Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam

Compatriots of the entire nation assembled:

All people are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of the French Revolution made in 1791 also states: All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights.

Those are undeniable truths.

Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, in the name of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.

In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty.

They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, Center, and South of Vietnam in order to destroy our national unity and prevent our people from being united.

They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly slaughtered our patriots; they have drowned our uprisings in bloodbaths.

They have fettered public opinion; they have practiced obscurantism against our people.

To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol.

In the field of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone, impoverished our people and devastated our land.

They have robbed us of our rice fields, our mines, our forests, and our raw materials. They have monopolized the issuing of bank notes and the export trade.

They have invented numerous unjustifiable taxes and reduced our people, especially our peasantry, to a state of extreme poverty.

They have hampered the prospering of our national bourgeoisie; they have mercilessly exploited our workers.

In the autumn of 1940, when the Japanese fascists violated Indochina‘s territory to establish new bases in their fight against the Allies, the French imperialists went down on their bended knees and handed over our country to them. Thus, from that date, our people were subjected to the double yoke of the French and the Japanese. Their sufferings and miseries increased. The result was that, from the end of last year to the beginning of this year, from Quảng Trị Province to northern Vietnam, more than two million of our fellow citizens died from starvation.

On March 9 [1945], the French troops were disarmed by the Japanese. The French colonialists either fled or surrendered, showing that not only were they incapable of “protecting” us, but that, in the span of five years, they had twice sold our country to the Japanese.

On several occasions before March 9, the Việt Minh League urged the French to ally themselves with it against the Japanese. Instead of agreeing to this proposal, the French colonialists so intensified their terrorist activities against the Việt Minh members that before fleeing they massacred a great number of our political prisoners detained at Yên Bái and Cao Bằng.

Notwithstanding all this, our fellow citizens have always manifested toward the French a tolerant and humane attitude. Even after the Japanese Putsch of March 1945, the Việt Minh League helped many Frenchmen to cross the frontier, rescued some of them from Japanese jails, and protected French lives and property.

From the autumn of 1940, our country had in fact ceased to be a French colony and had become a Japanese possession. After the Japanese had surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to regain our national sovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

The truth is that we have wrested our independence from the Japanese and not from the French.

The French have fled, the Japanese have capitulated, Emperor Bảo Đại has abdicated. Our people have broken the chains which for nearly a century have fettered them and have won independence for the Fatherland. Our people at the same time have overthrown the monarchic regime that has reigned supreme for dozens of centuries. In its place has been established the present Democratic Republic.

For these reasons, we, the members of the Provisional Government, representing the whole Vietnamese people, declare that from now on we break off all relations of a colonial character with France; we repeal all the international obligation that France has so far subscribed to on behalf of Viet-Nam, and we abolish all the special rights the French have unlawfully acquired in our Fatherland.

The whole Vietnamese people, animated by a common purpose, are determined to fight to the bitter end against any attempt by the French colonialists to reconquer the country.

We are convinced that the Allied nations, which at Tehran and San Francisco have acknowledged the principles of self-determination and equality of nations, will not refuse to acknowledge the independence of Vietnam.

A people who have courageously opposed French domination for more than eighty years, a people who have fought side by side with the Allies against the fascists during these last years, such a people must be free and independent!

For these reasons, we, the members of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, solemnly declare to the world that:

Vietnam has the right to be a free and independent country—and in fact it is so already. And thus the entire Vietnamese people are determined to mobilize all their physical and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safeguard their independence and liberty.

Jon Meachum: The Constitution is a Calvinist Ducument. The Declaration was an Englightenment one

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/l6vXR5iqReE?start=786″ frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe>
me to this point so I I do think it’s
12:33
a it’s a good bright line to draw John
12:37
Jefferson knew that part and this is in
12:40
your book all these codes about
12:42
partisanship I mean he was pretty
12:44
dedicated to engagement and political
12:47
issues but what would he think of the
12:49
type of partisanship we have now at this
12:52
moment I think he would recognize it
12:54
honestly he once said divisions of
12:58
opinion have convulsed human societies
13:00
since Greece and Rome divisions of
13:03
opinion were the oxygen of a free
13:06
government I’m a skeptic of the a
13:08
prevailing scholarly view that the
13:10
founders had this vision of a one-party
13:14
one-party state and we would all be on
13:17
Olympus with powdered wigs and
13:19
solving problems they may have had that
13:22
vision we all had that vision and but
13:26
they understood reality oh if you if you
13:28
worry if you’re worried about or if you
doubt me about whether they understood
reality read the Constitution which is
entirely about reality constitute if
Jefferson was an Enlightenment document
the Constitution is a Calvinist document
as looms we are all Despres sinful and
driven by appetite and ambition and
we’ve done everything we can
since then to prove them right so I
13:55
think you know this is a the Hemings the
13:59
story about Sally Hemings was first
14:01
publicized in 1802 and we with all love
14:07
and respect to a net we don’t know that
14:09
much more than that first piece doing it
14:20
wasn’t seen as a historical or cultural
14:22
document it was a partisan attack yeah
14:25
you know right and and continued during
14:27
that you know during his presidency and
14:29
in a few times afterwards there’s been a
14:32
big debate recently coming out of the
14:34
New York Times 16:19 project how much do
14:37
we need to revise our concept of the
14:39
founding of this nation do you think
14:41
that makes sense or has it gone a bit
14:44
too far the pendulum is historians have
14:48
been writing about this down for quite
14:50
some time but what we haven’t done as
14:54
much as to think about what that means
14:55
for us today
14:56
that the legacy of slavery is still with
14:59
us there’s a tendency there has been a
15:01
tendency on the part of many people to
15:03
say oh well we knew that but that’s over
15:05
I think that’s the that’s the
15:07
contribution of the magazine of 1619 is
15:11
not to tell us something many things we
15:14
didn’t know but to say there is a
15:17
connection to this that is continuing
15:20
you don’t get rid of hundreds of years
15:23
of slavery in a century or so and we
15:26
really don’t get going as legally full
15:29
citizens until 1965 the passage of the
15:32
vote
15:32
that’s not in the history you know
15:35
that’s a blink of an eye so they even in
15:37
total blink of an eye in history and
15:39
thinking that this stuff is all in the
15:41
past has been the problem and that’s I
15:44
think that’s what the project was trying
15:45
to do is to say no this isn’t over John
15:50
I was struck I believe it was the
15:54
remarks at the signing of the Civil
15:56
Rights Act and in July July 2nd 1964
16:00
Lyndon Johnson grounds his remark at the
16:04
bill signing not on Philadelphia but on
16:07
Jamestown it which which I was struck by
16:11
talk about a complicated figure well you
16:16
know were the Democratic nominee for
16:19
president is a 77 year old white man who
16:25
was the vice president of the first
16:28
african-american president incredibly
16:30
loyal and eulogized Thurmond and
16:33
Eastland you know so well if you’re
16:36
looking for simplicity if you’re looking
16:38
for straightforward figures good luck
16:42
I don’t know who they would be I think
16:46
what an it just said is absolutely
16:47
essential I have a theory
16:49
aboard Walter with this I think
16:51
privately actually that we’re only a 60
16:56
year old nation right the country we
17:01
have right now the polity we have which
17:04
is soon going to be majority diversity
17:07
whatever phrase it is was really created
17:11
in 1964-65 not only with the Civil
17:16
Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act but
17:18
with the Immigration Act yeah which
17:20
totally changed the nature of the
17:24
country and so no wonder this is so hard
17:28
no wonder we’re having such a ferocious
17:30
white reaction this is kind of the 1830s
17:35
in a way and so it’s not to excuse it
17:40
but I do think it explains it a little
17:42
bit and this idea of Prague
17:45
and I know it sounds tinny to people and
17:48
look if you look like me you can talk
17:49
about progress right I’m the boring Lee
17:52
heterosexual white southern Episcopalian
17:54
right I mean things tend to work out for
17:56
me in America so I stipulate that but
18:00
but it’s simply the lesson of history
18:04
that we are in fact a better country
18:09
than we were yesterday doesn’t mean
18:12
we’re perfect doesn’t mean we stop up
18:15
but our are enough of us devoted to
18:21
doing all we can as citizens and as
18:24
leaders to try to create a country that
18:27
more of us can be proud of and if we are
18:30
then let’s get to it yeah and and I
18:34
would throw in women the changing role
18:37
of women from the 1960s and this is
18:39
that’s a good point I wouldn’t I agree
18:42
with 60 years again a short time in
18:47
history where everything everybody’s
18:49
sort of in place it’s like Ken Burns
18:51
said that he found it difficult to call
18:53
talk about the Golden Age of baseball
18:56
and there were no black players in the
19:00
major league how do you how do you do
19:02
that and this is a similar situation
19:04
where you have blacks legally allowed to
19:08
vote and those rights are protected I
19:11
mean there’s issues with voter
19:12
suppression but sort of on paper
19:14
equality is there and it’s hard is
19:17
wrenching for people who have had you
19:20
know power who are used to a certain
19:23
hierarchy a certain way things are were
19:25
or they think about their grandparents
19:27
or good old days it’s hard to get used
19:29
to all of that and so you’re right
19:32
there’s no wonder that there’s a people
19:33
Annette gordon-reed Jon Meacham thank
19:37
you for joining us to be here
19:42
[Music]
19:50
[Music]
19:53
you

In Defense of Western Civ

The West’s tolerance for anti-Western philosophies is a fairly unique feature of the West itself.

But, again, until pretty recently, that tendency wasn’t against “the West” so much as it was against the Enlightenment or democracy or capitalism. Western radicals argued that the West had taken a wrong turn, not that the East was better.

.. The whole reason liberalism is in trouble today is that it has lost the ability to speak confidently in patriotic and loving terms about America, unless it is in the context of selling some government program or pressing some nakedly political advantage (I’m thinking mostly about immigration maximalism and identity politics). Cutting Medicaid may be wrong, but it’s not unpatriotic.

.. Peter himself recently argued that Democrats need to refocus on the importance of assimilation if they want to be trusted on the issue of immigration. Well, assimilation to what? If American culture is worth assimilating into, so is Western Culture, because the two cannot be separated.

.. Right now, there’s a hilarious effort afoot to defend the anti-Semitic Saudi sock-puppet Linda Sarsour. She recently called for jihad against Donald Trump and insisted that American Muslims must never, ever assimilate into American culture.

.. In Trump’s telling, the threat to Western Civilization must be met with his favorite qualities: Strength! Will! Etc.! The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?

.. In Trump’s telling, the threat to Western Civilization must be met with his favorite qualities: Strength! Will! Etc.! The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?

.. The key to keeping Western Civilization alive isn’t fending off the barbarians at our gates, though that’s important. They key is keeping it alive in our hearts. Civilizations die by suicide. As Lincoln put it:

From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia . . . could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we will live forever or die by suicide.

Fending off suicide isn’t a matter of martial will, but of simple gratitude. The Left has convinced itself that there is nothing to be grateful for about Western Civilization. ’s idiotic. And they need to be persuaded otherwise, not pummeled into thinking Western Civilization is just a dog whistle for MAGA.

Rich, who is on a mission to restore the good name of nationalism, asked whether the podcasters would still love America if it had different ideals. And they all said yes.

.. I’ve written countless times that nationalism is good in small doses and poisonous in large doses, save during times of war when it is channeled outward for legitimate reasons.

.. But it is not absurd to say that America is an idea. The Founders certainly thought it was. So did Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. They appealed to the idea encased in the Declaration, not to the nation. Appeals to nationalism can be appeals to ideas, but they usually are not. They are simply another form of populism, which says we’re right because we’re us. Appeals to ideas, particularly those that marry themselves to what is best about a nation, help a nation act in accordance with its best self.

.. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man — these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We cannot continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause