Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It means, as stated before, that you will accept nothing that does not support your revisionist historiandude agenda.
What agenda? I really don't have even the smallest of dogs in the hunt here. I am merely making you furious by being consistent and pointing out that your "evidence" sucks. Why it is so important to you that our returning Vietnam Vets be spit on I have no idea. But your emotional commitment to what is by all evidence an Urban Legend is what makes all your whiny frothing so desperately ironic.
You appear to totally fail at even the most basic conception of how history is done. Out of the gate, any real historian must consider the sources. Not all sources are created equal, and the "historical record" is filled with tendentious bull****. So certain rules must be applied by anybody who cares about the truth.
First, second hand testimony is usually worthless testimony. And if you had actually read the thread, it is filled with the classic urban legend tell of "it didn't happen to me, but I know somebody who said..." That you would consider such testimony reliable pretty much paints you as a rank amateur.
Second, even first hand testimony degrades over time. What somebody says within days of an event is a lot more reliable than what somebody says 30 years after an event. Humans are notorious for manufacturing memories that never happened, especially memories that help to rationalize their prejudices. Even the letter that started this thread is so ambiguous regarding the spitting that there is no way of telling if he is even speaking literally or metaphorically.
Third, even first hand testimony recorded close to the event always deserves skepticism if it is contradicted by more objective evidence, because frankly, eye witness testimony sucks. Human beings take shortcuts when processing experiences, and bend their understanding to fit predetermined expectations... "templates" if you will. Read up on how autists (who often have no templates) perceive the world compared to those of us who are "neural normal." We can't even look at a field of cows and see the same things they do.
All your angry churning will not save the bogus "evidence" presented in this thread. I'm not rejecting it because I have some revisionist agenda. I am myself a Vietnam era veteran (though I did not go to Vietnam) and know first hand how badly servicemen were treated by civilians in the 70s. I served in units where everybody above the rank of E-4 and 0-3 were combat vets. My Army buddies remain to this day my closest friends on the planet. Those of whom I have spoken to on this issue all agree with me. We may have been disrespected and ignored, but none of us honestly know anybody who was spit on.
I reject it because as evidence goes it is worthless beyond measure. That you defend it merely demonstrates the intersection of your prejudice and your ignorance.
Nobody ever has to prove something in contention didn't happen.
No, because I can pull up hundreds of contemporaneous news accounts of lynchings. Whereas nobody has ever produced even one of "spitting on soldiers."
There were contemporaneous accounts. two are in post 92.
I could give more, but it'd be a waste of time. You'll want police reports, or confessions, or will argue that the spitting had nothing to do with the spitee being a vet.
In fact, a writer for Slate who bought Lembcke's garbage hook, line, and sinker eventually admitted there were contemporaneous accounts ---
"But both Riehl and Lindgren helpfully point to several mentions of spat-on vets published or broadcast during the Vietnam era."
Could it be that you fear me opening the door to the real Achille's Heel of your agenda?
No. It could not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo
No sooner did I mention Lembcke than you started to cower in the corner seeking a way out!
Strange isn't it. Lembcke appears to effectively support your position, yet you NEVER refer to him. Hmmm! WE know why though..., don't we!
Actually, you were the first person in this thread to cherry pick selected portions, assign your own spin to them (revisionist history) and claim that only you could possibly be correct.
What agenda? I really don't have even the smallest of dogs in the hunt here. I am merely making you furious by being consistent and pointing out that your "evidence" sucks. Why it is so important to you that our returning Vietnam Vets be spit on I have no idea. But your emotional commitment to what is by all evidence an Urban Legend is what makes all your whiny frothing so desperately ironic.
You appear to totally fail at even the most basic conception of how history is done. Out of the gate, any real historian must consider the sources. Not all sources are created equal, and the "historical record" is filled with tendentious bull****. So certain rules must be applied by anybody who cares about the truth.
First, second hand testimony is usually worthless testimony. And if you had actually read the thread, it is filled with the classic urban legend tell of "it didn't happen to me, but I know somebody who said..." That you would consider such testimony reliable pretty much paints you as a rank amateur.
Second, even first hand testimony degrades over time. What somebody says within days of an event is a lot more reliable than what somebody says 30 years after an event. Humans are notorious for manufacturing memories that never happened, especially memories that help to rationalize their prejudices. Even the letter that started this thread is so ambiguous regarding the spitting that there is no way of telling if he is even speaking literally or metaphorically.
Third, even first hand testimony recorded close to the event always deserves skepticism if it is contradicted by more objective evidence, because frankly, eye witness testimony sucks. Human beings take shortcuts when processing experiences, and bend their understanding to fit predetermined expectations... "templates" if you will. Read up on how autists (who often have no templates) perceive the world compared to those of us who are "neural normal." We can't even look at a field of cows and see the same things they do.
All your angry churning will not save the bogus "evidence" presented in this thread. I'm not rejecting it because I have some revisionist agenda. I am myself a Vietnam era veteran (though I did not go to Vietnam) and know first hand how badly servicemen were treated by civilians in the 70s. I served in units where everybody above the rank of E-4 and 0-3 were combat vets. My Army buddies remain to this day my closest friends on the planet. Those of whom I have spoken to on this issue all agree with me. We may have been disrespected and ignored, but none of us honestly know anybody who was spit on.
I reject it because as evidence goes it is worthless beyond measure. That you defend it merely demonstrates the intersection of your prejudice and your ignorance.
Talk about trying to spin it your way. 180 degree spin. You even lie to yourself.
BTW, being a Viet Nam era vet but not serving there deoes not qualify you to speak for those that did.
At best, it qualifies you as a vet. Also, there is considerable doubt about your alleged friends and what they would tell someone who did not serve. Additionally, I strongly doubt that these friends can speak for or know every vet and what they encountered upon return. Yet you, all knowing as you claim to be, are the only person who could possibly know the truth about this. Second hand at that.
Wait, asking that you folks actually document your claims means he will accept nothing? Don't you have to offer something for there to be a chance of acceptance?
Here's my simple advice for the two actual folks here who served in Vietnam and are still upset over their treatment when they got home: Get over it. The same applies to the rest in faux outrage camp who did not serve, have no one close to them who served in Vietnam and who have no idea if any soldier was ever spit upon.
I would truly like to know how you devined that there are only two actual folks who served in Viet Nam in this thread. Quite an assumption.
As for "get over it", take your own advice. Get over making idiotic assumptions such as "faux outrage" over the issue. If you did not serve and come home to the situation you have no first hand knowledge of the subject.
Why is rejecting proofs (several have been offered) so high on your agenda?
A): what agenda?
B): what proof have i rejected?
besides the quote from the OP ( which i cited verbatim ) only two accounts were presented to me and i addressed both.
Quote:
Why do you object to eyewitness accounts (which in general are held as reliable in the legal system) as being worthless?
i don't reject them as "being worthless" but in the case of the football game fight it was only one side of the story and unclear what the motivation for the spitting was. in the legal system eyewitness accounts need to go thru cross examination.
Quote:
Wy do you even object to the mention of such an action?
not only didn't i object to the mention i thanked the poster for the contribution!
.... eyewitness accounts (which in general are held as reliable in the legal system)....
"At least since United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967), the Court has recognized the inherently suspect qualities of eyewitness identification evidence, and described the evidence as "notoriously unreliable"
One challenge for all the people who are SURE the vets were spit on: Find someone who supported the war in Vietnam and our troops.Then ask them why they weren't at the airports meeting the planes to form a shield between the returning vets and the hippie spitters. Then challenge them on why they weren't writing letters to the editor demanding our troops be treated better on their return home. Find out why America just did nothing if these vets came home and got spit on.
If you were over the age of 18 during Vietnam ask yourself what you did to stop a vet from getting spit on. Ask yourself what you did to welcome home a returning Vietnam vet. Ask yourself why you didn't become enraged hearing our troops were getting spit on when they wore their uniforms off base. Ask yourself what you did to make sure NO soldier got off a plane and had to hitch a ride home because there was no one there to meet him. Except, apparently, hippies who spit.
To the guys who had friends tell them they were spit on: What did you do about it besides get disgusted? What did they do? Where are all the stories about hardened combat vets flattening the dirty hippies who spit on them at San Francisco International? Because I cannot think of one Viet vet I've known (and that's a bunch) who wouldn't have punched the lights out of some long-hair draft dodger who spit on him. Not one.
The hippies were spittin' and the vets were just taking it. A guy is going to survive fire fights in the jungle, walk point in the infantry, fly combat missions over the North, and then come home, let himself get spit on and just go back to the base or wherever and mention it to his buddies. Who apparently just keep playing cards. Got it.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 02-10-2013 at 01:08 PM..
All this arguing back and forth about eye witness accounts is more than I can take. One more time let me tell you about the man who went by the screen name, OldAirForceBird. He has not been on this forum since he tired of left handed people acting the way they do. He knew at least as much as the HistoriaDude about history and the military since he had ascended to the rank of Colonel. He resigned from the Air Force when he couldn't get his assignment to USC, Berkley to something more acceptable to him and his wife. Both of them were constantly reminded by faculty members, especially those from the social science group, about them taking part of spitting on troops coming back from Vietnam. Their favorite stories were about standing strategically an unloading ramps from troop ships. I haven't seen a lot of mention of those things in this thread which means that they must have been liars since only air travel was used to bring them back.
I guess admitting to taking part in something like that would have to be lies aimed at pissing off the Air Force people who had been assigned to run the Air Force ROTC on campus. I wonder if that assignment would make the Colonel a part of the faculty. I suppose not since he had been in the Air Force for a large part of the Vietnam Era.
I know of a Marine who was in on that show who could, I think, drop the HD drawers in a debate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
