4 ms·
As always there are two sides of a story. That what the oppressors want their citizens to believe to gather moral support and that what the suppressed want thei
by pearjuice 11y ago
As always there are two sides of a story. That what the oppressors want their citizens to believe to gather moral support and that what the suppressed want their citizens to know so they resist.
By putting those two sides together, only then we can approximate truth.
- golergka 11y ago> By putting those two sides together, only then we can approximate truth. Absolutely agree. And this is exactly where this article fails, which is precisely the point of my comment.
- cariaso 11y agoThe article does not fail. It does it's part beautifully. You're abdicating your responsibility.
- golergka 11y agoWhat responsibility are you talking about?
- detaro 11y agoProbably the responsibility to do the comparison yourself. The article doesn't claim to present a balanced view or "the truth" (which propaganda would), it is clear about showing one perspective. There is more than enough documentation for the other perspective available, as is material contrasting the two. It would be bad if this article stood alone as the only source of information available, but it doesn't.
- pearjuice 11y agoHow so does it fail? Are there any useen images of the American side of the war they are hiding?
- golergka 11y agoWhy unseen? They're presenting this images without challenging them, without providing any historical context at all.
- alan_cx 11y agoReading your initial comment, its very hard to believe that. It reads like someone who only believes one side of the narrative.
- golergka 11y agoYou are right. But I'm not saying that only viewpoint that I believe in should be presented: both should be presented side-by-side, at least. Imagine the same article with Third Reich, Mao or Cuban Castro regime. Would reading the thoughts and commentary by wermacht photographers, praising the fuhrer and describing the Normandy landing as "foreign invasion", without any neutral commentary, at least, not raise any questions or issues with you?
- SolaceQuantum 11y ago>You are right. But I'm not saying that only viewpoint that I believe in should be presented: both should be presented side-by-side, at least. I'm pretty sure most everyone is well aware of the "other side" while looking at this one. Humans aren't so stupid that they can't compare what they already know to new information.
- Ao7bei3s 11y agoHowever, in the vast majority of cases, only the US perspective is given, and no one complains then. There is a lot more documentation about the Vietnam war that is from the US' perspective than from Viet Cong. Which is precisely what makes this article interesting. And it's just one article, and pretty short too. (Also compare with the US wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, or, more recently, the war on ISIL? How many articles tell ISIS' perspective?)
- notahacker 11y agoBut the captions in the article don't actually praise the Viet Cong leadership, and even the Nazi leadership didn't believe that Normandy was German territory. It's not like there's anything remotely untrue about the observations that the ARVN wasn't much of a fighting force without US support and Agent Orange wasn't particularly friendly on the local wildlife. I've seen coverage of the war from a skewed pro-Viet Cong propaganda perspective. This isn't that.