1

In The Spitting Image Jerry Lembcke shows how this image is a myth that serves the interests of the powerful who led the U.S. to war. Lembcke is a sociologist at Holy Cross
College, a Vietnam veteran who was an active member of Vietnam Veterans against the War.
His book demolishes the myth that the antiwar movement was anti-soldier and that vets were spat upon.In this book, he argues that the common claim of American soldiers were insulted and spat upon when they returned home from the Vietnam War is a myth and nothing more. It was intended to discredit the anti-war movement and the protesters that were behind it. Lembcke stated that the Nixon administration was behind the propaganda and was using it to discredit the anti-war movement protesters. He theorizes that the reported "spitting on soldiers" scenario was a mythical projection by those who felt "spat upon" and was meant to discredit future anti-war activism. He suggests that the images of pro-war antipathy against anti-war protesters helped contribute to the myth. Lembcke argues that memories of being verbally and physically assaulted by anti-war protesters were largely conjured, arguing that not even one case could be documented. However, some news accounts that mention spitting do exist, although there has been no evidence to support those accounts.( Discover The Networks) It is hard to disprove a myth and hard to prove that something never happened. Lembcke acknowledges that he cannot prove the negative—that no Vietnam veteran was spat on—saying (Lembcke p. 68) it is hard to imagine there not being expressions of hostility between veterans and activists. Still Lembcke has extensive evidence showing that “the spitting image” is an illusion created by the Nixon-Agnew administration and the mass media (especially Hollywood 2

movies). From the beginning, the antiwar movement worked closely with veterans. Many leading antiwar activist were veterans of earlier wars. Lembcke argues that the Nixon-Agnew administration sought to discredit and divide the antiwar movement by casting it as an internal enemy who stabbed our boys in the back. Nixon and Agnew also created a contrast between the good vet (pro-war, pro-Nixon) who was spat upon and the bad vet who was violent, crazy, and, not incidentally, against the war.
(Lembckep.4)
The Spitting Image asserts that the claims of abuse of soldiers by antiwar demonstrators became ingrained in the American consciousness only some years after the war had come to a close; Lembcke attributes the legend's growth to films relating to Vietnam, notably Rambo. He writes that these claims were used by President Bush as a way to help sell the Gulf War to the
American people. He writes, “By invoking the image of anti-war activist spitting on veterans, the administration was able to discredit the opposition and galvanize support of the war.” (Lembcke
p. 2) Lembcke believes that the myth is currently useful in promoting the Yellow ribbon campaign; it has led some to think that for one to support troops, one must also support the war. Many Americans carry the image in their heads: The Vietnam vets, returning from war, gets off the plane in San Francisco and is greeted by protesters with shouts of “Baby killer!” Then, out of the crowd, a protester rushes forward and spits on the vet. This image is so widespread that by early 1991 (during the Persian Gulf War) polls showed that the majority of the American 3

people believed the anti–Vietnam war movement had been anti-soldier and had, in many cases, actually spat upon returning troops. One soldier wanted to remain anonymous and asked that his officer step away, to allow him to speak freely. He stated, “When we deployed here, people were cheering and waving flags, but if I go back home like the Vietnam vets did and somebody spits on me, I swear to God, I’ll kill them.” (Lembcke p. 21) Upon the examination of the actual historical relationship between veterans and peace activists, it showed that Vietnam veterans overwhelmingly supported the movement. Activists went out of their way to build supportive relationships with military personnel both before and after service. Relationships between the two groups were so strong, by 1970, veterans were at the forefront of the movement's leadership. Lembcke makes clear that the principled, strategic activist commitment to support of the GI movement had enormous impact on the armed forces revolt which eventually ended the war. Lembcke concludes, "We have largely forgotten that much of the energy and inspiration for the anti-war movement came from veterans themselves.
In truth, GIs and veterans were an integral part of the anti-war movement. By the end of the war, veterans were playing a leading and militant role in opposition to it."(Phillips, Mark) The myth of the spat-upon veteran serves a political function. By making the issue our troops and not the policy of the war, the U.S. government gains a powerful lever with which to manipulate the American people. The myth of the antiwar movement’s hatred and violence toward returning vets also serves to alienate many from the movement, prejudicing folks against the movement and fostering political passivity. The struggle to regain the truth is not mere intellectual exercise. It is an effort, as Lembcke writes, to reclaim our role in the writing of our 4

own history, the construction of our own memory, and the making of our own identity
(Lembcke p. 188). The basic theme underlying this modern myth is that the Vietnam veterans were poorly treated by an unappreciative nation, specifically by anti-war groups. But one of the points that
Lembcke comes back to over and over is that anti-war activists were engaged in recruiting
Vietnam veterans into their ranks; why would anti-war activists treat potential colleagues in a manner that might alienate them? Lembcke stated that he has some experience in this relationship; when he returned from Vietnam, he became a member of the Vietnam Veterans against the War. Nonetheless, Lembcke’s arguments seems quite logical. He examined thoroughly available materials of this period of time and has failed to find any documentary evidence of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran. (Lembcke p. 5) Lembcke begins his book by looking at the justification offered by the Bush administration for the 1990 Gulf War. Calling the dispatching of troops to the Gulf an "exercise in what is sometimes called 'armed propaganda'" (Lembcke p. 24), the author then calls the image of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran a "perfecting myth" which served to reinforce the support for the
Gulf War by an American public which still retained bad memories of Vietnam (Lembcke p. 25).
In this book, Lembcke, examines the anti-war movement. He concentrates on anti-war activities of veterans, on the lack of evidence for spat-upon veterans, on the mental labeling of Vietnam veterans, and on the role of the motion picture in reinforcing the concept of the spat-upon 5

veteran in the public mind. In the chapter, "From Odysseus to Rambo," Lembcke discusses receptions for other returning 20th century veterans, such as the "Dolchstoss Legend" or the "stab in the back" of
German soldiers following World War I and the scorn felt by returning French soldiers after the
1954 defeat in Indochina. Lembcke writes, "The fact that we seldom, if ever, hear stories about soldiers in winning armies returning home to abuse suggests that these tales function specifically as alibis for why a war was lost" ( Lembcke p. 89). This myth has been going on for a long time and in every war, the side that loses seems to have soldiers spit upon. Lembcke states that “in the book Warrior Dreams, The author calls Rambo the emblem of movement that at the very least wanted to reserve the previous 20 years of American history and take back all the symbolic territory that had been lost. (Lembcke p. 90) In the chapter, "Women, Wetness, and Warrior Dreams," Lembcke paints a dark picture of myths unexamined. He writes, "The image of warriors betrayed and then forgotten has been the centerpiece of paramilitary cultures throughout the twentieth century....Unless it is laid to rest, the myth of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran will continue to feed the politics of division and violence" (Lembcke p. 142-143). The "support the troops" symbolism also comes with a hidden agenda, a subtext that is about the anti-war movement. Understandably, the war brings a lot of emotion to the surface and some of that feeling stems from frustration with the economy, a sense 6

of helplessness in the face of large-scale social and technological change, and fear that cherished
American values are being lost. In in the chapter, "Myth, Spit, and the Flicks; Coming Home to Hollywood," Lembcke writes of some of the approximately 120 films he viewed which portray relations between Vietnam veterans and the anti-war movement. Much of this chapter is devoted to Coming Home, the 1978 motion picture which Lembcke describes as "a keystone" in the building of popular conceptions about the treatment of returning Vietnam veterans (Lembcke p. 162). And the films he examined did not create an accurate picture. Lembcke writes, "Anti-war GIs and veterans made it to the screen in very small numbers and then almost always as characters whose mental and physical disabilities overshadowed their political identity" (Lembcke p. 180). These films served to perpetuate the "myth" which lies at the core of this study. Hollywood did a lot to develop and spread this myth, starting in the late 1960s. Lembcke devotes a chapter to Hollywood films and how they have shaped our memories of the antiwar movement. The image projected by Holly wood varied from movie to movie, but certain stereotyped roles were common from 1968 on. Vietnam veterans were often portrayed as ultra- violent crazies or paramilitary vigilantes. Nowhere was the politically organized veteran shown; nowhere were the veterans’ criticisms of U.S. policy presented. (Lembcke p.175) Concluding with an account of the powerful role played by Hollywood in cementing the myth of the betrayed veteran through such films as Coming Home, Taxi Driver, and Rambo, Jerry Lembcke's book 7

stands as one of the most important, original, and controversial works of cultural history in recent years. (Phillips, Mark) After the end of the war and the defeat of U.S. imperialism in 1975, Hollywood started to develop the image of the betrayal of our boys by the antiwar movement. “We lost” because of the protesters, according to Hollywood. Lembcke discusses such movies as Coming Home and Rambo in detail to show how Hollywood created the image intentionally. (There are of course a few non-Hollywood exceptions, including the documentaries Hearts and Minds and No
Vietnamese Ever Called Me Nigger. But these are few in number and certainly not as widely viewed as films like Coming Home or Rambo). (Lembcke 176-180) Lembcke contends, the truth is that nobody spat on Vietnam veterans and nobody is spitting on the soldiers today. Attempts to silence opponents of the war with those figments of hostility are dishonest and should, themselves, be banished from our discourse. This myth will continue to be an argument within this society, until the day when nothing no longer exists.

References
1. Discover the Networks. Org: A Guide to the Political Left. Jerry Lembcke. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2225 Web 03/28/2014.

2. Phillips, Mark. March 7, 2003. “Jerry Lembcke, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and Legacy of Vietnam (denies mistreatment of Vets)” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323399/posts Web 03/28/2014

3. Lembcke, Jerry. The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam. New York: New York UP, 1998. Print.

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

Political Sociology Dr. Humphries By Diana Mason