h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just thaught it might help with some of my school work. Thanks

I'm not sure it did become that involved until the early 1960s. After World War II, Vietnam was a French possession and after independence (and the setting-up of North and South Vietnam) France retained some influence over the state in the south - intially an empire and later a republic. Once war started between the communist and non-communist forces in Vietnam the French (who had already exhausted themselves in wars with the communist Viet-minh in the 1950s) pulled-out and the Americans took over the French role.

There certainly was US interest in Vietnam before the 1960s - the USA has a policy (I think largely-unstated) of pursing independence for European colonies and I think they supported Vietnamese independence. Concerns about the possible spread of communism in southeast asia (the so-called "domino effect" which turned out to be incorrect) lead to US support for the anti-communist Republic of Vietnam in the south.

I'd suggest looking-up Wikipedia or some other fairly-reliable source for information about postwar US policy towards Vietnam but be generally wary about stuff you find on the internet. There are a lot of cranks out there...

Hope this isn't too late.

Depends on what you mean by "involved".

"...the USA has a policy (I think largely-unstated) of pursuing independence for European colonies and I think they supported Vietnamese independence."

I'm pretty sure the US was supplying France with money and possibly weapons up until the time that France withdrew, so if they claimed to support Vietnamese independence, their actions didn't show it. I remember reading that the US sent money or materiel to Ho Chi Minh during WWII, back when they were trying to free themselves from Japanese occupation. But I think the US took actions after WWII to restore French colonization, whether or not they admitted those policies.

Also the first American soldier killed in Vietnam was surprisingly in the 1950s (back when they could credibly be called "advisors"), although there were comparatively few US troops in Vietnam until the early 60s.

Yeah, wikipedia or some other sources might be more helpful. If you're willing to try whole books for research, you can find the radical view of why America became involved in "At War with Asia" or "American Power and the New Mandarins" by Noam Chomsky.

"I'm pretty sure the US was supplying France with money and possibly weapons up until the time that France withdrew, so if they claimed to support Vietnamese independence, their actions didn't show it. I remember reading that the US sent money or materiel to Ho Chi Minh during WWII, back when they were trying to free themselves from Japanese occupation. But I think the US took actions after WWII to restore French colonization, whether or not they admitted those policies."

Hmmm, that does sound quite plausible given that the French were fighting communists and so the US would be more likely to support a Western ally's colonialism over communist-dominated independence.

In fact, an interesting aside is to look-into postwar France's attitude towards its colonial posessions which arguably went some way into sparking the Vietnam war.

"Yeah, wikipedia or some other sources might be more helpful. If you're willing to try whole books for research, you can find the radical view of why America became involved in "At War with Asia" or "American Power and the New Mandarins" by Noam Chomsky."

Gah, no. Chomsky is about as far from fair and balanced as you can get and clearly has an agenda to push. Anyone wanting to study this properly is best-advised to steer-clear of anyone like that.

it's really confusing but you guys are helping thanks.

Like I clearly wrote, you can find the "radical view" by reading Chomsky. If by "fair and balanced" you mean the people who tried to trademark that expression, Fox News, then no, thankfully you won't find the kind of opinion that Fox News would espouse.

Look, MLK was pushing an agenda in 1960 that many people disagreed with. Abe Lincoln was pushing an agenda in 1860 that many people disagreed with. Humans have agendas. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong, sometimes it's hard to tell. Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't mean it's outrageous to have an opinion.

Anyone wanting to study issues "properly" would be advised not to look for an objective telling of history, because there won't be one unless they can find one written by robots. Anyone wanting to study issues properly would be advised to look at several different perspectives on an issue, from people with different agendas, then come to their own conclusions.

"Like I clearly wrote, you can find the "radical view" by reading Chomsky. If by "fair and balanced" you mean the people who tried to trademark that expression, Fox News, then no, thankfully you won't find the kind of opinion that Fox News would espouse.

Look, MLK was pushing an agenda in 1960 that many people disagreed with. Abe Lincoln was pushing an agenda in 1860 that many people disagreed with. Humans have agendas. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong, sometimes it's hard to tell. Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't mean it's outrageous to have an opinion.

Anyone wanting to study issues "properly" would be advised not to look for an objective telling of history, because there won't be one unless they can find one written by robots. Anyone wanting to study issues properly would be advised to look at several different perspectives on an issue, from people with different agendas, then come to their own conclusions."

First, Fox News has nothing to do with this. I meant fair and balanced in the actual meaning of the term.

Secondly, as I said Chomsky is neither fair nor balanced and he selectively presents facts and things out of context in order to make his worldview seem convincing. What we have here is someone who wants to genuinely find out about American involvement in Vietnam and you won't get that from Chomsky, you'll get polemic that expects you to reach a certain conclusion. Hiding bias under phrases like "alternative view" doesn't wash - it's not the full story. If someone wanted to study World War II and Nazi Germany, I'd point them towards history textbooks and away from "alternative" views such David Irvine.

Sorry, but it annoys me when someone wants to learn and people try to push them towards their own viewpoint by having them read one-sided arguments. I must admit the fact that my own simplistic view of the Vietnam war (largely brought about by listening to people who suggested I look up the "radical" viewpoint) was shattered once I looked at the proper history and saw the bigger picture. The Americans were appalling in Vietnam but they weren't the only bad guys by a long shot (hear of the Massacre at Hue?). People need to understand fully how wars like Vietnam started and what they meant and you won't get that from Chomsky, despite any the special-pleading.

"Anyone wanting to study issues "properly" would be advised not to look for an objective telling of history, because there won't be one unless they can find one written by robots"

Incidentally, I have to take you up on this specifically because it's relativist nonsense. Whilst everyone has some prejudices one way or the other, many historians are committed to relating the truth behind a situation even if that means relating facts that they're not entirely comfortable with. Also, many are surprisingly disinterested one way or the other. It's dishonest to claim that everyone has some bias so a scholarly, even-handed account of the Vietnam War and its aftermath is exactly as good a source of information as Chomsky's works on the subject.

Regarding Lincoln and the like, incidentally, I'd much rather pick up a balanced history book's account of the American Civil War than an account written by Lincoln irrespective of the fact that I think the North was clearly in the right. Lincoln cannot and should not be ignored, for obvious reasons, but any good history of the Civil War would relate his opinions anyway alongside those of his opponents (similarly many balanced books on Vietnam are likely to quote Chomsky on certain issues).

"Secondly, as I said Chomsky is neither fair nor balanced and he selectively presents facts and things out of context in order to make his worldview seem convincing."

From what I've seen, Chomsky helps puts things back in their proper context. If he seems to be "selectively" presenting facts, maybe that's because he emphasizes details you won't read about in the NYT or textbook descriptions. Let's just say Chomsky seems accurate to me, innaccurate to you, and we can agree to disagree.

"Hiding bias under phrases like "alternative view" doesn't wash - it's not the full story. If someone wanted to study World War II and Nazi Germany, I'd point them towards history textbooks and away from "alternative" views such David Irvine."

Nice smear there, trying to group Chomsky with David Irvine. (Irving?) But history textbooks are not free of bias either. Just because you agree with the status quo does not make it right or free of bias, and it doesn't make all dissenting opinions wrong. If someone wants to *study* anything, then they should compare and contrast the common view of textbooks with dissenting opinions, think about it critically, and come to their own conclusions. If someone wants to mindlessly swallow what their teachers and rulers shove down their throats, then they should skim textbooks, regurgitate the same ideas in vaguely re-worded book reports, and avoid dissenting opinions or critical thinking entirely.

"Sorry, but it annoys me when someone wants to learn and people try to push them towards their own viewpoint by having them read one-sided arguments."
Again, I didn't say, "You should only read Chomsky." I clearly qualified my suggestion by saying the *radical* view can be seen in Chomsky.

"The Americans were appalling in Vietnam but they weren't the only bad guys by a long shot (hear of the Massacre at Hue?)."

Please address that straw-man argument to someone who actually claimed Americans were "the only bad guys", someone other than Chomsky. People in a representative democracy should not tolerate our own government being "bad guys", no matter how many other bad guys might be involved.

"Incidentally, I have to take you up on this specifically because it's relativist nonsense. Whilst everyone has some prejudices one way or the other, many historians are committed to relating the truth behind a situation even if that means relating facts that they're not entirely comfortable with. Also, many are surprisingly disinterested one way or the other. It's dishonest to claim that everyone has some bias so a scholarly, even-handed account of the Vietnam War and its aftermath is exactly as good a source of information as Chomsky's works on the subject."

Unfortunately biases don't always become clear even after hundreds of years. Think of how many mainstream, well-regarded historians happily promoted the British Empire for generations. I'm sure you could find historians toeing the line for at least 100-200 years, finding minor differences with each other but generally agreeing that the empire was proper.

I think those are the kinds of accounts of the US-Vietnam war that you would judge as "scholarly, even-handed" and you would pretend they were unbiased. The way you dismiss Chomsky is the way historians favorable to the empire would have dismissed someone writing from the perspective of people victimized by the British empire. You want everyone to rely on accepted, reliable sources like Pravda.

"You want everyone to rely on accepted, reliable sources like Pravda."

Of course I don't and this accusation has no basis. As I've said, I think people should read the most unbiased and most historical accounts they can. Histories of the British Empire written by pro-imperialists clearly don't fall into this category. For that matter, nor do those written by anti-imperialists. Both have a drum to bang. And you don't have to have a vested-interest in the period to be biased. Gibbon's famous "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire" whilst presumably worth reading if anyone can be bothered is notoriously biased due to Gibbon's post-enlightenment anti-Christian attitudes (his accounts are largely blamed for the misreading of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire by many historians which is has only recently been re-assessed)

"Unfortunately biases don't always become clear even after hundreds of years. Think of how many mainstream, well-regarded historians happily promoted the British Empire for generations. I'm sure you could find historians toeing the line for at least 100-200 years, finding minor differences with each other but generally agreeing that the empire was proper."

Well, no. You're falling into the old (Chomskyite?) myth of state-lackeys endlessly churning-out propaganda with The Truth only emerging post-Marx. In fact, the British Empire was not something everyone supported and there were always debates about the limits of European power and the rights (and soverignty) of the so-called "native peoples". You also might want to look into the 19th-century liberal response to King Leopold's notorious "private imperialism" in the Congo in that century, which was strongly critical and eventually helped force Belgium to bring the Congo under the rule of law.

Going back even further, it's well-worth looking-over the political uphevals in the United Kingdom over the rights of the "thirteen colonies" to claim total independence from Britain under a republican government. The notion that the whole of Britain (or even the whole of the British establishment) supported the British Empire in North America falls-apart when you look at the history.

" The way you dismiss Chomsky is the way historians favorable to the empire would have dismissed someone writing from the perspective of people victimized by the British empire."

No it isn't, because I don't make accuse Chomsky of "treachery" or being "anti-British" or other such nonsense and then advise the reading of some pro-Empire propaganda. I simply point out a fact - that Chomsky has a notable bias - and urge people not to read him and instead try and read an even-handed account of the Vietnam War by someone trying to be honest. I'd no more recommend reading Chomsky to understand the Vietnam War than suggest someone watch John Wayne's ridiculous "The Green Berets" in order to understand what the war was about. Both are so clearly biased that they are worth little attention except as examples of people taking sides on the issue.

"From what I've seen, Chomsky helps puts things back in their proper context. If he seems to be "selectively" presenting facts, maybe that's because he emphasizes details you won't read about in the NYT or textbook descriptions. Let's just say Chomsky seems accurate to me, innaccurate to you, and we can agree to disagree."

Chomsky appears to be putting things in their "proper" context because he's selective. He probably seems accurate to you because you've not read the bigger-picture that shows how grey and confused things like Vietnam were. Chomsky takes the idea of the American puppet-masters manipulating world events when US inteventionism was and is usually clumsy, ill-informed and without proper long-term goals.

"Nice smear there, trying to group Chomsky with David Irvine. (Irving?)"

I think you missed my point. Chomsky is not like Irving politically in any way. The similarity is a question of bias - Irving is a recognised expert on the third reich and a historian of some note yet, as we saw during his trial, he has poltiical biases and his accounts are therefore biased and should be treated as suspect whilst as accounts of the true and full story of Nazi Germany they are arguably useless. Chomsky has a long association and record of sympathy with the anarcho-left and is antagonistic to both the conservative and liberal American establishments. He's an intelligent man and a good linguist (although it's worth pointing out that this is where his academic expertise lies, not history) but his overt bias (which he doesn't hide) makes reading him for the purposes of obtaining a full understanding fairly pointless. Chomsky writes 1) for sympathisers who want their prejudices re-inforced and 2) in order to win people over to his way of thinking. He's not trying to understand history, he *already* has an opinion and wants to share it.

"Again, I didn't say, "You should only read Chomsky." I clearly qualified my suggestion by saying the *radical* view can be seen in Chomsky."

Yes, but you didn't balance it out with any examples of the pro-war side (nor have you since) so it clearly wasn't an attempt to encourage someone to read both sides of the argument. As I've said before, I think the reading of polarised accounts of something like the Vietnam War is a waste of time anyway.

"
Please address that straw-man argument to someone who actually claimed Americans were "the only bad guys", someone other than Chomsky."

I never attributed anything to either you or Chomsky, I was making a point about simplistic-reading of conflicts (Vietnam being a good example). Too many accounts of that war split it into good guys and bad guys. It's a way of backing-up the main thrust of my argument - people should stay away from openly-biased accounts if they want to completely understand a situation.

You keep making the point that all accounts are biased in some way which, as I've said, is relativist nonsense. Take our understanding of the early Roman Empire, for example. Most historians admit that the sources are scant and plainly often written by people with vested-interests but many historians take as many accounts as possible, temper it with other knowledge of the period, and try and divine the most balance and fairest account knowable. That is good history that admits it's not perfect. I've never argued that any account is free from recieved-bias and imperfect sources. That does *not* mean that someone writing an account of the Vietnam War using *all* sources and refusing to take sides (not so difficult, there are many people (myself included) who have no strong interest either way) is as worthwhile as an obvious propagandist like Chomsky.

'No it isn't, because I don't make accuse Chomsky of "treachery" or being "anti-British" or other such nonsense and then advise the reading of some pro-Empire propaganda.'

You advise reading "scholarly, even-handed" treatments of history. I'm taking a wild guess that if we went through any given list of books, the ones that tend to support the neoliberal, capitalist, imperialist status quo would be the ones you would label as "scholarly" and "even-handed," while any books that tended to agree with Chomsky you would claim as biased and not scholarly.

'...and urge people not to read him and instead try and read an even-handed account of the Vietnam War by someone trying to be honest.'

Ugh. Please. Once again, people with whom you agree are "trying to be honest." People with whom you disagree are not trying to be honest. I hear Sylvia Browne makes a good living claiming to know people's motives and inner thoughts. Perhaps you should inquire as to what it takes to become a professional psychic, instead of showing off your psychic abilities as an amateur here.

"Chomsky has a long association and record of sympathy with the anarcho-left and is antagonistic to both the conservative and liberal American establishments. He's an intelligent man and a good linguist (although it's worth pointing out that this is where his academic expertise lies, not history) but his overt bias (which he doesn't hide) makes reading him for the purposes of obtaining a full understanding fairly pointless. Chomsky writes 1) for sympathisers who want their prejudices re-inforced and 2) in order to win people over to his way of thinking. He's not trying to understand history, he *already* has an opinion and wants to share it."

So the next thing we should agree to disagree about is whether anyone is able to present history free from bias of one kind or another. I think the ones you see as being free of bias are just ones whose bias you and most of our society share because we've internalized it. I don't think you'll find any historians who failed to form an opinion about history in the process of trying to understand it. They may try to present it in a neutral way, but their bias and opinion will be embedded in there somewhere.

Again, I think your criticism is not so much that he has an opinion and no other legitimate critic of history or politics has an opinion or expresses their opinion. It's just that you disagree with Chomsky's opinion, and you agree more or less with the opinions of mainstream historians, so you claim that they don't have any substantial bias.

Maybe we can agree to disagree that my relativist view is nonsense.

"Yes, but you didn't balance it out with any examples of the pro-war side (nor have you since) so it clearly wasn't an attempt to encourage someone to read both sides of the argument."

Well, the way I expect open systems like h2g2 to balance out naturally, at least the unedited section, is by people of different bias adding their own views, and readers getting a balanced picture by looking at several views. To balance out my suggestion of Chomsky, don't tell me to stop suggesting Chomsky. Make your own suggestion.

"as an obvious propagandist like Chomsky."

Not that you're biased against Chomsky or anything. Not that you've formed an opinion on the matter. Because when your opinion is "right", you don't have to think of it as an opinion at all.

Rush Limbaugh would be proud of your line of reasoning, if not your conclusions.

"You advise reading "scholarly, even-handed" treatments of history. I'm taking a wild guess that if we went through any given list of books, the ones that tend to support the neoliberal, capitalist, imperialist status quo would be the ones you would label as "scholarly" and "even-handed," while any books that tended to agree with Chomsky you would claim as biased and not scholarly."

You constantly come out with this strawman stuff about who I mean. If I say "even-handed" that's what I mean, not "neo-liberal" or "capitalist". A "neo-liberal" reading of the Vietnam War clearly wouldn't be a neutral one (although given that it's an economic philosophy, it would also be a fairly irrelevant one).

"Not that you're biased against Chomsky or anything. Not that you've formed an opinion on the matter. Because when your opinion is "right", you don't have to think of it as an opinion at all."

Chomsky's position is, essentially, anarcho-left. I'm biased against him as someone who can give a clear, balanced account of a situtation because it's something he clearly won't do. It's not "bias" to state a simple fact. Do you think those "neo-liberals" you mentioned earlier could give a balanced account of the importance of the welfare state? Of course they couldn't, for the same reason Chomsky can't give a balanced account of the Vietnam War.

There are many types of ideologue. It's just a shame so many people continue to propogate the myth that one lot are worth listening to.

"Not that you've formed an opinion on the matter. Because when your opinion is "right", you don't have to think of it as an opinion at all."

My opinion of Chomsky comes from having spent some time when I was younger paying attention to him and then looking-into things myself and realising that he clouded the true picture in order to make his own arguments seem convincing. Ironically, I found Chomsky was guilty of what Chomskyites so often accuse the media of doing - ignoring the full picture. I've since learned neither to fully trust the media nor it's Chomskyite critics.

I'm quite aware what an opinion is and quite aware how I reached it.

"Rush Limbaugh would be proud of your line of reasoning, if not your conclusions."

As with Fox News (see above) Rush Limbaugh has nothing to do with this.

"To balance out my suggestion of Chomsky, don't tell me to stop suggesting Chomsky. Make your own suggestion."

I already have - wikipedia (whose large-spread of contributors tends to prevent any serious bias) which has a great deal about the Vietnam War and/or history textbooks by a reliable source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war - overview of the war itself.

Wikipedia isn't perfect, of course, but the tendency to challenge any controversial claim and demand proof (the Vietnam war is a typical example, falling as it does into the realm of America's tedious "culture war" between "conservatives" and "liberals" (or right and left as the rest of us know them) - see the talk page for examples of this) means that articles tend to come out giving the reader a good well-rounded take on a subject.

"I'm quite aware what an opinion is and quite aware how I reached it."

Right. It's the thing that's right when you have it and express it, but wrong when Chomsky has one and expresses his. Never mind, we disagree on whether he makes clear statements in context or just puts out propaganda.