Rushdie's evidence backfires

Submitted by Victor Fic (China), Jun 27, 2007 at 07:50

Hello Dr. Pipes:

I am Victor Fic, a Canadian freelance broadcaster -- CBS News, Radio China International, Radio New Zeland, Singapore Broadcasting Corporation -- and writer whose credits include the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs and the Harvard Asia Pacific Review.

Rushdie must hire a competent researcher so his accusations don't publicly backfire. To traduce the US's immigration policy, he asserts that Washington would bar a Ho Chi Minh or Karl Marx from working there.

In fact, Ho sailed to the US in 1912 from France, living in Harlem, New York and Boston, too. He later claimed late that whilst In the Big Apple, he worked for a wealthy Brooklyn family. Some assert that he may have heard Marcus Garvey, the black leader, speak on rights for the oppressed and that possible contact with anti-Japanese Korean nationalists shaped his anti-colonial outlook. As for Beantown, Ho surely did toil as a baker there. Overall, the record indicates that America did welcome Ho -- and even contributed to his world view.

As for Karl Marx, iwhen he worked as a London journalist, he filed stories to a New York newspaper -- the Herald Tribune.

It appears that Ho entirely and Marx partly disprove Rushdie.

Best,

Victor Fic, Seoul

In 1912, as the cook's helper on a ship, Ho Chi Minh traveled to the United States. From 1912 to 1913, he lived in New York (Harlem) and Boston. He worked in menial jobs, including as a baker in Boston^[2]. Ho later claimed to have worked for a wealthy family in Brooklyn between 1917 and 1918, and during this time he may have heard Marcus Garvey speak in Harlem. It is believed that while in the United States he made contact with Korean nationalists, an experience that developed his political outlook.^[3]

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".