WRellim
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,140
This is the second time I have had somebody on these forums ask me that question.
I tend to believe there has been a lot of effort put into making those events look like an urban myth.
I assure you, not only myself, but many others were called "baby killer" and spit upon. If not right after returning from Vietnam, a few years later.
I remember waiting in a line at the unemployment compensation office and the person behind me was talking with me and we were pretty much shooting the crap when I mentioned I had just come home from Vietnam. He said, "so you are one of those baby killers?" The spitting incident was at a different time. At a party with some 'friends'.
If you have doubts these things actually happened to the Vietnam veterans, then perhaps you should check out these web pages.
http://www.vva951.org/baby-killers.html
http://stliraqwarvets.wordpress.com/2007/03/31/learning-more-from-vietnam-veterans/
http://www.vietnow.com/pagesbooks/warandpieces.htm
http://www.vva.org/veteran/1206/letters.html
Edit: BTW, I don't really want to think or talk about those events anymore, and I seldom do.
Ah, but so it didn't happen when you "got off the plane" -- there weren't a whole bunch of "anti-war protesters" who shouted "baby-killer" and spat bucket loads on the service men exiting the planes -- THAT is the "urban myth" that is promoted as the "history." And I think a very LARGE amount of effort has been put into exaggerating those incidents as a way of discrediting any anti-war movements (which often have many soldiers in them -- especially true of Vietnam, but also equally true of the current conflict in Iraq.)
And apparently even your specific situation does NOT invalidate THAT "exaggerated" portrayal as being myth; if you can remember them as two distinct, separate, isolated and specific events that were at different times and places, then apparently it also didn't happen on a daily basis for a prolonged period of time (which is also the exaggerated "myth" aspect -- the exaggeration that it happened not only IMMEDIATELY upon return, as the vets were exiting the plane -- but also CONTINUOUSLY for years afterwards, with virtually everyone they met, anywhere).
As I said, I wasn't doubting the veracity of your statement -- nor was I denying that it EVER happened (one cannot prove a negative anyway) -- it just wasn't clear from the way you phrased it if you were speaking of specific actual events you personally experienced or were using it in a figurative sense to refer to the general way you were treated.
As to the incidents you mention versus the testimony of the vets I know -- perhaps (like many other things) it depends on which part of the country one lives in. I am in the Great Lakes (midwest) area, and all of the vets I know are from small towns around here (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota & Wisconsin) -- and people around here just tend not to DO those kinds of things (spitting, sure, but at the ground, not AT other people, even if you don't like them).
They claim the "abuse" they got once they came home was mainly at the mouths of WWII era "old farts" who looked down on them mainly because we lost Vietnam, and they were mainly accused of being "druggies" instead of fighting "properly" (which if you knew these guys, was ridiculous). In general, if and when people found out they were Vietnam veterans, the most common response was a silence and people not knowing what to say -- much like at a funeral. (And sadly I think that "silence" could be taken either as sympathy or disdain, but you would probably never know which if you didn't ask or want to know -- so sympathy might be misconstrued as disdain).
Personally, I would neither praise nor condemn someone who was drafted (or stop-lossed) or indeed even "volunteered" and was "duped" to fight in an unjust war (have there ever actually been many "just" wars? And "just" at what level or in whose opinion?)
Rather I think that, as people do throughout their lives, they probably each did their best to do whatever was necessary to survive; and to the extent that they understood matters, most men probably strove to do what they considered "right" at the time (which is about the best that you can really expect).
To me the most poignant and telling statement on individual soldiers in virtually ANY war is contained (of all places) in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (although perhaps NOT so strangely, as Tolkien was himself in the trenches of WWI and lost several close friends there) -- the statement is of the character Samwise on seeing a dead "enemy" soldier:
It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead man's face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace -- all in a flash of thought which was quickly driven from his mind.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien, (Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers; Book IV, Ch. 4 "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit") -- emphasis added
I would think the same could be said of most men (whether "volunteers" or draftees) -- "what lies or threats" were used on them -- and wouldn't most SANE men "really rather have stayed there [home] in peace". Most of the time it seems that the military prefers YOUNG men because quite frankly once men are older, they beome much more independent minded, aren't as easily mislead, nor as easy to threaten or order around. If you drafted a 35 year old man and in boot camp had a 24 year old sergeant (or worse, a 24 year old Lt.) order the man to clean the floor with a tooth brush... well one doubts it would have the same result as with an 18 or 19 year old.-- J.R.R. Tolkien, (Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers; Book IV, Ch. 4 "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit") -- emphasis added