It was eighty years ago today that Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam an independent country. As he did so, he quoted Thomas Jefferson, and a Vietnamese band played the “Star-Spangled Banner.” Vietnam was attempting to free itself from French domination.
Ho, the leader of Vietnamese nationalism, thought perhaps the United States would be an ally in this endeavor. He would make repeated attempts to appeal to US presidents, but he would quickly discover that Uncle Sam was not a partner in anything. The colonized, the thinking went, were lazy, stupid, juvenile, and dishonest—and likely to become communist; they were simply not ready for democracy. It was a self-evident truth that non-White people were too backward for such things. Not that Uncle Sam looked favorably on small, agrarian countries steering their own paths, mind you. This represented a threat. Maybe they would become Soviet pawns; maybe other countries would get similar funny ideas.
Vietnam would eventually be subjected to just how seriously the United States took what was called “the domino theory.” When the Vietnam War was over, 2-3 million Vietnamese were dead. Americans have gotten their history from Hollywood. They do not understand this conflict—at all. My goal in this essay (I wrote it in 2017) was to explain why the war happened. I thought I would repost it on this sorrowful anniversary.
As I have pointed out before:
• We did not go there as referees
• We did not get “sucked in”
• We did not go there with good intentions
• We were not defending ourselves
• The issue was South Vietnam
• We were not fighting communism
• The Viet Cong were not the bad guys
• Jane Fonda is tiresome, not a “traitor”
• The movies are, by subtraction, inaccurate—all of them
• We did not “lose” the war; the goal was punishment
That last point might raise some eyebrows. If we say a baseball team “lost” a game, we know what happened. We know what the goals were, and how the team did not meet those goals. If we say the United States “lost” in Vietnam, we necessarily have to distort the history in order to fit that language.
The Truman and Eisenhower administrations talked about France winning in Vietnam, but again, what did “win” mean? The French were there as imperialists; they were there to control the country and conduct an extractive economy. Win meant subjugate. It meant brutalize.
Uncle Sam stepped in because it was felt the French lacked the necessary “will” to achieve the task. Uncle Sam just got a bigger hammer—and did not lack the will to use it. We didn’t win or lose—that language makes no sense—we destroyed a country and killed 2-3 million people. The message got sent.
. . .
Read time: 8:00
https://www.gregoryharms.com/essays-20171002
