Tôi có lẽ hơi trễ với sự việc liên quan đến bài viết của ông Joel Brinkley (Đại học Stanford). Tôi đã đọc xong bài báo của ông ấy, đọc phản ứng của người Việt, và đọc cả lời giải thích của ông Brinkley trước những phản ứng đó. Tôi nghĩ ông Brinkley có vấn đề về kiến thức văn hoá và lịch sử Việt. Tôi đã viết ngay một lá thư và gửi cho ông ta. Tôi còn biết có một nhóm bạn trẻ bên Mĩ đang làm thỉnh nguyện thư đòi ĐH Stanford cách chức ông Brinkley. Tôi không biết khả năng ĐH Stanford đáp ứng yêu cầu của thỉnh nguyện thư là bao nhiêu, nhưng tôi nghĩ chúng ta nên ủng họ các bạn ấy bằng cách kí vào bản thỉnh nguyện thư ở đây. Dưới đây là lá thư tôi gửi cho ông Brinkley, giải thích tại sao ông ấy có vấn đề. Các bạn có thể tuỳ nghi sử dụng.

Mr. Brinkley:

I am writing to register my strongest possible protest in regards to your recent op-ed commentary on Vietnamese dietary habit. As an academic reader and a Vietnamese Australian, I have a right to expect that you have some knowledge about the subject about which you are writing; however, I am disappointed that you lack the basic knowledge and credentials to make comments on the Vietnamese and Southeast Asian culture. Moreover, your data are scientifically invalid and unsubstantiated. As a result, virtually every paragraph in your article is either factually wrong or scientifically inadequate. Here, I just want to point out some obvious mistakes that you have committed.

Indeed, your first paragraph, “You hear no birds singing, see no squirrels scrambling up trees or rats scurrying among the garbage. No dogs out for a walk”, is just plainly dishonest. Do you really believe that there is no bird in Vietnam? Do you honestly think that there is no rat in Vietnam? Your 10-day trip can be likened to riding on a horseback to view flowers – to borrow a well-known Vietnamese saying. No, your short visit to Vietnam does not qualify you to make any serious comment on the existence of wildlife and domesticated animals in the country. As a frequent visitor to Vietnam, I can assure you that in large cities, you can find people enjoying their morning walk with their dogs. In countryside, you can hear birds singing and owls hooting, and you will see dogs as people's best friends. Thus, I am afraid that you have rather been selective in your observation.

Your assertion that “Vietnamese have been meat eaters through the ages, while their Southeast Asian neighbors […] have largely left their wildlife alone” is totally wrong. As a matter of fact, Vietnamese staples are primarily rice, fish, fish sauce, and vegetable condiments. Pork and poultry only represent a minor component of the Vietnamese diet. While dog meat has been consumed by few people in Vietnam, it is not in any way a staple food of the Vietnamese culture. In fact, consumption of dog meat in Vietnam is considered taboo, and people eating dog meat are regarded by most Vietnamese as antisocial.

You have displayed your utmost incompetence and ignorance by the declaration that “Vietnam was born of China”. The statement is completely wrong. Vietnam and China are independent nations. Vietnam was NOT born of China. Need I say that again? Vietnam was NOT born of China, Mr. Brinkley. On the contrary, there is a body of scientific evidence that suggests Southern Chinese actually had their genetic roots in Southeast Asia. Your statement has offended 90 million Vietnamese.

Your claim that Vietnam “has invaded Cambodia numerous times, most recently in 1979” shows an unacceptable ignorance of Southeast Asian history. As a matter of fact, the Khmer Empire, in its golden age, used to invade Vietnam. However, intermittent conflicts between Cambodia and Vietnam have occurred throughout history. Without Vietnamese “invasion” in 1979, Cambodia would have been a country of zero population under the Pol Pot’s genocide regime. A simple browse through history textbooks will enlighten you that Vietnam has always been invaded by China. Even at the time I am writing this piece, China is aggressively pursuing a policy of expansionism by invading Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, and India. Would you readily attribute the Chinese aggression to the Chinese diet, which includes among others dog meat?

Your argument that Vietnamese eating habit is linked to the country’s agreesiveness is not just a leap of logic but also an academic blunder. You have committed an ecologic fallacy, because you attempted to link a peculiar habit among few people with the so-called aggressiveness of a population. To help you understand your mistake, let me make the following hypothetical statement: Americans love war because they eat raw beef and hamburger. Do you find that assertion ludicrous and absurd? If you do, then you know that you have made a mistake. If you don’t, then I must question your logical reasoning. Ecologic fallacy is an elementary mistake that even students are aware of, Mr. Brinkley.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that dietary protein intakes are associated with aggression. For emphasis, I repeat: no evidence. Actually, what does aggression here really mean? I am afraid that you are too simplistic in your reasoning. The “evidence” you provide in your defence of the article is simply a biased anecdote, and that greatly dissappoints me.

I am astounded to learn that you are actually a professor of Stanford University! Despite your affiliation with the prestigious university, you resorted to anecdotes and unrepresentative data, and making reference to unsubstantiated sources. If that kind of practice has  been used in your research, then your work is questionable, and your appointment at Stanford seems inappropriate.

Of course, I understand that your opinions do not in any way reflect the Stanford University's view. However, as a Stanford faculty, I thought that you should exercise carefulness in what you say or write, and pay attention to scientific rigor. You have not demonstrated your academic competence in the commentary in question. You have in a way made Stanford look bad.

I would have thought that Stanford library would provide unparalleled access to good reviews of the Vietnamese culture. I am therefore surprised that you have used selective, anecdotal data in your op-ed piece. That, to me, represents an insidious lack of scientific rigor and a dearth of knowledge. Stanford University has perhaps more than enough experts, including Vietnamese-American experts, to preclude the need to rely on or tolerate the kind of scientifically inadequate and culturally offensive dissemination.

Although I do not think you are a racist, the way you present your observations and arguments plays into the hands of racists. I do not want to sound patronizing, but I think that you are still relatively young, and have plenty of time to learn more about Vietnamese culture and history. In the mean time, you owe the Vietnamese people an apology – a sincere apology.

I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Tuan V. Nguyen

Sydney, Australia

****

Dưới đây là bài viết của ông Brinkley:

Joel Brinkley: Despite increasing prosperity, Vietnam's appetites remain unique

American Voices

Tribune Media Services

5:16 p.m. CST, February 1, 2013

You don't have to spend much time in Vietnam before you notice something unusual. You hear no birds singing, see no squirrels scrambling up trees or rats scurrying among the garbage. No dogs out for a walk.

In fact, you see almost no wild or domesticated animals at all. Where'd they all go? You might be surprised to know: Most have been eaten.



Of course, as with most states in the region, tigers, elephants, rhinos and other big animals are trafficked to China. At this, of course, Vietnam is hardly alone -- though the World Wildlife Fund describes the state as the world's greatest wildlife malefactor.



Various reports show that Vietnamese kill more rhinos for their horns than any other nation. Chinese value those horns for their mythical medical qualities -- like so many exotic-animal body parts.



Animal trafficking explains the dearth of tigers, elephants and other big beasts. But what about birds and rats? Yes, people eat those, too, like almost every animal that lives there. In Da Nang in January, I saw a street-side merchant with bowls full of dead rats for sale -- their fur removed but otherwise intact -- ready to cook.



Last spring, Conservation International reported that several varieties of Vietnamese gibbon, part of the ape family, "are perilously close to extinction" -- all but a few of them already eaten.



All of this raises an interesting question. Vietnamese have been meat eaters through the ages, while their Southeast Asian neighbors to the west -- Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Myanmar -- have largely left their wildlife alone.



In each of these other countries you see flocks of birds that are absent in Vietnam along with numerous pet dogs and cats. There, people eat rice, primarily, and for many people in most of those states their diet includes little more than that.



Vietnam has always been an aggressive country. It has fought 17 wars with China since winning independence more than 1,000 years ago and has invaded Cambodia numerous times, most recently in 1979. Meantime, the nations to its west have largely been passive in recent centuries.



Many anthropologists and historians attribute the difference to the state's origins. Vietnam was born of China, while India heavily influenced the other countries -- two nations with drastically different personalities, even today.



Well, certainly that played a part. But I would argue that because Vietnamese have regularly eaten meat through the ages, adding significant protein to their diet, that also helps explain the state's aggressive tendencies -- and the sharp contrast with its neighbors.



Right now, the favored dish is dog. In fact, dog meat is particularly prized. It's considered a specialty because it is said to contain more protein than other meats. For Vietnamese, tradition has it that whenever you have bad luck you should eat dog meat to change your fate. But you shouldn't eat it at the start of the lunar month, or the reverse will happen. You'll actually bring on bad luck.



Now, however, tradition is clashing with modernity -- and the law has changed with it. Thirty years ago, it was illegal to keep a pet dog. The government held the view that dog meat was a nutritional priority that couldn't be ignored. That point of view still pertains, though the government repealed the law years ago.



In fact, still today, driving down the highway it's not unusual to see a flatbed truck hauling dogs curled up in little stacked cages, six cages high, eight deep, off to market -- similar to the way chickens are transported to slaughterhouses in the west.



But now, Vietnam is a rapidly prospering state; more than half the population was born after the Vietnam War (which they call the American war). Per capita income is about $3,400, which may not seem like a lot but is higher than in most neighboring states. And as the middle class grows, so does Western influence -- picked up from television, movies, Facebook, Twitter and the rest.



With that has come a new desire among some to keep pets. So now you do see an occasional dog here and there, lounging on the front porch of someone's home -- but under the watchful eye of its owner. Even now, as Vietnam rapidly modernizes and matures, if the dog wanders too far from home, someone will grab it and then serve dog for dinner.



Visiting Vietnam, many Western visitors despair. As one Western blogger put it: "I can quite honestly say it's the most gruesome thing I have ever seen."



I could not agree more.



(Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford University, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former foreign correspondent for the New York Times.)

****

Dưới đây là phản ứng của sinh viên Việt Nam tại Stanford:

Op-Ed: A Response to Joel Brinkley’s Offensive Article

By Op Ed February 8, 2013

The Tribune Media Services recently published an article titled “Despite increasing prosperity, Vietnam’s appetites remain unique,” written by Stanford’s own Professor Joel Brinkley. Through many stereotypical assertions, Professor Brinkley has denounced the country of Vietnam as “gruesome,” subsisting on a backwards diet of endangered animals. The Stanford Vietnamese Student Association, in solidarity with numerous on-campus organizations, finds this article to be a perversion of the cultural image of Vietnam and an antithesis to the mission of tolerance that Stanford University – students and faculty alike – should promote.

Professor Brinkley’s article is a thinly veiled attack on the culture of Vietnam, specifically its culinary habits. His offensive statements, such as the assertion that the Vietnamese have consumed almost all of their wild/domesticated animals, are inaccurate and sensationalist. They are loosely based on statistics rooted in unmentioned context. Professor Brinkley defends his opinion piece by referencing his short 10-day visit to the country; he responds to opposition by further insulting other cultures with scientific fallacies.

We must reply that his research based on personal observation and mere hearsay is incredibly negligent. It is impossible for Professor Brinkley to see the real Vietnam, its beauty and true faults, if he approaches the experience with ethnocentric prejudice. His statements on the “tradition” of eating dogs for luck, for example, are an incomplete translation of a proverb praising living dogs for bringing wealth to a family. He also ignores that the consumption of dog is not “unique” to Vietnam. His lack of care for properly introducing the traditions of a foreign culture is evident in his disregard for the subtle nuances of their customs. It is true that a small minority eats dog meat, but his judgments on cultural practices different than his own are simply racist. Furthermore, the Vietnamese population is composed of 54 diverse ethnic groups. For Professor Brinkley to judge an entire nation by the actions of a few is to ignore the multifaceted beauty of Vietnamese culture.

Given his reputable career as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and a visiting scholar at Stanford, Professor Brinkley has a responsibility to present the truth. In this regard, he has disappointed this student body; we expect more from our professors than unscientific claims connecting the supposed “aggression” of a nation to the meat in its diet. His influence becomes a misguided weapon: By condemning a culture he doesn’t understand, he insults not only native Vietnamese, but also Vietnamese and other Asians globally. We have fought against the stereotypical jokes and rumors surrounding our cultures, but he makes Asian Americans like us feel like foreigners in our own home. Professor Brinkley has poorly represented the Stanford community, often considered a haven of cultural understanding and critical thinking.

To Professor Brinkley: You previously wrote that Vietnam “is a country to watch – and perhaps, one day soon, to admire.” We hope that you will revisit your words with a clearer understanding of your mistaken judgments and instead give Vietnam a fair chance to reach the potential you once envisioned.

The Stanford Vietnamese Student Association