Some background on the Vietnamese Flag issue: From Wikipedia: the flag of the Republic of Vietnam (i.e., the flag of South Vietnam, pre-1975) and its importance to Vietnamese Americans:
• When a Vietnamese American video tape store owner displayed the communist [i.e., the current] flag in front of his store in Westminster, California in 1999, a month-long protest against it climaxed when 15,000 people held a candlelight vigil one night, sparking the Hi Tek Incident (Hi Tek was the name of the store).
• A faux pas by the United States Postal Service in using the current Vietnamese flag in a brochure to represent the Vietnamese American community that it serves cause some outrage among Vietnamese Americans and resulted in an apology.
• In 2004, some Vietnamese American students at the California State University, Fullerton threatened to walk out on their graduation ceremony to demand that the university use the former flag of South Vietnam as well as the current flag of Vietnam to represent its Vietnamese students. This resulted in the university scrapping all foreign flags for the ceremony.
• In 2006, Vietnamese American students at the College of Engineering, UTA [University of Texas, Arlington] requested that the university add this flag in addition to the communist flag as a part of its student diversity in the Hall of Flags, Nedderman Hall. After several weeks of protests from the Vietnamese-American community in the area, the president removed all the flags from display in its Hall of Flags.
• Prior to President George W. Bush's visit to Vietnam in 2006, the White House website briefly displayed this [i.e., the old Republic of Vietnam] flag before replacing it with the current flag of Vietnam.
• The lobbying efforts of Vietnamese Americans resulted in the state governments of California and Ohio to adopt it to symbolize Vietnamese Americans in 2006.
The infamous Hi Tek incident, 1999
16 comments:
You Dissenters, in the twilight of your lives, will look back on this incident as:
The Great Goo Flag Flap
Some may actually get this bon mot. I'm pretty proud of it.
Don't Tread on Me!
Flags = nationalism = hatred
Burn 'em all.
It's very clear now that we should have followed the advice of the armchair administrators who said we need to take on the bullies.
Yeah, the college CAVED on this issue. Just like CSUF, two state governments, and the White House.
Thank you, Chunk, for posting this very good information.
Yeah, yeah, yeah give 'em what they want until next time they want something else - like how the war is taught - what then?
No armchair administrator here, just someone who thinks that there's a problem here and intead of dealing with the problem, we're, well, enabling it.
The issue wasn't instruction, it was a decoration in a building. Is that worth the fight, 9:30?
I agree, flags are mere decorations! Sort of like balloons and bunting?
Or bling and hair color.
Often, they don't bring out the best in people...
Did the people who approached Glenn (approach may be the wrong verb here) request that the flag be replaced?
Or did they just make threats?
There's a difference, I think, between negotiation and threats, it has to do with process and perhaps the ultimate goal.
7:06 - who knows how they "approached" Glenn - in order to know that, the college president would have had to actually communicate with us - and, well, you know how much the administration likes to communicate with us.
I wonder if having 15,000 protestors taking your parking spaces, blocking access to your classrooms, and chanting over your lectures would make you outraged at the administration's delay in taking down the flags?
Surely there are other options here, folks, something between standing fast and giving in - isn't that some kind of false dilemma? Either/or fallacy?
Chunk - you're the philosopher, help us out.
Otherwise there is a kind of slippery slope, isn't there? Anytime someone threatens us, we give them what they want so life can go on and we can park where we want to without disruption.
Again, since Glenn isn't talking (at least not to us) who knows what went on.
I agree with 9:30--there is a not so bright line between their demanding that they be appeased in this manner, and then they'll want Ho Chi Minh discussed from a certain perspective to please their fragile sensibilities. History teachers will feel intimidated and worried about more protestors. Not much of a slippery slope at all.
9:11--
Well, in fact, I have been running around saying that it is a false dilemma to suppose that one must choose between simply giving in to this kind of pressure (threats, not reason) and simply refusing to take the flag down. Obviously, this Vietnamese group should come to us with reasons, not threats. I agree that taking the flags down is right--it eliminates any threat of danger--but it should be made clear that taking down the flags is a response to a threat; it is not a decision regarding the fate of the flag(s). I think the issue should be handled in such a way that the burden is on this group to explain why they make threats instead of engaging in discussion. I do think administration has dropped the ball here a bit by not communicating with the college community about this issue. Good leaders bring the community into issues, cause people to feel that they are part of the decision. As far as I know, Glenn has not asserted that the flags are down for good. Not sure. Hope that's true. But talk to us, Glenn! --CW
There is this gang of upset Vietnamese in their own community, getting all pissed off every time some flag issue arises. Recently, in the Weekly, was a story about a local artist who used the SV flag as some sort of artistic experession, and there they were, attacking her and anyone who was affiliated with her. These people need to go away, or start up their own little dictatorship somewhere else.
Post a Comment