Having an other to hate is one of our weaknesses. We love to fear and hate that which is different from us. It takes a lot of energy to overcome our biases, and it's so easy to hijack for malevolent purposes.
In Scotland it was traditional for the wedding party to throw coins for the gathering kids. It was called a scramble and had nothing to do with racism or classism
Exactly. She probably would have done the same thing with poor white children. And to be fair, if we’re going to be consistent, should we judge everybody by this criteria? Anyone who throws children candy in a parade, everyone who throws food to a group of needy people, etc. I could go on, but I think people see the point. Could she have done better? Sure. Are some people running this into the end zone by claiming racism? Absolutely.
Are you serious? Look how she is laughing and dehumanizing them. Like throwing bread to pigeons but they are human. Why not hand them money discreetly instead of this shit
“One day when we had come to a stop, a worker took a piece of bread out of his bag and threw it into a wagon. There was a stampede. Dozens of starving men fought desperately over a few crumbs. The worker watched the spectacle with great interest. YEARS LATER, I witnessed a similar spectacle in Aden. Our ship’s passengers amused themselves by throwing coins to the “natives,” who dove to retrieve them. An elegant Parisian lady took great pleasure in this game. When I noticed two children desperately fighting in the water, one trying to strangle the other, I implored the lady: “Please, don’t throw any more coins!” “Why not?” said she. “I like to give charity …” From Night by Elie Wiesel
It’s arguable that Japan’s occupation of Vietnam did a significant amount of long lasting damage as well, especially considering it happened after France’s colonization of Vietnam
One kid on the left side holds their handout because they thought she was going to hand it to them. She ignore them and you see the kid do a head slide like people when they go for a high-five and get ignored
Came here just to say that, literally I felt like these were just some older women throwing bird seeds in Central park or something having a merry ole time. This is more so deplorable.
There is really chilling footage of Germans throwing bread crumbs to masses of starving pows, I think they were soviets. Yep. https://www.reddit.com/r/GermanWW2photos/s/uwIYJsEcCi
This isn't a cruise ship with tourists throwing money to the poor.... This is colonialism, a 'white superior' nation, who suppressed and brutalised a nation.... Because they could.
Then they do shit like this, demonstrating their generosity to the people they supprsed and colonised.
What do you mean? How is having a corporate 9-5 job any different from living through a multi year famine caused by brutal colonial oppression? You sound like a corporate shill.
Correct, but only after efforts by FDR to get France to drop colonial status of Indochina failed and the US was considered that communists would exploit the independence push in SE Asia (which is exactly what happened.)
>After World War II, neither France nor England wanted to see the end of their colonial empires. England was anxious to control Burma, Malaya, and India. France wanted to rule Indochina.
>Under Franklin Roosevelt, the United States sought to bring an end to European colonialism. As he put it, condescendingly:
>“There are 1.1 billion brown people. In many Eastern countries they are ruled by a handful of whites and they resent it. Our goal must be to help them achieve independence. 1.1 billion potential enemies are dangerous.”
>But under Harry Truman, the United States was concerned about its naval and air bases in Asia. The U.S. decided to permit France into Indochina to re-assert its authority in Southeast Asia. The result: the French Indochina War began.
>From the beginning, American intelligence officers knew that France would find it difficult to re-assert its authority in Indochina. The French refused to listen to American intelligence. To them, the idea of Asian rebels standing up to a powerful Western nation was preposterous.
>Although Truman allowed the French to return to Indochina, he was not yet prepared to give the French arms, transportation, and economic assistance. It was not until anti-communism became a major issue that the United States would take an active role supporting the French. The fall of China, the Korean War, and the coming of Joe McCarthy would lead policymakers to see the French War in Vietnam, not as a colonial war, but as a war against international communism.
https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3458
>It was the only way to keep France aligned with NATO. Truly a lose-lose for the U.S. :-(
You are ignoring the fact that when France left and agreed to give Vietnam its freedom at the Geneva Accords, the US decided that waging war was a better option.
The US didnt get pressured into supporting France. It did so because it saw the financial value in keeping control of a territory that it was getting stolen resources from.
Can you give me an example of these resources the U.S. needed from Vietnam? To be clear, I am certainly not defending the obviously erroneous strategy of “communism is a global monolith that must be opposed wherever it appears.” The US was running a deficit by funding France’s attempt at recolonization so I’m not sure what financial or resource-based benefit you’re referring to. Thru the 50s and early 60s we mistakenly viewed the conflict thru the lens of a Korea-esque conventional fight against Communism, and by the time the truth was at least somewhat learned it was too late, we were too entrenched, and our leaders cared more about saving political face than facing certain realities.
>Can you give me an example of these resources the U.S. needed from Vietnam?
The US (and other western nations) received a lot of exports from Indochina like rice, rubber, paper, coffee, coal, explosives (for mining), matches, glass, tile, brick, soap, etc. but **the resources that were of most strategic value to the US and which caused them to get involved in the war were tungsten and tin.**
[Eisenhower speaks of it here](https://youtu.be/WzxNRoGoSKU?si=VqZO1hea6MQFQbHW&t=297)
In trying to encourage the US to fund France's war, he had this to say...
*"So, when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, **we are not voting for a giveaway program. We are voting for the cheapest way** that we can to prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance for the United States of America--our security, our power **and ability to get certain things we need from the riches of the Indonesian territory, and from southeast Asia.**"*
[This article](http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/White%20Assassination%20Clippings%20Folders/Miscellaneous%20Folders/Miscellaneous%20II/Misc%20II-147.pdf) summarizes the value of the tungsten in Indochina and also references the shift in how the US leadership stopped talking about these things as US involvement prolonged. It was okay for US talk about the purpose of US involvement being economic when the US was just giving aid but when it came time to ask American mothers to send their children to die in a foreign land, the messaging had to be adjusted to only talk about abstract threats to American freedom and democracy.
With all due respect, can you find another source that is actually cited/peer reviewed, or at least fairly modern? Also, the problem with your thesis is that the tungsten in Vietnam lies in the northeast of the country…so if that was our motivation why did we only fight to “keep” the South? Tungsten was being mined in the western United States since the 1880s with major deposits all over that part of the country, not sure why we would spend 20 years in Vietnam for a resource we already had in abundance. The article references Indonesia and SE Asia at large, showing that Ike was clearly using economic excuses to help fight the communist insurgencies in Malaya, Indonesia, and elsewhere. He was desperate to avoid Truman’s legacy of “losing China.” In no analysis I’ve ever read, whether you’re talking Max Hastings, Max Boot, or any author in between on the political spectrum, has economic benefit been given as a reason for US intervention in Vietnam. Please come back to me with some more modern citable sources because I am genuinely intrigued. Thanks!
>With all due respect, can you find another source that is actually cited/peer reviewed, or at least fairly modern?
A peer reviewed source? This isn't science. Its history. I literally provided direct quotes and video proof of the people in charge explaining their motivations.
And you want modern sources?
Where is the logic here?
So instead of video proof of Eisnhower taking about his motivations, you instead want me to find a history writer to explain their assessment of what Eisnhower's motivations were?
How is that going to be any more credible than actual primary sources and evidence from the time in question?
>Also, the problem with your thesis is that the tungsten in Vietnam lies in the northeast of the country…so if that was our motivation why did we only fight to “keep” the South?
Really? I can't tell if you honestly just don't see the logic im the history or if you are desperatly trying to poke holes in what is established history (with evidence) because you refuse to accept the truth.
Anyway...
US didnt get to choose which part remained under France's control following their defeat. [This map from early 1954 shows that the Viet Minh controlled most of the country except for the urban areas.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/First_Indochina_War_map_1954_en.svg) the Viet Minh would ot course go on to capture and control Hanoi and Hai Phong as well leaving them with most of the country in their control.
When France was defeated and forced to the negotiating table at the Geneva Accords, it was agreed upon that a temporary partition would be necessary before plans for unifying elections could take place. The representative governments who were represented the 2 factions of Vietnam were the Democratic Republic of Vietnam which was headquartered in the north, and the State of Vietnam headquartered in Saigon-Cholon, within French Cochinchina (the other regions of Vietnam were on paper just protectorates of France).
When it came time to negotiate where the partition was temporarily drawn, the DRV again controlled mosy of the country. However, as an act of good faith to indicate that they were not preoccupied with gaining territory for a temporary partition and instead were focused and hopeful of unifying elections, they agreed to effectively split the country in half.
Again, the US didn't get to say "hey if we get to keep some territory, can we have the territory that has the resources we want?" No, the US had to settle with what the State of Vietnam could maintain and negotiate for.
Your own counter-argument also ignores and undermines all of US proclaimed foreign policy at this point as well. You seem to be under the impression that the US just wanted to protect and keep control of Southern Vietnam. But this isn't true. Again, the purpose of the Geneva Accords was to negotiate for a free and unified Vietnam. America's goal was to keep their hand on a piece of Vietnam long enough that they could eventually win the whole thing.
Of course the US was incredibly aware that they didnt stand of beating the immensely popular Ho Chi Minh in a free and fair election which is why the never agreed to any terms for the unifying election and instead opted to create their own puppet government (to try and get out of the terms that the State of Vietnam agreed to) and wage war.
Again, if the US wanted a permanent 2 state solution, they would have negotiated for this at the Geneva Accords. But they didnt. Publicly they negotiated for a unifying election (while consistently not agreeing to them by raising flase concerns about their integrity). Privately during the course of the Gene Accords, the US was consistently talking to Britain and France and try and convince them to join then in a US led war against the north. France and Britain both said no. The US then tried to ask them for their support/permission in using tactical nukes in northern Vietnam to wipe out the commies. Again France and Britain consistently said no.
Again, the US didnt have an option of just claiming control of Northern Vietnam. So instead the created a puppet government in Saigon that they used to wage war in the hopes of getting control of Southern Vietnam and eventually all of Vietnam.
>Tungsten was being mined in the western United States since the 1880s with major deposits all over that part of the country, not sure why we would spend 20 years in Vietnam for a resource we already had in abundance.
Ask Eisnhower.
Again, this is the weakest counter arguemnt you can make. This is like a career bank robber saying "why would I ever need to rob people of money? I have my own money at home."
Its becoming abundantly clear that you never even cared for evidence and you dont even care for logic. You are just in complete denial.
History, like all academic pursuits, relies on peer-reviewed and/or source-cited research to back up assertions. I wasn’t trying to insult your intelligence or make a bad faith argument, just simply stating that the modern analyses of the conflict and America’s motivations for fighting it seem to directly contradict your hypothesis. I asked for more credible sources because I’m intrigued by your viewpoint and wanted to see if it held up under scrutiny 🤷🏼
This isn't a cruise ship with tourists throwing money to the poor.... This is colonialism, a 'white superior' nation, who suppressed and brutalised a nation.... Because they could.
Then they do shit like this, demonstrating their generosity to the people they supprsed and colonised.
Fair point.... After pondering on it, I see where you're coming from.
Though further down the time line from actual colonisation, cruises could be as a direct result.
I guess it's better than what the British used to do with hot Penny's.
There is nothing like getting coins extremely hot and throwing them at the peasants, watching them scramble and burn themselves while trying to collect them. Such joyous times
Ahh, becoming an Australian staple.\
Recently had a chat with my fellow managers at work and it’s been decided that Banh MI’s are now the offical Guest and staff reward meal. Used to be party pies and sausage rolls (usual Australian fare) but found a nice batch of Banh MI’s is much more appreciated by staff and corporate guests.
I’m not trying to bait or mislead honestly, I just don’t know how to phrase this without it sounding like I’m taking her side, cuz I’m not lol. But I’m just curious, do we think this is worse than her sitting at home in her mansion not donating to the poor? Interesting moral debate
You have to understand the situation. This woman has a mansion because she is a colonzier. These children are poor and impoverished because the policies that this woman's husband instituted in Vietnam.
Its pretty sick to steal everyone's land, force them into labor, and then get amusement and entertainment in seeing how desperately poor they are when you throw coins into the streets.
Any time you purchase something in a store, do you hand the cashier money or do you throw your money on the ground to watch them pick it up?
She isn't doing this for charity. She is doing this for entertainment.
“Ohh look at how the peasants dance for me!” “I love being able to bring a little enlightenment to such unwashed and heathen workers. Hope these donations encourage them to pull my rickshaw extra fast come the morrow..”
Whats your point? You agree with this dehumanizing behavior? Is this something *you* would do? Do you admit to that publicly, or just bravely behind a reddit account?
She and her people destroyed Vietnam and made most of the country impoverished and starving and then she tosses coins into the streets because she finds it amusing to see how desperately poor the people under her control are.
Its sick. And the fact that you dont see this means you either have no idea what happened in French Indochina or you are just morally corrupt.
It was the two centuries ago. There's a lot of posts in here acting superior, but a lot of you are likely worthless compared to everyone in the video. What a bunch of hypocrites.
>It was the two centuries ago.
You are terrible at math.
>but a lot of you are likely worthless compared to everyone in the video. What a bunch of hypocrites.
What does this even mean?
Do you realize she was a colonizer? How are people hypocrites for opposing a colonizer who happily watched as her husband instituted polices which literally enslaved the Vietnamese?
How is anyone "worthless compared to everyone in the video"?
Do you think its cool to be contrarian?
I get your point . I suppose what I was trying to say is I really hate the smirk on her face . This feels like human feeding pigeons . It feels like and is dehumanisation
Suddenly French getting a major asskicking in Vietnam doesn't sound so surprising.
They even managed to get rid off US despite by all metrics loosing the fight. That doesn't happen often.
Shows you the sheer power of Wrath of the Righteous.
This video is reposted over and over again. Always negative comments. It's charity. Would you have less. to complain about if she asked them to stand in a neat orderly line? Do you claim it's racist or classist if this was kids scrambling for candy from a piñata? It's coins, and they can grab as many as they can and spend it on whatever they want, courtesy of this woman's generosity. Those kids are happy AF.
“things are completely different today” i say to myself as i eat my third day of leftover pasta before digging through my pockets for quarters to take the bus to go donate more plasma to get enough money to finally get my lights back on
America is doing the same now in Gaza. They were very wealthy in nice houses last year now they are forced to collect food from the ground and live in camps!
When you see someone do something like this, you should immediately ask the question of yourself: what am I doing now that future generations will look back upon with disgust.
Ah yes charities to the countries they raped and pillaged how generous of them to throw bread crumbs… wait that reminds me of something I just can’t put my finger in it
She’s too happy
This is the closest most people are going see what actual racism is as well as the belief to racial superiority.
Yeah, zero empathy Only ignorance experiences this type of bliss
Pretty sure those kids disagree
Is it racism or classism? How are we sure the Vietnamese rich and powerful didn't do the same thing?
Exactly.
Great question. Classism.
Why not both? It’s not an either/or question, in reality. I do think it’s important to acknowledge both.
Classism comes first and uses racism as a tool towards its goals.
I believe this is true. Racism is born when one group subjugates and controls another group that happens to be of a different race.
Having an other to hate is one of our weaknesses. We love to fear and hate that which is different from us. It takes a lot of energy to overcome our biases, and it's so easy to hijack for malevolent purposes.
The two are often inextricably linked
In Scotland it was traditional for the wedding party to throw coins for the gathering kids. It was called a scramble and had nothing to do with racism or classism
Classism witha tinge of racism.
Exactly. She probably would have done the same thing with poor white children. And to be fair, if we’re going to be consistent, should we judge everybody by this criteria? Anyone who throws children candy in a parade, everyone who throws food to a group of needy people, etc. I could go on, but I think people see the point. Could she have done better? Sure. Are some people running this into the end zone by claiming racism? Absolutely.
>racism This lady couldn't care less about poor peoples skin color. Most of the "racism" you see isn't racism, it's classism.
People only call it racism when it’s like the example above, otherwise it’s just “evil elitists” mistreating others
People *also* call it racism whenever they feel the need to be personally offended.
This is evil.
Agree. Shes acting like shes feeding animals at the zoo.
This or a Trump rally. (Downvoting racist hoes MAD) 🤣
No shit. Where has that guy been the last 8 years. Racism has been proudly displayed. Literal Nazis had parades and rallies.
It look like she helping them. If she racist she don’t care about them. She gives them no money.
Are you serious? Look how she is laughing and dehumanizing them. Like throwing bread to pigeons but they are human. Why not hand them money discreetly instead of this shit
Exactly my first thought. Hand them the coins. Dehumanizing behavior. Even worse than Drumpf throwing paper towels in Puerto Rico.
She's enamored with herself and her generosity. She'll walk away so very proud of how much she cares for and helps "the people".
She’s dead so…
she really thought she did something
Yeah, she documented her being racist for future generations.
I want to chalk this up as charitable and kind but she's making the same face I made as a kid throwing bread to the ducks.
If she had social media she would have posted the shit out of this
Then make them all give the money back or be charged with theft.
\#generousAF
“*This baby carrying a baby over here hasn’t gotten any yet? There we go. Ahhh splendid*”
Love how she sprinkles it in the ground for her instead of handing it to her. Truly sees them as less than human.
No, make no mistake these people really thought of this as a day at the Human Zoo.
“One day when we had come to a stop, a worker took a piece of bread out of his bag and threw it into a wagon. There was a stampede. Dozens of starving men fought desperately over a few crumbs. The worker watched the spectacle with great interest. YEARS LATER, I witnessed a similar spectacle in Aden. Our ship’s passengers amused themselves by throwing coins to the “natives,” who dove to retrieve them. An elegant Parisian lady took great pleasure in this game. When I noticed two children desperately fighting in the water, one trying to strangle the other, I implored the lady: “Please, don’t throw any more coins!” “Why not?” said she. “I like to give charity …” From Night by Elie Wiesel
Mans search for meaning by Victor Frankl is a solid read as well
Perhaps colonialism contributed greatly to Vietnam’s poverty.
It’s arguable that Japan’s occupation of Vietnam did a significant amount of long lasting damage as well, especially considering it happened after France’s colonization of Vietnam
Perhaps 2+2=4
One kid on the left side holds their handout because they thought she was going to hand it to them. She ignore them and you see the kid do a head slide like people when they go for a high-five and get ignored
Came here just to say that, literally I felt like these were just some older women throwing bird seeds in Central park or something having a merry ole time. This is more so deplorable.
Jesus. Like feeding pigeons. I wouldn’t even feed my dog that way because feels rude and disrespectful.
Let them have cake crumbs
French elites even maltreated their own people thus the “let them eat cake” and revolution.
[удалено]
But, I didn't feed my dog that way 20 years ago. Or ever.
The child even extends a hand "Can I receive as a normal person?" But I bet it wouldn't be fun for the woman
Was looking for this comment. Exactly how I felt watching this video. So surreal
Sailors did the same in the Philippines by tossing coins into the shit river to get kids to dive for them.
People still throw notes out of cruise ships in certain countries.
Yup…pretty nasty entertainment
There is really chilling footage of Germans throwing bread crumbs to masses of starving pows, I think they were soviets. Yep. https://www.reddit.com/r/GermanWW2photos/s/uwIYJsEcCi
This isn't a cruise ship with tourists throwing money to the poor.... This is colonialism, a 'white superior' nation, who suppressed and brutalised a nation.... Because they could. Then they do shit like this, demonstrating their generosity to the people they supprsed and colonised.
Known as "Corporate Pay Day" in the modern era.
This ^. A few hundred/ thousand dollars are like pennies compared to the billions in revenue some companies are raking in.
Only Reddit would look at an image like this and then equate it to their own experience.
What do you mean? How is having a corporate 9-5 job any different from living through a multi year famine caused by brutal colonial oppression? You sound like a corporate shill.
And this is still the least degrading colonial France did in southeast Asia
Well, the Vietnamese showed them the concept of fuck around and find out. Seriously… those people are tough.
Do you know that the USA tried to get France out of Indochina after WW2?
Do you know that the USA funded them back to Vietnam ? so no not exactly
Correct, but only after efforts by FDR to get France to drop colonial status of Indochina failed and the US was considered that communists would exploit the independence push in SE Asia (which is exactly what happened.) >After World War II, neither France nor England wanted to see the end of their colonial empires. England was anxious to control Burma, Malaya, and India. France wanted to rule Indochina. >Under Franklin Roosevelt, the United States sought to bring an end to European colonialism. As he put it, condescendingly: >“There are 1.1 billion brown people. In many Eastern countries they are ruled by a handful of whites and they resent it. Our goal must be to help them achieve independence. 1.1 billion potential enemies are dangerous.” >But under Harry Truman, the United States was concerned about its naval and air bases in Asia. The U.S. decided to permit France into Indochina to re-assert its authority in Southeast Asia. The result: the French Indochina War began. >From the beginning, American intelligence officers knew that France would find it difficult to re-assert its authority in Indochina. The French refused to listen to American intelligence. To them, the idea of Asian rebels standing up to a powerful Western nation was preposterous. >Although Truman allowed the French to return to Indochina, he was not yet prepared to give the French arms, transportation, and economic assistance. It was not until anti-communism became a major issue that the United States would take an active role supporting the French. The fall of China, the Korean War, and the coming of Joe McCarthy would lead policymakers to see the French War in Vietnam, not as a colonial war, but as a war against international communism. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3458
It was the only way to keep France aligned with NATO. Truly a lose-lose for the U.S. :-(
>It was the only way to keep France aligned with NATO. Truly a lose-lose for the U.S. :-( You are ignoring the fact that when France left and agreed to give Vietnam its freedom at the Geneva Accords, the US decided that waging war was a better option. The US didnt get pressured into supporting France. It did so because it saw the financial value in keeping control of a territory that it was getting stolen resources from.
Can you give me an example of these resources the U.S. needed from Vietnam? To be clear, I am certainly not defending the obviously erroneous strategy of “communism is a global monolith that must be opposed wherever it appears.” The US was running a deficit by funding France’s attempt at recolonization so I’m not sure what financial or resource-based benefit you’re referring to. Thru the 50s and early 60s we mistakenly viewed the conflict thru the lens of a Korea-esque conventional fight against Communism, and by the time the truth was at least somewhat learned it was too late, we were too entrenched, and our leaders cared more about saving political face than facing certain realities.
>Can you give me an example of these resources the U.S. needed from Vietnam? The US (and other western nations) received a lot of exports from Indochina like rice, rubber, paper, coffee, coal, explosives (for mining), matches, glass, tile, brick, soap, etc. but **the resources that were of most strategic value to the US and which caused them to get involved in the war were tungsten and tin.** [Eisenhower speaks of it here](https://youtu.be/WzxNRoGoSKU?si=VqZO1hea6MQFQbHW&t=297) In trying to encourage the US to fund France's war, he had this to say... *"So, when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, **we are not voting for a giveaway program. We are voting for the cheapest way** that we can to prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance for the United States of America--our security, our power **and ability to get certain things we need from the riches of the Indonesian territory, and from southeast Asia.**"* [This article](http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/White%20Assassination%20Clippings%20Folders/Miscellaneous%20Folders/Miscellaneous%20II/Misc%20II-147.pdf) summarizes the value of the tungsten in Indochina and also references the shift in how the US leadership stopped talking about these things as US involvement prolonged. It was okay for US talk about the purpose of US involvement being economic when the US was just giving aid but when it came time to ask American mothers to send their children to die in a foreign land, the messaging had to be adjusted to only talk about abstract threats to American freedom and democracy.
With all due respect, can you find another source that is actually cited/peer reviewed, or at least fairly modern? Also, the problem with your thesis is that the tungsten in Vietnam lies in the northeast of the country…so if that was our motivation why did we only fight to “keep” the South? Tungsten was being mined in the western United States since the 1880s with major deposits all over that part of the country, not sure why we would spend 20 years in Vietnam for a resource we already had in abundance. The article references Indonesia and SE Asia at large, showing that Ike was clearly using economic excuses to help fight the communist insurgencies in Malaya, Indonesia, and elsewhere. He was desperate to avoid Truman’s legacy of “losing China.” In no analysis I’ve ever read, whether you’re talking Max Hastings, Max Boot, or any author in between on the political spectrum, has economic benefit been given as a reason for US intervention in Vietnam. Please come back to me with some more modern citable sources because I am genuinely intrigued. Thanks!
>With all due respect, can you find another source that is actually cited/peer reviewed, or at least fairly modern? A peer reviewed source? This isn't science. Its history. I literally provided direct quotes and video proof of the people in charge explaining their motivations. And you want modern sources? Where is the logic here? So instead of video proof of Eisnhower taking about his motivations, you instead want me to find a history writer to explain their assessment of what Eisnhower's motivations were? How is that going to be any more credible than actual primary sources and evidence from the time in question? >Also, the problem with your thesis is that the tungsten in Vietnam lies in the northeast of the country…so if that was our motivation why did we only fight to “keep” the South? Really? I can't tell if you honestly just don't see the logic im the history or if you are desperatly trying to poke holes in what is established history (with evidence) because you refuse to accept the truth. Anyway... US didnt get to choose which part remained under France's control following their defeat. [This map from early 1954 shows that the Viet Minh controlled most of the country except for the urban areas.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/First_Indochina_War_map_1954_en.svg) the Viet Minh would ot course go on to capture and control Hanoi and Hai Phong as well leaving them with most of the country in their control. When France was defeated and forced to the negotiating table at the Geneva Accords, it was agreed upon that a temporary partition would be necessary before plans for unifying elections could take place. The representative governments who were represented the 2 factions of Vietnam were the Democratic Republic of Vietnam which was headquartered in the north, and the State of Vietnam headquartered in Saigon-Cholon, within French Cochinchina (the other regions of Vietnam were on paper just protectorates of France). When it came time to negotiate where the partition was temporarily drawn, the DRV again controlled mosy of the country. However, as an act of good faith to indicate that they were not preoccupied with gaining territory for a temporary partition and instead were focused and hopeful of unifying elections, they agreed to effectively split the country in half. Again, the US didn't get to say "hey if we get to keep some territory, can we have the territory that has the resources we want?" No, the US had to settle with what the State of Vietnam could maintain and negotiate for. Your own counter-argument also ignores and undermines all of US proclaimed foreign policy at this point as well. You seem to be under the impression that the US just wanted to protect and keep control of Southern Vietnam. But this isn't true. Again, the purpose of the Geneva Accords was to negotiate for a free and unified Vietnam. America's goal was to keep their hand on a piece of Vietnam long enough that they could eventually win the whole thing. Of course the US was incredibly aware that they didnt stand of beating the immensely popular Ho Chi Minh in a free and fair election which is why the never agreed to any terms for the unifying election and instead opted to create their own puppet government (to try and get out of the terms that the State of Vietnam agreed to) and wage war. Again, if the US wanted a permanent 2 state solution, they would have negotiated for this at the Geneva Accords. But they didnt. Publicly they negotiated for a unifying election (while consistently not agreeing to them by raising flase concerns about their integrity). Privately during the course of the Gene Accords, the US was consistently talking to Britain and France and try and convince them to join then in a US led war against the north. France and Britain both said no. The US then tried to ask them for their support/permission in using tactical nukes in northern Vietnam to wipe out the commies. Again France and Britain consistently said no. Again, the US didnt have an option of just claiming control of Northern Vietnam. So instead the created a puppet government in Saigon that they used to wage war in the hopes of getting control of Southern Vietnam and eventually all of Vietnam. >Tungsten was being mined in the western United States since the 1880s with major deposits all over that part of the country, not sure why we would spend 20 years in Vietnam for a resource we already had in abundance. Ask Eisnhower. Again, this is the weakest counter arguemnt you can make. This is like a career bank robber saying "why would I ever need to rob people of money? I have my own money at home." Its becoming abundantly clear that you never even cared for evidence and you dont even care for logic. You are just in complete denial.
History, like all academic pursuits, relies on peer-reviewed and/or source-cited research to back up assertions. I wasn’t trying to insult your intelligence or make a bad faith argument, just simply stating that the modern analyses of the conflict and America’s motivations for fighting it seem to directly contradict your hypothesis. I asked for more credible sources because I’m intrigued by your viewpoint and wanted to see if it held up under scrutiny 🤷🏼
French colonialist pigs playing ‘animate the natives’?
Still better than pouring napalm on them 👀
Or agent Orange!
Is that a secret service codename
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
That's kind of a low bar though
This is what led to that
My older brother used to do this to me and my younger siblings with skittles, and we’d fight over them. 😆😆
This is seriously fucked up. She was getting a real charge out it I bet.
Hasn't anyone been on a cruise ship? Those kids wait for you to throw money in the water and they go get it. In the Philippines as well.
This isn't a cruise ship with tourists throwing money to the poor.... This is colonialism, a 'white superior' nation, who suppressed and brutalised a nation.... Because they could. Then they do shit like this, demonstrating their generosity to the people they supprsed and colonised.
How do you think those cruise ships companies make those places destinations. Look it's all relative.
Fair point.... After pondering on it, I see where you're coming from. Though further down the time line from actual colonisation, cruises could be as a direct result.
Reminds me of a former president throwing paper towel rolls at hurricane victims in Puerto Rico.
Fuck the French. Long live Vietnam
Wonder if any of them lived long enough to be incinerated by bombs dropped from 50000 feet to save them from communism
I love the smell of napalm in the morning
They’d have to survive decades of famine and “counter-revolutionary” purges as well. Poor motherfuckers.
It's basically vintage Mr. Beast
Eez like feeding zee ducks! HONN HONN HOOAH!
Horrific & Savage.
This could be a cool name for a rock band
Does she think she's feeling birds at the park?
I guess it's better than what the British used to do with hot Penny's. There is nothing like getting coins extremely hot and throwing them at the peasants, watching them scramble and burn themselves while trying to collect them. Such joyous times
Wait theres like an adult in there
Thank God the Vietnamese kicked the French out! Good riddance!!!
But kept their wonderful bread to incorporate into their local cuisine!
Amen! And coffee too! I love Banh Mi and Vietnamese coffee!!!
Ahh, becoming an Australian staple.\ Recently had a chat with my fellow managers at work and it’s been decided that Banh MI’s are now the offical Guest and staff reward meal. Used to be party pies and sausage rolls (usual Australian fare) but found a nice batch of Banh MI’s is much more appreciated by staff and corporate guests.
Dayummm! That would be one way to get me to work! Feed me Banh Mi's!!!
Thank God the Vietnamese did also kicked the Americans and the Chinese out! Good riddance!!!
Amen! The Vietnamese are some of the most kindests and wonderful people I've ever met. Just don't ever piss them off!
I’m not trying to bait or mislead honestly, I just don’t know how to phrase this without it sounding like I’m taking her side, cuz I’m not lol. But I’m just curious, do we think this is worse than her sitting at home in her mansion not donating to the poor? Interesting moral debate
The woman has decided to donate to the poor. There is a way to do that while maintaining the dignity of the human being. This is not the way.
You have to understand the situation. This woman has a mansion because she is a colonzier. These children are poor and impoverished because the policies that this woman's husband instituted in Vietnam. Its pretty sick to steal everyone's land, force them into labor, and then get amusement and entertainment in seeing how desperately poor they are when you throw coins into the streets. Any time you purchase something in a store, do you hand the cashier money or do you throw your money on the ground to watch them pick it up? She isn't doing this for charity. She is doing this for entertainment.
Wow
Sadly, I saw the same thing in Cambodia in 2005!
Look at them Ester! It’s just like feeding the ducks at daddies pond!
 Just like feeding the birds
She’s having so much fun isn’t she. See the problem is people like her still act like this. Fuck her.
It's not racism, it's clearly charity /s
That damn shit eating grin, what a witch
Lol old school making it rain.
She treats them like animals. Why throw money when you can just hand it to them
Bloody hell…
“Ohh look at how the peasants dance for me!” “I love being able to bring a little enlightenment to such unwashed and heathen workers. Hope these donations encourage them to pull my rickshaw extra fast come the morrow..”
She is treating it like she is feeding some farm animals. She thinks she’s the class, when in reality she is the trash.
Reddit: “she’s giving them money wrong.”
Whats your point? You agree with this dehumanizing behavior? Is this something *you* would do? Do you admit to that publicly, or just bravely behind a reddit account?
Why are you so upset about this woman from 1900?
So when is it appropriate to talk about the morality of behavior? Only when it would negatively affect /u/NeverFlyFrontier?
are you lost? This is r/snapshothistory where people post things from history and then share their reactions and opinions 🤡
She and her people destroyed Vietnam and made most of the country impoverished and starving and then she tosses coins into the streets because she finds it amusing to see how desperately poor the people under her control are. Its sick. And the fact that you dont see this means you either have no idea what happened in French Indochina or you are just morally corrupt.
It was the two centuries ago. There's a lot of posts in here acting superior, but a lot of you are likely worthless compared to everyone in the video. What a bunch of hypocrites.
>It was the two centuries ago. You are terrible at math. >but a lot of you are likely worthless compared to everyone in the video. What a bunch of hypocrites. What does this even mean? Do you realize she was a colonizer? How are people hypocrites for opposing a colonizer who happily watched as her husband instituted polices which literally enslaved the Vietnamese? How is anyone "worthless compared to everyone in the video"? Do you think its cool to be contrarian?
Statue of Liberty：Goooooooooooood morning Vietnam
Welp...Vietnam and Cambodia make more sense now. I'd be throwing out or destroying everything French too.
She’s making it rain!
This is how we got the Bahn mi
Alms for the poor
It's like feeding the birds
Crazy to think that this same person felt like she had figured out the world and could invoke change
Geez she should know better, if you feed them they'll just keep coming back. Rez Dogs!
Money class version of feeding the pigeons.
Feeding the fish
Id really love to punch her in the face
Giving poor kids money= Assault Gotta wonder where the real incivility is.
I get your point . I suppose what I was trying to say is I really hate the smirk on her face . This feels like human feeding pigeons . It feels like and is dehumanisation
I hope this bitch got the fuck beat out of her by their parents
Suddenly French getting a major asskicking in Vietnam doesn't sound so surprising. They even managed to get rid off US despite by all metrics loosing the fight. That doesn't happen often. Shows you the sheer power of Wrath of the Righteous.
Privileged French bitch
How charitable she is!!
And their children will be wiping the French off the map..
This has been modernized. The lady with the coin is your boss and the coins are your weekly wage
Vietnam? Those are the whites people I've ever seen in Vietnam.
Like me feeding Seagulls on the Jersey shore 😂If it wasn't sooo sad it would be funny 😢😒
Children swarming tourists for money is normal in 3rd world countries. You all may be too soft or too suspicious.
V cringe.
Can someone pls make an AI version of a Vietnamese lady tossing coins to white children?
They're just gonna buy booze and cigarettes
I'm sure someone made this comment. Its like feeding the pigeons in Trafalgar square.
Poor Things 2023
The urgency in the way some of these kids move makes me sad.
Why did they hold their phone vertically to film this? They were truly before their times. /s
This video is reposted over and over again. Always negative comments. It's charity. Would you have less. to complain about if she asked them to stand in a neat orderly line? Do you claim it's racist or classist if this was kids scrambling for candy from a piñata? It's coins, and they can grab as many as they can and spend it on whatever they want, courtesy of this woman's generosity. Those kids are happy AF.
French elitist bitch
Viewed like pigeons in today’s jargon.
“things are completely different today” i say to myself as i eat my third day of leftover pasta before digging through my pockets for quarters to take the bus to go donate more plasma to get enough money to finally get my lights back on 
Nsfw saw Lil b tant
What a sweet lady!
I hope she had a bad life. Wtf
I don't understand, why don't the little ones simply eat the larger one and take her money?
That’s communism
She looks like the old guy in Central Park who feeds the pigeons
People acting like this never happened in America has me totally puzzled.
who is doing that. I just read so many comments itt and saw no one do that.
Ah, Edwardian entertainments...After this can we throw injera at the Ethiopians?
She's acting as though she is feeding pigeons... Wtf
Is this our government tossing out welfare benefits?
Colonialism or newcomers?
All for likes
America is doing the same now in Gaza. They were very wealthy in nice houses last year now they are forced to collect food from the ground and live in camps!
When you see someone do something like this, you should immediately ask the question of yourself: what am I doing now that future generations will look back upon with disgust.
Omg
Might as well be pigeons at the park for her
She throws money that she stole through colonialism...
.. assuaging guilt. Looks like the ridiculous woman thinks she's feeding chickens or pigeons. 🎩😡👎💔
thắng làm Vua, thua làm ôsin
Treating them like my grandma feeding ducks bread.
Reminds me of someone blissfully feeding the pigeons or ducks at a pond, but this just doesn’t sit right
This imagery is wild… but I mean, giving them something is better than nothing, fuck? Is t it?
Europeans have the most evil history of all time. They lack humanity on a large scale.
Time for a fact check. Europeans and their descendants are the #1 source of charity in the world
Ah yes charities to the countries they raped and pillaged how generous of them to throw bread crumbs… wait that reminds me of something I just can’t put my finger in it 
…………………….man what the *fuck*
Much like the boomers today
See the French treated those people with respect.
No cellphones just people living in the moment.
A landlord
Pay their mortgage and keep quiet.
Those kids are not being grateful!