Talk:The Spitting Image/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lembckes Research is Flawed and Heavily Biased

Lembcke’s alleged research is flawed as well as heavily biased. At best, he could have interviewed a few hundred, maybe even a couple thousand Vets, out of 2.5 million that served. By his own account, if there was no documentation to support the incident of spitting, it was discredited. Obviously there would be no documentation as incidents weren't reported to Police, returning Veterans simply wanting to get home. News reports also would have no reason to report them as they weren't really considered newsworthy.

He has claimed: 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.

Yes, returning soldiers often did land at Military Bases. Many were reassigned, as he said, but how did they travel to new duty assignments? Civilian aircraft at civilian airports, is how. Once we received orders, we were released to go through the main gate (often where protesters stood to hassle us) and sent on our way to travel where need be.

Since we weren't paid very much, we qualified for what was known then as Military Standby airfare. In order to gain it, we were required by the airlines to travel in full uniform and show orders. All transfers between duty stations or home were by civilian transportation, airlines, bus or train, bus and airlines being the most commonly used.

Protesters would not have to know when a returning flight of of Veterans was diverted. On a daily basis, members of the military traveled through nearly every airport in the country. Back then, all airports had USOs in them as well. If we weren't using the civilian airports, why the USOs? We became simply Targets of Opportunity to them.

Is Lemcke truly a Veteran? I don't know, but he sure should be aware of what I say above, it's how we all traveled about.

I would also ask, why is it readily accepted if a veteran states he was exposed to Agent Orange while in Viet Nam, but discredited if he mentions being spat upon when returning?

While I wasn't physically spat upon on my return, there was other mistreatment of us that is the equivalent to being spat upon. For me, on a flight home, from Seattle to St. Louis in 1970, where I would switch flights, was the experience that hurt me and gave me a bad taste for protesters. I sat next to a young lady and her young daughter. I was on the plane before they were, so they didn't see me before I took my jacket off and folded it under the seat. We chatted and I enjoyed playing games with the little girl, maybe 6 or 7. We landed at St. Louis to change planes; they going their way and me mine. After the plane stopped and we were all getting up to go, I reached down, picked up my Army Dress Jacket and put it on. The woman grabbed her daughter and jerked her back from me, yelling out, "get away from that killer!" loud enough for most everyone on the plane to hear and turn around to see. She then ran out of the plane pulling her daughter behind her. No one said a word, just went on about their business. I shrugged it off best I could, but that memory is still very vivid in my mind.

This is nowhere documented and I doubt any of the other passengers remember it, but I do.

It is claimed that Viet Nam Veterans were fed the notion of being spat upon by the movie "First Blood" in the early 1980s. If this is so, why were we hearing accounts of this while still in Viet Nam in 1969? Where indeed would the writers of the movie come up with the idea in the first place?

The actions of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which Lembcke was a member of, are well noted for making claims against soldiers serving in Viet Nam, claims I might add, that could not be documented or supported when investigated by Naval Intelligence, at the request of Congress in 1971, despite those making them being offered immunity for any prosecution of having taken part in them. In fact, several members of VVAW were exposed in the book "Stolen Valor" by B.G. Burkett, as being frauds, having never served in Viet Nam or some having never served in the military at all. -- (unsigned but history shows User:Dakota Red). (Editorial note: No members of VVAW were ever "exposed as being frauds" in Burkett's book; the VVAW didn't "make claims against soldiers serving in Viet Nam," they testified to crimes they themselves committed. See Winter Soldier Investigation. Most of the charges were indeed supported and documented when investigated [1]. I guess this is another example of myth being fueled by our collective unwillingness to face our own shortcomings. 209.86.3.93 19:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC))

Red, thanks for the above, though I'm afraid you're spitting in the wind (to use an unfortunate metaphor). Still, it's useful, even necessary, for Viet Vets to have their say. I have known any number of WWII vets who didn't particularly care to talk about their experiences, at least those that no soldier in any war would rather not dwell on. It is unfortunate that this old discussion turned on a dumb question of whether or not Vietnam Era Vets were literally spat upon or not. Even now, as LBJ and Robert McNamara receive kind treatment of how they agonized over the terrible thing they were forced to do in Vietnam, Vietnam veterans are still very much outsiders in their own society. Except, of course, for John Kerry, who told the great pool of stay-at-home critics what they wanted to hear. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The book doesn't argue that there weren't isolated incidents of abuse towards Vietnam vets by anti-war protestors, it's just arguing that it wasn't some popular trend, and that our collective memory of the era has been distorted over time by the media, the meshing together of abuse by older, World War II veterans, and hostile messages from anti-war protestors to the government attacking the war at large, as well as political moves during the Nixon campaign to blur the notions of protesting a war and of protesting the soldiers fighting in it, as well as various other things. While I think it's clear he's somewhat biased in some respects, the fact that there really aren't any (as far as he could tell, and I haven't heard any claim demonstrating otherwise) filmed or published cases of abuse to soldiers by protestors, indicating (while of course there were individual exceptions) that there wasn't any actual social trend towards this sort of abuse, and that the idea of it was purely of later social construction. Sarge Baldy 14:17, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well you see, SB, the issue does not boil down to "spitting," which is my entire point, nor is it a question of "antiwar protestors," per se. Actually, in two years in service, I never personally encountered an actual antiwar protest, unless you count the time a carload of (pretty cute, I'm such a sexist: "make war and love") girls drove through the post making the "V" and shouting "peace, peace" (ah that peace were that simple). The antiwar protestors I knew and know are people I see socially. I never challenged them on their activities but when they learned I was a vet they had plenty to say to me. And this attitude ran (and runs) throughout U.S. society, though its moderated since 9/11. Many seem to believe that the thing Kerry did which angers so many Vietnam era vets is that he accused us of being the mad-dog killers so beloved of Hollywood, where, when you wanted to portray a vet, you looked up Bruce Dern, not Robert Redford. What Kerry did to vets is to give wide credibility to the concept that veterans of one particular war were criminals who society could safely shun. Even to this day, Vietnam vets have not gotten any meaningful veterans benefits: a grateful nation showered the veterans of WWII with benefits; an ungrateful nation keeps its hand tight on its wallets for Viet vets, though they let a few bucks out to "treat" Vietnam vets who fit the profile: homeless, alcoholic. The image of the WWII vets was conveyed in a popular (staged) photo of a U.S. soldier kneeling down to be kissed on the cheek by a cute little European girl. The image of the Vietnam vet revolves around scenes of soldiers in the bush or in helicopters, dropping incendiary bombs, of the handful of rag-tag exhibitionists that the press concentrated on at the VVAW rally in DC; of arguments over whether Post traumatic stress syndrome caused some vet to murder his wife.

Before I finish I have to let you know that you yourself are following the popular current attitudes toward the war and vets when you say that people are confusing "political moves during the Nixon campaign to blur the notions of protesting a war and of protesting the soldiers fighting in it." Wrong, wrong, wrong. This was Johnson's war and the attitudes toward the war and soldiers among the public and especially our own non-soldier contemporaries were well established well before Tricky Dicky made his second bid for the Presidency. It was a particular slap to us soldiers that people our age who were lucky enough to avoid service ("there but for the Grace of God went they") considered us virtual subspecies of human. And they still do. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The thing about this research is it focuses on the spitting (or lack thereof) to make the point that the alleged abuse of veterans was exaggerated for political reasons. The poster above says "News reports also would have no reason to report them as they weren't really considered newsworthy." The thing is, news reports and other stories about the war since then have not only reported such incidents but the idea that such incidents were common has become a basic part of mainstream ideology - I think he did this research to see if that ideology was accurate, and it turns out not to have been. If spitting was a widespread gesture surely there would have bee one documented case? --csloat 10:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Many Vietnam veterans did return home to be greeted with contempt and abuse, and a number report having been physically spat upon. Considering Mr. Lembcke's history of political extremism, there is little reason to take his word over theirs. It seems much more likely that his real purpose is to cast doubt on the dismal treatment of America’s Vietnam veterans that he himself helped bring about. The VVAW portrayed the US servicemen in Vietnam as baby eating, cold blooded murderers, and in doing so, generated a great deal of animoisty towards returning veterans. In his 1990 book, Homecoming, Chicago Tribune writer Bob Greene documented several dozen spitting events, and found no reason to suspect they were untrue. Other stories are common, reported by stable, honest men who have no reason to lie, but Lembcke finds all these accounts unpersuasive. Ten Dead Chickens 23:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Blog reference

Bill Quick admitted to spitting on veterans. He admitted to it on his blog. The blog that is being linked in the article is his blog, where he admits to it. There is no reason to remove the link.01:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RS. I agree it is relevant; when a reliable source picks up the story we can carry it. This is not the place for Bill Quick to gain notoriety for his blog. csloat 01:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He is notable enough to have a wiki article, he is notable enough to be used here. Hempbilly 03:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes he is notable enough to be quoted when a WP:RS quotes him, but his blog alone is not notable enough to be used here. Please do not revert. csloat 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lembcke is Debunked!

"One of Lembcke's conclusions in Spitting Image claims is that there was not even a single media report to support the claims." ... In fact, a Dec 27 1971, report on CBS Evening News specifically cited a soldier who says he was spat upon. (Delmar Pickett, spit on in Seattle, WA; see http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1971-12/1971-12-27-CBS-17.html ) This important fact needs to be in the body of the article! It directly contradicts a major assertion by Lembcke. D323P 04:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lembcke acknowledges that there were likely some incidents of spitting.[2] But he takes issue with Greene's research, and the cases that he did look up turned up dry. While I agree that his claim that there were no media reports of spitting ever may be contradicted by this (and some of the other reports included recently), none of these challenge his overall thesis, which is why I thought these claims belong in a footnote. This is an article about a book, not about one of the claims in the book. I think it's important to cite the fact that Lembke has been contradicted by other people, but the kind of extended discussion of various news reports that may or may not contradict one of the claims of Lembcke's book smacks of WP:NOR. Digging up news reports from the 60s that may mention spitting -- and the links don't give us the full articles so I don't know offhand how many of these are actually relevant (the one about spitting on LBJ certainly is not, for example) -- is not something Wikipedia should be doing. If you think this information is important, write an article making the connection between these articles and Lembke's book, get it published in a WP:RS, and then we can quote it here. csloat 06:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Update - I removed most of the Original research. There is still the one cite that should prbably be removed too. Or perhaps we can have a footnote citing all the incidents Lokifer added (minus the LBJ one). The problem is of course that none of those cites mention Lembcke's book, which this article is about. An article refuting Lembcke's book that cites those articles is fine to cite, but making the connection between those articles and the book ourselves is WP:NOR -- and that is true even if the point you're making is completely accurate. Lambcke's book has recently been in the news, so it probably won't be long before someone finds an article that makes this claim in a way that is not WP:OR -- when that happens, the article should definitely be mentioned here, so this is not a POV issue. The point is, Wikipedia editors can not go running around doing research to disprove books, but if someone else does that and publishes it, we would cite those publications. Hope this makes sense. csloat 08:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it takes a lot of time and interest to get the research published, and while that happens (if ever) we continue to propagate the errors. Electronic publishing is usually deleted as being "blog" or "OR". What's happening is that if you can get your beliefs onto paper printed by someone else, that belief becomes "history", while reality is ignored. A blog post about spitting that seems to raise serious questions about Lembcke's conclusions : http://volokh.com/posts/1170928927.shtml# htom 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have problems with Wikipedia policy on original research, take it up with the admins. I don't expect you to get far though; it is one of the few Wikipedia policies that is quite firm. Yes it's true that publication takes time; an encyclopedia is not supposed to be faster than the normal publishing process. And something need not be published in paper to be a WP:RS -- there are plenty of non-blog media that appear electronically these days. If this research is accurate then submit something to a WP:RS, or wait for someone else to do so -- it shouldn't be long. csloat 20:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's the policy of prejudice against electronic publishing that I have a problem with, as if anyone with a paper printing press is without bias and anyone without one is biased. In a decade, Wikipedia is going to find that there are few paper sources to cite, and few of those that are worthy of citing. htom 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's nonsense. There is no policy against electronic publishing. There is just a policy against original research and a policy requiring reliable sources. There are plenty of reliable sources that are available electronically. csloat 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see once again that I have posted on something on wiki that contains facts being removed. I'll decide later if I will fight this edit by Sloat or not since I do not have time right now. If someone would like to take up the cause and do it, go ahead with my blessing.

I want to point out that the reason none of the articles I cite mention the book is because they were published before the book was even conceived. In fact, they are articles written during the timeframe that Lembke says that were no news accounts about spitting: 1967 to 1971. It is silly to state that a wiki article about a book cannot contain items that contradict portions of the book unless an article is written that specificly contradicts the book. Let's use David Irving as an example. If there is a wiki article about one of his books where in one chapter he claims that the Holocaust did not happen or happened on a much smaller scale than historians state but no one has published an article about the book, does that mean the wiki article cannot point out that that particular point in the book is false? Of course not. Additionally, since the full text of The Spitting Image is not available online, does that mean that in other wiki articles that it cannot be cited?

The reason I included the websites that are mostly summaries (and not the full articles) is because the articles are not accessible for free on the internet. However, if I had not included those websites with the summaries, I would be accused of just making stuff up. This has happened several times on wiki and even after supplying full articles there would still be people deleting the information because it goes against the grain of what they believe is true. (Yes this has happened to me also on other articles) Also notice that the articles are from reliable sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, and other newspapers with the dates of their publication included (and somes the author of the article also). Since most online databases that show full articles without a fee only go back to 1977, 1980, 1990 or 2000, how would you SLOAT go about citing articles published in 1967, 1968, 1971?

As for the Johnson article, I included it to show that antiwar activists had stooped to calling for spitting on Johnson in 1967. This is important for a couple of reasons. One it shows that "respect" by some activists to a government official (which just happened to be the Commander in Chief aka the head of the military) had deteriorated to a level that Lembck seems to deny. It also shows that the accusation of spitting by activists were not a creation of the Nixon Adminstration as the book claims. Notice that I also included another article from 1967 about the training of the National Guard for riots and how they dealt with spitting. On a side note, I did not include but I have read several articles in the same time period (1966 to 1972) where activists were spitting on police officers. The reason I did not include these articles was because I think it is off topic; however, I have included here in this discussion since it does point out that activists did not have respect for uniformed officals. Apples and oranges, I know but it is not beyond reason that if one group of uniformed officals were spit on than another group would have been also.Lokifer 23:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

At issue is not the accuracy of your quotations or citations to the articles, but rather the explicit Wikipedia policy against original research. If this material is relevant to Lembcke's research, surely someone will write an article in a reliable source debunking Lembcke's theory. Either write such an article yourself or sit tight and wait for someone to publish one. It's not Wikipedia's role to debunk theories in published sources. But when someone else debunks them, we can quote that. csloat 00:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For those who are too lazy to go to the history of the article, the following are the edits in question:

"However, it appears Lembcke's research was not entirely correct. The New York Times ran several articles about returning soldiers, veterans, national guards and ROTC members being spat on. In August 27, 1967, Neil Sheehan wrote about how national guards are trained to react to riots which included spitting.[3] In November 14, 1967, Max Frankel wrote about an incident at World War I memorial service by the American Legion where people were spit on.[4] On November 30, 1971, the times published an article about the mistreatment of soldiers on the street that included spitting.[5]

"Other newspapers around the country also ran stories about antiwar activists spitting on people. On December 29, 1967, the Washington Post published a story where a student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee offical declared that spitting on President Lyndon Johnson was a legitimate tactic for antiwar activists.[6] On June 2, 1971, the Chicago Tribune published another story about a spitting incident.[7] On June 9, 1971, the Reno Evening Gazette published a story about a veteran said he was spit on twice and denied service at a restaurant.[8] On July 24, 1971, the Holland Evening Sentinel published a story about a protestor who spit on Senator Birch Bayh and ran away. The protestor who was a Vietnam veteran was found and admitted to spitting, but claimed it was an accident.[9] On Sep 15, 1971, an editorial in the Washington Post mentions soldiers in uniform being spat on, both literally and figuratively.[10]

"Additionally, a December 27, 1971, television report on CBS Evening News told of a returning veteran named Delmar Pickett. Pickett said he was spat on in Seattle. (CBS Evening News, (Charles Collingwood reporting) [11]) In 1971, even a United States Senate subcommittee published a Drug Abuse Prevention and Control report mentioning that veterans wrote back to their buddies in Vietnam about spitting incidents.[12] Several other veterans contradict Lembcke as well, such as those cited in a 1989 book by Bob Greene, Homecoming. The book contains 63 accounts of spitting.(Clarence Page, September 2, 1998" [13]) Lokifer 01:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that Jim Lindgren has writen about this and did a quite good job in PWN'ing Lembeck (much like he did with Bellisiels and Lott). [14] Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing facts, Commodore Sloat

You acknowledge that they are facts, but you remove everything I wrote because they were not published in response to the book. If you look, you will see they are all contemporary articles to the war and fall into the time period that Lembeck claims no articles mention the spitting. If they were written before the book was published, of course they cannot be a response to the book. If the articles contradict the premise of the book, then they need to be included to the wiki entry. So stop removing factual information because you don't like it.09:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokifer (talk • contribs)

Look, I agree with you, so stop pretending I don't like this information. What I don't like is original research in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. You have a problem with it, write an article exposing the flaws in Lembke's research, get it published in a WP:RS, and then I will be the first to put it here myself. But Wikipedia cannot be the place to expose flawed research that has not been exposed already in a reliable source. I will keep removing this sort of thing until it is documented. Please see WP:SYN if you don't understand why this information does not belong here. Thanks. csloat 10:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Subsection

This would be more effective as a subsection atone of the Vietnam War, ant-war or protest entries. Who will ever find it here? No pages link here. Wetman 21:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not true, at least one does. I'm going to link some more. Rei

Having gone through the war on both sides of the fence (and marrying a war protester, as it happens) I never remember "spitting" as a being a major issue with anyone. Why do you think his is important enough for an article and links? Cecropia 21:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As a current antiwar protester, it's something that right-wing groups use to demonize us - the supposed legacy of "spitting on soldiers". It may not be an issue to you, but to the aforementioned right-wing groups and to antiwar people it is. Rei

During debate about the Hate Crimes bill (H.R. 1913) on April 29, 2009, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said that he was spat on as a Vietnam veteran when he returned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.74.225 (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any searchable references showing right ring groups claiming that current war protestors are being harangued by right-wing groups about "spitting on soldiers"? Cecropia

The searchable reference of authority for news artcles is Nexis.

"Although Nexis overflows with references to protesters gobbing on Vietnam vets, and Bob Greene's 1989 book Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned From Vietnam counts 63 examples of protester spitting..." Slate

Whether or not the person you request these articles from can produce them or whether this will be your only option for discovering them really has no bearing on their existance.

Likewise, complaining that someone else's google search isn't accurate enough to find 1 among tens of thousands of results, when you clearly have a keyboard yourself and the ability to refine the search terms if you wanted to, comes off as credible here as it always does.

Attriti0n 12:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Use google - take entry 3, for example. How about this ("They had the basic honesty to spit on those they despised, rather than trying to share in their honor and legitimacy. Today's protestors have no such qualms about trying to cuddle up with those they brand as murderers and war criminals. It's that sort of despicable behavior that is fueling the growing backlash against the anti-war movement.")? Or this ("One thing needs to be kept in mind at all times and this certainly applies to the growing number, of anti war protestors. DO NOT SPIT ON, THROW PAINT AT, VERBALLY ABUSE, ASSAULT OR CONDUCT ANY ACTIVITY THAT HUMILATES, INTIMIDATES OR PERSECUTES RETURNED SERVICE MEN [and] WOMEN. Just as Anti-war protestors did during the Vietnam conflict"). How many do you want? It's something we regularly have to deal with. Heck, even Kerry has been lumped into this group [15] ("Kerry boasts now of his time in Vietnam but he was one of those who joined the hippies and Jane Fondas of the world in spitting upon his fellow soldiers! You do NOT spit on your fellow soldiers no matter how much you might despise them, their rank, the military, etc."). Rei

WITHOUT FRANCE THERE WOULD BE NO AMERICA AND VICE VERCA. ITS CALLED THE INDEPENDENCE WAR IN WHICH FRANCE SACRIFICED ITS NAVY IN ORDER TO SAVE AMERICA AND DESTROY THE BRITTISH NAVY. LEARN YOUR HISTORY AND NOT THE NARROW MINDED VIEWS OF RIGHT WINGED RETARDS (IM NOT LEFT WING, I JUST THINK THERES DUMB RIGHT WINGERS)

I agree that this should be moved into a more mainstream Vietnam War page - there is not enough content for an article. Mark Richards 22:57, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the first 20 Google articles in Rei's search. Rei is using this article to claim that the right wing is claiming that soldiers were literally spat upon during Vietnam. Some of the first 20 articles use "spit" as in "spit-and-polish", some are from left-wing groups or individuals who internalize the charge (as this article does) in order to knock it down (this is called a "straw man") and the ones that do accuse protestors of spitting on soldiers do it in the allegorical sense, including the article number 3 (a poem) that Rei cites:

It wasn't just our citizens you spit on when you turned,

but every one of ours who fell the day the towers burned.

You spit upon our soldiers, on our pilots and Marines,

and now you'll get a little sense of just what payback means. (emphasis added).

So, can I have some actual examples? Did you read any of the Google items before you posted this article? Cecropia 23:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Um, did I say that all of the 80-some thousand articles that turned up were related? I'm sorry if I expect you to actually have to *look*, and I'm sorry that I expected you to know that search engines aren't perfect; my bad. I'll note that you only commented in the first link that I provided, and said absolutely nothing about the other three (I should also add that the first one references the old spitting on soldiers myth, even if allegorical, to slam the antiwar community (the French in particular)). I'll ask again: How many more examples do you want? Clearly four (or three if you're going to toss the first one) isn't enough for you. Since you're unwilling to take your time to use google, and seem unaware of the fact that search engines aren't perfect, I offered get you as many as you need - you just need to name a number. Rei

Google tends to put the most relevant articles first. So far you have maybe given me one, from Australia. You made no citations in your article.

Over *Eighty Thousand*, Cecropia. The other three that I got you were from the first few pages. What is so hard for you to understand about this? Have you really never used a search engine before or anything?

I posted my talk response before I saw the other two references.

Well, that teaches you a lesson, now doesn't it? And the count is "other three", not other two.

Reference #2 is also allegorical. "spitting" on is a common allegory. In the allergorical sense, a LOT of soldiers were "spat" upon. The third reference might or might not be an example, since it throws in a laundry list (spit, throw paint on, etc.). Article #3 also is from Australia, which might have had a different experience than the US (we're talking Kerry and Jane Fonda, which suggests the US experience).

It is not allegorical! Right wing groups honestly do believe that the troops were spat upon - I've been accused in person of being "one of those people who spits on the troops" several times, in person, at protests. It's not an allegory, they honestly do mean it. And the fact that it *sometimes* is used allegorical is almost always a reference to the supposed actual occurances of it in the Vietnam war.

Your article is entitled "Spitting on soldiers during the Vietnam War". By citing a source that soldiers were not physically spat upon, that they merely "felt spat-upon," you are obviously talking about being physically spat upon. You're talking about right-wingers in the US using charges that soldiers were physically spat upon during the Vietnam as an argument against current protestors (you wrote: "As a current antiwar protester, it's something that right-wing groups use to demonize us - the supposed legacy of 'spitting on soldiers'.").

So please quote the right-wing articles you relied upon in writing the article to show this is a real issue. Cecropia 00:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I gave four references - the first one was allegorical (but the allegory based on a perceived reality), and the other three were non-allegorical. How many more do you need? This is now my third time to offer to get you as many as you need.

What articles did I rely on writing the article to show that right-wing groups ? That's like asking someone in the George Bush article what articles they relied on to show that Bush is currently the president. Are you honestly saying that you've never heard these accusations about antiwar protesters before? What part of the country do you live in? I *am* an antiwar protester. I *have* been accused of being one of those people who hates the soldiers and spits on them (I've also been shoved to the ground and had my sign torn to pieces by a pro-war group, but that's another story all together).

Here's a challenge for you: Go to some right-wing website, like freerepublic.com, and register yourself a username. Go into a somewhat relevant article's discussion topic where there have been a lot of posts recently, and say an innocculous statement such as "You know, there's very little evidence that antiwar protesters *actually* spat on the soldiers coming home from the Vietnam War." They'll bite your head off. If you want to be more direct, go there and instead just ask them, "How did the antiwar protesters treat the soldiers when they came home from Vietnam"?

I'll state it again: This may not be a big issue to *YOU*, but to the anti-war protesters and the right-wingers who hate them, it *IS* a big issue, and it's remained a big issue since Vietnam, since they think that we still behave the way that we never actually did. Rei

You have yet to give me an actual right-wing U.S. site, not one, that has a non-allegorical claim that a soldier was physically spat upon. You wrote the article, I didn't, you have not a single reference or external link in the article and you won't back it up except by rhetoric. Cecropia 01:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What the heck - here's 11 links from the first few pages of a freerepublic.com search alone: [freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1016427/posts] [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bb23dd1738e.htm] [www.freerepublic.com/~commontator/in-forum] [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/1078947/posts] [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1094684/posts] [freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1069567/posts] [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-campaign2002/1070591/posts] [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/850383/posts] [www.freerepublic.com/~racebannon/in-forum] [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1073560/posts] [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1078785/posts]. And let me tell you - they don't mean it allegorically! (ask them!). How many do you need for it to be enough for you?

PLEASE! TELL ME!! What exactly are you saying isn't correct here? Are you trying to say that right-wingers aren't still making these claims? Is that what you're trying to say? If my 11 links that I just gave (in addition to the other 4, we're now at 15) isn't enough, what on Earth will it take to convince you? Describe what you need to see (in detail, so you can't back out when I present it to you), so that I can finally satisfy your distorted perception of reality on this issue. Rei

I swear, I feel like I'm in a Tom Tomorrow cartoon right now... Rei

I'm sorry Rei, maybe I'm not reading the right bits, but I couldn't find anything on spitting in those links - could you point it out for me? Thanks, Mark Richards 01:27, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Did you search for the word "spit"? It'll take you right to the comments. Each one of those links has at least one reference (non-allegorical!) to soldiers being spit on. If you want, I can excerpt those parts, although some of them have a bit of discussion on the subject and might be a bit long. Rei

Well, yes, I did, for instance in the first one they talk about 'Liberals spitting on our troops', and discuss whether they are spitting on the troops or on the war, but it is clearly in a theoretical sense, ie Liberals spit on the troops by opposing the war - help me out, I'm just not seeing the literal references. In another one the ref is 'What you or I believe is not worth a warm pitcher of spit'. Thanks, Mark Richards 01:33, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure Rei knows what an allegory is, and why it's so important to give a physical example. Because if he's arguing that no-one figuratively spat on the troops (and still "spit" on Vietnam veterans), he's wrong Cecropia 01:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, the "warm pitcher of spit" one was an accident, I accidentally copied the wrong link. I'll ask you, though: what do I need to do to prove to you that they mean it quite literally many of the times? I need to know what I need to show you to prove this. Would you be willing to take me up on my suggestion of registering a freerepublic user and asking them whether the antiwar protesters spit on the troops? If there's no way I can prove it to you apart from finding a page that put the word "literal" in front of "spit", you're tying my hands. Perhaps a dozen pages with the word "spittle" to make it more obvious? Would that do it for you? User:Rei

As Mark asked, please point out one specific example. You're asking us to do your research when you wrote the article. What do I want? What most people put in disputed articles: an actual quote saying from a right-wing site saying something like "an antiwar protester spit on a soldier returning from the war in San Diego. The soldier wiped the spit off his face and walked on.". Put this quote in the main article, where you make the assertion that this is an encylopedic entry, and give us a link, so we can see the source of that specific quote. Is that so hard? Cecropia 01:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Asking you to do my research for me? I'm the one who gathered 15 links on something that should be common knowledge, and you're saying that I'm not doing enough here? You want something like your sample quote? How about " After reading this account by David McTamaney of Newburgh, New York, it seems hard to find that this a myth: "?a youing guy, about twenty or so, wearing a headband and a leather vest, stepped back and looked at me. 'Have you been in Vietnam?' he asked innocently. 'Yeah,' I said 'I just go back, and I'm heading back to Al-' He never let me finish. He leaned back, made a couple of swishing motions with his mouth and spit in my face. I jumped backward, but his spittle hit me on my bare arm. I took a step forward realizing that he couldn't escape, and felt my heart begin to pump faster?I dragged all my stuff into the toilet stall, locked the door, put my face in my hands, and cried for the first time in months"" [16]. No? How about "Everybody waited for the freedom bird. 365 days and home. Get off the plane, and a little old lady spits on your nice green uniform. The spittle never came out of the cloth. Like acid, it was. Made a nice fire, too. It don't mean nuthin'." [17]? No? How about "One year later, I stepped off the plane at O'Hare, in my USAF Sgt's Blues, somewhat confused. A young, smiling, Blonde woman - a stranger - raced up to me with her arms outstreched. Just in front of me she stopped, turned ugly, screamed "baby killer" at me and spat in my face. Her spittle burned as it traced down my cheek. My first breaths on US soil - again, burned through my soul with rage, grief, humiliation, distain, despair and shame." [18]? For God's sake, what will it take? It's not like it's hard to find these. Or wait, is spittle somehow allegorical? Perhaps uniform means "his soul", and "Vietnam" is an analogy for everything dark inside us all? Rei

Well, at least you've given me something to look at. "viet-remf.com" is down right now, but I looked at your first quote. Interesting, seems to be posted by a student at university of providence. But actually, why should I assume the quote is phony? The author provides a direct reference: "Frederick Downs, A Soldier's Return From Vietnam" a direct quote (which you cited) and a page number: 23. That's all I really asked from you. Cecropia 03:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, following this without getting to deep into it, I find your tone mildly offensive. The article cites an academic work which examines this very question. Read Lembcke's work. [19], [20] He provides many citations, including those of soldiers claiming to have been spat upon repeatedly - and examines their veracity. Of course these statements were used by conservative groups. That should not even require a citation, it should be obvious to anyone who knows how these groups operate.—Eloquence 01:50, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Why offensive? I started out with a simple direct question: "Do you have any searchable references showing right ring groups claiming that current war protestors are being harangued by right-wing groups about "spitting on soldiers"? Cecropia". And then he challenges me to look up references to illustrate his argument. His article originally had one link, from Jane Fonda, and this article seems to be an attempt to associate people who dislike Fonda with a nonsense theory. Cecropia 03:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The stories of the spit burning like acid are amusing... a lot of the stories are based on the same "soldiers being spit on" stories are variants on a small group of form-letter stories that have been circulating among these people for the past 30 years, and one of the categories is the "burning spit" (or "staining spit") story. Rei

Does it make you wonder, if the claim is that the spit burned like acid or stained, whether this is physical or alegorical though? Regardless of these examples though, I think a paragraph or so on another Vietnam War page is sufficient to deal with these issues. Mark Richards 01:54, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The current level of detail should be retained. But I agree that the information should probably be moved.—Eloquence 01:59, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Moved is fine, so long as the detail is retained, although there is one link that points specifically to here (in the Jane Fonda article). I'm glad to see that I'm not going to be made to keep spending my evening digging up more and more right wingers talking about soldiers being spit on with insinuations that "they don't really mean it" (when I've had it said to my face). :P Rei

Well, I think that some folks' concern might stem from the fact that so few of these are independently verifiable or reported rather than second hand reporting of described incidents. Nonetheless, some mention of this is definately worthwhile on another page. Mark Richards 02:37, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Er, that's the point - it's an urban legend, probably a deliberately created one.—Eloquence 02:39, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Eloquence, well of course people make up phony examples to support their prejudices. During the Vietnam war, Lyndon Johnson made up a whole attack to get a resolution from congress. Some anti-war people made up a phony poster that quoted a speech that sounded like a US right-winger made it and ended with a call for "law and order". Then they attributed the speech to Hitler. Hitler never made the speech. And of course, there was silly stuff, like that Jerry Mathers (the Beaver) was killed in Vietnam. (He wasn't).

But you say "urban legend." Since I don't know personally if an actual soldier was spat upon, you may be right. But do you take that implication further that soldiers weren't subject to petty harassment, discrimination, and didn't want to wear their uniforms off duty? Cecropia 03:12, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Most of the article seems to be about hostility or mistreatment of veterans or soldiers rather than spitting per se - why don't we just move it to Attitudes towards Vietnam soldiers or something like that? Mark Richards 03:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The addition of the Bonus stuff makes it even less about Vietnam, or spitting - there could be a really good article about Societal reactions to returning solders - how about it?

Actually, I think it could be a really good and interesting article, and not just for the U.S. I remember when I first visited Germany about 20 years ago to see my then-girlfriend's relatives there. It was a little creepy to see little towns in color that I had only seen in black-and-white newsreels filled with Nazi soldiers. Well, we were in a small city and I saw what looked like a war memorial. It was a war memorial, to WWII soldiers! It didn't show them carrying weapons or wearing swastikas, but it was clearly an admiring memorial (and I went on to see others in other towns). My first reaction was that modern Germans were honoring Nazis, but on second thought I realized something else--they were honoring sacrifice--no soldier could possibly have fought for a worse cause, and of course they were totally defeated--but nevertheless they were caught up, like most soldiers in a war of others' making, and they were honored for what they suffered. What a contrast to the U.S. and Vietnam.

My concern about such an article, though, is that it will be too contentious. And it makes me realize what really bothers me about this article. The author starts out "A persistent criticism levelled against those who protested the United States's involvement in the Vietnam War is the accusation that soldiers, returning home from the war, were spat upon and derided with harsh insults by anti-war protesters." Then the "derided with harsh criticism" is dropped and the entire post-war Vietnam veteran experience is boiled down to trying to prove that soldiers were not literally 'spat' upon." What makes the whole subject ironic is that the author complains (in talk) "I *am* an antiwar protester. I *have* been accused of being one of those people who hates the soldiers and spits on them." First, I would not spit on him for protesting or do anything else to him, and I have no respect for people who would do that. Nevertheless, he is writing an article trying to claim (in essence) that Vietnam era soldiers being denigrated is a figment of the imagination, but his suffering is real.

It was not just an issue of insults and confrontations, of people passing you on the subway if you were in uniform and muttering "F***ing babykiller" or mocking you with "left-right-left-right" or taxi drivers passing you by to pick up another fare. In a way, you could just mutter "a**holes" to yourself, and forget about it. But a little more difficult was just trying to get home to enjoy a weekend pass and having a pretty girl walk up to you with fire in her eyes, and say "why do you do this?" "why do murder innocent people." And then start trying to debate the whole war with you, when actually you agree with her statements if not her attitude. Or you have the writer Mary McGrory, who wrote (while the war was still on) that Vietnam Vets shouldn't get Veterans Benefits, they should go to kids who ran to Canada instead.

I apologize. I could give you a lot more personal anecdotes, and I am only one ex-soldier. There were millions of us during the war. I don't want sympathy or even agreement. Just for people to absorb that there is more to the world than what you read in books and blogs and even Wikipedia articles. Cecropia 14:05, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What you say is moving, and it's themes are of broad interest. I think that an intelligent and sensitive article on these kinds of issues including many wars and countries, would be a credit to wikipedia. Thank you for your candid and thoughtful comments. I propose starting again on this article, and looking at social attitudes and reactions to soldiers from different countries, and in different wars - we can have a go here - Attitudes and reactions to returning soldiers. I'd like to move the text of the spitting article into the talk pages, and then move this - we can begin by dividing the article into countries, then by wars (or perhaps by war, and then by country? If necessary we could break it into several articles. Mark Richards 15:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, Mark. I was actually thinking about that myself just last night. Would you be willing to take the time to move and restructure it, or would you rather I do it? Rei

Sure, I'll do this later today or tomorrow unless there is a lot of objection. Thinking about it, by war, then by country might be best. Mark Richards 17:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Mark. I think you will do a good job. It's a broad and deep topic, and I don't know how much material we'd get from diverse countries and times, but "even a journey of a thousand miles..." Cecropia 18:52, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No PTSD?

The article currently states "Lembcke's book argues, further, that posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, is a socially-constructed diagnostic category that disparages the image of Vietnam veterans and provided another way to discredit the many veterans in the anti-war movement."

To me, that reads as though he denies the existence of PTSD, stating that the diagnosis was invented in order to discredit veterans and especially anti-war veterans. Am I reading what is written here incorrectly? Does Lembcke's book actually state that PTSD is a "socially-constructed diagnostic category"? Since the term apparently came into use in the mid-1970s, after the war was over, why would it have been used to discredit veterans in the anti-war movement after the reason for protesting was gone? --Habap (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)