4 ms·

Well they get a special amount of respect for two reasons. The obvious one is that they offer to give up their life in the service of their country. The secon

Well they get a special amount of respect for two reasons. The obvious one is that they offer to give up their life in the service of their country. The second reason is, in the past it's been viewed as a far less lucrative career. So while we might all be making a ton of money in Silicon Valley- these guys are in Afghanistan risking their lives (irrespective of your support of a particular war, the sacrifice is still being made). Also, there is still a lingering guilt over how servicemen were treated returning home from Vietnam. That still informs how the military is viewed as being owed a bit more respect than say an investment banker.

plinkplonk 15y ago
"The obvious one is that they offer to give up their life in the service of their country." Sure, but how is this particularly unique? Every country has people who do exactly that and they don't get this degree of deference on HN. Just as an example,this is true for the Afghani insurgent who tries to blow up Americans, or a member of the Viet Cong. I am sure they see the(ir respective) wars as a fight for independence against evil rapacious invaders. The Redcoat who served in the American War of Independence (the English Army, not the Hessians etc) was risking his life for King and Country. Do we (or should we) unequivocally respect anyone who risks their lives for a "higher" cause and low pay? As a thought experiment, if an Afghani hacker who joined the Taliban were to write a "What I learned from ten years of Jihad" article, would that be on the front page of HN? (hmm that might be an interesting article. I probably wouldn't agree with it, but it would be interesting ) Your other points are very helpful, specifically the one about the Vietnam backlash. I think I understand better now.Thank You.
- codeslush 15y ago
  I'm not certain a soldier deserves more respect than a doctor, teacher, fireman, policeman or engineer. I'm not even certain a soldier gets more respect than many of those occupations listed. Soldiers do not ask for respect. It is given to them. I don't know why, but let me throw out a few possibilities: 1. It's a national holiday. This draws national attention to the sacrifices made - even in post WWII invasions. Perhaps, more than any other career, more lives have been lost, or negatively mentally/physically altered, by military members. I don't know the stats here - so it's an assumption. 2. Maybe it's related to the sacrifices made by soldiers. I'm not limiting this to just the soldiers that get killed or seriously wounded either. Are you aware that lower ranking enlisted members (the majority that will do 3 to 5 years and then get out) are at, or very near, poverty level? They don't do it for the money. 3. People admire/respect bravery. This goes for police officers and firemen too. This, I think, is why a lot of women like a "man in uniform." 4. Many American families have lost loved ones in wars dating back a long way. They recognize the sacrifices their ancestors made for the country. These memories and feelings carry forward generations. I was writing this response before jboydyhacker chimed in. So to address your latest comments: 1. Soldiers don't always agree with the battle they are fighting. 2. You shouldn't respect anyone unless you respect them. If your choice is to not respect a soldier, that's your right! 3. It's quite likely if an Afghani hacker who joined the Taliban wrote the article mentioned that it would get great press - somewhere. Maybe not here, but somewhere. Had I written this particular article, it would not have made front page. In fact, it would not have received 3 upvotes. People respect the GOOG as much as they respect the soldier. Combine the two, and...this is what happens. There - your engineer just got some respect! ;-) I will bet my next paycheck that if an Afghani hacker joined the Taliban and then came to America, worked for GOOG and published the article referenced - yes, it will make it to the front page of HN. 4. I am at war against my company's competition every time I try to convince someone our software solution is better than the alternative. I believe in what I try to sell. If I went to one of my competitors tomorrow, I'm sure I would fight just as hard for them. Does that translate to an answer for your Viet Cong argument?
  - plinkplonk 15y ago
    Mostly good points (except one see below). Thank you. fwiw it was a genuine question. I am not trying to be anti American, anti US army etc. I am very pro American in real life and get flak for that attitude hereabouts. I was just puzzled to wake up in the morning and find a fairly content-lite article on the front page of HN. It does happen occasionally, but this one felt really weird to me.It doesn't say anything particularly interesting (imo). Other cultures are different and working with a diverse set of people teaches you tolerance? Well duh. Fwiw I suspect what Dan really learned from the war will be discussed only over drinks with his fellow soldiers and not on any public forum. "I am at war against my company's competition every time I try to convince someone our software solution is better than the alternative." I suspect using the word "war" as a substitute for "competition" obscures the point. Reductio ad absurdum that means every investment banker (say) is a soldier and so worthy of respect. "If I went to one of my competitors tomorrow, I'm sure I would fight just as hard for them. Does that translate to an answer for your Viet Cong argument?" No :). Because my point was not on whether the Vietnamese soldier fought for his country as hard as the American soldier would do for his. That is a given (or close enough). I am not sure if a Vietnamese (or Afghan or whoever) wrote such a content free article, it would get upvoted so heavily. It seemed to me ( I freely admit I could be wrong) that the upvotes for this article stemmed from some kind of patriotic impulse than because its content was intellectually stimulating, or even relevant to the community. I am (or was) surprised at this (imo very content lite) article being on the front page of HN and getting so many upvotes and (perhaps unjustifiably) attributed it to the (imo) excess respect Americans have for their military. Your reply helps me understand better. Thank You.
    - lucasjung 15y ago
      I would hardly describe the article as "content-lite." I think that maybe you are not getting the same lessons from this article that others are. To me, one of the big take-aways that is relevant to HN is that military service, especially in wartime, gives you experiences that you cannot get anywhere else, and that these experiences prove extremely valuable to veterans in the civilian workplace. The first part (unique experiences) is not surprising, but the second part (military experience translates well to civilian work) is surprising or even counterintuitive to some people. Another reason why this might seem content-lite to you is actually something you got almost right: >I suspect what Dan really learned from the war will be discussed only over drinks with his fellow soldiers and not on any public forum. I get the impression that he would be more than happy to share his most valuable lessons with anyone who asks, but the problem is that anyone who hasn't had military experience will not be able to truly understand the full extent of what he's trying to say. Your statement would be more correct if rephrased as: "I suspect what Dan learned from the war will only be really discussed over drinks with his fellow soldiers and not on any public forum." The reason being that those are the only people who can really understand what he's saying. You actually demonstrate this effect in action: >It doesn't say anything particularly interesting (imo). Other cultures are different and working with a diverse set of people teaches you tolerance? Well duh. He learned, from the Afghans, a level of patience that most Americans (westerners in general, really) are simply incapable of comprehending. He tried to express this, but to you it just came across as a minimally interesting anecdote about differences in cultures. You can't really understand what he was trying to say unless you have been through a similar experience. Similarly, the military has a level of racial integration that just doesn't exist in most of the rest of American culture. He probably thought of himself as being comfortable in diverse crowds before he joined the military, and then he found out what it's like to work with a truly diverse group of people. He tried to explain this, but to you it just came across as an obvious point about diversity and tolerance. Again, you can't really understand what he was saying until you've been in immersed that kind of environment.
- astine 15y ago
  "Do we (or should we) unequivocally respect anyone who risks their lives for a "higher" cause?" Sure. I think one can acknowledge the value of a sacrifice without necessarily agreeing with the cause which motivated that sacrifice. In a more civilized time (in some ways) men used to pay their respects to fallen enemies as well as fallen friends. I remember stories where American servicemen in the navy would salute dead kamikaze pilots. On one level, they absolutly hated those pilots and with good reason. And yet, on another level, they respected that they were fellow soldiers who willing to die for their country as well. I think it's important to remember that everyone, even those who might want to harm us or we might need to harm, are human too.
  - lucasjung 15y ago
    Soldiers have always held worthy adversaries in high regard, respecting them even more highly than allies perceived as unworthy (i.e. allies who are craven, weak, incompetent, etc.). However, the key word there is "worthy." I don't see a lot of vets coming back with a lot of respect for the enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. At most, there is the kind of "respect" you give to a dangerous animal: you know it's not just a "dumb" animal, and you know it could strike at any moment without warning, so you have to keep your guard up without fail. I think a big part of this has to do with how they fight: deliberately targeting civilians in order to create terror, killing entire families who are suspected of American sympathies, etc. So if the question is: >Do we (or should we) unequivocally respect anyone who risks their lives for a "higher" cause? I think there are two criteria to consider: 1: Is the cause truly noble? If not, then we might be able to respect those who risk their lives for it, but we do not revere or praise them. 2: Do they fight honorably? If not, then they do not deserve respect (except maybe for the "dangerous animal" kind of respect I mentioned previously). Even if the cause is noble, those who fight for it only deserve respect if they fight honorably.
    - plinkplonk 15y ago
      "I think there are two criteria to consider: 1: Is the cause truly noble? If not, then we might be able to respect those who risk their lives for it, but we do not revere or praise them. 2: Do they fight honorably? If not, then they do not deserve respect (except maybe for the "dangerous animal" kind of respect I mentioned previously). Even if the cause is noble, those who fight for it only deserve respect if they fight honorably." So an Englishman of the 18th century were to judge an American militiaman as a "dangerous animal" for (a) committing treason to his king to whom he had sworn an oath (b) bushwhacking officers from a forest without standing in straight lines, within gunshot range s in full view of the enemy,- thus fighting "dishonorably" as per the prevailing notions of "honor", he would be right? Whether a cause is "noble" or not depends on who is doing the judgement. An Islamic fanatic who joins the Taliban can sincerely believe that he is fighting on the side of virtue and killing hellbound infidels who disobey God's word. To you his cause isn't noble. As for deliberately targeting citizens, that is precisely what bombing German cities, or Hanoi was. Was dropping the Atom bomb or Hiroshima "honorable"?(Not saying Americans are particularly ignoble. Every army in history does what it takes to win and calls it "honorable", while the oppositions effective, uncounterable tactics often get called "dishonorable". ) What "fighting honorably" means, evolves over time and is almost always out of date. Knights called muskets dishonorable because a peasant could kill a knight from afar. Oh the horror. As did the Samurai. Hey Afghan insurgents think drones are dishonorable. American soldiers think IEDs and suicide bombers are dishonorable. Hmm. English commanders complained that the American soldiers in the American War of Independence didn't fight "honorably" or 'like gentlemen'. Targeting officers was considered dishonorable and criminal. Wellington refused an artillery officer under his command permission to fire his battery at Napoleon because it was 'dishonorable'. Of course, Americans paid no heed because the tactic was effective. Sherman burned Georgia,and after the Civil War used the same tactics against the remnants of the American Indian tribes. These days, incinerating a city full of civilians from the air is "honorable". Poor Sherman was accused of barbarism for burning one city. Coming to modern times, how is a drone attack blowing up a house full of civilians to target one insurgent commander "honorable"? You can argue it is effective. But honorable? You are fighting people with a technology they can't fight back against. Should the Afghan insurgents fight F16s and Abrams with AK 47s while wearing distinctive uniforms so they can be picked off? That doesn't make any sense. As a thought experiment, if you were an Afghan whose family were killed because drone operators half the world away mistook a wedding party for an insurgent group, would you be worried about conforming to the invaders notion of "honor"? Martin Van Creveld has written a whole book, aptly titled "The Transformation of War" where he gives dozens of examples of practices that switched from "honorable" to dishonorable and vice versa with the passage of time. (From Wikipedia). The book's significance is attested to by the fact that until the middle of 2008, it was included on the list of required reading for United States Army officers, and (with Sun Tzu and Clausewitz) the third non-American entry on the list.. Well worth reading. Here is a sample of his writing. "Knowing Why Not To Bomb Iran Is Half the Battle" http://www.forward.com/articles/1254/ http://www.forward.com/articles/1254/ I don't always agree with Van Creveld but he makes me think.
gnosis 15y ago
"Also, there is still a lingering guilt over how servicemen were treated returning home from Vietnam." You might be interested to read a book called "The Spitting Image": "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam" is a 1998 book by sociologist Jerry Lembcke. The book argues that the common claim that American soldiers were spat upon and insulted by anti-war protesters upon returning home from the Vietnam War is an urban legend intended to discredit the anti-war movement. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Spitting_Image https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Spitting_...
- lucasjung 15y ago
  I have several friends and relatives who personally received this exact treatment. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the Vietnam veterans I personally know did. When my father left the service, he went to work for Pan Am and spent his first few years flying troops between the U.S. and Vietnam, and witnessed this sort of behavior on a regular basis. My sampling is hardly large enough to be representative, but I think that the author of this book is completely out of touch with reality. Also, FWIW, it apparently still happens today: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-protesters-spit-on-coast-guard-member-20111013 http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-prot...
  - gnosis 15y ago
    "I have several friends and relatives who personally received this exact treatment. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the Vietnam veterans I personally know did. When my father left the service, he went to work for Pan Am and spent his first few years flying troops between the U.S. and Vietnam, and witnessed this sort of behavior on a regular basis." These are certainly some significant data points, if what they told you actually happened. It would be interesting to know whether they spoke about this sort of treatment in the 60's and 70's, rather than waiting until much later -- when the "antiwar protestors spitting on war vets" image has become so much a part of American folklore. "Also, FWIW, it apparently still happens today: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-protesters-spit-on-coast-guard-member-20111013* http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-prot... FOX has a long and sordid history of outright lies and incredibly biased reporting. This particular story doesn't even mention the alleged victim's name. Nor does it mention whether there were any witnesses.

plinkplonk 15y ago

"The obvious one is that they offer to give up their life in the service of their country." Sure, but how is this particularly unique? Every country has people who do exactly that and they don't get this degree of deference on HN. Just as an example,this is true for the Afghani insurgent who tries to blow up Americans, or a member of the Viet Cong. I am sure they see the(ir respective) wars as a fight for independence against evil rapacious invaders. The Redcoat who served in the American War of Independence (the English Army, not the Hessians etc) was risking his life for King and Country. Do we (or should we) unequivocally respect anyone who risks their lives for a "higher" cause and low pay? As a thought experiment, if an Afghani hacker who joined the Taliban were to write a "What I learned from ten years of Jihad" article, would that be on the front page of HN? (hmm that might be an interesting article. I probably wouldn't agree with it, but it would be interesting ) Your other points are very helpful, specifically the one about the Vietnam backlash. I think I understand better now.Thank You.

codeslush 15y ago
I'm not certain a soldier deserves more respect than a doctor, teacher, fireman, policeman or engineer. I'm not even certain a soldier gets more respect than many of those occupations listed. Soldiers do not ask for respect. It is given to them. I don't know why, but let me throw out a few possibilities: 1. It's a national holiday. This draws national attention to the sacrifices made - even in post WWII invasions. Perhaps, more than any other career, more lives have been lost, or negatively mentally/physically altered, by military members. I don't know the stats here - so it's an assumption. 2. Maybe it's related to the sacrifices made by soldiers. I'm not limiting this to just the soldiers that get killed or seriously wounded either. Are you aware that lower ranking enlisted members (the majority that will do 3 to 5 years and then get out) are at, or very near, poverty level? They don't do it for the money. 3. People admire/respect bravery. This goes for police officers and firemen too. This, I think, is why a lot of women like a "man in uniform." 4. Many American families have lost loved ones in wars dating back a long way. They recognize the sacrifices their ancestors made for the country. These memories and feelings carry forward generations. I was writing this response before jboydyhacker chimed in. So to address your latest comments: 1. Soldiers don't always agree with the battle they are fighting. 2. You shouldn't respect anyone unless you respect them. If your choice is to not respect a soldier, that's your right! 3. It's quite likely if an Afghani hacker who joined the Taliban wrote the article mentioned that it would get great press - somewhere. Maybe not here, but somewhere. Had I written this particular article, it would not have made front page. In fact, it would not have received 3 upvotes. People respect the GOOG as much as they respect the soldier. Combine the two, and...this is what happens. There - your engineer just got some respect! ;-) I will bet my next paycheck that if an Afghani hacker joined the Taliban and then came to America, worked for GOOG and published the article referenced - yes, it will make it to the front page of HN. 4. I am at war against my company's competition every time I try to convince someone our software solution is better than the alternative. I believe in what I try to sell. If I went to one of my competitors tomorrow, I'm sure I would fight just as hard for them. Does that translate to an answer for your Viet Cong argument?
- plinkplonk 15y ago
  Mostly good points (except one see below). Thank you. fwiw it was a genuine question. I am not trying to be anti American, anti US army etc. I am very pro American in real life and get flak for that attitude hereabouts. I was just puzzled to wake up in the morning and find a fairly content-lite article on the front page of HN. It does happen occasionally, but this one felt really weird to me.It doesn't say anything particularly interesting (imo). Other cultures are different and working with a diverse set of people teaches you tolerance? Well duh. Fwiw I suspect what Dan really learned from the war will be discussed only over drinks with his fellow soldiers and not on any public forum. "I am at war against my company's competition every time I try to convince someone our software solution is better than the alternative." I suspect using the word "war" as a substitute for "competition" obscures the point. Reductio ad absurdum that means every investment banker (say) is a soldier and so worthy of respect. "If I went to one of my competitors tomorrow, I'm sure I would fight just as hard for them. Does that translate to an answer for your Viet Cong argument?" No :). Because my point was not on whether the Vietnamese soldier fought for his country as hard as the American soldier would do for his. That is a given (or close enough). I am not sure if a Vietnamese (or Afghan or whoever) wrote such a content free article, it would get upvoted so heavily. It seemed to me ( I freely admit I could be wrong) that the upvotes for this article stemmed from some kind of patriotic impulse than because its content was intellectually stimulating, or even relevant to the community. I am (or was) surprised at this (imo very content lite) article being on the front page of HN and getting so many upvotes and (perhaps unjustifiably) attributed it to the (imo) excess respect Americans have for their military. Your reply helps me understand better. Thank You.
  - lucasjung 15y ago
    I would hardly describe the article as "content-lite." I think that maybe you are not getting the same lessons from this article that others are. To me, one of the big take-aways that is relevant to HN is that military service, especially in wartime, gives you experiences that you cannot get anywhere else, and that these experiences prove extremely valuable to veterans in the civilian workplace. The first part (unique experiences) is not surprising, but the second part (military experience translates well to civilian work) is surprising or even counterintuitive to some people. Another reason why this might seem content-lite to you is actually something you got almost right: >I suspect what Dan really learned from the war will be discussed only over drinks with his fellow soldiers and not on any public forum. I get the impression that he would be more than happy to share his most valuable lessons with anyone who asks, but the problem is that anyone who hasn't had military experience will not be able to truly understand the full extent of what he's trying to say. Your statement would be more correct if rephrased as: "I suspect what Dan learned from the war will only be really discussed over drinks with his fellow soldiers and not on any public forum." The reason being that those are the only people who can really understand what he's saying. You actually demonstrate this effect in action: >It doesn't say anything particularly interesting (imo). Other cultures are different and working with a diverse set of people teaches you tolerance? Well duh. He learned, from the Afghans, a level of patience that most Americans (westerners in general, really) are simply incapable of comprehending. He tried to express this, but to you it just came across as a minimally interesting anecdote about differences in cultures. You can't really understand what he was trying to say unless you have been through a similar experience. Similarly, the military has a level of racial integration that just doesn't exist in most of the rest of American culture. He probably thought of himself as being comfortable in diverse crowds before he joined the military, and then he found out what it's like to work with a truly diverse group of people. He tried to explain this, but to you it just came across as an obvious point about diversity and tolerance. Again, you can't really understand what he was saying until you've been in immersed that kind of environment.
astine 15y ago
"Do we (or should we) unequivocally respect anyone who risks their lives for a "higher" cause?" Sure. I think one can acknowledge the value of a sacrifice without necessarily agreeing with the cause which motivated that sacrifice. In a more civilized time (in some ways) men used to pay their respects to fallen enemies as well as fallen friends. I remember stories where American servicemen in the navy would salute dead kamikaze pilots. On one level, they absolutly hated those pilots and with good reason. And yet, on another level, they respected that they were fellow soldiers who willing to die for their country as well. I think it's important to remember that everyone, even those who might want to harm us or we might need to harm, are human too.
- lucasjung 15y ago
  Soldiers have always held worthy adversaries in high regard, respecting them even more highly than allies perceived as unworthy (i.e. allies who are craven, weak, incompetent, etc.). However, the key word there is "worthy." I don't see a lot of vets coming back with a lot of respect for the enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. At most, there is the kind of "respect" you give to a dangerous animal: you know it's not just a "dumb" animal, and you know it could strike at any moment without warning, so you have to keep your guard up without fail. I think a big part of this has to do with how they fight: deliberately targeting civilians in order to create terror, killing entire families who are suspected of American sympathies, etc. So if the question is: >Do we (or should we) unequivocally respect anyone who risks their lives for a "higher" cause? I think there are two criteria to consider: 1: Is the cause truly noble? If not, then we might be able to respect those who risk their lives for it, but we do not revere or praise them. 2: Do they fight honorably? If not, then they do not deserve respect (except maybe for the "dangerous animal" kind of respect I mentioned previously). Even if the cause is noble, those who fight for it only deserve respect if they fight honorably.
  - plinkplonk 15y ago
    "I think there are two criteria to consider: 1: Is the cause truly noble? If not, then we might be able to respect those who risk their lives for it, but we do not revere or praise them. 2: Do they fight honorably? If not, then they do not deserve respect (except maybe for the "dangerous animal" kind of respect I mentioned previously). Even if the cause is noble, those who fight for it only deserve respect if they fight honorably." So an Englishman of the 18th century were to judge an American militiaman as a "dangerous animal" for (a) committing treason to his king to whom he had sworn an oath (b) bushwhacking officers from a forest without standing in straight lines, within gunshot range s in full view of the enemy,- thus fighting "dishonorably" as per the prevailing notions of "honor", he would be right? Whether a cause is "noble" or not depends on who is doing the judgement. An Islamic fanatic who joins the Taliban can sincerely believe that he is fighting on the side of virtue and killing hellbound infidels who disobey God's word. To you his cause isn't noble. As for deliberately targeting citizens, that is precisely what bombing German cities, or Hanoi was. Was dropping the Atom bomb or Hiroshima "honorable"?(Not saying Americans are particularly ignoble. Every army in history does what it takes to win and calls it "honorable", while the oppositions effective, uncounterable tactics often get called "dishonorable". ) What "fighting honorably" means, evolves over time and is almost always out of date. Knights called muskets dishonorable because a peasant could kill a knight from afar. Oh the horror. As did the Samurai. Hey Afghan insurgents think drones are dishonorable. American soldiers think IEDs and suicide bombers are dishonorable. Hmm. English commanders complained that the American soldiers in the American War of Independence didn't fight "honorably" or 'like gentlemen'. Targeting officers was considered dishonorable and criminal. Wellington refused an artillery officer under his command permission to fire his battery at Napoleon because it was 'dishonorable'. Of course, Americans paid no heed because the tactic was effective. Sherman burned Georgia,and after the Civil War used the same tactics against the remnants of the American Indian tribes. These days, incinerating a city full of civilians from the air is "honorable". Poor Sherman was accused of barbarism for burning one city. Coming to modern times, how is a drone attack blowing up a house full of civilians to target one insurgent commander "honorable"? You can argue it is effective. But honorable? You are fighting people with a technology they can't fight back against. Should the Afghan insurgents fight F16s and Abrams with AK 47s while wearing distinctive uniforms so they can be picked off? That doesn't make any sense. As a thought experiment, if you were an Afghan whose family were killed because drone operators half the world away mistook a wedding party for an insurgent group, would you be worried about conforming to the invaders notion of "honor"? Martin Van Creveld has written a whole book, aptly titled "The Transformation of War" where he gives dozens of examples of practices that switched from "honorable" to dishonorable and vice versa with the passage of time. (From Wikipedia). The book's significance is attested to by the fact that until the middle of 2008, it was included on the list of required reading for United States Army officers, and (with Sun Tzu and Clausewitz) the third non-American entry on the list.. Well worth reading. Here is a sample of his writing. "Knowing Why Not To Bomb Iran Is Half the Battle" http://www.forward.com/articles/1254/ http://www.forward.com/articles/1254/ I don't always agree with Van Creveld but he makes me think.

gnosis 15y ago

"Also, there is still a lingering guilt over how servicemen were treated returning home from Vietnam." You might be interested to read a book called "The Spitting Image": "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam" is a 1998 book by sociologist Jerry Lembcke. The book argues that the common claim that American soldiers were spat upon and insulted by anti-war protesters upon returning home from the Vietnam War is an urban legend intended to discredit the anti-war movement. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Spitting_Image https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Spitting_...

lucasjung 15y ago
I have several friends and relatives who personally received this exact treatment. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the Vietnam veterans I personally know did. When my father left the service, he went to work for Pan Am and spent his first few years flying troops between the U.S. and Vietnam, and witnessed this sort of behavior on a regular basis. My sampling is hardly large enough to be representative, but I think that the author of this book is completely out of touch with reality. Also, FWIW, it apparently still happens today: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-protesters-spit-on-coast-guard-member-20111013 http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-prot...
- gnosis 15y ago
  "I have several friends and relatives who personally received this exact treatment. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the Vietnam veterans I personally know did. When my father left the service, he went to work for Pan Am and spent his first few years flying troops between the U.S. and Vietnam, and witnessed this sort of behavior on a regular basis." These are certainly some significant data points, if what they told you actually happened. It would be interesting to know whether they spoke about this sort of treatment in the 60's and 70's, rather than waiting until much later -- when the "antiwar protestors spitting on war vets" image has become so much a part of American folklore. "Also, FWIW, it apparently still happens today: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-protesters-spit-on-coast-guard-member-20111013* http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-prot... FOX has a long and sordid history of outright lies and incredibly biased reporting. This particular story doesn't even mention the alleged victim's name. Nor does it mention whether there were any witnesses.