Joel Brinkley – a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist currently teaching at Stanford University – recently wrote a Chicago Tribune article explaining that the Vietnamese are “aggressive” due to their diets. This is a poorly written article.
Firstly, I’m not sure what the message is. Is it that the Vietnamese are aggressive because of their own doing? Is it that things are getting better because of Western influence? I’ve reread this dozens of times and still can’t figure it out. Perhaps he’s trying to state a little of both, but he doesn’t make a clear case for either.
Secondly, there are factual inaccuracies in his article. There are parts of the world, such as northern Vietnam, with some who eat dogs or rats, but they’re not typically a common staple and are often eaten due to hunger and poverty. Brinkley points out that Vietnam has increasing prosperity, but I wonder what his diet would be if he made $1,130 US per year, which was the per capita income of Vietnam in 2010. He states in the article that their per capita income is around $3,400, but I think he may have gotten their GDP confused with their income. Even still, I think most Americans, myself included, would have to alter their diets at that income level. Overall, the Vietnamese are earning more money than in previous decades, but it’s still not even close to what we enjoy. And I’m skeptical of his account that there aren’t animals to be found because they’re going around eating most of them, or that lost dogs are at high risk of never coming home because they’ll be caught and cooked. If so, he should at least cite solid reports that show this to be true.
Thirdly, there are some cultural differences that aren’t necessarily bad things and he’s writing from an Americentric viewpoint. Let’s say that eating certain animals actually does become extremely common in a future Vietnam where they have a very high income level. It would still be hypocritical of me to criticize someone eating one type of animal when I eat poultry and seafood myself. If eating something with a central nervous system is wrong, then it should be wrong across the board, unless valid scientific studies prove otherwise. There are certain animals that those of us in the United States eat which other cultures may find taboo. My mother told me how the younger version of herself living in South Korea would be surprised that she now eats and enjoys turkey here in the U.S. She explained how turkeys are regarded as intelligent, beautiful animals with their majestic feathers. But she realizes that it’s just cultural differences and that many in the U.S. would look at some of her childhood customs as strange as well. There aren’t good explanations of why we feel one animal should be off-limits while others are okay, aside from our cultural upbringings. These cultural differences aren’t necessarily always right or wrong but based on our yardstick. It’s disappointing that a journalist with previous travel experience seems unaware of this.
Fourthly, he doesn’t prove that correlation equals causation. He writes that the Vietnamese are aggressive due to their high protein diets. I question whether their culture is truly aggressive, as he doesn’t make a good case for that. Even if true, I’d like to see the science behind any correlation of protein and aggression. A study was conducted by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation a few years ago showing meat consumption per capita in countries. A version showing the data in order from greatest to least is available here. This does show that Vietnam consumes more meat than some of the neighboring countries he mentioned, but this just shows recent data. The U.S. is number 2 on this list, so I wonder what Brinkley thinks this says about us. Vietnam is 92. And, since this list does not specifically show protein consumption, I looked for studies showing that. The FAO also studied protein consumption from livestock and I have created a worksheet with certain countries and regions.
I have also created a worksheet showing overall protein consumption. The data from these studies do not clearly show a correlation of diet and aggression. Even if they did, they only go as far back as the 1990s, which does not span the full time of Vietnam’s supposed history of aggression, nor would it alone prove cause and effect.
Brinkley was contacted by Jim Romenesko, and his response wasn’t much better. Here’s an excerpt:
…Eating a diet rich in protein will make you more robust than others, in Laos, Cambodia and other Southeast Asian states who eat rice and very little else. After all half of Laotian children grow up stunted, even today. In Cambodia the rate is 40 percent. That means they grow up short and not so smart. Would it also follow that they would be less aggressive than Vietnamese? I think so.
I do believe that one thing he mentions has some validity, but was brought up in an abstruse manner. Using animal parts that have not been scientifically shown to provide any medical value is a waste, and I speak out against pseudoscience, but he doesn’t really go into detail about his opinion on this. Killing rhinos for their horns, which is without benefit, is a waste. It not only unnecessarily kills living animals, but telling people to take it instead of real treatments does harm. But this isn’t practiced in conventional medicine in Asia, and the ones who believe in it often lack proper education or income. This isn’t to say that the whole population is poor and uneducated, but we are afforded opportunities that many others are not. Also, there are Americans and Europeans guilty of believing in all sorts of unproven and disproven alternative medicine, in spite of many of them being educated and having access to quality healthcare and information. I speak out against the harm in this, but I wouldn’t use this as an example of how terrible we are, since it doesn’t reflect us as a whole. And, while it’s easy for me to say that I’d never kill rhinos for their horns, I’m not living in their country, at their income level, with their opportunities. If I were in their shoes, I can’t say I wouldn’t at least consider doing the same thing for purely financial reasons or because I might be misinformed about the supposed benefits. I hope I wouldn’t, but I just don’t know. There are privileges I have that many others do not.
A valid point was made by Pamela McElwee in an interview with Mercury News.
While the World Wildlife Fund has criticized Vietnam’s conservation policies around tigers, rhinos and elephants, weak government enforcement efforts has nothing to do with the consumption of animals like rats and dogs, said Pamela McElwee, an assistant professor of human ecology at Rutgers University and an expert on Vietnam’s wildlife conservation. Animal trafficking, she added, is a problem in many countries.
Brinkley also said in the Mercury News article that the “Vietnamese seem to be particularly sensitive to criticism, like a lot of people around the world”. But it wasn’t just about being offended. It was factually inaccurate and didn’t clearly state an opinion or correlation between diet and behavior. I don’t believe that criticisms of other countries should be completely off-limits but they should be constructive and based on reality. He also seems to imply that since these were things he claims to have seen with his own eyes, that it is proof enough of the accuracy of his reports.
It’s disappointing that he teaches journalism at any accredited educational institution, let alone the highly regarded Stanford. It’s not merely because I disagree with him, but because he isn’t following basic journalistic rules. I’m glad Tribune Media Services kept this article up but added an editor’s note.