So, this article not only retranslates Vietcong propanagda, but the only commentary it seems to offer is by Vietcong themselves, with phrases like "resistance to foreign invasion". How isn't this article isn't considered a propaganda piece by itself? It's one thing to present interesting historic material; it's another thing entirely to glorify a marxist dictatorship.
"Resistance to foreign invasion" is essentially accurate, is it not? I find the quotes interesting. They help to illustrate the rhetoric which likely motivated much of North — that there were foreign countries intervening in what many locals considered a country's own struggle and not just another battlefield for a proxy war.
I think pieces like this are important. Whilst you can disagree with it, it still makes you consider the views held by millions on the other side.
Well, this is exactly my point: this piece is presenting only one point of view, without even an attempt to put it into context of a conflicting worldview.
Well, the point of the article is how NV photographers saw the war. You don't need any extra context since it's explicitly stated that this is from one particular point of view. If you want a different point of view, there are thousands of articles, books and photographs.
But Vietnam war was essentially an effort to resist foreign invasion. It effectively started when
"On 23 September 1945, with the knowledge of the British Commander in Saigon, French forces overthrew the local DRV government, and declared French authority restored..."[1]
It was one of the awful proxy conflicts of 20th century. I have no idea which is better - to be a colony in a market economy (the dominating effect is that profits from capital leak into the owning country) or a marxist dictatorship. Most dictatorships are kinda shitty - Marxist or not - but I have no calculus to compute is being a colony any better
The only reference to "foreign invasion" that I can see in the article is in a direct quote from one of the photographers who had witnessed US bombing of his country - not sure what other reaction you would expect him to have.
but the only commentary it seems to offer is by Vietcong themselves
Yeah, nobody cares about the point of view of a 60kg Vietcong soldier. They are not supposed to have a face and keep quiet beneath that 2+ million bodycount. The brave war stories are reserved for the american GIs.. and hollywood.
I think OP was implying that this argument also holds for American soldiers talking from the American perspective, but wouldn't be labelled propaganda.
Your comments are being down voted to oblivion. The prevailing narrative of our time is pretty anti-western. Anything the west does is auto-bad, whereas the activities of other cultures, current and historical, are (re)presented as heroic struggles against evil imperial forces. I agree with you, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It seems like it should be an uncontroversial stance doesn't it? Welcome to the modern era where shades of gray don't exist, and the best way to accrue Twitter followers it to kick your own culture apart.
I don't think the downvoting of a comment claiming it's nothing but propaganda means anything about shades of grey not existing. I mean, that comment was pretty black and white itself.
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.
Probably 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.
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.
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?
>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.
But 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.
> I've seen coverage of the war from a skewed pro-Viet Cong propaganda perspective. This isn't that.
After reading several replies like this one I finally understand why I'm being downvoted.
See, you assume that the article is in english, the audience is supposed to be from US, and the context is US culture. This is no longer true in modern world.
Personally, most of the information I was fed about Vietnam war throughout my life was the bullshit of Soviet and post-Soviet anti-US propaganda, so seeing this shit once again without any context seems sick. I guess a person from US, who have been mostly subjected to the other perspective, wouldn't understand it.
> After reading several replies like this one I finally understand why I'm being downvoted...See, you assume that the article is in english, the audience is supposed to be from US, and the context is US culture
I'm not American, and I downvoted you for taking away from the discussion. What were you expecting from a link that reads "Unseen images of the war from the winning side"? Did you expect the Viet Cong to lack conviction in their beliefs?
> Personally, most of the information I was fed about Vietnam war throughout my life was the bullshit of Soviet and post-Soviet anti-US propaganda, so seeing this shit once again without any context seems sick.I guess a person from US, who have been mostly subjected to the other perspective, wouldn't understand it.
Speaking as a person born in a former colony, what I find sick is the pro-imperialist mindset that assumes being a western/american puppet state is better than getting communist benefactors in the fight for self-determination. Liberty or Death.
> Speaking as a person born in a former colony, what I find sick is the pro-imperialist mindset that assumes being a western/american puppet state is better than getting communist benefactors in the fight for self-determination. Liberty or Death.
So, you would prefer to live in a North Korea to the South?
> So, you would prefer to live in a North Korea to the South?
1. That's a false dichotomy -those are not the only options. The unstated implication (western-style democracy = success, communism = failure) is also wrong because there are many other orthogonal dimensions at play
2. Is South Korea a puppet state or a colony?
3. I think what you are really asking me is if I would rather be Fed or Free. There is no correct answer, but I would prefer both. How about you; would you rather be oppressed and flourishing or free and impoverished?
> 1. That's a false dichotomy -those are not the only options. The unstated implication (western-style democracy = success, communism = failure) is also wrong because there are many other orthogonal dimensions at play
These are typical options though. A lot of historical examples show this pattern throughout 20th century.
Remember, how originally, words "1st world" and "2nd world" were supposed to mean "capitalist" and "communist", and ended up meaning "great places to live" and "not so good"?
> 2. Is South Korea a puppet state or a colony?
It may not have been formally a colony, but it's certainly a country under enormous political influence of western world in US in particular — just like post-WWII Japan and Western Germany. I don't think that formal status matters as much.
> 3. I think what you are really asking me is if I would rather be Fed or Free. There is no correct answer, but I would prefer both. How about you; would you rather be oppressed and flourishing or free and impoverished?
This is a false dichotomy, because "freedom" is good first and foremost because free societies are fed. Freedom is just a more effective society organization.
But a lot of former colonies never actually had this choice; instead, their struggle for "freedom" from western capitalism typically ended up in communist dictatorships in the USSR's sphere of influence. It's like the "free Palestine" guys, who know really well what they're fighting against, but refuse to open their eyes on what are they're fighting for.
However, 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?)
