Embedded Files
From: Stephen Denney
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:04 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Vi Duc Hoi, a former Communist Party official, has been sentenced by a court in Lang Son province to eight years in prison, followed by five years house arrest, for posting pro-democracy articles on the internet. He was convicted of "spreading anti-government propaganda," in violation of Article 88 of the Criminal Code. Amnesty International issued a press release today protesting his sentence, which can be found here:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/viet-nam-activist-prison-sentence-condemned-2011-01-26
Steve Denney
library assistant
UC Berkeley
----------
From: Shawn McHale
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:35 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear list,
Flippancy aside, given this verdict, I have often wondered how the issue of democracy and the August "revolution" is addressed in schools. The Viet Minh leadership initially advocated democracy, and often in a quite expansive way. (It backtracked on this, though, after September 1945.)
Shawn McHale
Director
Sigur Center for Asian Studies
Associate Professor of History and International Affairs
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
----------
From: Stephen Denney
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:58 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
According to Frontline Defenders: "Vi Duc Hoi was a member of the Communist Party between 1980 and 2007, during which time he held a number of positions: Director of the Communist Party School in Huu Lung District, Lang Son Province; District Standing Committee Member; and Chairman of the District Propaganda and Education Committee."
see: http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/14290
----------
From: David Brown
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:39 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
@shawn -- So did the Bolsheviks, up to October 1917. David Brown
_
----------
From: Benedict Kerkvliet
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:41 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
One can read about Vi Duc Hoi's journey from being a prominent provincial official in the Communist Party to becoming a critic of the political system. See his "Ð?i m?t: Ðu?ng d?n v?i phongtràodânch?"/http://www.thongluan.org/vn/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3301/
Ben Kerkvliet
Ben Kerkvliet
Emeritus Professor
The Australian National University
Canberra, A.C.T. AUSTRALIA
and
Affiliate Graduate Faculty member
University of Hawai'i
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:11 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear list,
There is a huge difference between "advocacy" and practice.
That is why Thieu said,
"Do not believe what the communists say, watch what they do."
Nghia
----------
From: Shawn McHale <mchale@gwu.edu>
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:49 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Of course there is a difference between advocacy and practice. But it is a mistake to think that Viet Minh = communist, and is a mistake to think that what communists advocated in 2005 or 1965 was the same as 1945.
In 1945, there was a remarkable pluralism of belief among many Viet Minh, not all of whom were communist. These individuals were heir to the struggles from the 1930s. Many of them had long struggled for democracy. The story post-1945 is that of the containment of one vision of democracy, one which embraced freedom of the press, of belief, and of assembly, in favor of the communist understanding of democracy.
----------
From: Shawn McHale <mchale@gwu.edu>
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:55 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
David,
I disagree in one sense -- the Bolsheviks had a particular understanding of democracy that was certainly not that of liberal democracy. Not some of the Viet Minh leaders: some of the intellectual wing were more shaped by French visions of democracy than Soviet ones.
----------
From: <nfe@danviet.dk>
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:00 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear list,
"In the beginning was the deed" ... However, we probably shouldn't
simplify things as much as Goethe (or Thieu).
As an exercise I suggest substituting the word "communists" in Thieus
statement ("Do not believe what the communists say, watch what they do").
E.g.
"Do not believe what the capitalists say, watch what they do."
"Do not believe what Thieu says, watch what he does."
"Do not believe what children say, watch what they do."
"Do not believe what Obama says, watch what he does."
I am probably naïve, but still I like listening to the words of children
as well as to Obama's. Words are important, and words are as often as not
expressing visions for another future - even when a reality check or
politics or something else may block their way.
So, let's stick to hard facts without any prejudices and continue from there.
Best,
Niels
Niels Fink Ebbesen, Chief Consultant, MA
Tel +45 32 96 56 36
Mobile +45 51 29 03 56
Skype nielsfe
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Agree with you, Shaw, if you want to make the differentiation between a communist of 1945, 1965, and 2005.
The fact is that no matter how much a communist (or an infant, adult, capitalist...) changes, he/she remains a communist. That is why Vi Duc Hoi is jailed and sentenced. Vi Duc Hoi is one of these rare people--the exception that proves the rule--who dare to speak the truth about the system.
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 4:49 PM
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:28 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Niels,
There is no prejudice here.
Just the hard facts from one of the guys who had seen the truth from his own eyes and been blessed to have been able to escape thsi horror.
A witness of history
Best
Nghia
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:29 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
We may refine the issue a bit further. As the historical example of post-1954/55 Japan, India, France and Italy shows, even Communist parties of a relatively large following can be more or less successfully integrated into a democratic parliamentary system, though as minority, rather than majority parties. Thus there may not have been an absolutely unbridgeable chasm between a Communist party and democratic practices. This raises the following question: Was the problem in Vietnam caused by the fact that the Communist party became a ruling power, partly due to the absence of a mass-based non-Communist nationalist party comparable to, say, the Indian National Congress?
Best,
Balazs
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:16 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Balazs,
1. The beauty of democracy is that it can accept opposition parties (including communism...) in its government (ie India; France is a different story; it has always leaned left). The contrary is not true: socialist Vietnam is a one-party state that does not tolerate opposition.
2. Nationalist parties (Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang, Dai Viet, Cao Dai, Hoa Hao...) in Vietnam were plentiful, but divided. They could not present a unified front against the communists. Their leaders were ruthlessly killed by the communists. They were not outfought, but "out-administered" by the communists. (Bernard Fall)
Nghia
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:16 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Very good points, but we may go a bit further. The Cao Dai, Hoa Hao and Catholic groups, due to their nature, were not really suitable for representing the majority of the Vietnamese population. The VNQDD and the Dai Viet were closer to the conception of modern secular nationalism, but it remains to be proven whether the VNQDD, which was the more powerful of the two, was strongly committed to democratic ideals. Apart from the fact that its model, the Chinese GMD, rapidly evolved into an authoritarian, almost quasi-totalitarian party, the interwar activities of the VNQDD had little in common with parliamentary democracy and non-violent mass struggle.
----------
From: Michael Digregorio
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:23 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear Nghia,
The problem is that your political categories, on both sides of the cold war fence, are ideal categories. The sociological, political and cultural research that has taken place since the end of the cold war has largely dispelled the ideas you expound below. Mary Douglas, the anthropologists, said a long time ago that people are generally aware of what their society requires of them, and the rewards that are available if they comply. Just think about the rules of success in America? Or Indonesia under Suharto? Or Korea? or even Vietnam. Oddly, I suspect the generation of north vietnamese scholars we have been morning can never be replaced in the current market-oriented regime. They found their space within the socialist system, which also paid, fed and housed them. The less imaginative of the bunch took this as a sinecure. The bright folks, many of whom became a thorn in the sides of their colleagues, found their way through it. Dao The Tuan, Phan Dai Doan, Hoang Ngoc Hien, Tran Quoc Vuong, Nguyen Tu Chi, Dang Phong, just to name a few of our friends who have passed on, all understood the system of rewards, and managed to get what they needed while also maintaing their dignity as intellectuals. And come to think of it, I can't think of any of the people I have just listed as putting their faith in any "ism", political or otherwise.
Mike
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:45 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
This is true, but the very example of South Korea, particularly if compared with Singapore, shows that the combination of effective bureaucratic authoritarianism with rapid economic modernization does not necessarily make people disinterested in looking for a more democratic alternative. While Singapore has been more or less quiet ever since the mid-1960s, South Korea underwent much political turmoil during the three decades of economic transformation (1961-88). That is, each society must have its own reasons for fighting or not fighting against the "powers that be."
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:29 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Neither was the VCP. Even now, the VCP with its 1 million members is NOT representative of Vietnam. What keeps the VCP in power is the Cong An.
How do you know if the VNQDD and Dai Viet are not committed to democracy? Their lives were cut short by the communists. They are more committed to democracy htan the communists.
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2011, 2:16 AM
__
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:37 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
For Confucian societies (the chopstick civilization), democracy is not a straight road like in Europe or America. It has to go through a period of authoritarianism (a la Korea) before moving into democracy.
I suspect South Vietnam, had it been successful, would have to follow the same path. Diem led us that way until the US (which wanted immediate democracy a la US) knocked him down.
Each society has its own roadmap to reach democracy. India has its own way, so does the US. So do Korea, South Vietnam.... An African nation will not follow the Korean or Indian way to freedom and democracy.
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:47 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear Mike,
I am pleased to hear about enlightened communists who made the best of the communist system and flourished.
There are also enlightened communists who could not fit into the system (Nguyen Chi Thien, Truong Nhu Tang, Bui Tin, Duong Thu Huong to name a few) and had to migrate abroad.
There are enlightened communists like Vi Duc Hoi who saw the truth, decided to to fight for it, and got sentenced.
There are tens of thousands of enlightened communists who presently rot in jail, who died in communist jails--unknown people who tried to fight hte system and failed. God bless them.
i could go on and on.....
nghia
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:46 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I have followed the debate about communism vs. the Southern regime with some interest. I can't see much difference in the attitude of communist dictators and non-communist ones. Going further, even democratic leaders (democratic as closer to the ideal of democracy on the polyarchy continuum) show very similar attitudes -- they lie and scheme to stay in power. (I am still searching for the death panels in the US health care law!)
I suggest the reason why more capitalist authoritarian regimes than communist ones have moved toward openness is the underlying structure. When people are free to engage in economic activities outside the aegis of the state, it is harder to control them than when every aspect of their lives is controlled by the Party.
Think about pre-doi moi Viet Nam. Internal checkpoints, you got your food from the government, all your basic needs indeed. That is a system made for control, much more than the Southern Vietnamese regime, Korea or Pinochet's Chile.
But with the economic changes, I see no difference any more. "Communist" Viet Nam today is no more oppressive or devious than any of the Southern regimes.
_________________________________
Thomas Jandl
School of International Service
American University
202-363-6810
thjandl@yahoo.com
----------
From: Ngo, T.
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:52 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Communism and democracy, and what would happen if…; an old tiring discussion!
I do not think the ‘roadmap to reach democracy’ of India, and especially of South Korea is so desirable. Just look at what happened in term of ethnic and religious riot in India and how the ‘democratically elected hindu-nationalist part deal with Muslim population in the 1990s. South Korea maybe a democratic society wherein people are indeed extremely free and vocal in expressing their ideas ( I never seen so many protests in my life as I have seen in two weeks in South Korea last November). Still, it is scary to see how the ‘democratically elected’ rightwing Protestant government of South Korea is doing in term of suppressing Buddhism and other social groups that do not follow the same political or moral direction of Protestant Christianity. The tension between Buddhists and current regime/Protestants is getting worse in recent months. For example, it was early this month when Buddhist monks representing the largest denomination of Korean Buddhism made a 1080 big bow protest against current regime. (see more at http://buddhistcelebrities.blogspot.com/2011/01/korean-buddhist-protest.html)
Maybe when entertaining the idea ‘ what if South Vietnam had been successful’ and Diem were not knocked down by the US…’, would it have followed the same path with South Korea?’ one should read Bruce Cumings’ book, Korea’s Place in the Sun, in particular Ch. 6 & 7 for a historical understanding. Nancy Abelmann’s ethnography, Echoes of past, Epics of Dissent, is great to understand South Korean social movements by 1980s. Charles Armstrong’s books are also good in terms of sociological and historical understanding. His Two Koreas is short and concise, in particular, Ch. 2 is devoted to describe South Korean political and economic transformation.
It is true that society may have its own reasons for fighting or not fighting against the ‘power that be’, but these reasons may never be spontaneously exist!
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:51 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
This is certainly true. What I meant is that if the ICP/VCP had been overshadowed by a broadly based non-Communist nationalist party like the Congress Party in India or the AFPFL in Burma, it would have had only two choices: either to confront the democratic system by means of armed insurrection (and thus marginalize itself) or to conform to its rules. Sometimes I wonder if the absence of a dominant religion in Vietnam might have played a role in the absence of such a catch-all party. After all, parliamentary democracy was a novel idea to the peasant masses all over South and Southeast Asia, but if the party representing it approached them in a way that also appealed to religious traditions (as Gandhi and U Nu appealed to Hindu and Buddhist conceptions, respectively), the new ideas could easier take roots. And even in Cambodia, where there was no real democracy under Sihanouk, his authority, based as it was on tradition and Buddhism, clearly overshadowed that of the Communists. In Vietnam, religion was certainly a strong force, but neither the Buddhists nor the Catholics nor the Cao Dai and the Hoa Hao was a dominant religion comparable to Hinduism in India or Buddhism in Burma and Cambodia.
I merely hinted that the interwar activities of the VNQDD were composed mostly of organizing secret party cells, carrying out assassinations, staging a military insurrection, and living in exile in China. While all these activities can be explained by the conditions of French colonial rule, they had little in common with what the Congress Party did in the same period.
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:55 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Well, Diem's military successors were not particularly committed to democracy, and while the U.S. did insist on holding elections, the American officials did not cry their eyes out that the elections carried out under Ky and Thieu were neither too free nor too fair.:))
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:05 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
In fact, one peculiarity of Vietnam between 1975 and 1985 was that ordinary people did not get all their basic needs from the government. Shortages and unemployment were much higher than in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe, and I think that the utter incapability of the regime to provide said basic needs was one of the most important reasons for adopting radical reforms in 1988-89. Had the system been able to guarantee at least such a false stability as it was common in most of the Warsaw Pact (expect Poland), it might have continued to hesitate and muddle through for a substantial time. Otherwise, I do agree with the comparison between the RVN and today's Vietnam. A comparative analysis is somewhat difficult, however, because the worst violations of human rights under Diem and Thieu were directly related to the armed conflict.
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:32 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Balazs, I agree with your correction of the factual aspect of my statement, but that is not really my point. My point was that a communist regime -- and specifically the Vietnamese one, which we are debating here -- was set up to control people so completely that it was hard to contemplate change. If you depend for everything -- food, job, housing etc, on the state, it is much harder to contest the state, try to bring about change.
By contrast, where a regime gives you economic freedom, it will more likely eventually face demands for political ones. And with Vietnam's reforms, economic freedoms are now much broader, and the situation of the Vietnamese of today is much more comparable to citizens of right-wing regimes than to communist ones.
So my argument is with the idea early on in this discussion that communism is by nature worse than other authoritarian regimes.
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:35 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Communist" Viet Nam today is no more oppressive or devious than any of the Southern regimes. (Jandl)
************************************
I disagree.
Just think about:
1. the 2 million boat people and the ? 100,000-200,000 boat people who dies at sea
2. the 60,000-120,000 (?) who died in reeducation camps and from execution after the war
3. the untold number of people who died in the new economic zones
4. the untold number of people who had been eliminated from 1945 to 2000,
5. the untold number of people who are rotting in jails
6. the untold number of South Vietnamese who were stripped of their belongings, properties and now live at the margins of the society b/c they belong to GVN......
When you talk about a regime, you need to think about what it had done to get what it is now.
Were crimes against humanity? Try to truthfully answer this question.
Nghia
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
For an Asian, third world country, the elections under ky-Thieu were as free as they could be.
There were more than 20 candidates (20 people who vied for the presidency)
Thieu-Ky got only 30% of the votes (they could have stuffed the boxes and get 60%, but they did not)
----------
From: Anh-Minh Do
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:50 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Hi all,
Nghia, Are you saying that there is a quantitative standard that can determine how oppressive a regime or government is? I would argue that the democratic capitalistic USA is just as oppressive as the communist Vietnamese government but in completely different ways (i.e. invading other countries with military forces), if not more so.
I appreciate Martin Jacques' interpretation of Understanding the Rise of China on Ted.com. He talks about how to look at China's "civilization state", and doesn't really address China as a communist state. We in the West make the mistake of viewing Asian governments one-dimensionally and in terms of their political aspects but often fail to see the historical and cultural aspects of governance. I think we can draw parallels from this in talking about Vietnam.
I do agree with Thomas in that economics may have contributed to the behavior of the Communist party after the war, but I also think a post-war mentality also contributed to the behavior. In that, the communist regime, having driven out the Americans would naturally react with fear and paranoia because they were still trying to concretize their legitimacy. The list that Nghia made above seems natural to me as post-war behavior, I don't see it as communist behavior necessarily.
Cheers,
Minh
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:01 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Right, Minh, and maybe I am not making myself clear enough.
I am not blaming economics for the regime's behavior. What I tried to say is that right-wing regimes are more likely to whither away because they give their people economic freedom, which makes it much harder to control every aspect of their lives. As a result, demands are more easily made and more difficultly oppressed.
Since doi moi, Vietnam's regime faces similar pressures. No longer can it control every aspect of its people's lives, since they live their own lives, can get their own jobs, buy food in a store, not through government ration cards. As a result, Vietnam will face the same pressures as other, non-communist regimes faced and still face.
So there is nothing uniquely devious about "communists." Instead, right-wing regimes face more structural obstacles to control. And Vietnam, whether it wants to stick to the label "communism" or not, increasingly faces the same challenges thanks to its economic opening.
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:05 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Balazs, sorry but you are confusing the issues.
1. Yes no country is similar to India with its huge Hindu population and the Congress party. Vietnam is weak b/c it is broken down into many political entities. This was the reason why the VCP with its army was able to steal power in 1945 and stay in power.
2. Had Vietnam had a strong non communist force, would it be able to resist the VCP? Yes and no. Yes, if it was supported by a strong army, No if it did not have a strong army.
3. To illustrate your point, you mention Cambodia. Yes, Sihanouk has more "spiritual" power than the communists. But it did NOT matter, b/c the communists with their army simply toppled him or almost toppled him. The US to prevent a communist take over replaced Sihanouk with Lon Nol, who could not do much. In the end, had the US left everything unchanged, the communists would have simply swept away Sihanouk, no matter how much a spiritual force Sihanouk was.
4. You mention Burma. Same case: strong Buddhist population, strong king who were swept away by the Army generals.
In sum, the rule of law is the GUN. I would even venture to say that even in India, despite the presence of the Congress Party, ahd the communists been well led, were well armed, they would have been able to take power (speculation only).
5. Try Indonesia. Strong Muslim force who did not have an army. The communists almost took power there, except that the Army resisted and took control of the situation.
Nghia
---------
From: Stephen Denney
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:24 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Would the decline of communism as an ideology also be a factor?
Religions can be a force for dissent in authoritarian regimes, can that be happening in Vietnam?
Steve Denney
----------
From: Anh-Minh Do
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:27 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Thomas,
Ah I see your point now, and I very much agree. I also think the interesting thing we're seeing today, with state-run enterprise in China gives us the contrast of success in an economy that is lead by the state. Unfortunately, the current government in Vietnam can only replicate this in stability but not in leading the private sector to innovate the way China has. The latest Party Congress in Vietnam shows a government that is wary of those very pressures. I think the only response they know is successful is regulation because examples of more freedom in the Southeast Asian region have lead political stability (i.e. Red and Yellow Shirts in Thailand).
I doubt the VCP will renounce its communist label after struggling so hard to prove its legitimacy.
Nghia,
When I look at the Middle East and the response of people who won or lost wars to the USA, that is...hatred, terrorism and outright denouncement of the whole Western world, I can't help but think that the Vietnamese governments response to the USA is mild in comparison. The responses of the communists after the war are characteristic of 1) a country that just one a war against the largest military superpower on the planet 2) a government that is trying to prove its legitimacy to the other half of its country 3) a government that is trying to unify two halves of a politically fragmented country, which was only really unified as one country in the past century 4) a country that was infiltrated and influenced by several military superpowers within a few decades. I think those factors played more of a role in the actions you listed than their political platform necessarily. I think the vices that we see in today's Vietnam that are directly affected by communism are corruption, education, stilted state-run enterprise and infrastructural mismanagement and bear more significant weight on contemporary discussion of Vietnam.
- Minh
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:41 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Just look at the sentence from my post you quote: Crucial is the word "today." None of what you mention is about Vietnam today.
In addition, most of what you refer to is related to war, not "communism."
I go to Vietnam a lot, and I haven't seen any boat people making a dash for it recently. Au contraire, the viet kieu are coming back. And year after year, some study from -- I believe -- Singapore National U ranks Vietnamese as the happiest SE Asians (for what such studies are worth). Reeducation camps, untold numbers of dead and refugees, none of that is relevant to what I have said about Vietnam today.
--- On Thu, 1/27/11, Nghia Vo <nghia2520@yahoo.com> wrote:
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:52 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I am not sure how exactly to understand the question. But I don't think that many Vietnamese ever were truly communist. Their "religion" -- or let's call it the dominant discourse -- was liberation from foreign domination (read Chinese, the rest is minor footnotes to their history). The Party liberated Vietnam and unified it under the rule of Vietnamese. That, I would think, most Vietnamese appreciate.
But that achievement only serves you so long. "Do you want Jones back?" (as in Animal Farm) just works as long as you remember Jones. Vietnam is a young country, and people want something entirely different now than their grandparents. Legitimacy by success is what ultimately any regime has to offer. Success in war is the polisci classic, but in today's China, Vietnam and even the USofA, it's success in the economy. You make my life better, you can rule over me.
What gets lost in the rhetoric over whether the southern or northern regimes were more brutal way back when is that most Vietnamese have no particular interest in regime change for ideological reasons. They want to keep getting better off.
Obviously, you can translate that into "decline of communism as an ideology" because the market forces that have created the increased prosperity don't go well with Marx and Lenin. Ideology, as I see it, does little for or against the government. It's inflation and declining living standards that bear in themselves the seeds of the regime's destruction. And so they have to grow the economy, but they know that the more they create a middle class, the more they are reforming themselves into the margins. A lose-lose situation. Improve the economy and you are creating your own future opposition. Let it sink and you get anger and instability. I think it's really about the 'how' of the changes, not 'whether.' And that is such a basic observation. Nothing lasts forever.
----------
From: Mac McIntosh
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:04 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Thomas , Many people who follow these matter closely would disagree with your analysis . Here's a quote from Elaine Pearson, Deputy Director for Asia of Human Rights Watch : " We saw the prosecution and imprisonment of a number of dissidents, bloggers and lawyers and we also saw the independent religious groups face harassment." She was talking about Human Rights violations in 2010 , not 20 years ago .
Mac McIntosh
Bluff, New Zealand
----------
From: Mac McIntosh
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:24 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Thomas , You bring up a very old question: Have the Vietnamese Communists become Communist Vietnamese ? Has Marxism-Leninism been an way to express patriotism in Vietnam or has Vietnamese patriotism been exploited at the alter of of Communist ideology ?
A constant question is who is winning over whom (ai thang ai ?) . When you say that you think most Vietnamese appreciate the fact that the VCP now rules Vietnam , I am sure you are limiting your comment only to those Vietnamese within Vietnam , Of course , any valid polling on the question is impossible .
__
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:17 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
This is mostly true, but not in all cases. If a regime undertakes to provide its population with all their basic needs, and utterly fails to do so, it actually risks quite substantial opposition that can be kept in check only the most brutal forms of mass repression. This is why massive protests broke out in Poland and Hungary in 1956 when the leaderships' control became significantly weaker. On the other hand, there were certain "capitalist" authoritarian regimes which managed to stay in power for several decades without facing such an opposition that seriously endangered their rule. See, for instance, Singapore, Mexico, Portugal, and Paraguay (I do not mention Middle Eastern and African examples, which may not be comparable at all). Letting the people to do some private business is actually a smart move to preserve the regime, because then individuals will focus their attention on getting richer, and they may become less inclined to blame the state for anything that goes wrong. In the Communist era, East Europeans developed a mentality that might be summarized by a paraphrase of Murphy's law: "If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong, and it will go wrong because the government is incompetent.":)) Once the state withdraws its tentacles a bit, people won't be irritated on an everyday basis, and they may remain comparatively relaxed, quiet or at least apolitical for a substantial time.
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:24 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Well, of course if a government comes to power after a long and bitter civil war, mass repression is quite likely, be the government a Communist one or not. See Franco's Spain, for instance. On the other hand, the forced socio-economic transformation of the South was carried out along quintessentially Communist lines, which actually alienated a number of people who had been more or less sympathetic toward the NLF during the war.
___
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:35 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Don't forget that (1) the Viet Minh army was not particularly strong in 1945 (it actually did not fight much against the Japanese, Communist mythology notwithstanding), and (2) the French military was still a quite active force, so to say.
The Khmer Rouge's own guerrilla forces never constituted a serious threat to Sihanouk; the Vietnamese Communist forces residing in Cambodia could have been, but they preferred to make lucrative deals with Sihanouk instead. The Khmer Rouge started gaining strength only when Lon Nol took over and the Khmer Rouge could use the name of the exiled Sihanouk to recruit followers.
U Nu was a prime minister, while the head of state was a president. Sorry.
This is not so simple. Communist guerrilla activities in South Korea, Burma, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines never became strong enough to topple the government, and I doubt if the Pathet Lao could have succeeded without massive assistance from Hanoi. Vietnam was actually a quite unique case.
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:42 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
When you say that you think most Vietnamese appreciate the fact that the VCP now rules Vietnam.
Sorry, but Thomas did not say so. What he said was that most Vietnamese appreciate that they no longer live either under foreign rule or in a divided country. But since the VCP had accomplished these feats over thirty years ago, people won't be eternally grateful for this. A whole generation has grown up without any direct personal experience of the war and national division, let alone French rule. For them, new sources of legitimacy will be needed.
----------
From: Walter james Mc intosh
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:01 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear Balazs Szalontai . ,
The exact words were " The Party liberated Vietnam and unified it under the rule of the Vietnamese.That, I would think , most Vietnamese appreciate. "
There are many Vietnamese in the world that would say the North Vietnamese Communist regime started a war of aggression against the non-communist nation of South Vietnam and prevailed in that war of aggression . And most living Vietnamese people outside of Vietnam don't appreciate that at all.
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:26 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I would rather say that in the late 1950s, both regimes, North and South, sought to dispatch men to the other half of the country with the purpose of inflicting damage on the rival regime, but while northern attempts to set up a guerrilla network in the South were successful, the RVN commandos sent north could not take roots in a comparable way, and were quickly wiped out. North Vietnamese regular units were sent south mostly after the first direct clashes with the U.S. in 1964. All in all, it is certainly true that by the time the Saigon regime was overthrown, the force toppling it was primarily the NVA, rather than the South Vietnamese guerrillas who had been badly decimated in the previous years.
----------
From: Walter james Mc intosh
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:51 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
You could of course say that , but it would be a preversion of history. The North Vietnamese Communist regime signed an International Cease Fire treaty wherein they promised to bring all of their forces North , but in direct violation of that signed treaty , they covertly ordered over 10,000 of their best trained cadre to remain in place in the South and they also cached tons of weapons and ammo in secret locations in the South in Direct violation of that signed Int'l treaty . there was no such actions or like violations of that treaty by the French .
Mac McIntosh
Bluff, NZ
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:07 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Well, neither the South Vietnamese government nor the U.S. signed the Geneva agreements, and after it became clear that the 1956 elections which the Geneva agreements called for would not be held, Hanoi obviously thought that it was pointless to observe an agreement which the other side never wanted to observe. Still, my point is that had the South Vietnamese system been stable and popular enough, the men Hanoi dispatched to the South would have ended up in the same way as the North Korean commandos whom Kim Il Sung sent to subvert South Korea in the 1960s.
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:40 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Under the veil of unity, the division remains.
1. VCP-Cong An dominated society and the rest
VCP: 1 million Catholics: 4 million
Buddhists: 22 M
Cao Dai: ?2 million
Poor: 80%
Students:....
2. South and North. Remember that South-North rivalry started in 1600 when Nguyen Hoang moved south and began expanding the south.
3. The "other" Vietnam: the Viet Kieu
Since Au Co took 50% of the children to the mountains and Lac Long Quan took 50% of the sons to the seaside, the Vietnamese have been divided in more than one camp.
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:50 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
That is the point.
There was massive post war repression that still continues today.
That is why the division remains.
When the US civil ended, General Lee sent southerners home and their defeated leaders could keep their swords. The result was a united America
In 1975, when the South was defeated,
1 million southerners were sent to reeducation camps
southerners were stripped of their properties, houses......
2 millions left home for abroad
60-100,000 were killed
That is why the division remains.
----------
From: will pore
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:08 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
On several counts, your comparison of a divided Vietnam with the US Civil War is too facile. Historical studies of Vietnam and its wars which deal with the illusive phenomenon referred to as "memory," for example, would compare in only the palest form to the continuing outpouring of works up to the present day concerning the American Civil War that might even figuratively be included in that category.
Will Pore
William F. Pore, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Global Studies
College of Economics and International Trade
Pusan National University
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:36 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
The gesture, no matter how symbolic or truthful it was, worked a lot toward the healing process.
Gen. Lee: "You could keep your horses and swords and go home ...in peace."
the VCP (1975) to the southerners:
"Just bring 3 days or 10 days of food for retraining."
The 3- or 10-day supply turned into a 10-year or 22-year of hard labor in concentration camps.
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:48 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
The Party liberated Vietnam and unified it under the rule of Vietnamese (Jandl)
1. The VCP had never liberated the South b/c the South never wanted to be liberated from its southern (entrepreneurial, commerce-oriented) way. The South was already an almost free society.
It is the South that liberated the North economically.
It is the North that embraced capitalism.
2. The VCP never liberated the South. It was a military conquest, another oppression but instead of being by foreigners, it was by northern communists.
3. In the annals of the South, the VCP is no more no less the modern French colonialists.
Nghia
2.
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:50 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Crucial is the word "today." (Jandl)
Today, Vietnam is a Country of Concern (COI)
----------
From: will pore
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:50 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
"Those who had been on the losing side were nostalgic for the old days but reconciled to the new state of things and trying to make the best of it." Duong Van Mai Elliott, "The sacred Willow," p. 470
Will
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:09 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
They did.
They are called the Viet Kieu, one of the challengers of the VCP.
That is why you have the new TWO VIETNAMS
-VCP controlled Vietnam v the Viet Kieu
-VCP v the people in Vietnam (80% poor oppressed)
-VCP v Buddhists, Catholics, Cao Dai.....
----------
From: Thi-Bay Miradoli
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:41 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Different ways of looking at history (the simplified version straight from US archives):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LctoUV-tag
Thi Bay Miradoli
----------
From: Minna Hakkarainen
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:27 AM
To: vsg@u.washington.edu
To me this discussion is an example of how the same historical events (and analysis of the current society) can accommodate different and even contradictory interpretations. The same phenomenon can be found from all (especially post-war) societies including Finland for decades (as long as those involved and their children are alive, according to our experience).
However, it seems to me a bit simplistic to explain all the misery in the world by communism (which I hear often from viet kieus, but not from those living in Vietnam - they see various causes behind the problems, politics being just one of them). Similarly, I have been surprised (in other context than this list) by causal explanations between communism and corruption. Can anyone seriously claim that e.g. China did not have corruption prior to the communist regime? Or that Russian communists introduced corrupt practices to the country? Such claims show either the ignorance or denial of history. In both China and Russia those in power (including petty bureaucrats) have had their ways of getting some 'extra salary' long before Marx was even born. So where is the causal relationship?
My understanding is that absolute power corrupts no matter what political ideologies those in power represent (or in many cases, claim to represent). Asian countries among many others in the world have a tradition of looking after private (family/clan) interests over those of the nation. Could this have a role in problems that are sometimes labelled as 'communist' ones?
Just thinking...
Best,
Minna Hakkarainen
Institute of Development Studies
P.O. Box 59 (Unioninkatu 38 E)
00014 University of Helsinki
FINLAND
----------
From: JKirkpatrick
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:46 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Speaking as an anthropologist, I applaud your argument, Ms.
Hakkarainen.
Regards,
Joanna Kirkpatrick
Film re. ed.
Visual Anthropology
----------
From: Mac McIntosh
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:41 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
There were many elements of President Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy thayt I thought were both immoral and unconstitutional but I totally agreed with one of the opening lines of that document :
" In the 21st Century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future proserity. "
I think those words certainly apply to Vietnam - However ,that's looking at the long run , not short term .
Mac McIntosh
The Lighthouse
Bluff, New Zealand
----------
From: Mac McIntosh
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:52 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Balazs, There was only one Int'l agreement signed in Geneva by anyone . The one signed by North Vietnam's communist government had as it's very first article the promise to remove all thir forces to the North . The covert order to cache tons of arms and ammo and keep in the South over 10,000 of their best trained cadre was made before the ink was dry on the agreement . Later post 75 , this was explained by the old Communist saw of any means to an end are acceptable under Marxism-Leninism . Of course , Communist North Vietnam also immediately violated the 62 treaty on Laos and the 73 Peace accords.
-----From: Balazs Szalontai
----------
From: Thi-Bay Miradoli
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:08 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
When he said "protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom" did he mean in the US or also in the countries where the US has been, and is currently, involved? Or maybe Bush was also looking at the long run...
2011/1/29 Mac McIntosh <alohamac@xtra.co.nz>
----------
From: Hoang t. Dieu-Hien
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:33 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I would not lump all Vie^.t Kie^`u together as all opposing or all supporting the current government of Vie^.t Nam. There are many shades of gray.
I can say with certainty that there are Vie^.t Kie^`u who disagree with specific actions by the Vietnamese government. However, that does not mean that they oppose the regime. The same can say for the reverse.
Currently, I know of no person nor group who has the authority nor credibility to speak for all Vie^.t Kie^`u.
Die^.u-Hie^`n
--
Hoang t. Dieu-Hien
Lecturer/Fieldwork Coordinator
----------
From: Kim-Son H. Nguyen, MD, MPA
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:16 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Hoang t. Dieu-Hien <dieuhien@uw.edu> wrote:
Good point about many shades of gray, and of course no one can speak for all Viet Kieu, as no one can speak for all Americans or all Tunisians or Egyptians. But there are values in generalizations, are there not? From personal experiences, I think most Viet Kieu do not support the current Vietnamese government. But that is perhaps due to my selection bias. My next question for the group is: have there been studies, pollings, surveys, etc... looking at the support for the VCP among the overseas communities? Or is it a data-free zone?
Kim-Son
Kim-Son H. Nguyen, MD, MPA
Oncology Hospitalist, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Instructor in Medicine, Harvard Medical School
----------
From: Dominic Nguyen
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I think it’s helpful to keep in mind that there are differences between the ethnic Vietnamese communities in Australia, U.S., Norway, Canada…and those in England, France, Germany, Eastern Europe, and Russia. And I have no idea how ethnic Vietnamese in Thailand would feel about the issue.
There are different circumstances involved for how each individual decided to leave Vietnam, as well as subsequent generational differences of opinions. For example, the son of a family whom fled in 1975 returned to Vietnam to later marry the daughter of the Prime Minister. A lot of overseas Vietnamese have returned to live and do business in Vietnam, including the owner of the Hanoi restaurant that sells $35 bowls of pho using Kobe beef. Also more famously, the owner/intellectual writer of Tadioto, Mr. Nguy?n Qúi Ð?c. I read Where the Ashes Are and I was struck by despite how much Anh Ð?c and his family had personally suffered, his love for Vietnam never diminished and he decided to return and live there. Some may disagree, but I deeply respect that he could overcome the past to make that decision. Lastly, a lot of older overseas Vietnamese have returned to retire and live out their last days in Vietnam.
I agree with Di?u Hi?n that there are many shades of gray on this issue. I think how each overseas ethnic Vietnamese wants to deal with and regard the current ruling regime is their own personal choice. And I second Tom Jandl. When it comes to the future political direction of Vietnam, the decision lies with the people living within the country now whom have to deal with the everyday struggle and vicissitudes of life there.
----------
From: Kim-Son H. Nguyen, MD, MPA
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Dominic Nguyen <dominic816@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it’s helpful to keep in mind that there are differences between the ethnic Vietnamese communities in Australia, U.S., Norway, When it comes to the future political direction of Vietnam, the decision lies with the people living within the country now whom have to deal with the everyday struggle and vicissitudes of life there.
Perhaps you meant "the decision should lie with the people living within the country..."? I do wish your original construct were true, though.
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:33 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
While the analogy with the U.S. is somewhat doubtful (the South by no means took lightly the post-war Reconstruction, so to say), I do agree that the non-democratic nature of the VCP regime played a crucial role in that even after the first wave of repression, institutional discrimination against people associated with the RVN continued for a long time, and only one narrative of the war could be freely expressed. Notably, both the Franco regime in Spain and the Horthy regime in Hungary, right-wing authoritarian regimes as they were, pursued similar policies toward the defeated Left. In contrast, Finland, which, as Minna would know better than me, also underwent a very brutal civil war after WW I, proved able to integrate the losing side (the Social Democrats) into the political system, mainly because commitment to democracy was strong. As soon as 1919, the SDP was allowed to participate in elections, and it gained 80 of the 200 seats. This would have been unthinkable either in Franco's Spain or post-1975 Vietnam.
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:44 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Oh yes, corruption is fueled by a number of factors, and its relationship to authoritarian/Communist rule widely varies. It is quite likely that large-scale bribery was less common in North Vietnam in the 1950s and 1960s, i.e., in the worst years of repression and poverty, than today, not the least because lucrative opportunities were less available and cadres were afraid of purges. Non-democratic rule, with its lack of transparency, can, and often does, stimulate corruption, but this is not an absolute rule, either. For instance, both authoritarian Indonesia under Suharto and democratic India had far more corruption than authoritarian (or semi-authoritarian) Singapore.
----------
From: Mac McIntosh
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 6:00 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Franco died in November 1975 and less than 6 months later the Communist Party of Spain was active in participation in a more or less free election . That was the whole point made by Jean Kirkpatrick when she said that non-communist authoritian regimes have a much better chance of reforming to meet the peoples needs and wishes. Ho Chi Minh died in 1969 yet the oppressive and repressive policies continue to this day .
Mac McIntosh
The Lighthouse
Bluff, NZ
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 6:15 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Ironically, the fact that the PCE survived the decades of Franco's rule resulted mainly from the fact that his regime was more totalitarian than authoritarian. That is, Franco banned all parties, on a wide scale, instead of singling out the PCE for persecution, in the same way as it happened in Mussolini's Italy. When these regimes collapsed, many of the old parties re-emerged, including the PCE and the PCI. In contrast, in Suharto's Indonesia and Syngman Rhee's South Korea, the Communist parties were harshly repressed, but some other non-Communist opposition parties were allowed to participate in politics, albeit deprived from the chance of winning an election. As a result, the Communist movements simply disappeared in these countries for good, because if someone still wanted to oppose the regime, there were some safer ways to do it than in Communist colors.
----------
From: Anh-Minh Do
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:31 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I'd have to agree that there are major generational differences going on amongst Viet Kieu's. There's the generation of people born in the late 70's and early 80's whose only impression of Vietnam comes from their parents, in the USA these parents are largely anti-communists. In those ranks, there are people who either don't care about Vietnam at all, or those that are very interested in discovering it for themselves without their parents' prejudices. To answer Kim-Son, I've yet to see any studies on this, but I'm sure it's varied. And the obvious concentration of those opposed would be found in Orange County, CA. I think, from Viet Kieu's I've run into who are not in the USA, there's not as much hostility towards the VCP outside large concentrations of Vietnamese Overseas.
I think another generational gap is also very visible in Vietnam today. That is, between the folks born after '75 and those not. And that younger generation accounts for almost 60%+ of the total population. I think this large population has little or no historical connection to the war, have been poorly educated about Vietnam and the world, and treat the government more as a nuisance than as a cause for political dissent (until, of course, certain essential rights are stripped of them). I don't think that the fabric of Vietnamese society is so tenuous that it would turn into full scale dissent, mainly because life, in general, in Vietnamese society is still good. Vietnam is constantly being charted as one of the happier countries to live in in the world.
I agree that communism does not necessarily breed corruption, but I'd also argue that this specific type of communist bureaucracy does breed its type of corruption. This Reuters article on competition between Vietnam's subsidized companies versus the strictly private companies outlines that well. Just as in the USA, we have our own types of corruption (i.e. lobbyists). I'd argue that every government is corrupted at some level and to some degree depending on the economic landscape surrounding it.
"In the 21st Century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity." - I think this quotation is ironic, because today we are witnessing China's sunrise and the West's sunset.
Cheers,
Minh
----------
From: Mac McIntosh <
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:52 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Minh , I am of the opinion that much of what has been unleased in China and to a great extent in Vietnam is primarily due to the economic freedom that has come about in the past 20 years. There is certainly a long way to go in political freedom but I don't think it can be denied that economic freedoms as allowed by the Communist Party in both China and Vietnam have unleashed great potential and economic strides ahead .
----------
From: Anh-Minh Do
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:44 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Mac, I think the issue for me in this quotation is "potential of the people" and I'd wager that the Vietnamese and Chinese definition of the potential of the people are vastly different from the USA, and they certainly have different strategies on how to "bring that out". What I think we witness today, with the economic crash, is evidence that the American and European politico-economic systems are not as robust as heretofore thought. Basically, what I'm saying is, it may be that in the Chinese definition of the "potential of the people", political freedom is not needed to engender that. And recent current events seem to support that. I'll paraphrase Martin Jacques, "countries like China, India Brazil, etc. rising to the global economic scene represent the single most important act of democratization in the last 200 years, civilizations which were not known about, not listened to, etc. will have a different voice in this world." I think what we will see in the next century is a challenge to Bush's quote and the "potential of the people" may come to mean more than what Bush is alluding to.
--
Minh Do
----------
From: Kim-Son H. Nguyen, MD, MPA
Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 12:58 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Interesting insights, Anh-Minh. A few points:
1) The necessity of political freedom: Hard to believe that as a very liberal Democrat, I am siding with Bush (or perhaps more accurately, his speechwriter), but I agree with that short quotation. It remains to be seen if political freedom is only optional in creating a robust society that can "unleash the potential of the people." Of course all authoritarian governments think their countries have political freedom, but one can perhaps loosely define political freedom as the ability of citizens to practice freedom of speech and change their government peacefully if the citizens desire. It is too early to tell if China can manage its vast problems, or even more narrowly maintain its economic growth, without more political freedom. (On a separate question: should there be political freedom in China or Vietnam? I think all of us on this list would say yes, but I might be wrong.)
2) The prejudices of the older Viet Kieu: It is sometimes easy for later-generation overseas Vietnamese or hyphenated Vietnamese to dismiss their parents' ardent anti-communist views as prejudices, i.e. prejudgment or assumption without adequate knowledge. I do not agree with many of these older folks' views and I think many of their tactics are counterproductive, but I would not consider their ideas prejudices necessarily. When you spent eight, nine years in re-education camps, survived dangerous escapes by boats, and, more traumatically, tried to survive in a foreign land by cleaning toilets, doing nails, or washing cars without knowing a word of English, you would probably have strong opinions about the current Vietnamese government too.
Kim-Son
Division of Hematology-Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 4:35 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
What a presumption!
Men/women being equal DO need political freedom to growth, no matter whether they ar black, yellow, or white. Chinese/Vietnamese leaders will learn their lesson soon or later.
It is a form of new colonialism if we start to think that people are unequal and do not need freedom. Therefore, give freedom back to the people of Vietnam. In the same line of reasoning, the VCP are the new colonialists. They invaded the South and they deprived the people of their "political freedom."
As to whether, European/US economies are robust or not, they are. They may sputter, but they will grow.
Nghia
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:02 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
to explain all the misery in the world by communism (which I hear often from viet kieus, but not from those living in Vietnam (Minna)
Minna,
How could people in Vietnam voice their opinion? If they do, they will end up like Vi Duc Hoi and the many other dissidents in jails or concentration camps?
How could they do that? Even Father Ly was gagged in court right in front of the press and the world to prevent him from talking.
Father Ly was sentenced to 8 years in prison
As for corruption in Asia, it is part of life b/c of the Confucian system. Once a person passes the exam, he becomes an official (mandarin) and with the title come not wages, but a property or piece of land that the official has to exploit for a living. Of course, the majority of mandarins are fair and good, but many are not. This second group of people exploits the system to their advantages and corrupts it.
That said, communism with its power and shadiness corrupts the system further; that is why corruption is multi-times worse than it has been before.
Absolute power corrupts.
Nghia
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:17 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I think this large population has little or no historical connection to the war, have been poorly educated about Vietnam and the world, (Minh Anh)
To say that the people are poorly educated about the war is not correct. The VCP has a very efficient propaganda machinery that begins teaching children about the war and its "enemies" from kintergarden onward. These children know more about the war and imperialists than any other schoolchildren in the world.
If these same children are now dissatisfied with the government, whose fault is that? Is it poor teaching or lack of teaching? Is that poor teaching or poor governance?
Nghia
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:34 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
We are going off topic here, but I want to remind people that the end of capitalism has been announced dozens of times. This crisis has not shown me at all that the capitalist (or Western, if you wish) system is not as robust as assumed (as Minh has claimed). Some national systems are better than others in lessening the blows that are common to capitalism, and the US system is at the bottom of the pile in that regard. But other than that, the system is sound. Schumpeter was right. On the ruins of every moment of destruction, another edifice is erected. (I recall a discussion at my university after the 1997 Asian crisis, where a professor gleefully asked a World Bank rep what they are doing now, given that the idea of Asian development based on free trade is definitely dead.)
The question really is whether the Chinese and Vietnamese systems of heavy state intervention are a new model of organizing capitalism, or, less grand, simply a slow move toward Nordic social democracy, or a failing end run of the Communist idea that will end in collapse.
My guess is that it is in between. As we have discussed here at length, both CPs, in China and Viet Nam, have bet the farm on economic growth, so some form of capitalism it will be. If they can sustain growth (and they are overdoing it, so inflation was highly predictable), the system will probably change slowly, similar to Korea. If they cannot sustain growth, it will come down much faster and in an uproar.
The real question for me is this: They cannot keep growing at 7% a year forever. But that is the expectation that has been nurtured. Will 3% be enough to prevent people from getting angry?
Thomas Jandl
----------
From: Walter james Mc intosh
Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:10 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Kim , Just a short correction . That short quote was not from a speech but rather from the USA Strategic Security Plan issued by the Bush Admin in Oct 2002. The document itself was highly unconstitutional and in direct violation of the Nurenberg Judgement .
Kim said/ Highly snipped//
----------
From: Anh-Minh Do
Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:45 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Hi all,
I think what we may be missing in the discussion of the "potential of the people" is that some society's would focus on the individual potential of a person versus the overall potential of "the people". I think China views the potential of the people as a civilization and is willing to violate individual people's political freedom to achieve that (even to the point of killing and displacing their own citizens). We in the West revere the individual's rights and I think that contributes to the feeling of many Vietnamese coming to the USA to live because they don't experience that in Vietnam.
Kim-Son, I think by calling the older generations' ideas prejudices, I don't mean to invalidate their experiences, and they certainly have a historical significance besides. Nevertheless, more often than not, those alleged ideas often prevent objective research and understanding of Vietnam and is rarely productive in terms of helping the people who get the shorter end of the stick in this entire political affair (i.e. people in poverty). Many people who have worked to help Vietnam are accused of being communists by the anti-communists, potentially hurting their career, and holding back the overseas Vietnamese community.
Thomas, I'd like to make a quick correction. I am not of the view that capitalism is synonymous with "the West". I think Vietnam and China are today very capitalist nations although certainly not ruled by capitalists the way certain Western countries are. My view is that, as many historians have been saying for the past decade, the last 200 years of Western political, cultural and economic domination have been a historical anomaly. These historians believe that eventually the tide would turn back to the Middle Kingdom as it was for 1,000's of years. What we are seeing today is the robustness of different types of economies including the imperial version from the Chinese and the emerging economies of India and Brazil, etc.
I'd agree that maintained economic growth is one of the bigger questions for Vietnam today. I think the linchpin will be the education of the people and the openness of the government. We are already starting to see cracks in the Vietnamese stock market and the real estate market.
- Minh
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 9:53 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
This is indeed the key question, but in a somewhat different way. In Singapore, the population came to believe (with good reason) that the government had played a decisive role in bringing about the economic miracle, and if there was an economic downturn (as it occurred in 1983 or 1997), it was attributed more to external than to internal factors. Thus in periods of crises the population did not necessarily blame the government but rather expected it to be able to solve the problem. I am inclined to doubt if the majority of the Vietnamese population has a similar trust in its own government, and hence a slowdown might indeed generate more negative reactions than in Singapore.
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai
Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:12 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
BTW, you said earlier that the defeat of the RVN by North Vietnamese forces was comparable to a foreign conquest, such as the imposition of French colonial rule. Should Communist rule over North Vietnam be also considered a form of alien occupation, or only northern rule over the South?
----------
From: Nghia Vo
Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 1:10 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Balazs, you like to ask tricky questions.
It is a matter of semantics.
In view of what has happened to the reporter in Hanoi, it is bad for my health to answer your question openly.
The VCP has long arms, you know.
Nghia
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:14 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Minh, I take your point about capitalism =not West. But there is still a problem with your historical account. The West as an anomaly -- history is on the side of the Middle Kingdom. No need to discuss China's pre- vs. post-Mongol history (a good and very concise account of China's decline from a political economy point of view can be found in Parent&Prescott's Barriers to Riches). I'd just point out that China is not reverting to the Middle Kingdom -- hence there your allusion that this is a reverting to the "norm" of history is misguided. China is adopting the Western model -- industrialization, more market, exports, FDI etc. So even if China keeps rising, that would not be evidence that the Western model is not robust. It would only show that the term "Western" may be simply an indicator of where the model originated. It has always been declared universal by its proponents, after all.
----------
From: Minna Hakkarainen
Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:27 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear Nghia,
I guess we all know that there are no easy, nor simple answers here. In fact, people in Vietnam (my experience comes, in fact, mainly from Hanoi and other Northern regions) complain a lot about everyday problems, but they do not address that as a direct consequence of the political system. And this does not mean that they are totally happy with the system either. Such complaintments are allowed, as long as you don't critise the system per se. So the question is, why only a few rise their voices against the system? No simple answer here as well. People are different everywhere. My understanding is that many do not see any political alternative, which is not a surprise as there isn't really any space for it. But many, instead of talking about change in system, talk about changes in terms of persons. But it always depends on who you talk with.
As to my comment to viet kieu. I did not mean to say that all viet kieu represent strong, even hostile anti-communist views. But those that do and those that I have met personally have all been viet kieu from the South and have a refugee background. Moreover, they tend to be male and often elderly people (meaning that they were adults prior to 75).
What strikes me is that even decades abroad do not help them to let go the past. Psychologically this is understandable in very many cases, but from a purely human perspective it is sad to see that their mind is so preoccupied with the past that they find very little joy in the present. This is very different, I think, with the Vietnamese living in Vietnam (at least in the North). They seem to focus for the future and let the past be past. But again, my intention is not to generalise saying that this is the full picture.
Those opposing the current regime do not always seem to offer a political alternative either in terms of democracy. I once witnessed viet kieus from Germany spoiling an international seminar by shouting e.g. that the entire agent orange issue is invented by the communist and that such things never happened in Vietnam. At least to me it was difficult to see how those activists could bring a better regime to anywhere.
As it was mentioned before, Finland was able to sort its history out after our civil war, not entirely, but to some extend - so that the society strived for including all citizens to work for the benefit of the nation. And even then it took two generations to really forget the division.. We are dealing with psychologically extremely difficult issues here. But as far as I have been able to hear narratives from both South and North... people in each side know what suffering is. It could unite them, but it doesn't. Unfortunately.
Best,
minna Lainaus
----------
From: Tuan Hoang
Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:49 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Every now and then, these topics have popped up on VSG. I've read only a portion of this thread (which has almost 90 posts thus far!) and like to add a few points.
* Viet Kieu generations: These are real and important differences, but I am a bit cautious on generalizing about generation-based attitudes regarding the current regime. In my admittedly limited experience, so many among the "older" generation seem to care little about anticommunism (reflected by their contribution to causes other than anticommunist ones, the absence of anticommunist rhetoric in conversation or in response to anticommunist provocation, etc.) On the other hand, I think many among the "younger" generation that are strongly anticommunist. Their style, means, and expressions, however, could be different. Probably their goals too, at least in the short term. (The long-term goal is, of course, political pluralism.) IMO, it'd be more helpful to examine those differences from more than the "generational thesis." For a start, more polling and research from social scientists would be a big improvement over anecdotes and impressions, my own included.
* One issue conspicuously absent in discussions on VSG and elsewhere about is that VK anticommunists are very much a divided lot. In many ways, this is a reflection of pre-1975 anticommunism in the RVN. One of the most oft-repeated lines among VK anticommunists, for instance, is, "Beware of communist infiltration in our community." (This too, I think, strongly echoes the experience of the pre-1975 period.) Without dismissing the possibility that the current regime tries to extend influence over overseas communities, it seems to me that much of the divisiveness among anticommunist VK has been self-inflicted: ad hominem attacks and counter-attacks, even assault and assassinations in the 1980s and 1990s. Some of the anticommunist VK seem to have over-compensated for the internal problem by placing even more blame on the current regime (e.g., accusing it of manufacturing or overplaying the Agent Orange issue).
* I'm going out on a limb here, but another problem is the weak coordination and connection between overseas anticommunists on the one hand and in-country reformers on the other hand. In the US at least, even the relationship between VK community leaders and Vietnamese here on visa (e.g., students) strikes me as tenuous if not non-existent. If true, it is a missed opportunity.
* That said, it is only fair to acknowledge that the current Vietnamese regime has also failed to improve relations with overseas anticommunist groups. This is too large a topic to get into, and very complicated for reasons of history, culture, and politics. Anyway, some sort of an official apology for postwar treatment of former ARVN officers and RVN officials could have gone a long way to improve relations, at least for a plurality of anticommunist VK. (There is a faction that will never accept anything less an overthrow of the current regime, but that is to be expected as an outcome of any major conflict.) Unfortunately, it is unlikely that this would come any soon. Seen from this angle, perhaps it is more understandable that many anticommunist VK have persisted in their view of the postwar regime.
~Tuan Hoang
----------
From: Tai, Hue-Tam Ho
Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:54 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
How people feel about their present situation depends to a large extent on their frame of reference, both real and imagined.
When I went to Vietnam in the mid 1990s, I talked to people in both the North and the South. To a person, northerners were happy with the new policies which they truly saw as changing to the new; they also talked of the state having "corrected mistakes" by adopting Doi Moi. These were people who had immediately left cooperatives and gone into household-based production.
When I went to Saigon, some people scoffed at the name "Doi Moi" and said the policy could more accurately be characterized as "thut lui," going back to the pre-1975 era. They complained mightily about corruption. When I said that the southern regime had been described as corrupt they claimed that the scale of corruption was greater than anything they had experienced before 75.
It is clear to me that many southerners, both in Vietnam and overseas, have an overly rosy picture of the pre-75 South.
Having said this, I do not see any sign of Vietnam going the way of Tunisia or Egypt. Part of it has to do with the fact that life has gotten easier over the last couple of decades and part of it is the memories of the havoc created by war and revolution. Think about Nguyen Huy Thiep's Vang Lua trilogy...
Hue-Tam Ho Tai
Kenneth T. Young Professor
of Sino-Vietnamese History
----------
From: Nghia Vo <nghia2520@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear Minna,
Knowing you through this group and reading your email, I can feel that you are a compassionate person who can understand different points of view. Although you raise many valid questions, I cannot answer to all of them b/c of time and space limitation.
Your understanding of the Vietnamese problem may be similar to my understanding of the Jewish problem. I often wonder why the Jews did not want to settle for peace and live happily in the present as well as enjoy the benefits of peace and prosperity. To ask these questions, is to simplify the problem. The Jewish problem is complex, so is the Vietnamese problem. Only those who have lived within the historic and geographic confines of these states could understand these problems.
It is not that we do not want to enjoy the present and forget the future. Who would not? We each have 60 to 90 years of life on this earth and it would be a waste to spent them on the past.
It is not that we do not think about the Vietnamese who presently live in Vietnam in a wretched life and poor social conditions. We do and we, Viet Kieu are sending each year $6 billion US to help them out (2% of the GDP).
It is not that we do not want Vietnam to move forward in all fields and and the Vietnamese to live in a free society and to enjoy the best there is on earth. We do.
We do believe that the Vietnamese should enjoy the basic human freedoms respected by all countries and that the governement of Hanoi should respect them. SADLY, it is NOT the case. That is why Vietnam is listed as a COUNTRY OF CONCERN.
When you sleep in your home and someone comes in and douse you with gasoline and set you on fire, this is NOT freedom.
When someone is accused of conspiring against the state and cannot speak up to defend himself, that is NOT freedom.
When religions are controlled by the state, this is NOT freedom. And the list goes on and on.
The cause?
The VCP--Reagan called the communists EVIL and for good reason. Those who have not lived among them during the war could not understand them.
If the Vietnamese cannot speak up, we have to speak up for them.
This is not about the war, this is FREEDOM FOR HUMANITY AND THE VIETNAMESE.
Best
Nghia
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:43 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Minna,
I think you are right -- and right. It's sad that the human mind traps people in the past. But, as you also say, it is in many cases just a fact, I fear. Nothing to be said or done. The viet kieu who worked for the southern regime and had to leave their country need to maintain the fiction that the southern regime was paradise and that what drove them out was hell. Otherwise, where would they be left with regards to their own actions and beliefs?
It is not surprising that their children who have little or nothing to justify about their own past generally don't share these virulent forms of anti-Hanoi-ism (couched in anti-communism, but one would be hard-pressed to call Vietnam today a truly communist country). Many young VIetnamese smile patiently about their parents' feelings and go to Vietnam to work and invest there.
I have a really sad story from a friend. He fled the country after "his" government fell. He refuses to go back, he is active in all kinds of anti-Hanoi groups. But he is low-income, little educated worker whose son is mentally handicapped. Not too long ago he complained how much better his son could develop if only he had the money for special ed. He then said that in Europe, where such education would be provided by the social system, his son would have a much better life. I didn't want to say it, but after a long pause he said, barely moving his lips, clearly pained by the admission that even in Vietnam his son would get more help than he can afford in the United States.
I think in his case it took one catastrophe -- his son's condition -- to be able to even begin to come to grips with another -- the upheaval in his youth, his political choices and his loss of country. People who don't have that second catastrophe hardly ever have the flexibility of mind to overcome the first.
Thomas Jandl
----------
From: Bill Hayton
Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 1:22 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I don't wish to prolong this thread other than to say that on a simple point of fact Vietnam is no longer designated a Country of Particular Concern by the US Secretary of State under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998.
The full list can be viewed here. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/irf/c13281.htm and Vietnam is not on it.
Vietnam may be a country of concern to many people but it is not a Country of Concern.
Bill
----------
From: Walter james Mc intosh
Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 1:38 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Bill , There was a Wiki Leaks of a recent cable from US Embassy in Vietnam to Washington , outlining how the Communist regime has used new desginations in their oppression and regression of religion in Vietnam to avoid the Country of Concern designation . But you are correct the label was lifted in 2006 and in that Wiki Leaks cable the US Ambassador recommended that it not be reimposed in spite of how Vietnam viewed catholics and their pre-Xmas activites as a political threat.
I don't wish to prolong this thread other than to say that on a simple point of fact Vietnam is no longer designated a Country of Particular Concern by the US Secretary of State under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998.
----------
From: Anh-Minh Do
Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:12 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Hi all,
And Happy Lunar New Year!
Thomas, I think saying that China is adopting the Western model is an oversimplification. Although I agree that Deng Xiaoping made the crucial decision to not care about whether a cat was black or white in order to catch a mouse, that does not mean that the Chinese think that the black cat is communist and the white cat is capitalist. China has adopted capitalist elements but has not adopted very many Western values. One can see this in the imperial way they run their schools and their families. If China had adopted the Western model wholesale, I doubt it would be in the spotlight today. Sidebar (in response to your response to Minna): I think it would be interesting to have a comparison of rights & opportunities one can receive in Vietnam versus the same in the USA. I think life in Vietnam brings with it certain freedoms or opportunities one wouldn't find in the States or Europe.
Tuan Hoang, I think the idea that the younger generation is "strongly anticommunist" is ridiculous. I think the younger generation VK are strongly experiencing identity struggles, but rarely anticommunist unless their parents influenced them to be so. The younger generation has a strong disconnection with Vietnam and they react in either of two ways, a strong need to come back here and return to their roots or a complete and total immersion in American society (of course, there is variation between). I think the older generation has a very strong reaction to the contemporary Vietnamese flag and Ho Chi Minh's face. The younger generation, on the other hand, are more curious about what it means to be Vietnamese than what it means to be communist.
Furthermore, the stronger advocates in the older generation repeatedly remark on how the younger generation (and also outside parties) would not understand because they didn't live amidst the communists. But this is the 21st century, the younger generation is maturing and developing its own perspectives. There are hundreds and maybe thousands more young Vietnamese Overseas coming to live in contemporary Vietnam every year, and it will soon be that the younger generation will start to say "well, you don't live in contemporary Vietnam so you couldn't understand" to the older generation.
You also say that Vietnam has failed to reach out or improve the relations with anticommunist groups. That may be true, but I'd wager that the anticommunist groups haven't reached out too. These two very polarized parties don't make much effort in general. I think both sides lack a harmonious vision for the future and overall tact in how to act practically. Those groups who are not necessarily anticommunist, on the other hand, are doing a lot of sustainable work in Vietnam, on the ground, that helps the people that are directly affected by poverty.
Mac, That wikileaks article was interesting. I think the Vietnamese government also used similar tactics to get into the WTO. Promise two steps, take one step, and then take two steps back.
Cheers,
Minh
----------
From: Tuan Hoang
Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:40 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Anh-Minh: Quickly, I didn't say the younger generation of VK is strongly anticommunist, but "many" among it. Of course, "many" is subjective; perhaps I should have said "some." In any event, I didn't say "most." My main point is that VK attitudes regarding the current regime shouldn't be analyzed on the basis of generations alone. On the absence of substantial evidence, I consciously avoid generalizing about generations.
Indeed, what is exactly the "younger generation"? Under 25? Under 30? Under 40? Only those born in the US? Only those born in the West? Only those born in the West & Eastern Europe? All of them, plus those born in Vietnam but left at 10 (the so-called 1.5 generation)? Similar types of questions could be asked about the "older generation."
IMO, the discourse about overseas Vietnamese is somewhat overwrought with big generalizations about generations, enough to have rendered it rather unhelpful.
~Tuan Hoang
----------
From: Anh-Minh Do
Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Tuan Hoang,
I apologize for adding generalizations on top of ever more generalizations, so point taken. When I say younger generation, I am thinking of those born after 75 or whom were young enough to not remember or experience the war at all, regardless of where they were born. I think this definition coincides well with the same generation or age group of Vietnamese people born in the same period. These people present a new perspective on contemporary Vietnam because their identities are are not as defined by the war. I agree that VK attitudes about the current regime shouldn't be analyzed only by generations, but it is a huge part of the growing community. Different generations often define an immigrant community because it is often a gauge on how integrated that community is to their new culture and society.
I'd add that it is also hard to get a read on the overseas community, because the more newsworthy and vocal moments involve anti-communism.
- Anh-Minh
----------
From: Tai, Hue-Tam Ho
Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:31 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
In my area, Viet Kieu include people who fled in 1975 and their children, people who came from Haiphong and other northern areas in the 1980s, people who came as recently as a few years ago. They all have their different experiences and perspectives.
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:45 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Of course it's oversimplified to say China accepted a Western model. Ther term "Western model" in itself is. But I said it in response to the claim that China shows that the "Western model" is not as robust as we thought. China has moved toward what in the context of this discussion would probably be considered "Western" -- capitalism, more individualism and so on and so forth. No more cultural revolutions and backyard smelters.
Thomas Jandl
----------
From: Tuan Hoang
Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:02 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Anh-Minh, no problem at all. Yes, it is hard to read on the overseas community because, well, it isn't really one but many communities. At least in the US, it is unfortunate too that vocal anticommunist demonstrations receive more attention in the media. Lost in the "news" are equally if not more far-reaching activities, such as:
* Organized trips to help with healthcare in poorer areas of Vietnam by Vietnamese American physicians in their 50s and 60s (yes, "old generation").
* Catholic or Buddhist U.S.-based non-profit organizations in Orange County and elsewhere that raise fund for both short-term projects (e.g., storm relief) and long-term (economic development).
* Fundraising dinners organized by former ARVN officers to help specifically disabled former ARVN soldiers in Vietnam, one of the most neglected groups in postwar Vietnam.
* Publicity created on Facebook and elsewhere that supports Vietnamese political dissidents and (if indirectly) opposes the political repression of the current regime. The creators are, yes, people in the "young generation" of Vietnamese Americans.
I do not doubt that there are generational differences: a vast topic, really. But these are some of the examples that give me pause when tempted to generalize about generational differences in politics among Vietnamese Americans.
Chuc mung nam moi,
~Tuan Hoang
Page updated
Report abuse