By Jerry Lembcke
April 30, 2005
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.
What I did find is that around 1980, scores of Vietnam-generation men were saying they were greeted by spitters when they came home from Vietnam. There is an element of urban legend in the stories in that their point of origin in time and place is bscure, and, yet, they have very similar details. The story told by the man who spat on Jane Fonda at a book signing in Kansas City recently is typical. Michael Smith said he came back through Los Angeles airport where ''people were lined up to spit on us."
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.
The persistence of spat-upon Vietnam veteran stories suggests that they continue to fill a need in American culture. The image of spat-upon veterans is the icon through which many people remember the loss of the war, the centerpiece of a betrayal narrative that understands the war to have been lost because of treason on the home front. Jane Fonda's noisiest detractors insist she should have been prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, in conformity with the law of the land.
But the psychological dimensions of the betrayal mentality are far more interesting than the legal. Betrayal is about fear, and the specter of self-betrayal is the hardest to dispel. The likelihood that the real danger to America lurks not outside but inside the gates is unsettling. The possibility that it was failure of masculinity itself, the meltdown of the core component of warrior culture, that cost the nation its victory in Vietnam has haunted us ever since.
Many tellers of the spitting tales identify the culprits as girls, a curious quality to the stories that gives away their gendered subtext. Moreover, the spitting images that emerged a decade after the troops had come home from Vietnam are similar enough to the legends of defeated German soldiers defiled by women upon their return from World War I, and the rejection from women felt by French soldiers when they returned from their lost war in Indochina, to suggest something universal and troubling at work in their making. One can reject the presence of a collective subconscious in the projection of those anxieties, as many scholars would, but there is little comfort in the prospect that memories of group spit-ins, like Smith has, are just fantasies conjured in the imaginations of aging veterans.
Remembering the war in Vietnam through the images of betrayal is dangerous because it rekindles the hope that wars like it, in countries where we are not welcomed, can be won. It disparages the reputation of those who opposed that war and intimidates a new generation of activists now finding the courage to resist Vietnam-type ventures in the 21st century.
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.
Jerry Lembcke, associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross College, is the author of "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam." His writings helped provide an overview for the experiences described in Camouflage & Lace: My Journey with a Windbender by Diane Ford Wood.
Reprinted by permission of the author; article previously appeared in the Boston Globe on April 30, 2005.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Thursday, April 28, 2005
BLADE WINS PULITZER: Series exposing Vietnam atrocities earns top honor
POSTED BY ANNA ACKER
I went to a panel held at Chapman University given by Orange County's Vets for Peace earlier this week to hear four Vietnam veterans speak about their experiences. They also discussed the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq and it was a lively discussion.
One of the presenters spoke about war crimes occurring in Vietnam and had actually started a file with the military regarding the atrocities he had seen. I spoke with him after the discussion and found out that he was a part of a VVAW chapter in Hawaii back in "The Day." I had a strong feeling he was VVAW because of the passion and truth in his words.
Anyway, his records were utilized by three journalists to uncover the atrocities of an elite U.S. Army fighting unit in Vietnam. Their investigative report, "Buried Secrets, Brutal Truths" won a pullitzer surprise last year.
I don't know if this is old news for you guys, but I thought it was interesting none the less. If I had made it to Texas I would have loved to bring this up to Burkett, but of course I would have to sneak over and sit by his friends so he would assume I was an "ally" and call on me.
I went to a panel held at Chapman University given by Orange County's Vets for Peace earlier this week to hear four Vietnam veterans speak about their experiences. They also discussed the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq and it was a lively discussion.
One of the presenters spoke about war crimes occurring in Vietnam and had actually started a file with the military regarding the atrocities he had seen. I spoke with him after the discussion and found out that he was a part of a VVAW chapter in Hawaii back in "The Day." I had a strong feeling he was VVAW because of the passion and truth in his words.
Anyway, his records were utilized by three journalists to uncover the atrocities of an elite U.S. Army fighting unit in Vietnam. Their investigative report, "Buried Secrets, Brutal Truths" won a pullitzer surprise last year.
I don't know if this is old news for you guys, but I thought it was interesting none the less. If I had made it to Texas I would have loved to bring this up to Burkett, but of course I would have to sneak over and sit by his friends so he would assume I was an "ally" and call on me.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
THE VETSPEAK MISSION: Policies & FAQs
x
To succeed as a useful forum, VetSpeak must maintain a defined focus. There are many sites and blogs out there that cover a wealth of topics, including those that serve as advocacies for a multitude of competing progressive issues. This is the focus we have defined for ourselves:
Preserve the True History & Contributions of VVAW. We exist to preserve the true and venerable history of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and it's honorable and patriotic contributions to America and it's Veterans from all eras.
History Will Not Be Rewritten! We vow to "speak truth to power" whenever individuals or groups attempt to rewrite history and discredit VVAW, or any other progressive-thinking Veteran or Veteran-related individual or organization, for personal, capital, or political gain.
Remember & Remind. We exist to insure that the public knows and remembers the objective truths of Vietnam, OIF & OEF Theatres of war, and any future engagements where American service personnel are asked to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country.
Preserve & Foster the Truth. We will work to insure that Truth is not a continuing First Casualty of War and becomes the criteria for objective evaluation of the strategic initiatives of certain groups and institutions related to Veteran, political and/or social issues we as a free press feel compelled to address.
Agree to Disagree. In the spirit of open communication and respect; we agree to disagree respectfully on issues upon which, in principle, we cannot come to agreement on as we continue to speak truth to power on issues which we do agree on. We agree to speak as one voice; that composed of all those speaking Objective Truth to power. This in our declared role; that of a Veteran Advocacy & Resources internet site and non-profit multi-media publishing organization.
Motivated by Patriotism. We are motivated by our patriotism, our humanity, and our deep love of America.
x
To succeed as a useful forum, VetSpeak must maintain a defined focus. There are many sites and blogs out there that cover a wealth of topics, including those that serve as advocacies for a multitude of competing progressive issues. This is the focus we have defined for ourselves:
Preserve the True History & Contributions of VVAW. We exist to preserve the true and venerable history of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and it's honorable and patriotic contributions to America and it's Veterans from all eras.
History Will Not Be Rewritten! We vow to "speak truth to power" whenever individuals or groups attempt to rewrite history and discredit VVAW, or any other progressive-thinking Veteran or Veteran-related individual or organization, for personal, capital, or political gain.
Remember & Remind. We exist to insure that the public knows and remembers the objective truths of Vietnam, OIF & OEF Theatres of war, and any future engagements where American service personnel are asked to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country.
Preserve & Foster the Truth. We will work to insure that Truth is not a continuing First Casualty of War and becomes the criteria for objective evaluation of the strategic initiatives of certain groups and institutions related to Veteran, political and/or social issues we as a free press feel compelled to address.
Agree to Disagree. In the spirit of open communication and respect; we agree to disagree respectfully on issues upon which, in principle, we cannot come to agreement on as we continue to speak truth to power on issues which we do agree on. We agree to speak as one voice; that composed of all those speaking Objective Truth to power. This in our declared role; that of a Veteran Advocacy & Resources internet site and non-profit multi-media publishing organization.
Motivated by Patriotism. We are motivated by our patriotism, our humanity, and our deep love of America.
x
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
FEAR & LOATHING @ TTU: VVAW Faces Off With the Swifties in Texas
POSTED BY TERRY DU BOSE
Several VVAW members from the early 70’s attended and presented at the Texas Tech Vietnam Project 5th Symposium in March, 2005. The preponderance of the attendees and presenters seemed to be there to defend the Vietnam Conflict and to blame the “loss of the war” on the anti-war movement in the USA. The general feelings seemed to be that we could have won the war, except for the likes of Jane Fonda, John Kerry, VVAW, and the antiwar people. There were many of the old “Ranch Hands” presenting much data that they claim proved their spraying of Agent Orange had no ill effect on our troops or the Vietnamese; not to mention the Swift Boat Vets and their types cherry-picking “facts” to support their arguments.
As one who participated in both the war and VVAW after I returned, I got the distinct feeling that there is an attempt rewrite the history of this era. It is as if they are angry that they “lost their war” and want to blame it on something/someone other than Cold War diplomacy run amuck.
Hope you historians are not letting the half-truths taken out of context influence you.
Please see:
http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/
www.counterpunch.com/buzzanco04162005.html
Fear and (Self) Loathing in Lubbock
How I Learned to Quit Worrying and Love Vietnam and Iraq
By ROBERT BUZZANCO
“Taylor's expressed his views recently at the 5th Triennial Symposium on the Vietnam War sponsored by the Vietnam Center at Texas Tech. That Taylor would offer his views at Texas Tech is not surprising, but it is a cause for concern that such ideas have become the de facto party line at the Vietnam Center in Lubbock and increasingly popular in public discussions of Vietnam. Unlike the Vietnam archives there, which remain a valuable resource with well-trained and professional archivists for anyone studying the war, the Center clearly resembles a right-wing think tank. On the surface, its ideological underpinnings are not a problem institutions should be able to reflect a variety of opinions but the Center also seeks academic legitimacy and claims to represent, as its director James Reckner says, opinions all along the spectrum of views on Vietnam. While it is true that Reckner has given a voice to officials from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and some antiwar groups, such as the Vietnam Veterans Against the War [VVAW], the vast majority of voices heard at Center events tend to represent the far right to the near right. Since it was established by a number of Vietnam Vets and has included a number of influential retired officers and government officials on its board, this might not be surprising, and is not illegitimate. But it seems to be imperative that the representatives of the Center in Lubbock make clear what their mission and purpose is. ”
Peace, Terry
Several VVAW members from the early 70’s attended and presented at the Texas Tech Vietnam Project 5th Symposium in March, 2005. The preponderance of the attendees and presenters seemed to be there to defend the Vietnam Conflict and to blame the “loss of the war” on the anti-war movement in the USA. The general feelings seemed to be that we could have won the war, except for the likes of Jane Fonda, John Kerry, VVAW, and the antiwar people. There were many of the old “Ranch Hands” presenting much data that they claim proved their spraying of Agent Orange had no ill effect on our troops or the Vietnamese; not to mention the Swift Boat Vets and their types cherry-picking “facts” to support their arguments.
As one who participated in both the war and VVAW after I returned, I got the distinct feeling that there is an attempt rewrite the history of this era. It is as if they are angry that they “lost their war” and want to blame it on something/someone other than Cold War diplomacy run amuck.
Hope you historians are not letting the half-truths taken out of context influence you.
Please see:
http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/
www.counterpunch.com/buzzanco04162005.html
Fear and (Self) Loathing in Lubbock
How I Learned to Quit Worrying and Love Vietnam and Iraq
By ROBERT BUZZANCO
“Taylor's expressed his views recently at the 5th Triennial Symposium on the Vietnam War sponsored by the Vietnam Center at Texas Tech. That Taylor would offer his views at Texas Tech is not surprising, but it is a cause for concern that such ideas have become the de facto party line at the Vietnam Center in Lubbock and increasingly popular in public discussions of Vietnam. Unlike the Vietnam archives there, which remain a valuable resource with well-trained and professional archivists for anyone studying the war, the Center clearly resembles a right-wing think tank. On the surface, its ideological underpinnings are not a problem institutions should be able to reflect a variety of opinions but the Center also seeks academic legitimacy and claims to represent, as its director James Reckner says, opinions all along the spectrum of views on Vietnam. While it is true that Reckner has given a voice to officials from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and some antiwar groups, such as the Vietnam Veterans Against the War [VVAW], the vast majority of voices heard at Center events tend to represent the far right to the near right. Since it was established by a number of Vietnam Vets and has included a number of influential retired officers and government officials on its board, this might not be surprising, and is not illegitimate. But it seems to be imperative that the representatives of the Center in Lubbock make clear what their mission and purpose is. ”
Peace, Terry
Sunday, April 24, 2005
JANE FONDA: Aid & Comfort
Since Terry DuBose's appearance on Fox cable on 4/23, there has been much discussion about this topic. As a starting point, here are Scott Camil's comments:
POSTED BY SCOTT CAMIL
Jane Fonda was a wealthy person who could have ignored the war and not been involved in controversy. She didn't have to worry about being drafted. She sacrificed her privacy to do what her conscience called for. I salute her for that. Yes, it may have been a mistake to allow herself to be photographed behind an anti-aircraft gun. People make mistakes. I don't know anyVietnam veterans, myself included, who would not change some of the things we did in Nam. We were young. It's more important to me what a person's motivations were rather than whether they made a mistake. I believe that Jane's motivations were pure, that she had no intentions to hurt us, the veterans. I had no intentions to kill innocent civilians, I just got caught up in the carnage. I think we should not let the other side frame the debate. How many mistakes did our government make?
They were wrong about the Gulf of Tonkin. They were wrong to violate the Geneva accords, signed andagreed to by both the French and the Vietnamese, the actual warring parties. There were many provisions that the United States violated, sending arms, training soldiers, installing Diem and so on. One of the main motivations for the US was to not allow the Vietnamese people to democratically elect a leader that would reunite the country of Vietnam. Why? Because we knew that Ho Chi Minh would win and that was unacceptable to us. (Mandate for Change, Dwight Eisenhower) Going to war to stop Democracy does not have any integrity. Trying to stopthat war is where the integrity is. The crimes of nixon and kissinger are also much worse than what Jane did. They lied about a secret plan to end the war. They rejected a treaty offer to end the war and then, after more than 20,000 moreAmerican lives were lost, many more wounded and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese killed and wounded, we accepted the treaty. To me, this crime so far overshadows Jane's mistake of sitting behind that gun that it is almost nonexistent in the big picture.
What's really going on is that the right wants to divert the attention away fromthe guilt of what our government did by starting this illegal war andits official conduct such as "Free Fire Zones", "Search and Destroy operations" and mostly using the dead as a measure of success officiallyknown as "Body Count". They never talk about things such as My Lai. The right also ignores things such as the use of agent orange and what that did to us and Vietnam. The right seeks to make all wars started byus just and moral and that is just not the case.
I think that on this issue we should be focused on what hell, suffering and death Jane and the Anti-War Movement were trying to stop. It's about honest attempts by citizens in a democracy to stop an illegalwar. It's about the steps that these people took to try to correct thelies being fed to the citizens of our democracy by the government to secure support for an immoral, illegal war. When you weigh Jane Fonda's mistake on one side of the scale and the Lies, conduct of our government and motivations of our government on theother side, Jane's mistake doesn't even register. Don't let them frame this debate.
Scott
POSTED BY SCOTT CAMIL
Jane Fonda was a wealthy person who could have ignored the war and not been involved in controversy. She didn't have to worry about being drafted. She sacrificed her privacy to do what her conscience called for. I salute her for that. Yes, it may have been a mistake to allow herself to be photographed behind an anti-aircraft gun. People make mistakes. I don't know anyVietnam veterans, myself included, who would not change some of the things we did in Nam. We were young. It's more important to me what a person's motivations were rather than whether they made a mistake. I believe that Jane's motivations were pure, that she had no intentions to hurt us, the veterans. I had no intentions to kill innocent civilians, I just got caught up in the carnage. I think we should not let the other side frame the debate. How many mistakes did our government make?
They were wrong about the Gulf of Tonkin. They were wrong to violate the Geneva accords, signed andagreed to by both the French and the Vietnamese, the actual warring parties. There were many provisions that the United States violated, sending arms, training soldiers, installing Diem and so on. One of the main motivations for the US was to not allow the Vietnamese people to democratically elect a leader that would reunite the country of Vietnam. Why? Because we knew that Ho Chi Minh would win and that was unacceptable to us. (Mandate for Change, Dwight Eisenhower) Going to war to stop Democracy does not have any integrity. Trying to stopthat war is where the integrity is. The crimes of nixon and kissinger are also much worse than what Jane did. They lied about a secret plan to end the war. They rejected a treaty offer to end the war and then, after more than 20,000 moreAmerican lives were lost, many more wounded and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese killed and wounded, we accepted the treaty. To me, this crime so far overshadows Jane's mistake of sitting behind that gun that it is almost nonexistent in the big picture.
What's really going on is that the right wants to divert the attention away fromthe guilt of what our government did by starting this illegal war andits official conduct such as "Free Fire Zones", "Search and Destroy operations" and mostly using the dead as a measure of success officiallyknown as "Body Count". They never talk about things such as My Lai. The right also ignores things such as the use of agent orange and what that did to us and Vietnam. The right seeks to make all wars started byus just and moral and that is just not the case.
I think that on this issue we should be focused on what hell, suffering and death Jane and the Anti-War Movement were trying to stop. It's about honest attempts by citizens in a democracy to stop an illegalwar. It's about the steps that these people took to try to correct thelies being fed to the citizens of our democracy by the government to secure support for an immoral, illegal war. When you weigh Jane Fonda's mistake on one side of the scale and the Lies, conduct of our government and motivations of our government on theother side, Jane's mistake doesn't even register. Don't let them frame this debate.
Scott
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)