"Conversation with Thanh" Nguyễn Thành Nam: When the essence of liberation slips into the frivolity of history

“Chuyện với Thanh” by Nguyễn Thành Nam is causing controversy due to many passages using frivolous language when writing about Hồ Chí Minh, Nguyễn Tất Thành, Việt Minh, the August Revolution, Củ Chi, and other Vietnamese historical symbols. However, the issue is not just about one author. This is also a story about the responsibility of the publisher, the approver, the distributor, the mainstream media, the censorship agency, and the organizations that have lent credibility to the book.

Quick summary: Why is “Chuyện với Thanh” controversial?

“Chuyện với Thanh” is not simply controversial because author Nguyễn Thành Nam questions Hồ Chí Minh or Vietnamese history. A book has the right to desacralize, to criticize, to view the leader as a historical figure. The problem lies in the fact that many shared pages show a frivolous, mocking tone, with signs of downplaying historical figures and events.
Phrases like “điếu đóm”, “phượt”, “vô danh tiểu tốt”, “khúm núm”, “Việt Minh ‘cướp’ chính quyền”, “tiện tay dắt dê”, “chui lủi” have led many to question: is this “desacralization” or desecration? Is this historical education for the young, or is it turning history into a form of shocking content?
More seriously, the book does not appear as an anonymous personal article. It is officially published, publicized, and promoted with the author’s name, and associated with educational, research, and publishing organizations. Therefore, responsibility cannot be limited to Nguyễn Thành Nam alone.

Who is Nguyễn Thành Nam?

Before discussing the book’s content, it’s necessary to clarify who the author is.
Nguyễn Thành Nam is not a young, impulsive writer, nor is he someone lacking social experience. He was born in 1961, belonging to a generation over 60 years old. He is introduced as a Doctor of Mathematics, having studied and researched in the former Soviet Union. He is also known as one of the figures involved in the formation and development of FPT, having held leadership positions at FPT and FPT Software.
After his time in technology, Nguyễn Thành Nam transitioned to education, affiliating with FPT University, FUNiX, and having a profile at VinUniversity as a guest lecturer. Many media outlets also introduce him as someone who participates in teaching, exchanging, or promoting Hồ Chí Minh’s Thought in a university setting.
In other words, this is a figure belonging to the elite class of technology, education, and business. He has age, academic credentials, positions, media networks, and social prestige. Therefore, every word in “Chuyện với Thanh” should be evaluated with a much higher standard of responsibility.
If a young, ignorant person writes a few incorrect sentences online, it can be said that they are immature. But when a doctor, a former FPT leader, an educator, and an author introduced by many media channels uses frivolous phrases about Nguyễn Tất Thành/Hồ Chí Minh, it cannot be seen as a simple “slip of the tongue”.
Here, age, academic credentials, and position are not excuses for exemption from responsibility. On the contrary, they make responsibility even heavier.

What is “Chuyện với Thanh”?

“Chuyện với Thanh” is introduced as a dialogue book, a record, inspired by reading about Hồ Chí Minh and from the process of exchanging with students. The central character is “Thanh”, a student who is put into conversations with “thầy Thành” about history, Hồ Chí Minh, Việt Nam, and lessons for the present.

In terms of form, this is not an academic history book. It is like a form of historical-educational-inspirational dialogue, with a mix of management thinking, strategy, personal development, and social critique. The book attempts to make history more accessible to young people with the question “why?”, through modern comparisons and everyday storytelling.

In principle, that approach is not wrong.

Young people should not just learn history through slogans. Hồ Chí Minh does not need to be studied as an infallible icon. Vietnamese history needs to be read with documents, context, debate, and difficult questions. A mature education system should not be afraid to look at leaders as human beings with flesh and blood.

But the problem with “Chuyện với Thanh” does not lie in its questioning. The problem lies in how it uses language and how it frames many historical events and characters in a frivolous, sarcastic, and sometimes flippant tone.

Desanctifying Hồ Chí Minh is not wrong, but downplaying history is a different story

It is necessary to distinguish clearly: desanctification is not the same as disrespect. Desanctification is bringing historical figures out of the mist of myth to look at them with documents, context, and reason. This is necessary. The greater the historical figure, the more they should be studied seriously. But desanctification is a different story. Desanctification is pulling figures down with mocking language, intentionally making them lose dignity, and turning history into shocking or entertaining material. A book can say that Nguyễn Tất Thành once had unclear periods, had worked many jobs, had learned through experience, and had changed his perception over time. That is an acceptable approach. But if it uses phrases like “phượt”, “vô danh tiểu tốt”, “chàng trai làm vườn quê mùa”, “điếu đóm”, “khúm núm” to talk about Nguyễn Tất Thành/Hồ Chí Minh, then the story is no longer just about desanctification. A book can analyze the August Revolution in the context of international events, power vacuums, and the preparation of the Việt Minh. But if it uses the phrase “Việt Minh ‘cướp’ chính quyền” without careful explanation, then it is no longer neutral. A book can analyze Bình dân học vụ in the history of the National Language. But if it calls Hồ Chí Minh’s choice “tiện tay dắt dê”, then it makes a major education policy seem like a trick. A book can write about the Củ Chi tunnels as an asymmetric warfare tactic. But if it uses the word “chui lủi”, then that is a disrespectful way to talk about the resistance forces and war memories. History needs to be made vivid. But making it vivid does not mean making it cheap.

Controversial phrases in “Chuyện với Thanh”

Through the shared book pages, many phrases have caused strong reactions from the public. When writing about Nguyễn Tất Thành/Hồ Chí Minh, the book features expressions like: “điếu đóm các bậc đại ca” “job phụ bếp” “phượt” “chàng trai làm vườn quê mùa” “vô danh tiểu tốt” “trông bề ngoài không hoàn toàn bắt mắt” “rất bẽn lẽn, thậm chí khúm núm” “phải ngồi nhai giáo án khô khốc” In addition, there is a passage that refers to a empty space as “Hồ” in the context of discussing the last days of his life. When writing about Việt Minh and the August Revolution, the book has the phrase “Việt Minh đã ‘cướp’ chính quyền”. When writing about Bình dân học vụ and chữ Quốc ngữ, the book explains that Hồ Chí Minh’s choice is “tiện tay dắt dê”. When writing about Củ Chi, there is the phrase “chui lủi”. When writing about legends and symbols of origin, the book has a way of telling like “18 đời Vua Hùng ảo quái”, Thục Phán “cướp ngôi cha”, Trọng Thủy đi “cưa Mị Châu”, “nam nhân kế”, “lấy cắp nỏ thần”. If only one or two phrases stand alone, it may still be debatable that they are the characters’ words, a dialogue in class, or an everyday writing style. But when a series of such phrases appear in the same book, it forms a style. And that style has problems. Dialogue cannot be a shield for the author to evade responsibility. The characters’ words are still the author’s choice. When it is printed into a book, every language choice must be subject to the evaluation of the public.

Why is “Việt Minh ‘cướp’ chính quyền” a very heavy framing(*).

In Vietnamese, “cướp chính quyền” is not neutral. If you want to express the idea of “seize power”, the writer has many choices: giành chính quyền, nắm chính quyền, đoạt chính quyền, tiếp quản quyền lực, lãnh đạo tổng khởi nghĩa. Each phrase has a different connotation. But “cướp chính quyền” means illegitimate, illegal, and usurping. When applied to Việt Minh and the August Revolution, it easily evokes a feeling of denying the legitimacy of the revolution.

(*) Framing (noun, originating from the verb frame - framing, creating a frame) is a term referring to the technique of shaping, presenting an issue, information, or image from a specific perspective to influence the perception and evaluation of the recipient

Of course, the August Revolution is a complex event. It is possible and necessary to study the context of Japan’s surrender, the weakness of the Trần Trọng Kim government, the power vacuum, the preparation of the Việt Minh, the mobilization of the masses, the role of international opportunities, and the developments in local areas. But complex analysis does not mean using a word with a condemnatory tone. If an ordinary person on social media writes “Việt Minh cướp chính quyền”, they will likely be criticized quickly. So why, when it is in a printed book, with a publisher, with media, with an educational title, is it initially called a “new approach”? This is a question about consistency in standards.

“Tiện tay dắt dê” and the problem of downplaying Bình dân học vụ

Another controversial phrase is “tiện tay dắt dê” when discussing Hồ Chí Minh’s choice of Quốc ngữ/Bình dân học vụ. It can be argued that Quốc ngữ was not created by Hồ Chí Minh alone. That is true. The history of Quốc ngữ is a long process, involving the role of Western missionaries, scholars, journalists, reformist intellectuals, the Đông Kinh Nghĩa Thục movement, Trương Vĩnh Ký, Phan Châu Trinh, and many other social forces. But from acknowledging this complex history to using the idiom “tiện tay dắt dê” is a big step backwards. “Tiện tay dắt dê” implies opportunism, cunning, and taking advantage of a situation. When applied to a post-1945 mass education policy, it diminishes the significance of Bình dân học vụ and turns a major decision into an act similar to exploiting a political opportunity. It can be said that Hồ Chí Minh and the revolutionary government utilized Quốc ngữ as a tool for nation-building. It can be said that the policy of popularizing writing has both educational and political significance. But there is no need to use an idiom with a demeaning tone. This is a clear example of the book’s major problem: the argument can be debatable, but the language ruins the argument.

The phrase “chui lủi” and the memory of Củ Chi

The Củ Chi tunnels are a symbol of people’s war and adaptability in asymmetric warfare. The writer can analyze Củ Chi from a military, logistical, geographical, psychological, or guerrilla warfare perspective, or the endurance of the people. But using the word “chui lủi” is a very bad choice. “Chui lủi” not only describes being in a tunnel, it also carries a tone of sneakiness, lowliness, and cowardice. When placed alongside a war symbol like Củ Chi, this phrase is easily seen as insulting the resistance forces and those who lived, fought, and sacrificed in extreme conditions. If the author’s purpose is to draw management or business lessons from Củ Chi, then they need to be even more careful. It is impossible to turn war memories into self-help comparisons in a crude way.

The problem is not just being unconventional

Some people will say that “Chuyện với Thanh” is just an unconventional way of reading. But the problem is not that simple. Being unconventional is when the author presents new sources, new perspectives, new arguments, and then proves them with clear evidence. Lacking standards is when the author uses mocking, rude, sarcastic, or demeaning language. A book can say that Nguyễn Tất Thành was not a complete genius in his youth. But using “vô danh tiểu tốt”, “quê mùa”, “điếu đóm”, “phượt” is lacking standards. A book can say that Hồ Chí Minh was a politician who knew how to use propaganda. But writing in a tone that makes propaganda seem like a trick is lacking standards. A book can say that the legend of Hùng Vương, An Dương Vương needs to be distinguished from historical records. But using “ảo quái”, “cưa Mị Châu”, “nam nhân kế” is lacking standards. There is a group of people who claim to be open-minded but often confuse these two things. They think that being unconventional is being profound. They think that being shocking is being brave. They think that making symbols of injury is being independent. That is not the case. Intellectuals are not people who speak differently. Intellectuals are people who know how to speak correctly, with evidence, with responsibility, and who understand the weight of words.

The First Responsibility Belongs to Author Nguyễn Thành Nam

The first responsibility belongs to the author.
No one forced the author to use the words “điếu đóm”. No one forced the author to use the word “phượt”. No one forced the author to write “Việt Minh ‘cướp’ chính quyền”. No one forced the author to use “tiện tay dắt dê”. No one forced the author to use “chui lủi”.
The author has the right to choose their style. But when that style touches on Hồ Chí Minh, Nguyễn Tất Thành, Việt Minh, the August Revolution, Bình dân học vụ, Củ Chi, and other historical symbols of the nation, the author must take responsibility for the social consequences of it.
Especially, Nguyễn Thành Nam is a person with social status. He is introduced with many grand titles: Doctor of Mathematics, former leader of FPT/FPT Software, founder of FUNiX, educator, person associated with teaching Hồ Chí Minh’s Thought.
Titles create credibility. But credibility is not a shield against responsibility. On the contrary, the more credible one is, the more careful they must be.

The Responsibility of the Editor, Approver, and Nhà xuất bản Hội Nhà văn

A printed book does not naturally appear on the market. It must go through a manuscript, editing, content approval, publication signing, printing, distribution, and archiving.
Therefore, if “Chuyện với Thanh” has problems, it cannot be said that it is just the “personal opinion of the author”.
We need to ask clearly:
Who is the editor in charge?
Who is responsible for publication?
Who approved the manuscript?
Did the manuscript go through historical and political content review?
Were the sensitive passages read?
Did phrases like “điếu đóm”, “Việt Minh ‘cướp’ chính quyền”, “tiện tay dắt dê”, “chui lủi”, “phượt”, “vô danh tiểu tốt”, “khúm núm” pass through anyone’s eyes?
If the editor read but did not see the problem, that is a lack of professional competence. If they saw it but still let it pass, that is a dereliction of responsibility. If the approver only signed as a procedure because they trusted the author’s reputation or linked unit, that is a rubber stamp rather than publication responsibility.
Especially, if Nhà xuất bản Hội Nhà văn is named, the responsibility cannot be taken lightly. A publishing house with the name of Hội Nhà văn is not just a place that issues book printing licenses. It represents cultural credibility and language standards.
A book that uses sloppy language about Hồ Chí Minh and national history and passes through Nhà xuất bản Hội Nhà văn is something that needs to be seriously explained.

The Responsibility of the Distribution Unit and Media

Publishing units and media outlets for books cannot stand outside of this issue. When Spiderum, Phanbook, or any unit participates in promoting a book by citing the author’s name, through media design, or using phrases like “new approach”, “inspiring”, “dialogue with young people”, they are not just selling books. They are shaping public perception. If the book’s content has problems, the media outlets must take responsibility for contributing to its credibility. The promotional image that mentions the author as the former General Director of FPT Software, one of the founders of FPT, the founder of FUNiX, a lecturer on Ho Chi Minh’s Thought at VinUni, and the translator of “Ho Chi Minh: A Life”… is a very strong stamp of authority. Ordinary readers may think: a person with so many titles, promoted by so many units, must have had their book verified. So if the book contains many deviant passages, the responsibility of the promoters cannot be just “we do marketing”. Cultural media is not just marketing. It is also responsibility to the public.

Responsibility of units with logos on the book exchange poster

The book exchange poster features logos like FPT Schools, VinUniversity, VIASM, Nhà xuất bản Hội Nhà văn. Logos are not just decorations. Logos are guarantees. When a school’s, institute’s, or publisher’s logo appears next to a book exchange event, the public has the right to understand that these units know, agree, sponsor, or at least lend credibility to the event. Therefore, units with logos need to answer: Have you read the book? Who approved the use of the logo? Who approved the event? Did you assess the risk of content? Are you aware of the controversial passages? If you haven’t read it but still allow the use of the logo, that’s negligence. If you’ve read it and still agree, that’s a problem with standards. If you only lend the venue but let the logo appear as a guarantee, that’s ambiguous communication. Especially for educational organizations, the responsibility is even higher. A book related to Ho Chi Minh, Vietnamese history, Ho Chi Minh’s Thought, and civic education for students cannot be treated like a normal exchange product.

Responsibility of mainstream media

Another level of responsibility is mainstream media. If major newspapers, industry newspapers, cultural newspapers, legal newspapers, public security newspapers, military newspapers, art newspapers, large electronic newspapers, or mainstream media channels have reported positively, introduced, or promoted this book, then they need to seriously address the issue. Have the newspapers read the book? Or have they only read the press release? Have reporters cross-checked the content? Have editors discovered sensitive passages? Has the editorial board assessed the risk of introducing a book about Ho Chi Minh? If the media hasn’t read it carefully but still praises it, that’s disguised PR. If they’ve read it carefully and still praise it, that’s deviant. If they remove the article quietly after public backlash, that’s evading responsibility. Mainstream media cannot be strict with ordinary people on social media but consider themselves unrelated when they contribute to promoting a problematic product. A serious press must know how to read before praising, ask before doing PR, and criticize before reporting.

Responsibility of the censorship, publishing management and propaganda agencies

In Vietnam, printed books are not outside the management system. There is a publishing process, archiving, post-inspection, and content management. Therefore, the “Chuyện với Thanh” case raises a big question about the censorship and post-inspection mechanism. Normally, the propaganda and content management system is very sensitive to issues such as distorting history, insulting leaders, denying revolutionary achievements, distorting the August Revolution, and slandering the resistance forces. So why can a book with phrases like “Việt Minh ‘seized’ power”, “conveniently herded goats”, “sneaked around”, “smoked”, “wandered”, “nameless minor characters”, “huddled” pass through many levels? Has the publishing management agency conducted post-inspection? Has the propaganda agency read it? Where is the mechanism for detecting sensitive content located? Or does the system only start paying attention when social media public opinion encircles each line, takes pictures of each page? If so, this is a failure of post-inspection. It’s even more serious if the control standards are inconsistent: ordinary people who speak incorrectly are handled quickly, while people with titles, relationships, and large organizational logos are initially treated leniently or ignored. A censorship system, if it wants to have credibility, must be consistent. It cannot be strict with the weak and lenient with the strong.

The color change of some elite classes

This incident also reveals a phenomenon worth considering: the color change of a part of the elite class. There are people who talk a lot about liberation, critical thinking, modern education, integration, and internationalization. But when it comes to national history, they easily fall into a frivolous attitude. They think that being shocking is being profound. They think that mocking symbols is bravery. They think that the more they make others uncomfortable, the more they prove their freedom of thought. That’s not true. Liberation is not about losing one’s roots. Critical thinking is not about being rude. Being modern does not mean disregarding national memories. Reading Western sources does not mean looking down on the historical feelings of the Vietnamese people themselves. A true intellectual can ask very difficult questions about Hồ Chí Minh. But that person must have enough linguistic ethics to not turn questions into insults. A true educator can want young people to learn less by rote. But that person cannot use mockery as a method. A cultural worker can want to break down idolization. But that person must understand that national symbols are not toys to experiment with writing styles.

Young people need real history, not memified history

Young people do not need history to be romanticized. But young people also do not need history to be memed. We need books that speak more truthfully, more deeply, with more sources, and from more perspectives. We need to know that Hồ Chí Minh was not a character born perfect. We need to understand how Nguyễn Tất Thành learned, observed, worked, failed, changed, and made choices. We need to understand that the August Revolution did not fall from the sky, but was the result of organization, opportunity, the masses, and the international context. We need to understand that the Quốc ngữ script has a complex history. We need to understand that Củ Chi is not just a symbol, but also a lesson about asymmetric warfare. But all of these things can be written in a serious language. No need for “điếu đóm”. No need for “phượt”. No need for “quê mùa”. No need for “vô danh tiểu tốt”. No need for “cướp chính quyền”. No need for “tiện tay dắt dê”. No need for “chui lủi”. No need to call “Hồ” empty to show objectivity. Young people are not so foolish that they need to use shocking language to read. Young people need to be respected with a decent text.

Need to publicly answer, cannot be silent and let it pass

The case of “Chuyện với Thanh” should not end with a few removed articles in silence, a few vague explanations, or a few sentences saying “inappropriate use of words”. Need to answer clearly: Who edited the book? Who approved it? How did the Hội Nhà văn publishing house evaluate it? Did the distribution unit read the whole text? Did the units with logos on the poster read the book? Did the mainstream media read the book when introducing it, or just received a press release? Did the publishing management agency conduct post-checking? If it was wrong, where was the mistake? Will it be recalled, revised, corrected, or apologized for? If it is considered not wrong, then publicly defend the view that phrases like “điếu đóm”, “Việt Minh ‘cướp’ chính quyền”, “tiện tay dắt dê”, “chui lủi”, “phượt”, “vô danh tiểu tốt”, “khúm núm” are suitable in an educational book about Hồ Chí Minh and Vietnamese history. The public needs transparency. No need for evasive silence.

Conclusion: Not just a book

The “Chuyện với Thanh” incident is not just about a controversial book. It is a test for multiple levels of responsibility. The author must take responsibility for their words. The editor must take responsibility for letting unqualified passages pass through. The approver must take responsibility because the publication signature is not a formal procedure. Hội Nhà văn publishing house must take responsibility for its cultural brand. The distribution and media unit must take responsibility for promoting it with their title and reputation. The organizations with logos on the event must take responsibility for creating public guarantees. The mainstream media must take responsibility if they publicized it instead of criticizing it. The publishing and propaganda management agency must take responsibility if they let the product go too far before reacting. No one opposes questioning history. No one opposes looking at Hồ Chí Minh as a human being. No one opposes making history more accessible to young people. What is opposed is the frivolity disguised as liberation. What is opposed is the demeaning language called a new approach. What is opposed is a multi-level guarantee system that let a book like this pass through. I am not afraid of desacralization. I am afraid of those who use desacralization as an excuse to desecrate. I am not afraid of debating about Hồ Chí Minh. I am afraid of a society where people with titles, logos, media, and publishing houses behind them can use frivolous language with history and call it education. And I am even more afraid when those who are supposed to read, approve, check, and criticize, let netizens do their job instead: taking pictures of each page, circling each word, pointing out each error that should have been blocked from the first editing round. The “Chuyện với Thanh” incident is therefore not just a book incident. It is a mirror reflecting the responsibility of the author, publisher, media, censorship agency, and a group of elites who are confusing liberation with frivolity. If we still want to talk about education, culture, and history in a decent way, we must start from the very basic: respecting words, respecting the truth, and respecting the memory of our nation.

---

FAQ

What is “Chuyện với Thanh”?

“Chuyện với Thanh” is a dialogue/recording-type book by Nguyễn Thành Nam, revolving around Vietnamese history, Hồ Chí Minh, Hồ Chí Minh’s Thought, and the lessons drawn for young people.

Why is “Chuyện với Thanh” controversial?

“Chuyện với Thanh” is controversial because many passages use frivolous language or have a demeaning tone when writing about Nguyễn Tất Thành/Hồ Chí Minh, Việt Minh, the August Revolution, Bình dân học vụ, Củ Chi, and several Vietnamese historical symbols.

Who is Nguyễn Thành Nam?

Nguyễn Thành Nam is a Doctor of Mathematics, former leader of FPT/FPT Software, one of the founders of FPT, the founder of FUNiX, and has connections to the field of higher education.

What is the biggest problem with “Chuyện với Thanh”?

The biggest problem is not just that the book has a different perspective from the mainstream, but the way it uses language and framing for many historical events in a frivolous tone, which can be seen as demeaning or distorting the perception of history.

Who must take responsibility for the “Chuyện với Thanh” incident?

Responsibility needs to be viewed in a chain: author, editor, approver, Nhà xuất bản Hội Nhà văn, distribution unit, organization with logo on the event, mainstream media, and publishing/post-checking management agency.

Article by Phạm Xuân Hiếu — XuanHieu.org.