Did the French imperialists deserve what they got from Ho Chi Minh rebels?

[Product of Evolution]

Hell yes!

And I don't even like the guy for much else besides that.

He was a Stalinist: Stalinists are the bad socialists.

[burrowowl]

1. He wasn't a Stalinist

Ho Chi Minh even askes the U$ for help.
And Hell yes!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. The imperialists stayed happy in Paris while French kids died

to keep them rich.

[Racenut20]

3. And the US paid the bill instead of supporting Ho

[KG]

4. kicking foriegn imperialist occupiers out of ones own country is

always a good thing...

[anti-NAFTA]

7. Is it a good thing in Iraq?

eom

[KG]

8. absolutely

[anti-NAFTA]

9. I gotta admire your huge balls

for saying that. even though I disagree.

[H2O Man]

5. At the end of WW2

after the French has surrendered to our common enemy, and that area of the globe was occuppied by Japan, Ho was a resistance leader who coordinated efforts with our military. In fact, our intelligence referred to Ho as "our little man in the jungle." FDR would have recognized the nation of Vietnam had he lived. Truman would not. He said that "yellow people" were not "ready" for democracy. Thus, the US began to fund the French effort to maintain access to the natural resources and markets of a distant land. Ho patterned his Declaration of Independence on ours'. Remember, he had been educated in England and in the USA. Once, when a reporter asked him why he did not try to pattern his efforts on the Gandhi example, Ho said that had Gandhi tried non-violent resistance in Vietnam, he would have been killed the first day. If it had not been for the racist and short-sighted policies of that day, the US would have had a strong friend in southeast Asia. And a stronger culture at home. For more information, please read Vietnam:A History in Documents.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anti-NAFTA]

10. Can't answer that one, can you?

eom

[pop goes the weasel]

13. You are just looking for trouble, aren't you?

As a general rule, an unwanted occupying force can expect resistance. Even a generally wanted occupier is going to get some, so it's going to be even more extreme when the occupier is culturally quite different from the native population, is culturally indifferent to the native population, and is widely perceived by the native population as operating for selfish motives.

Is the resultant resistance deserved? Tell me, when you play with fire, and get burned, do you deserve that? Actions have consequences. No intercessory hand will stop you from getting burned if you play dangerous games. The same is as true for nations as for individuals.

[anti-NAFTA]

14. No I am not

the author of this thread is looking for trouble. He claims the French "deserved" it. I am asking him if he believes the Americans deserved it too?

He also calls Ho Chi Minh a "Stalinist", something he was not.

[pop goes the weasel]

18. agreed

It was a bone-head way to phrase things, and Ho was definitely not a Stalinist. But you first responded to KG, not the original poster. Not that KG is demonstrating any college knowledge or anything, but it's Saturday morning. Give some credit for possible hangover.

[markses]

11. It is the form of the question (both the original and its restatement)

that is flawed.

What is this business about "deserving" X? Exactly whom are we speaking about when we say "the French imperialists" or "the American imperialists"? If the form of the question is "Did X deserve what they got," then, it is broken and meaningless at several levels.

First, X has no concrete referent. Are we referring to the soldiers on the French and American sides? We must admit that they were not a homogenous group. We know, for example, (from Bernard Fall's great books on the French Indochina war, "Street without Joy" and "Hell in a Very Small Place: The Siege of Dien Bien Phu,") that the French forces in Vietnam were among the most varied forces ever put into a field, comprised as they were of local troops - both volunteers and those pressganged into service - colonial troops from sub-Saharan Africa and Algeria, the French foreign legion, (including German POWs from WWII who were starved into volunteering), and French troops proper. Hardly an easy group to categorize under the vague term "French imperialists." Moreover, the question then turns on whether the term means "those controlling the war back in France" (i.e., the Gaullists and their capitalist/ traditionalist political allies), or even whether any persons can be called to account, or whether we are dealing rather with an ideological/ social system that speaks through people. A giant muddle, in any case. The same criticism could be applied to the notion of "American imperialists." Are we referring to the troops on the ground - a varied mixture of volunteers and draftees, of privileged and oppressed classes, including large numbers of oppressed minorities, within the larger American social configuration, together with similar elements of local forces, Australians, Korean Marines, etc., etc., etc. Or to the "powerful" players within the American political/economic system, or to the ideological social forces that composed and drove the policy? Again, the term has no referent whatsoever. On that basis alone, we can say that the question makes no sense.

Second, the whole notion of "deserves" is senseless in this context as well, (although such resentiment is typical of those unable to think in terms of systematics). What do we mean by "deserve" here? Clearly, the effects of the resistance movements (both of the Viet Minh and later the NLF and PAVN) were not uniform, nor were they designed as "punishments." We have a political struggle here, and it cannot be displaced on to a moral struggle without confusion. Of course, in the US the "moral" struggle has taken precedence - perhaps because of the dissonance between the activities undertaken by the US state apparatus in Indochina (political) and the mythological self-image most Americans cling to of their broken polity (moral). In order to finesse or paper over the political struggle, then, Americans tend to default to moral questions - both in the positive and the negative ("Yes, 'they' deserved it." or "No, 'they' did not deserve it.") In either case, the fundamental mistake is the same, and the confusion is deadly. (This is one of the reasons why Americans can't understand the seeming Vietnamese "forgiveness" about the war: the Vietnamese always viewed the war as a political, and not a moral, struggle, while Americans were and are unable to distinguish the two levels of action and judgment).

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[markses]

15. I think I can address both

The point is that neither a "yes" or "no" answer to the initial question makes any sense, because the question doesn't make any sense. To the extent that you simply repeat the form of the question - apparently expecting a "No" answer - my post is as much addressed to you as to the original poster.

[anti-NAFTA]

16. Although I got a moderator warning

for insulting the thread starter (and I sincerely apologize for that since it was against board rules), I think this thread as a whole should be removed.

"French imperialists"? This reminds me of when there were protests in London and Tokyo of the Iraqi War, FOX News personalities said garbage like "They shouldn't be the ones talking about imperialism." Loathsome stuff, really.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Question

What term would you use then other than imperialists to describe France's decades of continued colonial rule. Algeria for instance...

[anti-NAFTA]

19. You're missing the point,

France has abandoned its imperialism and has long since abandoned imperialism. What is the point of bringing it up again and again and again, if not to silence French opposition to American policies?

And France's colonization of Algeria was not bad at all. The maternal side of my family happened to be Algerian Jews. Algeria had the same social institutions for those living there as France did. Algeria wasn;'t a colony. Algeria was FRANCE. France even granted citizenship to pretty much any Algerians who wanted it, and that included my grandparents, who emigrated to France after the revolution. So when you're talking about French "imperialism" you're hitting very close to home. There is no way you can compare what the French did to the atrocities of the British and, now, the Americans.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Not exactly

Not a year goes by where the Foreign Legion is not BACK in Africa enforcing the peace in some former French colony.

As for your defense of French colonization of Algeria, do you defend the way they kept control as well?

Ultimately, have you seen the movie "The Battle of Algiers?"

[anti-NAFTA]

21. Yes, exactly.

"Not a year goes by where the Foreign Legion is not BACK in Africa enforcing the peace in some former French colony."

I don't see what your point is. I guess America's sitting on its ass while Liberia was tearing itself to pieces was better.

"As for your defense of French colonization of Algeria, do you defend the way they kept control as well?"

Pretty much.

"Ultimately, have you seen the movie "The Battle of Algiers?""

Yeah, because a film about French imperialism by ITALIANS, of all people, is really going to show you the truth. When Chirac visits Algeria he is greeted literally with kisses and flowers by the people. Berlusconi would never dare show his face in Libya. I wonder why they're hated so much in their former colony? Hmnmmmm. Don't believe everything you see or read, friend.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. My points

By continued use of the French Foreign Legion, France also continues to be a colonial power.

Wow, I am stunned about the second point. Which also explains your third.

[anti-NAFTA]

24. Not really.

France uses its Foreign Legion to keep the peace in Africa, which is a lot more noble than what America did with regards to Liberia.

You shouldn't be stunned. You have gross misconceptions over Algerian history and France's role in it, but I guess that's understandable considering the mass disinformation in both American media and education.

[David Zephyr]

23. Ho Chi Minh Was Not a "Stalinist"

He was a brave revolutionary for his people against foriegn domination.

[Moderator]

25. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

3. The subject line of a discussion thread may not include profanity or swear words, even if words or letters are replaced by asterisks, dashes, or abbreviations.

4. The subject line and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation.

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

6. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator