So Keith, an enlisted man who has learned Vietnamese and mastered the
institutions of the research unversity, who has weapons against
ignorance and a salary to do whatever it is he wants to do, has earned a
unique opportunity to speak as an American man who can understand Viet Nam.
I am looking forward to his further work very much. I think the
Buzzanco/Taylor debate is an entertaining distraction from that work.
The only intellectual substance to the debate is that Bob's buffoonery
gives Ed a chance to critique the ignorance about VN that is commonplace
among US historians of the VN war.
I answered Michele's post today because it got filtered into her folder
on my email program. I regret that I have to delay replying to any
others on this topic.
Dan