which Viet accent is considered "high class" throughout VN? Options

[Ilikeasians]

I agree with you that annexation causes civil strives but I still believe that war is natural for social progress, sort of like how a fire is needed to rejuvenate a forest. Invasion of Mexico is an indirect factor that caused the American Civil War but look at how the US came together after the war. Cambodia is a mess, without any strong leadership, so too is Laos. Thailand is too divided geographically, and it's political climate doesn't provide a good case for future stability. When the US declines militarily, and she will, then the Chinese leadership will once again bring up the 2000 years old question-when to expand south. The Hanoian peoples are naturally anti-Chinese but their leaders share the belief that "they take from us; we take from others". If VN were to be a prosperous nation, we must defend our border and strengthen our navy to guard our own economic interests. I think it's good to incorporate Khmers into Viet nationhood since they'll be to us what the Scotts are to the English, a source of frontier settlers who have more in common with Viets then Chinese.

^I hoping you are kidding. This is the age of integration not isolation.

I am not a superstitious individual, but I have gotten enough respect for Ly Cong Uan to heed his prophecy. Therefore, for me the capital is at the right location as of now. Vinh can be a capital of tourism with its scenery, like the way Versailles is to France, if you pump enough money into it. However, I don't support any more relocation of the political capital city.

I personally felt that the Southward Expansion while brought new found wealth and expanded the Vietnamese realm also created upon the nation a curse of instability. Prior to the expansion, there had never been any lasting civil war recorded; even the chaotic Twelve Forces period was short-lived. This was because there was only 1 central Dong Kinh plain, whoever controlled the plain won the war, period. With the expansion came new found land able to sustain large force of opposition; and indeed the longest civil struggle ever recorded was the Trinh-Nguyen War which lasted for nearly two centuries - a war between one force controlling the Dong Kinh plain and the other controlling the newly annexed land.

[freeter]

We have to strengthen our border and improve our navy, true. However, that can be done within the context of the already existing Vietnam. No need for further expansion and incorporation of other group. The Khmers don't like us, and most of our people are oblivious about them. Let's them be them and us be us, that serve the best interest of the two nations (The Scotts didn't blame the English for virtually everything that went wrong in their history).

The US could afford a civil war because it was off the reach of its powerful enemies at the time. Vietnam didn't have such luxury. Moreover, the US came out stronger because the North was way out-industrialized and was much more populous than the South. It could easily absorb and revitalize the South's economy. Moreover, the war was not too long and the outcome was decisive. Last but not least, the northern elites had already had a vision for a united country prior to declaring war on the South. The Trinh-Nguyen Period was vastly different. It lasts from 1592 to 1789 with no clear development. In the end, it was the Tay Son rebellion that swooped them both; thanks to the people already lost hope in the two houses of power. Legacy of it is still obvious nowadays, when was the last time you heard a southerner commenting on how obnoxious a northerner sounds? It's hard to find such wide-spread contempt among Americans of different regions.

[Boron]

I think current VCP is middle road and factionless, much like CCP. There was some news they were raising the level of free elections, progressing ahead of CCP's own reforms (there's been a lot of inter-party exchange between them since late 90's). Not sure what has been happening with those elections?

[LonelyLeopard]

we needs immigrants, especially from high tech country like Japan, U.S, Russia,... we should make some place for them to live and co-exist with us.

Because we need advance technologies, we should improve our infrastructure and accelerate our nuclear energy forming process, have a boost in advance military equipments.

We should focus more on heavy industry, precisely industry and privatized defense industry, we should apply most of modern advance technology in Agriculture, we may go as far as grow rice in salt water and sand.

And to do that we need:
+Immigrant from advanced countries like U.S, Japan, Russia, in europe like Norway, Sweden, Britain, France, ....
+funds, we should sell all things we don't need and try to invest in invent something useful for ourself like improve our agriculture and industries product quality to sell at a higher price.
+propagate that we are still a poor country and needs more improvements (but we are not a weak country propangate more about our people incredible abilities), force the students to study, enforce the law and make the law harsher, force the worker work at least 15hrs a day.
...
in about 10 years we'll become a much much stronger....

and i believe it is what our gov is doing... it just that they didn't make the law any harsher and don't even try to strictly enforce it .

This post has been edited by LonelyLeopard: Feb 7 2012, 06:31 AM

[freeter]

If there was ever a free election and they allow oversea Vietnamese to vote, I would consider voting for Vietnam Quốc Dân Đảng. The record of of Nguyễn Thái Học (阮太學) and 13 other nationalists being beheaded by the French colonizers left a huge impression in me. Unfortunately for the Quốc Dân Đảng, the Communist party was hugely popular among the farmers which made up the bulk of Vietnamese population back then. After taking power, the Communist party started to push other groups sideline, and modern history fails to capture these groups contribution and only celebrates the Communist party at the sole driver to independence. They sure played a huge role, but they weren't the only ones fighting the French.

This is another similar point between Chinese and Vietnamese history, except the Chinese Kuomintang still had Taiwan to run to.

This post has been edited by freeter: Feb 7 2012, 06:34 AM

[LonelyLeopard]

ugh not the koumintang, actually i feel sad for those poor people but i don't believe that Quốc Dân Đảng can change our country, what we need now is a genius, not a party.

i vote for Duy Tân Đảng - Việt Nam Quang Phục Hội (Đảng Đổi Mới), which led by Phan Bội Châu, they have quite an insane ideal, to study from an advanced country and then return to the fatherland to serve with all their heart. Sadly, even that "advanced" country couldn't help him escape the French reach.

ugh, every time i talked about him my tears drop fack that "advanced" country, fack france, fack all stupid Vietnamese who followed France...

This post has been edited by LonelyLeopard: Feb 7 2012, 06:52 AM

[Ilikeasians]

There's no need for "immigrants" from advanced countries. We already have students and settlers in all parts of the world--one benefit of the Civil War. I've met Viet students as far North as Norway and Sweden and as far South as Argentina and Cuba and as far East as Japan and Korea. They all long for a prosperous homeland that welcomes their contribution. Sadly, many tried to stay in their host countries precisely because of the lack of economic incentives to return home. Economic transition needs to happen step by step. The only thing the government can do is to speed up this process through sound policies. Most of China's noveau wealth was driven by foreigners with exports designed and purchased by foreigners, while the majority of the country is still underdeveloped and rural. VN can avoid this fate by stimulating a strong service sector and that requires solid investment in higher education. Human capital is still the most important factor in developing a strong economy, and that requires both innovative people and the environment that rewards innovation. It's sad to read so many stories about a business person growing rich from a sandal making enterprise only to be tagged with corruption charges and executed.

we needs immigrants, especially from high tech country like Japan, U.S, Russia,... we should make some place for them to live and co-exist with us.

Because we need advance technologies, we should improve our infrastructure and accelerate our nuclear energy forming process, have a boost in advance military equipments.

We should focus more on heavy industry, precisely industry and privatized defense industry, we should apply most of modern advance technology in Agriculture, we may go as far as grow rice in salt water and sand.

And to do that we need:
+Immigrant from advanced countries like U.S, Japan, Russia, in europe like Norway, Sweden, Britain, France, ....
+funds, we should sell all things we don't need and try to invest in invent something useful for ourself like improve our agriculture and industries product quality to sell at a higher price.
+propagate that we are still a poor country and needs more improvements (but we are not a weak country propangate more about our people incredible abilities), force the students to study, enforce the law and make the law harsher, force the worker work at least 15hrs a day.
...
in about 10 years we'll become a much much stronger....

and i believe it is what our gov is doing... it just that they didn't make the law any harsher and don't even try to strictly enforce it .

[freeter]

I know that you all had heard this so many times before but "God damn it, only if the Nguyens court didn't drain its treasury fighting over Cambodia and was willing to listen to Nguyen Truong To to tech chase the Japanese".

Even after missing the crucial time to tech up, they could still save the country by playing the game that the Thai did with the Europeans. All they had to do was to open up and interact, gather intelligence to know who is on the move and provoke others to interfere with the advancing one. But no, they really believed that outsiders were barbarians (including the French) and that we had nothing to learn from anyone. In the end, they were mortally wrong, but didn't have to pay for their mistake. Saved for Ham Nghi, all of the Nguyen kings still get royal treatment and lived a luxurious life removed from that of the miserable Vietnamese, who had to exhaust their bodies paying for a mistake they didn't commit.

Talking about Thailand ( http://forum.vietyo.com/topic/nam-ca-si-vi...han-262725.html ) lol. His original look is what I thought of a well mix between original Vietnamese and native folks in the South.

This post has been edited by freeter: Feb 7 2012, 07:11 AM

[LonelyLeopard]

After Ham Nghi all are Nguyens but not Nguyen, they are just puppets of French, they don't even have any relation to the emperor family.

there is only one mistake in the previous ideal that the communist party has found, that is the poor people, that is why the Communist party also focus on poor people (phong trào đầu tố), most of the rebel base in the intellectual and petty bourgeois, cos they think that if those guys follow, the people also follow too, but they are wrong, they arent strong enough to make people change their mind.

This post has been edited by LonelyLeopard: Feb 7 2012, 07:59 AM

[freeter]

The fundamental flaw of Communism in Vietnam and pretty much everywhere else is that the original ideology didn't promote a leadership comprised of the very poors as well as farmers. As Karl explicitly stated, Communist movement was to be led by workers who are well acquainted with industrialism and capitalism. Farmers were to be led not to be in the leading position. When crafting the theory, he intended Communism to first occur in Germany, an industrialized country with a large population of workers. Unfortunately, pretty much all industrialized countries rejected the idea. The first to pick it up was Russia, a semi-industrialized country at the time with a small worker population. An economy spearheaded by farmers is one suffering many crippling effects. It tends to overemphasize agriculture and the self-sustaining policy. While overemphasizing agriculture isn't too bad, the self-sustaining policy is hugely detrimental to development. Doing what you do best and trading with others for things you can't make is the best policy. Farmers, without training, wasn't cut out to be policymakers. And because of putting them in leading position, Russian economy collapsed, while the Chinese and Vietnamese ones suffered long periods of economic stagnation.

Of course, I am not a huge fan of Communism to begin with, but my point is Communism led by farmers is even more economically crippling than had it been led by workers.

This post has been edited by freeter: Feb 7 2012, 08:23 AM

[LonelyLeopard]

but what i want is not just communism-socialism alone, but a mixture of coso and nationalism. I don't want our country become something so so... i want it to be the best, we have our own ideals and technologies which made others country become jelly.

well talking about something that does not exist...yet here is useless, but that is what i think... and i'll try my best to make it come true.

[wnch]

If there was ever a free election and they allow oversea Vietnamese to vote, I would consider voting for Vietnam Quốc Dân Đảng. The record of of Nguyễn Thái Học (阮太學) and 13 other nationalists being beheaded by the French colonizers left a huge impression in me. Unfortunately for the Quốc Dân Đảng, the Communist party was hugely popular among the farmers which made up the bulk of Vietnamese population back then. After taking power, the Communist party started to push other groups sideline, and modern history fails to capture these groups contribution and only celebrates the Communist party at the sole driver to independence. They sure played a huge role, but they weren't the only ones fighting the French.

The reason the communist party developed into the main force is because of the skills in organization and communications by its core leadership. Another useful skill in such a struggle is to ensure the core leadership not be captured and decapitated.

So, why would you want to vote for a party that failed all the key tests?

[freeter]

All those skills were needed during war time. I thought we are voting for a party to lead the country economically? I vote for the presence, not the past. Having said that, I posted that I would "consider" not absolutely will vote for them. Who know if there is a new arising party that would do the job better than the ones we have heard of?

I have the right to choose whatever party I want to vote for, just like you have the right to vote for your Kill-all-those-Catholics party.

This post has been edited by freeter: Feb 7 2012, 11:39 AM

[GoBears]

I agree with you that annexation causes civil strives but I still believe that war is natural for social progress, sort of like how a fire is needed to rejuvenate a forest. Invasion of Mexico is an indirect factor that caused the American Civil War but look at how the US came together after the war. Cambodia is a mess, without any strong leadership, so too is Laos. Thailand is too divided geographically, and it's political climate doesn't provide a good case for future stability. When the US declines militarily, and she will, then the Chinese leadership will once again bring up the 2000 years old question-when to expand south. The Hanoian peoples are naturally anti-Chinese but their leaders share the belief that "they take from us; we take from others". If VN were to be a prosperous nation, we must defend our border and strengthen our navy to guard our own economic interests. I think it's good to incorporate Khmers into Viet nationhood since they'll be to us what the Scotts are to the English, a source of frontier settlers who have more in common with Viets then Chinese.

Minh chi lo mat may cai hai dao vao tay TC chu dam da tren dat lien thi so thang deo nao. Chong giac tau da in vao mau con ng Viet, cho du la cong san hay khong no' cung tu bung chay khi can chien dau. Khi nuoc ta con ti' hon con dam danh, huong chi bay gio. cac nuoc tren the gio rat ung ho vn , khong giong nhu luc chiem Mien.

[GoBears]

"they take from us; we take from others..."

Cai co*' tot de hoan thanh dongduong. Nhung cach em dem va tot nhat la dung nguoi tao anh huong. Vn co rat nhieu projects lam ben nuoc ban, nen dem nguoi theo lam cong tac de khai thac van de ? Vn co rat nhieu trai cao su, mia, khai thac mo ben 2 nuoc, v.v. can rat nhieu nhan cong, khong can nhieu kinh nghiem.

This post has been edited by GoBears: Feb 7 2012, 01:05 PM

[XigonCongchua]

Well here's one thing that made the "expansion to the south" of Vietnamese different and complicated.

The English, the American, the Mongolians...they had a central authority when they expanded, all their expansion were done for the glory of their "heartland".

The Vietnamese didn't have a "heartland" in their mind when they expanded. They didn't take land for the glory of "Đông Kinh" or the Northern court.

The nation had several centers of authority at that time. First, the Mạc dynasty (based in Đông Kinh, Northern plain) and the Lê dynasty (based in Thanh-nghệ, North Central, and moved to Đông Kinh after they defeated the Mac). Most Vietnamese migrants who would carry out the process of "southern expansion" for Vietnam had origin in the North Central. To be honest, at that time they would possibly think of Northern Vietnam (ruled by the Mac) almost like a foreign state. So whatever they did, they didn't do it for a "heartland".

Furthermore, the reason Nguyễn Hoàng "fled" to the South was to seek shelter from the growing power of the Trịnh in North Central. Nguyễn Hoàng and his people most likely considered their "new land" in Thuận Quảng to be their "new homeland", the land that protected them from the tyranny of the Trịnh. They wouldn't considered either Đông Kinh or Thanh Nghệ to be the "heartland" of their nation. In the first few decades, they would still submit to the court in the North, but by the time Nguyễn Hoàng's son took over, the Nguyễn really wanted to assert independence from the Northerners.

Of course these "migrants" to the South still considered themselves to be "Viet", but they found a new way of being Vietnamese (like a new definition of Vietnamese) "new way of doing Vietnamese" (new practices and cultures), ways that are different from the Northerners. But none of them considered themselves to be "less Vietnamese".

Through the course of history, a new "Vietnamese" power of Bình Định (South Central) would emerge and take over all other Vietnamese power houses in Thuận Quảng (Central), Thanh Nghệ (North Central), and Đông Kinh (Northern plain).

But that wasn't the last. Within a few decades, another "Vietnamese" power would emerge in Gia Định (Saigon) and crush the Bình Định-based power. That was the first time in history when Vietnam appeared as it is today, a united one from North to South.


The point is, as Vietnamese moved southward, they found new ways of being/doing Vietnamese, one that is separate from their further North counterparts, but they all claimed to Vietnamese and none of them thought of themselves to be less Viet than others. They will struggle, fight against others to control the "Vietnamese-speaking world". That's what makes the expansion of Vietnamese so complicated.

[wnch]

All those skills were needed during war time. I thought we are voting for a party to lead the country economically? I vote for the presence, not the past. Having said that, I posted that I would "consider" not absolutely will vote for them. Who know if there is a new arising party that would do the job better than the ones we have heard of?

I have the right to choose whatever party I want to vote for, just like you have the right to vote for your Kill-all-those-Catholics party.

Those who are useless in war are useless in peace.
I resent your suggestion that my favorite party is called that.

It's called 'Expose all hypocritical Catholicists'

[freeter]

Useless in war is useless in peace? More like the opposite; those who are more adept in war tend to be useless in peace. Mongolians are great examples. They arguably make the best fighters in the world, yet they struggle to run an efficient civil government. (Example of useful in war, useless in peace).

The Swiss is another counterexample. They are vulnerable to warfare but thrive in the presence of peace. (Example of useless in war, useful in peace).

The warring faction is only needed during peace time if you are using this time to scheme for the next war. I doubt Vietnamese are down for more warfare. This current generation is the first one after centuries (arguably since Mac Dang Dung overthrew the Later Le Dynasty in the 15th century) that were fully born and grew up in peace. And I want to see them eventually part this world in peace after living a long life of tranquility. Anyone who dare to disturb their peace deserves to be crushed and incinerate into ashes.

In the end, the warring faction may still present a part of the government, but it has to be drastically scaled down and should not be in the leading position. The power to make economic decisions, especially, must be removed from these people and assigned to more deserving individuals.

This post has been edited by freeter: Feb 7 2012, 03:06 PM

[Boron]

The fundamental flaw of Communism in Vietnam and pretty much everywhere else is that the original ideology didn't promote a leadership comprised of the very poors as well as farmers. As Karl explicitly stated, Communist movement was to be led by workers who are well acquainted with industrialism and capitalism. Farmers were to be led not to be in the leading position. When crafting the theory, he intended Communism to first occur in Germany, an industrialized country with a large population of workers. Unfortunately, pretty much all industrialized countries rejected the idea. The first to pick it up was Russia, a semi-industrialized country at the time with a small worker population. An economy spearheaded by farmers is one suffering many crippling effects. It tends to overemphasize agriculture and the self-sustaining policy. While overemphasizing agriculture isn't too bad, the self-sustaining policy is hugely detrimental to development. Doing what you do best and trading with others for things you can't make is the best policy. Farmers, without training, wasn't cut out to be policymakers. And because of putting them in leading position, Russian economy collapsed, while the Chinese and Vietnamese ones suffered long periods of economic stagnation.

Of course, I am not a huge fan of Communism to begin with, but my point is Communism led by farmers is even more economically crippling than had it been led by workers.

In Asia the bourgeoisie (and capitalists) knew how to handle commerce, but they were mainly interested in exploitation, they were short on even basic patriotism. There was no technical industrial class in Asia, it had to be force-made from farmers and literati. Communist revolution was alliance between farmers, and small numbers of workers and idealistic intellectuals; this group failed to do well both in industry and commerce (and in China even had massive failure in agriculture). To have truly successful modernization there was a need to create new classes and reform old ones. Intellectuals had to be made into science-technicians, farmers plucked for industrial workers and small business owners, bourgeoisie capitalists reformed into patriotic business leaders, and the original worker-peasant alliance had to mature politically, in order to ably oversee all of this.

This post has been edited by Boron: Feb 7 2012, 05:08 PM

[Ilikeasians]

You are as insightful as pile of elephant dung under the Dubai sun.

Those who are useless in war are useless in peace.
I resent your suggestion that my favorite party is called that.

It's called 'Expose all hypocritical Catholicists'