Joel Brinkley Attributes Vietnam’s Aggressive Attitude to the Fact they Eat Birds, Rats & Dogs

Our friends over at Angry Asian Man posted about this ‘journalist’ who decided to come up with all sorts theories on Vietnam. Ones like there are no stray dogs because the people ate them all. He also attributed their aggressive nature. Don’t believe us then hit the jump to get the full scoop.

Did you know? The streets of Saigon are completely free and clear of rats, squirrels and stray dogs… because the Vietnamese people at the them all! Well, according to Tribune columnist Joel Brinkley.

I posted this item up and down social media channels last week, but I wanted to make sure visitors here also saw this fantastically ignorant piece of trash passing for journalism, in which Brinkley apparently has Vietnam all figured out: Joel Brinkley: Despite increasing prosperity, Vietnam’s appetites remain unique.

The column alleges that Vietnam’s “aggressive tendencies” (the f%ck?) can be traced to its people’s penchant for eating meat of all shapes and varieties — particularly rats, birds and dogs. How did he come to this brilliant theory? It sounds like he visited Vietnam and saw some different-ass shit, which somehow gave him the insight to assess the soul of a nation. Based on its eating habits:

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.

Of course. Meat. That explains everything. This is coming from an actual professor of journalism, and a Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent for the New York Times. This means he actually got paid to go to other countries and report. And then apparently, at some point, received an award for it.

As you can imagine, the column has drawn fervent criticism from all around. Tribune Media Services’ standards editor has since issued a statement in response to controversy over the article. But Brinkley stands by what he wrote: Joel Brinkley defends his Vietnamese diets article. [Source: Angry Asian Man]

1 Comment
  1. Professor Joel Brinkley reached the peak of his journalist career at age
    28 when he won Pulitzer award in 1980 for his report the genocide in
    Cambodia by the Khmer Rouges. He has since enjoyed a very lucrative and respectable career of columnist and writer. Calling someone racist is a very harsh critic that should not be used frivolously.

    In conclusion, the question is whether Mr. Brinkley happened to use poor
    choice of words or he intentionally distorted the image of Vietnam and
    its people as aggressive? He corrected he would replace the word “aggressive” with “robust”. It is again not factually correct, Vietnamese are far from being robust according to statistics of average human height or male height. Vietnamese men’s average height is 162.1cm.

    Stanford University professor and Pulitzer-Winner Joel Brinkley Accused Of Xenophobia and Anti-Vietnamese

    http://eyedrd.org/2013/02/stanford-university-professor-and-pulitzer-winner-joel-brinkley-accused-of-xenophobia-and-anti-vietnamese.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

FOLLOW US ON