The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam

I thought this a well-researched book. His investigation of spitting on Vietnam Veterans is only one part. Even more valuable was his investigation of where the myth came from, and why. His descriptions of the manipulation of public opinion by the Johnson and Nixon administrations is most valuable, and most relevant. Several reviewers state that Lembcke is wrong. "A University Professor," for example, states the following: (1) There were many contemporaneous accounts of spitting, including spitting reported in the New York Times and Washington Post by Pulitzer-Prize winning journalists. (2) Contrary to Lembke's claim that such stories began appearing only about 1980, such stories were extremely common in the 1967-72 period. (3) Returning soldiers frequently flew through civilian airports, the San Francisco Airport being one of the four official military debarkment points for returing servicemen flying directly from the Far East. (4) The memoirs of one anti-war protester reports that his group tried to meet as many servicemen returning through the San Francisco airport as possible (with the greeting: "F ** K the Army." (5) In contemporary accounts, women protesters were frequently witnessed spitting (Lembke makes the sexist claim that women do not spit). (6) Many spitting stories do not fit the pattern that Lembke attributes to them (e.g., sometimes spat upon military reported responding violently). (7) Some accounts of spitting were put forward by people who opposed the war, so Lembke's suggested reasons for their supposed lying are not always present. (8) At least one anti-war spitter has come forward and admitted that he spat on Vietnam servicemen. (9) Lembke reports some of the results of studies that he discusses in a way that minimizes the hostility to troops that was revealed in the studies. This same reviewer went on to say, "Lembke appears not to have researched newspapers of the period with enough care to justify his extravagant claims, a defect that caused most of his factual claims about the lack of evidence to collapse when other scholars began examining them. If most of the hundreds of retrospective first-hand accounts of spitting contain no obvious errors, but Lembke's account contains errors on almost every one of his evidentiary points, why would a fair-minded reader credit Lembke's frequently mistaken account of no spitting over the accounts of people who were actually present?" University Professor (or any other reviewers who argue that Lembcke is incorrect), please provide documented evidence for your statements. Thank you.

Lembcke's book deserves a wide audience. It's interesting that the reviewers either love or hate his book. With respect to the 60's and Vietnam, this is deja vu all over again--i.e. there are the realists who see that it is a purposeless war with few if any consequences if the U.S. withdraws. On the other hand, you have the unquestioning hardliners who claim that withdrawal will irrevocably harm U.S. foreign policy. The former proved to be right, while the latter were hopelessly out of touch. It was a tragically stupid war that was fought by young men who were generally idealistic (albeit naive) adventure-seekers who thought they might somehow become heroes (or at least not cowards) in the eyes of their countrymen, but as F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, "Show me a hero and I'll write you a tragedy." The tragedy was writ large in Vietnam. I have an acquaintance who is a psychiatrist at a VA hospital. He conducts group therapy sessions occasionally. He says that on more than one occasion, he's had guys who pour out their confidences and stories of trauma in combat. When he checks their military records, he finds that there is no way they could have ever been in combat in Vietnam, even though they offer convincing stories to the contrary. Are these the same guys who insist that they were spat upon and had rotten tomatoes tossed at them at the San Francisco airport? And by the way, weren't the long-haired, hapless Haight-Ashbury freaks and Berkley students generally too stoned to find their way to the SFO airport to harass war-weary GIs returning from Vietnam? Airports, like elevators, are anoymous, impersonal places where strangers don't approach you. The image of someone accosting battle-hardened vets returning from the combat zone in the comfort of an airport in one of America's most upscale and mellow cities is simply a bit too apocryphal for this writer to accept. The Big Easy

Dewey Canyon III, the protest in 1971 where vets (many VVAW) threw their war medals back at the capital building, is imortalized on the jacket of this insightful volume. Lembke dissects dozens of stories of 'Nam vets being spat on by the anti-war movement at home (usually, legend has it, by a young woman in the San Francisco airport). But even more importantly he eloquently exposes and breaks down who the myth serves, and the importance of accurate recollection: "...Ironically if the real [emphasis added] Vietnam War had been remembered, the Gulf War might not have been fought. We need to take away the power of political and cultural institutions to mythologize our experiences. We need to show how myths are used by political institutions to manipulate the decision making process. And we need to dispel the power of myths like that of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran by debunking them." "...instances of attacks of U.S. officers by their own men are all but forgotten in the popular remembrances of the Vietnam War. Many Americans today "know" that GIs were mistreated upon their return from Vietnam. Their images of Vietnam veterans run from the hapless sad sack to the freaky serial killer; for them post-traumatic stress disorder is a virtual synonym for the Vietnam veteran. But they have never heard of "fragging," the practice of soldiers killing their own officers. The true story of the widespread rebellion of troops in Vietnam and the affinity of GIs and veterans for the politics of the left has been lost in the myth of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran." This is a must read for anyone fighting to keep the real legacies of the Vietnam War alive. Lembcke goes into the history of how important past wars, their veterans, and the common summation of the public, are invaluable in building for support for the next war. He's also got a great filmography and references for further study. "...How Vietnam is to be remembered looms large on the agenda of the 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." StormWarning! five-fist salute to Jerry Lembcke.

Every book I read, is very important to me, but this book is different. It shook me to my very foundation. It brought memories long buried. The courage of Lembcke to openly challenge popular myth that clearly misinterprets the lessons of Vietnam. Lembcke reopens an honest examination of the important issues learned by the generation involved directly with that war. Their story is finally told without political revisions and censorship. Thank you Jerry for your honesty

Lembcke's thorough analysis probes the myth of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran. He reminds us that the anti-war movement saw an ally in veterans and the largest group of veterans was in fact Vietnam Vets Against the War. While violence and 'spitting' did occur, it was normally against the peace activist or even the anti-war veteran, who received the harshest treatment from hawks and mainstream veterans organizations who looked down on them for losing the war. However, the nixon administration needed to discredit both groups. Thus the strategy began to de-politicize vets by portraying them as damaged people and attacking the anti-war activists by introducing fictious images into popular culture to discredit their efforts.However, like Howard Zinn in the People's History of the United States, the goal is not simply to set the record straight; but it also affects how we act today. This memory has discredited activism on college campuses in the 80's and 90's, especially during the gulf war. Students who equate activism with spitting on veterans quickly shy away from that type of activity. The book does a complete job showing why and how this attack on our cultural memory was accomplished by looking at police reports, newspaper articles and films(since many people's primary reference for this war is rambo). This false memory has been damaging to activists, veterans and the country as a whole, and this book helps us to come to a better understanding of what really happened.