Mirrored: 4th of April 2010, 20:18 Original: boards.straightdope.com Views: 102 Settings: Loading the mirror...
Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates > Kerry retraction about black soldiers in Viet nam -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PDA View Full Version : Kerry retraction about black soldiers in Viet nam -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lynwood Slim 10-13-2004, 01:00 AM This is really a general question, but my experience as a neophyte around here tells me that most things I ask get bumped over here eventually, so here goes. One thing that John Kerry said in his "Winter Soldier" testimony was: We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties The second part of that statement is factually incorrect. Where did he get that incorrect info? Was he ever challenged on it, asked where and by whom he was misinformed? Has he ever retracted it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mic84 10-13-2004, 01:27 AM I don't know the answer to the question, but are you certain that's factually incorrect? Google brings up this (http://www.rjsmith.com/war_myth.html#service) Of all the men and women who served in Vietnam, 275,000, or 10.6%, were black. The remaining 88.4% were Caucasian. At the time of the Vietnam War, Blacks represented approximately 12.5% of the total U.S. population. There is a persistent myth that Blacks were used as "cannon fodder", being assigned to infantry units where they were forced to "walk point". This is not supported by the casualty data which indicates that 86.8% of those killed in action were Caucasian, while 12.1%, or 5,711, were Black. Again, this number is approximately the same as the percentage of Blacks in the general population during the war. It appears as if this myth was generated by the anti-war movement in an effort to bolster their ranks by convincing Blacks (who could hardly be losing sleep over the fact that some white college students might have their education interrupted by military service) that they were being used as pawns to be sacrificed. Looks like the statement you quote can be interpreted to concern either percentage of troops or of the general population, and is true for one but not the other. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Equipoise 10-13-2004, 02:17 AM I can't answer your questions, so this might be considered off-topic, but it could be useful to remember that Kerry didn't go to Washington with the intention of speaking before the House Foreign Relations Committee and so didn't have a speech prepared in advance. He was there simply as part of the 5-day Vietnam Veterans Against the War protests. He was only asked to testify the day before and couldn't possibly have had time to look up specific facts and figures. He even says to the Committee: John Kerry: I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare. The full speech, including the interesting comments of the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator J. W. Fulbright, can be found here (http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp). I urge everyone to read the entire page. The things that Kerry said have been taken so out of context and sliced up into sound bites that sometimes make no sense, that it really should be read, all the way through, by all voters, Democrat and Republican. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tomndebb 10-13-2004, 07:58 AM As mic84 has noted, there was a general perception throughout the period from 1968 throuh the late 1970s (when people went back and looked at actual numbers) that the war was primarily fought by the very young and by blacks. Two often repeated refrains were that Vietnam was the land where the "white man sent the black man to kill the yellow man to "defend" the land the white man stole from the red man" and that the "average age" of the infantryman in Vietnam was 19 (as opposed to around 26 for earlier wars). As mic84 numbers indicate, the first is not true; I have also seen the "19 year old" claim refuted. It is the sort of "common knowledge" that gets repeated to the point that it is accepted as true, even though there is no factual basis for the claims. (I am not sure whether the numbers come closer to the mythology if we limit the sample to infantry line troops or if some other subset of troops might provide numbers that would suggest the myths. For example, could Air Force and Navy casualties have more old white guys that would push the overall numbers closer to the median values? However, as much as this point has been kicked around in the last ten years, or so, I'd have thought that the defenders of the myths would have done the homework to prove that point by now.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- InvidiousCourgette 10-13-2004, 08:21 AM As mic84 numbers indicate, the first is not true; I have also seen the "19 year old" claim refuted. Well, I have never had reason to doubt the veracity of Paul Hardcastle (http://www.bide-et-musique.com/song/1840.html) before. It may be, however, that I will need to produce an even more reputable cite to convince you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tagos 10-13-2004, 08:52 AM War Library Casualty Analysis (http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwc10.htm) Of all enlisted men who died in V'nam, blacks made up 14.1% of the total. This came at a time when they made up 11.0% of the young male population nationwide. If we add officer casualties to enlisted then the black percentage is reduced to 12.5% of all casualties. Of the 7262 blacks who died, 6, 955 or 96% were Army and Marine enlisted men. The combination of our selective service policies, our AFQT testing of both drafted and volunteers, the need for skilled enlisted men in many areas of the armed forces, all conspired to assign blacks in greater numbers to the combat units of the Army and Marine Corps. Early in the war, when blacks made up about 11.0% of our V'nam force, black casualties soared to over 20% of the total (1965, 1966). Black leaders protested and Pres Johnson ordered that black participation should be cut back in the combat units. As a result, the black casualty rate was cut to 11.5% by 1969. Black men, 14.1% of enlisted men casualties to 11% of the population. What a lying bastard that Kerry is eh? :rolleyes: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Liberal 10-13-2004, 10:00 AM But 14.1% is not the highest percentage of casualties. Maybe Kerry wasn't using base 10. Yeah, that's the ticket. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Malodorous 10-13-2004, 10:07 AM But 14.1% is not the highest percentage of casualties. Maybe Kerry wasn't using base 10. Yeah, that's the ticket. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and presume that he ment the highest precentage of the casulties in proportion to their precentage of the general pop. I can' t imagine that he thought (or thought he could make anyone else think) that >51% of casulties were african-american. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tagos 10-13-2004, 10:08 AM But 14.1% is not the highest percentage of casualties. Maybe Kerry wasn't using base 10. Yeah, that's the ticket. It's very very very simple. Black male combat deaths were 20% ((14-11)/14) or so higher than the proportion of black males in the population. That is what 'disproportionate' means. What is there not to understand? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Malodorous 10-13-2004, 10:12 AM tagos, the original quote by Kerry was that "the highest precentage of casulties" were blacks. That is, more blacks then any other ethnic group. This is so obviously not true that I think we can assume he meant "disproportionate" even though its not technically what he said. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tagos 10-13-2004, 10:13 AM It's very very very simple. Black male combat deaths were 20% ((14-11)/14) or so higher than the proportion of black males in the population. That is what 'disproportionate' means. What is there not to understand? Oh - I see. You were taking the most obtuse interpretation possible despite the fact no one seriously claimed black males provided an ABSOLUTE highest percentage of casualties and Kerry clearly was not claiming that either. Whatever - that's a point to you. Very well done. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tagos 10-13-2004, 10:16 AM tagos, the original quote by Kerry was that "the highest precentage of casulties" were blacks. That is, more blacks then any other ethnic group. This is so obviously not true that I think we can assume he meant "disproportionate" even though its not technically what he said. Straw man. We all knew at the time and know full well now what was meant. Black combat deaths were in excess of their percentage in the population. How is carping over the technical sense of words ripped from their context helping the Board Mission Statement? Kerry was right. Blacks were carrying more than their share of the burden and all the nit-picking obtuseness in the world does not alter that fact. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Malodorous 10-13-2004, 10:41 AM Straw man. We all knew at the time and know full well now what was meant. Black combat deaths were in excess of their percentage in the population. How is carping over the technical sense of words ripped from their context helping the Board Mission Statement? The quote is in context. If you look at the original speach, the phrase quoted by the OP is the only thing that Kerry says on the matter, he didn't say anything at the time to further clarify. The OP claimed that Kerry was incorrect, and he was right. Myself and others went on to say that while he was incorrect, he almost certainly meant something different then what he said and that most people listening probably understood. Still, regarding the actual meaning of Kerry's words and noting that they are wrong seems like a worthy observation in the struggle to fight ignorance. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Liberal 10-14-2004, 04:45 AM It's very very very simple. Black male combat deaths were 20% ((14-11)/14) or so higher than the proportion of black males in the population. That is what 'disproportionate' means. What is there not to understand?English, I reckon. I can use the same sort of rhetorical Gordian knot to claim that you took the "highest percentage" of pizza because you took 3/4 of the sausage and olive portion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quartz 10-14-2004, 02:02 PM The full speech, including the interesting comments of the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator J. W. Fulbright, can be found here (http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp). I urge everyone to read the entire page. Just a tad one-sided, isn't it? I don't exactly see much in the way of cross-examination. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- blowero 10-14-2004, 02:27 PM Tagos, you have to realize that for many, being willfully obtuse is SOP around here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lynwood Slim 10-15-2004, 11:57 AM I appreciate all the comments. Kerry words, whatever he meant, have been used by others to say "the majority of deaths in Viet Nam were from minorities". It may be right that he meant "disproportionate." Thanks for the possible clarification. But Kerry may have been repeated a canard. But even if we mean "disproportionate", it requires further study. One person posted that several forces were in play that "conspired" to create a higher percentage of black deaths. The "conspire" here can, of course, have several meanings. In Dunnigan and Nofi's well documented book "Dirth Little Secrets of the Vietnam War," they show that the disproportionate black deaths early in the war were attributable to the fact that blacks were over represented at the time in combat arms and older NCO's. He cites, for example, that toward the beginning of the war the percentage of black enlisted career military personnel was higher than the black population at large, and especially in some Airborne units (a volunteer unit; Jimi Hendrix comes to mind, btw). When the war heated up (65-66), NCO's in combat units suffered disproportionately, and these NCO's were disproportionately black. As the war went and draft enlarged, the proportion of black casualties actually decreased. These authors claim that the 12.5 death rate was about that of blacks in army over the course of war, and about that of black men of military age. (page 7) The authors claim that the one population group that suffered most disproportionately was not blacks, but Roman Catholics, who comprised 24% of the US population at the time, but 30% of Vietnam deaths. The average age of those killed, btw, was nearly 24 years old, and of enlisted men, the average age of those killed was 22. About 25% of the deaths were rank E-3 and below; the rest were NCO's and officers. I am not sure what this means, but blacks were 12.1% of combat deaths, but 14.6% of non-combat deaths. Viet Nam War Statistics (http://www.eiis.net/cmart/vietwarstats.html) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- xtisme 10-15-2004, 03:07 PM Well, I see a problem with one of the statistics at least: RACE AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND * 88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian, 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% listed as others. * 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. * 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%. Not to take anything away from my white brothers out there, but 'includes hispanics' makes me go hmm. My dad (a hispanic) was in the service in Vietnam...and there were a LOT of folks that were hispanic or would be considered hispanic today that were there also. So, I think the 'Caucasian' casualties of 86.3% who died in Vietnam doesn't really reflect reality very well either. Sorry for the hijack, but I thought I'd point that out. Who cares what Kerry meant btw? What difference does it really make? -XT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- jshore 10-15-2004, 03:57 PM Just a tad one-sided, isn't it? I don't exactly see much in the way of cross-examination. Well, it was a hearing of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. What you seem to be complaining about is that apparently the more conservative members of the committee decided not to show up for this hearing. I agree that if this was the case (as it seems to be since I doubt the committee had only 7 members), then that would indeed be disappointing, but who precisely should we blame for that? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lynwood Slim 10-15-2004, 04:27 PM Xtisme: I completely agree that Hispanics are left our of the statistical equation. Some research has been done regarding deaths of Spanish surname military personnel, but not enough. Here is the reason it matters: Kerry has been accused of "treason". I think that is too strong a word, at least legally. But morally, for many vets (myself included, though post Viet Nam, 73-76), his testimony was not a recitation of facts, but a skewed presentation to make the U.S. military look at bad as possible. In other words, the question of percentage of the deaths of black military personnel is highly complex. It really requires lots of research and study. Kerry chose to say things, simplify them greatly, to make the U.S. and the U.S. military look terrible. One is left to the conclusion, and many have made this conclusion, that blacks were intentionally sent to front line units to die in large numbers. This myth still infects the rhetoric today, with activists claiming that combat units are disproportionately black, when the slightest research will tell anyone that combat units today are disproportionately white. If I may give an analogy: George McGovern served in a B-24 bomber over Germany in WWII. Now, there is probably no group of Americans responsible for more slaughter of innocent civilians than the U.S. Army Air Forces in WWII. We don't think of it as such, or hold them morally culpable, because of the context in which this bombing took place. I have read Kerry's testimony carefully, and I can pick apart every aspect of it. Was it out and out lying? Maybe not. Was it skewed to bring discredit and dishonor to American troops, many still fighting and dying: yes. It was not presented in moral context I actually agree with so much of his social policies, but I find myself highly resentful of him for that and subsequent actions regarding Viet Nam. He held the U.S. to a standard to which he did not hold our enemy, and therefore did not present our actions in the context in which the war was being fought. I wish he would apologize, for he did act in excess. I had hoped he had apologized. I was hoping that maybe someone could point me to where he had apologized -- maybe in his book, which I have not read. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- jshore 10-15-2004, 04:31 PM Clearly, Kerry meant to say something like "blacks have taken the highest percentage of casualties" rather than "blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties". The first sentence could still be a little ambiguous but would more obviously mean that if you look at the percentage of different racial or ethnic groups that have been killed (or injured?), it is highest for blacks. So, Kerry made a small misstatement over 30 years ago...Stop the presses! (By the way, if you watch the movie "Going Upriver" you will hear that Kerry had a lot on his mind that day...It is not surprising he'd make a misstatement. He was one of the main coordinators of the entire protest of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and he was literally running around doing other stuff until a few minutes before the meeting. Besides which, I think it was only earlier that week...maybe even the day before...that he found out he was going to testify at all. He was literally picked out by one of the sympathetic senators [Fulbright(?)] when that Senator went down to the Mall and met with the protest leaders because the Senator was particularly impressed by Kerry and thought he would be the best spokesperson for the cause.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- jshore 10-15-2004, 04:38 PM He held the U.S. to a standard to which he did not hold our enemy, and therefore did not present our actions in the context in which the war was being fought. So, just to get a gauge of how you feel here, do you feel that the soldier who reported the Abu Ghraib prison abuse, or those who were subsequently disturbed by it, were wrong because they were holding the U.S. to a higher standard than "the enemy"? After all, the enemy is kidnapping people and chopping their heads off (although I think this particular gruesome tactic started after Abu Ghraib). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quartz 10-15-2004, 06:03 PM Well, it was a hearing of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. So what? What you seem to be complaining about is that apparently the more conservative members of the committee decided not to show up for this hearing. No, I'm noting that it seems one-sided and the lack of cross-examination - no more and no less. I agree that if this was the case (as it seems to be since I doubt the committee had only 7 members), then that would indeed be disappointing, but who precisely should we blame for that? I'm just used to the British parliamentary style, where people regularly get skewered. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lynwood Slim 10-15-2004, 08:31 PM So, just to get a gauge of how you feel here, do you feel that the soldier who reported the Abu Ghraib prison abuse, or those who were subsequently disturbed by it, were wrong because they were holding the U.S. to a higher standard than "the enemy"? After all, the enemy is kidnapping people and chopping their heads off (although I think this particular gruesome tactic started after Abu Ghraib). I don't believe the soldier was wrong to report it. I am glad he did. I believe it is wrong of the press and those who oppose the war on other grounds to lavish such attention upon it, and ignore the thousands of other stories of American acts of generosity and selflessness to the Iraqi people. I will make it clear that I am speaking as a father whose son is on his second tour there. My son has extraordinary stories to tell of American goodness and the depravity of the Saddam regime and its successors (he was in the battle of Najaf, and told me of the murders committed by Sadr militia) Yet, when he was speaking once publicly about his service when he was home between his two deployments, a person whom I know as a 60's leftist accused my son of being a cold blooded killer. That is the inheritance from Vietnam. Those who oppose the war, and I believe they have good reasons (I certainly have doubts), will do anything they can to disparage American efforts there. American success there does not fit the agenda of those who oppose the war, or oppose Bush. I understand that -- if you want to defeat Bush, you have to describe the war as going badly, and the American military making mistakes. If you oppose the war, you have do the same thing. The fall guy is the American military. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- jshore 10-15-2004, 10:36 PM The fall guy is the American military. Yeah...Well, I agree that it is really too bad that the brave men and women in uniform have to take the blame for piss-poor policy decisions. And, I don't think there is any way in which Kerry was trying to put the blame on the Vietnam soldiers themselves. At any rate, I wish your son a safe return. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lynwood Slim 10-15-2004, 11:16 PM Thanks, I really appreciate that. It is a tough time. I never thought I would have a son in war, twice now. I hope we succeed there. Naive or not, they (the Marines in my son's unit) believe in what they are doing and they believe in the Iraqi people -- that they deserve a chance to have least a little of what we have here, and that if we stay the course with them, we can help them achieve it. My son has fought alongside Iraqis. He has grown to really admire them and want the best for them and their children. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tomndebb 10-16-2004, 12:25 AM He held the U.S. to a standard to which he did not hold our enemy if you want to defeat Bush, you have to describe the war as going badly, and the American military making mistakes. I disagree with the first statement. Kerry, (well or poorly) held the U.S. up to the standard that the U.S. claimed for itself. In the early years of the U.S. involvement, much was made of the poisoned traps used by the "bad guys" and later in the war we heard a lot about the terrible way that "they" were "using children" as weapons. There was a clear effort to depict the Viet Cong and the North as failing to measure up to our standards of humanity. Kerry's flawed testimony was intended to offset our own claims of purity and goodness. A constant theme of the VVAW was not that the U.S. was sending thugs and murderers to Vietnam, but that the hypocrisy of the government and the horrors of the situation were beginning to erode the human values of the troops who had been stationed there. I also disagree with the second statement. The consistent testimony that has come out in opposition to the war has actually defended the U.S. military, portraying the decisions to invade with too few troops, to rely on civilian contractors for resupply operations, and to ignore the human rights of prisoners as having been the direct results of the civilian DoD interference with planning, setting objectives, and micro-managing the situation. It is neither necessary nor fruitful to blame the U.S. military for the problems that are occurring in Iraq. The comments of the individual who accused your son of being a cold-blooded killer represent one mindset that can certainly be discovered among the U.S. population, but it is hardly the prevalent feeling among people who oppose this war, nor was it, in my experience the attitude expressed by the VVAW 30 years ago. (Even people whom I knew to deride soldiers during Vietnam have generally come to recognize that their scorn was misplaced.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vBulletin(R) v3.7.3, Copyright (c)2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.