Faylor, Scott
History 301
Fall Semester 2012
1. What is an “oral history”? Why do you think Appy chose
to write in this genre rather than a straight history?
Was it a wise decision? Why or why not?
An oral history is the retelling of events based around the
concept of using audiotapes, planned interviews, etc. This
type of history has its distinction in a lot of emotional
accounts passed on by the storyteller, especially with a topic
like the Vietnam War. As compared to a normal historical
book, which would consist mostly of facts and general events,
this book allows the reader to see different sides of an issue
or event, which is very important when passing judgment or
gaining knowledge about a subject.
As Appy says himself: “What might happen to our
conception of the Vietnam War if we simply began to hear the
accounts of American veterans alongside the memories of
Vietnamese who fought with and against them?” (Appy XV)
This alone speaks volumes about the way textbooks are
written and about the bias that can arise from it. I believe that
Appy’s decision to write in this manner was a wise one for
one very important reason: It allows this book to be different
from others. By writing in this manner, Appy has made it
possible to see a devastating conflict in a new way, and this
allows the reader’s knowledge to expand, which is the reason
for writing a book in the first place.
2
What is the significance of the epigram which begins
Chapter One: "Vietnam is nobody's dog"?
The quotation from Nguyen Co Thach is very significant
as it shows us the mindset of the Vietnamese people during
the Vietnam War. Their mindset was, “We will not be told
what to do, not by anyone, and we will oppose anyone who
tries to tell us otherwise.” As Ho Chi Minh states, “The
Americans…can wipe out all the principal towns of
Tonkin…we expect it, and, besides, we are prepared for it.
But that does not weaken our determination to fight to the
very end. You know, we’ve already had the experience, and
you have seen how that conflict ended.” (Olson and Roberts
1) This quote is very telling when it comes to the idea of the
stubbornness and resilience of the Vietnamese during this
conflict. In the past, Vietnam was in conflict with the much
larger, supposedly stronger nations, like France, China, and
Japan, but despite the odds, the Vietnamese were able to
withstand the pressure and continue their own way of life.
Because of this, when the Americans began to invade, the
Vietnamese were able to have faith in their ability to stave
off invaders and come out of the conflict victorious. Because
of this mindset, the Vietnamese were able to maintain strong
and resilient, even in the face of impending doom.
3.
Explain the significance of the poem on page 5 of Olson
and Roberts.
The poem on page 5 shows the general distaste for the
wealthy elite class of Mandarins in Vietnam during the time
of French Imperialism. This upper class maintained the ways
of the Chinese when they ruled the area up until 938,
however, the locals would still maintain the core values and
traditions of the Chinese, including their language, their
religion, and the politics of the Chinese, such as the tax
system and bureaucracy. This maintained social system led
to many problems between the Mandarins, and the
Vietnamese lower class. This use of Chinese values was put
in place to move up in the Vietnamese society. “To pass the
civil service examinations and secure the best jobs,
Vietnamese scholars immersed themselves in the Chinese
language and Confucian values, which gradually distanced
them from the Vietnamese peasants. (Olson and Roberts 45) As the poem shows, this strong caste system obviously
caused many problems and distrust between the two classes.
On top of that, the Mandarin class was extremely
conservative, and was a deterrent for most advancement,
whether it be through technology, science, religion, it was all
shut down in favor of the Confucian and Mandarin values. All
of this led to the “savage country” that the French inherited
through their imperialistic ventures.
4-5. Explain the significance of the views of Phan Boi Chau
and Phan Chu Trinh? How did the differ? How did they
influence Ho Chi Minh’s nationalist views?
Phan Boi Chau’s ideas laid in the ideas of radical
violence to bring the Vietnamese back to prosperity, much
like Malcolm X was for the American Civil Rights Movement.
Phan Boi Chau also believed that the key to giving the
Vietnamese power, was to destroy the French bureaucracy
first, allowing the Vietnamese to rule themselves. His views
on using violence to get ahead were also very prevalent.
“Phan Boi Chau led the abortive Poison Plot, in which lowranking Vietnamese soldiers tried to poison French officers
in Hanoi.” (Olson and Roberts 8) This plan didn’t go through
as intended, but the legacy of Phan Boi Chau as a violent
revolutionary for Vietnam lived on.
Phan Chu Trinh, on the other hand, was a nationalist
who based his revolutionary ideas around forcing out the
Mandarin elite, while working peacefully with the French to
give the power back to the Vietnamese. To continue with the
American Civil Rights Movement analogy, Phan Chu Trinh
would take the role of Martin Luther King Jr. Trinh would
rather be peacefully disobedient than resort to violence to
resolve the matter.
These two revolutionaries influenced Ho Chi Minh in
different ways. Phan Boi Chau showed Minh that the only
way to get rid of the French was through violent action,
while Phan Chu Trinh “came the certainty that the mandarin
system was rotten, corrupted by its elitism and its hostility
to the modern world and its technology.” (Olson and Roberts
8) These two radical’s ideas had a large effect on the young
Ho Chi Minh, causing his more radical views later in life.
6.-7 "The French were kind imperialists who genuinely
wanted to help the Vietnamese." Do you agree or disagree?
Why?
I have to disagree with this quote, for a couple of
reasons. The first being from the book: “Many peasants lost
their property because they could not pay high French taxes,
could not contest claims against the land in French courts, or
fell into debt to French or Vietnamese creditors who
foreclosed on their property.” (Olson and Roberts 5) As
stated in the book, the number of impoverished people was
pretty high before the French Imperialists took over, but the
number hit a new high after the French takeover. It
eventually became so bad that “In Tonkin nine percent of the
population came to own 52 percent of cultivated land, and
250 people owned 20 percent.” The French came to own the
monopolies on all the resources in Vietnam, and barely any
sort of payment went back to the people.
My next point has to do with the very core ideals of
Imperialism. The entire point of Imperialism was to take
control of a region, and then use its people to gain resources
that your country did not already have, thereby gaining
income and new markets for your country. Never was the
goal to genuinely help the country that you took over, it just
wasn’t feasible. Even the United States didn’t take this
viewpoint when the controlled the Philippines. This quote is
completely to the contrary of the point of Imperialism, which
was essentially get in, get resources, leave the land and the
people exhausted. If their intention were truly to help the
country out, then they would not have entered the country
forcefully, and would have worked together to better
Vietnam as a whole. The results of this speak for themselves.
8.
Why did Ho Chi Minh become a Communist?
Ho Chi Minh’s Communist views started very early in
his life, as a result of his growing up in a society where the
caste system was extremely prevalent. By being born into a
lower class family, he was surrounded by inter-class
conflicts, which were brought on by the Imperialistic French
and the Mandarin elites. The true conversion came about
when a French Communist showed Ho Chi Minh Vladmir
Lenin’s “Thesis on the National and Colonial Questions.”
(Olson and Roberts 10) This text stated that imperialism was
a direct result of the greed of corporations trying to gain
more money through capitalism. This idea of imperialism
stuck with Ho Chi Minh because he witnessed this idea
firsthand during his younger days in Vietnam. (Olson and
Roberts 7)
Second, in Lenin’s text, he stated that the other enemy
was the Asian Feudalists, who had been oppressing the
masses for too long. The only solution to this problem was to
rebel against these institutions, which had been in power for
so long. These ideas played well with Ho Chi Minh’s own
childhood, where he was poor and oppressed by imperialists
and Mandarins alike.
9-10. What was Ho Chi Minh's attitude toward the United
States before 1946? Was he justified in his attitude? Why or
why not?
Ho Chi Minh had always been fascinated with the
American Way. He had seen how the American Capitalism
system worked, and he knew it was bad, but he also saw a
positive side to the United States. He saw opportunity to take
after them in their own revolution, “The Americans, after all,
been the first colony to revolt successfully against a
European imperial power, and their Declaration of
Independence was eloquent in its proclamation of human
equality.” (Olson and Roberts 15-16)
The American Imperialism system was also of great
intrigue to Ho Chi Minh. He was used to a system where the
country that invaded would be a power hungry tyrannical
monster that would be corrupt and never leave the country
alone. The Americans, however, took a different route than
he had anticipated. Although the Americans did have a
bloody conflict, they did it with the intention to free the
Philippines from Spain, and would help them achieve
independence. “…Afterwards the Americans made good on
their promise. The Tydings-McDuffe Act of 1934 launched
the Philippines on the road to independence, with a twelveyear timetable before the American withdrawal.” This was a
new concept for Ho Chi Minh, as he wasn’t used to an
imperialistic country that stuck to its word and actually
helped out the country it was involved with. This was a
justifiable reason to have a good opinion of the United States,
as we were the best candidates to help the Vietnamese
through their Revolution. Also, based on previous
experience of the United States’ imperialistic tendencies, it
seemed that the Americans would be the most helpful. Also,
the Americans hatred of the Japanese during this time would
also play in their favor, as the Vietnamese had recently
ousted the Japanese from their country, so they had that
going for them, as well.
What is the value of the artifact discussed in the video
attached to this lesson?
The value of the artifact shown is through its value as a
cultural symbol. As noted in the video itself, the fact that the
iron has artistic qualities to it says a lot about the culture and
mindset of the Vietnamese people. As the video states,
compared to an American iron, which is just a piece of metal
with a plastic handle, it shows so much more work and
thought put into the design and use of the item. The fact that
the iron has art on it shows that the Vietnamese took great
pride in the tools they used, and that even things that would
be considered trivial to modern America, they considered to
be very important and a gift to their people. Obviously we did
not see what the symbols were or what they said, but it could
be reasonable to state that they may have been something
involved with a prayer to their God, or even a story for their
children to pass along. Either way, the time and effort that
was obviously put into the iron shows a very large distinction
to the mass-produced, ordinary irons that we use in the
United States.