Talk:The Spitting Image

Page move

The controversy over whether anyone spat on returning soldiers is the main them of a book which claims it never happened: The Spitting Image

So I'm moving this article there.

Ok, let's keep this page as strictly about this book, and I will move other stuff over, Including this:

A persistent criticism levelled against those who protested the United States's involvement in the Vietnam War is the complaint that protesters spat upon and otherwis derided returning soldiers, calling them "baby-killers", etc. The notion of soldiers being spat upon was featured in a number of American movies, including the Rambo series.

The American public was greatly divided during the war, with widespread acts of civil disobedience, flag burning and the like among the protesters, and government crackdowns such as those associated with COINTELPRO. Well-known figures such as Jane Fonda and groups like Vietnam Veterans Against The War were regularly in the public spotlight. In this environment, allegations began to surface, and have persisted to this day of spitting on returning soldiers as being a common occurence at the time.

Of course, there have been well recorded incidents of mistreatment of veterans in the US - such as the Bonus march of 1932, when World War I veterans rallied in Washington DC for more effective veterans benefits during the height of the Depression, which was broken up when the US army sent tanks and soldiers with bayonet-affixed rifles into the veteran camps to clear the veterans out and burn the camp down, killing some in the process like William Hushka, and injuring many more. Mark Richards 19:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

New Page

Ok, I started work on Attitudes and reactions to returning soldiers - please help and edit, comment and add material, but let's remember how emotionally charged this issue is on both sides, and try to document reactions that we can substantiate with independant sources. Thanks! Mark Richards 19:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of spitting

Does this count as evidence?

"Were you ever spat upon when you returned home to the United States?" asked syndicated columnist Greene of the Vietnam veterans among his readership. He received over 1000 letters in reply, many recounting specific details of just such a painfully remembered incident. [1]

That's a misrepresentation, really. Greene got thousands of letters, but almost all of them were a "friend of a friend" letters. The only ones that said they were personally spat on were 63 of them, for which he commented about how similar their stories were. Lembke took it one step further, and investigated each letter that he got, and found out that most people who reported being personally spat on were actually "friend of a friend" stories. The stories in Greene's book tend to read almost all the same - structure, setting, perpetrator, epithets, and all. For example, let me know if this sounds familiar. Location: Airport. Spitters: Hippies. Spit targetted at: Medals and ribbons. Epiteth: "Baby killers!". Effects of the spit: Burns or stains. You'd almost think that every antiwar protester in the US used the exact same saying, hated all soldiers, liked to spit at ribbons, met all soldiers at the airport, and swigged HCL spitting. Of course there are variations, but they're all remarkably similar. There's a couple other "base" stories, such as the "little old lady" spitting stories and the "attractive young woman" stories. Rei

Rei, let's just be real clear: Lembke's methodology is flawed at best (how often does one person spitting on another get into the paper or arrest records, no matter what the spittee and spitter respectively was wearing.) But more to the point, his "debunking" is flawed for the most basic of reasons: it doesn't correspond with reality. I was one of those spat upon. I wasn't in an airport: I was actually in a parade. And, by the way, the orders in general were not, on pain of severe discipline, to respond to those provocations in uniform; probably just as well, since we didn't need any more crazy Viet Nam Vet stories. And yes, I was called "baby-killer": the fact is that it was a stereotype and a catch-word then, just like the "plastic turkey" lie is now. Twenty years from now, the number of people who made identical plastic turkey remarks won't be proof that it's all an urban legend that "plastic turkey" was repeated over and over again. It's just a fact that people pick up and repeat ideological catch-phrases without a lot of originality. Oh, and do please note that I use my real name, not a pseudonym, so I'm putting myself on the line here. -- Charlie (Colorado) 17:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's from a book review of a book I haven't read... --Uncle Ed 19:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, I'd kind of like to get away from the spitting per se, and deal with the general trends of attitudes. I feel like the argument about how many people, if any, we actually physically spat on, and by whom, is pretty pointless. Put it in if you want, as an attributed quote, I'm not fussed. Mark Richards 19:54, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please Mark, let's getting away from the spitting thing as an encapsulation of the entire soldier/veterans experience. I'm sure if Vietnam vets could get half the benefits that went to WWII veterans, they wouldn't care much if they were spat upon occasionally in exchange. Cecropia 20:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole thing is a context issue. Returning Vietnam vets were generally glad to get out of the theatre of combat. Many saw the war as a no-win situation: some as a lost cause (hawks?) and others as something that ought to be stopped (doves?).

Many of those who weren't "anti-war" felt unappreciated on their return. Whether they were literally spat upon, they often felt ignored or demeaned. What I'm not familiar with, though, is the attitudes of "anti-war" veterans and how they were treated upon their return. (I was in the army 5 years, but my service began nearly ten years after the US pulled out of Vietnam.) --Uncle Ed 20:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, put in the proper context of the bigger picture, the spitting is a small part of what returning soldiers went through. You raise a good point though, that the soldiers' attitudes themselves affected how they felt about their reception. Mark Richards 20:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello Uncle, I served from 1967-1969. A lot of things changed in that time, but one thing was fairly constant: there were very very few "hawks", at least in the enlisted ranks. Early in my BCT, one of the DI's put it succinctly: "I'm not here to give you a speech on 'why we fight. I don't like the war. You don't like the war. Your job is to go there for one year and do your best to come back in one piece. I'm here to help you do that."

As to attitudes toward anti-war vets--if you mean the VVAW I can't say. I happened to be in DC during the 1971 march (the Kerry one) and met a lot of the vets, but I wasn't a member and didn't follow their activities much. But most of the vets were anti-Vietnam war (and most of the lifers I knew too) in the generic sense, and I was and still am. What were the attitueds toward people like me? First, people you met (I'm talking about acquaintances, not people on the street, including my wife's college friends) don't distinguish between anti-war vet, pro-war vet. You were one of "them." Probably the first war in American history where someone asks "what did you do during the war" and the dishonorable answer was "I was part of it." So I never volunteered that I was an ex-baby-killersoldier. But if they figure it out, there is a divide: the women tend to run from warmly sympathetic to pitying; the men seem to think they're tolerant if they don't call me a war criminal in the first ten minutes. As to my being anti-war? Well, one dude (makes like an anti-war hero because he was in a protest group) got out because he had a high draft number, then tells me that I am lying about being anti-war because I didn't like Ho Chi Minh (or Lyndon Johnson, or Dean Rusk, or General Westmoreland, or Robert McNamara (who lately seems to be getting rehabilitated in the liberal media (like NPR) while I view him as a war criminal). You see, if I was really against the war, I had to be for Ho. There were no two ways about it.

You know, Viet vets don't like to talk about it much (and actually I've noticed WWII vets, with some notable exceptions, don't seem to either). I can just imagine if there were a real anecdote project, and people didn't dismiss it as right-wing propoganda, people would be very surprised. So why am I going on about it? I don't. I avoid the issue. But I can't let crap about what vets experienced go unchallenged. Cecropia

Well, there was more than just a project, there was a book written after research.... by the way, Cecropia, you mentioning your history makes it easier to understand where you've been coming from. But please try to distance yourself from the emotional attachment, and stop and ask yourself: what evidence *is* there for this spitting? And with such little evidence being used to prop up something that circulates very widely in right-wing circles (something I'm still not sensing that you understand the scale of, but there's no changing that unless you actually go and talk to some of these people), how is any better than many of the things over at snopes.com as far as urban legends go? Anyway, a review of a book works as well for me, as long as the subject is maintained. Rei

Rei, please bear with me. I have no opinion on whether "spitting" occurred or not, nor do I care. As I said, I was never spat upon personally, and I only testify to things I experienced. Common sense says that, in the course of ten-off years of war, probably some soldiers somewhere were probably spat upon. But so what? This is not an important issue. Proving that it did or did not occur is a tiny facet of the nation's response to Vietnam soldiers and veterans. Please understand that's not my point. Also, as to right wing groups, I don't belong to these, I don't visit their web sites, I'm not responsible for what they say. If you tell me that you personally have never spat on, or harassed, or denigrated soldiers or vets, why should I disbelieve you? And if right-wingers say it, it doesn't change what you have or have not personally done, nor does it really matter whether people spit or didn't spit. Cecropia 22:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's a good book called Nam, I don't recall the author, which is just stories and comment from Vets, it's worth hunting out. Mark Richards 21:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) Here you go - Mark Baker [2]

Many thanks for the link. Have you read the book? Some of the user comments suggest the author may have an ideological axe to grind. The few sample pages amazon provides don't look too hopeful to me, as the author is making a case about how little boys learn lots of war games and chop up inoffensive inscts to satisfy their budding warlust, until they see the real thing. I don't know a lot of people in service who were like that, and they sound like the type army shrinks look out for--you know, Catch 22, if you're too crazy for the fight, maybe you're too crazy to serve. Cecropia 21:44, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The sample pages are lame, but not representative of the rest of the book. I read it, and liked it. Your milage may vary ;) Mark Richards 21:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Coming home, in civies changing planes in the St Louis airport, in September of 1969, a stranger approached me and asked me if I was in the Army. "No, sir", I replied, "the Marines!" "Babykiller", he hissed, and spat at my shoes. I looked down, and then up, to tell him that he'd missed, and to invite him to try again, but he was already thirty feet away, waddling as fast as he could. Coward. No, I didn't call the local newspaper, or television station, or the cops. Just a jerk being stupid, not news, not actionable. Maybe today it would be. Really happened to me. As such, it's original research, and not useful here, other than as a war story. htom 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

---

All these claims of spitting and no accounts of resulting brawls? To be frank, I can't imagine it. Surely someone took the matter into their own hands.

I was a schoolboy cadet in Australia in the 1970s and recall Remembrance Day and ANZAC Day parades I marched in, when boiler-suited feminists threw red paint at veterans in protest over women who had been raped in wars. There were pictures of this. It made the 6:00 PM news. People were arrested in the bushes outside the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne. Can someone tell me why this didn't happen when these claimed spitting incidents occurred? The women in the incident I described were charged with minor public order offences (I think). See page 119 of this .pdf:

http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/commemorations/education/Documents/Gallipoli_Anzacs_Unit7.pdf

Spitting on someone is a form of assault - a more serious offence. Why are there no documented cases of this happening? Even Robert Kiyosaki claims to have been "tired of being spit (sic) on" in his book "Rich Dad's Guide to Investing", inferring it happened to him regularly.

There is an underlying inference that there was a culture of spitting on Vietnam veterans, the usual bogeymen being cited as "hippies" But the lack of substantiated evidence means I find it almost impossible to believe that this was anything more than a few isolated incidents. I'm not saying it didn't happen at all; I'm saying it was nowhere near as common as claimed. Where are the court papers and charge sheets? Was anyone ever convicted? I'm simply not prepared to believe that a bunch of battle-hardened Marines wouldn't take a would-be spitter behind the nearest bush and beat seven colours of cr@p out of him. Flanker235 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Attempted battery" would have been the likely charge, and it would have been my word against his. Then and there, a cop would have laughed at such a complaint. If I'd beaten the spitter up, that the cop couldn't have ignored (he probably would have wanted to, but the doctor at the ER ....) Why should I waste a week of my leave fussing in court with a stupid /redacted/? Part of being trained in warfare is knowing when and where to fight, and which battles to walk away from. This is a battle the trooper knows he can't win. You bite your lip and walk away. htom (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet you say you invited him to try again. What was your plan had he done so? "...Bite your lip and walk away"? Doesn't sound like it to me. Flanker235 (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I said I was going to say that, not that I did. I would have removed my shoe, wiped the spit off onto his tie, put my shoe back on, and walked away laughing.htom (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Really? Flanker235 (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2016 edits

I've made significant edits primarily to convert this Wikipedia article from one about Greene's book (with half the citations being to Greene's book) to one about Lembcke's book, so as to conform to the article name. Greene's book is mentioned in just 2 locations in The Spitting Image book, a proportion more closely reflected reflected in this article. I'm not sure why Greene's book didn't have its own article when this one was written. I also...

• replaced deadlinks with archive links when available
• removed raw URLs from body of article, or converted them to references
• removed original research and POV presentation (i.e.; citing Amazon reviews sorted by 1-star rating and stating they are the largest number including "many vets", when there are actually more non-1-star, and all of the reviewers are actually anonymous and unverified, with some negative reviewers actually admitting they didn't read the book. Odd that these actually published editorial reviews were not noted.)
• removed uncited statement that "He denied the truthfulness of hundreds of accounts...", which doesn't jibe with his admission that he can't prove something did not happen, or his citing of actual spitting cases, or the fact that he has never called anyone a liar for claiming to have been spat on
• returned PTSD content, since it is part of this book; removed text incorrectly stating Greene "verified their identity" (he did not, he only only got confirmation to print their stories) or that he "verified that the veterans had military service in Vietnam" (he did not, the Pentagon refused to disclose information, and the VA only consented to confirm a "limited number" of names were listed as in the military)
• added infobox; +general copy editing and formatting

Xenophrenic (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ken Burns 2017 Documentary on Vietnam

In Episode 8 of Ken Burns's docu on Vietnam, Nancy Biberman, a anti-war activist who knew Tom Hayden and participated in student occupation of buildings at Columbia University admits to calling returning Veterans "baby killers". Should we add to this article?Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"I WAS SPAT UPON"

That is what Colonel (ret.) W. Patrick Lang said happened to him. https://turcopolier.com/httpswwwnytimescom20171013opinionmyth-spitting-vietnam-protesterhtmlrrefcollection2fsection/ How can his first-person account be denied? For all of what he wrote, see below.

I WAS SPAT UPON in March, 1968 while transiting San Francisco International Airport en route to Travis AFB to board the trans-Pacific airlift en route to Vietnam. I was in uniform and waiting for the bus when a woman got out of her car and walked across the parking lot. She chose to spit on my chest rather than on a sergeant standing next to me so perhaps she had a thing for officers. I asked if the people at her house had a roster to schedule spitting on soldiers. She said they did. Perhaps they sent only women to do this.

I wrote to the NY Times yesterday to tell this story in comment on their article. They did not publish my comment. There are 217 comments on the article.

IMO the left is engaged in editing the narrative of that time so as to absolve itself of the ugliness of its own actions. KHarbaugh (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)