"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 lev

"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.