Week 3- Conservative Ethnic, Forgotten and Invisible Stories

“Vietnam Unseen: Pictures from the Other Side” juxtaposes the drastically different perspectives of the Vietnam War through the media of photography. This documentary introduces Tim Page, a veteran of the War himself, and a photographer of the Vietnam War who strives to understnad better the photos from the other said of the war. These pictures serve as a quintessentially intimate look at both sides of the war. Whereas for many Vietnamese, the war was fought as a warfront right in their home, the American soldiers called it the “Vietnamese war”. However, for the Vietnamese, they saw it as the “American war”. This documentary serves as a sharp contrast of the naivete of the American lads who were hopping abroard overseas to search for thrill and the Vietnamese who had the war in their homes and they were fighting for the reunification of their country. For these Vietnamese, the war was a personal battle to regain their own control over their government. Whereas the American side displays instances of machismo, youthful innocence, and loss, the Vietnamese side showcases more intimate moments of tenacity and resilience, such as when they dug intricate tunnels for the purpose of creating a sustainable refuge to house what little comforts they had from American bombs. I think the idea of this documentary to draw a bit away from the focus on American soldiers is great in taking a small step to understand the more obscure perspectives of the war. It attempts to start a discussion about what else may not be known about the war and why it was fought for both sides through pictures, an evidence that doesn't seem to be doctored.

You can find instances of the American public's fixation on American soldiers' loss of youth and humanity in this video and in its comments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLUj2PuWSyM

As to answer the question of how Vietnamese may feel towards the US and why, I believe that there is negative sentiment towards the US for disguising their imperialist ambitions as “gift of freedom” (Nguyen, 2). This most likely comes from the deep investment these Vietnamese citizens have in their own country, a war fought right at home, tearing apart the land, and brutally ravishing its people. There is another perspective presented at the introduction of Nguyen’s introduction of “Gift of Freedom”: Madalenna Lai’s. She profusely thanks America, subjecting herself in the position of the debtee, setting up that power dynamic. At first, I couldn’t believe that someone had actually felt that way. Although this perspective is valid, I can’t help but feel like a large part of it is missing a critical understanding and thorough questioning of why the US is there in the first place, besides the vague “gift of freedom”.

You can find the  LA  times article and perhaps share my disbelief here: http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jan/03/local/me-19890

In the passage that we had to read for this week called, For Father, For Country, the author, Quang X. Pham, had a clear perspective of his family’s experience with the Vietnam War.  Pham’s father was a pilot for the South Vietnamese army during the Vietnam War and was a prisoner of war.  Despite the struggles that Pham’s family had to endure in Vietnam and the United States, he ultimately concluded that the time that his father was a soldier and a prisoner of war was all for his family and his family’s life in the future.  He saw the United States as his family and his savior despite it sucking the life out of his father. 

Growing up my father has also seen the United States as our savior and the reason why we are not under communist rule today.  He always liked to say that with communist rule the government would have all the right to come into our homes and take me away at their will and he would be unable to do anything about it.  I never understood why he would always use that as an example compared to many others but I suppose he wanted to express the idea that our bodies and family members are really our own in the United States.  Before taking many Asian American Studies classes, I have never delved into the idea that the United States was our savior.  I have never questioned it either however now, I have a new perspective. 

In the article, Doing the Mixed- Race Dance: Negotiating Social Spaces Within the Multiracial Vietnamese American Class Typology, by Kieu Linh Caroline Valverde, we are able to see just how crucial questions are in trying to put mixed race people into a category.  The desire to make these mixed raced people fit into the class of people, seem to be the determining factor to many of these questions.  Many mixed raced people have to prove that they are more Vietnamese than any other Vietnamese person.   

Being mixed raced is still an issue even in today’s society.  Being able to see actually see research and read the parts of the interviews given was quite refreshing.

 Discussion Questions: 

1. Why is the "gift of freedom" the gift that keeps on giving? In other words, why is it impossible to measure freedom, and thus impossible to repay it? 

2. Why are there such different views among the different groups of Southeast Asians in regards to the war? Why do some strongly regard the US as saviours whereas others regard US as cowards, or even with extreme distaste? 

3.  Although the "Vietnam Unseen" discussed that photos can mobilize and inform soldiers and make records of hystory, how can photographs be used to distort information in the favor liberal imperialist ambitions?
4. Do you think that the United States is the savior of the people and refugees of the Vietnam War or do you think that the Vietnam War would have been better off without the intervention of the United States? Why or why not?
5. How has the stigma of being mixed race affected our perspectives today?
6. The idea of “passing”, “a behavior that seems both resistant to and in compliance with dominant ideology” can be applied to many other characteristics not just being mixed race (Daniel, 1992b; Ginsberg, 1996).  What is a characteristic that you find yourself “passing”?  Why do you decide to “pass”?

Bibliography:
Pham, Andrew X. "For Father, For Country."
Kieu-Linh Caroline Valverde, "Doing the Mixed- Race Dance: Negotiating Social Spaces Within the Multiracial Vietnamese American Class Typology."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TmfnUu7I_g
National Geographic, "Vietnam Unseen: Pictures from the Other Side" (2002).
Mimi Nguyen, "The Gift of Freedom, Introduction."

Week 2 Mainstream History

Week 2 Readings Blog Entry

In the article “The American Involvement” by Sucheng Chan provides a detailed account of the Vietnam War. The years before the Vietnam War Ngo Dinh Diem who ruled as president opposed communism. For this reason America was in support of Diem and his beliefs. The U.S started off by bombing Vietnam immensely on Ho Chi Minh Trail to cut off North Vietnam’s supplies. As the war went on many casualties were felt by all sides including the U.S. As news spread at home, U.S anti-war protest spurred the nation and pressured the country to pull the troops out. Almost two billion were being spent a month on war alone. While the U.S was pulling troops out they were training South Vietnam troops to fight their war. However, South Vietnam could not fight a war where they were under equipped. They did not work well with “American style of fighting” and would ultimately lose military bases. As North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, U.S implemented evacuation plans but did not broadcast it to keep the civilians from panicking. As Saigon fell civilians would board helicopters, aircrafts, and boats to run away from the invasion. The civilians would go to neighboring countries  to hide from the Viet Cong and ultimately end up in America. In postwar Vietnam, America has accepted hundreds and thousands of Vietnamese evacuees.

.

The US’s motivation for going into Vietnam stemmed from the French failing and the US being afraid of another Korea happening as they saw communist politics spreading like a threat. Afraid that Vietnam would become another bloodbath like Korea, in order to control it for its “own sake” the US went in to “help” Vietnam. The US felt that if communism expansion ended in one country it will end in another “Thinking in geopolitical terms, they envisioned countries as dominos, if one domino fell, it would set in motion the collapse of the ones lined up next to it.” (Sucheng.pg.46). The US hoped to stop communism expansion in Vietnam by supporting President Diem who is against communism.

Framing Vietnam article:

This article looks at the 4 major films that recount the Vietnam war. Each of them were very different from each other but things they had in common were that neither of them went above and beyond to inquire the politics behind the war. They all focus on romanticizing the American Hero who goes through aiding his soldiers in battle while fighting “psychological crisis” as the article describes. The political hand behind the war is not acknowledged in either films. Instead of focusing on the destruction one in Vietnam by the US, the films empathize with the US and the crippled condition the states were in after the war. Family and true love are emphasized in the ends of each of the film. Ironically, after destroying populations of family and friends in Vietnam, the American vision of their own family and friends still has more spectator weight than the destruction done across seas to other families and friends. This article ends with the statement that maybe only the true sufferers of the war can be able to provide accurate depictions of the war, not Hollywood filmmakers who are trying to sell and make profit off of such films. But if war accounts were only told by the Vietnamese, who the author considers true sufferers of the war, then it would leave out the American perspectives of the war. In such politically sensitive historical events, all perspectives from all angles are necessary to portray, not just one or the other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHdMeHxDg90

The Fog of War Video/The Lessons of Vietnam  

Robert S McNamara, was the secretary of defense during the Cold War. In this movie and book he talked about the lessons that he thinks we should have learned from the earlier wars, and should have implemented but did not. McNamara admits that the US did wrong in the Vietnam war. He states that we thought of it as a Cold War, where the Vietnam thought of it as a Civil war. The difference in perceptions of the war made big difference in the way it was all executed. The US only caused destruction in Vietnam continuously dropping bombs and focusing on targets without regard for the residing populations in country they were attacking. McNamara and VanDeMark stress how important it is that the US communicate with other nations, it can help prevent so much destruction in these wars. Communication between nations can lead to mutual understandings politically, which in turn decide the direction of the nations, especially in cases with war on hand. Although McNamara speaks of ways the war was wrong, he also at the end says that the US going into Vietnam was justified in the end though and if they hadn’t it still would have had bad consequences for the US.

5 Questions for Class:

1. How could the US have done a better job perceiving the Vietnam war in the same way that the Vietnam were?

2. What are the images of the Vietnam war that have been portrayed to us by Hollywood/media?

3. Based off of Vietnam’s experience, how is Iraq justified by the US?

4. Which of the 11 lessons of war do you agree with or not stated by McNamara?

5.What was similar between the lasting consequences of the Vietnam war and the previous wars and the Iraq war now?

Sources: Documentary: Errols Morris dir. “The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara.” (2003)

Documentary: “S21: The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine”

Chan, Sucheng. “The American Involvement.”

Shute, Jenefer. “Framing Vietnam.”

McNamara, Robert S. with Brian VanDeMark. “The Lessons of Vietnam.” 

Week 1- Introduction: Our Past is Our Present

 
"COMMEMORATION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VIETNAM WAR"

On May 25, 2012 the White House Secretary Press released a proclamation by President Obama honoring and calling the Viet Nam veterans a generation of valor and honorable men. As proof, 58,000 names of  US veterans have been etched onto the granite walls of the Viet Nam War Memorial in Washington DC.  It took the US government fifty years after the war to honor the 1.6 millions militants still missing in action and approximately 800,000 surviving veterans (Veteran Today, 2009). While sounding patriotic and morale, the proclamation eluded to address many key issues of the Viet Nam war.

 According to Tom Hayden (2013), true recognition and honoring of the Viet Nam War would mean accurately accounting for the devastating impact the war had on the US veterans, their families, Viet Nam and its people.  However, the proclamation neglected to mention an essential player/casualty in the war, the roles of the Vietnamese in the war that bared their name.  Approximately over 3 millions of Vietnamese have been killed, injured, disabled, displaced; and their land, environment and institutions were destroyed by the bombing (Hayden, 2013).  

“As of May 28, 2012, through November 11, 2025, the Federal Government will partner with local governments, private organizations, and communities across America to participate in the Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War -- a 13-year program to honor and give thanks to a generation of proud Americans who saw our country through one of the most challenging missions we have ever faced” (White House Secretary Press Release).

The patriotic language of, “proud Americans, valor and sacrifice, heroes who suffered…” imbues a strong sense of hero worship and national pride which correlates with a sense of duty suggesting that these men did the right thing  in the war by serving their country.  While in reality the Viet Nam War was met with tremendous civilian antiwar resistance by middle class White, Black, Latino and Asian activists who were fighting against the drafts and the involvement of US soldiers in Viet Nam.  Five generations later, the younger people’s sentiments and historical accounts of the Viet Nam war has drastically shifted.  Recent Gallup poll shows that 51% of Americans ages 18 to 29 believe that it was not a mistake to send US forces to Vietnam; and 34% supported the war, highest level of support for American involvement in Vietnam since 1970 (Hayden, 2013).

For many of the older generations, the historical moment of the war extended beyond patriotism, ‘manhood’, and morality (Hayden, 2013). Thus, the language of hero worship and patriotism may side-stepped the real issues that coexisted with any war: the devastation of the humanistic reservoir on both sides.  For the Vietnamese in diaspora, April 30^th is known as “Black April”. For those who felt displaced, it’s a commemoration of those who died due to war and the loss of their country.  Fifty years later, many US veterans are still suffering from physical and psychological distresses.  They are struggling with grief and grievances.  A few were brave enough to confront their past by returning to Vietnam to seek peace and forgiveness; hoping to find it within themselves or  from those they had hurt. Due to the interchangeable flow of capitals and commodities between US and Viet Nam, Vietnamese in Viet Nam have looked past the war and are looking toward to an economic prosperity with a global economy.  Case in point, during the Irag War, President Bush urged people to “go shopping”; it’s just another way US war culture has been normalized (Hayden, 2013).          

The Viet Nam war was and still is a multifaceted concept with layers of controversial secrecy, diplomacy, propagandas of a military industrialized complex; thus, even those who were involved did not have a real understanding of the US involvement in Viet Nam or accountable facts about what really occurred in Viet Nam.  Individual experiences and perspectives were radically diverse and convoluted that it became difficult for many who were fighting the war to differentiate between allies and enemies. As a result, many claimed a piece of history by telling their version through their own personal account through the lenses of political, capital or social perspective.  Rather than spinning the truth, those who writes about the war should accurately account for the facts and voices of the people who absent or missing from the conversation.  Commemoration of the Viet Nam war should be about teaching the younger generation the accurate accomplishments, hardship and sacrifices as well as the aberration that have been made. The focus should go beyond the symbolic heroism and patriotism if we want the younger generation to have a meaningful understanding of the cause and effect of war.  Ultimately, we do not want the younger generations to repeat the same historical errors due to elusive facts or by calling it another name.  

                                                   American Vets Return to Vietnam

What's Going on? -- The "We-Win-Even-When-We-Lose Syndrome

Before, I used to believe that the celebration of multiculturalism, emphasis on freedom and democracy, patriotism, and unconditional respect towards American veterans of the Vietnam War were simply traits of American culture. I thought that these traits were not used in any political propaganda or agenda in rewriting the historical narrative of the Vietnam War.  However, after reading Yen Le Espiritu's article The “We-Win-Even-When-We-Lose Syndrome: U.S. Press Coverage of the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the “Fall of Saigon,” I realized that the ideas of multiculturalism, democracy, capitalism, and traumatic memories of the war veterans were apart of a means to an end to enforce the American, white perspective of the Vietnam War. Additionally, the increasing sympathy for Vietnam War veterans was used to downplay the US's defeat in the Vietnam War, to conceal the wartime atrocities of the US soldiers against innocent Vietnamese civilians in Vietnam, and to exclude the experiences of Southeast Asians with the war from US history. Moreover, the paired theme of victimized US veterans and liberated Southeast Asian refugees helped the US restore its masculinity and respect of “whiteness,” which were severely weakened by the US’s defeat in the Vietnam War. These tactics, alongside with the mentioned ideas above, portray the United States as the moral leader of freedom and socioeconomic success and the liberator of ethnic groups who originated from another countries (such as Vietnam) that are perceived to be deprived of democracy, safety and financial security.

In Loan Dao's article What’s Going On with the Oakland Museum’s “California and the Vietnam Era” Exhibit?, erasure of Southeast Asian experiences  and exclusion of artifacts that realistically depict the Vietnam War --such as military weapons and graphic photographs of the wartime atrocities committed by US soldiers -- reinforce the white, American retelling of the Vietnam War in a power play. However, by restricting the exhibit organizers from showing the violent, gory essence of the war, the board (who were majorly White American at the time) of the Oakland museum also concealed the details and truths of the wartime atrocities committed by US soldiers. According to the documentary Vietnam Holocaust, US soldiers couldn't fight effectively against North Vietnam’s guerrilla forces, which halted the US military’s statistical reports for numbers of Viet Cong killed. The US army needed human corpses that could substitute the North Vietnamese soldiers in these casualties reports. Only then could the US military continue to fight in the Vietnam War. Therefore, the US soldiers mutilated and killed “anything that moved, which ended up to be Vietnamese villagers (from babies to the elderly) from the North and the South. Yet, by the keeping the bloody atrocities and Vietnamese genocide withheld from the public,  the board of the museum also promotes the idea that Vietnamese immigrants should be grateful for being saved from communism by US troops. 

On another note, in  “We-Win-Even-When-We-Lose Syndrome . . . .” and What’s Going On with the Oakland Museum’s  . . . . , the United States has used propaganda that contrasts the financial, academic success of Vietnamese people assimilating to American culture to the destitute state and low socioeconomic status of Vietnamese civilians remaining in Vietnam after the Vietnam War. Yet, I was surprised by how Vietnamese Americans were seem as members of the model minority stereotype on the condition that they were anti-communist. This social phenomenon shows that the United States didn't waged a war against North Vietnam. The US as the symbol of democracy and capitalism declared war on all international agents of communism; the US is also the imperialist of democracy and freedom as well.

Questions:
1. According to Yen Le Espiritu's article The “We-Win-Even-When-We-Lose Syndrome: . . . . ,” an interracial relationship between a Vietnamese person and a person outside of their ethnic group can be seen as a symbol of freedom of the US. In the context of the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War, are there hidden, deeper meanings, functions, or propaganda behind the US's promotion of interracial relationships and multiculturalism? For instance, how can multiculturalism and the choice to interracially date (or marry) promote America's “moral authority of U.S. leadership on the world stage” (Espiritu)?

2. If the wartime atrocities of US soldiers against Vietnamese veterans could be exposed to the public, how would the evidence of these atrocities change the perception of the United States as a liberator of Vietnamese people? 3. For Vietnamese Americans, what are the pros and cons of knowing the truthful account of the US soldiers’ inhumane actions and involvement during the Vietnam War?  4. How would this knowledge affect the identities of Vietnamese Americans? 5. In the case of the Oakland Museum exhibit "What's Going on? -Vietnam Era," what are the alternate methods of informing the public about Southeast Asian experiences and perspectives of the Vietnam War (besides a museum)?

How did the US get involved in the Vietnam War?  

Spoken Word on Vietnamese American Identity Influenced by the Aftermath of the Vietnam War 

Artist: Bao Phi  

Posted by Jennine and Leslie

Yee Xiong - Research Proposal

In this research paper, I purpose to explore the motivations of Hmong queers coming out and their impacts on the Hmong American community.  There has not been an extensive study on how Hmong queer bodies navigate between the hetero-normative space in the Hmong American community and the larger LGBTIQ community.  Hmong parents also do not accept queerness in the family, why is this? I will figure out the reasons and motivations behind their disapproval and see if it has to do with more than just morals and beliefs.  Understand their background and approaches.  As a Hmong student and an ally of the LGBTIQ community at UC Davis, I want to explore more Hmong queer narratives and experiences to better provide resources and support Hmong queers coming out in our community.

SOY: Shades of Yellow is the first Hmong non-profit organization that provides for the LGBTIQ bodies in the Hmong American community.  It is based in Minnesota and has shown that the resources are very much needed and has been proven helpful to the Hmong American community residing there.  However, it is still being under attacked because parents and families are outraged that such queer communities exist in the Hmong American community. 

Using Foucault’s POWER AND KNOWLEDGE theory: how power is used to control knowledge and how it’s used as a form in socially controlled spaces.

Methodology: qualitative method; survey dedicated to Hmong queers’ narratives + Data on Hmong American socioeconomic trends, parents’ influence over children, and ability to communicate with parents and family 

LaoLorWeek8

Week 8

Vang’s chapter on culture and our in-class discussions was about authenticity. So what is authenticity? I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing, it is a construction and accepted as real. Vang points out that the Hmong New Year was altered in Long Cheng because the community transitioned into an urban settlement (pg.104). Such things as Lao dancing, beauty pageants, and stage performances were never apart of the event or culture, but has been introduced and accepted as the norm now. This points to how authenticity and culture can be created. In addition to this, foods from various influences are common at festivals and ceremonies. Dishes from Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand have found their way into the Hmong’s daily diets.

Personally I agree with Vang’s assertion, the event changes depending on the location and type of economy. For example here in the states, the New Years are centered on consumerism. There are many booths that sell, sell, and sell. This new orientation alienates a lot of the elders who miss the community aspect of the event. My folks are very disinterested in the New Years because it’s not what they remember it to be. Younger folks now don’t participate in the community activities they use to engage in: such as exchange of songs and ball tossing.

Pictures and information on the Ball Tossing courtship:

http://library.thinkquest.org/trio/TTQ02193/tossing_ball.html

LaoLorWeek4

Week 4

Bill Ong Hing’s article and “Sentenced Home” were very emotional and difficult materials for me to digest. It reveals the extent that the government exercises to rid of “unwanted” people. It shows that we are disposable! We are nothing to them! The government accepts immigrants, throws them in low socioeconomic communities, and later banishes them for minor crimes. They expect model citizens to be cultivated from marginalized environments; their formula doesn't balance out and is contradictory. Regardless of their citizenship status, that is not how you treat people, especially if you are a world power who globally propagandize freedom and in the Middle East.

On a more academic tone, I wondered about the contributions of 9/11 to deportation? How has the narrative change due to a panic of “terrorism”? Did deportation increase or decrease, and is it proportional across racial lines? I think Hing’s article could be enhanced by adding a 9/11 lenses. I know that immigrants from Mexico and South America are portrayed as taking up all of the jobs, stressing the social services, drug traffickers, and criminals. However, history tells us that their immigration was welcomed as cheap labor force in the past. Drawing an association, I wondered about the change of governmental narratives for Southeast Asian deportation before and after 9/11?

http://1lovemovement.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/may11.jpg

An immigration protest picture.

LaoLorWeek9

Week 9

The fluid exchange of music, technology, and information astounds me because this increased transnationalism changes the relationship of Vietnamese and oversea Vietnamese. This begs the question of the acceptability of increase partnership in the future. Will it decrease the automatic hatred of each other? However, this inquiry is only targeted to the regular people and not towards the elites. I find elites to have a stronger investment to ideology for manipulation purposes; the ordinary person is much more concern about practicality. But will transnationalism, such as the IT sector, relax governmental policies as they witness development, or will they have an even stronger sense of containment?

I especially found the chapter on music extremely interesting as I observe the same phenomenon in the Hmong community. Singers there tour all over the states and some do marry Hmong Americans and reside permanently here. In addition, Hmong companies here would travel there to record albums and sell it globally. They also film a lot of music videos in Southeast Asia because it’s cheaper and for its scenery. The music chapter really connected many similar occurrences of transnationalism.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U79Nlk5HlA 

A video of a Hmong star from Southeast Asia performing in France.