Watching Ken Burns "The Vietnam War," laced with an undertone of support or "reason" bordering on justification is quite an experience. Even though throughout the facts makes it evident that America is an imperialist/pirate power trying to invade another brown peoples land, Burns continues to twist it toward the view of the Americans, Those people were simply attempting to rid themselves of foreign rule, particularly by Europeans.

.The French could no longer hold to Vietnam as a European colony, got its ass handed to it on a platter, so the U.S. stepped in and thought it could replace the French masters. Any way, there was a segment that focused on the "aftermath" of the Vietnamese victory, where they talked about how evil it was for the new government to bull-doze the graveyards dedicated to to those who fought against independence and instead for self-serving and foreign interests, This was portrayed as evil, "Communist," and unforgivable in the context of this very slanted film. Then I think about what the U.S. government claimed that it had done with the bodies of Osama Bin Ladin, Che Guevara, Patrice Lumumba, Muimmar Quaddaffi, Nat Turner, and others. All of them where denied proper burial and graves. 

   This is the rule of the pirate, they honor the confederate, the criminal and insist that it be honored with monuments, flags, songs, pledges. Ken Burns portrays that it was inhumane and criminal for the North to plow confederate grave yards and memorials, yet this is exactly what AmeriKKKa should have done if it was about justice for all. Instead it erected monuments to them, call it a "heritage," so then what about the Nat Turner heritage? I think the Vietnamese where far ahead in their social thinking, after all they overcame and overthrew foreign rule. They overthrew rule by the French pirate nation, then kicked the shit out of its bag-bad replacement for nearly 20-years to defeat. AmeriKKKa got a new asshole, most of which it did to itself, freak!

   Ken Burns tends to fall into that line of minimizing guilt to denial, to accusation and even worse, to a claimed privilege to escape being held to account. When it comes to their continuing crimes its let by-gones be by-gones. The criminal is always quick to urge such a resolution, without any just accountability and restitution, the way of White privilege. Which is always to frame history in their thwarted pirate pictures, speeches, monuments, news reports, and documentaries. Why was it wrong for the victorious Vietnamese to immediately begin removing memorials to those who had betrayed their own people, and did so in support of foreign rule? Which relates to the current battle in AmeriKKKa as to whether the Confederacy should be plowed with the removal of Confederate symbols, which really makes no difference to me. You can hide your past, but you cannot change your history, especially when it is the criminal doing it. Doesn't work with me, which is why Ken Burns' film is for me an indictment of his inherent racism and support for White imperialism.