TRẺ EM SÀI GÒN LÀM ĐÁM MA GIẢ CHO VNCH 

TRÊN 1 ĐƯỜNG PHỐ SÀI GÒN , XỬ DỤNG QUÂN TRANG VỨT BỎ CỦA QUÂN ĐỘI VÀ 1 LÁ CỜ VNCH , CÁC TRẺ EM ĐÃ CÙNG NHAU DỰNG 1 ĐÁM MA GIẢ ĐỂ ĐÁNH DẤU SỰ SỤP ĐỔ CỦA CHẾ ĐỘ VNCH . (CÁC ẢNH NÀY ĐỀU LẤY TỪ QUYỂN THE EYEWITNESS HISTORY OF THE VIETNAM WAR 1961-1975 BY GEORGE ESPER AND THE ASSOCIATED PRESS , CHƯƠNG 16 CÓ TỰA ĐỀ THE SURRENDER - TTT ) . 

 

CÁC KẺ CHIẾN THẮNG ĐANG XÉ CỜ VNCH Ở TRƯỚC QUỐC HỘI VNCH TẠI CÔNG TRƯỜNG LAM SƠN . ẢNH CỦA AP . 

TRONG 1 NGÀY CUỐI THÁNG TƯ 1975 , NGỒI CHEN CHÚC TRÊN TÀU CHIẾN MỶ USS BLUE RIDGE , MỘT PHỤ NỮ TRẺ VỚI NÉT MẶT ĐẦY LO ÂU VÀ ĐAU KHỔ VỚI BA ĐỨA CON ĐANG KHÓC  . ẢNH CỦA AP .

SAN JOSE NGÀY 16.12.2010 LÚC 12:47 PM  

5 comments:

1. 
   manhho

   Tuy là bài này đả được đăng lên lâu rồi, nhưng củ của người, mới của tôi.
   Tôi muốn nói vài lời với người đả đăng hình ảnh trong bài này, là không biết là người nghiêng về phía bên nào? nhưng dù ở phía bên nào thì cũng vậy, ít ra cũng phải có tối thiểu một chút xíu tôn trọng.. NGƯỜI DẢ CHẾT...vả lại mình là người VIỆT NAM mà, bên nào cũng là người VIỆT NAM thôi. tôi muốn nói tới tấm hình ở phía trên có hàng chử..TRẺ EM SÀI GÒN LÀM ĐÁM MA GIẢ CHO VNCH....và....TRÊN 1 ĐƯỜNG PHỐ SÀI GÒN , XỬ DỤNG QUÂN TRANG VỨT BỎ CỦA QUÂN ĐỘI VÀ 1 LÁ CỜ VNCH , CÁC TRẺ EM ĐẢ CÙNG NHAU DỰNG 1 ĐÁM MA GIẢ ĐỂ ĐÁNH DẤU SỰ SỤP ĐỔ CỦA CHẾ ĐỘ VNCH....
   phái dưới nửa là một xác chết phủ lá cờ của VNCH. Tôi xin thưa là hảy nhìn kỷ lại coi, hình ảnh đó không phải hình ảnh mà mấy trẻ em lượm đồ quân trang dựng lên đâu, mà đó là xác của...
   Cố Đại Tá HỒ NGỌC CẨN bị cs xử bắn tại sân vận động Cần Thơ ngày 14 tháng 8 năm 1975. Su đó người dân Cần Thơ mới lén đưa thi thể có Đại Tá Hồ Ngọc Cẩn về ... và phủ cho một lá cờ Việt Nam Cộng Hòa ... mà cố Đại Tá đã suốt đời phục vụ cho lý tưởng của Việt Nam Cộng Hoà.
   Lần sau nếu có muốn trang trí cho bài viết của mình thì hảy lựa tấm hình nào cho nó họp tình họp cảnh một chút xíu nhé, đừng có lấy mấy tấm hình của những người đả hy sinh vì tổ quốc mà làm đề tài nữa nhé.

   ReplyDelete
2. 
   thebimini

   
   

   Thưa anh bạn Mảnh Hổ ,

   Nhửng hình ảnh trên đây , đều được cắt từ quyển The Eyewitness History of the Vietnam War , chương 16 với tựa đề The Surrender . Tôi đã dịch đúng nguyên văn phần chú thích của các tấm ảnh này . Quyển này được viết bởi George Esper and the Associated Press .

   Riêng người viết bài này là một cựu quân nhân , đã đi tù gần 6 năm .

   Theo anh , tấm ảnh này là của cố đại tá Hồ ngọc Cẫn ; tôi xin ghi nhận . Bài này tôi đăng đã lâu mà không thấy ai có ý kiến . Ở hải ngoại , tôi cũng xem được một số hình ảnh phiên xử đại tá Cẩn do chánh quyền cs phổ biến nhưng không có hình nào chụp sau khi ông đã chết . Ngay cả trên website của các bạn đồng khóa trường Thiếu sinh quân Vủng tàu (Ancien Enfants de Troupe) cũng không có tấm hình nào chụp sau khi ông đã bị bắn chết .

   Thành ra , nếu có trách thì anh nên trách móc ông ký giả nào đã chụp tấm ảnh này mà không biết ng chết là ai .

   Chào anh ,

   
   

   San Jose ngày 15 - 7 - 2011 lúc 0408 am .
3. 
   
   
   hậu

   theo hình ảnh của chánh quyền cs thì lúc bị xử bắn , đại tá hồ ngọc cẩn - tỉnh trưởng chương thiện - mặc đồ bà ba đen . vả lại , theo luật lệ hiện hành , tử tội phần lớn được chôn tại pháp trường ; chứ ko cho gia đình nhận xác về chôn . do vậy , ta có thể nhận định , đây là một hình nộm , do trẻ con tinh nghịch , phủ lên lá cờ vnch để làm đám ma giả .

   ReplyDelete
   
   

   Replies
   

   
   
   

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   phamthangvu
   Đây là hình chụp về cái chết của Thiếu Tá Đặng Sĩ (do ông tự sát sau khi Việt Cộng chiếm được Sài Gòn) vào lúc quá trưa ngày 30-4-1975 tại nhà riêng. Hãy nhìn cái lon Thiếu Tá gắn ở mũ vải. Hàng xóm (những gia đình đạo Thiên Chúa đã đến đọc kinh và sau đó thu xếp hậu sự cho ông ta). Gia đình ông đã di tản từ mấy ngày trước đó.
   
   Phạm Thắng Vũ
   Dec 02, 2012.
   Delete
   
   thebimini
   Cám ơn anh Phạm thắng Vũ ,
   Nhờ anh mà tôi có thêm thông tin về bức ãnh này . Trước kia , có một độc giã bảo người chết là đại tá Hồ ngọc Cẫn . Theo chỗ tôi biết , với những tữ tội đặc biệt như đt Cẫn , người CS ko cho gia đình đem về chôn đâu . Thành ra , thông tin cũa anh là hợp lý nhứt . Không biết người chết này trùng tên hay chính là Thiếu tá Đặng Sĩ , năm 1963 là Phó TT nội an cũa Thừa Thiên ; nếu tôi ko lầm thuộc khóa 7 Đà lạt .
   Delete

DÙNG VERB NHƯ LÀ NOUN .

Those Irritating Verbs-as-Nouns

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/those-irritating-verbs-as-nouns/

“Do you have a solve for this problem?” “Let’s all focus on the build.” “That’s the take-away from today’s seminar.” Or, to quote a song that was recently a No. 1 hit in Britain, “Would you let me see beneath your beautiful?”
If you find these sentences annoying, you are not alone. Each contains an example of nominalization: a word we are used to encountering as a verb or adjective that has been transmuted into a noun. Many of us dislike reading or hearing clusters of such nouns, and associate them with legalese, bureaucracy, corporate jive, advertising or the more hollow kinds of academic prose. Writing packed with nominalizations is commonly regarded as slovenly, obfuscatory, pretentious or merely ugly.
There are two types of nominalization. Type A involves a morphological change, namely suffixation: the verb “to investigate” produces the noun “investigation,” and “to nominalize” yields “nominalization.”
Type B is known as “zero derivation” — or, more straightforwardly, “conversion.” This is what has taken place in my opening illustrations: a word has been switched from verb into noun (or, in the last two cases, from adjective into noun), without the addition of a suffix.
Plenty of teachers discourage heavy use of the first type of nominalization. Students are urged to turn nouns of this kind back into verbs, as if undoing a conjurer’s temporary hoax. On this principle, “The violence was Ted’s retaliation for years of abuse” is better rendered as “Ted retaliated violently after years of abuse.”
The argument for doing this is that the first version is weaker: dynamic writing makes use of “stronger” verbs. Yet in practice there are times when we may want to phrase a matter in a way that is not so dynamic. Perhaps we feel the need to be tactful or cautious, to avoid emotiveness or the most naked kind of assertion. Type A nominalization can afford us flexibility as we try to structure what we say. It can also help us accentuate the main point we want to get across. Sure, it can be clunky, but sometimes it can be trenchant.
On the whole, it is Type B nominalization that really grates. “How can anybody use ‘sequester’ as a noun?” asks a friend. “The word is ‘sequestration,’ and if you say anything else you should be defenestrated.”
“I’ll look forward to the defenestrate,” I say, and he calls me something I’d sooner not repeat.
Grant Snider
Even in the face of such opprobrium, people continue to redeploy verbs as nouns. I am less interested in demonizing this than in thinking about the psychology behind what they are doing.
Why say “solve” rather than “solution”? One answer is that it gives an impression of freshness, by avoiding an everyday word. To some, “I have a solve” will sound jauntier and more pragmatic than “I have a solution.” It’s also more concise and less obviously Latinate (though the root of “solve” is the Latin solvere).
These aren’t necessarily virtues, but they can be. If I speak of “the magician’s reveal” rather than of “the magician’s moment of revelation,” I am evoking the thrill of this sudden unveiling or disclosure. The more traditional version is less immediate.
Using a Type B nominalization may also seem humorous and vivid. Thus, compare “that was an epic fail” (Type B nominalization), “that was an epic failure” (Type A nominalization) and “they failed to an epic degree” (neither).
There are other reasons for favoring nominalizations. They can have a distancing effect. “What is the ask?” is less personal than “What are they asking?” This form of words may improve our chances of eliciting a more objective response. It can also turn something amorphous into a discrete conceptual unit, of a kind that is easier to grasp or sounds more specific. Whatever I think of “what is the ask?” it focuses me on what’s at stake.
Some regard unwieldy nominalizations as alarming evidence of the depraved zeitgeist. But the phenomenon itself is hardly new. For instance, “solve” as a noun is found in the 18th century, and the noun “fail” is older than “failure” (which effectively supplanted it).
“Reveal” has been used as a noun since the 16th century. Even in its narrow broadcasting context, as a term for the final revelation at the end of a show, it has been around since the 1950s.
“Ask” has been used as a noun for a thousand years — though the way we most often encounter it today, with a modifier (“a big ask”), is a 1980s development.

Related in Draft

• Helen Sword: Zombie Nouns

It is easy to decry nominalization. I don’t feel that a writer is doing me any favors when he expresses himself thus: “The successful implementation of the scheme was a validation of the exertions involved in its conception.” There are crisper ways to say this. And yes, while we’re about it, I don’t actually care for “Do you have a solve?”
Still, it is simplistic to have a blanket policy of avoiding and condemning nominalizations. Even when critics couch their antipathy in a language of clinical reasonableness, they are expressing an aesthetic judgment.
Aesthetics will always play a part in the decisions we make about how to express ourselves — and in our assessment of other people’s expression — but sometimes we need to do things that are aesthetically unpleasant in order to achieve other effects, be they polemical or diplomatic.

BÀI THỨ HAI , CỦA CÙNG TÁC GIẢ :

In my previous essay, I wrote about nominalization — the deployment as nouns of words we mostly expect to encounter as verbs or adjectives. Aware of many people’s tendency to vilify this kind of usage, I speculated about the psychology behind it. I was interested in thinking about why someone might prefer “Do you have a solve for this problem?” to “Can you solve this problem?”
Like many of the readers who commented, I find that some nominalizations are useful and others are jarring. I can accept that language changes (and has to change) without necessarily cherishing all manifestations of that change. I don’t shudder when I see or hear “This year’s spend is excessive” and “Her book was a good read,” even though I can think of other, perhaps more elegant ways of saying these things. On the other hand, “There is no undo for that” strikes me as infelicitous, and I am still not completely comfortable with the use of the noun “disconnect” as a synonym for “disparity” or “discrepancy” — although it has been around since the 1980s.
In some cases a nominalization is the specialist vocabulary of a particular profession or community: it has connotations of expertise and — less often — of an insider’s self-regard. For instance, people who work in software talk about the “build,” and I recently heard a real estate agent speak of creating a “seduce” for property. When these terms of art gain wider currency, it is largely because nonspecialists are eager to seem conversant with the ins and outs of an esoteric subject. Sometimes we adopt such terms in a jocular or satirical spirit — but end up using them without a whiff of irony.
In the last couple of decades, many condensed forms of expression have achieved currency thanks to the spread of electronic communication: when we bash out e-mails and text messages, we feel the need for speed. Several readers made this point. Nominalizations allow us to pack the information in our sentences more densely. This urgency comes in other guises: nouns get verbed as often as verbs get nouned. (I had to go and lie down after writing that.)
What I didn’t discuss in my first post was the dark side of nominalization. It’s not just that nominalization can sap the vitality of one’s speech or prose; it can also eliminate context and mask any sense of agency. Furthermore, it can make something that is nebulous or fuzzy seem stable, mechanical and precisely defined. That may sound like a virtue, but it’s really a way of repudiating ambiguity and complexity.

Related in Draft

• Henry Hitchings: Those Irritating Verbs-as-Nouns

• Helen Sword: Zombie Nouns

Nominalizations give priority to actions rather than to the people responsible for them. Sometimes this is apt, perhaps because we don’t know who is responsible or because responsibility isn’t relevant. But often they conceal power relationships and reduce our sense of what’s truly involved in a transaction. As such, they are an instrument of manipulation, in politics and in business. They emphasize products and results, rather than the processes by which products and results are achieved.
I touched previously on “What is the ask?” As an alternative to “What are they asking?” or “What are we being asked to do?” this can seem crisp. It takes an aerial view of an issue. But it calculatedly omits reference to the people doing the asking, as a way of keeping their authority and power out of the question.
At the same time, by turning the act of asking into something narrow and impersonal, “What is the ask?” repositions a question as a command. It leaves little or no room for the “ask” to be refused. As a noun, “ask” is pretty much a synonym for “order.” Even when we retain details of agency — as in “What is their ask of us?” – the noun ossifies what could and should be a more dynamic process.
Compared with “What is the ask?” the question “What’s the take-away from today’s lecture?” may look harmless. Yet it minimizes audience members’ sense of their responsibility to absorb the lecture’s lessons. “What should I take away from today’s lecture?” is a question that betrays a cramped and probably exam-focused understanding of what it means to learn. But “What’s the take-away?” seems to represent education as a product rather than a practice. It invites an answer that’s a sound bite, a Styrofoam-sheathed portion of spice, a handy little package to be slavishly reproduced.
Such phrasing also curtails the lecturer’s role, making him or her not so much a source of ideas and a repository of intellectual trust as a purveyor of data packets. This may be an unhappy accident, or it may be strategic – perhaps a disavowal of the very notion that education is personal.
Nominalizations aren’t intrinsically either good or bad. Yet, used profusely, they strip the humanity out of what we write and say. They can also be furtively political. Their boosters see them as marvels of concision, but one person’s idea of streamlining is another’s idea of a specious and ethically doubtful simplicity.