From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Spat Upon?" (Was: "A disappointment to all military people"?)
Date: 4 Apr 92 01:24:22 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services Advanced Technology Center

In article <ATAYLOR.92Mar26202909@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

><   [Casseres wrote]
><   > < The anti-war movement
><   > <was hostile (and in isolated cases "aggressive") to the military
><   > <establishment and to its civilian controllers, but was never
><   > <hostile to the individual soldier who went to Vietnam.
>
>	Here's what Wojcik says:

><As for being spat upon, I don't doubt that it was a common experience.
><Although the number of crazies was small, it was significant.  And it was not
><difficlt for the crazies to make their presence felt in the relatively few
><places where soldiers were returning from the war.  Unfortunately, many
><returning soldiers who were victimized by this kind of abuse tended to see it
><as representative of the entire protest movement.  It's kind of difficult to
><keep your perspective when you risk your life and, something like that happens
><when you return.  

  [Casseres again]
><It is not necessary for anyone to believe me.  What the movement did and said
><and wrote is all a matter of public record.  It never showed any kind of
><hostility to soldiers.

>	Wojcik disagrees with you. So do thousands of soldiers.

I certainly disagree with the claim that those in the movement *never* showed
any kind of hostility to soldiers.  But I think that I am in more general
agreement with Casseres.  How many soldiers were "spat upon" who stepped off
the plane?  I wasn't there and I didn't know.  I saw the same news reports as
everybody else.  All I said was that I didn't doubt it was a common
experience.  It happened enough, and the enemies of the movement exploited the
fringe behavior to discredit it.

I do know that the vast majority of those who participated in the movement did
not meet any soldiers coming off of planes and did not spit on them.  To hear
people talk about it nowadays, you'd think that there were organized trips to
California--busloads of anti-war goons shipped in just to spit on soldiers.  I
don't doubt that spitting incidents occured frequently.  But what does that
mean?  Were the majority of returning soldiers spat upon?  No.  There were a
lot of soldiers.  The incidents of spitting grew in the public mind because,
like flag-burning, they were shocking.  And some elements of the movement
(those that I refer to as "crazies") sought to shock people.  But the movement
as a whole was not like that.

During demonstrations, most of which were peaceful and loosely organized, it
was more typical for demonstrators to try to befriend police or soldiers.  I
was at Ohio State when it was occupied by the Ohio National Guard, and
relations between troops and protesters were quite friendly at times.  Things
got really ugly after the Kent State shootings, though.  Anyway, there was a
very conscious effort to stop violence and abuse when tensions ran high.  It
was not uncommon for people to chant "No violence!" when it looked like
something would get started.  Nevertheless, what sticks in people's minds
about anti-war protesters is the violent-hippie myth.  
-- 
    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA