>(a) these records do not appear until significantly after the period
>when they purported events took place -- after crucial changes in
>public mythologoy which made the myth both compelling and believable,
>and [ . . . . ]
This could easily be explained by PTSD. Most Vietnam veterans who saw combat are reported to refrain as much as possible from talking about their experiences. This seems to be the usual reaction for ex-soldiers. Most WW2 veterans haven't talked publicly about their experiences either. They have just kept it hidden inside, or talked to other veterans about it. Some Vietnam veterans wrote frankly about their experiences only in "Soldier of Fortune" magazine, because the public was unwilling to truly listen to them. As for the experience of being spat upon, it's not something that they would have wanted to talk about at that time. They felt ashamed and humiliated. It's a miracle they ever talked about it.
Why spit on soldiers but not on generals? Who thought this was a good idea? And how could anyone be more anti-war than soldiers, when they are the ones who are dying? Let's have a little more understanding for the plight of common soldiers.
I think we on the Left have to get away from our tendency to deny our mistakes, like tacitly praising spitting on soldiers. Unless we are strong enough to learn from our mistakes, we will never succeed in our activism.
--
TMSA <tmsa at ibm.net>