34 years ago this 4th of July

[Bidin~Time]

You seem to have all the answers WonderBoy.

I bow to your infinite wisdom and understanding of the time.

 

[lavender]

You seem to have all the answers WonderBoy.

I bow to your infinite wisdom and understanding of the time.

There's no reason to be sarcastic when someone offers helpful advice/information that seems to discredit your viewpoints. Wouldn't you rather have accurate information than simple personal assertions?

If PC is correct about this myth and his statistics are definitive - I thank him for informing me of this. No need to be rude about it.

 

[La Huesera]

The fact of the matter is that everyday citizens - and disproportionately African American citizens - followed the call of patriotism.

RACE AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND...
88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian; 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% belonged to other races.
86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics); 12.5% (7,241) were black; 1.2% belonged to other races.
170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2% of total) died there.
70% of enlisted men killed were of North-west European descent.
86.8% of the men who were killed as a result of hostile action were Caucasian; 12.1% (5,711) were black; 1.1% belonged to other races.
14.6% (1,530) of non-combat deaths were among blacks.
34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.
Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population.
Religion of Dead: Protestant -- 64.4%; Catholic -- 28.9%; other/none -- 6.7%

http://www.no-quarter.org/html/jake.html


http://thewall-usa.com/stats/index.html

 

[lavender]

LH,

Thanks. But what you have to analyze - beyond that "Northwest caucasian thing" is how many blacks vs. caucasions were in the military prior to the draft. Then you analyze how the % of military men black vs. caucasian who went to Vietnam. Then you need to analyze the % of men who were drafted by Black vs. White. Once you know these statistics, you can apply the death toll and you can apply them to the facts of the % of the U.S. population.

Statistical analysis has to be completely thorough in order to believe you what the percentages say.

But, it looks as though is was a myth - but it is necessary to look at the percentages of those in the military prior to the draft and those who were drafted to see who the draft disproportionately affected - if it did. You also need to know the percentage in the military in order to realize how the casualty statistics measure up. The fact that "North Western" was placed in that statistic, makes it a bit suspect.

 

[Problem Child]

I doubt if anyone here could give a definitive answer on the question of race in Vietnam and cover all the bases without a lot of research.

It's the 4th and I don't want to spend all day on it.

Perhaps blacks did serve slightly more in proportion, or maybe they didn't. My main point was that it wasn't like 50% of draftees were black, versus them only being something like 13% of the general pop.

A lot of people think that blacks really, really, got shafted in the VN draft process, when in reality (unless you were a politicians kid or going to college) it was a pretty equal opportunity war, as far as just having to serve goes.

 

[lavender]

Here is stuff I found:

The Vietnam War saw the highest proportion of blacks ever to serve in an American war. During the height of the U.S. involvement, 1965-69, blacks, who formed 11 percent of the American population, made up 12.6 percent of the soldiers in Vietnam. The majority of these were in the infantry, and although authorities differ on the figures, the percentage of black combat fatalities in that period was a staggering 14.9 percent, a proportion that subsequently declined. Volunteers and draftees included many frustrated blacks whose impatience with the war and the delays in racial progress in America led to race riots on a number of ships and military bases, beginning in 1968, and the services' response in creating interracial councils and racial sensitivity training. . . .

The participation of Americans of African descent in the U.S. military has a long and distinguished history. But although African Americans have participated in all American wars, they have sometimes faced almost as bitter a hostility from their fellow Americans as from the enemy. Nevertheless, particularly since the 1970s, the U.S. military has made a serious effort at racial integration, and while much remains to be done, the military has achieved a degree of success in this area that surpasses most civilian institutions.

from The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Copyright © 1999 by Oxford UP.

And from another source: from Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military History. Ed. Spencer C. Tucker. Oxford, UK: ABC-CLIO, 1998. Copyright © 1998 by Spencer C. Tucker. [NOTE: This three-volume set is the most comprehensive reference work on the Vietnam War. A concise one-volume edition is now available for the general reader.]

African Americans often did supply a disproportionate number of combat troops, a high percentage of whom had voluntarily enlisted. Although they made up less than 10 percent of American men in arms and about 13 percent of the U.S. population between 1961 and 1966, they accounted for almost 20 percent of all combat-related deaths in Vietnam during that period. In 1965 alone African Americans represented almost one-fourth of the Army's killed in action. In 1968 African Americans, who made up roughly 12 percent of Army and Marine total strengths, frequently contributed half the men in front-line combat units, especially in rifle squads and fire teams. Under heavy criticism, Army and Marine commanders worked to lessen black casualties after 1966, and by the end of the conflict, African American combat deaths amounted to approximately 12 percent—more in line with national population figures. Final casualty estimates do not support the assertion that African Americans suffered disproportionate losses in Vietnam, but this in no way diminishes the fact that they bore a heavy share of the fighting burden, especially early in the conflict.

In 1964 blacks represented less than 9 percent of all U.S. Armed Forces

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


My conclusion: There was a bit of disproportionate share - but not as much as I thought.

I actually am glad I read this stuff.

 

[Bidin~Time]

There's no reason to be sarcastic when someone offers helpful advice/information that seems to discredit your viewpoints. Wouldn't you rather have accurate information than simple personal assertions?

If PC is correct about this myth and his statistics are definitive - I thank him for informing me of this. No need to be rude about it.

Lav, first of all I apologized to Richard for posting off his original topic.
PC's reaction was thus:

"Anyone that gets upset that "their" thread doesn't go a "certain" way on this board is a naive fool. Go to the playground if you want predictability. Go to another board if you want censorship. Get off the internet if you don't want your feelings hurt."

I considered that rude and uncalled for. Especially since it was directed to Richard and no one else. I'll use pm next time.


I stand by my assertion that the American soldier during the draft was not a volunteer. Many did go in on a volunteer basis, knowing it was just a matter of time til their number was called. Given the actual choice and knowing there would have been no repercussions, how many would have joined up?

It was a statement made based on personal knowledge, forgive me I'll use Google next time.

And no it's not right to call anyone a baby killer now or then. It was a cold callous statement then as it is now. Maybe I should have expanded on it slightly to add. At a time when dyeing one's hair "could" have created a scandal, that particular label was particularly hard hitting.

As for my statement concerning our president at the time. I made it pretty clear that subject was fodder for another thread.

"Yet more thread fodder for those of you interested. "

I didn't claim to be any sort of authority, however, it was his smartass, indirect post to Richard, using my words, that I felt was grossly inappropriate.

 

[Problem Child]

Here is stuff I found:

The Vietnam War saw the highest proportion of blacks ever to serve in an American war.

Note: I'm not trying to make an argument saying that blacks didn't do their share here...I'm just trying to figure out what the real story is.

The first sentence is true only because blacks weren't allowed to participate in combat roles to any great extent before Korea, so it seems a bit misleading. It has no bearing on percentages, only total numbers.

During the height of the U.S. involvement, 1965-69, blacks, who formed 11 percent of the American population,

The other source which Lahuesera posted, and was the one I used, says blacks were 12.5% of the population, so there's a conflict in the stats.

made up 12.6 percent of the soldiers in Vietnam.

The other source says 10.5% of the soldiers in VN were black. Another conflict.

The majority of these were in the infantry, and although authorities differ on the figures, the percentage of black combat fatalities in that period was a staggering 14.9 percent, a proportion that subsequently declined.

Why are we only concentrating on 64-69? Why not the whole war?

<snip>

The participation of Americans of African descent in the U.S. military has a long and distinguished history. But although African Americans have participated in all American wars, they have sometimes faced almost as bitter a hostility from their fellow Americans as from the enemy. Nevertheless, particularly since the 1970s, the U.S. military has made a serious effort at racial integration, and while much remains to be done, the military has achieved a degree of success in this area that surpasses most civilian institutions.

Agreed.

from The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Copyright © 1999 by Oxford UP.

And from another source: from Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military History. Ed. Spencer C. Tucker. Oxford, UK: ABC-CLIO, 1998. Copyright © 1998 by Spencer C. Tucker. [NOTE: This three-volume set is the most comprehensive reference work on the Vietnam War. A concise one-volume edition is now available for the general reader.]

African Americans often did supply a disproportionate number of combat troops, a high percentage of whom had voluntarily enlisted. Although they made up less than 10 percent of American men in arms and about 13 percent of the U.S. population between 1961 and 1966, they accounted for almost 20 percent of all combat-related deaths in Vietnam during that period.

Again, this source differs from the one above it in the stats. 11% vs. 13% of the U.S. population? That should be a relatively easy number to determine.

In 1965 alone African Americans represented almost one-fourth of the Army's killed in action. In 1968 African Americans, who made up roughly 12 percent of Army and Marine total strengths, frequently contributed half the men in front-line combat units, especially in rifle squads and fire teams.

I understand why they are stressing this period now

Under heavy criticism, Army and Marine commanders worked to lessen black casualties after 1966, and by the end of the conflict, African American combat deaths amounted to approximately 12 percent—more in line with national population figures. Final casualty estimates do not support the assertion that African Americans suffered disproportionate losses in Vietnam, but this in no way diminishes the fact that they bore a heavy share of the fighting burden, especially early in the conflict.

I think that's a fair assessment

In 1964 blacks represented less than 9 percent of all U.S. Armed Forces

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


My conclusion: There was a bit of disproportionate share - but not as much as I thought.

I actually am glad I read this stuff.

 

[Problem Child]

I didn't claim to be any sort of authority, however, it was his smartass, indirect post to Richard, using my words, that I felt was grossly inappropriate.

The entire post was directed at you, not Richard. If I wanted to respond to Richard, I would make a post that would probably start something like this:

"Hey Richard..."

If you took the time to read any of my other posts on this thread you would see (through inference, at least) that I have nothing but respect for Richard's service.

Edit: In my response to you, I said the following:

Anyone that gets upset that "their" thread doesn't go a "certain" way on this board is a naive fool.

Undoubtedly, the use of the word "their" caused you to believe I was directing the post toward Richard. I wasn't- I was directing it at all the people, including you that are whining about the thread not going the "right" way.

I should have said something like this:

Anyone that gets upset that a thread doesn't go a "certain" way on this board is a naive fool.

My apologies for that oversight.

 

[Bidin~Time]

The entire post was directed at you, not Richard. If I wanted to respond to Richard, I would make a post that would probably start something like this:

"Hey Richard..."

If you took the time to read any of my other posts on this thread you would see (through inference, at least) that I have nothing but respect for Richard's service.

I read the entire thread at 5 this morning PC. And believe it or not, you and I actually do agree on this subject.

If I misread your post, I do apologize.

 

[Problem Child]

I read the entire thread at 5 this morning PC. And believe it or not, you and I actually do agree on this subject.

If I misread your post, I do apologize.

No problem. I added an edit above for further clarification.

 

[Bidin~Time]

No problem. I added an edit above for further clarification.

Thank you.


Why do I feel I should send you flowers or offer to take you out to dinner now??

 

[Problem Child]

Thank you.


Why do I feel I should send you flowers or offer to take you out to dinner now??

You're HyP-mO-TiZeD by my svengali-like influence. Happens to all the girls.

 

[Johnny Cool]

Weevil,

I'm not waffling on this issue - I'm actually being reasonable.

Prime Minister Weevil would like to point out that he never accused you of waffling but, instead, called you a wishy washy chump. Your consistency in this matter was never called into question

As PC already said, Vietnam and Watergate were the 2 events that truly made Americans start questioning their government. Prior to these events, Americans generally trusted their government. The world, and America, were different places at the time. That doesn't justify the war - it doesn't justify anything - but it does show you that not only many of the American people but also many of the soldiers had a genuine reasonable belief that what their government, what their military leaders were telling them, was true.

Sure. If they went through life with both hands clamped over their ears and their eyes tightly shut they could have, theoretically, thought that the sky was yellow too. It doesn't absolve them of their responsibility to open their goddamn eyes though.

With this in mind, we also have to realize that when soldiers went to Vietnam they had no idea what to expect. To compound this - the war was incredibly difficult. Identifying the enemy was next to impossible. Granted, many innocent civilians and children were killed in Vietnam - that cannot be excused. But, not all soldiers and not all military personnel were responsible for these deaths. Simply participating in this war does not make one a mortal enemy.

At this point the Prime Minister likes to ask "What if they held a war and nobody came?"

Your comparison to Hitler is completely inept. In fact, you destroy your credibility at this point. In Nuremberg, as we have seen in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the prosecutions based on following orders mainly applied to the upper tiers of the military - not to common soldiers. The prosecutions were specifically those that actively violated international humanitarian law on numerous circumstances. Every single Nazi soldiers, every single Serb soldier, etc. are not tried. There has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they actively participated in a governmental/troop campaign to violate the various international conventions.

The Prime Minister acknowledges that one cannot prosecute everyone who fights in a war that should not be fought. This certainly absolves those in question of legal recriminations.

What the Prime Minister is discussing, of course, is the moral question. Could you imagine the old "You can't blame the people who fought for the Germans" argument if thousands and thousands of Anti-war germans held big marches about what the Nazi government were up to? Wouldn't "nobody knew about the Holocaust" sound pretty silly. The Prime Minister, while not equating, Vietnam vets with members of the SS believes that the same moral quagmire exists.

Your everyday Vietnam vet, could not, under any circumstances be successfully tried for any war crimes. That's the way the international humanitarian law regime is set up. If you want me to go into detail on how hard the prosecution's burden of proof is - I will. If you want me to explain why the overwhelming number of Vietnam troops do not fall into this legal category - I'll be glad to.

No thanks. Besides, it's not like the world community can try American soldiers for war crimes even if we have home movies and detailed journals of how it's done.

The fact of the matter is that everyday citizens - and disproportionately African American citizens - followed the call of patriotism. I'm not saying this in and of itself makes it a noble cause. But, they saw things in Vietnam that keep them up at nights 30 years later. Many of them have totally ruined lives now. Do you know what % of Americans that are homeless are Vietnam vets? Do you know what % of those Vietnam vets are homeless due to PTSD?

The Prime Minister has two points. Firstly, that he does not consider doing bad things for your government an act of patriotism. He believes that standing up to your government, when it's doing bad things is far more patriotic.

Secondly the PM, while sympathetic, finds it hard to get worked up about the consequences of doing something you shouldn't have done. How many Vietnamese people would love to be Homeless in America because it would mean they didn't have a bucketfull of napalm dropped on their heads?

Why the hell should we spit and jeer at these men who were not actively engaged in this type of activity.

While the Prime Minister can understand why you would paint him as an advocate of jeering and spitting, he cannot be painted as a heartless thrower of feces if you accurately represent his position, he would like to re-iterate that the only time he has ever yelled at someone was when a guy at Starbucks put regular milk in his latte when he was trying to go Vegan. The only time he spit on someone was, well we don't have to delve into his "Youthful indiscretions"

It is you, not I, that is inconsistent. You are the one who champions rights - but in this country there is a presumption of innocence. This presumption should apply equally to veterans of war. They are not common criminals - they are men who actually believed our government that they were serving a moral and national purpose.

I would think that the PM has been remarkably consistent on this issue. However, once again, he did not accuse you of being inconsistent. The PM does not advocate locking anyone up, for that would clearly go against his "Leave it in the past" policy.

I do not lay blame at their feet. I do lay blame at the idiots who made their reentry into America hell.

And that, my dear lavender, might be the unbridgable chasm between you and the PM on this one. The Prime Minister finds it hard to get particularly worked up over the people who called names and easier to get worked up over those that dropped bombs. The Canadian government has long subscribed to the "Sticks and Stones" policy.

Moreover, Richard is not saying "We don't get enough respect NOW." He specifically was talking about when he returned.

This, sadly, is where we might have to , as PC and the PM managed to, agree to disagree. Richard clearly said "in some ways we are not treated much different (now)" in his response to your initial post.

But being as that hardly fits into your picture of me knocking a paper cup out of a homeless veterans hands and laughing my way to the Gap I can see how you, in this thread, would show a casual disregard for what has actually been said that Uncle Bill would be proud of.

It baffles me that you presume that you would have acted a way in a society that was totally different than today. It baffles me that you are able to say what was right and wrong when you weren't even born at that time. It baffles me that you are such a fucking jackass about this topic.

It baffles me that you buy into this garbage. I'm the result of a unique set of circumstances some of which could not have happened in the time and place in question. I've never said I would act differently. The "well, what would you do if you were there" question is about as relevant as me asking "Well if you were a tree, it'd probably suck when someone cut you down, wouldn't it?"

It baffles me that you can't say what was right and wrong when you weren't even born at the time. Crusades? Wrong. Burning witches? Wrong. Kidnapping the Lindbergh baby? Wrong. Charlie Chaplin? Double wrong.

It further baffles me that you can be baffled at the PM being a jackass. I would have thought in the few years where the two of you have been speaking that he would have made it evident that being a jackass is what he does as well as anyone.

 

[sybilrose]

"I am the radioactive cesspool " Well she did get that part right.
I cant even type her words make me so angry.

Thanks Richard for your sacrafice and I am glad you finally got recognized.

 

[Weevil]

"I am the radioactive cesspool " Well she did get that part right.
I cant even type her words make me so angry.

Thanks Richard for your sacrafice and I am glad you finally got recognized.

You should quote the person you're referring to, otherwise we have no idea who you think is a radioactive cesspool.

 

[zipman]

Re: Bullcrap

Once again you show how phony your claims to be a leftist are. All that nonsense about people spitting on GI's returning from Vietnam is mythology invented after the fact by right-wing propagandists. The truth is, most U.S. soldiers returning from Vietnam went straight into the anti-war movement, where they were welcomed with open arms.

Far more dangerous than the open right-wingers are the fake leftists.

Far more dangerous are those who revise history to support their misguided idealogical agendas.

The sad thing is that as more time passes, more people try to recreate history.

The way the troops were treated upon their return was shameful.

 

[Weevil]

Re: Re: Bullcrap

Far more dangerous are those who revise history to support their misguided idealogical agendas.

The sad thing is that as more time passes, more people try to recreate history.

The way the troops were treated upon their return was shameful.

To quote my good buddy, I'm a Troll, the way Americans treated the Vietnamese people was shamefuller.

 

[zipman]

Re: Re: Re: Bullcrap

To quote my good buddy, I'm a Troll, the way Americans treated the Vietnamese people was shamefuller.

You're entitled to your beliefs, as I am to mine.

Most of those who served were drafted, and had little choice nor even full knowledge of the consequences of their actions.

I would hold the government responsible, not the individuals engaged in a war unless they had full knowledge of their actions. Those that did commit crimes should be tried and hung out to dry. But to paint all the soldiers with such a broad brush is both unfair and inaccurate.

 

[Weevil]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullcrap

You're entitled to your beliefs, as I am to mine.

Most of those who served were drafted, and had little choice nor even full knowledge of the consequences of their actions.

I would hold the government responsible, not the individuals engaged in a war unless they had full knowledge of their actions. Those that did commit crimes should be tried and hung out to dry. But to paint all the soldiers with such a broad brush is both unfair and inaccurate.

Indeed. But the primary lesson to be learned from the whole Vietnam experience is "If your Country asks you to fight a war for no reason, tell them where to stick it."

 

[Weevil]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullcrap

Indeed. But the primary lesson to be learned from the whole Vietnam experience is "If your Country asks you to fight a war for no reason, tell them where to stick it."

and if you're being asked to fight a war, you have a moral obligation to figure out whether or not it's a good one.

 

[Weird Harold]

The participation of Americans of African descent in the U.S. military has a long and distinguished history. But although African Americans have participated in all American wars, they have sometimes faced almost as bitter a hostility from their fellow Americans as from the enemy. Nevertheless, particularly since the 1970s, the U.S. military has made a serious effort at racial integration, and while much remains to be done, the military has achieved a degree of success in this area that surpasses most civilian institutions.

from The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Copyright © 1999 by Oxford UP.
...
My conclusion: There was a bit of disproportionate share - but not as much as I thought.

I actually am glad I read this stuff.

Lavy, statistics don't tell very much of the story of Blacks in the Military or Vietnam.

I was a part of the military's "serious effort at racial integration" as the assigned supervisor of one of the very first Blacks in my career field. Up to 1971, Balcks were essentially barred from any technical fields and relegated to combat or service duties.

All of the statistics cited so far are skewed because they are "in the military" and don't disclose that the majority of blacks in the US Military at the time were in the Army and a disproportinate number of those were low-ranking front-line combat troops. If you remove the numbers for the Navy and Air Force -- who were much "whiter" than the Army and Marines -- the percentages jump considerably.

However, those who claim the disproportionate number of Black combat troops was some racist, genocidal conspiracy are also wrong. The numbers and distributions are simply the result of social dynamics and educational opportunities.

The Air Force and Navy at that time could be very picky about who they enlisted and were almost entirely volunteer forces selected from the very highest percentile of test scores, while the Army had most of the draftees and the lowest percentiles of the test scores. Simple Economics prevented the draftees from getting much more than Basic Training unless they re-enlisted and it became cost effective to re-train them (Draftees were in for two years and left, taking the training dollars with them.)

The expansion of the US Military throughout the Vietnam era contributed to the disparity, because the numbers required meant lowering the minimum test scores (and enlisting/drafting those with less educational opportunity i.e. more Blacks)

From my experience, (and reading of various VN Vets memoirs) I'd say that Balck VN Vets had a harder re-adjusting when they returned because they not only faced the hostility of the protestors, but the greater Racism of civilian life in the sixties. Despite the flaws and need for improvement in the US military, there was actually much less overt Racism there than in the civilian world at the time.

Black US Army VN Vets (volunteer and Draftee, alike) deserve even more praise for their sacrifice than people like me -- I was in the Air Force and "protected" from most of the horrors of Vietnam by being restricted to the base the whole time and guarded by the Combat Arms types. -- They faced the worst of combat and returned to a society that despised them doubly for the color of their skin as well as their service to their country.