Ms. Willis’ socialism column nonfactual

I find it difficult to get to the substance of Ms. Willis’ article when the premise seems to be that the socialist party started making promises to the Vietnamese people and then took over following the Vietnam War.

The North Vietnamese army, the military vestige of a communist totalitarian state, defeated the South Vietnamese in battle and seized control. I don’t think there were any promises made by socialists to achieve this.

And the force behind all of this was not redistribution but Vietnamese nationalism. The idea that “Their rhetoric worked. The people conceded to allow the government to enact their promises” is so farcically out of line with history I am surprised the editor of this paper allowed such drivel without at least an editor’s note.

I am sure Ms. Willis is a very nice person and her intent is certainly there for all to see. However your audience does not all watch Fox News and some of us actually care about some form of historical reality.

So, please, Ms. Willis. At least start out in the ballpark and we can allow you some poetic license ....

Timothy J. Parker
Peachtree City, Ga.

bbwillis
bbwillis's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2014
Factual points to help Mr. Parker

Thank you Mr. Parker for your commentary on my article, " Ms. Willis’ socialism column nonfactual". However, you are mistaken when you qualify my article as "nonfactual" on a couple of fronts.

1. The most glaring mistake you make is failing to recognize that my account is from the perspective of someone who was actually there in Vietnam during the post-Vietnam war period. Any historian will tell you that first-hand accounts are the most valued sources of research when seeking to understand an event. Additionally, I clearly qualify that this article is from my friend's perspective. Additionally, I conducted two interviews with him and had him review the article twice for inaccuracies or needed clarifications.

2. The second glaring mistake you make is that you seem to conflate the period during which I am recounting, the post-Vietnam war, with the actual Vietnam war itself. You are accurate when you describe the Vietnam war being between North and South Vietnam. However, again I remind you that I qualified within the article that this account was the post-war period (i.e. after 1973). During this period Vietnam did experience a rise in a political party which was a combination of both North Vietnamese Communist party (i.e. Lao Dong) and South Vietnamese socialist/communist party (i.e. People's Revolutionary Party of South Vietnam). Together, they formed the Communist Party of Vietnam. This party did rise to power and established what can be described as a socialist/communist republic. The historical facts of this period can be easily researched.

Finally, I just want you to know that I honestly did find your critique helpful. I refrained from going into the political history of Vietnam because many people are not familiar with it, and I thought it detracted from what I found most compelling about my friend's story which was his reaction to the socialist rhetoric he was detecting in American politics today. However, I recognize that there are those who may find what I write objectionable, and maybe interjecting points of global history may make them more receptive my points of discussion. If this is true in your case, then I trust you find this response helpful!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr. Parker and Facts

Ms. Willis don't confuse Mr. Parker with facts, he's not interested.

Mr. Parker, based on past communications, apparently feels very sensitive and guilty about the Vietnam War. Perhaps it's because he didn't serve, dodged the draft, or otherwise rationalized why he didn't "need" to serve. It really doesn't matter, the man has a problem with Vietnam, Vietnam Vets and the War in general. I suspect, that his father must have served and he didn't. Unfortunately, there's a lot of that legacy from this war. I am sure Ms. Fonda is one of his "heroes", along with all of his compatriots that "served" in the streets against the war.

So, with that said, Mr. Parker is certainly within his rights to express his opinion. It's good that good men serve their country so he can do so.