The next racist flag of hate we need to take down: POW/MIA?!

jackietreehorn8

fine
@Silver
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
13,471
Reaction score
2
Yes, that's Rick Perlstein of Newsweek's opinion:

http://www.newsweek.com/its-time-haul-down-another-flag-racist-hate-361929

Cliffs:

It's a Vietnam Era flag that paints America/Americans as the victims of a war we were the aggressors in, and in terms of the list of victims of that war, it's not us that deserves sympathy. He really doesn't explain why he thinks it's particularly racist, but spends a lot of time explaining why he thinks it's unnecessary, dishonest, and distorts what actually happened in that war.

"That damned flag: It
 
Yes, that's Rick Perlstein of Newsweek's opinion:

http://www.newsweek.com/its-time-haul-down-another-flag-racist-hate-361929

Cliffs:

It's a Vietnam Era flag that paints America/Americans as the victims of a war we were the aggressors in, and in terms of the list of victims of that war, it's not us that deserves sympathy. He really doesn't explain why he thinks it's particularly racist, but spends a lot of time explaining why he thinks it's unnecessary, dishonest, and distorts what actually happened in that war.



My first thought was this guy is absolutely ridiculous. And that remains my prevailing thought on his stance....but if you do take the time to read the fairly lengthy article, he does bring up some good points. If not about why the flag should be taken down, at least about the Vietnam war, the realities of our POW situation in that war, and why the flag was produced in the first place.

I'm not the most well-read guy when it comes to 'Nam. This author seems to actually try to frame us and our South Vietnam allies as the villains and North Vietnam as the good guys. That seems like bullshit, but the points he makes about there essentially being no American POW's following the war seem fairly valid. I've always wondered when I see that flag if there really are dudes still stuck in Vietnam, captured and unaccounted for. The flag definitely made me think there were. This author says they were all repatriated upon the conclusion of the war and the idea of this flag that memorializes Americans as the preeminent victims of the Vietnam War is ridiculous.

He's an idiot. The flag is not about ideals, its about people. Does he forget that the draft was active during this time?
 
I'm not the most well-read guy when it comes to 'Nam. This author seems to actually try to frame us and our South Vietnam allies as the villains and North Vietnam as the good guys. That seems like bullshit, but the points he makes about there essentially being no American POW's following the war seem fairly valid. I've always wondered when I see that flag if there really are dudes still stuck in Vietnam, captured and unaccounted for. The flag definitely made me think there were. This author says they were all repatriated upon the conclusion of the war and the idea of this flag that memorializes Americans as the preeminent victims of the Vietnam War is ridiculous.

The author is right, and the framing of the South including the US being the aggressors is also not wrong. Often, it was rice farmers vs US soldiers. At least that is how the majority of people outside the US saw it.

That being said, racist? No idea.
 
That being said, racist? No idea.

The only thing I could think of is, people see that flag (probably older folks) and get internally riled up about "g00ks." Many people lost friends in that war and I suppose it could be a reminder of who took their friends' lives.

The author didn't spell it out like that though...so I'm assuming the racist bit was just thrown in the headline to get clicks on the article, which probably wouldn't have gotten any views if it was just another article about the Vietnam War.
 
Always nice to see people still freaking out about -

NIIIIIIIXOOOOON!!!

And why would Chuck Norris make all of those POW/MIA movies?
 
I can definitely see how one would interpret the flag that way if you only applied it to the Vietnam war.

but I never associated the flag with solely the Vietnam war.

I always associated it with all the wars that American troops didn't come home.
 
Yes, that's Rick Perlstein of Newsweek's opinion:

http://www.newsweek.com/its-time-haul-down-another-flag-racist-hate-361929

Cliffs:

It's a Vietnam Era flag that paints America/Americans as the victims of a war we were the aggressors in, and in terms of the list of victims of that war, it's not us that deserves sympathy. He really doesn't explain why he thinks it's particularly racist, but spends a lot of time explaining why he thinks it's unnecessary, dishonest, and distorts what actually happened in that war.

My first thought was this guy is absolutely ridiculous. And that remains my prevailing thought on his stance....but if you do take the time to read the fairly lengthy article, he does bring up some good points. If not about why the flag should be taken down, at least about the Vietnam war, the realities of our POW situation in that war, and why the flag was produced in the first place.

I'm not the most well-read guy when it comes to 'Nam. This author seems to actually try to frame us and our South Vietnam allies as the villains and North Vietnam as the good guys. That seems like bullshit, but the points he makes about there essentially being no American POW's following the war seem fairly valid. I've always wondered when I see that flag if there really are dudes still stuck in Vietnam, captured and unaccounted for. The flag definitely made me think there were. This author says they were all repatriated upon the conclusion of the war and the idea of this flag that memorializes Americans as the preeminent victims of the Vietnam War is ridiculous.

While the story of American POWs is extremely interesting (mostly about how they were manipulated for political purposes and how many of them came to sympathize with the Vietnamese, read Perlstein's awesome book on Reagan for more info), I don't think the flag needs to come down. I doubt there are any POWs in Vietnam anymore, but the flag is more of a symbol of concern for the plight of servicemen than anything else at this point. I think a lot of older people fly it as a memorial as well to servicemen they knew who died in 'Nam. There's nothing wrong with honoring rank and file soldiers even if the war they fought in was immoral. It's not their decision what wars they fight in, especially given the draft for Vietnam. They're just doing their duty to our nation.

So yes, POWs were used politically in some sordid ways, but I don't think that's what the flag symbolizes for most people who fly it and unlike something like the Confederate flag I don't think there's some undeniably negative symbolism to it.
 
I think Jonny Cash said it best.
-font-b-Johnny-b-font-font-b-Cash-b-font-San-Quentin-Bird-Finger-Guitar.jpg
 
Last edited:
This author seems to actually try to frame us and our South Vietnam allies as the villains and North Vietnam as the good guys

wtf

My old man fought in nam' and did 3 years in a communist "re-education camp", most Vietnamese folks living in western countries are from the South and are usually pretty grateful about America's intervention of the war during the time, some are still pretty salty about what happened then.

This whole self-apologist thing is actually pissing off more folks than they think they're helping out.
 
isn't the flag to remember those who died and were never found or were never accounted for?

pow-mia does stand for, "prisoners of war - missing in action" is it not?
 
The author is a whiny little bitch. The flag honors those that have been captured / never recovered, nothing more.
 
isn't the flag to remember those who died and were never found or were never accounted for?

pow-mia does stand for, "prisoners of war - missing in action" is it not?

correct. The author didn't even explain how it's "racist", but instead went on a lengthy diatribe about Nixon.
 
No it shouldn't be taken down. Seems we are becoming very petty.
 
I recently watched a show on Vietnam. I never knew we won essentially every battle. We could have destroyed their strongholds in other countries. We just never wanted to follow through. The Vietnamese were hilarious though. They nearly never engaged in a fill battle. Always surprise attaching. Then they make a peace treaty with the U.S. The U.S leaves, and they start attaching with conventional warfare lol. They had the will to win. And just a fantastic long term strategy.
 
I recently watched a show on Vietnam. I never knew we won essentially every battle. We could have destroyed their strongholds in other countries. We just never wanted to follow through. The Vietnamese were hilarious though. They nearly never engaged in a fill battle. Always surprise attaching. Then they make a peace treaty with the U.S. The U.S leaves, and they start attaching with conventional warfare lol. They had the will to win. And just a fantastic long term strategy.

Looking at the Indochina and Vietnam wars, and both Afghanistan wars, it's pretty clear that you cannot really win as a regular army in an asymmetric setting and difficult landscape / environment.
 
More Historical revisionism by far left liberal fuqs in their constant attempt to demonize America. Once again using the word "racist" where it doesnt apply at all. I think its their favorite word. Pretty soon they will be talking like smurfs, only instead of using the word smurf universally they will use the word racist. The same people who are trying to trash our founding fathers in the bullshit new school curriculum. "They werent great men who founded our country, they were a bunch of white racist men" Its disgusting and traitorous.

"This was bullshit four times over: first, because in every other conflict in human history, the release of prisoners had been something settled at the close of a war; second, because these prisoners only existed because of America
 
Wow, interesting little afternote from the author and editor that were not there when I originally read the article and made this thread...

A Writer’s Apology

I sincerely regret the use of the word “racist” to describe how the POW/MIA flag distorts the history of the Vietnam War. The word was over the top and not called for.

I’m deeply sorry it hurt people—especially people who’ve selflessly served their country. Most of all, I’m sorry because many of the people offended by the word “racist” are the same people who were hurt when the experiences and feelings of common soldiers and veterans were manipulated to serve the powerful interests and individuals who blithely and perennially send men and women to war, then don’t take care of them when they return home. And, of course, I regret the pain caused to the families of those who gave the last full measure of devotion to their country in Southeast Asia.

I would ask the people I angered to consider carefully reading the article, which explains, for example, that the Chinese Communists cynically leaked lies about the existence of live POWs in the years after the war in order to harm their rival Vietnam.

Most of all, I wish to express my regrets. Other than that, I stand by my article. —Rick Perlstein

The Editor’s Response

We published Rick Perlstein’s article on the POW/MIA flag, because it insightfully examines the cynical manipulation of public opinion at the expense of the downed pilots and foot soldiers the creators of the MIA movement claimed to represent. Perlstein is an accomplished historian who has spent years researching the Nixon and Reagan years. He knows this material. Our prolonged national discussion of the tragic Southeast Asian war that extended beyond Vietnam is often framed in what can be reasonably described as racist terms. The defenders of an Asian country that was invaded, bombed, defoliated and savaged (see: Kill Anything that Moves by Nick Turse) are vilified, while the invaders are beatified. Neither position is correct or fair. It was a persistent yet perhaps understandable disregard for the “other” victims of a war, beyond our own nation’s tragic losses, that informed the piece.

Nowhere is it suggested, nor do we imply, that individuals who remain devoted to the POW/MIA flag are racist. And it was neither Mr. Perlstein’s intent, nor ours, to dishonor those who served in Vietnam, although based on comments of readers, many were offended. A more careful editor would have moved the term “racist” lower in the body of the story and kept it out of the headline, where it was an unintended red flag that provoked the understandable ire of many readers. —Lou Dubose

Now it makes ME look like a jag for using the word racist in the thread title...I was just copying the headline of the article at the time.
 
Wow, interesting little afternote from the author and editor that were not there when I originally read the article and made this thread...





Now it makes ME look like a jag for using the word racist in the thread title...I was just copying the headline of the article at the time.

It doesnt make you look like anything. This is a half ass bullshit apology. He did not "accidentally" use the word. He didnt temporarily forget the words meaning. He used the word to get a reaction and get people to feel a certain way. He knew exactly what he was doing. Manipulating people to agree with him by using a trigger word. The only reason he is apologizing is because he was pressured to by his editor most likely and he got more of a negative response than he expected. He pushed his agenda a litle too far and got caught.
 
Back
Top