Posted on 01/18/2005 3:30:59 PM PST by CHARLITE
Book Reviews
Jerry Lembcke,The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam
As every Vietnam-era activist knows, no antiwar demonstrator ever spat on a returning veteran. Yet the myth has become a prevalent theme in American culture, so much so that today there are Vietnam veterans who in good faith actually believe they were spat upon. How did this egregiously false narrative become part of American life?
Lembcke approaches the question from mulitple directions:
Exhaustive analysis of primary sources demonstrates conclusively that there were no contemporary reports of antiwar demonstrators mistreating veterans or in-service GIs. While "there were [...] actual incidents of Vietnam veterans being treated abusively, [...] in all the documentable cases it was pro-war people who were the abusers." Lembcke concludes definitively that "the icon of homefront betrayal, the spat-upon veteran, is a figment of the imagination that has been popularized through storytelling. [...] Although it is a picture that thousands of people have in their minds, it simply does not exist outside of their minds."
Examination of the actual historical relationship between veterans and peace activists shows that Vietnam veterans in overhwelming numbers supported the movement, while activists went out of their way to build supportive relationships with military personnel both before and after service. Relationships between the two groups were so strong that by 1970 veterans were at the forefront of the movement's leadership. Lembcke's strong account stresses their role, as well as the very widespread support for the movement inside the ranks of in-service GIs. Indeed, Lembcke makes clear that this principled, strategic activist committment to support of the GI movement had enormous impact on the armed forces revolt which eventually ended the war.1 Lembcke concludes, "We have largely forgotten that much of the energy and inspiration for the anti-war movement came from veterans themselves. [...] In truth, GIs and veterans were an integral part of the anti-war movement. Indeed, by the end of the war, veterans were playing a leading and militant role in opposition to it."
Analysis of the political context in which the Nixon-Agnew administration initiated the myth of movement mistreatment of veterans demonstrates that "the keystone of the right wing's strategy was to split the liberal and radical elements within the anti-war movement and to split Vietnam veterans from the movment."2 The administration thus initiated "a propaganda campaign to discredit the anti-war movement by portraying it as an alien, un-American, and violent phenomenon." In effect, the Nixon administration suggested that opposition to the war and opposition to the troops were one and the same. They reframed the debate "from this-war-is-about-U.S.-objectives-in-Southeast-Asia (that is, assuring the freedom of the Vietnamese people, the repulsion of communism, etc.) to this-war-is-about-the-men-who-are-fighting-the-war. [...] The corollary of the support-the-troops rehetoric was that anyone who opposed the war was, in the eyes of Nixon-Agnew followers, also disloyal to the soldiers and, by extension, disloyal to the country. [...] The singular image of the spat-up Vietnam veteran thus became the perfecting myth of the Nixon-Agnew administration's strategy to discredit the anti-war movement."3 The Nixon-Agnew narrative remains the basis of right-wing imperial discourse today. As Lembcke stresses, The image of the spat-upon veteran is, of course, only the grounding image for a larger narrative of betrayal. The story that the spat-upon veteran is supposed to call to mind is how the unwillingness of the country and its leaders to make the ultimate sacrifices for the war effort robbed our young warriors of their victory and the nation of its honor. It is the story of how those who were disloyal to the nation's interest 'sold out' or 'stabbed in the back' our military. Acceptance of the image of spat-upon veterans entails an acceptance of that larger story of betrayal.
Placing the spat-upon veteran myth in broad historical context draws intriguing parallels to experiences of other nations in defeat. Mythological narratives of "spit", "betrayal" and "stab-in-the-back" loomed large in the Nazi story of why Germany was defeated in World War One,4 the French experience after defeat in Indo-China, and again after defeat in Algeria. "In the stories about American veterans of Vietnam, German veterans of World War I, and French veterans of Indochina, we find elements characteristic of myths. In each, there is some physical act that functions as an icon to elicit an emotional response. In the German case there were actually two such icons, with the 'stab in the back' and 'spat-upon veteran' images both figuring prominently in Nazi propaganda. In the French case, the 'stab in the back' image was the most prominent, while in the American the 'stab in the back' was invoked most frequently during the war years, and the 'spat-upon veteran' gained great popularity during the 1980s. [...] Most important, all the modern stories are about soldiers returning from wars they lost. The fact that we seldom, if ever, hear stories about soldiers in winning armies returning home to abuse suggests that these tales function specifically as alibis for why a war was lost. In the cases sited here, the armies represented the expansionist interests of nations with ideologies of cultural, ethnic, or racial superiority. Unable to deal with their defeat by 'inferior' peoples or societies, the losing colonizers look for the reasons for their defeat at home. The myth of the betrayed, abused veteran is a classic form of scapegoating."
Tracing the rise and propagation of the spat-upon veteran myth through its primary medium of dissemination, film, provides a basis for a materialist theorization of Hollywood's role as an "Ideological State Apparatus".5 While Lembcke does not explicitly theorize his survey in these terms, his account is a rich source for those interested in a more theoretical approach.
Analyzing the gender politics of the myth places it within intriguing sociological and mythological contexts. As Lembcke points out, "in American culture it is men, not women, who spit." Yet in its most widespread form, the myth of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran features a female protester as the hapless soldier's persecutor. Lembcke poses the interesting question, "why were the coming-home memories of war veterans gendered in this way?", answering it with a discussion of gender roles in myths of the evil eye, creation, and the antinomy between humans and nature.
Close examination of the context in which the myth first became part of everyday political debate emphasizes the organized way in which it was deliberately propagated. "In the United States, the idea that Vietnam veterans had met with malevolence gained prominence during the fall of 1990, when the Bush administration used it to rally support for the Persian Gulf War." As Lembcke emphasizes, analysis of news stories gleaned from the press accounts of fall 1990 reveals that the administration had put forth one reason after another for U.S. involvement, to the point that nobody could reason about the rightness or wrongness of the war. [...] In all, the administration put forth six reasons for U.S. involvement in the war: the defense of Saudi Arabia; putting military teeth in the economic blockade of Iraq; freeing the hostages; the liberation of Kuwait; the removal of Saddam Hussein; and jobs. [...] With the ends always changing, reasoning within a means-ends framework became paralyzed. At that point, public decision-making defaulted to levels of emotion, symbolism, and myth. [...] It was the myth of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran that galvanized the sentiments of the American people sufficiently to discredit peace activists and give George Bush his war.6
Examination of the myth's function underscores its directly political purposes. "In his study of political apathy on today's college campuses, Paul Loeb (1994) found that the image of the spitting anti-war activist of the 1960s is an icon of 1990s conservative ideology and is used to intimidate would-be activists. Many of today's students prefer to remain inactive out of fear that activism will lead others to associate them with the 1960s types who spat on the veterans."
A materialist analysis of the ways in which myths are constructed and propagated in contemporary societies stresses their historicity. Throughout his text Lembcke offers numerous insights, arguing for instance that "myths are made of something [...]; [they] involve the assembly of pieces of real events for the construction of stories that, taken as a whole, are not true." He stresses the role of concrete ideological apparatuses in the real-life propagation of myths, noting in this context that "journalists, academics, and other influential spin doctors of the day were making real choices about how the war in Vietnam would be remembered. There were choices, and what is interesting from our turn-of-the-century vantage point is that some interpretive voices got amplified by the academic establishment, news media and cultural institutions, while others were ignored." Lembcke's book is an important resource not just for activists but for those interested in studying the specific mechanisms through which the narratives which define a culture are produced and disseminated. These processes are political: their outcomes will in large measure shape future history. Lembcke's conclusion is a call for struggle:
Reclaiming our memory of the Vietnam era entails a struggle against very powerful institutional forces that toy with our imaginings of the war for reasons of monetary, political, or professional gain. It is a struggle for our individual and collective identities that calls us to reappropriate the making of our own memories. It is a struggle of epic importance. Studies of the twentieth century will shape America's national identity for decades to come. How Vietnam is to be remembered looms large on the agenda of turn-of-the-century legacy studies. Remembered as a war that was lost because of betrayal at home, Vietnam becomes a modern-day Alamo that must be avenged, a pretext for more war and generations of more veterans. Remembered as a war in which soldiers and pacifists joined hands to fight for peace, Vietnam symbolizes popular resistance to political authority and the dominant images of what it means to be a good American. By challenging myths like that of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran, we reclaim our role in the writing of our own history, the construction of our own memory, and the making of our own identity.
-- Mark Phillips, 3/7/03
Professor Lembcke:
You sir, are a despicable liar and propagandist. You are a part of that which is wrong with this once great nation of ours. The simple fact that you are allowed to get away with your lies and propaganda and that you place those lies inside the heads of young impressionable minds, is reason enough to call you "the enemy within". Personally, I wouldn't waste time debating you as you are not worthy.
If things ever got so bad that food was scarce, that would be what would happen if you succeed in your mission of world socialism, you people would be the ones whom it would not be worth feeding.
I use as my proof, the lie you state below.
"As every Vietnam-era activist knows, no antiwar demonstrator ever spat on a returning veteran. Yet the myth has become a prevalent theme in American culture, so much so that today there are Vietnam veterans who in good faith actually believe they were spat upon. How did this egregiously false narrative become part of American life?"
http://www.trouble-tickets.org/bookstore/reviews/lembcke_spittingImage.html
If you are trying to create controversy and gain publicity with your lies, forget it, we who know better have no time for idiots like you.
I am sure you also believe that you and your fellow anti-war activists played no part in the subsequent murder and starvation of millions in Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Laos after you and your friends had us pull out. There is the blood of innocents on your hands sir, and you will have to explain that to your maker eventually, whether or not you believe it.
My gosh, when I just re-read what you said, I realize sir, you are sick!
Dis-respectfully yours in Liberty,
Endowed by the Creator,
Saved by Jesus Christ, and
Preserved by the American Military Veteran,
Jeff "Mario" Smith
LEFTington, KY
Brother of a Viet Nam Veteran whose boots you are not even fit to lick, and who was spat upon and called a "baby killer" by the people you call your friends and heroes.
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favors."
-- George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation, October 3, 1789.
Part of my slow painful ascent from duped minion of the left to, ahem, enlightened conservative and patriot was this: WHen I was a seminarian, my field work parish was maybe 50% military related. One of my favorite people and biggest helpers was a sergeant lately returned from Viet Nam. While he was there his wife received two phone calls, which turned out [obviously] to be bogus, telling her he had been KIA.
Many anti-war types were completely despicable and their motives were not about peace and flowers but about Marxism.
The bast we can say about this guy is that he is delusional.
Only Chomsky would find this readable.
I wasn't spit on, but if looks could have killed, I would
have been a dead man.
Hardly. And it's utterly presumptuous of this tool to make so broad a claim.
How did this egregiously false narrative become part of American life?
I'm not sure it's a myth. But even if it is, it's a metaphor for the abuse our veterans suffered at the hands of an indifferent or hostile populace on their return from the war. I don't think anybody is going to step up and admit that they spat on a returning GI during the 60's. It just wouldn't be a safe thing to do these days. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
What a crock! I quit reading at this point and read your appropriately worded commentary. I was unfortunate enough to attend the University of Michigan (A hot bed of antiwar activism) immediately after my service ended in late 1966 and I can testify to the mistreatment and complete discrimination by these so-called humanitarians of the military. My experiences are first hand.
WTF?
The "myth" of the poorly treated Vietnam era soldier/etc being poorly treated was created in the early 90s?!?
My father was telling me of the treatment he and his fellow sailors received at the hands of "peace" activists in the 80s. True, he was never spit on, but the idea that vets weren't treated like crap is BS.
Heck, look at how Hollywood portrayed them - as drug addicts, psychopaths, and scum...
As every Vietnam-era activist knows, no antiwar demonstrator ever spat on a returning veteran.
1972 When returning home from Basic and AIT at Ft. Knox, dressed in my dress greens, I was waiting for my flight at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. While waiting, I decided to have a drink at one of the bars in the airport. I had just gotten my drink, turned to go sit down and BAM, I was spit on and called a baby killer. I wanted to kill the SOB, but cooler heads prevailed, and the person wasn't harmed. So, anyone who says this kind of sh*t didn't happen, is full of sh*t!
There's a former marine around where I work who got jumped by three or so dirtyhippies when he was walking around in his uniform after he got back from Nam.
This author is lying and isn't even trying to appear honest.
Someone is always trying to make a buck off of the Vietnam vet.
F*** You Jerry Lembke.
This bozo needs to read the late journalist Bob Greene's book, HOMECOMING, which is full of personal accounts of vets who were spat upon (always by a crowd of scum, never guts enough to go one on one) with dates, places and names. I can give a bit more but don't care to relive it.
He can try it again in a few decades when there are fewer people alive who know better. For now he just looks like a fool.
He is correct. Similarly, the Holocaust is also a myth. My father's family was NOT murdered in the camps. Rather, their disappearance is due to their willing emmigration to Koosbane, the Muppet Planet.
The spitting image???
Perhaps the spit and image.
shortened to spit'n' image
Professor Lembcke: Echo Sierra Alpha Delta, Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform, Kilo Mike Whiskey Alpha---how do you receive, over?
The cabbie taking me and a couple of others,one sailor,one Marine,warned us to get into the terminal as fast as possible. We had to pass through a crowd of screaming vermin that were waiting outside the terminal entrance. They were screaming at us calling us baby killers,fascists, and yes, they were spitting.
The local police were there but all they did was clear the way to the door for us. I went to the men's room and took off my my jumper and got a clean one out of my seabag and changed. The old one was covered with spit. I threw it away and washed up, as did the other guys.
This is not a figment of my imagination. It happened to me, it is not hearsay. 'Nuff said.
I am the son of a Viet Nam era Air Force Vet, who is now a retired Sheriff's Deputy of 24 years' service. My pop's best friend who rode Harleys with him both before and after their service years also served - in the USMC (Semper Fidelis!) and later became a police officer at a major metropolitan airport where he served more than two dozen years before retiring.
Dad's friend did TWO tours in Viet Nam, was wounded and decorated BOTH times through and was met with a variety of responses upon his return from each tour - responses which this thoroughly decent, best neighbor you'd ever want to have, assured me, included "baby-killer", "baby-raper", and other less printable epithets, being spat upon, having balloons full of fake blood thrown at him and his buddies, and efforts by crowds of cowardly protestors trying to intimidate them through greater numbers.
I therefore also join in calling Bravo Sierra on the writer of the revisionist screed. Kilo Mike Whiskey Alpha, Mike Foxtrot, roger that!
I think it is a lot like PTSD, only those who have never been there claim it.
CALL TO ACTION
CALL TO ACTION
Okay, this one has me ENRAGED! Seeing RED, WHITE and BLUE - ENRAGED! It is bad enough the Left-Wing MoonBat Revisionist Minions have tarnished Columbus, countless US founding fathers, and the accomplishments of any/every Republican officeholder of the 20th century...It is worse yet that they attempted to whitewash the service records and true core beliefs of their latest darling candidate...
Now they undertake a wholesale erasure of their own deplorable anti-American activities during a time of war.
Here is the open question for ALL FREEPERS, and the challenge that goes with it: WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT??
Over 230 Swift Boat Patrol Veterans out of a total of less than 300 who served (IIRC) put pen to paper and their money where their mouths were to prevent a travesty named Kerry from being elected without the TRUTH FIRST BEING KNOWN.
MY CHALLENGE? HOW many of you fellow freepers are 'Nam veterans yourselves, or are friends/family of Viet Nam veterans? Are you willing to let this "professor"'s BLATANT LIES stand unchallenged? I hope not.
Contact every Viet Nam vet, get every story where there was spitting and/or worse. Write down each individual account with the most exact incident details possible - time, location, how many fellow soldiers were present, and sign it as an affidavit, or get it witnessed and notarized.
Include Name, service branch, rank at time of incident and rank upon retirement or discharge. If possible provide the name of one or more other fellow soldiers who were witness to it.
It should easily be possible to gather 1,000 sworn/signed stories. That would be more than four times the number of the "Swifties". Enough to clearly show it was beyond a random or anecdotal occurence. Enough to demonstrate that the "prof" is a willful LIAR with a bias, and an agenda!
Is there an AdminModerator willing to start/oversee such a thing? Or a Pi**ed Off Vet with time on their hands and blood in their eye?
Or Do You Just Want to See A Pack of Revisionist Lies Succeed, Unchallenged? Can I get even ONE AMEN???
And now, 40 years later, the hostility toward vets is an embarrassment so, true to form, the Left simply rewrites history, just like Stalin airbrushed "undesireables" out of pictures and made whole villages disappear.
Well, the record stands. Veterans like yourself, who were THERE, don't easily forget such insults. Nor should any American who may not have served, but who supports our military men and women.
The Left may spit on your sacrifices; we don't.
Thank you.
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.