This is a complete misnomer, and not a question likely looking for a sincere answer.
No matter who it is, whether they be Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, Anglo, French, and most especially the ones who invented this intellectually toxic word, the Jews, will favour having an in-group preference, assuming that they are sane and acting like normal rational people who value their culture, language, bloodline, and everything else that distinguishes a people.
However much a group might divert from this and absorb aspects of other groups, whether cultural, linguistic, marriage, etc, will generally tend to be in scale of degrees closest from what is most familiar and/or what that population has had the most access and exposure to over time.
Therefore, we see Vietnam generally exhibiting characteristics that are most prevalent throughout Confucius influenced East Asia, the regions of East Asia and South Asia (India) where the historical spread of religious and spiritual traditions of Buddhism, ancestor worship, and lunar celestial celebrations exists, and more recently, the past 250 or so years of influences Western Civilisation has had mostly through a Latinised styling of writing, cuisine, industry, and various other elements fused with existing structures.
Therefore, it should not be any surprise or malfunction to know that, say, things from subsaharan Africa are going to be seen as more alien and less desirable to things that they are more closely familiar with. Just like how giving people in the Central African Republic chopsticks ???? to eat with is going to seem strange and undesirable to the people who live there. It doesn’t make them bad or backwards, it’s merely a feature of what makes them distinguished to others and is something to appreciate, not condemn.