Regarding the conclusion of your article i.e. that just as US military power failed in Viet Nam, so did global commercialism, or so it seems at the moment. The question: what would make, in your mind, Viet Nam so resistant to both? More so than most cultures, you seems to argue. If this is the case, it would be interesting to know what cultural patterns and idiosyncracies support/explain your hypothesis?

Dear Tony, I appreciate your frustration at the seemingly ineffective role we have played in persuading public opinion to promote justice. Personally I am not entirely despondent. I feel the recent developments you mention should motivate us to want to try harder. As there is no strictly empiric way to evaluate the impact we have on public opinion it could equally well be argued that without our efforts (and those effective “stringers” at Abu Ghraib) the situation today could be worse – Blair winning by a landslide, for instance. We should never become disheartened. Even if we only reach a single person, it’s worth it. And even if that person abandons political activism in favour of synchronized swimming our efforts will not have been in vain. Because truly civilized societies learn from history and at the very least that’s what we do – record history for future generations. These are tumultuous times. The American Empire is on the rampage. We might not be able to stop it, or even slow it down a little, but we can record the egregious effects of the juggernaught. Indeed Magnum was in the forefront of those “shining light on dark places” and therefore it is to be expected that it has come under attack from those intent on its destruction.

First, let me say that the Vietnamese are still gallantly fighting a battle to prevent the subjugation of their nation by consumer capitalism. The fight is far from over. However, I’m inclined to be optimistic about the outcome. Why? Because the Vietnamese have been bound for 3000 years by a culture that promotes wisdom where status is conferred by real merit rather than possession of the trinkets and baubles of consumerism. This philosophy is regarded as an obstacle by the handmaidens of the multinational corporations. As one American diplomat put it, “ . . . The inhabitants must go back to zero, lose their traditional culture, for it blocks everything.” As a result the Vietnamese possess an innate wisdom that makes them wary of the siren calls of the advertisers. They have an intelligence that promotes an evaluative approach, one that considers the opportunities before action. As I’ve written elsewhere, “The Americans had the smart bombs but the Vietnamese had the smart minds.” And that’s why, thirty years ago, they won the war.

Dear Mr Jones Griffiths, The clarity and, indeed, compassion of the Viet Nam trilogy leave the reader of your books in no doubt of the consequences of the US onslaught there, militarily, economically and ideologically. Further, the Vietnamese response to that failed onslaught - employing artifices of destruction requiring madmen in power and technological lunatics to serve them - makes one one weep to witness them in your pictures and text. You have already been asked why you think the people of Vietnam were and are capable of maintaining the integrity of their culture in the face of such unprecedented aggression. But why do you think a nation of 250 million people, basically decent, can support a government capable of such atrocities? Is it a geographical, educational, problem? Is it because empires, economic or military, are necessarily destructive? Must they always envelop in their maw all cultures, ideas and independence of spirit they find contrary to their received interests? America has not always been directed in the conduct of its business by such men who have had the affairs of state in their grasp for the last 50 years. Far from it. Why?

as a frequent visitor to vietnam i have been there 20 times in the last 7 years i have to say that i totally agree with your observations about the attitude of the vietnamese people. they do not seem to be caught up in the madison avenue mantra that more is better. they are content to live their lives with a minimum amount of so called trinkets. i am in love with their country and will be relocating there with-in the next 6 months. i just purchased a house and will be moving there to marry and live with my girlfriend. it will be refreshing to live in a country where more is not necessarily better.

Dear Philp, You are a wonderful photographer. I recall Vietnam Inc when it came out over thirty years ago and like you I have been in many ways formed by the long conflict between America and Vietnam. But I feel what you write in your article and in your forum responses is wrong and even damaging to the Vietnamese. You romanticise them and idealise them as having an “innate wisdom that makes them wary of the siren calls of the advertisers” which they don’t have. For example, you describe the American relocation programme as designed separate the people from a 2,000 year old agrarian Confucian culture and replace it with US consumer capitalism in the cities. On the contrary Vietnamese communism which led the national liberation forces was born of an attack upon Confucian values not their preservation. Sophie Quinn-Judge describes this in her openDemocracy article, which is also a really helpful overview of Vietnamese culture today. In most of South Vietnam the genocidal forced urbanization which was designed to destroy the resistance in the countryside did not move people from ancestral lands as you seem to imply. The Mekong delta was not inhabited by the Vietnamese until the French arrived in the mid-nineteenth century and drained the delta (as the British had done in Burma) creating rich fertile rice-lands. The Vietnamese settled there to make money, if they could, and live better. Yes, they have their own special national culture and traditions. But the Vietnamese are just like the rest of us. This is what made their resistance heroic (and their present government despicable). I’ve a funny story about this. In the forum you write that the Vietnamese “have an intelligence that promotes an evaluative approach, one that considers the opportunities before action. As I’ve written elsewhere, ‘The Americans had the smart bombs but the Vietnamese had the smart minds’”. When I was in Hanoi I found people with an independent spirit but also a chaotic one. Talking about this one of them told me that one reason they won the war was that the Americans knew where the Vietnamese Army units were supposed to be and bombed them, but in fact they were usually late or had gone the wrong way, which is why the US often missed! It was not because they were super smart that they got the better of the Americans, it was because they were lazy, disobedient, and plain stubborn, in short human – and fighting for their own country. Anthony Barnett

dscmpny, You can own property in a communist country? For someone who doesn't want trinkets, you're acquiring quite a baubble. I don't know your heritage, but if it is anything other than oriental, the orientals can be just as unfriendly to outsiders as any people on earth.

Dear Anthony, I will try to answer your points in order: America had a relocation programme – the communists did not. Indeed, as Paul Mus pointed out, Ho Chi Minh always recognised that Viet Nam had to modernise and his genius was his ability to graft European Marxism onto local Confucianism. This resulted in a move away from superstition while enlisting some of its important traditional values. He never set out to obliterate the indigenous religion. The “genocidal forced urbanization” DID happen and it WAS from their ancestral lands. We might not think of our dead parents as “ancestors” but the Vietnamese certainly do. Therefore the time factor is not relevant. And even if it was, the relocated families in the Mekong Delta would be leaving behind up to ten generations of buried ancestors. On your last point, yes, the Vietnamese are unpredictable – but they still have smart minds! I also have a similar story to yours. In 1989 I interviewed Lt. General Phan Quang Tiep, Commander of the Truong Son Division, whilst making a film on the Ho Chi Minh Trail for the BBC. Here is what I wrote at the time: I asked Lieutenant General Phan Quang Tiep which of the schemes used to fool the sensors (dropped on the trail) was the most effective. He explained that the American system was set up by Western minds that thought along scientific lines. The Vietnamese, he insisted, were inherently unpredictable. The (US) computer would plot the average speed of a convoy and bomb accordingly, without taking into account some drivers’ frequent stops for meals and to repair the over-worked lorries. Other drivers would simply drive as fast as possible without a break, which equally confused the computer.

Dear Philip, Thank you for your lifetime of work. I can't tell you how important your new book is, especially now, for those of us living in the US, who are witnessing the dangerous resurrection of the Vietnam War myths. Last night I watched a series on the History Channel on the Vietnam War. They interviewed American combat vets, who spoke teary eyed as they relived their battles. The interviews were cut with TV news footage and combat photography from Hue. The tired marines, the fallen comrades, the Americans under fire but heroes to the end. I felt sick, I felt betrayed, not one image, not one peep about the Vietnamese. I also felt confused as some of the black and white photography was spectacular, but in the end, it just seemed to reinforce the myth that the Vietnam war was a heroic and honorable enterprise and not the genocide you have shown it to be. Which brings me to a question... Is it possible to make combat photography that doesn't reinforce the myths of war and the warrior? And if so, what does it look like now? So many of the soldier pictures I have seen out of Iraq seem to paint a benign image of the combatant, even those taken by "famous" photographers. The deception is even greater when the images are beautiful because of light or sophisticated composition. I think of the sandstorm pictures on the road to Baghdad, or the countless images of backlit soldiers marching across the desert at sunset, or those insufferable shots through green night vision goggles. I believe one reason the Abu Ghraib torture pictures were so shocking, was because they were in such stark contrast to the cliche images we have seen over and over of American soldiers taken by American and European photogrphers who are themselves excited to be in conflict situations and can't help feeling invested in the soldiers who are charged with protecting them. Thank you, Nina Berman New York City

i would simply like to add to the last post by saying do you think photojournalism is dead or is it adapting to new outlets , also phillip do you think the american cultural imperialism will turn backwards after a while . thanks for all you good work phillip ... jimi

Dear Philip, I would like to begin, if I may, by passing along a few comments about your work and how it speaks to me personally. In doing so I'd like ask you some questions and to mention some of my own impressions of Viet Nam and of its people as they appear to me as well. The great value of your images as I find them is in their relentless focus on the slide of history and that the work taken as whole tends to possess a dignity that comes from an admiration of a people coming from behind the lens that captured them. These can be unsettling and raw...sometimes exquisite with poise. The best can speak to larger truths. But who are the photos for? I am not certain they are for this generation of Vietnamese. Are they are not a dialogue with yourself? In my limited experience the Vietnamese Kinh people they seem a group which grounds itself in an age-old relational identity of which the core is family and then extending to the larger continuity of the clan. It is a universe of blood and earth and the great pantheon of ancestors residing therein. The Communists laid moral claim this fact in the past and would (perhaps) like to think that they do so today still. This strength was something which the Americans with their insolent disregard for a history larger than themselves believed they could surpass. And, of course, they failed. This fact is priceless. Are your photographs not a record of this failure and of the price of that victory? This grounding I've just referred to in their land and their past has helped anchor the Vietnamese people from some of the worst that acquisitive consumer culture plays to. But what the future may hold is uncertain still. A generation has grown of age with the onslaught televised generated needs and to which they are basically defenseless. And is there is there not always a danger in idealizing the foreign as wiser and more noble than ourselves as you do in your otherwise fine introduction. Vietnam is older and more enduring, yes. But ask them yourself: are not the weaknesses of human nature the same where ever we find them?

Dear Mai Ghoussoub, 1/ On the technical side the ones I know have almost all switched to digital. They are the photographers either on contract to Western News Agencies or freelancing. Others, also using digital, are amateurs photographing as part of the excellent PHOTOVOICE project. 2/ Vietnamese photography covers a wide range. The traditional “pictorial” style is being slowly replaced by more socially aware concerns. 3/ Art in general and photography is general have always encompassed a whiff of derivation. So, yes, some are affected by the new style of contentless pictures. Others delight in pointing out life’s incongruities. 4/ The kids were confused (especially in Ho Chi Minh City, the old Saigon) by an avalanche of Western influences, especially the Internet. But remember, they were all born long after the war was over and represent the urban elite – about 25% of the 20% of people who live in urban centres. (80% of the people live in the countryside.) So I’m referring to less than 5% of the population that has the financial access to magazines. Nowadays I’ve found a shift amongst the young towards a more critical view of their history. Philip

Dear Jimi, To add to what I’ve replied to Richard Evans, photojournalism will NEVER die. The Internet and on-demand publishing are avenues that hold hope for the future, although financial remuneration remains elusive. There is no evidence that American intentions are being reviewed. They have the bit between their teeth and are galloping ahead. And it’s not just cultural imperialism! If Iran goes they will control everything from the Mediterranean to India. Philip

Dear Philip, I just wanted to say thank you for responding to my comments. Documentary/photojournalism is a real passion for me and know that it is hard to make a living. In a world of material wealth it is hard for people to understand that you can gain richness in life other than money. Currently I am trying to get work published a put projects together but working on my own can be very hard. I am lucky that I have friends and family who don’t mind me crashing at there places when I’m back in England. Thank you once again for the inspiration and all the brilliant photographs you have taken over the years. If you have time I would be honoured if you would take a look at my website, it is still being worked on but will show you a selection of photographs. www.richard-evans.com Regards Richard