A 4000 year history, one of the oldest and most diverse cultures in the world, and 40 years after a 10 year war, we STILL think its all about us . . . . These are all excellent books, but they are not really about Viet Nam. They are about Americans in Viet Nam. Its the literary equivalent of a date with a narcissist: “But enough about me, let’s talk about you! What do you think of me?”

How about a novel, written by someone Vietnamese, in Viet Nam, that is not about Americans in Viet Nam? There are a number of excellent ones that have been translated, but I would recommend starting with Paradise of the Blind, or any other novel by Duong Thu Huong. Some of the symbolic nuances might be lost in the cultural translation, but the imagery and feel is still exquisitely Vietnamese.

It was not my intention to say that we should forget about the war that American fought in Viet Nam. In fact, I think that we have never really talked about it, and have preferred—officially at least—to pretend it never happened. But, as necessary as this discussion is, this is not the place for it. This is supposed to be about Viet Nam, the country. Yet, here we are, all arguing about Vietnam that damned war. Even the additional books that were recommended are all about the war. I think it simply supports my point.

Maybe if Salon had chosen an author that knew Viet Nam through some prism other than the war. Author Tom Bissell did “spend five months living in Vietnam (sic),” but certainly his interest has been influenced by his trip with his father, who was a veteran of the war. Maybe if Bissell had put together a list of books that reflected his concern that the war has obliterated Viet Nam, both physically and metaphorically. But he does not, instead, half of the books are about the war with America and none are by Vietnamese (except for Bao Ninh’s book about the war. Pham is viet kieu). This is the only book list to exclude anything by native authors.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe then we would be talking about Viet Nam as something other than a battleground. But maybe not. Maybe Americans aren’t ready to think about the country, because we have never talked about the war.

I find it ironic that Queen Latifah's song is referred to in this post. My understanding is that she was saying that Unity requires that men respect women (or, more precisely, that black men respect black women). She also claims that unity does NOT come from silence, but from women confronting disrespect, and calling it what it is. It is not the demand for respect that threatens unity, it is the lack of it.

The irony is compounded because of the use of (predictably) demeaning, disrespectful trash-talk designed to make women "feel low." As Latifah suggests, those who post this are emboldened by the silence and tacit support of "the boys." Its not women who are undermining unity, its those who disrespect them, and those who silently accept it. Those who want unity need to start calling out bigotry, whether it is sexism or racism, or ageism, etc. For the sake of unity, we need to say that it is NOT o.k. to use demeaning, sexual language, or make comments about "wrinkly" old women (and what you would or wouldn't touch them with). In the name of unity, every so-called progressive should call people on this, every time it happens. Until it stops.

Clearly, the reference to Queen Latifah was just window dressing, not a suggestion that we actually L-I-S-T-E-N to what she (or any woman) has say.

I agree with Latifah that unity requires us to confront disrespect. In that vein, I will only vote for candidates who demonstrate that they respect me, respect women, and who actually listen to what we say (and, I recognize that women say a lot of different things, because we come in a lot of shapes, colors, sizes, ages, incomes, etc. This is kind of what makes the listening part so important). I will not support or vote for candidates that think U-N-I-T-Y means women won't complain about sexism, and that only women will compromise for the sake of unity. I will not vote for a candidate, any candidate, who treats women and women's concerns as mere window dressing for his or her aspirations.