Posted on 11/10/2004 3:35:05 PM PST by 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.)
Semper Fi
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.IF this is true, then it makes John Kerry's lies before the Senate committee (which are NOT urban myths but recorded on the news footage of the day) even more outragious. It means John Kerry and his merry band of leftist scum were doing enough spitting all on their own to create the image of a nation spitting on its soldiers.
Kerry should be strung up.
I was in the Air Force from 1975 - 1979. I was cursed at, called every name in the book while in uniform, and had bottles thrown at me. It wasn't the majority of my experience, but it did occur.
While stationed in Lowry AFB, in Denver, Colo. we were told to avoid certain areas.
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…
There were few accounts in news stories, so that makes it a myth? Our “esteemed” media was not generally publishing anything that would show our military in a favorable light or show the anti-war mob in an unfavorable light. Mistreatment of our military was not likely to make the news.
…what spitting was reported was done by citizens expressing displeasure with protesters.
Mistreatment of the protesters was sure to make the news.
Let me Welcome you home.....please go post on the Veterans Day thread......btw...I love the AF, I was an AF brat...
I am so sorry about your brother.
I was asked by a democrat politician at a public meeting how many innocents I killed bombing the towns. I was called "General Ripper" by former friends. For the record: I was not even a pilot. I was not even in Vietnam. I was just an Air Force oficer. It was a rough time.
Did it happen a lot ? I think not. It was the exception, not the rule.
It happened enough that we were ordered not to travel in uniform.
In my own case it did not happen when I returned in 1967 or 1968. It did happen when I returned in 1970 at the San Francisco International Airport:
I entered the terminal wearing a brand new dress uniform with all my awards. I had a heavy suntan and looked like a returning combat vet. A young and very pretty hippie chick approached me with a huge welcoming smile. I smiled back.
She hawked a luggie at my face.
It missed, and her face suddenly distorted into a mask of pure hatred as she screamed "How many babies did you kill?" "Murderer!"
I had heard of this happening, but didn't really believe it. It was a new thing.
I was not aware of the new CONUS order about traveling in uniform.
You made my day!
God Bless, and Happy Veteran's Day!
From one South Dakotan to another, your email to him is a lot more dignified than he deserves.
Thank you for serving our country.
Geshhhhh.
>BEHOLD!<
....yet more metamorphosis.
Someone who lives in Wake Forest PLEASE print this thread and tape it to the guy's door at WFU.
I would print it and drive over myself, but it is an hour's drive from here.
If you know of any kids at Wake Forest, please do this!
MistyCA, Thanks for the ping from your newly-fixed pinger, even if it was an article from another snarky leftist moonbat liar trying to re-write history.
Happy Birthday to all you vets! We are so thankful for you and so very proud of you. This day is in YOUR honor.
You are welcome! :)
Bump
you're welcome!
Thanks for your service! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.