When Vietnam vets came home (Soldiers being spit on is just an urban myth)

News and Observer ^ | Nov 10, 2004 | JOHN LLEWELLYN

[mykdsmom]

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.)

[Spacetrucker]

Semper Fi, brother.

[nukemideast]

Well it seems John is an expert in Liberal BS. I grew up in the sixties and seventies and was horrified at the treatment our troops were treated. Next he will be saying that nobody ran away to Canada to hide from the draft. Oh wait Jane Fonda never went to North Vietnam... yeah right tell us another.

[wizr]

Thanks.

[eaglesiniowa]

Sent the idiot the following.

I read your article with great interest and can only say that you obviously are living in a dream world where spitting on soldiers does not exist. Hell, I was spit on and railed against when I was merely an ROTC member at Ohio State during 1968-1971, never mind the insults flung at me while serving on active duty. Your little article in no way dispels an urban myth, but is a feeble attempt at creating a new one. No wonder our college students are so ignorant with “professors” such as yourself.

What a flaming maroon!

[DRILL SGT. D]

I wonder if this idiot will dispell the urban myth of voter intimidation in the 2000 election?

[rwa265]

Scholar of Urban Legends?
Gosh...sounds like snopes...

I went to snopes and could only find the Hanoi Jane true story. Went to truthorfiction and found the Hanoi Jane story, but also found the true story of Ann-Margret's tribute to Vietnam Veterans at a book signing. What a classy lady!

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/annmargret.htm

[robowombat]

Your extended commentary is very much to the point. There is another aspect of the depressing domestic history of the Viet Nam conflict that gets little examination. That is why the national leadership class fell apart over the conflict. When faced near simultaneously with the Tet Offense and in Korea the Blue House raid and the seizure of the USS Pueblo the top echelon of the civilian leadership collapsed into confusion that bordered on panic. The appropriate responses would have invoked the wrath of the left but so what. Why did the 'leaders of the Free World' show such spinelessness in face of an at best medium level threat situation? Watching this meltdown from the sidelines as I completed college and prepared to enter the military gave me a deep seated queasy feeling.

Beyond this issue is the bigger issue of how and why the academic and intellectual establishment became subverted by what were for all intents crypto-communists. I first noticed this with the near religious adulation Fidel Castro and his thugs were given by many liberal academics and intellectuals. Sidney Hook or some other veteran of the twilight struggle against the commies noted that a movement and a leader that makes the gun its symbol after taking power is wed to the cult of revolutionary violence and will only become more tyrannical as time passes. This thought was completely dismissed by Castro's large US cheering section. His appeal amazed me and (back then I was pretty much a New Deal-Fair Deal-New Frontier liberal) it was bothersome that so many major academic and intellectual figures didn't take one look at the man and see that he was a sort of red Hitler figure.

The emergence of the progressively more radical faction of the liberal left and its effective mau-mauing of academia, the intellectual establishment and eventually the Democratic Party is the elephant in the living room of liberal America that they don't and won't recognize. The incredible rage and hatred displayed by left liberals during the latest presidential campaign are all to familiar and disturbing to those who lived through the awful period from 1963 to 1975 and then watched the buzzards come home to roost during the Carter administration.

[traviskicks]

thnx! It is just distressing to me to have been taught in school that the Vietnam war was a failure and that the domino therory was propogated by paranoid Mcarthyite skitzoids. We were taught nothing of the evils of communism.

I still think many people in my generation (mid 20s) have had these REAL MYTHS brainwashed into their heads by history books and the media.

Vietnam was lost by the criminal incompetence of the Johnson administration, including him and McNamera lying on multiple occasions to the American people, and the Nixon Administration (which was by this time so handicapped by public opinion and foolish campaign promises that he couldn't do anything anyway).

As my previous point illustrated, the domino theory was exactly what happened. Millions were killed and subjagated because of the American withdawl. It is lucky that Communism didn't advance farther then it did.

Throughout the whole Cold war period we had no proper national security strategy to deal with the military and propoganda threat of communism as they exported revolution all over the world.

I remember watching a documentary about Bush and one of his friends in texas. His friend said:

"yea we were all big Goldwater Republicans. We thought that if Goldwater had been elected in 1964 - the Vietnam war would have ended in 1964"

I think he's exactly right!

The brave soldiers and veterans of the US armed forces were betrayed by the leaders of this country, the journalists of this country, and (to some extent) some of the people of this country. It is appaling that the only people who were actually doing the RIGHT thing and fighting to save lives and advance freedom, the US soldiers and veterans, were the ones disparaged the most.

It is, like almost all of liberalism, 180 degrees from where the blame should lie. Instead, Kerry claims he was a big hero when he advocated exactly what he accused the Conservatives of doing (bringing death and despair to south east asia). Yet somehow people don't see this...

If we had just followed the "Powell Doctorine" of applying overwhelming force we could have won that war in a year - had the national leadership been willing to do so.
To this day, people don't realize what a threat communism is and was. Here is another excerpt from what I posted earlier:

Communism is the greatest evil that man has ever known. It is responsible for more than 100 millions deaths (more than all the wars in history combined), millions and millions of refugees and the subjugation and slavery of over 2 billion people since WWII. Communist regimes always follow a similar pattern. A Communist regime has never been elected, so first Communists must orchestrate a revolution, often with the support of funding from preexisting Communist regime. Next, Communists dissolve private property, nationalize media and begin a brutal purge of political prisoners and the upper classes. To conduct it's class warfare and maintain control of the revolting people, the state will militarize, establish a large secret police presence, and create horrific labor/reeducation camps. The economy collapses, failed farm policies result in starvation, refugees flee, and the government begins to export Communist revolution abroad. How far the government is willing to push the Communist philosophy will directly equate with the severity of these events and the suffering of their people. This exact pattern has come to pass in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea, Angola, Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Cuba. A few countries on this list have not experienced the true hell of Communism because the governments either didn't last long enough to take full root, or total Communist policies were not pursued in earnest.


btw the 'black book of communism' is a great read. And your right, this mistaken view of Vietnam has been applied to South America, Cuba, and any other Communist/Socialist country you can think of (and of course dictators everywhere too).

I think Bush with his 'freedom strategy' has finally taken our foreign policy back where it needs to be. And we can thank Reagan for doing the same thing.

[RaceBannon]

Sorry, if there was no Phlegm, it does not count. We were expendable you see....

I am finally over the anger of this article. Took 3 days or so.

[Colt .45]

This guy is a clown. I was in High School ROTC in 1970 and was spit at and being called "Baby Killer". Things died down somewhat by 1974 when I enlisted but we servicemen still weren't welcomed in too many areas. It wasn't until the Reagan presidency that we started to get some respect from the American Civilian populace. So his crap about this being an urban myth is just that - CRAP! Perhaps he should be visited by vets and re-educated about what really happened. Most vets learned real quick to ditch the uniform and try to blend in. And that hurt because we were all proud of our uniforms. F*ck this clown proffessor and the horse he rode in on!!!!!!!!!!!

[RightWingConspirator]

I shared a cab with an insufferable, pompous liberal--looked a good bit like this a$$hole, but more overweight and slovenly--one day this week in Pittsburgh going downtown to the SuperComputing 2004 Conference. He let me know that he was a retired professor and a "program director at the National Science Foundation" and that really impressed me </sarcasm>. Once the cab started rolling he commented that he was "really disappointed in the outcome of the election." I pointed out that I and lots of people I knew were deeply disappointed with the results of the elections in 1992 and 1996, but that I was really happy with the results of the election of 2004, and as a Vietnam vet, I believed that Kerry was unfit to be president. The cab got really quiet after that and I rode the rest of the way to the convention center in peace.

[Mrs.Liberty]

As I drove into work this morning I began to tell my 12 year old son how lucky we were that John F'n Kerry had not been elected. I then continued, telling my son how kerry was a liar and traitor to our country and to our Vietnam Veterans. I finished off by telling him of the stories I had read on this forum, and others, of how our Vets were treated by the liberals on their return home to the states. I was so angry I was almost shouting. Reading this piece of B.S. from this professor has just made me angrier.

To those Vietnam (and GW I and II) vets on this board--THANK YOU. THANK YOU for your service to this country. Thank you for being willing to risk your lives for the cause of freedom in the world.

And Welcome Home.

[Robert Lomax]

I was in an airport in 1982 and a gay guy at the check in counter was seriously trying to mess with me by talking all kinds of anti-war non-sense. I was home on leave and was with my father and brothers. I unloaded with a string of expletives at the MF and asked him if he was ready to die right there in the airport for what he was saying, because I was going to reach over and choke him with his own tie. I then ordered him to get someone else to serve me. Yes, it was real! Oh yeh, the family was shocked that I could say the things I did.

[Gangchen_gonpo]

I sent a letter to the address provided. I doubt I will receive a response, but everyone should put a little something in his email Inbox.

llewelly@wfu.edu

Dear John Llewellyn,
Had you asked me how it was when I returned, I would have to say that I didn't experience any spitting, but then I was in civilian clothes and as a fleet sailor stationed in Iceland, I didn't look like I was in the military.

I volunteered in August 1974 to serve my country and when I reached my first training station after boot camp we were warned to wear civilian clothes and wear a hat while off the base in the US. The only time I ever violated that unwritten rule was at home in Clearwater, Florida in 1975. They spit at me, punched and tried to kick me as I passed by. They also called me a baby-killer.

As a recent graduate of Class A school at the tender age of 18, I had absolutely no idea what they were talking about and dismissed it as aberrant behavior, I also didn't violate the 'rule' again. Even when I was married in 1977. By the time I got out of the service in 1980, I had completely forgotten about the incident.

In the late 90s I was invited to participate in a training program in my home state and speak with some like-minded individuals engaged in political activities. Allow me quickly add that I am no longer engaged in any political activities. After two days of exposure to these folks, I remembered what had happened. It wasn't troubling me, I just chalked it up to their ignorance and the real blame belongs to those that lied to them.

Now maybe it would be nice to soothe the wounds that apparently were ripped open during the latest presidential campaign and gloss over what really happened last week. One candidate held his medals up high and proclaimed himself a hero in public. I respect everyone that serves and served, it took(takes) a lot of guts just to get on the plane. That being said, there are unanswered allegations of illicit behavior. Well, not really unanswered, the candidate admits that he did these things and there are copies of it on the internet. I bet all the negativity about the current president could not drive the voters to cast a ballot for a man that embodied the image of the propagandist that turned Americans against Americans. Maybe if he had apologized for painting the lot of us with such a broad vitriolic brush, some could have forgiven him. Another maybe would have been for him to release his complete military records by filling out Form 180, instead of just the portions he wanted people to see. That probably made more than a few people uneasy, proclaiming oneself a hero and yet be unwilling to provide open access to the records.

Getting back off the rant, there are people in the US that loathe the military and use their first amendment rights to express these thoughts in many mediums. I once heard on a radio show that, "the only reason they join is to kill brown people," referring to enlistees. At demonstrations, people hold signs that say "We support our troops when they shoot their officers." And how many internet websites proclaim much the same ? I just checked Google and for the terms 'US military baby-killer' and the results say there are 27,700 pages.

Now I do not care one way or the other whether these folks get a life, but to sweep this under the carpet is to gloss it over and leave the wound festering. I know in my heart that my service was honorable as is the case for the vast majority of veterans and their families.

Thank you for your time and attention,

[cookcounty]

"I was in college towards the end of the Viet Nam war. I strongly remember meeting returning soldiers at parties on campus where no one would talk to them"

I got out in 1973, went home to a pretty conservative area in Western Michigan. My only negative experience was that there were some people when I went back to my college who would not speak to me or shake my hand. This was in a generaly pro-military area (My home county went 75% for Bush)

[RaceBannon]

Letters Home / Opinion / Letters








Published: Nov 12, 2004
Modified: Nov 12, 2004 7:48 AM

Hostility to the troops

Regarding the Nov. 10 Point of View article "When Vietnam vets came home" by John Llewellyn of Wake Forest University:
While Llewellyn, a "certified expert" on urban legends, is entitled to his point of view, I feel his research methods and conclusions are flawed. My own experience, and that of many acquaintances, would indicate that the number of soldiers returning from Vietnam who experienced "unfriendly" encounters and actual vilification far exceeded the 3 percent he cited.

In October 1967, while en route home in uniform from my first of two combat tours in Vietnam, I was approached by two young men in the San Francisco airport who called me an [expletive] baby killer as they walked by.

After my initial shock, this "fit and trained, combat hardened" soldier decided that any small satisfaction that I might get from continuing the encounter was not worth the delay in being reunited with my family.

Therefore, there were no pictures, arrest reports, trial records or coroner's reports to document the incident. That does not mean that it never happened.

My personal experience and that of far too many of my fellow service members would indicate that the incidents we experienced should not be trivialized by the term urban legend.

I agree with Llewellyn that policy disagreements should not result in personal vendettas. I don't agree that one should attempt to rewrite history by introducing the term urban legend to disguise that personal vendetta.

Howard S. Paris, Ed. D

Col., U.S. Army (Ret.)

Goldsboro


http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/letters/story/1821407p-8130906c.html

[stands2reason]

See post #434. Sonofagun suggests you're remembering wrong.

[JoeSixPack1]

Spot on rebuttal! Good catch!

Semper Fi

[PoorMuttly]

One may "get over," but forgetting is another thing entirely.

[airborne]

This from the same people who spit on Boy Scouts! If it weren't for so many safety features on things now, these subhuman cretins would have died off already.