Just another dumb-ass yuppie in search of authenticity
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Maiden Street Post
My maiden post is up at The American Street. I have Waxed Indignant over the Army's treatment of Pat Tillman's death. Check 'er out.
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Great post there. You know, I wonder so much about all the spitting allegations. Was it as pervasive as the right-wing says? Or, did the fact that our soldiers (Nat'l Guard) turned on their own and that lead to a bigger split that lead some to act irrationally? Being May 4, I've been thinking of that today.
Also, regarding the "erroneous" initial report of Pat Tillman's death. The right-wing PR machine loves a good sentimental war/hero story, even if they have to manufacture it. They know it's page 1, above the fold. But later the truth will end up buried inside.
Who can blame them for this strategy when we are so easily distracted by run-a-way brides and Michael Jackson?
If it's so infuriating to me, I wonder what Tillman's family thinks?
And the Republicans are the ones who claim to "support the troops." Another "strategy" that is a complete disgrace.
"Or, did the fact that our soldiers (Nat'l Guard) turned on their own and that lead to a bigger split that lead some to act irrationally? Being May 4, I've been thinking of that today."
The author, John Milich, is "a lifetime member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War," which may color his opinions a bit, but here's part of what he says:
"Jerry Lembcke, an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam combat veteran, has written a well documented book, "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" (New York University Press, 1998) that thoroughly debunks the tales of protesters "spitting upon" Vietnam vets. Lembcke conducted extensive research to ascertain that there were no contemporaneous news reports or police complaints lodged to substantiate the claims that began appearing in the media about 1991. The perpetuation of such myths only blocks the healing of Vietnam veterans from our "culture of victimization," and it serves the agenda of those pro-war forces who place fear and intimidation in the path of open debate on the pressing issues of the moment."
Which is pretty much exactly what I would have expectorated (sorry).
Conclusion: One or two Vietnam vets may have been spat on by intemperate protesters, but contemporary police logs, newspapers, etc., are free of descriptions of such events, which began to really make the rounds only in the early 1990s. On the other hand, there exists a large and frothy cohort of wingnuts who benefit greatly from the public believing that ungrateful antiwar protesters spat on a regular basis on returning Vietnam vets.
Of course. Once again a strategy. (you didn't have to do research! -- sorry!) -- Have you heard the media reaction to the Pat Tillman story? Tucker Carlson on Hardball -- rationalizing it -- of course. Which you would expect. But then Jim Miklaszewski on Imus this morning. That it's understandable we all would want a better story? I'm sorry, I don't get that. I'm getting really tired of living in this altered reality. It's unreal.
6 comments:
Great post there. You know, I wonder so much about all the spitting allegations. Was it as pervasive as the right-wing says? Or, did the fact that our soldiers (Nat'l Guard) turned on their own and that lead to a bigger split that lead some to act irrationally? Being May 4, I've been thinking of that today.
Also, regarding the "erroneous" initial report of Pat Tillman's death. The right-wing PR machine loves a good sentimental war/hero story, even if they have to manufacture it. They know it's page 1, above the fold. But later the truth will end up buried inside.
Who can blame them for this strategy when we are so easily distracted by run-a-way brides and Michael Jackson?
If it's so infuriating to me, I wonder what Tillman's family thinks?
And the Republicans are the ones who claim to "support the troops." Another "strategy" that is a complete disgrace.
"Or, did the fact that our soldiers (Nat'l Guard) turned on their own and that lead to a bigger split that lead some to act irrationally? Being May 4, I've been thinking of that today."
Yeah, really:
"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"
"Kent State. Now shut the fuck up."
So, what do you mean? I want to get into this spitting discussion. Strategy or reality?
Aaaa-ight!
The following was the first return on a Google search on the terms "Vietnam veteran spit antiwar":
Here's the link
The author, John Milich, is "a lifetime member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War," which may color his opinions a bit, but here's part of what he says:
"Jerry Lembcke, an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam combat veteran, has written a well documented book, "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" (New York University Press, 1998) that thoroughly debunks the tales of protesters "spitting upon" Vietnam vets. Lembcke conducted extensive research to ascertain that there were no contemporaneous news reports or police complaints lodged to substantiate the claims that began appearing in the media about 1991. The perpetuation of such myths only blocks the healing of Vietnam veterans from our "culture of victimization," and it serves the agenda of those pro-war forces who place fear and intimidation in the path of open debate on the pressing issues of the moment."
Which is pretty much exactly what I would have expectorated (sorry).
Here's a thread that presents some tasty debunkage.
Conclusion: One or two Vietnam vets may have been spat on by intemperate protesters, but contemporary police logs, newspapers, etc., are free of descriptions of such events, which began to really make the rounds only in the early 1990s. On the other hand, there exists a large and frothy cohort of wingnuts who benefit greatly from the public believing that ungrateful antiwar protesters spat on a regular basis on returning Vietnam vets.
Of course. Once again a strategy. (you didn't have to do research! -- sorry!) -- Have you heard the media reaction to the Pat Tillman story? Tucker Carlson on Hardball -- rationalizing it -- of course. Which you would expect. But then Jim Miklaszewski on Imus this morning. That it's understandable we all would want a better story? I'm sorry, I don't get that. I'm getting really tired of living in this altered reality. It's unreal.
nice work.
Post a Comment