The Vietnam war continued for 20 years after the french left. Supported by China/Russia in the north, and the USA in the south.PeterMollenburg wrote:DaveBee wrote:I'm a little confused by this. France was the colonial power in Vietnam, and driven out by force by the Vietnamese.PeterMollenburg wrote:I read the ohter night about French language disappearance in Vietnam, and how those who know the language their (older generations) are quite fond of it and proud to speak it. Yes they didn't want to be a French colony, but learning the French language for most seems to have been something enjoyable. Then, according to the information I was reading, post Vietnam war, the French just dropped the language from Vietnam altogether almost overnight, despite it being well received (again- according to what I was reading). Then soon after English language schools started appearing and the Vietnamese are now all too happy to attend, when it's provided free of charge (I would too). Are we deliberately pushing a global language here? I think so. France backed off imo, because it was likely instructed so (whether publicly known or not).
After Vietnam they would have been occupied with the collapse of their position in North Africa, and their new focus of establishing a customs union in Western Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_co ... lonization
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_em ... lonisation
I'm not surprised by your confusion, as I was being both unclear and pretty vague. I don't deny the French were driven out by force, nor that they were busy/occupied elsewhere post Vietnam War. Their language didn't have to be eradicated from the land was my main point, and why was it, really? I'm not looking for answers here, the question there is rhetorical. Although with rhetorical questions, the answer is meant to be rather clear, again i'm being vague-ish. And why was it replaced with English? There were English speaking forces in Vietnam who were also seen as the enemy. Yet English language instruction followed, while the French were 'occupied'. It's suspicious imo. Let's just say I'm a little suspicious of official narratives when it comes to world history/events and that includes how English has (miraculously <-sarcasm) become a global language. Reading Wikipedia isn't not going to enlighten me. You're welcome to respond, but part of my lack of clarity was due to the fact I don't want to upset the moderators with politics. It's hard sometimes where language often is soaked in politics. My main idea here is that I do not believe what we're told when it comes to how English has become a global force, while languages like French simply disappear or 'fall out of favour'.
As I understand it the french administration was the only institution pushing french, and it was principally used by urban civil servants. They presumably would have adapted to Chinese/Russian/English as the times required.
It would be interesting to see a timeline for the rise of english in Vietnam, and the rise/fall of Russian and French in the country too.
As to the rise of english, a common L2 is a useful thing. The colonial powers of europe exported their languages/cultures the British just seeded theirs more widely, and the dominant commercial, political and military power since WW2 has been the USA, another english speaking nation.