5 ms·

Interesting how "The Vietnam of ..." assumes the US viewpoint as the default. From the Vietnamese viewpoint, the war could (for example) be seen as underdog pa

Interesting how "The Vietnam of ..." assumes the US viewpoint as the default. From the Vietnamese viewpoint, the war could (for example) be seen as underdog patriots resisting waves of invaders possessing an overwhelming material and technical superiority and utterly defeating them through sheer willpower and sacrifice, thus gaining a nation of their own. Which would make a paper titled "The Vietnam(War) of Computer Science" a description of some kind of breakthrough in CS, attained after a tremendous struggle. So yes, dumb analogy. The paper would read as well without the bullshit title.

DalasNoin 9y ago
But i dont think the vietnamese would refer to it as the vietnam, but rather as the us invasion of computer science. :)
- plinkplonk 9y ago
  ha! good point. From Wikipedia, the Vietnamese apparently refer to the war as the "Resistance War Against America" or "the American War" [1]. A CS paper named after this would be interesting. "ORMs - the CS Resistance War Against America" , or even "The America of Computer Science" :-P [1] From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War The Vietnam War (Vietnamese: Chiến tranh Việt Nam), also known as the Second Indochina War,[56] and known in Vietnam as the Resistance War Against America (Vietnamese: Kháng chiến chống Mỹ) or simply the American War,
SiVal 9y ago
You mistakenly assume that all Vietnamese were on the same side in the war. Millions of Vietnamese lost that war to domestic forces who would never allow free speech, free elections, etc., armed by foreigners (Soviets) who never allowed free speech, free elections, etc. The Vietnamese who cut my hair here in Silicon Valley possess nothing remotely resembling what you naively call "the Vietnamese viewpoint."
- plinkplonk 9y ago
  "You mistakenly assume that all Vietnamese were on the same side in the war." Lol, I don't assume anything of the kind. But when you talk of a war at high level, you identify the viewpoints by generic terms. "The Confederates thought that England and France would come to their aid" is valid, even when there were people in the Confederacy whose beliefs were the opposite. Likewise the Royalists who shifted to/were exiled to London after American Independence would call the victorious Americans rebels and traitors to the Crown and Mother England. You don't have to have every single American in the War of Independence to anti-British to talk about "the Americans had soured on 'taxation without representation' ", or demand that every single Briton be anti- American to say "From the British point of view the war appeared to be stalled." It is understood that these usages refer to distinct sides in a war, even in the presence of factions who may fight for 'the other side'. Likewise with the Algerians who left for France. And the Afghans who fought along US troops who are leaving for the USA.(make that 'trying to leave' in the age of Trump). The Vietnamese who cut your hair in Silicon Valley are by definition no longer Vietnamese citizens. They are Americans and have nothing to do with how the war is viewed by the majority of the Vietnamese living in Vietnam. Many Americans were against the Vietnam war too. But there still was an American war effort, an American strategy and so on. With your level of hair splitting, you couldn't generalize about anything ever, because you could always dig up some unlikely exception. Which would makes history books ... interesting ... to read and write. Every sentence would have to be prefixed by 'Most of ', 'by and large, ' and so on. There is no absolute view point on anything in History. There will always be dissenters. Well duh. All of which has nothing to do with the point about the perils of naming CS papers from specific political viewpoints, and how shifting these viewpoints would change the import of such names.
  - abraae 9y ago
    > You don't have to have every single American in the War of Independence to anti-British to talk about "the Americans had soured on 'taxation without representation' ", or demand that every single Briton be anti- American to say "From the British point of view the war appeared to be stalled." > It is understood that these usages refer to distinct sides in a war, even in the presence of factions who may fight for 'the other side'. Well stated, but in this case, a civil war with North Vietnamese on one side and South on the other, your statement does not read well: > From the Vietnamese viewpoint, the war could (for example) be seen as underdog patriots resisting waves of invaders Had you said, from the North Vietnamese viewpoint, fair enough.

DalasNoin 9y ago

But i dont think the vietnamese would refer to it as the vietnam, but rather as the us invasion of computer science. :)

plinkplonk 9y ago
ha! good point. From Wikipedia, the Vietnamese apparently refer to the war as the "Resistance War Against America" or "the American War" [1]. A CS paper named after this would be interesting. "ORMs - the CS Resistance War Against America" , or even "The America of Computer Science" :-P [1] From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War The Vietnam War (Vietnamese: Chiến tranh Việt Nam), also known as the Second Indochina War,[56] and known in Vietnam as the Resistance War Against America (Vietnamese: Kháng chiến chống Mỹ) or simply the American War,

SiVal 9y ago

You mistakenly assume that all Vietnamese were on the same side in the war. Millions of Vietnamese lost that war to domestic forces who would never allow free speech, free elections, etc., armed by foreigners (Soviets) who never allowed free speech, free elections, etc. The Vietnamese who cut my hair here in Silicon Valley possess nothing remotely resembling what you naively call "the Vietnamese viewpoint."

plinkplonk 9y ago
"You mistakenly assume that all Vietnamese were on the same side in the war." Lol, I don't assume anything of the kind. But when you talk of a war at high level, you identify the viewpoints by generic terms. "The Confederates thought that England and France would come to their aid" is valid, even when there were people in the Confederacy whose beliefs were the opposite. Likewise the Royalists who shifted to/were exiled to London after American Independence would call the victorious Americans rebels and traitors to the Crown and Mother England. You don't have to have every single American in the War of Independence to anti-British to talk about "the Americans had soured on 'taxation without representation' ", or demand that every single Briton be anti- American to say "From the British point of view the war appeared to be stalled." It is understood that these usages refer to distinct sides in a war, even in the presence of factions who may fight for 'the other side'. Likewise with the Algerians who left for France. And the Afghans who fought along US troops who are leaving for the USA.(make that 'trying to leave' in the age of Trump). The Vietnamese who cut your hair in Silicon Valley are by definition no longer Vietnamese citizens. They are Americans and have nothing to do with how the war is viewed by the majority of the Vietnamese living in Vietnam. Many Americans were against the Vietnam war too. But there still was an American war effort, an American strategy and so on. With your level of hair splitting, you couldn't generalize about anything ever, because you could always dig up some unlikely exception. Which would makes history books ... interesting ... to read and write. Every sentence would have to be prefixed by 'Most of ', 'by and large, ' and so on. There is no absolute view point on anything in History. There will always be dissenters. Well duh. All of which has nothing to do with the point about the perils of naming CS papers from specific political viewpoints, and how shifting these viewpoints would change the import of such names.
- abraae 9y ago
  > You don't have to have every single American in the War of Independence to anti-British to talk about "the Americans had soured on 'taxation without representation' ", or demand that every single Briton be anti- American to say "From the British point of view the war appeared to be stalled." > It is understood that these usages refer to distinct sides in a war, even in the presence of factions who may fight for 'the other side'. Well stated, but in this case, a civil war with North Vietnamese on one side and South on the other, your statement does not read well: > From the Vietnamese viewpoint, the war could (for example) be seen as underdog patriots resisting waves of invaders Had you said, from the North Vietnamese viewpoint, fair enough.