Vietnam

    Before I read the lecture of Prof. O'malley, all I knew was only that Vietnam War was fighting between North and South, and U.S. armies backed up South Vietnam.  Now I know enough about Vietnam War.  Ho Chi Mihn was communist, but he was not the way that the people think which that communism is bad at all.  He even supported the ideas of the United States in North Vietnam where was really poor after independence from France.  This seemed to me that his thought was to reorganize Vietnam by themselves because Vietnam was previously taken over for so long time by other countries.  And U.S. might misunderstand it and the war happened.  It is showing that U.S. was completely wrong and ignored the way Vietnam would reorganize.

    The lecture literally and obviously shows facts about Vietnam war, and those narratives are based on personal emotion and experience that could be little different with obvious facts on the lecture even though they are both true.  Of course that historical facts on the lecture are not false, and those narratives are true also, but to me, narratives were more clear and easy to understand Vietnam War like watching movie on big screen.  For instance, descriptions like soldiers being killed in front of writers, watching refugees' situation were just sad whether which side was wrong and right.

    I don't think the narratives contradicted the lecture at all, and it is even hard to say which is wrong or more clear because of the different point of view; lecture is third-person point of view which shows historical facts objectively, but the narratives are first-person point of view which show experience subjectively.