NationStates Jolt Archive

We've all heard the stories... Traumatized Vietnam Vets returning home to be spat upon by protesters.

This image of injustice is trotted out like clockwork whenever people argue against anti-war demonstrators.

Well... I've always thought this was pretty unlikely. In the zillions of pictures taken of war protests in the U.S. I have never seen a single instance of a veteran being spit on.

I have also never seen a documented account of any actual incident. In fact, it was until the 1980s that any of this vet-spitting was even mentioned - and that was in the wake of all the Rambo type Vietnam Vet movies that used this as a dramatic device.

I found a very interesting article that pretty much debunks the vet-spitting myth - you might like to read it:

http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=95

We've all heard the stories... Traumatized Vietnam Vets returning home to be spat upon by protesters.

This image of injustice is trotted out like clockwork whenever people argue against anti-war demonstrators.

Well... I've always thought this was pretty unlikely. In the zillions of pictures taken of war protests in the U.S. I have never seen a single instance of a veteran being spit on.

I have also never seen a documented account of any actual incident. In fact, it was until the 1980s that any of this vet-spitting was even mentioned - and that was in the wake of all the Rambo type Vietnam Vet movies that used this as a dramatic device.

I found a very interesting article that pretty much debunks the vet-spitting myth - you might like to read it:

http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=95

I've met Vietnam veterans who recount spitting episodes. And I was told of the spitting in 1975 (from several veterans from the Army and Marines).

"Were Vets really spat upon?"

Yes. I was there. I saw it. I was one of the ones spat upon.

Kinda hard to "debunk" something when there are still eyewitnesses. Kinda like trying to "prove" the Holocaust never happened. :(

Regardless of whether the spitting occured, Vietnam veterans were not treated with the respect they deserved. A lot of the abuse wasn't even physical, it was emotional and it caused a lot of pain to these men who were still recovering from a war that had claimed many of their friends and fellow soliders. What the protestors did and said to returning veterans was wrong, and there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence from returning soliders that they were hurt and harassed by protestors.

I've heard more than enough stories from veterans about the treatment they recieved, and I hope that it never occurs again. That was wrong no matter your opinions on the war.

"Were Vets really spat upon?"

Yes. I was there. I saw it. I was one of the ones spat upon.

Kinda hard to "debunk" something when there are still eyewitnesses. Kinda like trying to "prove" the Holocaust never happened. :(

Would you be willing to describe the events?

This statement by the supposed "debunker," pretty much says it all: "... my own experience as a Vietnam veteran who came home from the war and joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)." Those of us who really were veterans held the VVAW in the utmost contempt. Most of us still do. Why do you think so many Vietnam veterans hated Kerry's guts???

Would you be willing to describe the events?
To whom and for what reasons?

To whom and for what reasons?

For the reasoms of an objectiive discussion. No offense Eut, but I have no idea about what happened when you guys came home form SE Asia. I for one would like to know.

This statement by the supposed "debunker," pretty much says it all: "... my own experience as a Vietnam veteran who came home from the war and joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)." Those of us who really were veterans held the VVAW in the utmost contempt. Most of us still do. Why do you think so many Vietnam veterans hated Kerry's guts???
Stop it already. Just because you disagree with their stances once they returned from Vietnam doesn't make their experiences any less real or truthful than yours were. You're being a hypocrite and a goddamn martyr here--grow the hell up.

To whom and for what reasons?

To us, for our edification.

To us, for our edification.
I was told of a spitting incident by a then Captain Dabney, USMC, which occurred outside of Camp Pendleton in 1969. Apparently, protesters stood outside the gate and made a habit of spitting on Marines who were on foot leaving the post.

None of the local media thought it was newsworthy, so no pics.

Stop it already. Just because you disagree with their stances once they returned from Vietnam doesn't make their experiences any less real or truthful than yours were. You're being a hypocrite and a goddamn martyr here--grow the hell up.

How dare he dislike someone without your permission.

Stop it already. Just because you disagree with their stances once they returned from Vietnam doesn't make their experiences any less real or truthful than yours were. You're being a hypocrite and a goddamn martyr here--grow the hell up.
YOU grow the hell up, you demented little twit!

yes they were, and its horrible, please dont turn yourself into a crusader against historical events like those idoits who believe the holocaust never happened, or that we never landed on the moon.....:headbang:

I've met Vietnam veterans who recount spitting episodes. And I was told of the spitting in 1975 (from several veterans from the Army and Marines).
"Were Vets really spat upon?"

Yes. I was there. I saw it. I was one of the ones spat upon.

Kinda hard to "debunk" something when there are still eyewitnesses. Kinda like trying to "prove" the Holocaust never happened. :(

We have had this discussion before. I don't believe it.

This is an urban myth.

The poster child for this particular fantasy usually involves an oddly passive soldier spat upon by long-haired, hippy protestors. Like all enduring urban legends it is so widely believed that few bother to question if it happened.

It didn’t.

A 1971 U.S. Senate study found 94% of returning soldiers described their reception as friendly. An analysis of newspapers from the U.S.-Vietnam War era is lacking in stories of veterans abused by anti-war protesters. There is not a single report or photograph of peace activists spitting on returning soldiers.

In fact, incidents of returning soldiers being physically and verbally accosted involved war supporters vilifying pro-peace veterans, including the well known case of disabled vet and peace activist, Ron Kovic, spat upon at the 1972 GOP convention. The reality is peace activists of that era, like those today, embraced vets as Americans who paid the highest price for our government’s deceptions.

It has been the U.S. government, both then and now, that turned its back on veterans.

"Were Vets really spat upon?"

Yes. I was there. I saw it. I was one of the ones spat upon.

Kinda hard to "debunk" something when there are still eyewitnesses. Kinda like trying to "prove" the Holocaust never happened. :(


right man, fuckin people these days, they're all just setting the situation so it happens all over agian..:(

I've heard tales from a couple Vietnam vets that I knew personally about how they were called names, but none ever recounted to me about being spat upon. Others had no troubles whatsoever.


Eut: If you were a veteran against the war then you weren't a real Veteran? wtf?? Disagreeing with you somehow negates their service? Care to explain how that makes any sense?

I doubt you have the cojones to go up to some of these vets and tell them your opinion of them to their face. Of course you will deny it but I'm calling bullshit.

YOU grow the hell up, you demented little twit!
I'm not the one calling a group of people who shared similar experiences a bunch of liars because they took a political stance I disagreed with thiry fucking years ago. Drop the cross already, Eut--you've been dragging it around a long time, far longer than you've ever needed to. You came out of Vietnam with one experience, and others with a different one, and that has affected all of your lives differently, but you continuously argue that the people in the VVAW are somehow illegitimate because of the way the war affected them. They're not, anymore than your feelings of distaste for those people who spat on you are illegitimate.

But the difference is that you've allowed that experience to poison you. You're not a bad guy, even though we disagree an awful lot and you feign shock and horror whenever we agree on some point in a thread, but your unwillingness to accept that others had experiences that were just as legitimate as yours were is a weakness of character and a sign that you've never gotten past what happened then. Let it go already. Jesus only hung on his cross for a day and a night, after all.

right man, fuckin people these days, they're all just setting the situation so it happens all over agian..:(

It didn't happen then. It isn't happing now.

URBAN MYTH

To us, for our edification.
I can recall two incidents, one of which involved spitting.

The first instance happened when I came back from Vietnam the first time. I had almost completed my leave but had reserved a few days to roam around San Francisco. I stayed at a youth hostel. Since I couldn't take civilian clothes back with me to Vietnam, I had only my uniform to wear. One afternoon when I came downstairs before going out, a young woman I had never before seen in my life came up and called me a baby-killer.

The spitting incident happened when I came back from Vietnam the second time. I was on an airplane with a number of other returning soldiers. When we landed at SeaTac International in Seattle there were a number of protestors in the lobby. They cursed at us and some spit at us. One young woman spit on my uniform. Most of us were happy just to be home and either shrugged it all off, or were so stunned that we didn't know how to react.

That all happened about 37 years ago, so some of the details are a bit hazy, but that sort of thing is something you don't forget.

"Were Vets really spat upon?"

Yes. I was there. I saw it. I was one of the ones spat upon.

Kinda hard to "debunk" something when there are still eyewitnesses. Kinda like trying to "prove" the Holocaust never happened. :(


There is no public record of any vet reporting being spat upon. None. Not one picture. Not one news story. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

It didn't happen then. It isn't happing now.

URBAN MYTH
Look, if Eut says he was spit on personally, I believe him. Just because there are no pictures or no news stories about it doesn't mean it didn't happen--it does suggest that it wasn't nearly as widespread as some would have us believe, but it doesn't prove that it didn't happen to Eutrusca.

It didn't happen then. It isn't happing now.

URBAN MYTH


Well how many vets would be in that 4% that didnt get a friendly reception?

I'm guessing that they are the sources of the negative stories and it is likely that they did get verbally harassed at least.

People can be real idiots sometimes. Look at the Phelps guys protesting funerals of dead soldiers... or look at how Eut is acting toward people who don't agree with his views of the vietnam war.

God, I hate this urban myth. It was concocted in the past 15 years to stifle legitimate political protest and is used today to portray as unpatriotic those who question this ill-conceived war.

God, I hate this urban myth. It was concocted in the past 15 years to stifle legitimate political protest and is used today to portray as unpatriotic those who question this ill-conceived war.
I don't really give a damn WHAT you believe.

I'm not the one calling a group of people who shared similar experiences a bunch of liars because they took a political stance I disagreed with thiry fucking years ago. Drop the cross already, Eut--you've been dragging it around a long time, far longer than you've ever needed to. You came out of Vietnam with one experience, and others with a different one, and that has affected all of your lives differently, but you continuously argue that the people in the VVAW are somehow illegitimate because of the way the war affected them. They're not, anymore than your feelings of distaste for those people who spat on you are illegitimate.


I think the problem is here is Eut's own experiences. He was special forces, he saw the hardest and horribilist of the fighting. To fight work and fight so hard and then hear people say it wasn't worth it must be bloody hard.

My own experience with the Foreign Legion, I fought in Djibouti during the Eritrean war of independence, and personally killed severall people. That is what moulded my own personal beliefs. For someone to turn round and say it was worthless, jesus, I would get upset.

I personally had an uncle that had garbage thrown on him during a return trip from Vietnam. So I wouldn't say he was spat upon but it is along the same lines. This happened in a airport after a long trip home.

God, I hate this urban myth. It was concocted in the past 15 years to stifle legitimate political protest and is used today to portray as unpatriotic those who question this ill-conceived war.


So every soldier that says that they didnt get a friendly reception is just a liar and going with some urban myth for the heck of it or to get sympathy or discredit anti-war people? I dont buy it. Sure, some could do that but I can't accept that every single story about people calling them baby-killers is made up. Call a vietnam vet a baby killer and see how fast you get hit, or at least how disturbed the guy gets.... it's not because he remembers a fake story that he saw in the movies or heard from Rush Limbaugh, it's because the memory affects him so deeply.

Why would friends and family involved in the Vietnam war lie to me when recounting their war stories?

I can recall two incidents, one of which involved spitting.

The first instance happened when I came back from Vietnam the first time. I had almost completed my leave but had reserved a few days to roam around San Francisco. I stayed at a youth hostel. Since I couldn't take civilian clothes back with me to Vietnam, I had only my uniform to wear. One afternoon when I came downstairs before going out, a young woman I had never before seen in my life came up and called me a baby-killer.

The spitting incident happened when I came back from Vietnam the second time. I was on an airplane with a number of other returning soldiers. When we landed at SeaTac International in Seattle there were a number of protestors in the lobby. They cursed at us and some spit at us. One young woman spit on my uniform. Most of us were happy just to be home and either shrugged it all off, or were so stunned that we didn't know how to react.

That all happened about 37 years ago, so some of the details are a bit hazy, but that sort of thing is something you don't forget.

this is the question that comes up when i look through debunking sites that i dont know the answer to....


why were you landing at a civilian airport? did panam fly soldiers to and from vietnam?

I am perfectly willing to keep an open mind on this - but I have to say - the spitting mythology seems so very unlikely.

Common sense just can't let me buy it. Spitting on someone is a highly provocative thing to do. I believe it is legally considered assault.

I want you all to put yourself in the Vet's place, if you can. What would your reaction be to someone spitting on you? Would you punch them? Would you kick their ass? Would you literally rip them to pieces? I know I would have very little success in restraining myself. If I was traumatized by war, fresh from a hyper-violent environment, trained to kill - and some asswipe spat on me - I'd think I would resort to violence immediately. I would go frakkin berserk.

Yet.... Has anyone ever seen a documumented example of a returning vet responding with violence to being spat on? Newspaper accounts? Police reports? Arrest records? Anecdotes? Anything?

I can only assume, that this stuff really didn't happen much at all - or there would have been numerous assaults and killings that would have resulted.

But that's just my opinion. What would you do if you were spat on under these circumstances? I'd like to know.

It didn't happen then. It isn't happing now.

URBAN MYTH

Source, please.

Of course you do. Why else would you respond?

You are just pissed because I remember the first time we had this conversation over two years ago, when you changed your story. So now you've changed it back?

Hmmm.

I think you are the one making up stories. Would take Eut's word over you any day of the week.

Source, please.

The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam

by Jerry Lembcke

Also, see an article in The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image/

(Eut knows this. We've been all through this once before)

this is the question that comes up when i look through debunking sites that i dont know the answer to....


why were you landing at a civilian airport? did panam fly soldiers to and from vietnam?

The military contracts with civilian airlines to bring troops to and from many places including conflict areas. Stick around any transport type airforce base. You will see civilian marked airliners on a regular basis.

I want you all to put yourself in the Vet's place, if you can. What would your reaction be to someone spitting on you? Would you punch them? Would you kick their ass? Would you literally rip them to pieces? I know I would have very little success in restraining myself. If I was traumatized by war, fresh from a hyper-violent environment, trained to kill - and some asswipe spat on me - I'd think I would resort to violence immediately. I would go frakkin berserk.

Because, of course, our level of discipline is comparable.

I think you are the one making up stories. Would take Eut's word over you any day of the week.


So you believe Eut when he says he is going to strap C4 to himself and go to the nearest mosque known to sympathize with terrorists and blow it up along with himself (if his cancer comes back)?

In this instance I'd like not to believe him, but one never knows.

The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam

by Jerry Lembcke

Also, see an article in The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image/

(Eut knows this. We've been all through this once before)

Sounds like a lame author trying to sell his crappy little book to me.

I think you are the one making up stories. Would take Eut's word over you any day of the week.

"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....

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."

Jerry Lembcke

The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...pitting_image/

Sounds like a lame author trying to sell his crappy little book to me.

There you go. Don't like the facts? Ignore them.

It didn't happen then. It isn't happing now.

URBAN MYTH

What evidence do you have that not a single one of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of vets were spit on at some point. That's a completely indefensible and assinine position.

So you believe Eut when he says he is going to strap C4 to himself and go to the nearest mosque known to sympathize with terrorists and blow it up along with himself (if his cancer comes back)?

In this instance I'd like not to believe him, but one never knows.

If he was in fact deadly serious about it. Sure I would. Would have to read in what context it was written. But I highly doubt that he would based off what he has written here on NS.

There you go. Don't like the facts? Ignore them.

What facts? The fact that this guy wrote a book about the subject and he is promoting it? Nah, don't think I missed that fact one bit.

I want you all to put yourself in the Vet's place, if you can. What would your reaction be to someone spitting on you? Would you punch them? Would you kick their ass? Would you literally rip them to pieces? I know I would have very little success in restraining myself. If I was traumatized by war, fresh from a hyper-violent environment, trained to kill - and some asswipe spat on me - I'd think I would resort to violence immediately. I would go frakkin berserk.

Obviously, you have no experience in being a returning vet, and have no idea that you're trading one myth for another.

The myth of the hyper-violent, traumatized vet who goes berserk.

I've been in combat before, and to this day, have no trouble restraining myself in personal conflicts in civilian life.

Obviously, you have no experience in being a returning vet, and have no idea that you're trading one myth for another.

The myth of the hyper-violent, traumatized vet who goes berserk.

I've been in combat before, and to this day, have no trouble restraining myself in personal conflicts in civilian life.

So... if someone spat on you - you'd just turn the other cheek?

What evidence do you have that not a single one of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of vets were spit on at some point. That's a completely indefensible and assinine position.

Ah, so now I have to prove a negative? The burden is on me to prove it didn't happen? Sort of like UFOs, ESP, or Big Foot? If you can't prove these things conclusively don't exist, therefore they might, therefore they must.

Is that how your logic works?

So... if someone spat on you - you'd just turn the other cheek?
Actually, I think DK said in another thread that he'd break someone's fingers if that happened, presumably not his own.

"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?

How do you know it was a planned protest? Perhaps it was just people at the airport who were behaving badly.

And I have seen soldiers and their duffles at civilian airports, in groups, so I would hardly place their appearance at civilian airports as impossible.

http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=95 <-- article written by Jerry Lembcke.

The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam

by Jerry Lembcke <-- The book referred to was written by the same author.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image/ <-- written by SAME author.

Basically, you list one source... and have not provided ANY corrobation from other sources. Is it not possible it is one person's opinion vs. stories many people have told?

This would be laughed out of a scholarly paper if you attempted to use ONE AUTHOR to prove a point.

So... if someone spat on you - you'd just turn the other cheek?

I think with military training and discipline if ordered to that is what would happen.

Ah, so now I have to prove a negative? The burden is on me to prove it didn't happen? Sort of like UFOs, ESP, or Big Foot? If you can't prove these things conclusively don't exist, therefore they might, therefore they must.

Is that how your logic works?

I've had too many stories told to me around 1975 that don't correspond to the picture painted by the website you link to. They've put up a strawman, and are poking holes in it.

I have first hand accounts told to me around 1975. Considering the public reputation of some of these witnesses, I'd say that it conclusively happened, and not in isolated incidents.

"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....

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."

Jerry Lembcke

The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...pitting_image/

I personally have landed at a civilian airport on the way back from Germany. With other soldiers after a major combat operation. That was in 1991. I am sure that it happened during the Vietnam era due to my uncle having his garbage throwing experience at a civi airport on the way back home from Vietnam. It does happen to this day that I am aware of. You realise how many of your fellow NS'rs have served in the Armed Forces of the US?

Actually, I think DK said in another thread that he'd break someone's fingers if that happened, presumably not his own.

And I think that's a perfectly normal reaction - I am a pretty peaceful guy, but if someone spat on me intentionally - I would probably get physical.

Considering the emotions of the times - I would think spitting on a Vietnam Vet would be incredibly dangerous - yet we never hear any stories about the spitters getting their ass kicked - it makes the whole thing seem very unlikely.

What facts?

The fact that:


A 1971 U.S. Senate study found 94% of returning soldiers described their reception as friendly.
An analysis of newspapers from the U.S.-Vietnam War era is lacking in stories of veterans abused by anti-war protesters. There is not a single report or photograph of peace activists spitting on returning soldiers.
There is not one FBI report of veterans being spat upon (remember, the FBI did obsessive surveillance of the peace movements).
Stories of the spat upon soldier did not start to appear until the 1980s (not uncoincidentally about the time Hollywood started creating this myth through the 1977 movie Tracks in which we got the good pro-war veteran and the bad antiwar activist, Mark, who repeatedly spits on his opponents and then Rambo in 1982 who line at the end is: "But somebody wouldn't let us win. I come back and see all these maggots at the airport. Protesting me, spitting, calling me a baby-killer. Who are they to protest me? Huh?").

And I think that's a perfectly normal reaction - I am a pretty peaceful guy, but if someone spat on me intentionally - I would probably get physical.

Considering the emotions of the times - I would think spitting on a Vietnam Vet would be incredibly dangerous - yet we never hear any stories about the spitters getting their ass kicked - it makes the whole thing seem very unlikely.


I think most GI's would not respond to this kind of petty bs. The reason I believe would be pride on there part. Not to stoop to there level. Also a sense of being above petty people that decide they need to spit on someone to prove there point. After being in combat I think a bit of spit on the cheek wouldn't be to much to handle.

The fact that:


A 1971 U.S. Senate study found 94% of returning soldiers described their reception as friendly.
An analysis of newspapers from the U.S.-Vietnam War era is lacking in stories of veterans abused by anti-war protesters. There is not a single report or photograph of peace activists spitting on returning soldiers.
Stories of the spat upon soldier did not start to appear until the 1980s (not uncoincidentally about the time Hollywood started creating this myth through the 1977 movie Tracks in which we got the good pro-war veteran and the bad antiwar activist, Mark, who repeatedly spits on his opponents and then Rambo in 1982 who line at the end is: "But somebody wouldn't let us win. I come back and see all these maggots at the airport. Protesting me, spitting, calling me a baby-killer. Who are they to protest me? Huh?").

Which study, specifically?
What analysis? What group did it?

We've already established that one uncorroborated source is highly suspect. Bring in your support materials.

I am perfectly willing to keep an open mind on this - but I have to say - the spitting mythology seems so very unlikely.

Common sense just can't let me buy it. Spitting on someone is a highly provocative thing to do. I believe it is legally considered assault.

I want you all to put yourself in the Vet's place, if you can. What would your reaction be to someone spitting on you? Would you punch them? Would you kick their ass? Would you literally rip them to pieces? I know I would have very little success in restraining myself. If I was traumatized by war, fresh from a hyper-violent environment, trained to kill - and some asswipe spat on me - I'd think I would resort to violence immediately. I would go frakkin berserk.

Yet.... Has anyone ever seen a documumented example of a returning vet responding with violence to being spat on? Newspaper accounts? Police reports? Arrest records? Anecdotes? Anything?

I can only assume, that this stuff really didn't happen much at all - or there would have been numerous assaults and killings that would have resulted.

But that's just my opinion. What would you do if you were spat on under these circumstances? I'd like to know.

Id probably be damned glad to be home, and dumbfounded.

I think most GI's would not respond to this kind of petty bs. The reason I believe would be pride on there part. Not to stoop to there level. Also a sense of being above petty people that decide they need to spit on someone to prove there point. After being in combat I think a bit of spit on the cheek wouldn't be to much to handle.

That sounds all nice, but is wholly unbelievable.

Which study?
What analysis?

I have given you facts, a book, and a web site. Do I need to wipe your ass for you too?

Here is a web site from a veterans group.

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=80
(although they oppose the Iraq war, so that might invalidate anything they have to say for you)

The fact that:*SNIP*
And yet we have people providing eye wittness testimony, not second hand accounts (Deep Kimchi or the uncle story) but first hand (Eut). This suggests that, yes, returning vets were spat on (Unless you prefer to claim that said first hand accounts are creating memories).

Now was it a widespread practice... that's very doubtful.

That sounds all nice, but is wholly unbelievable.

Why? Based on what? Your reaction to something like that? You don't think that professional soldiers couldn't handle themselves professionaly while confronted by juvenile anti-war clowns?

I have given you facts, a book, and a web site. Do I need to wipe your ass for you too?

Here is a web site from a veterans group.

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=80
(although they oppose the Iraq war, so that might invalidate anything they have to say for you)


You have given me three sources from the same author, and if you have nothing else, all it's worth is wiping one's ass on.

Your fourth source which you threw in QUOTES your source again. What OTHER sources support this claim?

You have not told which study purports that 94% of soldiers reported their return from service as friendly. Why not? Doesn't it exist?

You have not mentioned what group did this so-called analysis, nor when it occured.

Therefore, given your brilliant retort, I must conclude that you're full of it.

That sounds all nice, but is wholly unbelievable.
I dunno... I think if I was in that place I would be shocked and unsure of how to handle it.

I think it's high time that Forest Rangers were finally given their just due and we should all bow down in supplication each and every day and thank God those men and women who are so inherently superior to the peasantry who hold them back and keep them from their rightful place, namely sitting on all our collective heads.

After all, if you don't love and respect your Forest Rangers, you obviously hate your nation and everything it stands for.

In fact, the only people who should be allowed to vote, have funerals, or own cars should be Forest Rangers - and if you disagree, you can go back to whatever forest fire-infested Hellhole you crawled out of - because this is God's country, and God surely knows a thing or two about

FATUOUS CRAP

Why? Based on what? Your reaction to something like that? You don't think that professional soldiers couldn't handle themselves professionaly while confronted by juvenile anti-war clowns?

Based on an honest assessment of male ego.

I have given you facts, a book, and a web site. Do I need to wipe your ass for you too?
You're the one making a claim, the burden of proof is on YOU, not Kat. If you're doing research and making a claim you don't ask your reader to finish up for you because you're too damn lazy to do so.

You have given me three sources from the same author, and if you have nothing else, all it's worth is wiping one's ass on.

You have not told which study purports that 94% of soldiers reported their return from service as friendly. Why not? Doesn't it exist?

You have not mentioned what group did this so-called analysis, nor when it occured.

Therefore, given your brilliant retort, I must conclude that you're full of it.

So, even though it is reported in a book written about this myth that the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings and is reported in several web sites I've given you I have to go and find the 1971 Harris poll and present that to you?

And your proof? What burden do you have to show that Veitnam vets were spat upon? Do you have a news article from the times? A picture? An FBI report? Anything at all?

You're the one making a claim, the burden of proof is on YOU, not Kat. If you're doing research and making a claim you don't ask your reader to finish up for you because you're too damn lazy to do so.

But, I HAVE provided proof (several web sites and a book, in which a professor from Holy Cross did extensive research on this subject and whose methodology has not been questioned).

Regardless of whether the spitting occured, Vietnam veterans were not treated with the respect they deserved. A lot of the abuse wasn't even physical, it was emotional and it caused a lot of pain to these men who were still recovering from a war that had claimed many of their friends and fellow soliders. What the protestors did and said to returning veterans was wrong, and there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence from returning soliders that they were hurt and harassed by protestors.

I've heard more than enough stories from veterans about the treatment they recieved, and I hope that it never occurs again. That was wrong no matter your opinions on the war.

These men can take being shot it, but curses and insults are crossing the line?
The fact is, they were expecting a ticker-tape parade and didn't receive one.

I think it's worth noting that Vietnam Veterans were treated horribly not just by hippies and peacenicks, but also by many of the people who had supported them in the beginning and even veterans from previous wars.

I'll always remember my uncle telling me the worst part wasn't the treatment by the protesters, because they didn't know what he'd experienced.

When he met with WW1 and 2 veterans however, and told them his story, they merely said; "You don't know war." That was what utterly stung him, to be rejected by his own.

The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam

by Jerry Lembcke

Also, see an article in The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image/



By the way, this professor from Holy Cross, who so many of you are ready to dismiss SOLELY because you don't like what he has to say served in Vietnam with the 41st Artillery Group.

So, even though it is reported in a book written about this myth that the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings and is reported in several web sites I've given you I have to go and find the 1971 Harris poll and present that to you?

And your proof? What burden do you have to show that Veitnam vets were spat upon? Do you have a news article from the times? A picture? An FBI report? Anything at all?


Did you say it was a Harris poll? No. Did you give ANY information about what it was even after asked repeatedly?

The burden is on you when you say these things exist and yet will not actually name them.

Does it not yet register with you that no debator or researcher would base their entire argument on a single source?

Do you honestly believe that because ONE person published a book, it's true? Really? Does that mean there are Jedi running around the galaxy fighting the Sith? Does that mean there is a talking lion that rallies kids and fabulous beasts against the forces of evil? Does it mean that because some people say the holocaust never happened against all the evidence that has been compiled, well, the holocaust never happened?

You're making yourself look very silly.

But, I HAVE provided proof (several web sites and a book, in which a professor from Holy Cross did extensive research on this subject and whose methodology has not been questioned).
As Kat pointed out, you have provided the same source over and over again. You FINALLY mentioned the study (Which you at first said it was a Senate report) by name (kind of) which allows us to look at it.

If you're going to challenge things like this, you better have more than one person's word on it.

These men can take being shot it, but curses and insults are crossing the line?
The fact is, they were expecting a ticker-tape parade and didn't receive one.actually it more of this fact.

someone shooting you is the enemy. they have one goal. to kill you. they are honest about that.

However, the people for whom are supposed to be on your side, the one group of people where they can be accepted, suddeny turns their backs on these warriors, that's a painful betrayal. that belittles the sacrifice and hardships these people were told to suffer.

By the way, this professor from Holy Cross, who so many of you are ready to dismiss SOLELY because you don't like what he has to say served in Vietnam with the 41st Artillery Group.
Oh goodie, and Eut served in Vietnam himself and he remembers being spat on.

Again, you need to provide proof.

Did you say it was a Harris poll? No. Did you give ANY information about what it was even after asked repeatedly?

The burden is on you when you say these things exist and yet will not actually name them.

Does it not yet register with you that no debator or researcher would base their entire argument on a single source?

Do you honestly believe that because ONE person published a book, it's true? Really? Does that mean there are Jedi running around the galaxy fighting the Sith? Does that mean there is a talking lion that rallies kids and fabulous beasts against the forces of evil? Does it mean that because some people say the holocaust never happened against all the evidence that has been compiled, well, the holocaust never happened?

You're making yourself look very silly.

You are kidding, right? You compare a Holy Cross professor's research with a science fiction novel? A professor, who was also a Vietnam Vet.

Okay. Let's say, that is all the evidence I have. What is wrong with the methodolgy or research behind the book? Please, offer factual criticism that makes this book unreliable.

Or better yet, explain to me why there is not a single newspaper article or picture; not a single FBI report; no supportive data at all from the time period to back up this urban myth?

At least I have given you something. You have provided not one shread of evidence that returning Vietnam Vets were ever spat upon.

Please tell me you have something.

actually it more of this fact.

someone shooting you is the enemy. they have one goal. to kill you. they are honest about that.

However, the people for whom are supposed to be on your side, the one group of people where they can be accepted, suddeny turns their backs on these warriors, that's a painful betrayal. that belittles the sacrifice and hardships these people were told to suffer.

It's not a betrayal in the least. If my tax dollars are paying them, this is not betrayal. If these people can't make sacrifices and hardships then they shouldn't have a job in the military...much less handle protests from a war that is highly unpopular.

The military contracts with civilian airlines to bring troops to and from many places including conflict areas. Stick around any transport type airforce base. You will see civilian marked airliners on a regular basis.
thats not a civilian airport. i just want to know if the debunkers can be debunked on this point.

i dont think spitting on soldiers was common but i dont see why it couldnt have happened to some few. there were protestors; some got all worked up and said and did things they shouldnt have. i see no reason to doubt that one or 2 wouldnt have worked themselves up to spitting on soldiers who had returned from vietnam.

By the way, this professor from Holy Cross, who so many of you are ready to dismiss SOLELY because you don't like what he has to say served in Vietnam with the 41st Artillery Group.


It is a SINGLE source.

It is a SINGLE source.

All you need in a Lincoln-Douglas debate is a single source to make a claim. Make an argument because of the article he provided, not an argument for lack of sources.

While Prof. Lembcke doesn't prove that nobody ever expectorated on a serviceman--you can't prove a negative, after all--he reduces the claim to an urban myth.

The myth persists because:

1) Those who didn't go to Vietnam--that being most of us--don't dare contradict the "experience" of those who did;
2) the story helps maintain the perfect sense of shame many of us feel about the way we ignored our Vietvets;
3) the press and message boards like this one keeps the story in play by uncritically repeating it;
4) because any fool with 33 cents and the gumption to repeat the myth in his letter to the editor can keep it in circulation;
5) supporters of the current war or conservative causes can use it to accuse war protestors of a lack of patriotism and thereby silence dissent.

It is a SINGLE source.

Which makes it one more than you have provided.

You are kidding, right? You compare a Holy Cross professor's research with a science fiction novel? A professor, who was also a Vietnam Vet.

Okay. Let's say, that is all the evidence I have. What is wrong with the methodolgy or research behind the book? Please, offer factual criticism that makes this book unreliable.

Or better yet, explain to me why there is not a single newspaper article or picture; not a single FBI report; no supportive data at all from the time period to back up this urban myth?

At least I have given you something. You have provided not one shread of evidence that returning Vietnam Vets were ever spat upon.

Please tell me you have something.


I do. You have one single source. ANY single source is biased. You need to look at multiple sources, with different viewpoints, in order to synthesize and provide a credible opinion.

Instead of providing other sources, you have resulted to insults and changing your story. "A Senate study" becoming an equally vague "Harris Poll".

I don't have to provide anything. You have not yet proven with any sort of credibility that this is anything other than one professor's opinion. This may come as a shock to you, but professors disagree. Try studying who wrote Shakespeare's plays, for instance. Depending upon whom you ask, you will hear: Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford) etc. etc. etc.

A single source proves nothing, and you have provided nothing but a single author's opinion.

Stop it already. Just because you disagree with their stances once they returned from Vietnam doesn't make their experiences any less real or truthful than yours were. You're being a hypocrite and a goddamn martyr here--grow the hell up.

Forrest can't help it, he really *does* want to be a martyr. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11234506&postcount=318)

:D

The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam

by Jerry Lembcke <-- The book referred to was written by the same author.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image/ <-- written by SAME author.

Basically, you list one source... and have not provided ANY corrobation from other sources. Is it not possible it is one person's opinion vs. stories many people have told?

This would be laughed out of a scholarly paper if you attempted to use ONE AUTHOR to prove a point.

-sigh-

I provided the Boston Globe article because I assumed you didn't have access to the book I cited, not because I thought they were separate sources. How many people do you think have devoted extensive research to this topic, after all? As far as I have been able to find out Prof. Lembcke is the only person to actually do the extensive research to write a book on this topic.

However, if you have other sources, I am happy to look them over.

It's not a betrayal in the least. If my tax dollars are paying them, this is not betrayal. If these people can't make sacrifices and hardships then they shouldn't have a job in the military...much less handle protests from a war that is highly unpopular.
honest question.... Do you have a job or are you still in school.

honestly, i dont think that the MYTH part is that it ever happened.

the myth is that it happened on a regular basis to thousands of returning soldiers.

So, even though it is reported in a book written about this myth that the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings and is reported in several web sites I've given you I have to go and find the 1971 Harris poll and present that to you?

And your proof? What burden do you have to show that Veitnam vets were spat upon? Do you have a news article from the times? A picture? An FBI report? Anything at all?

"I never had experiences like, for example, being spit on or called a baby killer or anything like that. On the other hand, I was just kind of ignored," he said. "I really thought, I guess, when I first came home people would want to know about my experience… They didn't."

http://media.pbs.org/ramgen/newshour/2000/vietnam/barnes.rm?start=04:40.3&end=05:32.2

From Joseph Barnes an antiwar veteran saying he personally wasnt spit upon but certainly implying others had.


You can find more evidence of protesters at public airports fucking with vets trying to just get home here.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/vietnam/protests.html

I do. You have one single source. ANY single source is biased. You need to look at multiple sources, with different viewpoints, in order to synthesize and provide a credible opinion.

Instead of providing other sources, you have resulted to insults and changing your story. "A Senate study" becoming an equally vague "Harris Poll".

I don't have to provide anything. You have not yet proven with any sort of credibility that this is anything other than one professor's opinion. This may come as a shock to you, but professors disagree. Try studying who wrote Shakespeare's plays, for instance. Depending upon whom you ask, you will hear: Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford) etc. etc. etc.

A single source proves nothing, and you have provided nothing but a single author's opinion.

You are intellectually dishonest.

You don't argue the premise (that Vietnam Vets were spat upon). You don't even dispute or challenge the source I provided. You simply argue that because it is one source it is meaningless. You offer no grounds for making that statement. You don't challenge the methodology or integrity of the research. You just say it is biased and unreliable without any support for that statement.

Furthermore, you offer ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support your contention that vets were spat upon.

There can be no discourse that is not based upon basic intellectual honesty, and you sir, are not honest.

All you need in a Lincoln-Douglas debate is a single source to make a claim. Make an argument because of the article he provided, not an argument for lack of sources.

"Competitors in NFA Lincoln-Douglas will be evaluated on their analysis, use of evidence, and ability to effectively and persuasively organize, deliver, and refute arguments. "

What analysis? He's reported on one source. Parroted, one might say.
The refutations of his argument, which is several posters saying that this occurred to them or they were told by a close family member or friend was dismissed.

He's not organized his debate -- look at how what little he's provided had to be dragged out, and is still nebulous.

His delivery has not convinced a number of posters here.

His refutation was that he offered to wipe my ass for me.

"EVIDENCE IN DEBATE

Students should only use evidence that is accurate and thoroughly referenced in their speeches. (ALL EVIDENCE MUST BE FROM A PUBLISHED SOURCE, AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, AND VERIFIABLE AT THE TOURNAMENT.)

In both prepared speeches and speeches composed with limited preparation time, debaters should use evidence that is accurately and directly quoted. The evidence should be quoted with proper respect to the context of the original source. The first time a source is presented, the debater must state the full source when introducing the evidence. A "full source" is assumed to include author's name, author's qualifications (when apparent in the original), full date, and title of source. Page numbers need not be read during the debate, but should be available upon request. Once a source has been cited, evidence subsequently cited from the source need only include the author's and/or publication's name as well as a phrase along the lines of "previously cited." Both speakers in a debate are required to make available to their opponent copies of any evidence used in the round, including the affirmative constructive speech. The evidence must be returned to the speaker at the end of the debate.

If a debater, during the course of the debate, charges his/her opponent with violating an ethical standard, the debate shall immediately cease. The judge will bring the students to a member of the tournament committee and the debater making the charge will fill out a formal complaint according to the provisions under (1) in the section "Violation of the Code of Ethics." The complaint will then be adjudicated as in any other complaint. If the debater making the charge during the round refuses to file a formal complaint, that debater will receive a loss for the debate. Complaints made after a round will follow the standard procedure listed in the "violation" section of the Code of Ethics.

Students may use evidence from non-written sources as long as the veracity of the evidence may be verified. Information gathered from personal and/or phone interviews, as well as information from electronic sources, may be used, provided the student does the following:

1. Indicates during the performance the name of the source, date the information was collected, and method used to collect the information; and,

2. Possesses a means to verify the accuracy of the evidence should it be formally challenged. Verification may include a transcript of the interview, broadcast, etc., a notarized letter of authenticity from the source identifying specific passages from the performance as accurate, and/or phone numbers at which the source may be reached to verify the veracity of the information. (This last option is not recommended as the sole option since the source may not be reachable at the time an ethical charge is made.)"

So tell me, since you bring up the Lincoln-Douglas debates, how would his argument rate?

honest question.... Do you have a job or are you still in school.

Both. I work as a file clerk at a law office and I'm almost through pre-law.

Point?

honestly, i dont think that the MYTH part is that it ever happened.

the myth is that it happened on a regular basis to thousands of returning soldiers.

I agree with you here. I do not think one source is sufficient to say it never happened.

-sigh-

I provided the Boston Globe article because I assumed you didn't have access to the book I cited, not because I thought they were separate sources. How many people do you think have devoted extensive research to this topic, after all? As far as I have been able to find out Prof. Lembcke is the only person to actually do the extensive research to write a book on this topic.

However, if you have other sources, I am happy to look them over.

Uh, I think you're missing the point. You're the one trying to make the point and getting all defensive when someone questions you based on the fact that all your sources come down to one author.

You're making the assertion and assuming the counter-assertion is being made when your "sources" are questioned. This isn't a debate - it's just you saying one thing and when people come and say "ok, show us something else backing that up" you turning around, getting defensive and saying "prove me wrong!"

Katganistan doesn't need to give a source because she hasn't, from what I've seen, disagreed with your premise per se - she is saying you have to do better in proving it. If you can't, oh well. Get used to some people not taking your point seriously.

I, for one, can provide numerous anecdotal stories about vets being spat upon - but won't bother because they're anecdotal and to me, that and $5 will just about get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks. My own "opinion" is that it probably happened sporadically but may not have been widespread. I do not state this as a fact, and do not care if anyone agrees with it or not to be honest (since that's what this thread is about, I give my thoughts on it).

If you state something as fact and get questioned on it, don't get all riled up just because someone wants more than one proof.

The military contracts with civilian airlines to bring troops to and from many places including conflict areas. Stick around any transport type airforce base. You will see civilian marked airliners on a regular basis.
Notice what you said?
"Stick around any transport type airforce base"
Even you admit the planes flew into military airforce bases. So how did civilian protesters get on base in order to spit on these newly back for 'nam vets?
Don't you think someone might have noticed a bunch of long-haired unwashed hippies wandering a military base, gargling and praticing hoiking?

"Competitors in NFA Lincoln-Douglas will be evaluated on their analysis, use of evidence, and ability to effectively and persuasively organize, deliver, and refute arguments. "

What analysis? He's reported on one source. Parroted, one might say.
His refuting of arguments, which is several posters saying that this occurred to them or they were told by a close family member or friend was dismissed.

He's not organized his debate -- look at how what little he's provided had to be dragged out, and is still nebulous.

His delivery has not convinced a number of posters here.

His refutation was that he offered to wipe my ass for me.

"EVIDENCE IN DEBATE

Students should only use evidence that is accurate and thoroughly referenced in their speeches. (ALL EVIDENCE MUST BE FROM A PUBLISHED SOURCE, AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, AND VERIFIABLE AT THE TOURNAMENT.)

In both prepared speeches and speeches composed with limited preparation time, debaters should use evidence that is accurately and directly quoted. The evidence should be quoted with proper respect to the context of the original source. The first time a source is presented, the debater must state the full source when introducing the evidence. A "full source" is assumed to include author's name, author's qualifications (when apparent in the original), full date, and title of source. Page numbers need not be read during the debate, but should be available upon request. Once a source has been cited, evidence subsequently cited from the source need only include the author's and/or publication's name as well as a phrase along the lines of "previously cited." Both speakers in a debate are required to make available to their opponent copies of any evidence used in the round, including the affirmative constructive speech. The evidence must be returned to the speaker at the end of the debate.

If a debater, during the course of the debate, charges his/her opponent with violating an ethical standard, the debate shall immediately cease. The judge will bring the students to a member of the tournament committee and the debater making the charge will fill out a formal complaint according to the provisions under (1) in the section "Violation of the Code of Ethics." The complaint will then be adjudicated as in any other complaint. If the debater making the charge during the round refuses to file a formal complaint, that debater will receive a loss for the debate. Complaints made after a round will follow the standard procedure listed in the "violation" section of the Code of Ethics.

Students may use evidence from non-written sources as long as the veracity of the evidence may be verified. Information gathered from personal and/or phone interviews, as well as information from electronic sources, may be used, provided the student does the following:

1. Indicates during the performance the name of the source, date the information was collected, and method used to collect the information; and,

2. Possesses a means to verify the accuracy of the evidence should it be formally challenged. Verification may include a transcript of the interview, broadcast, etc., a notarized letter of authenticity from the source identifying specific passages from the performance as accurate, and/or phone numbers at which the source may be reached to verify the veracity of the information. (This last option is not recommended as the sole option since the source may not be reachable at the time an ethical charge is made.)"

So tell me, since you bring up the Lincoln-Douglas debates, how would his argument rate?


Hard to say, I haven't been following it. All I saw was you nagging about a one source.

LD debate is mostly about bullshit and getting it across. I can pull any statistic from my ass and pass it off. The debate you must be thinking of is Cross-exam debate, where you actually have to provide facts and statisics and prove them to be valid.

I came in 1st district and 4th regional for LD my first year in any public speaking event. So his chances for a win there aren't much worse.

I tend to believe Eut if he says he was spat on, and i tend to believe other veterans who say they were. Call me naive if you want, but i don't think they would have reason to lie. By the same token, i also believe those veterans who came back and said horrible things happened, that some soldiers committed heinous acts. I don't think any one is less of a veteran or less of a person because they came back jaded and regretful about what occured. As far as i'm concerned, they have even more of a right to change their mind about the war because they were the ones who were actually there and saw what happened.

Do i think spitting and stuff was common? no, do i believe it happened? yes.

honestly, i dont think that the MYTH part is that it ever happened.

the myth is that it happened on a regular basis to thousands of returning soldiers.

Exactly.

I would be the first to admit that Vietnam Vets got a raw deal. It's just that I don't buy the "Spitting Mythology".

It seems to be pretty far-fetched. Just look how emotional some people are getting 40 years after the fact.

Spitting on someone is pretty extreme. It is a direct insult and challenge. It shows contempt and utter disregard.

I really can't see how this behavior, if as widespread as the legend would have us believe, would not have resulted in very violent encounters.

Now... even if you can somehow buy that all of these returning vets were so highly disciplined to just turn the other cheek, what about civilians?

These people were being greeted by loved ones and friends who missed them terribly. Why do we not have any stories about the father who, upon greeting his soldier son, witnessed him being spat on by some filthy hippy and then proceeded to rip the guys face off?

The complete lack of any stories about soldiers or their family or their friends retaliating against the spitter seems to make the whole thing very very unlikely.

People are murdered for cutting someone off in traffic. People are beaten for cheering for the wrong team at the stadium. People under stress can fly into a rage over the most trivial things imaginable - but the legend tells us that thousands and thousands of these Vets were spat upon and humiliated - yet we have not one example of retaliation - It doesn't ring true. Not on any common-sense level.

"I never had experiences like, for example, being spit on or called a baby killer or anything like that. On the other hand, I was just kind of ignored," he said. "I really thought, I guess, when I first came home people would want to know about my experience… They didn't."

http://media.pbs.org/ramgen/newshour/2000/vietnam/barnes.rm?start=04:40.3&end=05:32.2

From Joseph Barnes an antiwar veteran saying he personally wasnt spit upon but certainly implying others had.


You can find more evidence of protesters at public airports fucking with vets trying to just get home here.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/vietnam/protests.html

I never argued that Vietnam Vets were greeted with flowers and parades. I am simply stating that the urban myth of the war protester spitting on returning soldiers did not make its way into circulation until the 1980s. Your source from 2000 does nothing to disprove that.

You are intellectually dishonest.

You don't argue the premise (that Vietnam Vets were spat upon). You don't even dispute or challenge the source I provided. You simply argue that because it is one source it is meaningless. You offer no grounds for making that statement. You don't challenge the methodology or integrity of the research. You just say it is biased and unreliable without any support for that statement.

Furthermore, you offer ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support your contention that vets were spat upon.

There can be no discourse that is not based upon basic intellectual honesty, and you sir, are not honest.


Your argument is ridiculous. I am indeed honest. I have told you a single source, repeated multiply, is not convincing. Other posters have stated that as well. You instead resort to flaming and ad hominem attacks rather than providing anything of substance.

It is you, sir, who are intellectually dishonest.

I never argued that Vietnam Vets were greeted with flowers and parades. I am simply stating that the urban myth of the war protester spitting on returning soldiers did not make its way into circulation until the 1980s. Your source from 2000 does nothing to disprove that.

It, added to eutrusca, is one more source than you have provided.

Both. I work as a file clerk at a law office and I'm almost through pre-law.

Point?just want to put this in a perspective that you would understand.
you are given a project at work. the completion of this project is such that if you do a great job on it, you will have a position in the firm and a hefty starting salary. so you work hard on this project. putting your all into it. neglecting your GF/BF while you are working on this project. making all sorts of personal sacrifices. no going out with your friends... not seeing family for a while, or not as much... etc.

you put your heart and soul into this project... making it the best effort you could.

When it's due, you turn your project in and watch as your hard work is literally thrown away. not even looked at, not even referrenced.. just straight from your hands, into your supervisor's hands, into the trash.

think about how you would feel about all it. would you be angry enough to quit? would you quit that firm? wouldn't you feel betrayed? but hay, you were paid to do that work, so it's all right if they take what you did and discard it.

Think about trying to fight a case where suddenly, you are alone, Witnesses refuse to testify for you, evidence turns up missing with no clue as to who took them... and when you lose the case, it's your fault. you can file an appeal... but how much comfort is that when suddenly, no one else cares.

those soldiers came back from Hell. they suffered. they all lost a part of themselves there. and instead of coming back to a society that will help remove those horrors they've seen... they were rejected by those that they were relying on for healing. I don't just mean physical Healing, but Mental and Emotional.

the Spitting may not have been with saliva, but the action of belittling what they had to do still stings and hurts more than any enemy bullet would.

Notice what you said?
"Stick around any transport type airforce base"
Even you admit the planes flew into military airforce bases. So how did civilian protesters get on base in order to spit on these newly back for 'nam vets?
Don't you think someone might have noticed a bunch of long-haired unwashed hippies wandering a military base, gargling and praticing hoiking?
Soldiers are not confined to military bases. when they fly home to their hometown, they will take civilan transportation. add to that, the fact that family, who will be happy to see them will tell their friends and so it won't be hard for protesters to know who's coming home on what flight.

and most military personnell are proud to wear the uniform and would wear it home. even on a civilian plane.

Did you say it was a Harris poll? No. Did you give ANY information about what it was even after asked repeatedly?
Maybe he didn't, but if you had bothered to read the articles he linked, you would have seen it quite clearly state that it was a Harris poll taken in 1971.
All this shows is that you didn't read the links he supplied, which pretty shows you've already made your mind up as to their articles' accuracy.

As to your repeated claim that it was just one source: Again, if you had read the articles, you would notice that the author cited other studies, a couple of which back up his assertion that no vets were spat on.

Uh, I think you're missing the point. You're the one trying to make the point and getting all defensive when someone questions you based on the fact that all your sources come down to one author.

You're making the assertion and assuming the counter-assertion is being made when your "sources" are questioned. This isn't a debate - it's just you saying one thing and when people come and say "ok, show us something else backing that up" you turning around, getting defensive and saying "prove me wrong!"

Katganistan doesn't need to give a source because she hasn't, from what I've seen, disagreed with your premise per se - she is saying you have to do better in proving it. If you can't, oh well. Get used to some people not taking your point seriously.


You are wrong on several points.

It has been asserted by others that Vietnam Vets were spat upon (I didn't start this thread). I am arguing that this is an urban myth based upon Hollywood movies, faulty memories, and a political desire to discredit liberals in general and anti-war protesters specifically.

Both sides have an obligation to support their contention (especially since I am not the one offering the affirmative argument).

Secondly, this is a rather obscure topic. The one source I offered is, as far as I know, the ONLY source written about this topic. And it isn't just some wild-eyed vanity press book I am citing. This is a book written by a tenured professor at a well respected university that had to undergo peer review and which has been reviewed in hundreds of newspapers and magazines, none of which (that I have been able to find) have criticized the methodology or veracity of his findings.

If this is truly a discussion about a premise (where Vietnam Vets spat upon?) then it seems only fair and intellectually honest that those arguing a position offer support for their position.

It, added to eutrusca, is one more source than you have provided.

No, it is not. For two reasons. The person in your source specifically states he was NOT spat upon. Secondly, it is not from the time period. Today there are hundreds of apocryphal stories about vets spat upon. Yet, prior to 1980 there were none.

This is an urban myth.

As to Eutrusca's statement, all I can say is that several years ago we had this same coversation and he started out saying he was spat upon, but as the debate progressed he admitted that he was jeered at and disrespected, but not actually spat upon. My recollection of that event is no more valid, I suppose, than his.

You are wrong on several points.

It has been asserted by others that Vietnam Vets were spat upon (I didn't start this thread). I am arguing that this is an urban myth based upon Hollywood movies, faulty memories, and a political desire to discredit liberals in general and anti-war protesters specifically.

Both sides have an obligation to support their contention (especially since I am not the one offering the affirmative argument).

Secondly, this is a rather obscure topic. The one source I offered is, as far as I know, the ONLY source written about this topic. And it isn't just some wild-eyed vanity press book I am citing. This is a book written by a tenured professor at a well respected university that had to undergo peer review and which has been reviewed in hundreds of newspapers and magazines, none of which (that I have been able to find) have criticized the methodology or veracity of his findings.

If this is truly a discussion about a premise (where Vietnam Vets spat upon?) then it seems only fair and intellectually honest that those arguing a position offer support for their position.
for it to be an Urban Myth, you have to prove that it didn't happen. the fact that it has happened to at least one person (tho there are testimonies here that indicate more than one) disproves your Urban Myth stand. I'm sorry, but I would take first hand accounts over one writer.

for it to be an Urban Myth, you have to prove that it didn't happen. the fact that it has happened to at least one person (tho there are testimonies here that indicate more than one) disproves your Urban Myth stand. I'm sorry, but I would take first hand accounts over one writer.

The myth part is that it happened to thousands of people. I would not be surprised to find out that it happened to a few. People can be assholes. That is a given.

for it to be an Urban Myth, you have to prove that it didn't happen. the fact that it has happened to at least one person (tho there are testimonies here that indicate more than one) disproves your Urban Myth stand. I'm sorry, but I would take first hand accounts over one writer.
I might too, were it not for the anonymity of this particluar communications medium. That renders any first-hand account somewhat suspect, and therefore can't reasonably be relied upon as a factual, or even objective account.

Acceptance of these accounts is too reliant on supposition for my tastes.

Soldiers are not confined to military bases. when they fly home to their hometown, they will take civilan transportation. add to that, the fact that family, who will be happy to see them will tell their friends and so it won't be hard for protesters to know who's coming home on what flight.

and most military personnell are proud to wear the uniform and would wear it home. even on a civilian plane.
Wearing it home after flying into a military airbase, being debriefed, rested, and given a pass to go home and then being attacked later (verbally or salivally) is still quite different to the usual 'being spat at, fresh-off-the-plane flying into a civillan airport only a few hours after having been in the jungles of 'nam fighting for your life' stories that are the usual stock.
(Even Eut's recollection has him just flying into a civillan airport straight from Vietnam)
All of which implies embellishments, which in turn implies that maybe it didn't happen nearly as often nor as bad as one has been led to believe through the popular media.

for it to be an Urban Myth, you have to prove that it didn't happen. the fact that it has happened to at least one person (tho there are testimonies here that indicate more than one) disproves your Urban Myth stand. I'm sorry, but I would take first hand accounts over one writer.

Ugghh!

Urban myths have no shortage of first hand accounts, or haven't you noticed?

This is not one person's opinion. This is a detailed, exhausted research of newspaper and magazine archives and FBI reports from the time period, combined with polls of returning vets at the time. Nowhere is there any evidence FROM THE TIME PERIOD that this happened.

It is also the ONLY book on the topic.

Now, you are welcome to believe whatever you want, but why would you believe something for which there is no evidence, yet automatically dismiss research which you have never read?

I might too, were it not for the anonymity of this particluar communications medium. That renders any first-hand account somewhat suspect, and therefore can't reasonably be relied upon as a factual, or even objective account.

Acceptance of these accounts is too reliant on supposition for my tastes.
execpt the people I spoke with were not on the internet.

Wearing it home after flying into a military airbase, being debriefed, rested, and given a pass to go home and then being attacked later (verbally or salivally) is still quite different to the usual 'being spat at, fresh-off-the-plane flying into a civillan airport only a few hours after having been in the jungles of 'nam fighting for your life' stories that are the usual stock.
(Even Eut's recollection has him just flying into a civillan airport straight from Vietnam)
All of which implies embellishments, which in turn implies that maybe it didn't happen nearly as often nor as bad as one has been led to believe through the popular media.which doesn't deny the fact that it has happened.

Ugghh!

Of course. Urban myths have no shortage of first hand accounts.

This is not one person's opinion. This is a detailed, exhausted research of newspaper and magazine archives and FBI reports from the time period, combined with polls of returning vets at the time. Nowhere is there any evidence FROM THE TIME PERIOD that this happened.

It is also the ONLY book on the topic.

Now, you are welcome to believe whatever you want, but why would you believe something for which there is no evidence, yet automatically dismiss research which you have never read?

The research was specifically looking to find no evidence and managed to find none. What a surprise. Even Aristotle knew that you could not prove a negative like "no vet was ever spat upon". I doubt that the vet who wrote the book followed even ten Vets home to find out if they were spat upon much less all of them.

Ugghh!

Urban myths have no shortage of first hand accounts, or haven't you noticed?

This is not one person's opinion. This is a detailed, exhausted research of newspaper and magazine archives and FBI reports from the time period, combined with polls of returning vets at the time. Nowhere is there any evidence FROM THE TIME PERIOD that this happened.

It is also the ONLY book on the topic.

Now, you are welcome to believe whatever you want, but why would you believe something for which there is no evidence, yet automatically dismiss research which you have never read?actually all urban myths are not first hand accounts but are "I've heard this from a friend of a friend of mine" or "I've read/heard this somewhere" stories.

also, at that time, Vietnam was an unpopular war, so people spitting/dissing soldiers is as newsworthy as man finds penny on ground. so that's why there's little account of that going on.

and you are still putting your faith on ONE source. even if that source has all these polls (which can be misleading) but it's still one person one source.

now if you went accross america to find these vets still living and get their recollections... then publish them. then there will be TWO books on the subject.

There is documentation of Vietnam Vets being spat upon, although not the kind most people are aware of.

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." Ron Kovic, the well known disabled vet and peace activist portrayed in Born on the 4th of July, was spat upon at the 1972 GOP convention by Young Republicans who supported the war.

also, at that time, Vietnam was an unpopular war, so people spitting/dissing soldiers is as newsworthy as man finds penny on ground. so that's why there's little account of that going on.

now if you went accross america to find these vets still living and get their recollections... then publish them. then there will be TWO books on the subject.

Actually, that is exactly what Prof. Lembcke did - he went across America to find vets still living and got their recollections. But, tell me again why his book is invalid and should be disreguarded? What exactly is wrong with this book (that you have never read)?

And you have got to be kidding about the newsworthiness of a story or picture about vets being spat upon?

You don't think the Johnson or Nixon administrations would not have jumped all over that story? I'm suprised they didn't actually stage something. Remember, Hoover's FBI hated the war protesters. They sabotaged demonstrations, infiltrated groups, taped phones. Do you think if they had a picture or story of a hippy spitting on a vet they wouldn't have used it?

Either you are too young to have lived through those times or were too stoned to remember them.

Maybe he didn't, but if you had bothered to read the articles he linked, you would have seen it quite clearly state that it was a Harris poll taken in 1971.
All this shows is that you didn't read the links he supplied, which pretty shows you've already made your mind up as to their articles' accuracy.

As to your repeated claim that it was just one source: Again, if you had read the articles, you would notice that the author cited other studies, a couple of which back up his assertion that no vets were spat on.

I did read the articles, which is why I was able to tell all three of the original ones were written by the same source, and the fourth referred to this same source.

I asked for information and he couldn't even tell me what he was quoting.

If you believe that a single source of information is sufficient to prove anything, good for you. Accept the first estimate for repair work. Never get a second opinion when your doctor tells you you need surgery. After all, silly things like other sources will only confuse the matter.

How dare he dislike someone without your permission.

It's not about "dislike," it's about smearing.

"Those of us who really were veterans held the VVAW in the utmost contempt. "

So the Vietnam Veterans Against the War weren't really veterans?

Just like Kerry just pretended to go to Vietnam and save his crew from a rocket-bearing VC? And Kerry just pretended to save a fellow sailor at great risk to himself?

And, while we're at it, George W. Bush DIDN'T pretend to join the National Guard?

Wouldn't the ire of Vietnam vets be better suited if directed toward a Fortunate Son who avoided going, but then dresses up in a flight suit even though he shirked what duties he signed up for? No, let's gang up on one of our own because we disagree with his stance of not wanting more of us to die in an unnecessary war in Southeast Asia. Makes a lot of sense.

And another generation dies unnecessarily because the frat boy they voted for gets us into another war of choice based on lies. Gulf of Tonkin = Weapons of Mass Destruction. 9/11 = Reichstag Fire. Iraq = Vietnam.

That being said, I'm glad the original veteran commenter on this thread survived the war, and I thank him for his service to our nation, whether or not a few idiots spit on him when he returned.

The research was specifically looking to find no evidence and managed to find none. What a surprise. Even Aristotle knew that you could not prove a negative like "no vet was ever spat upon". I doubt that the vet who wrote the book followed even ten Vets home to find out if they were spat upon much less all of them.

So, since you can't prove a negative (that is true) we must then believe this urban myth? The Vietnam vet who wrote this book researched newspaper and magazine archives as well as interviewed actual vets.

However, since you can't prove a negative then you must believe JFK was killed by aliens impersonating humans (you can't prove they weren't).

If you believe that a single source of information is sufficient to prove anything, good for you. Accept the first estimate for repair work. Never get a second opinion when your doctor tells you you need surgery. After all, silly things like other sources will only confuse the matter.

Sure. And if you are willing to believe NO source (you have still offered no support for your contention that vets were spat upon - none) then go ahead and cut the heads off chickens to get a new job promotion and throw salt over your shoulder for good luck.

Sure. And if you are willing to believe NO source (you have still offered no support for your contention that vets were spat upon - none) then go ahead and cut the heads off chickens to get a new job promotion and throw salt over your shoulder for good luck.

I never said whether I believed vets were spat on or not.
I said one source is insufficient to prove that they were not.

Apparently, you have trouble comprehending this. Not surprising given your argument (or lack thereof). Either that, or you are pretending to be unable to comprehend this. Either way, your argument looks silly.

I never said whether I believed vets were spat on or not.
I said one source is insufficient to prove that they were not.

Apparently, you have trouble comprehending this. Not surprising given your argument (or lack thereof). Either that, or you are pretending to be unable to comprehend this. Either way, you look silly.

Really? Well, since there is only ONE FUCKING SOURCE for this topic would you prefer I make up more? That is the whole point! There is no evidence for this story.

That is why it is an URBAN MYTH!

No evidence.

Are you so thick headed that you do not get that!

:headbang:

Actually, that is exactly what Prof. Lembcke did - he went across America to find vets still living and got their recollections. But, tell me again why his book is invalid and should be disreguarded? What exactly is wrong with this book (that you have never read)?

And you have got to be kidding about the newsworthiness of a story or picture about vets being spat upon?

You don't think the Johnson or Nixon administrations would not have jumped all over that story? I'm suprised they didn't actually stage something. Remember, Hoover's FBI hated the war protesters. They sabotaged demonstrations, infiltrated groups, taped phones. Do you think if they had a picture or story of a hippy spitting on a vet they wouldn't have used it?

Either you are too young to have lived through those times or were too stoned to remember them.never said there is anything wrong with this book, it's just that i take the tales (from Hawaii as well as some I met on the Mainland) that said they were dissed when they came home over a book that you say claims People spitting on soldiers is an Urban Myth. it may not have happened to thousands, but it has happened. for you to claim that it hasn't happened is wrong.

Really? Well, since there is only ONE FUCKING SOURCE for this topic would you prefer I make up more? That is the whole point! There is no evidence for this story.

That is why it is an URBAN MYTH!

No evidence.

Are you so thick headed that you do not get that!

:headbang:
clarify please. are you arguing that No soldier was spat upon, or that the number of soldiers MAY NOT have been in the thousands.

which is the Myth the act or the numbers?

I get the feeling you're arguing the act itself.

Really? Well, since there is only ONE FUCKING SOURCE for this topic would you prefer I make up more? That is the whole point! There is no evidence for this story.

That is why it is an URBAN MYTH!

No evidence.

Are you so thick headed that you do not get that!

:headbang:

Look - I don't believe the spit-mythology - but that doesn't mean it was totally disproved as you claim. It only means that it is unlikely or highly unlikely. She just didn't agree with your absolute statement of disproof.

You are wrong on several points.

Where am I wrong? Specifically please?

It has been asserted by others that Vietnam Vets were spat upon (I didn't start this thread). I am arguing that this is an urban myth based upon Hollywood movies, faulty memories, and a political desire to discredit liberals in general and anti-war protesters specifically.

You say it has been asserted by others. I haven't asserted any such thing and though I may have missed something, I don't think Katganistan has either. You've got a broad brush there.

Both sides have an obligation to support their contention (especially since I am not the one offering the affirmative argument).

Your first post you offer what appears to be your stance "This is an urban myth. The poster child for this particular fantasy usually involves an oddly passive soldier spat upon by long-haired, hippy protestors. Like all enduring urban legends it is so widely believed that few bother to question if it happened. It didn’t." It sounds like you're pretty positive here. This is irrelevant to me (and it seems to Katganistan) because the issue we have is that you've only come up with Mr. Lembcke's book and articles citing it.

Secondly, this is a rather obscure topic. The one source I offered is, as far as I know, the ONLY source written about this topic. And it isn't just some wild-eyed vanity press book I am citing. This is a book written by a tenured professor at a well respected university that had to undergo peer review and which has been reviewed in hundreds of newspapers and magazines, none of which (that I have been able to find) have criticized the methodology or veracity of his findings.

Ok, here I do step into the fray a bit and note that Mr. Lembcke is a member himself of VVAW and though his research may be exhaustive and good, cannot be totally considered unbiased. This doesn't necessarely invalidate his assertion, but to me makes it important that the source be corroborated. I'd be personally satisfied with more information about where he got HIS information from, but of course I don't intend to buy the book based on one forum discussion - at least not this one. :-)

If this is truly a discussion about a premise (where Vietnam Vets spat upon?) then it seems only fair and intellectually honest that those arguing a position offer support for their position.

Yes... so address that to the people arguing that position and not the people who want to see more from you to support yours.

Really? Well, since there is only ONE FUCKING SOURCE for this topic would you prefer I make up more? That is the whole point! There is no evidence for this story.

That is why it is an URBAN MYTH!

No evidence.

Are you so thick headed that you do not get that!

:headbang:

Well, since this has devolved to that level, there is no point in continuing this. Have fun.

Notice what you said?
"Stick around any transport type airforce base"
Even you admit the planes flew into military airforce bases. So how did civilian protesters get on base in order to spit on these newly back for 'nam vets?
Don't you think someone might have noticed a bunch of long-haired unwashed hippies wandering a military base, gargling and praticing hoiking?

Simply saying that so that person I was responding to would realise that civilian airliners are used. I know what I said. I have flown into a civilian airport as a soldier being transported back to the states.

execpt the people I spoke with were not on the internet.
Well, fine but now you're the one alluding to third parties who presumably aren't on the net themselves. And all I have is your relatively anonymous say-so, and your vouchsafing of accounts as you recall them from third parties you claim to have interacted with.

Not to be overly pedantic, but I'm sure you see where this is leading.

I'm not one for taking things on Faith. Why should I believe your story? Why should I believe Eut? In the case of the latter, his lack of objectivity regarding anything to do with having or espousing a position on Vietnam that runs contrary to his own makes his assertions on the matter of returning veterans rather suspect.

So then?

clarify please. are you arguing that No soldier was spat upon, or that the number of soldiers MAY NOT have been in the thousands.

which is the Myth the act or the numbers?

I get the feeling you're arguing the act itself.

I am not saying that it isn't possible that out of the hundreds of thousands of returning soldiers that a soldier somewhere wasn't spat upon.

Of course it is possible.

What I am saying is that today it is widely believed that anti-war protesters regularly and routinely greeted returning vets by spitting on them. That is the urban myth that conservatives have fostered in order to discredit anyone who would oppose war (esp. the current war).

While there is photographic and newspaper evidence for pro-war supporters spitting on anti-war veterans, there is NO EVIDENCE from the time period of peace activists spitting on soldiers. Could it have happened? Sure. But, please note that this "story" did not even begin to show up in the media and movies until after 1980.

Seeing as most liberals and anti-war protesters are nothing but a bunch of childish pricks who have no idea what the real world is like and have no respect for, well, anyone, I find the spit-stories extremely easy to believe.

Well, fine but now you're the one alluding to third parties who presumably aren't on the net themselves. And all I have is your relatively anonymous say-so, and your vouchsafing of accounts as you recall them from third parties you claim to have interacted with.

Not to be overly pedantic, but I'm sure you see where this is leading.

I'm not one for taking things on Faith. Why should I believe your story? Why should I believe Eut? In the case of the latter, his lack of objectivity regarding anything to do with having or espousing a position on Vietnam that runs contrary to his own makes his assertions on the matter of returning veterans rather suspect.

So then?not asking you to believe my story, nor am I asking you to believe a book which can be edited to support the authors claims. hey don't believe the news to since they have proven to fabricate things for the sake of ratings. for that matter, don't believe the Government.

oh and people do lie so don't believe anyone you actually talk to.

me, I take things with a grain of salt. I will believe the stories I was told because I trust those that told them to me. whether or not you believe what you were told by people you think you can trust is up to you.

Really? Well, since there is only ONE FUCKING SOURCE for this topic. Would you prefer I make up more? That is the whole point! There is no evidence for this story.

That is why it is an URBAN MYTH!

No evidence.

Are you so thick headed that you do not get that!

:headbang:

Right. It is an urban myth because one source says so and therefore it is an urban myth. :rolleyes:

Enjoy, kids.

I am not saying that it isn't possible that out of the hundreds of thousands of returning soldiers that a soldier somewhere wasn't spat upon.

Of course it is possible.

What I am saying is that today it is widely believed that anti-war protesters regularly and routinely greeted returning vets by spitting on them. That is the urban myth that conservatives have fostered in order to discredit anyone who would oppose war (esp. the current war).

While there is photographic and newspaper evidence for pro-war supporters spitting on anti-war veterans, there is NO EVIDENCE from the time period of peace activists spitting on soldiers. Could it have happened? Sure. But, please note that this "story" did not even begin to show up in the media and movies until after 1980.Never heard that claim... about regularly and routinely spitting upon vets. But I have seen people dis soldiers returning from Iraq. I've also seen (and done so myself) people thanking those from Iraq for what they are doing.

again. at that time (talking those years after Vietnam), people spitting on soldiers would not be newsworthy so just because you didn't hear of them doesn't mean it either didn't happen or it didn't happen that much.

but please clarify what you are calling an Urban Myth. the act or the frequency/numbers reported.

It will spare alot of misunderstanding.

Well, it would have been newsworthy, no matter how many times you repeat it wouldn't have been.

And I'm unclear about your statement. Are you saying soldiers were spat upon by peace activists?

So, since you can't prove a negative (that is true) we must then believe this urban myth? The Vietnam vet who wrote this book researched newspaper and magazine archives as well as interviewed actual vets.

Eutrusca is also a Vietnam vet as well as the other source I gave. eutrusca gave a firsthand account of being spit upon. Apparantly your source did not interview all vets. He picked and chose which to interview and came up with the results which help his theory of "It never happened"

However, since you can't prove a negative then you must believe JFK was killed by aliens impersonating humans (you can't prove they weren't).

I take it that this is the next thing you would have me believe.

Eutrusca is also a Vietnam vet as well as the other source I gave.

Well, the "other source" you gave actually proved my point in that the vet interviewed specifically said he was not spat upon. Is it your contention that Vietnam Vets were spat upon by peace activists upon returning home?

Well, it would have been newsworthy, no matter how many times you repeat it wouldn't have been.

And I'm unclear about your statement. Are you saying soldiers were spat upon by peace activists?
no it wouldn't have been news worthy. why would they print or report about citizens spitting on vietnam vets? no one would care about that. that won't sell papers.

What are you calling the Urban Myth. people spitting on soldiers, or the number of soldiers this happened to?

Well, the "other source" you gave actually proved my point in that the vet interviewed specifically said he was not spat upon. Is it your contention that Vietnam Vets were spat upon by peace activists upon returning home?

Yes.
It is also my contention that some mentioned it prior to 1980.

Try telling my grandfathers (both of them) that their reception when they came back from 'Nam was "friendly" Try telling them that they were never spat on, that people gave them respect as people who had to go see their buddies shot and blown up. Don't look at your fucking surveys, don't try to convice others it didn't happen. It's not an urban myth. And the fact that people are sitting here debating it does not show ANY respect what so ever to the men who had to endure it.

no it wouldn't have been news worthy. why would they print or report about citizens spitting on vietnam vets? no one would care about that. that won't sell papers.


Because it would have been great propaganda for the administration (Johnson or Nixon). You obviously did not live through those times (I did).

I still am not following your point. Are you saying that soldiers were spit upon by peace activists?

Yes.
It is also my contention that some mentioned it prior to 1980.

Can you provide any evidence from the time period that this happened? By that, I mean any article, book, photo, FBI report, memoir, anything at all really, from the period of the Vietnam-American war. The time period is important, because since 1980 there has been a great rash of people "remembering" a spitting incident, which they cannot document in anyway.

I doubt you have the cojones to go up to some of these vets and tell them your opinion of them to their face. Of course you will deny it but I'm calling bullshit.
Young phoole, my courage has never been an issue. If I were to confront any of the veterans who decided to turn against their former brothers, I suspect I would totally lose my composure. And it's for damned certain I would tell them in very colorful language what I thought of them.

You can call anything you like bullshit, but where I'm from, calling a man a liar to his face will usually result in immediate and severe bodily harm. You, unfortunately, are protected by the Internet.

Young phoole, my courage has never been an issue. If I were to confront any of the veterans who decided to turn against their former brothers, I suspect I would totally lose my composure. And it's for damned certain I would tell them in very colorful language what I thought of them.

You can call anything you like bullshit, but where I'm from, calling a man a liar to his face will usually result in immediate and severe bodily harm. You, unfortunately, are protected by the Internet.

And yet, when you were "spat" upon, you simply took it and did nothing. Amazing restraint.

Because it would have been great propaganda for the administration (Johnson or Nixon). You obviously did not live through those times (I did).

I still am not following your point. Are you saying that soldiers were spit upon by peace activists?no it wouldn't have.

and I did live through those times.

no, I'm asking you what are you calling an Urban Myth.

are you saying that the fact Soldiers were spit upon an Urban Myth?

are you saying that the numbers of Soldiers remembering they were spit upon an Urban Myth?

this is the question that comes up when i look through debunking sites that i dont know the answer to....

why were you landing at a civilian airport? did panam fly soldiers to and from vietnam?
If individuals were leaving or arriving, not entire units, we almost always flew via contracted commercial airliners. For entire units they usually used the Navy transports.

Apparently because some people don't believe it, it never happened. Much like the holocaust. 'Op so-and-so doesn't believe it, it couldn't have happened.'

no it wouldn't have.

and I did live through those times.

no, I'm asking you what are you calling an Urban Myth.

are you saying that the fact Soldiers were spit upon an Urban Myth?

are you saying that the numbers of Soldiers remembering they were spit upon an Urban Myth?

We just aren't connecting, are we? All I'm asking (it is very simple) is,

are

you

saying

Vietnam Vets

were

spat

upon

by

peace activists?

I am perfectly willing to keep an open mind on this - but I have to say - the spitting mythology seems so very unlikely.

Common sense just can't let me buy it. Spitting on someone is a highly provocative thing to do. I believe it is legally considered assault.

I want you all to put yourself in the Vet's place, if you can. What would your reaction be to someone spitting on you? Would you punch them? Would you kick their ass? Would you literally rip them to pieces? I know I would have very little success in restraining myself. If I was traumatized by war, fresh from a hyper-violent environment, trained to kill - and some asswipe spat on me - I'd think I would resort to violence immediately. I would go frakkin berserk.

Yet.... Has anyone ever seen a documumented example of a returning vet responding with violence to being spat on? Newspaper accounts? Police reports? Arrest records? Anecdotes? Anything?

I can only assume, that this stuff really didn't happen much at all - or there would have been numerous assaults and killings that would have resulted.

But that's just my opinion. What would you do if you were spat on under these circumstances? I'd like to know.
We thought civilans were our friends and neighbors. We never expected to be reviled and spat upon and have things thrown at us. We had been trained to respect civilians.

Can you provide any evidence from the time period that this happened? By that, I mean any article, book, photo, FBI report, memoir, anything at all really, from the period of the Vietnam-American war. The time period is important, because since 1980 there has been a great rash of people "remembering" a spitting incident, which they cannot document in anyway.

Only a personal one of being told by a maniac vet about it while I was a sophomore in high school circa 1976. But Im sure thats not good enough for you either

Apparently because some people don't believe it, it never happened. Much like the holocaust. 'Op so-and-so doesn't believe it, it couldn't have happened.'
actually, the OP is asking if it did happen, it's just that there are some here that can't make up their minds as to what is the Urban Myth. the act of spitting on vets, or the number of incidents that were reported in.

The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam

by Jerry Lembcke

Also, see an article in The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image/

(Eut knows this. We've been all through this once before)
Christ! Lembke was in the VVAW and has been an apologist for them ever since. Unless I totaly misread him ( and I seldom misread people ), he's trying to justify ( perhaps to himself ) having turned on his former brothers. I hate the son of a bitch.

I have to add this, it's really corny but *shrugs* look if anyone feels the need to persue the Vets side of this farther there is a great song on the We Were Soldiers soundtrack called 'Didn't I?' it's by Montgomery Gentry. Go look up the lyrics.

If he was in fact deadly serious about it. Sure I would. Would have to read in what context it was written. But I highly doubt that he would based off what he has written here on NS.
Of course I wouldn't do that. Jeeze! He's cherry-picking in an attempt to discredit anything I say.

Why do you think so many Vietnam veterans hated Kerry's guts???

Because you're becoming senile as old age catches up on you? :p

But honestly, you haven't actually listed a reason other than "They don't support this war" as your reason for dislike. And that just isn't good enough to discredit anyone.

actually, the OP is asking if it did happen, it's just that there are some here that can't make up their minds as to what is the Urban Myth. the act of spitting on vets, or the number of incidents that were reported in.

I answered your question long ago:
I am not saying that it isn't possible that out of the hundreds of thousands of returning soldiers that a soldier somewhere wasn't spat upon.

Of course it is possible.

What I am saying is that today it is widely believed that anti-war protesters regularly and routinely greeted returning vets by spitting on them. That is the urban myth that conservatives have fostered in order to discredit anyone who would oppose war (esp. the current war).

While there is photographic and newspaper evidence for pro-war supporters spitting on anti-war veterans, there is NO EVIDENCE from the time period of peace activists spitting on soldiers. Could it have happened? Sure. But, please note that this "story" did not even begin to show up in the media and movies until after 1980.

You, however, have yet to answer my simple question. Are you saying returning soldiers were spat upon by peace activists?

We just aren't connecting, are we? All I'm asking (it is very simple) is,

are

you

saying

Vietnam Vets

were

spat

upon

by

peace activists?you are not answering my very simple question that I put to you.

Your refusal to answer my question without knowing where I stand means that you have idea what you are arguing for. thus you are just being contrary for the sake of just arguing with Eutrusca and anyone else and not trying to put up a clear debate.

thank you for participating.

Christ! Lembke was in the VVAW and has been an apologist for them ever since. Unless I totaly misread him ( and I seldom misread people ), he's trying to justify ( perhaps to himself ) having turned on his former brothers. I hate the son of a bitch.

I told you from the start (and mentioned you would probably discredit him for it) that Lembcke is a Vietnam Vet opposed to the war. Because he opposes war he can't do research, read newspaper or magazine stories, study FBI files, or read government sponsored opinion polls from the era, right?

Your response only supports my point that it was war supporters who spat upon vets (those who opposed the war), not peace activists.

We've all heard the stories... Traumatized Vietnam Vets returning home to be spat upon by protesters.

This image of injustice is trotted out like clockwork whenever people argue against anti-war demonstrators.

Well... I've always thought this was pretty unlikely. In the zillions of pictures taken of war protests in the U.S. I have never seen a single instance of a veteran being spit on.

I have also never seen a documented account of any actual incident. In fact, it was until the 1980s that any of this vet-spitting was even mentioned - and that was in the wake of all the Rambo type Vietnam Vet movies that used this as a dramatic device.

I found a very interesting article that pretty much debunks the vet-spitting myth - you might like to read it:

http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=95
The following seems the most reasonable explanation for the existence of the "myth":

The spitting image is a myth, however, not because the alleged acts of spitting did not happen, but because of the way the image functions in the society. The spitting image, I contend, helps to tell a story that is not true, namely, that the United States lost the war in Vietnam because of betrayal on the home front. In other words, the spitting image helps construct an alibi for why the war was lost. The alibi runs that we were not beaten by a small, underdeveloped, nation of Asians but rather by liberals in congress who "tied one hand behind our backs" and by radicals in the streets whose actions demoralized our troops and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. It is an alibi that helps preserve key elements of American national and racial superiority: we were not defeated by Asian "others" but by our own kind. In effect, the alibi allows those who wish to believe that we were defeated by the only power on earth capable of beating the United States: the United States itself.

I honestly believe that if the spitting was as prevalent as some would have us believe, then there would have been a lot of press written about protesters with broken noses and swollen eyes.

Does it really matter who did the spitting? It still happened.

These men can take being shot it, but curses and insults are crossing the line?
The fact is, they were expecting a ticker-tape parade and didn't receive one.
You suffer from a lack of empathy. Home is HOME, and you don't expect to be reviled or spat upon there.

"Were Vets really spat upon?"

Yes. I was there. I saw it. I was one of the ones spat upon.

Kinda hard to "debunk" something when there are still eyewitnesses. Kinda like trying to "prove" the Holocaust never happened. :(

As some one who will be joining that brotherhood of military service soon, I hope it never happens again. It was horrible what hapened to you, and you didn't deserve it. May you be treated with the dignity you deserved then for the rest of your life.

you are not answering my very simple question that I put to you.



See post #155 for my answer to your question. I have filled pages of this thread with my position. There is no one reading this who doesn't know my position (except, apparently, you).

However, I doubt anyone knows your position. Do you believe peace activists spit on returning soldiers?

Not Bad, it's all dependant on whether or not you believe someone you've only ever met on an online forum. Someone with a large enough of an axe to grind that, in my opinion, you can't take what they're saying as being necessarily factual or objective. I don't naturally trust someone with an agenda to not argue to support their agenda, or to not exaggerate the Hell out of everything to paint themselves white and the world-at-large black.

The following seems the most reasonable explanation for the existence of the "myth":

The spitting image is a myth, however, not because the alleged acts of spitting did not happen, but because of the way the image functions in the society. The spitting image, I contend, helps to tell a story that is not true, namely, that the United States lost the war in Vietnam because of betrayal on the home front. In other words, the spitting image helps construct an alibi for why the war was lost. The alibi runs that we were not beaten by a small, underdeveloped, nation of Asians but rather by liberals in congress who "tied one hand behind our backs" and by radicals in the streets whose actions demoralized our troops and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. It is an alibi that helps preserve key elements of American national and racial superiority: we were not defeated by Asian "others" but by our own kind. In effect, the alibi allows those who wish to believe that we were defeated by the only power on earth capable of beating the United States: the United States itself.

I honestly believe that if the spitting was as prevalent as some would have us believe, then there would have been a lot of press written about protesters with broken noses and swollen eyes.

It just goes to show that the troops have a lot of Self-Control and will power. Also, new stuff has shown that the Vietcong was on it's last legs at the time of the Tet OFfensive. It was a politicaly smart, strategically dumb. We were starting to win, truly win, when Congress pulled us out.

By the way, this professor from Holy Cross, who so many of you are ready to dismiss SOLELY because you don't like what he has to say served in Vietnam with the 41st Artillery Group.
So he wasn't in combat then. BIG difference!

I have also never seen a documented account of any actual incident. In fact, it was until the 1980s that any of this vet-spitting was even mentioned - and that was in the wake of all the Rambo type Vietnam Vet movies that used this as a dramatic device.

I found a very interesting article that pretty much debunks the vet-spitting myth - you might like to read it:

http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=95

You found one article, on a bias website, and you think that pretty much debunks reality?

I fear for you.

I was happy to see this generations' war protesters were more respectful than some of those scum in the 70s.

I thought;

"They've come a long way."

Maybe I was wrong.

... explain to me why there is not a single newspaper article or picture; not a single FBI report; no supportive data at all from the time period to back up this urban myth?

At least I have given you something. You have provided not one shread of evidence that returning Vietnam Vets were ever spat upon.
There may be reports of what happened to us somewhere ... police files, etc. ... but that would take considerable digging to unearth and I can't be arsed to bother. Why, because *I* don't NEED any more evidence than my own and my bothers' experience.

So my testimony isn't "evidence?" Fine. Continue believing a damnable lie.

I answered your question long ago:

I am not saying that it isn't possible that out of the hundreds of thousands of returning soldiers that a soldier somewhere wasn't spat upon.

Of course it is possible.

What I am saying is that today it is widely believed that anti-war protesters regularly and routinely greeted returning vets by spitting on them. That is the urban myth that conservatives have fostered in order to discredit anyone who would oppose war (esp. the current war).

While there is photographic and newspaper evidence for pro-war supporters spitting on anti-war veterans, there is NO EVIDENCE from the time period of peace activists spitting on soldiers. Could it have happened? Sure. But, please note that this "story" did not even begin to show up in the media and movies until after 1980.

You, however, have yet to answer my simple question. Are you saying returning soldiers were spat upon by peace activists?That's your answer? your Cries of URBAN MYTH is because it's believed that the spitting was done by Pro War Supporters and not Peace Activists?!?!

Not that the fact that many soldiers say they were spat upon, not that the act of spitting was done.... but WHO did the spitting? :headbang:

That's what you are arguing? OMFG!!!! :headbang: :headbang:

well then, In that vein, I also answered your question.

I called them Civilians and citizens.

The fact that they were Dissed is bad enough. I'm not going to be petty as to say who or which group did the spitting. but only that it was done.

Furthermore, you offer ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support your contention that vets were spat upon.
Hey dumbass! What part of "eyewitness testimony" DON'T you understand???

There may be reports of what happened to us somewhere ... police files, etc. ... but that would take considerable digging to unearth and I can't be arsed to bother. Why, because *I* don't NEED any more evidence than my own and my bothers' experience.

So my testimony isn't "evidence?" Fine. Continue believing a damnable lie.
Well, your testimony isn't evidence. And if you want to be persuasive, simply stamping your feet and saying 'it was so' doesn't cut the mustard.

And frankly, Eut - I don't know what to believe, because you lack objectivity and refuse to acknowledge the views of others as pertains to Vietnam or the Vietnam era - you steamroll over everybody and everything, deriding anyone who wasn't... well, anyone who wasn't you, in Vietnam.

Want me to believe you?

Then try putting together a persuasive argument and back up your assertions. Like anybody else around here.

See post #155 for my answer to your question. I have filled pages of this thread with my position. There is no one reading this who doesn't know my position (except, apparently, you).

However, I doubt anyone knows your position. Do you believe peace activists spit on returning soldiers?
I believe they were spat upon by citizens and civilians. as to the spitters affiliations, I cannot comment on that.

Hey dumbass! What part of "eyewitness testimony" DON'T you understand???
And what part of 'internet forum' do you not understand, Eut? Back up your claims or back off on calling people derogatory names.

There may be reports of what happened to us somewhere ... police files, etc. ... but that would take considerable digging to unearth and I can't be arsed to bother. Why, because *I* don't NEED any more evidence than my own and my bothers' experience.

So my testimony isn't "evidence?" Fine. Continue believing a damnable lie.

There is someone who did that research. Who went through those police files, newspaper records, etc. Yet, you don't want to believe it, so you don't. That simple.

Is it possible that a veteran somewhere was spit upon during the Vietnam-American war? Sure. But, if it happened it was so rare that it was never reported or documented anywhere. Which means that the widely believed image of the peace-nik hippy spitting upon returning vets is a "damnable lie" (I prefer urban myth).

Like many urban myths I think people sincerely believe this story. But, there simply is no evidence for it.

Which leaves us with the question, why has this myth been perpetuated? As I mentioned earlier, this story has been popularized by Hollywood movies, but it has a political motive. By creating the general belief that peace activists spit on soldiers during the Vietnam-American War it creates the general perception that all peace activists are fundamentally disloyal. Therefore, people don't need to listen to what they say because they hate America.

It is a way to silence dissent.

It is a way to silence dissent.
I agree.

The complete lack of any stories about soldiers or their family or their friends retaliating against the spitter seems to make the whole thing very very unlikely.
We don't know ( us, here on General ) whether this sort of thing happened or not. I never witnessed it, although I've heard stories about some veterans retaliating for the abuse. So the issue is still unresolved in that regard. But for some on here to allege that spitting never happened in the face of direct, eyewitness testimony is nothing short of sheer idiocy.

I believe they were spat upon by citizens and civilians. as to the spitters affiliations, I cannot comment on that.

There. That was easy enough.

Now comes the had part.

Can you back up your belief? It is ok if this is just some hazy kind of belief (like believing in angels or ghosts). However, if you have some evidence for this belief, I would like to hear it. I'm also curious to know if this evidence supports a general pattern that would allow people to make a broad judgement about "citizens and civilians."

... the author cited other studies, a couple of which back up his assertion that no vets were spat on.
Which just happens to be total, unadulterated, historical revisionist bullshit!

...But for some on here to allege that spitting never happened in the face of direct, eyewitness testimony is nothing short of sheer idiocy.

It's either sheer idiocy or a tendency to not trust certain individuals making that claim.

Well, your testimony isn't evidence. And if you want to be persuasive, simply stamping your feet and saying 'it was so' doesn't cut the mustard.

And frankly, Eut - I don't know what to believe, because you lack objectivity and refuse to acknowledge the views of other as pertains to Vietnam or the Vietnam era - you steamroll over everybody and everything, deriding anyone who wasn't... well, anyone who wasn't you, in Vietnam.

Want me to believe you?

Then try putting together a persuasive argument and back up your assertions. Like anybody else around here.
let me ask you this Dobbsworld. What has Eut said and done, here on this forum, to indicate that he would do a boldfaced lie of this nature when it comes to the treatment of vets as well as Military personnel.

we are not talking politics. we are not talking religion but the treatement of Military personel. As far as I know, Eut has been fairly consistant on that topic. and I won't call that nor his service record into question, but if you have some proof that he lying, please post it. untill then, I will take his word about his experiences as being true. now while I won't say that what he experienced happened for every Vet, I also won't say that what he experienced is any less true than what you experienced in your life.

People can get passionate when being called a liar... especially here on the internet where others can hide their true Identities. Take everything with a grain of Salt, yes, but that doesn't mean you pour the whole salt shaker down your throat.

and Eut... Please don't take things personally. posting in anger only weakens what you're trying to say. When you get angry, step away from the thread and calm down... err... sir. :D

Soldiers are not confined to military bases. when they fly home to their hometown, they will take civilan transportation. add to that, the fact that family, who will be happy to see them will tell their friends and so it won't be hard for protesters to know who's coming home on what flight.

and most military personnell are proud to wear the uniform and would wear it home. even on a civilian plane.
Apparently, perhaps because of what we experienced coming back from Vietnam, even the civilian carriers now fly returning soldiers into air bases rather than civilian airports. When we returned, as I've stated before, if we were returning as individuals we landed at civilian airports. But then, since I'm obviously lying about all of this, anything I have to say is automatically suspect. :rolleyes:

We don't know ( us, here on General ) whether this sort of thing happened or not. I never witnessed it, although I've heard stories about some veterans retaliating for the abuse. So the issue is still unresolved in that regard. But for some on here to allege that spitting never happened in the face of direct, eyewitness testimony is nothing short of sheer idiocy.
I don't know you. I don't know whether you fought in Vietnam, or that matter, on whose side you fought even if I accept that you were there. So, you'll have to do more than simply state 'I was there' or 'I saw it' - and you're really not in any position to get upset, or to take umbrage with those who refute your unsubstantiated claims on that basis.

There. That was easy enough.

Now comes the had part.

Can you back up your belief? It is ok if this is just some hazy kind of belief (like believing in angels or ghosts). However, if you have some evidence for this belief, I would like to hear it. I'm also curious to know if this evidence supports a general pattern that would allow people to make a broad judgement about "citizens and civilians."not a general pattern, but it has happened.

my proof is personal accounts, not accounts from "friends of friends", or from "Something I Read"

now, to clarify your position.

and to make it simple, you can answer yes or no.

Do you believe Vietnam Vets were spat upon for their role in the Vietnam War?

As far as I know, Eut has been fairly consistant on that topic. and I won't call that nor his service record into question, but if you have some proof that he lying, please post it. untill then, I will take his word about his experiences as being true. now while I won't say that what he experienced happened for every Vet, I also won't say that what he experienced is any less true than what you experienced in your life.


I don't want this to be personal. However, I have had this conversation with Eut before, several years ago. Same thread topic. Eut started out saying he was spit upon by a girl in SF, but eventually changed the story to having been yelled at and disrespected.

As I said, it is possible someone, somewhere was spat upon. But, I don't believe it in this case.

let me ask you this Dobbsworld. What has Eut said and done, here on this forum, to indicate that he would do a boldfaced lie of this nature when it comes to the treatment of vets as well as Military personnel.

we are not talking politics. we are not talking religion but the treatement of Military personel. As far as I know, Eut has been fairly consistant on that topic. and I won't call that nor his service record into question, but if you have some proof that he lying, please post it. untill then, I will take his word about his experiences as being true. now while I won't say that what he experienced happened for every Vet, I also won't say that what he experienced is any less true than what you experienced in your life.

People can get passionate when being called a liar... especially here on the internet where others can hide their true Identities. Take everything with a grain of Salt, yes, but that doesn't mean you pour the whole salt shaker down your throat.

and Eut... Please don't take things personally. posting in anger only weakens what you're trying to say. When you get angry, step away from the thread and calm down... err... sir. :D

I'm not calling him a liar; I'm asking him to substantiate his claims - like any other poster on NS, if he wants to be taken seriously, if he wants his 'eyewitness account' to have credibility, he'll have to do more than throw a tantrum over my unwillingness to take, at face, value what's being thrust under my nose.

Do you believe Vietnam Vets were spat upon for their role in the Vietnam War?

Only those who later joined the peace movement (Veterans Against the War) and were spat upon by pro-war supporters (that is the only evidence from the time period I have found).

I don't want this to be personal. However, I have had this conversation with Eut before, several years ago. Same thread topic. Eut started out saying he was spit upon by a girl in SF, but eventually changed the story to having been yelled at and disrespected.

As I said, it is possible someone, somewhere was spat upon. But, I don't believe it in this case.
So you don't believe that Eut could've been spit upon and also yelled at... both being disrespected?

and I assume you have this argument saved somewhere?

I want him to be accountable, and to be held to the same level of accountability that any other poster is held to on these forums. It's only fair, after all.

The myth part is that it happened to thousands of people. I would not be surprised to find out that it happened to a few. People can be assholes. That is a given.
Here's an interesting quote from another veteran: http://www.voy.com/283/4/3092.html

This is insane. It's like saying "NO Vets ever picked their noses on the plane ride home from Vietnam."

I saw Bob picking his nose the whole way home......
Can you prove that?
Well no.
I read a book that says it's just an Urban Myth.
Well, I saw it with my on eyes.
Liar

Wtf? No book, books, police records, news stories, etc. can speak for every individual. What if a Vet was walking his dog one night and a neighbor ran by and spit on him calling him a baby killer? No one else around mind you. What- the Vet is going to run out and file a police report? How so many intelligent people can be discussing this is simply shocking. Who the hell can say without a doubt:"NO Vets were ever spat upon."

Here's an interesting quote from another veteran: http://www.voy.com/283/4/3092.html
Quoting another anonymous threadster from another internet forum does not grant your supposition any greater credibility.

I might too, were it not for the anonymity of this particluar communications medium. That renders any first-hand account somewhat suspect, and therefore can't reasonably be relied upon as a factual, or even objective account.

Acceptance of these accounts is too reliant on supposition for my tastes.
So now I'm hiding behind some supposed "anyonmity?" Riiiight.

http://paradigmassociates.org/ParadigmFLH.html

http://www.geocities.com/fhornsr/index.html

http://360.yahoo.com/profile-mBMgnao3c6mJA4VNYj33

There are lots more, if you like. :)

I'm not calling him a liar; I'm asking him to substantiate his claims - like any other poster on NS, if he wants to be taken seriously, if he wants his 'eyewitness account' to have credibility, he'll have to do more than throw a tantrum over my unwillingness to take, at face, value what's being thrust under my nose.
How can you substantiate one moment of experience? unfortunatly, at those days, cameras were not that compact, neither were movie media.

being published? that makes it automatically true? no it doesn't. supporting viewpoints from others with him? same problem of substantiating personal experiences.

If you were to tell me that you personally saw a ghost, whether or not I believe you is my problem. but I certanly won't ask you to Substantiate it, I would ask questions to get more details, but I would hold true that what you say you saw/did is true until proof determining otherwise is presented.

Wearing it home after flying into a military airbase, being debriefed, rested, and given a pass to go home and then being attacked later (verbally or salivally) is still quite different to the usual 'being spat at, fresh-off-the-plane flying into a civillan airport only a few hours after having been in the jungles of 'nam fighting for your life' stories that are the usual stock.
(Even Eut's recollection has him just flying into a civillan airport straight from Vietnam)
All of which implies embellishments, which in turn implies that maybe it didn't happen nearly as often nor as bad as one has been led to believe through the popular media.
You really are stupid. I have already said several times that it was the practice during Vietnam to fly returning soldiers who weren't returning with entire units directly into civilian airports. What part of that do you NOT understand???

Well, you've got web pages. Good for you.

Doesn't mean a thing.

Nice tux, by the way. Looks good on you.

Only those who later joined the peace movement (Veterans Against the War) and were spat upon by pro-war supporters (that is the only evidence from the time period I have found).so you admit that Vietnam Vets were spat upon.

and you have proof that the ONLY ones spat upon were those that Joined VAW and they were ONLY spat upon by those who were PRO WAR.

Gotcha.

so now, to disprove this, all those who claimed to have been Disrespected, not just with spit, but Disrespected in General, both personally, or family members, please sound off if you were also NOT a part of VAW!

while I cannot verify those I've talked with, those many years ago. I will wait for Others to verify and report in.

Deleted by Ogiek People

I read your post, actually, I was hoping for a link, but if it was in the old forum 7... :( but what the hey... this is the internet... things rarely die here. :D

Ooooh - 'others' with a capital 'O'. Cue Eutrusca.

Ooooh - 'others' with a capital 'O'. Cue Eutrusca.
shall i do the drum roll...


or the Rim shot? :D

actually, Eut's position is known, I wanna know about the others who knew people who were dissed...

I agree.
Then there is no point in arguing about this any further with either you or Origke, or whatever his name is.

It's either sheer idiocy or a tendency to not trust certain individuals making that claim.
You know what? Whether you, or any of the other idiots on here "trust" me or not is a matter of complete indifference to me. The only reason I even got into this damned "discussion" was to protect the honor of my brothers. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit about any of you morons. Your opinions of me, my brothers, the Vietnam War, Iraq, the American military, or virtually anything else rank so far down my list of priorities as to be virtually invisible, somewhere below watching pond scum form.

How so many intelligent people can be discussing this is simply shocking. Who the hell can say without a doubt:"NO Vets were ever spat upon."

I agree. I never said that. I am only saying that it is highly unlikely it was a widespread practice. I suspect it may have happened rarely - but I don't believe it was the typical experience that myth-makers and martyrs would have us believe.

Then there is no point in arguing about this any further with either you or Origke, or whatever his name is.
Well, if you change your mind and decide to provide something other than your say-so on the matter, I'll certainly be one to listen. Until that time, I hope you can try looking at the situation from, if not my point-of-view, than at least from the point-of-view of someone who does not personally know you, and has no reason to believe your supposition based on your prior record of disavowing positions that run counter to your opinion, vis-a-vis the subject of Vietnam, specifically the subject of those veterans returning from Vietnam.

Okay? If I was from Missouri, you'd be chuckling over this. I'm asking you to "show me", Eut. Show me and I'll gladly listen, and look. But on the say-so of someone I've never actually met?

Come on.

You know what? Whether you, or any of the other idiots on here "trust" me or not is a matter of complete indifference to me. The only reason I even got into this damned "discussion" was to protect the honor of my brothers. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit about any of you morons. Your opinions of me, my brothers, the Vietnam War, Iraq, the American military, or virtually anything else rank so far down my list of priorities as to be virtually invisible, somewhere below watching pond scum form.

Your indifference to the opinions of others is attested to by your 28,794 posts.

You know what? Whether you, or any of the other idiots on here "trust" me or not is a matter of complete indifference to me. The only reason I even got into this damned "discussion" was to protect the honor of my brothers. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit about any of you morons. Your opinions of me, my brothers, the Vietnam War, Iraq, the American military, or virtually anything else rank so far down my list of priorities as to be virtually invisible, somewhere below watching pond scum form.

And this is why I find it hard to accept that when someone spat on you, you did not retaliate. It's not very believable.

So he wasn't in combat then. BIG difference!
Gosh. I suppose that means he didn't serve his country then, does it?
Or perhaps you want to imply he was a coward for only being in the Artillery.
What is it?

You know what? Whether you, or any of the other idiots on here "trust" me or not is a matter of complete indifference to me. The only reason I even got into this damned "discussion" was to protect the honor of my brothers. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit about any of you morons. Your opinions of me, my brothers, the Vietnam War, Iraq, the American military, or virtually anything else rank so far down my list of priorities as to be virtually invisible, somewhere below watching pond scum form.

Calm down brother. Get a good nights rest and come back if you want in the morning, there is no reason to get mad at these morons, they have no idea what it was like for you. You won't change their opinions, the best thing to do is to just walk away.

I don't know you. I don't know whether you fought in Vietnam, or that matter, on whose side you fought even if I accept that you were there. So, you'll have to do more than simply state 'I was there' or 'I saw it' - and you're really not in any position to get upset, or to take umbrage with those who refute your unsubstantiated claims on that basis.
This site has a listing of Vietnam veterans from all years. I don't have the money in my account right now to subscribe, but I will Wednesday, at which time I will subscribe and prove to you once and for all that I was, in fact, in Vietnam.

http://www.militaryusa.com/

no it wouldn't have been news worthy. why would they print or report about citizens spitting on vietnam vets? no one would care about that. that won't sell papers.
righhhtttt...During the entire Vietnam war there wasn't one media outlet that was pro-war. Nor was there enough ppl out there in full support of the war to make it profitable to go against the peace brigade.
Just wasn't enough ppl out there who would have enjoyed being told how obscene and unpatriotic the peace protesters were.
I'm just amazed that the war managed to go on so long, what with the complete disinterest and anti-ness feelings so prevalent throughout the States the entire time.

This site has a listing of Vietnam veterans from all years. I don't have the money in my account right now to subscribe, but I will Wednesday, at which time I will subscribe and prove to you once and for all that I was, in fact, in Vietnam.

http://www.militaryusa.com/

You are losing it, brother. Do you actually feel you need to prove your service to random, annonomous posters on a message board?

Let it go.

You really are stupid. I have already said several times that it was the practice during Vietnam to fly returning soldiers who weren't returning with entire units directly into civilian airports. What part of that do you NOT understand???
What part of the concept of TIME don't you understand?
You posted your comments after I posted mine.
And you call me stupid...:rolleyes:

I don't think its' appropriate to label those who don't share in the belief that it serves any of us well to accept unsubstantiated supposition blindly as 'morons'. In fact, I'm pleased to see just how articulate and well-considered the thoughts and words of those unwilling to play into this shell-game of martyrdom are this evening.

*edit: and no, I'm not talking to Eut on this one, this is aimed at the less-than-helpful post from, "Longitudinal Whatsits" or whatver you're calling yourself.

**edit: The Longinean Order.

"Staying away from the personal "

Why break with a practice of such long standing?

I agree. I never said that. I am only saying that it is highly unlikely it was a widespread practice. I suspect it may have happened rarely - but I don't believe it was the typical experience that myth-makers and martyrs would have us believe.


Right...and that's a very reasonable opinion to have. Maybe it happened to some and not to others. Can anyone in this thread say for sure it did or did not happen? No, and the one's who are sticking to their 'oh it's BS and never happened" are really numbskulls.

"Staying away from the personal"? Sounds like a line from "The Caves of Steel", by Asimov.

the one's who are sticking to their 'oh it's BS and never happened" are really numbskulls.
Like who, Peechland?

I never said it didn't happen, I just want more to go on than you, apparently. One man's loaded suppositions do not a fact make.

It was worse than just being "spat upon " ...shunned ..reviled..ignored..by the same people you went to war for . I lived through that era...it was worse than you can imagine .

"Staying away from the personal "

Why break with a practice of such long standing?
If you noticed I went back and deleted any personal references concerning our previous debate on this subject.

They are not relevent.

Like who, Peechland?

I never said it didn't happen, I just want more to go on than you, apparently. One man's loaded suppositions do not a fact make.

Ah Dobbs......you always go for the personal attacks dont ya? You really enjoy acting all self righteous a few posts earlier, then going to different threads to mock and ridicule others for things like..... they dont make as much money as you.

But since youre asking....
I was referring to Oliekglick or whatever. Who is probably you anyway. I dont need "more to go on" when discussing something so ridiculous. The topic is impossible to prove one way or another. Some may have been spat on, others may not have. Now quit being such a bitch all the time and dont assume I was referring to you. When I'm talking to you, you'll know it.

I was referring to Oliekglick or whatever.

It is Ogiek.

They are an indigenous forest tribe of beekeepers in Kenya, currently threatened by their government.

http://www.ogiek.com/

Kihooko kiunaga uta mugeete (The Truth is Stronger than Weapons)

It is Ogiek.

They are an indigenous forest tribe of beekeepers in Kenya, currently threatened by their government.

http://www.ogiek.com/

Then I sincerely apologize. I meant no disrespect.

Surfing and just found this. I know it comes from the Winston-Salem area, but it still might be trustworthy ;) It's 2 years old.

When Vietnam vets came home
News and Observer/ Nov 10, 2004 / JOHN LLEWELLYN


WINSTON-SALEM -- Last week voters went to the polls to select a vision for the future. Now Americans must find a way forward together. This week, as we honor service and sacrifice on Veterans Day, an image from this political season must be put to rest.


The presidential campaign featured the resurgence of a myth from the early 1990s. That myth is that soldiers returning from Vietnam were spit upon by citizens or war protesters. That claim has been used to turn honest differences of opinion about the war into toxic indictments.


As a scholar of urban legends I am usually involved with accounts of vanishing hitchhikers and involuntary kidney donors. These stories are folklore that harmlessly reveals the public imagination. However, accounts of citizens spitting on returning soldiers -- any nation's soldiers -- are not harmless stories. These tales evoke an emotional firestorm.


I have studied urban legends for nearly 20 years and have been certified as an expert on the subject in the federal courts. Nonetheless, it dawned on me only recently that the spitting story was a rumor that has grown into an urban legend. I never wanted to believe the story but I was afraid to investigate it for fear that it could be true.


Why could I not identify this fiction sooner? The power of the story and the passion of its advocates offer a powerful alchemy of guilt and fear -- emotions not associated with clearheadedness.


Labeling the spitting story an urban legend does not mean that something of this sort did not happen to someone somewhere. You cannot prove the negative -- that something never happened. However, most accounts of spitting emerged in the mid-1980s only after a newspaper columnist asked his readers who were Vietnam vets if they had been spit upon after the war (an odd and leading question to ask a decade after the war's end). The framing of the question seemed to beg for an affirmative answer.


• • •


In 1998 sociologist and Vietnam veteran Jerry Lembcke published "The Spitting Image: Myth, Media and the Legacy of Viet Nam." He recounts a study of 495 news stories on returning veterans published from 1965 to 1971. That study shows only a handful (32) of instances were presented as in any way antagonistic to the soldiers. There were no instances of spitting on soldiers; what spitting was reported was done by citizens expressing displeasure with protesters.


Opinion polls of the time show no animosity between soldiers and opponents of the war. Only 3 percent of returning soldiers recounted any unfriendly experiences upon their return.


So records from that era offer no support for the spitting stories. Lembcke's research does show that similar spitting rumors arose in Germany after World War I and in France after its Indochina war. One of the persistent markers of urban legends is the re-emergence of certain themes across time and space.


There is also a common-sense method for debunking this urban legend. One frequent test is the story's plausibility: how likely is it that the incident could have happened as described? Do we really believe that a "dirty hippie" would spit upon a fit and trained soldier? If such a confrontation had occurred, would that combat-hardened soldier have just ignored the insult? Would there not be pictures, arrest reports, a trial record or a coroner's report after such an event? Years of research have produced no such records.


Lembcke underscores the enduring significance of the spitting story for this Veterans Day. He observes that as a society we are what we remember. The meaning of Vietnam and any other war is not static but is created through the stories we tell one another. To reinforce the principle that policy disagreements are not personal vendettas we must put this story to rest.


Our first step forward is to recognize that we are not a society that disrespects the sacrifices of our servicemembers. We should ignore anyone who tries to tell us otherwise. Whatever our aspirations for America, those hopes must begin with a clear awareness of who we are not.


(John Llewellyn is an associate professor of communication at Wake Forest University.)

Well Gart, looks like you got your answer. This guy even says that he isnt saying it did not happen.(not implying that you are saying it never happened-btw:) )

Labeling the spitting story an urban legend does not mean that something of this sort did not happen to someone somewhere. You cannot prove the negative -- that something never happened. However, most accounts of spitting emerged in the mid-1980s only after a newspaper columnist asked his readers who were Vietnam vets if they had been spit upon after the war (an odd and leading question to ask a decade after the war's end). The framing of the question seemed to beg for an affirmative answer.

In 1998 sociologist and Vietnam veteran Jerry Lembcke published "The Spitting Image: Myth, Media and the Legacy of Viet Nam." He recounts a study of 495 news stories on returning veterans published from 1965 to 1971. That study shows only a handful (32) of instances were presented as in any way antagonistic to the soldiers. There were no instances of spitting on soldiers; what spitting was reported was done by citizens expressing displeasure with protesters.

Because we all know the news reports every little instance.:rolleyes:

I think the man who wrote this had an agenda, and he summed it up with these sentences: Our first step forward is to recognize that we are not a society that disrespects the sacrifices of our servicemembers. We should ignore anyone who tries to tell us otherwise.

Clearly it's safe to say this man's bias would paint a picture of a nation who wouldnt dare do such things. He said it himself.

If someone spits on my buddy or any vet I know I'll go up to the second store and open up the fly..and....you get the idea.

If someone spits on my buddy or any vet I know I'll go up to the second store and open up the fly..and....you get the idea.
:rolleyes:

There is no public record of any vet reporting being spat upon. None. Not one picture. Not one news story. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Who wants to take pictures of Spit on Soldiers when there's all those photos of Soldiers without legs or Arms?"
The Media knows what gets the real attention at the time. The protesters were supposed to be the "Good" guys to the Media. They were all nice and flowery and all the soldiers just shot at everything that looked at them in Vietnam. There was NEVER any middle ground!
(Sacarsm)

I believe Eutrusca in this case, he can be an ass, but he's not a liar.

Besides some people when they shout sometimes end up spitting by accident. Could that have happened at least once? Plus there are some illegal drugs, (Which were used at that time) that caused Excessive Salivation.

...Because we all know the news reports every little instance.:rolleyes: .

If we could have just one documented instance that would be a start at least. :rolleyes:

...Clearly it's safe to say this man's bias would paint a picture of a nation who wouldnt dare do such things. He said it himself.

Since we have no documented evidence, opinion and logic are all we have. I have explained clearly why I find the widespread spitting assertion not likely. It seems impossible that such behavior could have occurred without serious blowback. Yet - we have no reports of retaliation. Not one. I find that highly suspect and simply not believable.

If someone spits on my buddy or any vet I know I'll go up to the second store and open up the fly..and....you get the idea.

Exactly. Spit on a vet and you'd better expect a piss storm. It seems ridiculous to me that Vietnam vets could be spat on with out a serious beatdown.

If we could have just one documented instance that would be a start at least. :rolleyes:



Since we have no documented evidence, opinion and logic are all we have. I have explained clearly why I find the widespread spitting assertion not likely. It seems impossible that such behavior could have occurred without serious blowback. Yet - we have no reports of retaliation. Not one. I find that highly suspect and simply not believable.


If someone spit on you, do you think CNN would knock on your door and want to do a story about it? Honestly, what kind of documentation are you expecting?

Btw- earlier you said that you werent saying that it "never happened to anyone". Your first post seems like you were saying the opposite....that it didnt happen because its not documented. Which is it?

You are kidding, right? You compare a Holy Cross professor's research with a science fiction novel? A professor, who was also a Vietnam Vet.

Okay. Let's say, that is all the evidence I have. What is wrong with the methodolgy or research behind the book? Please, offer factual criticism that makes this book unreliable.

Or better yet, explain to me why there is not a single newspaper article or picture; not a single FBI report; no supportive data at all from the time period to back up this urban myth?

At least I have given you something. You have provided not one shread of evidence that returning Vietnam Vets were ever spat upon.

Please tell me you have something.

Well, let's see what we can get just from the excerpts you've provided.

1. This source has a notable agenda. Already suspect.

2. This source who is a veteran and should no better claims several complete falsehoods about veterans in civilian airports. Veterans often fly into civilian airports. Don't believe me. Go to an hub airport and wait a couple of hours. Or you could accept the testimony of myself (I flew into civilian airports from various operations) or the plethora of other veterans on here. Also, you get your orders before you leave your last duty station. You don't need to go to a local base for reassignment. You take your orders and after a bit of leave that usually follows a tour of duty report to your new duty station. Occasionally, you have to report before the leave, but regardless, you don't 'report for reassignment'. A veteran should know that and your source veteran undoubtedly does.

3. The Harris study he cites isn't actually cited on the VAVW site nor can I find it referenced anywhere that that doesn't quote the book, save twice. Both other times they had different percentages.

4. You haven't cited anything that didn't come from that book and so far you haven't given a single ACTUAL study. All you've given is an editorial book.

5. Magically, according to the author, spitting did occur but only to the people he agrees with. He and HIS friends got spit on by protesters FOR the war. Magic. He believes spitting occurred but only when convenient.

So, let's see. We know the author lied or was totally unaware of the regular practice of the military. We know the author has an agenda. We know that we have first-hand evidence discounting the claims of the author. We know that you haven't cited any first-hand evidence nor a direct link to a study. We know that you've provided one source with just a bunch of different arrows pointing to the same source.

The experiences of veterans was limited to a the end of the war. The author if he is really as studies as he claims would know that. No one, no one, claimed that every veteran or even most veterans experienced actual spitting. However a lot of veterans at the end of the war experienced varying levels of animosity up to and including spitting.

There is nothing credible about this source. Nothing.

If someone spit on you, do you think CNN would knock on your door and want to do a story about it? Honestly, what kind of documentation are you expecting?


I expect that the local newspaper would have covered the beating death of the guy who just spat on me.

I expect they would have covered the all out brawls that would have started at SeaTac when soldiers retaliated against spitters.

Exactly. Spit on a vet and you'd better expect a piss storm. It seems ridiculous to me that Vietnam vets could be spat on with out a serious beatdown.

And how do you know that didnt happen? Because you havent seen it documented? I'm sure some of them did in fact punch some guy/girls lights out after being spat on.That doesnt mean all of them did. Maybe they had seen enough violence. A lot of soldiers came back broken hearted, beaten down emotionally after serving their tour of duty. Maybe they felt like enough is enough.

Because we all know the news reports every little instance.:rolleyes:


You must be too young to have lived through those times. The Nixon administration and especially J. Edgar Hoover would have jumped all over a story of hippies spitting on soldiers. As I mentioned before, I'm surprised they didn't stage an event and plant the story themselves; it would have been of such good propaganda value.

The FBI had infiltrators and plants within the peace movement. They spread disinformation and disrupted anti-war rallies. They tapped phones and kept a black list of peace activists. They most certainly would have used any photos or documentation of protesters spitting on returning vets.

What is documented, though, is that on numerous occasions, pro-war supporters harassed, insulted, and spit upon Vietnam Vets who came home and then opposed the war. Yet, despite the evidence that image has not made its way in the American collective unconscious.

Exactly. Spit on a vet and you'd better expect a piss storm. It seems ridiculous to me that Vietnam vets could be spat on with out a serious beatdown.

Hmmm... I suppose the entire town of 29 Palms must be dead then. I don't know anyone who was on that base that didn't regularly experience hurled obscenities from the locals and occasionally a thrown bit of garbage. I watched it occur. Regularly. Over the course of about a year and a half. Not during a war. No one was getting killed.

The idea that military personnel are just itching to kick the crap out of people is also perpetuated by movies. Fighting was frowned upon when I was in the military. Generally, it was civilians looking to prove themselves that were looking for a 'trophy'. I'm not saying that there were no violent Marines when I was in. There were. However, the idea that we had any difficulty controlling ourselves is utterly ridiculous.

And how do you know that didnt happen? Because you havent seen it documented?

Exactly. Beatings and assaults are documented - especially when they are politically motivated. I'm not saying that it never happened - I'm just saying that there seems to be no documentation of it happening. If this were the widespread thing we are led to believe - it would be documented somewhere, wouldn't it?

You must be too young to have lived through those times. The Nixon administration and especially J. Edgar Hoover would have jumped all over a story of hippies spitting on soldiers. As I mentioned before, I'm surprised they didn't stage an event and plant the story themselves; it would have been of such good propaganda value.

The FBI had infiltrators and plants within the peace movement. They spread disinformation and disrupted anti-war rallies. They tapped phones and kept a black list of peace activists. They most certainly would have used any photos or documentation of protesters spitting on returning vets.

What is documented, though, is that on numerous occasions, pro-war supporters harassed, insulted, and spit upon Vietnam Vets who came home and then opposed the war. Yet, despite the evidence that image has not made its way in the American collective unconscious.

How convenient. Only the people you agree with got harrassed? Only the 'bad guys' did the spitting? Again, how convenient. I agree that spitting occurred coming from those who were anti-peace movement. It also occurred in the other direction. Why is it so believable that one side would lose their cool and behave in such a way and not the other way?

Exactly. Beatings and assaults are documented - especially when they are politically motivated. I'm not saying that it never happened - I'm just saying that there seems to be no documentation of it happening. If this were the widespread thing we are led to believe - it would be documented somewhere, wouldn't it?

Can you tell me how many incidents of people hurling garbage at Marines in 29 Palms, CA during 1992? Pull up all the articles. I witnessed it so there must be hundreds of articles. I await your list.

How convenient. Only the people you agree with got harrassed? Only the 'bad guys' did the spitting? Again, how convenient. I agree that spitting occurred coming from those who were anti-peace movement. It also occurred in the other direction. Why is it so believable that one side would lose their cool and behave in such a way and not the other way?

No. The only documentation that exist is for pro-war supporters spitting on anti-war Vietnam Vets. I can't help it no documentation exists for hippies spitting on returning vets. Maybe they didn't?

It is about historical evidence.

You must be too young to have lived through those times. The Nixon administration and especially J. Edgar Hoover would have jumped all over a story of hippies spitting on soldiers. As I mentioned before, I'm surprised they didn't stage an event and plant the story themselves; it would have been of such good propaganda value.

The FBI had infiltrators and plants within the peace movement. They spread disinformation and disrupted anti-war rallies. They tapped phones and kept a black list of peace activists. They most certainly would have used any photos or documentation of protesters spitting on returning vets.

What is documented, though, is that on numerous occasions, pro-war supporters harassed, insulted, and spit upon Vietnam Vets who came home and then opposed the war. Yet, despite the evidence that image has not made its way in the American collective unconscious.

No, I was a born in '74, so I was just a baby. My point is simply that you, nor I can say what happened to every soldier who came home. Just because there isnt a heaping pile of news articles or police reports about someone getting spat on doesnt mean it didnt happen. Did every anti-war protester go around spitting on every soldier?....of course not. But you seem to stand firmly that this is all a bunch of hog wash and couldnt have possibly happened. How can that be?

How convenient. Only the people you agree with got harrassed? Only the 'bad guys' did the spitting? Again, how convenient. I agree that spitting occurred coming from those who were anti-peace movement. It also occurred in the other direction. Why is it so believable that one side would lose their cool and behave in such a way and not the other way?

Convenient or not, that is the only documented example of spitting on veterans that was presented so far. I have an open mind, If I can find one example the other way I'll post it. But I cannot find it.

Let's assume for a moment that the Harris poll referenced is accurate.

So, 6% of returning Vietnam vet experienced an UNFRIENDLY return home.

2,594,000 should be the number that served in Vietnam.


So, 155,640 vets experienced an UNFRIENDLY return home.

We know that Vietnam vets were not respected for their service, does anyone contend that?
We know that the anti-war element protested the war and sometimes the warriors themselves. Does anyone contend even that?

I don't personally ever recall an urban myth where every other returning soldier was spat upon.
The reality is/was that Vietnam vets were treated poorly by the same civilians they believed they were fighting and dying for.

If we question the vets reaction to being spat upon as unrealistically restrained, then why do we accept that they stoically took the other abuses? It's a nonsense argument to attempt to deny the spitting because of an unfounded expectation of how they MUST react.

If 50 servicemen were spat upon, that is still a fraction of those that served and interviewing 2 million that were never spat upon and never saw it will never convice those 50 men that they imagined it all.

And if 50 servicemen were spat uon, that's 50 too many.

Perhaps the "debunkers" would share what the acceptable quota of men returning home having put their lives on line for their country is for being spat upon?

No, I was a born in '74, so I was just a baby. My point is simply that you, nor I can say what happened to every soldier who came home. Just because there isnt a heaping pile of news articles or police reports about someone getting spat on doesnt mean it didnt happen. Did every anti-war protester go around spitting on every soldier?....of course not. But you seem to stand firmly that this is all a bunch of hog wash and couldnt have possibly happened. How can that be?

Oh, God. :rolleyes: How many times do I have to explain this?

No one is saying that it is not possible that some vet somewhere at some point during the war didn't get spit upon. My argument is that since the early 1980s this idea that return vets were met by expectorating flower children has found its way into the national consciousness to the point now most everyone (even present day peace activists) believe this is what was the norm.

It wasn't.

As stated many times, a 1971 U.S. Senate study found 94% of returning soldiers described their reception as friendly. An analysis of newspapers from the U.S.-Vietnam War era is lacking in stories of veterans abused by anti-war protesters. There is not a single report or photograph of peace activists spitting on returning soldiers.

In fact, incidents of returning soldiers being physically and verbally accosted involved war supporters vilifying pro-peace veterans, including the well known case of disabled vet and peace activist, Ron Kovic, spat upon at the 1972 GOP convention. The reality is peace activists of that era, like those today, embraced vets as Americans who paid the highest price for our government’s deceptions.

It has been the U.S. government, both then and now, that turned its back on veterans.

What makes this particular urban myth more harmful than tales of alligators in the sewers or $250 Nieman-Marcus cookie recipes is that it was concocted in the past 15 years to stifle legitimate political protest and is used today to portray as unpatriotic those who question this ill-conceived war.

Exactly. Beatings and assaults are documented - especially when they are politically motivated. I'm not saying that it never happened - I'm just saying that there seems to be no documentation of it happening. If this were the widespread thing we are led to believe - it would be documented somewhere, wouldn't it?

Well I doubt the records of US soldiers are going to be readily available for you and I to look over and see if they got 30 days in the Brig for beating some guys ass who spat on him. Why is it so hard for you to believe that the protesters could feel so strongly about their beliefs, that they could easily spit on a soldier?! Seems like that would be a more *peaceful* thing to do. If they were randomly shooting soldiers on the street, then I'd say we'd have a lot of documentation to review. But we are talking about saliva.

Some people protest with picket signs....others strap a bomb on and enter a public building. There is a middle ground you know.

Oh, God. :rolleyes: How many times do I have to explain this?

No one is saying that it is not possible that some vet somewhere at some point during the war didn't get spit upon. My argument is that since the early 1980s this idea that return vets were met by expectorating flower children has found its way into the national consciousness to the point now most everyone (even present day peace activists) believe this is what was the norm.

It wasn't.

As stated many times, a 1971 U.S. Senate study found 94% of returning soldiers described their reception as friendly. An analysis of newspapers from the U.S.-Vietnam War era is lacking in stories of veterans abused by anti-war protesters. There is not a single report or photograph of peace activists spitting on returning soldiers.

In fact, incidents of returning soldiers being physically and verbally accosted involved war supporters vilifying pro-peace veterans, including the well known case of disabled vet and peace activist, Ron Kovic, spat upon at the 1972 GOP convention. The reality is peace activists of that era, like those today, embraced vets as Americans who paid the highest price for our government’s deceptions.

It has been the U.S. government, both then and now, that turned its back on veterans.

What makes this particular urban myth more harmful than tales of alligators in the sewers or $250 Nieman-Marcus cookie recipes is that it was concocted in the past 15 years to stifle legitimate political protest and is used today to portray as unpatriotic those who question this ill-conceived war.

You keep citing that study. You haven't cited a direct source. Certainly the study must exist outside this book you keep quoting.

Let's assume for a moment that the Harris poll referenced is accurate.

So, 6% of returning Vietnam vet experienced an UNFRIENDLY return home.

2,594,000 should be the number that served in Vietnam.


So, 155,640 vets experienced an UNFRIENDLY return home.

We know that Vietnam vets were not respected for their service, does anyone contend that?
We know that the anti-war element protested the war and sometimes the warriors themselves. Does anyone contend even that?

I don't personally ever recall an urban myth where every other returning soldier was spat upon.
The reality is/was that Vietnam vets were treated poorly by the same civilians they believed they were fighting and dying for.

If we question the vets reaction to being spat upon as unrealistically restrained, then why do we accept that they stoically took the other abuses? It's a nonsense argument to attempt to deny the spitting because of an unfounded expectation of how they MUST react.

If 50 servicemen were spat upon, that is still a fraction of those that served and interviewing 2 million that were never spat upon and never saw it will never convice those 50 men that they imagined it all.

And if 50 servicemen were spat uon, that's 50 too many.

Perhaps the "debunkers" would share what the acceptable quota of men returning home having put their lives on line for their country is for being spat upon?

Well said.

You keep citing that study. You haven't cited a direct source. Certainly the study must exist outside this book you keep quoting.

Let me ask you, how many Senate studies or Harris polls do you have access to? It is 35 years old and not to be found on the Internet. It is footnoted and documented in the book, but if you don't have it I can't help you.

Assume I'm lying.

Oh, God. :rolleyes: How many times do I have to explain this?

No one is saying that it is not possible that some vet somewhere at some point during the war didn't get spit upon. My argument is that since the early 1980s this idea that return vets were met by expectorating flower children has found its way into the national consciousness to the point now most everyone (even present day peace activists) believe this is what was the norm.

It wasn't.

As stated many times, a 1971 U.S. Senate study found 94% of returning soldiers described their reception as friendly. An analysis of newspapers from the U.S.-Vietnam War era is lacking in stories of veterans abused by anti-war protesters. There is not a single report or photograph of peace activists spitting on returning soldiers.

In fact, incidents of returning soldiers being physically and verbally accosted involved war supporters vilifying pro-peace veterans, including the well known case of disabled vet and peace activist, Ron Kovic, spat upon at the 1972 GOP convention. The reality is peace activists of that era, like those today, embraced vets as Americans who paid the highest price for our government’s deceptions.

It has been the U.S. government, both then and now, that turned its back on veterans.

What makes this particular urban myth more harmful than tales of alligators in the sewers or $250 Nieman-Marcus cookie recipes is that it was concocted in the past 15 years to stifle legitimate political protest and is used today to portray as unpatriotic those who question this ill-conceived war.

You can explain it as many times as you like. And each time you and Gart can regurgitate the same old stuff. So now at least youve both admitted that it "might have happened to some". I miss the point now, because the OP question was "Were the Vets really spat on?" We've all come to an agreement somewhere in here that the answer is "yes.......at least some."

Well, let's see what we can get just from the excerpts you've provided.

There is nothing credible about this source. Nothing.

You've never read it. Never heard of it until tonight. Will never read it. Yet, knowing two or three things about the author, you already know there is nothing of value in it.

Because the only things that are true are the things written by people like us and who write things we agree with.

What a sad state we have come to for discourse in this country.

Let me ask you, how many Senate studies or Harris polls do you have access to? It is 35 years old and not to be found on the Internet. It is footnoted and documented in the book, but if you don't have it I can't help you.

Assume I'm lying.

So the same can apply to the lack of documentation on spitting incidents?

Let me ask you, how many Senate studies or Harris polls do you have access to? It is 35 years old and not to be found on the Internet. It is footnoted and documented in the book, but if you don't have it I can't help you.

Assume I'm lying.

Or I could analyze the evidence in your source. Oh, wait... I did that and you didn't address any of it. Your source is easily debunked and provably wrong.

Yes, the spitting didn't happen to every veteran. But to act like it didn't happen significantly enough to not be considered a myth is simply absurd.

I miss the point now, because the OP question was "Were the Vets really spat on?" We've all come to an agreement somewhere in here that the answer is "yes.......at least some."

No, we have not. I said while certainly possible, there is absolutely no record from the time period that it happened. And it isn't about the number of unhappy homecomings returning vets had that is acceptible. It is about using this urban myth to paint all peace activists and all liberals with the unpatriotic, hate-America brush.

Let me ask you, when you heard some American soldiers were charged with murder and may have executed civilians, did you automatically assume all soldiers were murders? Did you ask, how many murderers are acceptible in the U.S. military?

No, you said these accused soldiers don't represent the greater part of the U.S. military. That is my whole point. IF a soldier was spit upon by a peace activist (still not documented or proven), then that doesn't represent the vast majority of people in the peace movement, nor the typical experience of returning vets.

Here endeth the lesson.

Good night.

You've never read it. Never heard of it until tonight. Will never read it. Yet, knowing two or three things about the author, you already know there is nothing of value in it.

Because the only things that are true are the things written by people like us and who write things we agree with.

What a sad state we have come to for discourse in this country.

I know if I read an excerpt chosen by the author to put on his site and find lies in it, well, that makes it unreliable. And, yes, I know of no one with experience with the military who could possibly not know of the commonness of flights into civilian airports.

Meanwhile, don't address my points. That would make you look like you came here for debate. Avoid them and just keep citing the same source without addressing the flaws we've found. That'll help you sound credible.