Vietnam veterans; Debunking a Spitting Image

STORIES ABOUT spat-upon Vietnam veterans are like mercury: Smash one and six more appear. It's hard to say where they come from. For a book I wrote in 1998 I looked back to the time when the spit was supposedly flying, the late 1960s and early 1970s. I found nothing. No news reports or even claims that someone was being spat on.

...

Like many stories of the spat-upon veteran genre, Smith's lacks credulity. GIs landed at military airbases, not civilian airports, and protesters could not have gotten onto the bases and anywhere near deplaning troops. There may have been exceptions, of course, but in those cases how would protesters have known in advance that a plane was being diverted to a civilian site? And even then, returnees would have been immediately bused to nearby military installations and processed for reassignment or discharge.

The exaggerations in Smith's story are characteristic of those told by others. ''Most Vietnam veterans were spat on when we came back," he said. That's not true. A 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming. Far from spitting on veterans, the antiwar movement welcomed them into its ranks and thousands of veterans joined the opposition to the war.

Today, on the 30th anniversary of the end of the war in Vietnam, new stories of spat-upon veterans appear faster than they can be challenged. Debunking them one by one is unlikely to slow their proliferation but, by contesting them where and when we can, we engage the historical record in a way that helps all of us remember that, in the end, soldiers and veterans joined with civilians to stop a war that should have never been fought.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image?mode=PF

Or for non-subscription;

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0430-21.htm

I met him about 10 years ago. He told me that the only time he was ever disrespected was by a right wing war hawk who lambasted him for being "the first Americans to lose a war". Nice.

about the "spitting" they yelled at me, lol! Told me it had never happened (although maybe an isolated incident here & there) and that this "spitting" rumor never even started until years after Vietnam ended, and that they landed on military bases, not in public airports and "if everyone spat the way the f***heads like to say they did, the airports would have been swimming in spit", and not one single incident in any newspaper was ever recorded and had anyone "spat on me, he'd have landed on his f***ing ass, hell yeah" which sooner or later at least ONE such incident out of the supposed thousands would have made the news.

why must DU'ers constantly try to debunk this?

There are respected DU'ers who say they experienced this.

So one batch of ancedotal evidence can argue with the other.

Does anyone admit to calling vets babykillers?

Do they admit they blamed the vets for what was going on?

DUers constantly post the debunking of this rban legend every time the rightwingnuts start spewing the bullshit again.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Are you claiming what I think you're claiming?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Those right wing chicken hawks have about as much compassion for people as a pile of sh*t. People never cease to amaze me with their stupidity.

That the jamoke who spat on Jane Fonda either never saw The Nam or was never spat upon.

I have known a lot of vets. They may have not liked Fonda, but they never reported being spat at, upon or near.

My $5.00 says that this guy is a lying punk.

He's just some punk neo-con who never served.

(Rear echelon mother fucker) folding blankets in Fort Polk during his stint.

I got out of the navy in 1969 and was never spat upon or otherwise disrespected. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, I can only speak for myself.

:hug:

....I got out of the navy and grew a beard and let my hair grow long I was refused service in a number of bars and restaurants, and had beer bottles and golf balls thrown at me from passing cars as I walked down the street.

:D

Who else would have that much hatred stored up inside?

Spillage would be alcohol abuse. :D

You got that right! :toast:

Fuck anyone who attempts to make me out to be a liar or hallucinating!
This bullshit crops up about 3 times a year on DU and it enrages me.

Read http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1097390&mesg_id=1104246

Do a search on the DU archives and try reading before rehashing the same old crap.

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

how widespread was it?

As widespread as some authors contend it was?

Or fairly rare?

I know there're a lot of folks who claim to be Vietnam vet nowadays than ever served in 'Nam. Right now, there are only about 1 million left alive. I worked as a Veteran's representative (in a "Diversity program") at a former employer (federal contractor). I came in contact with scores of Vietnam vets over a period of four years that I did that work. I knew about 30-50 well enough to probably have known whether they got spat at. As I recall, perhaps 4-10% (maybe 3 or 4 of them) mentioned having been spat at personally. We really didn't think it was "news" ... nor did anyone have the illusion it happened to the majority.

When I see people on this board attempt to claim it never happened, all the memories of those first days and weeks back "in the world" come back to haunt me ... and I feel like strangling someone. :grr:

I'm sure isolated incidents happened.

But the right says "almost every veteran was spat on" and there are, LITERALLY, thousands of stories (and I do mean STORIES) of "veterans" being spat on and THAT never happened. As you yourself say.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

if it only serves to hurt veterans and only serves to piss people off. I mean, what's the point? What's the purpose?

Thanks for serving.

it up as their usual method of blaming anti-war people for the total FUBAR in Iraq and to disparage the reputation of those who oppose bush's war of aggression.

as I posted on another thread similar to this, " no one spit, shit or said anything negative to me, EVER !!
I can't speak for all others, but I was involved with quite a few vets from my area and here in California and I don't recall hearing of any abuse back then. It was only later that this stuff started going around.
Not going to say it didn't happen, but it seems some folks are trying to act if it was the popular thing to do.

What year were you there? Were you Army, Air Force, Navy, or Marines? Were you enlisted or officer? Did you return in a military unit or by yourself?

All these things apparently make a difference. :shrug:

In retrospect, I was treated kindly by the guy I flew back with and his girlfriend in her "flower power" VW minivan who gave me a ride to SFO. I found new friends on the non-activist anti-war side of the spectrum when I returned to the Detroit area - and lost old friends who avoided the war or were ashamed to have me around. It's not as simple a socio-political dynamic as some would try to portray it in retrospect.

I shed my dress greens as soon as I hit the door ! I went to the PX at Fort Lewis and bought civvies before leaving. Once back in Cleveland, I occasionally wore my fatigues to work, but otherwise, once I was ETS'd the only way you'd have known was to ask me or have known me prior to being drafted ( 16/Aug/64 ).

I got back 16/Sept/66, and the anti-war movement was in it's embryonic stage--which might also be a reason I did feel any bitterness--and like I said in the other thread, I joined in with the protesters around 1968.

On the funny side, after I moved to California in 1969, a "flower child" I met at a protest ask me how many people I killed. I truthfully told her that, since I was a medic in a MASH outfit,(7th Surgical) I only had a .45 that I fired once at a pig, and the only way I could have killed anyone would have been if they died laughing at what a sorry assed excuse for a soldier I was !!

BTW...how did you come up with the figure that there are only a million of us left ?

Lastly, I still have a great picture of you and Noirteblue (K) at the peace rally a couple years ago. :hi:

I was looking for something else and saw that estimate of remaining (in-country) Vietnam veterans.

I was scared to death that I was going to be a medic. My orders out of basic training were to Fort Sam. The DI's told me that's where medics were trained. (Whew!)

I sure loved that October 2002 day up in the city protesting with other DUers on Market Street ... and hangin' out afterward. What a super group! I'd sure like to be able to give Tinoire, noiretblu, and proud_patriot a hug right now. (Oh well. Maybe I'll get to hug Mrs. Grumpy next month.) :silly:

efforts. Anti-war coffee-houses and papers, and all that. Assorted military intelligence operations were among those infiltrating the peace movement, and sowing discord was one of their favorite tools. The increasing presence of vets within the peace movement was also a high priority problem for them. Have you wondered if the incident you report was an act by a provocateur, or do you think it was just some simpleminded fool.

I do know that within the segments of the anti-war movement that I knew, this would be considered about as rational and constructive as beating up a mail carrier. Anyone who acted that way would be regarded with extreme mistrust.

Our black nationalist group in Cleveland was infiltrated by an agent who sought out vets in particular. He was really hot for armed revolution...we (vets) would lead the way. :evilfrown:

At the time, I'd been drafted out of the rather conservative Detroit suburbs. At Wayne State University, where I'd gotten my undergraduate degree in '66, the term "beatniks" was just being phased out and the term "hippie" was a reference to Haight-Ashbury. I, and most of my peers, were still in the "Sandra Dee" era. The Detroit 'burbs were a couple of years behind the rest of the URBAN country -- except in "race riots" (a term I'm not fond of). (We'd had a "race riot" in 1967.)

In basic training, the DI's used the term "hippie" as only marginally above the word "queer" as an epithet. Military indoctrination is very effective - especially in affecting attitudes one's not particularly aware are being affected. "Hippie" became a catch-all term to apply to any draft-age civilian wearing the styles of the time: bell-bottoms, long hair, earth shoes, loose shirts, etc. The military makes one VERY conscious of clothing and grooming.

One of the more significant FACTS of the day that gets lost in retrospective discussions is that many of the "anti-war" people were young right-wingers. Let's remember that it was regarded as "Johnson's War." Let's remember that the right-wing 'philosophy' of the day was isolationism and non-intervention - most prototypically with the Birchers.

So there's a LOT of self-serving falsehoods that enter into the mix. Today, the "left" is eager to deny that the "spitting hippie" ever happened - since the "left" now identifies itself with that label. The fact of the matter is it did happen ... but the people who did it were just as likely or more than likely to be Young Republicans than real peace activists. From a returning vet's perspective, a draft-age civilian was described as a "hippie" - nobody checks party registration or political ideologies in such situations. Furthermore, I never heard of it happening to returning vets in groups, even of two or more. Since it's a pretty cowardly act, I really can't conceive of it happening to other than solos ... like me at SFO.

So, while there's plenty of misinformation, much of which is obviously motivated by political ideology from both the left and the right, I'm appalled that anyone would deny it ever happened - which I've seen claimed on DU too damned often!

That's the logos of it. Now let's deal with the mythos.

Truth™ can be conveyed in either vessels made of logos or vessels made of mythos. Never confuse 'truth' with 'fact'.

For the vast majority of Vietnam veterans, "coming home" was a terrible experience. About 80-90% of the vets I've known have said that "coming home" was probably more difficult than being there. Marriages were destroyed. (Mine was - she found a lover.) Friends were alienated. We had PTSD. People at my office amused themselves occasionally by slamming a door or dropping a book just to make a loud sharp noise and watch my startle response. (I'd almost dive under the desk.) It's a survival reaction. It gets learned quick and lost slowly.

The funny thing is the people to whom I gravitated were the social peace-niks. Kind, accepting people who truly acted out of their respect for human beings. Perhaps today they'd be called "liberals." Back then they were called friends.

So, in at least one sense, it's understandable that there'd be an amplification/exaggeration of the extent to which returning vets were spat at. While the magnification then borders on becoming myth, it would serve as a vessel for the truth of the feelings of betrayal and alienation that most of us confronted. Symbols aren't real; symbols serve as a kind of myth.


Anyone who'd argue that a myth can't convey Truth must not know what the phrase "sour grapes" means or who Æsop was.

I didn't serve and I'm a bit younger than you, but I've seen you debunk the debunkers on this on DU before, and I believe ya, and my own experiences bear this out.

I certainly do know that hippies were the new beatniks then, and that many of them are our radical "friends" today...radical righties, that is.

Truth is, both the left and right movements as we know them today came from the same pool of disaffected Americans. Everyone, at least it seems to me, was divided in much the same way then as now. When our leadership fails us in matters of war, one group emerges as rabid war supporters who want to nuke everyone and everything, and another realizes what a batshit crazy idea that is and works to end it, while most remain in the middle, clueless and/or uncaring as long as it doesn't affect them.

The image of spitting hippies is a source of cognitive dissonance to many who either are too young or have forgotten, but I have no doubt it really happened.

I often fail to desribe my "ride" from Oakland Army Base (where we "out-processed") to SFO. I sat next to a guy on the plane who was from Berkeley. He was the son of Cal-Berk professors and his girlfriend (also the offspring of faculty) was going to pick him up. He offered me a ride to SFO. (It was a very kind thing to do, but pretty typical of how Vietnam vets are with one another since then.)

Well, we went out and waited and she drove up ... in a decorated VW minivan, no less. (Remember, I'm a kid from Detroit and the "Sandra Dee era.") I got in the back and he climbed into the passenger seat. I remember thinking it was strange he let her do the driving. (Remember, I'm a kid from Detroit and the "Sandra Dee era.") She looked like someone from (as I now know) the "Summer of Love" -- long straight hair and loose, flowery clothing. Her and my new buddy then engaged in "catching up" conversation, conversation sprinkled liberally with "fucking this" and "fucking that." I was stunned. I'd never heard a girl casually use language like that. (Remember, I'm a kid from Detroit and the "Sandra Dee era.") We shared a joint.

That's when I got the first hint that my "world" had changed. Scary. :silly:

He's my best friend, and he's also from the "Sandra Dee Era" (LOL), and yeah, the world sure as hell changed about then, too, from his point of view.

I grew up in the "Janis Joplin Era", and the "ERA Era", and that was a whole 'nother deal. Almost all my memories are post-JFK assassination.

I can't believe it's been so long, and things are just as bad or worse now. :(

I still love Sandra Dee, though. Heard she died recently. My wife's from the "Sandra Dee Era", seven years older than me, so she gets it, too. Still has her POW/MIA bracelet.

Peace, fella.

reminder that "never" is is not the issue here, nor is it a defensible belief. I had wondered if you had any "vibes" about the spitter (agent, idiot, isolationist...) but it makes sense you were in no mood to begin an exploratory discussion with the guy. The magnification that came in later years is easily understood as a disinformation campaign -- one that makes as much sense as claiming that people named Jeffrey are all, or mostly, cannibals.

Although I can imagine some naif getting caught up in the discord and tensions, and somehow seeing the uniform as a symbol of war, it just seems far more likely that such an act was done as a part of deliberate strategy to keep vets and the peace movement apart. This would rank among the least vicious and lethal of their actions during that era.

I had never thought of the dynamics in that way that you described, about the anti-war being a rightwing movement int he LBJ years. I'm not yet 30, and often my knowledge of that era is very heavily shrouded in the mythos that you describe. thanks for taking the time to inform.

I was too young to have served in Vietnam. But I did serve in an infantry unit with many NCO's that were grunts in Vietnam. None of them ever mentioned being spit on. But, I don't doubt your claim. I must ask you, did it bother you to see republicans wearing mock Purple Hearts at their 2004 convention? That, to me, was an insult to all war veterans.

and disgusting thing I have ever seen republicans do to every veteran.

Vile hateful inhuman SOBs.

I really don't know what I'd do if someone got in my face with one of those. Getting spat at by some Jody assholes felt crappy, but the "band-aid" crap would cause me to blow my stack. That's not just (figuratively) spitting on someone like me who had all his limbs and organs, that was (figuratively) spitting on guys who lost blood, arms legs, organs, and lives. It's incomprehensible to me how they ever got a single active or veteran military vote after that vile, odious display.

The first reported instance occurs during an International Day of Protest featuring "Veterans for Peace in Vietnam." Here it is the war supporters who are spitting on the pro-peace veterans. In 1965, World War II veterans who were taking part in an antiwar demonstration were reviled as "cowards" and "traitors."

The Myth of the Spat-Upon Veteran
By Gabrielle Bernard, Winsted
http://www.thevoicenews.com/News/2003/0228/In_Response/R03_Bernard-re_Barlow.html

Another good article;

Drooling on the Vietnam Vets
Jack Shafer

http://slate.msn.com/id/1005224/

It didn't happen as much as myth has become but it did in fact happen.

The problem is that people run around saying spitting was a myth without adding the widespread part.

(1) How often? At some point subsequent to the 70's, there were two cultural phenomena. Many silent VV's "came out of the closet" and people who didn't serve in Vietnam started (fraudulently) claiming they did. (By some reasonable estimates, there have been twice as many claimants as actual VV's. "Bizarre" doesn't even begin to describe this.) Accompanying and exacerbating these two phenomena was an increase in the number of times the general public heard about 'spitting.' That increase can be reasonably attributed to three effects: (a) formerly silent targets of such events speaking up, (b) increased public willingness to acknowledge and discuss VV experiences, and (c) frauds. I'd be quite willing to acknowledge that the numbers of (c) are probably huge, far larger than the rest.

(2) By whom? The "spin" since the 90's has been that the hostility toward VV's has been almost wholly from the anti-war left. Well, that's bullshit, imho. While it's easy to understand why the epithet "hippie" was used, it's nonsensical both when understood in that day's context and in today's context, which are radically different from each other as well ans far more complex than the rhetoric allows. I believe the attribution is purely "blame game" and divisive. Most disappointing to me is the proclivity on today's 'left' to throw the baby (reality of those times) out with the 'bathwater' (blame from the right).

That, in summary, is what I see.

I'm sure ISOLATED INCIDENTS occurred.

And as long as the "most Vietnam vets were spat on by anti-war protesters" bullshit keeps cropping up, I'll keep posting the debunking.

Thank you for your service.

focus on airport arrivals. Nothing about what might happen in the street, a bar, wherever.

... not an airport arrival. If a coward is looking for the safest chance to act like a self-righteous bully in front of his "friends," it was easy to spot a returning Vietnam vet at SFO who was focused on going home and was travelling alone. We had to wear a uniform, and carry our duffel because we'd be going military standby. I personally felt like a fish out of water -- only 36 hours from a hooch at Long Binh. The disorientation was severe ... and probably very obvious.

say it happened in an airport. Debunkings mean debunking WHAT HAS BEEN CLAIMED. In other words, the people saying they were spat on are the ones who claim it happened in an airport.

You can't debunk being spat on in a bar or on the street if the recorded claims are all about being spat on in an airport.

Kinda obvious, ain't it.

Drooling on the Vietnam Vets

In the tale of the spitting protester, the signature element is the location: The protester almost always ambushes the serviceman at the airport--not in a park, or at a bar, or on Main Street. Also, it's not uncommon for the insulted serviceman to have flown directly in from Vietnam. In the most dramatic telling of the spitting story, First Blood (1982), the first installment of the series about a vengeful Vietnam vet, the airport is the scene of the outrage. John Rambo, played by Sylvester Stallone, gives a speech about getting spat upon.

http://slate.msn.com/id/1005224/

I had no choice but to wear a uniform flying military stand-by from SFO to DTW. I tore it off and never wore a single piece of it ever again as soon as I got back. Never.

I really don't know about Navy, Air Force, or even Marines. I was an Army draftee. I was one of millions who was sent back from 'Nam by himself ... not in a platoon, not in a company, not in a boat. We were a planeload of individuals. Arriving by plane at Travis AFB, at least those of us who were being "out-processed" were bussed to Oakland Army Base. After several hours there, some of us were given our papers and set loose to get to the airport. Some were met at OAB and spent time in San Francisco, some went by car. It was an individual thing.

I've heard that some guys flew back from Vietnam via different routes, some independently I've heard that some came back by boat. I've heard that some traveled back through Europe. Perhaps it made a difference if one was an officer. It probably made a difference if someone was going to stay in the Army after coming back. All the guys I was with, as I recall, were getting out-processed - leaving the Army. I don't recall anyone going on to other duty, though there probably were some. It makes a difference.

Today's abysmal ignorance about those times is astounding.

Yes it certainly is. Far too much "Rambo" revisionism.

... what exactly would happen next?

What's weird about the 'spitting hippy' lore is the way the spat-upon soldiers all seem to slink off in embarrassment, or just stand around looking sad, or something. Doesn't it seem a little odd that these accounts don't mention any fights breaking out after the spittle flew? Somebody gets hit with a nice, fat gob of saliva on his collar -- and doesn't react?

I've known for five years and whom I trust implicitly.

...you've been a bit short on specifics involving the incident in question. If I remember correctly, you ended up admitting that you were NEVER hit by anything remotely resembling spit, and that you may NOT have been the target of whatever the person was doing.

And save the cursing for people that really need it...like the NeoCon goose-steppers that we have all learned to hate.

"When I passed a few young guys (probably college students?) dressed in that casual "hippie" fashion walking together in the opposite direction while I was going to the gate and one of them spit (or made a spitting noise and gesture) towards me, I was stunned. I vague recall hearing at least one of them mutter something like "baby killer" as I continued to walk in the opposite direction. I never noticed any spittle on my shoes or trousers, but there was no mistaking the spitting gesture."

I suppose I SHOULD have said that I don't RECALL noticing any spittle. While I vaguely recall going to the rest room to wash up, I don't RECALL whether it was to wash my face of some slight spittle or not. I rarely rely on any vague recollections of details, since I don't feel it'd be honest.

Hell, I don't have much recollection of one of the most terrifying nights I had in Nam ... probably at least partly because I worked hard at forgetting it, and at least partly because such events get scrambled with the dreams (and night-sweats) afterward. I don't think this is at all unusual ... and anyone who'd hang their hat on such loss of 'detail' is really reaching.

So, whether or not I've been "a bit short on specifics" is total crap. I don't know how anyone can be clear on details 35 years later. It sounds to me like a desire to believe it never happened results in some grasping at fictitious straws.

I've posted this before, but I went to Berkeley starting in 1976. There was still much animosity towards ALL vets. I never agreed with them BTW. It doesn't surprise me that some idiot would do this. I'm sorry for your homecoming.

... with a gal (who lived in Atherton) who said she was a Berkeley activist in the late 60's - a member of "Girls Who Say Yes To Guys Who Say No." For some reason, not that it's unusual for me, I hadn't told her about being a Vietnam vet until maybe the 3rd or 4th time we were together. That date was sheer hell. She told me all about myself. I thought I was with an insane person - or was going nuts myself. It didn't make the slightest bit of difference that I didn't hold the opinions she ascribed to me. She was sure.

That was very disappointing to me - and a little shocking. I'd often wished that I could've gone to Berzerkley. I, probably naively, thought it would've been both educational and exciting to be on that campus in those days.

I've never found that the stereotypes of factions from those days were true. While one might assume she was a 'liberal,' I don't regard her hostility that evening to be 'liberal' at all. (Atherton's not the most liberal of towns, either. Affluent yes. Liberal no.) Shame. She was otherwise attractive.

I don't even recall encountering the hostility of that evening at SFO at other times. I spent a couple of weeks in Hawaii (Oahu) on TDY (temporary detached duty on a classified project) in April 1969. I don't recall any spitters or bashers. At the same time, the team of us usually socialized together. We got along well. I don't recall encountering overt hostility at DTW after arriving, either. It was late. Around midnight. So there weren't many people around. I never wore a uniform after taking a cab "home." Most of the negativism, other than office "pranks," after that was just avoidance. I was, after all, from another planet. :shrug:

The only people that I can think of that would spit on a returning war veteran would be the right wingers that wore mock Purple Hearts to the 2004 republican convention. I don't hear too many Vietnam Vets complaining about that!

I left Long Binh by truck to Bien Hoa airbase for a MACV flight "home."
The flight, as I recall, went from Bien Hoa to Guam to Alaska (Anchorage?) to Travis Air Force Base in California.
I was bussed from Travis Air Force Base to Oakland Army Base for "out-processing."
I was "given my walking papers" and went (in uniform) from Oakland Army Base to SFO Airport with orders and a military stand-by flight authorization.
I flew on a commercial flight from SFO (San Francisco) to DTW (Detroit).
I took a cab from DTW to an apartment on Schoolcraft in Detroit where my then-wife had taken up residence while I was in Nam.
It was after 2 AM when I got there. I woke up the manager and he let me into the apartment.

This was normal for enlisted Army personnel who were being discharged upon return from Vietnam. As I recall, there were other points of entry on return from Vietnam, including Washington and Southern California. I do not know the proportions of Army personnel processed elsewhere, or where the other services routed their personnel. I can only speak of what happened to me and many others.

said he was never spat upon when returning from Vietnam and he served three tours of duty, one very early on, one around 1970, then one in 1972.

Not a single one of those times was he ever greeted with disrespect.

I think that we will be deluged with more of these stories as the PNACers go for the (black) gold & world domination. They will do anything to discredit those who seek to expose them and their agenda for what they really are.

I don't watch the MSM. Is this a story of interest NOW????

And if so, why in the world???

I have no doubt a few isolated incidents occurred, but what is the point of bringing that up? To open old wounds for those veterans? To remind them of that all over again? How wrong.

Or is it to further this idea that it happened all the time, thus a subtle little slamming of the left for the 21st century?

I didn't give the link yesterday because I was concerned about perpetuating the negative perception of antiwar protesters. This story is particualy nasty because it attempts to link the myth of VN era protesters to todays protesters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7657452/

I really believe that they want to keep this perception alive to discredit antiwar protesters because they are getting ready to expand their war, and their war must be wrapped in the flag.

I don't believe him for one second.

As has been suggested, this is preemptive talking points.

What is the point of spreading stories of returning VV's being spat upon? Is it to say the anti-war crowd was doing it, thus serving to discredit or shame them?

Or is it to simply stir up animosity/bad feelings among groups of people?

If this happened as rarely as I suspect it did (note I am not saying it NEVER happened, but I don't think it happened nearly as often as some would have us believe, not at all), then who are the people who keep saying it DID happen all the time, and what is their motivation in saying this?

I've been asking the question here for several days since I heard Tommy Franks tell the lie for no apparent reason. He claimed it first hand and I just about fell out of the chair.

Franks was trying to justify why Americans support the invasion of Iraq and other nations since we were humiliated ( his words) in Vietnam.....or some such "cowboy shit " he was spewing.

It's my guess, this is a preemptive assault to under mind the publics growing dislike for the invasion and continuing occupation.

Talking Points

When I was a middle-aged student at UT working on an advanced degree, I met and married a long-haired disaffected veteran who had come to disagree with our presence in Vietnam.

He told me that the second time he was wounded in Vietnam, they put him in a military hospital in California clear across the continent from his family. Angry at the situation, one night he donned his uniform (all he had in the way of outerwear) and left the hospital, essentially going AWOL. His intent was to present himself, fait accompli, at a military hospital closer to home, which he eventually did.

He still had bloody bandages on his head. He didn't have enough money on him to fly, so he went to the San Diego bus station and had to wait a while for a bus to take him cross-country. According to him, a young couple spied him, and came up and spat at him. His feelings were very hurt. I have no reason to doubt his word. He was really on their side, so had little incentive to make up such a story.

He had to fight the military at the time to avoid being charged with going AWOL. Somehow or other he managed to prevail, but he secretly thought his victory might have been because he was a fairly high-ranking officer--not an enlisted man.

Because we do know for a FACT that RIGHTWINGERS spat on WWII soldiers who were in uniform & marching in an anti-Vietnam War protest.

So who REALLY did any spitting that happened?

And how come no one ever said one word about being spat on until years AFTER Vietnam war ended? And how come, what with "almost every veteran was spat on", NOT ONCE did any such incident make the news? Do people REALLY think soldiers just back from 'Nam would have tolerated a "line up" of Americans spitting at them??! rotfl!

of what their leanings were due to their dress and the peace sign on the man's blue-jean jacket. He did not say that this was a usual occurrence. Just that it did happen to him this one time under circumstances that hardly were favorable to him getting up and trouncing the offender.

You know, to make your case, you do not have to establish that it NEVER happened, not do you have to ascribe the few instances of actual occurrences to nebulous right-wingers. He wasn't marching. There was nothing other than his uniform to identify him. The young couple who did this couldn't read his mind and know that he had turned against the war.

incidents.

First, let's be clear that the spitters would most likely be described as "hippies" even if they were right-wingers or Birchers. That's really indisputable. Anyone claiming otherwise must not have lived through those times.

Next, you ask "how come no one ever said one word about being spat on until years AFTER Vietnam war ended?" Well, for one thing, I wasn't interested in getting into the middle of a (political) fight back home - I'd just come from one. Next, nobody was fucking interested!! My overwhelming feeling back then was that this country was trying hard to ignore Vietnam vets in their midst. I was "strange." I was embarrassing to some because I didn't run to Canada, to some because they avoided going, to some because they didn't even want to deal with it. Remember, PTSD wasn't even regarded as a treatable disorder until years later! Lastly, who the hell says nothing was said? It's far more likely that nobody listened!

Lastly, the notion that a solo returning Vietnam vet would get involved in a fracas while focused on going home is ludicrous. It was VERY clear to me back then that if I got into any kind of fight with civilians, not only wouldn't I be able to get home, I'd be regarded as being in the wrong and a "trained killer." When you get real mortars, grenades, and bullets aimed at you, a little spittle is very upsetting but isn't life-threatening. In my case, it was one of a group of about three guys walking in the opposite direction. I wasn't about to get into any kind of altercation. No fucking way.

PLEASE! Try not to invent perceptions of the times that serve some deep desire to deny what happened.

incidents.

"And how come no one ever said one word about being spat on until years AFTER Vietnam war ended? And how come, what with "almost every veteran was spat on", NOT ONCE did any such incident make the news? Do people REALLY think soldiers just back from 'Nam would have tolerated a "line up" of Americans spitting at them??! rotfl!'

This was the bullshit I responded to. Such "logic" is really bizarre given the tone and tenor of the times. Not only that, the hyperbole is demeaning. Who the hell ever claimed a '"line up" of Americans spitting at them'?? It's really easy to 'debunk' something when it's mischaracterized. Yeah... since vets weren't completely soaked in spittle and didn't run amok, it must not have happened. Since the papers didn't run full-page articles complete with photographs and test-tubes full of spittle collected as evidence, it must not have happened.

I think there's more misguided ideological zeal in defending 'anti-war' people behind this debunking-jihad than anything else. The 'left' finds itself put on the defensive due to an absolutely ridiculous framing of those events in terms of today's ideological polarization, and is now throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


And let's deal with this "isolated incidents" escape clause. How many incidents make it "isolated incidents"? There are 1 million Vietnam veterans alive today. If it happened to 1% of us, that's 10,000 vets. Up until perhaps 15-20 years ago, I would've avoided discussing it. Why? It's a "no-win". Who the hell would do anything about it? What's the use? Wallow in victimization? Be told to "get over it"? Trying to describe those days to people not even born then would be like describing the Mona Lisa to a blind man - not to mention the gulf between those who served in Vietnam and those who didn't. (How do I describe flying back on a plane from 'Nam with a Section 8 in restraints who thought he was a feather? How do I describe going from the plane to the terminal and back during a stopover in Alaska, wearing jungle fatigues in below freezing temperatures? No 'jet-way.' Outdoors. And those are far simpler.)

It was "Johnson's War." Those were the days of a Democratic Party with a deep internal schism ... between the Southern Democrats (including the Dixiecrats) and the rest of the party. Hell, Johnson was on the national ticket in 1960 at least partly to "balance the ticket." He won in 1964 at least partly because of JFK's assassination. The "northern liberal" Democrats as well as the right-wing non-interventionists and isolationists found themselves all opposing the war - with vastly different agendas. Trying to make fodder of those times based on the polarizations of today makes little rational sense - but people younger than about 40 seem to buy into it without a thought.

Tell them it's all "bullshit".

;)

... into your black and white world. :puke:

Thanks for the reminder of why I avoided even identifying myself as a Vietnam vet for so many years! I can't even count the times I was strongly advised to remove references to my Vietnam service from my resume.

But NO WAY was anyone "lined up" to spit at troops, and most certainly not in any airports. You are free to call that "bullshit" all you like.

My "gray" is in my having said I am sure it did happen in ISOLATED INCIDENTS.

I am free to believe the research done on the issue shows, what the 1971 Harris poll of veterans showed, and what the VVAW, VfP and all our veteran friends say. And they say it's an urban legend.

And you are of course free to believe whatever you like.

When Vietnam vets came home
By JOHN LLEWELLYN
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/story/1815713p-8122285c.html

Myth Making and Spitting Images from Vietnam
by Patrick G. Coy
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0318-12.htm

... you'll find that the only "myth" they even try to dispel is about WHO did the spitting and other hostile behavior.

What's more, there's an idiotic misapprehension about the political ideologies of the day. Let's again try some facts:

• Many "liberals" supported the Vietnam war under the principle of self-determination. Even today, "anti-war" is a simplistic misnomer. Many liberals would support armed intervention in the Sudan and believe we should've intervened in Rwanda. I personally rationalized my presence there through my very positive feelings toward the Vietnamese people. On a very personal basis, I wanted the best for them. That sure didn't include having to become "boat people."
• Equating "anti-war" in the Vietnam era with today's liberals, or even Democrats, is a stupid mistake. Right-wing non-interventionists were "anti-war." Even today, Pat Buchanan is "anti-war."
• It's funny how being draft age during Vietnam affected one's convenient (and temporary?) political ideologies. Even I supported Nixon's first term ... and I'm a liberal.
• You couldn't identify a "hippie" by the way someone dressed. It became "fashionable" (and a way to get the pretty "free love" girls) to dress like a "hippie." In short, it was "fun" and made younger people feel important. Nowhere near all of them/us were conscientious - and there were conscientious people who didn't party in the streets.

As am I.

Have a nice day. :)

Were you old enough to be out "in the world" and learning? Did you ever go within 2,000 miles of Vietnam?

I find it rather astonishing that anyone would reduce and dismiss someone's in-depth personal experience as mere "opinion," no more valid or weighty than any other, say even one derived from movies and comic books.

Forgive me for suspecting that some "debunkers" probably discard such mere "opinions" as well -- and continue to claim that they've never heard anybody who had that experience.

As were all our Vietvet friends. Obviously.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, and again have a nice day. :)

You are entitled to your opinion, but please do not dismiss any veteran's reality! It was not and is not your own to dismiss so easily. What, may I ask, is your agenda in this? You have a nice day, too, I know so many vets who never have one!

However, if that's your opinion of what I'm doing, then you're entitled to your opinion.

I have no "agenda" in this, thanks for asking.

I have attended over 20 US soldiers' funerals in the past 2 years, so I too know many vets who will never have another nice day. Almost including my husband.

May you have many nice days. :)

I don't understand your intention with this thread, but I have been called a baby killer before and spat on so I am still damned sensitive about certain subjects. I hope our returning Iraq and Afghanistan troops are treated better than we were.

If you're talking about the shameful treatment they received from the US government, I agree with you.

And in that case, no such luck; the current vets are being dissed more by bush & his Cartel than any bunch of US vets have ever been.

though their treatment is often shameful.

limbs and mocked for their Purple Hearts.

What is truly shameful is trying to cut imminent danger pay when the troops are in the middle of a raging war.

What is truly shameful is cutting veteran's benefits whilst making tens of thousands of new wounded/ill veterans.

What is truly shameful is lying soldiers to an illegal, immoral, unjust Hitleresque war of aggression that the Nuremburg Tribunal called "the supreme crime".

What is truly shameful is not even equipping the soldiers with enough rifles and ammo and food and water and body armor and up-armoed vehicles and night-vision goggles and scopes and vital vehicle R&M parts and bloody etc.

What is truly shameful is these soldiers still being short on much of the above, going on 3 years later.

Being called a name by some ignorant asshole? Sorry, doesn't compare in my books.

I'm sorry, but it was to me, thank you.

ignorant assholes, so what.

When I started opposing bush's planned invasion in 2002 I was told:

"You should be dragged through the streets of America being kicked and spit on until your (sic) dead".

"I hope you're killed for the traitor bitch you are".

I was called:

whore
c*nt
bitch more times than I can count
Saddam-lover
traitor
anti-American whore

Not a big deal; bullshit insults spewed by ignorant assholes. And I'm not a rough and tough Vietnam veteran that's faced life & death on a daily basis.

But having your medical benefits cut, having wounded US soldiers lying in total dirt & squalor in Carolina while waiting weeks and even months for medical treatment, being lied to an illegal war and without
even enough vital life-saving equipment...now THAT shit is a big deal to me.

Edited to add:

Let me say this; it's not nice that someone called you a name. There are a lot of ignorant assholes in the world & there always will be. Had I been there I would have kicked that asshole in the nuts.

But I do not believe the name-calling and spitting was any widespread or common thing. It's the rightwing who have insisted it was very common and "almost every veteran was spit on" simply as a way to denigrate any and all anti-war activists. And that is something I will fight against.

If you want to see widespread name-calling of our vets, take a read on FreeRepublic and see what they say about any veteran who mentions the lack of planning or equipment or bush's lies.

Thank you for your service.
:hug:

reported any disrespect at the time--one (the only one wounded in action) started retroactively claiming disrespect about 10 years ago. But I have often wondered if there was a bad link in the cause and effect chain. Perhaps a few servicemen were spat upon because they were acting like bullies/thugs and jerks, you know the type the ones that called Vietnamese "gooks" and said things like "shoot them all and let God sort them out." I also think that it was the members of the local VFW that were behind the majority of disrespect. WWII vets were often upset that VN vets did not behave in ways befitting soldiers, especially those VN soldiers who became actively involved in the antiwar movement.

the "thank you" parades. They were treated like losers because they lost a war - the WWII and Korean vets were the most vocal in their disappoint and since that age group was in charge of our national polices (House, Senate, White House) when the boys came home they punished them by shaming them. No parades, poor health care, denial of the effects of agent Orange, etc. To do otherwise would have been recognition by the warhawks that they had been wrong. They would rather let the vets sneak off into the dark of night.

When Carter was considering amnesty for those that left the country to avoid the draft I wrote the White House and asked that they combine it with some sort of national day of recognition for those that served, those that fled and those that marched. It was my idea of how to start healing because I felt (still feel) that the Vietnam war was the most divisive event of the 20th century. The wounds are still open. Children seperated from their parents, familes and tribes in disagreement over Vietnam. Brothers split with brothers in disagreement. Kids left their home towns because the older generation was intolerant of descent. It is so sad and so wrong.

They do deserve an organized day of thanks for their service. That said, I would shudder to think how this chickenhawk punk in the White House would mine such a noble gesture to his usual ignoble ends.

What a horrid conundrum. The men and women who served there deserve so much better. The deserved so much better back when, too.

I feel so freaking guilty for not doing more in VietNam, and for not winning that effing war! I feel guilt for coming home alive when so many of our loved ones and friends didn't and for living to an old age when they died so young.
I feel guilty for inflicting my angry, hurt self on my wives, my children, and my family. I only ask you people, please, please try to welcome our new generation of vets home. Many of them are going to be wrecks, too.

WTF do you think the vast majority of us have been DOING??? I spent over $10,000 last year helping our latest crop of veterans. Why TF do you think the vast majority of us keep saying BRING EM HOME NOW???

I just adore how you are assuming we blame the troops for this FUBAR, and we're going to "spit" on them if we're not pleaded and begged not to do so.

Very offensive.

troops when we've been doing exactly that and more for a long time now thank you very much.

Whether you meant to or not, your post implies we DON'T and WON'T welcome back & support the troops without being begged to do so.

I don't appreciate that, especially in light of the huge amount of time and effort and hours and money I and so many of us have already been putting into helping our returning troops.

Hopefully you too are spending as many hours as you possibly can working at veterans' hospitals and organizations to stop this bullshit war and bring our troops home NOW, and prevent bush from screwing them over any more than he already has.

thankful and want to show appreciation for the service of everyone in uniform. The problem is they also need the support of our government for health care and other issues. The reason for denying service related difficulties comes down to money and as a country denying those services is the most hateful, cynical and shameful aspect of our culture.

What makes it even more difficult is all of the WWII vets were/are treated like heros because their government took them into a "good war" and from the late 40's on have been showered with middle class entitlement programs that has got to be the longest running "thank you" note in any nation's history. So we have a country with good vets and bad vets trying to live side by side while not given the same treatment.

At any rate, if you feel guilty about what you could not accomplish in Vietnam remember that the people that started the war were ambivalent at an early state and were just looking for a way out - thus not fully supportive of the guys on the ground. Thank you for your service and I'm glad you are around to tell the story.

all they wanted was a way to save their political careers. Unfortunately that got thousands of us killed.

We all had friends that were draftees.
WHY would anyone hate them when they were fortunate enough to return?

'Nuff said.

back then, I can only say that nobody I was ever associated with did anything like that. These folks were family members and friends coming home, why would we spit on them? That was my limited experience.

BTW. Right after Bush started his war, our local RW radio started screaming about somebody in uniform being spat upon downtown. The story was later debunked.

My s/o has been denied his VA medical benefits. Why? We have no idea, they won't tell us why. He served 2 tours of Vietnam in the navy in the late 60's.
And what will happen to the vets from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars? They are getting shafted too.

Noone really talks about it except a few DU'ers who insist on dragging this up.

Oh, and the Rightwing babblers who nobody listens to.

who spit on Vietnam vets. And every time the rightwingnuts spew this bullshit, I will post the debunking. And if you'd bothered to read the OP article you'd have noticed the current date on it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They even call it "rightwing propaganda". Shame on them!

Did Vietnam-era protesters spit?

This ploy is based on the unsubstantiated myth that Vietnam-era protesters "spat upon" returning combat veterans. ...While there's little doubt that some Vietnam vets in uniform were spat upon during those turbulent years, no proof exists that antiwar protesters were the spitters.

...

The statement must be corrected, however, because it retains the impression that Vietnam vets were abused by protesters.

...

Jerry Lembcke, an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam combat veteran, has written a well documented book, "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" (New York University Press, 1998) that thoroughly debunks the tales of protesters "spitting upon" Vietnam vets.

...

The perpetuation of such myths only blocks the healing of Vietnam veterans from our "culture of victimization," and it serves the agenda of those pro-war forces who place fear and intimidation in the path of open debate on the pressing issues of the moment.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Did_protesters_spit_050803.htm

So SHAME ON YOU, kg.

Debunking A Myth
By John Zutz

http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=215

John Zutz is a member of the Milwaukee chapter and a former VVAW regional coordinator.

myself..

:hug:

By that time, the FTA movement was in full swing, and lots of anti-war sentiment was building among soldiers who were smart enough not to buy into the whole Johnson/McNamara lie.

My experience after I got out in May of '69 was similar to others who let their hair grow long and moved toward the "counterculture": I was threatened at truckstops and other redneck hangouts for my appearance as a "hippy," notwithstanding my disabled veteran status.

I would have more likely been spit on by a redneck than by a longhair.

Who knows. It may have happened in isolated incidents.

But one thing I know for goddamn sure is that members of a military organisation, the national guard of Ohio, shot and killed four people.

So, I say the far left wins this argument. I will agree some MAY have been spat upon if THEY will agree the military killed kids in Ohio.

To give live rounds to Guardsmen, who were just kids, too, and did not have the extensive training to handle unusual pressure situations, was an act of insanity. What is the probability that those rounds were going to be fired if the tensions got high? Not all that great, IMO. :grr:

When you think about it, it seems like something that would have happened in some Eastern Bloc country -- armed guardsmen firing into a group of student demonstrators. But it was here, in the Land of the Free. Incredible, and incredibly sad.

= Hate-filled = Traitors."

This is why the right wing keeps the spitting-myth alive. It serves their purposes in continuing to brand anyone who disagrees with them as "hate-filled," or having an "agenda of hate." It's a very utilitarian and emotionally-charged image; the right wing knows this, and keeps the story alive.

Here's a recent account (2003) of a very familiar-sounding "incident":

http://www.mountainx.com/news/2003/0319troops.php
Mar 19, 2003 / vol 9 iss 32
Spit and polish
Conscience, memory and the roots of war
by Steve Rasmussen
A couple of months ago, says Asheville photographer Kermit Sprinkles, a pair of soldiers wearing dress uniforms came into his Biltmore Square Mall portrait studio in a very agitated state. They told him they'd just been taunted and spat at by "some people" in downtown Asheville's City/County Plaza, he recalls.

As Sprinkles tells it, "They came out of the courthouse, and as they was going to their car, they got harassed. And whether it was two, three, 50 people, I have no idea. I have no idea if there was an event going on. But I do know they got harassed, they got called names, they got called 'baby killers,' 'did they get off on killing babies,' stuff like that. Then people started spitting in their direction. They didn't spit on them, they spit in their direction.

"The boy was really tore up," continues Sprinkles. "He said, 'I'm supposed to be risking my life and putting my family through this stuff and that's the way I'm treated, and this is the way they talked to me.'"

This tale became the rallying cry for the March 1 Support Our Soldiers event in downtown Asheville, and Sprinkles says he's been called "a warmonger ... a baby killer" for helping organize it.

It's a powerful story, the kind that might inspire a nation on the brink of war to rally behind its men and women in uniform. Attempts to verify it, however, have yielded no hard evidence, while uncovering a number of apparent contradictions. The story also bears a striking resemblance to what sociologist Jerry Lembcke has called "the myth of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran." Despite the lack of evidence to support it, that tale, says Lembcke, played a crucial role in justifying the Gulf War to an ambivalent American public.
<snip>

I did 3 tours, came back through Oakland all three times. No problem at all. Flew in uniform from there to Miami, where I lived at the time, and then back again of course. No one so much as said a word to me any more or less than any other time in any other airports over the years. I always thought it was horseshit myself 'cause none of the guys I served with who were going back and forth mentioned any problems either. As I recall the only thing any one of our age at that time was very much interested in was getting back to the world and getting some of that hippie chick ass. No kidding, that was the phrase. I ended up marrying one.

:hug:

So...did you manage to get some of that hippie chick ass before finding yourself married to one? Enquiring (nosy) minds wanna know... :D

Just kidding! (Unless you WANT to tell...) LOL!

People, young & old, gave me a warm welcome on my return to NJ(spit free).
On May 2nd, 1970 our unit was ordered into the boonies to relieve another unit which had been decimated... Boonie-rats to the aid of other boonie-rats. On May 6th, we heard about the shootings at Kent State on May 4th. Many of the vets were angry that the NG killed and wounded unarmed college kids. I am certain that Kent State was a turning point for some vets, as it was for me.

I have to admit I was never spit on when I returned. I wasn't given a big welcome either. I just tried to slip back into the country quietly. But I have heard from other vets that they were spit on. I have no first hand experience there.

What did happen though was interesting. I returned and was sent to Ft Ord, CA to a holding unit while the Army decided what to do with me. While I was there I was put on a Quick Reaction Force used to counter demonstrators at the front gate. One evening the force was called on to face down a bunch of hippies demonstrating. We all put on our full gear, backpacks, gas masks, empty M-14s and headed for the gate. When we got there we saw about 50 kids, waving signs and shouting slogans.

The SOG had us advance to the gate, gas masks on and bayonets fixed, but in their scabbards. In my heart I was glad to see the kids protesting. The war had made me sick inside. I'll never forget those pretty young girls, not spiting at us, they put flowers in the barrels of our rifles.

Two weeks later I was onboard a plane to Korea where I hid out on the DMZ for the next three years.

... home and to DU. :hi: