COUNTERING MILITARY RECRUITMENT
Articles: War Protests: General
Subject: Did Vietnam-era protesters spit?
JOHN E. MILICH, Ithaca Journal
May 7, 2003
Curt
Dunnam's April 14 letter, "Focus on debating the issues about Iraq,"
addresses the "ploys (that) don't usefully address issues of the day;
they are all just attempts at intimidating debate."
The bulk of verbal intimidation comes from pro-war advocates, mostly
Republicans, using variations on that party's long tradition of
McCarthyism that has destroyed the reputations of countless American
citizens and poisoned political debate in this country for more than
half a century.
This right-wing propaganda force has been in high gear for months
obscuring the political, economic and constitutional issues involved
with George W. Bush's endless war on terrorism and the unprovoked
military invasion of Iraq.
Instead of reasoned dialogue, today's McCarthyites berate antiwar
activists and others who question the ruling agenda as "anti-American"
and "disloyal" to U.S. troops in combat. The worst form of verbal
intimidation pressures antiwar protesters to "support the troops," a
type of loyalty oath meaning "support the policy." This ploy maintains
the fiction that protesters must take responsibility for the deaths of
soldiers who are placed in harm's way by warmongering presidents,
Democrat and Republican alike.
George H.W. Bush first used this gimmick during the Persian Gulf War.
This ploy is based on the unsubstantiated myth that Vietnam-era
protesters "spat upon" returning combat veterans. Several letters
appeared in the Ithaca media during the past two months chastising
present-day protesters not to spit upon the troops, like earlier
protesters.
One pro-war Vietnam-vet claimed he was spat upon in uniform, though he
didn't specify the circumstances of the incident. While there's little
doubt that some Vietnam vets in uniform were spat upon during those
turbulent years, no proof exists that antiwar protesters were the
spitters.
The Journal editorialized on March 28, that "During the 1960s and
1970s, people opposed to the Vietnam War took out their rage on the
wrong people: The soldiers, sailors and aviators who fought the war but
had nothing to do with the decision to enter it. Today, it seems, most
Americans place the blame where it belongs: On the backs of elected
officials who set policy."
The editorial writer may be forgiven for a youthful memory, especially
in light of today's propaganda that spawns Vietnam-era myths. The
statement must be corrected, however, because it retains the impression
that Vietnam vets were abused by protesters.
I served honorably in the U.S. Navy from 1962-1966. A few years later,
I joined thousands of other vets in the antiwar movement who ardently
supported the rights of those blacks, Hispanics and poor whites who
were disproportionately drafted into the military.
Meanwhile, wealthy white boys like the current resident of the White
House used family connections to find cushy spots in the National
Guard; or they evaded military service altogether like Vice-President
Dick Cheney. It's also important to note that "the peace movement"
included anyone -- genuine peace activists, lunatics and provocateurs
-- who spoke and acted in its name.
The vast majority of protesters, however, shared great sympathy and
solidarity with American soldiers in the field, in the protest lines
and in the halls of Congress where hundreds of vets threw their medals
back to the government that spawned such human misery upon themselves
and the peoples of Vietnam.
Jerry Lembcke, an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a
Vietnam combat veteran, has written a well documented book, "The
Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" (New York
University Press, 1998) that thoroughly debunks the tales of protesters
"spitting upon" Vietnam vets. Lembcke conducted extensive research to
ascertain that there were no contemporaneous news reports or police
complaints lodged to substantiate the claims that began appearing in
the media about 1991. The perpetuation of such myths only blocks the
healing of Vietnam veterans from our "culture of victimization, " and
it serves the agenda of those pro-war forces who place fear and
intimidation in the path of open debate on the pressing issues of the
moment.
This archive consists of a topically organized selection of
articles culled by members of the Counter-Recruitment List Serve from printed
publications and web sites. The archive is not complete. We have chosen
material relevant to the work of