Really fascinating, thanks for the writeup. I’ve read a book, “Deng Xiaoping’s Long War” by Xiaoming Zhang, on the Sino-Vietnamese War a while back, written by this Chinese-American professor at the US Air Force College, incidentally first book I ever read that had a “This book does not necessarily represent the views of the DoD or the Air Force” disclaimer on it.
He claimed that “A secret deal may have been made regarding how to address the unpleasant thirteen years so that the interlude would not imperil future Sino-Vietnamese relations. The two sides allegedly reached a tacit agreement that prohibited the media from publishing stories and scholars from conducting studies about the border conflict in hopes that the recent hostility would then fade from memory on both sides of the border. Both countries could then concentrate on rejuvenating their relationship.”
If that allegation was true, it would be a very illuminating insight on the private nature of the inter-party relationship that, after wartime animosities, they could mutually cooperate towards such a pragmatic and far-sighted goal - especially given the narrative of the public animosities between the countries, to near war levels according to the Western media coverage.
My first question then would be if there’s a sense whether the jingoism and animosity, which the Western media constantly trumpets, from the domestic perspective in Vietnam emanates more so from the private media, general population, liberal elements of the government rather than directly from the CPV itself?
My second question is whether the geographic political trends of pre-unificiation Vietnam still persist today. From what I’ve read, one consequence of the general amnesty given by the DRV as it liberated the South and became the unified SRV is the persistence of the South’s bourgeois class dynamics and liberal consciousness in a way that the north had more successfully eliminated. Then the enactment of Doi Moi not long after unification further allowed the persistence of those strains. So would you say the stereotype holds up that the south is generally more liberal, West-worshipping and bourgeois-concentrated than the north these days?
My first question then would be if there’s a sense whether the jingoism and animosity, which the Western media constantly trumpets, from the domestic perspective in Vietnam emanates more so from the private media, general population, liberal elements of the government rather than directly from the CPV itself?
The general population of Vietnam despise jingoism. By this, I mean we don’t like to threaten others with military force in order to further our national interest. Our socialist republic was founded on anti-colonial struggle, to engage in jingoism is to spit on the legacy of our forebears. And as I mentioned before, we look down on post-Maidan Ukraine for failing to safeguard their people against war.
As for the Party and the state, their words are carefully refined, as to not spark hatred and provoke divisions. Our news and media are monitored by the government, so they usually don’t touch politically sensitive topics without approval. Even if political sensation could make them banks, they would rather not be in jail. As a result, most private media only speak about culture and economy.
I am not some governmental insider, so I don’t know how much is the liberal elements within the Party and the state.
Vietnamese’s wariness against China do exist, but Western media has exaggerated it greatly. The Western media often try to sell the idea of a NATO-like alliance to contain China. And this idea is even cheered on by oversea Vietnamese Americans living in the US. But those who truly understand Vietnam know this idea is a non-starter.
My second question is whether the geographic political trends of pre-unificiation Vietnam still persist today. From what I’ve read, one consequence of the general amnesty given by the DRV as it liberated the South and became the unified SRV is the persistence of the South’s bourgeois class dynamics and liberal consciousness in a way that the north had more successfully eliminated. Then the enactment of Doi Moi not long after unification further allowed the persistence of those strains. So would you say the stereotype holds up that the south is generally more liberal, West-worshipping and bourgeois-concentrated than the north these days?
I would say that dividing classes by regions is a wrong approach factually, historically, and politically.
Factually, classes are decided by material conditions and material interests. Those who are benefited from their relationship with the West are naturally more liberal. Those who are benefited from governmental socialist policies are naturally more patriotic. You can’t imagine a farmer from Bến Tre (a southern province) would somehow be more liberal than a rich guy in Hanoi, can you?
Historically, we were able to liberate the South thanks in large part to the support of the local people from the countryside to the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam. The people of the South are just as patriotic as the rest of the nation.
Politically, regionalism contradicts our policy of national unity and social harmony. It is no different from racial discrimination in the US. It serves only to divide and cause conflicts.
But reactionaries would often try to realize regionalism amongst Vietnamese, because they want to cause divisions and destabilize Vietnam. As such, the rude, loudmouth reactionaries would use slurs like “Bắc Kỳ”, “Nam Kỳ” (these were terms used by French colonial to refer to our North and South region respectively) in an attempt to spark hatred. Whilst the subtle reactionaries would try to sneakily introduce the concept of regional discrimination and ideological difference amongst us. You may have come across one of their subtle propaganda, which would be what prompted this question.
Anyway, I may be a Vietnamese, but I am not an all-knowing god, so there might be holes in my understanding. I recommend you forward these questions to @darrion_nguyen and @wrenevans217208 on X/Twitter. Do note that wrenevans might be a bit too… dogmatic, so take the their words with a grain of salt.
Really fascinating, thanks for the writeup. I’ve read a book, “Deng Xiaoping’s Long War” by Xiaoming Zhang, on the Sino-Vietnamese War a while back, written by this Chinese-American professor at the US Air Force College, incidentally first book I ever read that had a “This book does not necessarily represent the views of the DoD or the Air Force” disclaimer on it.
He claimed that “A secret deal may have been made regarding how to address the unpleasant thirteen years so that the interlude would not imperil future Sino-Vietnamese relations. The two sides allegedly reached a tacit agreement that prohibited the media from publishing stories and scholars from conducting studies about the border conflict in hopes that the recent hostility would then fade from memory on both sides of the border. Both countries could then concentrate on rejuvenating their relationship.”
If that allegation was true, it would be a very illuminating insight on the private nature of the inter-party relationship that, after wartime animosities, they could mutually cooperate towards such a pragmatic and far-sighted goal - especially given the narrative of the public animosities between the countries, to near war levels according to the Western media coverage.
My first question then would be if there’s a sense whether the jingoism and animosity, which the Western media constantly trumpets, from the domestic perspective in Vietnam emanates more so from the private media, general population, liberal elements of the government rather than directly from the CPV itself?
My second question is whether the geographic political trends of pre-unificiation Vietnam still persist today. From what I’ve read, one consequence of the general amnesty given by the DRV as it liberated the South and became the unified SRV is the persistence of the South’s bourgeois class dynamics and liberal consciousness in a way that the north had more successfully eliminated. Then the enactment of Doi Moi not long after unification further allowed the persistence of those strains. So would you say the stereotype holds up that the south is generally more liberal, West-worshipping and bourgeois-concentrated than the north these days?
The general population of Vietnam despise jingoism. By this, I mean we don’t like to threaten others with military force in order to further our national interest. Our socialist republic was founded on anti-colonial struggle, to engage in jingoism is to spit on the legacy of our forebears. And as I mentioned before, we look down on post-Maidan Ukraine for failing to safeguard their people against war.
As for the Party and the state, their words are carefully refined, as to not spark hatred and provoke divisions. Our news and media are monitored by the government, so they usually don’t touch politically sensitive topics without approval. Even if political sensation could make them banks, they would rather not be in jail. As a result, most private media only speak about culture and economy.
I am not some governmental insider, so I don’t know how much is the liberal elements within the Party and the state.
Vietnamese’s wariness against China do exist, but Western media has exaggerated it greatly. The Western media often try to sell the idea of a NATO-like alliance to contain China. And this idea is even cheered on by oversea Vietnamese Americans living in the US. But those who truly understand Vietnam know this idea is a non-starter.
I would say that dividing classes by regions is a wrong approach factually, historically, and politically.
Factually, classes are decided by material conditions and material interests. Those who are benefited from their relationship with the West are naturally more liberal. Those who are benefited from governmental socialist policies are naturally more patriotic. You can’t imagine a farmer from Bến Tre (a southern province) would somehow be more liberal than a rich guy in Hanoi, can you?
Historically, we were able to liberate the South thanks in large part to the support of the local people from the countryside to the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam. The people of the South are just as patriotic as the rest of the nation.
Politically, regionalism contradicts our policy of national unity and social harmony. It is no different from racial discrimination in the US. It serves only to divide and cause conflicts.
But reactionaries would often try to realize regionalism amongst Vietnamese, because they want to cause divisions and destabilize Vietnam. As such, the rude, loudmouth reactionaries would use slurs like “Bắc Kỳ”, “Nam Kỳ” (these were terms used by French colonial to refer to our North and South region respectively) in an attempt to spark hatred. Whilst the subtle reactionaries would try to sneakily introduce the concept of regional discrimination and ideological difference amongst us. You may have come across one of their subtle propaganda, which would be what prompted this question.
Anyway, I may be a Vietnamese, but I am not an all-knowing god, so there might be holes in my understanding. I recommend you forward these questions to
@darrion_nguyenand@wrenevans217208on X/Twitter. Do note that wrenevans might be a bit too… dogmatic, so take the their words with a grain of salt.