5 ms·
This article seems to have a strong objective and anti-Western bias. For instance, why does an article about "Vietnam 40 years on" spend the first third discuss
by ghayes 11y ago
This article seems to have a strong objective and anti-Western bias. For instance, why does an article about "Vietnam 40 years on" spend the first third discussing American tragedies during the U.S. invasion? It then discusses each problem in Vietnam in terms of Western actions and dedicates little if any space to the full spectrum of the issues the article is discussing.
That said, the facts and stories presented in the article are themselves interesting and enlightening.
- mercurial 11y agoI agree. It is well-written and engaging, but its focus on American atrocities somewhat detracts from the main point (and conveniently forgets to mention that Vietcong forces were no stranger to mass executions and torture themselves). It does bring home the extent of the destruction the war inflicted, though. Unfortunate to see Vietnam turning into a new China.
- reallyoldguy 11y agoAgreed, the piece has a very distinct bias, and it's sad to see what Vietnam has become, especially considering what it could have been had history gone a little differently (South Korea is a reasonably analogous case).
- mercurial 11y agoIt is? When was South Korea under commercial embargo? I agree that the piece is extremely biased, but it's pretty clear that the US were about as keen on helping post-war Vietnam developing its economy as they have been with Cuba.
- g960 11y agoWell for what it is worth, Christian missionaries are flooding Vietnam. It's well on it's way to becoming South Korea.
- chinhodado 11y agoI think what he meant was, had South Vietnam won, it would have become a second South Korea.
- jbjohns 11y agoWhat are you talking about? There was no "South Vietnam"... There was Vietnam and there were places the invading forces were occupying.
- reallyoldguy 11y agoThe Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) was absolutely a country that had a right to its own sovereignty. Framing the Vietnam war as a communist struggle against Western invaders is naive and incorrect. South Vietnam was governed by a nationalist but anti-communist government that sought aid from the US and others, while North Vietnam was a communist government that was aided by the USSR and China.
- DanBC 11y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam First google hit.
- VLM 11y agoIt existed in the sense that the Confederate States of America existed. A bunch of politicians unhappy about the countries government went into rebellion, coincidentally in the south, and then the fireworks began. But as a cultural concept, neither the CSA nor South Vietnam existed before their respective political rebellions aka they weren't "real countries". And after the rebellion was crushed they don't exist anymore in any real cultural/political fashion. If they won, they would have developed into real distinct countries eventually, but they never got the chance. As far as invaders go, both sides invited so many vistors and advisors its hard to say who that is.
- reallyoldguy 11y ago
- yc1010 11y agoIt is The Guardian a left leaning UK newspaper, that should give you an idea of why the article might appear unbalanced. One does not read the Guardian to get a balanced story for the very same reasons one would not watch Fox News Tho' they don't hide their political bias, and it is often interesting reading same news stories in the Guardian (left leaning UK paper) vs lets say the Telegraph (right leaning UK paper) for differing view points and then making up ones own mind.
- abalone 11y agoPerhaps you see it that way because you have a strong pro-Western bias and have placed the fulcrum of "objectivity" thusly. For instance you use the word "tragedies" to refer to systematic civilian slaughter by U.S. and allied forces (the article notes the U.S. secretly confirmed over 300 cases). This reveals your bias. Compare this with someone referring to Pol Pot's actions as "communist tragedies". The history of the war is plainly relevant to Vietnam's economy today. At the very least it is crucial to supporting the article's thesis that capitalism is providing an incentive and engine for the suppression of this historical memory.