# Kerry retraction about black soldiers in Viet nam **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 13, 2004, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970 "2004-10-13T06:00:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lynwood\_Slim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Lynwood\_Slim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynwood_Slim)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/1 "2004-10-13T06:00:21Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![mic84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@mic84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mic84)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/2 "2004-10-13T06:27:19Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/3 "2004-10-13T07:17:43Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/4 "2004-10-13T12:58:32Z")
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.) ---
**Author:** ![InvidiousCourgette](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e47c2d/32.png) [@InvidiousCourgette](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InvidiousCourgette)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/5 "2004-10-13T13:21:15Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/6 "2004-10-13T13:52:26Z")
[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: ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/7 "2004-10-13T15:00:09Z")
But 14.1% is not the highest percentage of casualties. Maybe Kerry wasn’t using base 10. Yeah, that’s the ticket. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/8 "2004-10-13T15:07:31Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/9 "2004-10-13T15:08:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/10 "2004-10-13T15:12:03Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/11 "2004-10-13T15:13:04Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/12 "2004-10-13T15:16:02Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > **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. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2004, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/13 "2004-10-13T15:41:34Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/14 "2004-10-14T09:45:00Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/15 "2004-10-14T19:02:55Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/16 "2004-10-14T19:27:07Z")
Tagos, you have to realize that for many, being willfully obtuse is SOP around here. ---
**Author:** ![Lynwood\_Slim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Lynwood\_Slim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynwood_Slim)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/17 "2004-10-15T16:57:12Z")
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) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/18 "2004-10-15T20:07:52Z")
Well, I see a problem with one of the statistics at least: > [@Vietnam War Statistics](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/19 "2004-10-15T20:57:04Z")
> [@qts](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Lynwood\_Slim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Lynwood\_Slim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynwood_Slim)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970/20 "2004-10-15T21:27:20Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-retraction-about-black-soldiers-in-viet-nam/268970.md?page=2)