Well, then, they’ve rewritten them all over the Internet, too, since I sat here with Google for nearly two hours last night, reading up on Nicaragua, when I should have been in bed, and my eventual post was the most balanced take I could find.
But I think this is all that’s necessary for the purposes of the OP:
I am pro-Sandinista because I feel they had praiseworthy goals, did their best under the circumstances and were a lot less brutal than the other side. A lot of people are pro-Israel for similar reasons. (But that’s a whoooooole other mess o’ threads. )
I can’t really say a lot about the Miskitos, because I spent most of my time in Managua and never got out to the Coast. However, Margaret Crahan, Henry R. Luce Professor at Occidental College, said the Sandinistas held some “show trials” and convicted some middle-level officers of the worst atrocities.
It is true that a lot of Miskitos either joined the contras or were victims of the contras. (Some joined the Sandinistas, too.) Myrna Cunningham, the first Miskito doctor, was raped for hours by a band of Miskito contras who prayed and sang hymns the whole time.
Some of it may have been due to cultural misunderstandings. The Miskitos had always been left to themselves and never received many government services OR government repression. The dictator Somoza treated them paternalistically, sending them a “Christmas ship” of goodies every year. When the Sandinistas came to say Somoza had been overthrown, a lot of Miskitos told them, “We like Somoza.” Things went downhill from there.
After the worst conflicts were over, the Sandinistas built some roads to end the economic isolation of the region, built some native-language schools and granted some degree of autonomy.
Well Duck Duck Goose, Chuck D has a saying, “You’ll never know if you only trust the TV and the radio.” While the internet is undoubtedly freer and encompasing more opinions than TV and radio, your google search has left glaring omissions.
Luckily, I am obsessed with the Vietnam War. I have read atleast a dozen books on the subject, and have taken two college courses dealing more or less with the Vietnam War. It seems the same as your attempt to jilt me with your facts on Chicago, yet I had lived there my whole life. Don’t assume I know nothing, or that I talk without knowing…
So let me educate, if I will:
Vietnam fought against the French colonization (and briefly against Japan’s occupation during WWII) since the late 19th Century. The Viet Minh (League for Vietnamese Independence)was formed in 1941 to combat the french.
-In 1954 the Vietnamese finally defeated the French once and for all at the battle of Dien Bien Phu. So Vietnam wins, they figure they have their country back finally. WRONG…
-Although the Viet Minh dominated most of Vietnam politically and militarily, and the Viet Minh supported Pathet Lao (the independence movement in Laos) controlled 50% of their country, Vietnam for some reason was forced to “negotiate” to get their land back. (Marilyn Young, 38).
-Hence, the Geneva Accords. They stated that Vietnam would be temporarily split at the 17th parallel (eventhough everything from the 14th parallel on up was almost 100% Viet Minh), the North being Communist and the South being non-c, for 2 YEARS…then on July 1956 an election would be held and Vietnam would be unified according to the election. The Geneva Accords also outlined a cease-fire, and strictly prohibited military alliances and foreign troops/bases in either north or south vietnam.
-Since the US never signed the Geneva Accords (they would not accept a “communist” anything), they didn’t feel bound to this UN treaty. So the US comes in, appoints Ngo Dinh Diem as the president of South Vietnam, and basically begins to pour in millions of dollars of aid into the South. On top of that, under the direction of Edward Lansdale, we tried every dirty trick in the book to propagandize against the North. We dropped leaflets in Hanoi full of lies about the DRV. We poured sugar in the gas tanks of Hanoi buses. We bought off astrologers who predicted apocalyptic things if the DRV maintained control… the list goes on and on, but you get my drift (Young, 45)
-Unfortunately, Diem’s government was corrupt as hell. Land was never redistributed as promised, Buddhists (Diem was one of the minority of Vietnamese Catholics) were persecuted, and basically the famine that had been in Vietnam for the last 60 years was continuing. In the North, however, things were improving.
-When the elections came, the country (as a whole) overwhelmingly voted for Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh party. (Despite dastardly manuevers by the US). What did the US say? Basically, hell no, you are not getting the South back. The DRV (North Vietnam) waited for the UN to step in for 4 years, and when they didn’t, they finally decided to give aid to the NLF, or Southern Vietnamese Liberation Movement. You see, the DRV was scared of getting into a war. They already fought the french for decades.
IMPORTANT: Terms “North” and “South” are basically inventions when applied to Vietnam. Most people, north and south, considered themselves Vietnamese, part of one country, one country that WANTED to be communist. In fact, many non-communists allied themselves with Ho b/c he was doing the most to help the common people in Vietnam.
So, now I come to your skepticisms. You say, “I think it is highly questionable whether the NLF and the DRV could be described as “controlling” the Mekong Delta.”
WRONG. Sorry Duck Duck Goose. Read a book on the subject rather than a google search and you may find that your opinion reeks of popular US propaganda.
Actually, despite the US efforts (pouring millions of dollars into the RVN (South Vietnam), fortifying the “country” with obscene amounts of weapons, training the ARVN (a pseudo-South Vietnamese army), and dozens of pacification programs which basically turned every village in South Vietnam into a prison to try and prevent “NLF penetration”, and appointing dictator after dictator to control the RVN) high ranking US officials still noted that the NLF controlled 80% of the hamlets during the daytime, and virtually all of the hamlets during the night. The only places where US had control was in the cities.
Why? The NLF were the villagers. The Viet Cong were the villagers. They were sick and tired of US oppression. They were tired of famine, of dictators who slaughtered their people. And using brilliant guerilla tactics, the NLF effectively controlled south Vietnam eventhough the US officially controlled the country.
You also state that the NLF was funded by the DRV, the USSR, and China. Wrong again…oops. Although the DRV did give backing to the NLF, it was at first very hesitant because the DRV (in a great contrast to the US) was sticking to the Geneva Accords. In effect, anyways, they were giving support to their own people.
The DRV did get support (militarily) from the USSR and China. This was out of need and need only. If you look back into Vietnam’s history, you will find that Vietnam was controlled by China for 800 years. The Vietnamese hated the Chinese. Ho and other top ranking DRV officials finally had to concede and get Chinese support, but always tried to limit it b/c they wanted to be a FREE country. They didn’t want to get the US out and then be puppets for China or the USSR. They stipulated this again and again to both China and the USSR. THey agreed to take aid if there were no strings attached, aid they desperately needed if they wanted a FREE country.
As far as I can tell, the only mistake I made was saying “countries” rather than “movements” when talking about successful communism. In the early 60s in the Mekong Delta, the NLF took back thousands of acres of land and redistributed them to the peasants, finally ending famine in that region for the first time in 50 years. That is successful.
Duck Duck Goose, you can get me on technicalities. Countries rather than movements. Definitions. I’d much rather you try and attack the heart of what I am saying, which is something you have yet to do.
Oh yeah, and the Sandanistas. Not communist, I know. I often confuse communist movements with popular movements, as they are both dear to my heart. There were glaring errors in your synopsis of the Sandanistas as well, but others on the list have already set you straight.
You’ve read some different history than I have, colin. It was my understanding that there was quite a bit of popular support for the existence of an independent South Vietnam, and especially so after the devestating Tet offensive, which the SV government couldn’t use to its advantage because the government was so friggin’ corrupt.
As I understand it, the primary goal of US involvement (the reason we stayed there) was to secure the borders to ensure that the government of SV could get its act together. Those in charge of the campaign saw rather clearly that SV was failing, and asked for more soldiers and supplies to better help SV get on its feet. Because of the lack of popularity for the war back home, such requests were denied. And, IIRC, two days after we pulled out, NV captured the capital of SV.
However, I feel about as compelled to provide sites and politeness as you were to DDG.
In Randal Bradley’s “The Atheist’s Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland” I’ve found these comments on Marx’s communism and I thought they might interest some of those fond of theoretical analysis:
Conclusions on Marx’s communism
There are grave problems with Marx's communist theory. Many of his factual premises are extremely implausible. This is caused by his quest for absolutes. He has many intriguing economic and historical theories but he presents them not as working hypotheses, but as objective, all-encompassing explanations of reality. Some examples of this are as follows:
• Environment is an important determining factor for human nature but Marx makes it the only factor.
• Dialectical materialism is a useful and interesting way of viewing history but it becomes a law.
• Marxism is not a theory but a science.
• Communism is not probable but inevitable.
• Communism will last not for a while, but forever.
• The good of society is an absolute and objective value.
• Reason is absolute and can answer all questions of meaning and value.
• Economic inequality is the sole cause of alienation.
• All social disharmony is caused by alienation.
• Human nature is perfectible.
• The end justifies the means, absolutely.
• All healthy people are naturally altruistic.
• All religious belief is caused by alienation.
These Marxist conclusions are based on unsound logic. Marx's method is to go from a particular to a universal generalization without justification. For example, he concludes that environment is an important determining factor for human nature. This is most likely true. But he goes from this particular to a universal generalization and says that environment is the only determining factor for human nature. Marx has many intriguing theories but they all become mysteriously transformed into universal, objective laws.
Many of these propositions would be acceptable as partial explanations or as models of reality, but not as absolutes. The goal of communism, however, is not merely to present itself as an attractive philosophy, but to show that it is true and that other social, political, and economic theories are false. Marx is determined that all rational people be compelled by force of logic to accept communism. If values are a matter of taste, then people could reject the good of society as not being to their taste. Therefore, the good of society is presented as an absolute, objective value. If Marx's theories about economics and history are only partial explanations of reality, then communism might not be sound and rational people could reject it. Marx thus asserts that his theories are laws and that Marxism is a science.
Marx's philosophical integrity is in question each time he tries to reduce all issues to a single and absolute cause or motivation. This can be a useful tool for exploring the possibilities of a particular line of reasoning, but Marx makes it his method. He commits the most elementary errors of logic every time he makes a universal out of a particular. He finds the most basic cause or motivation for a phenomenon and makes it the absolute cause. All other causes are ignored or are considered to be derivative. His quest for absolute generalizations is unsound and renders his conclusions suspect.
Some of these offending premises, however, may be diachronic and might not affect the soundness of communism. Just as we searched for a hierarchy of value premises to discover which ones were crucial for communism, it is important to discover which factual premises are really essential. For example, we have already determined that atheism is not a synchronic premise of communism. Because of this, its truth or falsity has little bearing on communism. Communism could be a sound philosophy even if there were a God.
The assertions that Marxism is a science and that communism is inevitable and will last forever are also diachronic. Neither is essential to communism. Communism may be feasible even if it is not inevitable and will not last forever. It may be feasible even if Marxism is not a science. Marx's theory of dialectical materialism is also not synchronic to communism. Dialectical materialism is in the same category as communism's revolutionary theory. Both are concerned with how communism will be achieved, not with what communism actually is. As such, they are diachronic. This is why neither was referred to in our original vision of the ideal communist society. Even if Marx's analysis of history and his revolutionary theory are wrong, communism may still be sound. The comparison of communism's efficiency with that of capitalism is also irrelevant. Comparisons are, by definition, diachronic and any reference at all to capitalism is irrelevant.
Many of Marx's absolute generalizations are, however, crucial to communism. Marx's assertions that environment is the sole determining factor for human nature, that economic inequality is the sole cause of alienation, that the elimination of money and private property will create an environment of perfect equality, and that human nature can be perfected in such an environment are essential. Communism is based on these premises so they should be looked at very carefully. For communism to achieve its objectives, they must all be absolutes. Otherwise, communism is unsound. As none of them can be justified as absolutes, however, communism belongs in the wasteland.
Communism is an ideology. It is an absolute system that applies to all individuals in a society. It has an absolute value: the good of society. It has an absolute worldview: dialectical materialism, atheism. It has an absolute plan of action: revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat. It has an absolute goal: creation of a communist state. All premises of an ideology are presented as being objectively demonstrable. Otherwise, compromise would be necessary. Ideologies allow no compromise. An ideology asserts that all other systems are false and that only it is true and just.
An ideology is an example of the wrong way to approach philosophy. Marx seeks absolute answers and closes his mind to all but a single perspective. Reality must be distorted to fit into a narrow ideological framework. Truth is sacrificed in the attempt to make reality conform to a preconceived thesis. An ideology seeks only to prove what it already knows to be true. So it is with Marxism. Ideologies are inflexible and dogmatic and this is the opposite of the spirit of philosophy, the quest for truth wherever it may lead.
Can anything be salvaged from communism? Many people still find communist ideals attractive. If a person accepts the “good of society” as a subjective starting value and ignores Marx's unsound universal generalizations, he may arrive at some form of socialism. There are many socialist theories that are logical, consistent, and less extreme than communism. Some people may find these systems to their taste. The fact that communism is unsound would be completely diachronic to any of these philosophies.
Some readers may wonder how I can declare communism to be philosophically shallow and relegate it so easily to the wasteland. Communism has been one of the most important ideologies of the twentieth century and has had a tremendous historical impact on the world. This, however, is philosophically diachronic and irrelevant. Marx makes many simple errors of method, logic, and fact that would not be tolerated in philosophers of lesser stature. Marx is an example of the cult of the philosopher. Marx's stature comes more from the impact communism has had on the world than from the genius of the philosophy. Its power comes more from rhetoric than from logic. A philosophy must be judged on its own merits, not by the stature of its author. The only alternative is the wasteland.
Yeah, quite long and maybe not striking enough when extracted from the context of the book. Yet, it may prove of some use.
Yes, you are regurgitating popular US ideology on the issue. There was just as you say “a bit” of popular support for the RVN. This came from the rich who had been taking advantage of the peasants even before foreign colonialization plus the people who were benefitting from the French/US involvement. A small percentage of the population, I assure you. And yes, the RVN was completely corrupt. That was the government that the US was backing (often putting into power). And yes, the dictators we instated often asked us for more troops and more money. From 1962 to the end that issue came up again and again. Keep in mind I am distinguishing between the RVN (the government we propped up) and the vast majority of peasants who although were officially part of the RVN because of our bastardation of the Geneva Accords, but were pro NLF/DRV.
I don’t see Saigon/Ho Chi Minh city as being captured. Rather, they were driving the foreign invaders out. I feel so triumphant whenever I see footage of American advisers scrambling to get on helicopters as DRV tanks rolled into Saigon.
An account I read (again in Marilyn Young’s “The Vietnam Wars”) from a journalist on an escaping boat from Saigon talked about ARVN (South Vietnamese soldiers- sellouts to the cause) soldiers raping a peasant woman while another held her husband at gunpoint. Other ARVN soldiers were flippantly shooting at civilians from the yacht as it left port.
It is important you understand the distinguishment between the propped up South Vietnamese government and the popular movement, which primarily kept to the countryside and the night.
The VC/NLF, for example, made it an official rule not to destroy any peasant’s property, not to take livestock or grain unless peasants were consentual and were compensated, etc.
You have to read the right books.
Which leads to your sarcastic comment about my cites.
Okay, you asked for it.
Marilyn Young’s “The Vietnam Wars.” One of the best documented history books on the subject. The cites (often from government reports, etc.) are immaculate, expanding well past 30 pages. She also has an “Additional Bibliography” which cites the books she drew from but did not necessarily quote or draw directly from. Another 5 or 6 pages.
Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the US.” Absolutely incredible book. Also incredibly well documented. Drawing from speeches, official documents, town records, etc. There is a good chapter about Vietnam in the book.
These people are not making this up. Vietnam was an atrocity that the US perpetrated. Dozens of countries (France included, ironically) and the UN were disgusted at the US’s actions in Southeast asia, and continually urged them to pull out and let the country exercise its right to be free.
Other books:
“Bloods” -edited by Wallace Terry. An oral account of black veterans’ experiences in the war.
“Working Class War” by Christopher Appy. Explores the techniques the US used to send disproportionate numbers of blacks and poor to Vietnam to fight.
The reason the war was unpopular at home was a growing number of people came to see the war for what it was. Even more so, popular people (such as Cronkite) who ignorantly felt the war was just, began to feel that it did not justify the expense of US lives.
Oh, and I have nothing against DDG. She tries hard to discount everything I say (and often in a sarcastic manner) and I feel it is only right that I do the same back, in the same way. Others on the list I respond to in much nicer manners, because they present their arguments similarly (much like you, except for your last sentence jab).
You should understand that there are many writers Communists read other than Marx. Many present much sounder logic as well. And many communists disagree with Marx on some issues. I for one love Marx for what he has written, but I would not cite him as my #1 influence. Many of my #1 influences for communism are not communists at all, even.
But, before I spout a laundry list, let me say: I don’t believe human nature is perfectible. Communism is a way of buffering human nature. And the end definitely doesn’t justify the means (I am a pacifist). And I don’t think all religious belief is caused by alienation either. It is more probable that religious belief is caused by us trying to answer questions that have forever been evasive to us. Where did we come from? What is our purpose? etc. etc.
I also don’t think Marx believed all the things you just listed, nor did he necessarily posit them in his writings. I can’t say absolutely, as I haven’t read everything he has written. But I have read enough.
On the religious issue, for example… Marx definitely says that religion often keeps us down or keeps us complacent (opiate of the masses). But shit, he is right. In the Industrial Revolution (in which Marx lived) Church leaders were paid off to emphasize “the meek shall inherit the earth” etc. to people who were being taken advantage of (forced to work long hours with little reprieve, to work in dangerous conditions, to live as basically indentured servants for factories, etc.)
Additionally, I see your problem (or I guess I should say Bradley’s problem) with Marx not being his issues (which you for the most part agree with) but the absoluteness in which he presents his arguments. I think that is the fallacy in that it attacks the person (or the person’s way of presenting it) rather than the actual issues at hand.
But yes, Marx has his fallacies too.
Now, my laundry list:
Erich Fromm
Jean-Paul Sartre
Bob Dylan
Howard Zinn
Ronald Barthelme
Roland Barthes
Noam Chomsky
Jon Jackson, Jr.
Chuck D
Todd Gitlin
Tom Hayden
Stokely Carmichael
Huey Newton
Allen Ginsberg
Herbert Marcuse
Some are communist, some aren’t. But I’ve learned a hell of a lot from all of them, and they have all reinforced my belief that communism is best way (although not perfect way) to insure basic human rights and self-fulfillment and self-actualization. So by attacking Marx, you are not really attacking communist theory.
Actually, he doesn’t need to attack Marx to attack communist theory. The site he was citing (heh) did a fairly good job of breaking down the factual underpinnings of communism/socialism and the problems thereof. Like the social determinism inherent in Marxism, the desirability (or feasibility) of social equality, the economic roots of alienation, the inherent efficiency of socialist organization, etc. All of them are a little fishy; some, like the attractiveness of social equality and the efficiency of communism, are utterly ludicrous.
The site is www.philisophicalwasteland.com, BTW. The book is a PDF file, and the chapter on communism starts on page 45.
And BTW… although religion can be used to suppress, it can also be used to forment rebellion and change. Like science, it’s flexible that way.
Are you aware that as of 1955, when the North closed the border, about 7.5% of the population of South Vietnam consisted of people who had fled the North, leaving behind their homes, their familys and all their possessions? Cite: United Nations Demographic Yearbook.
**
I don’t see Saigon/Ho Chi Minh city as being captured. Rather, they were driving the foreign invaders out. I feel so triumphant whenever I see footage of American advisers scrambling to get on helicopters as DRV tanks rolled into Saigon.**
I just feel sick, picturing the mass graves which were found for months after the Viet Cong were driven out of Hue and picturing the tens of thousands who will be murdered in re-education camps and the one million plus boat people who will die trying to escape. Cite: Various, you should know all this.
**
An account I read (again in Marilyn Young’s “The Vietnam Wars”) from a journalist on an escaping boat from Saigon talked about ARVN (South Vietnamese soldiers- sellouts to the cause) soldiers raping a peasant woman while another held her husband at gunpoint. Other ARVN soldiers were flippantly shooting at civilians from the yacht as it left port. **
You should read “Victor Charlie” by Kuno Knoebl (an Austrian journalist who lived with the VC for a period of time ); see page 95 for an account of the VC tying a young peasant girl to a post and disemboweling her while forcing the villagers to watch.
See Time Magazine (Dec. 15, 1967) for photographs of what happens when the VC surround a small unarmed village with 60 (yes 60!) flamethrowers and just go at it.
I’m sorry that I don’t have my notes available or I could give many more examples.
**
It is important you understand the distinguishment between the propped up South Vietnamese government and the popular movement, which primarily kept to the countryside and the night.
The VC/NLF, for example, made it an official rule not to destroy any peasant’s property, not to take livestock or grain unless peasants were consentual and were compensated, etc.**
Of course, the villagers were always consentual. This isn’t too surprising considering that between 1957 and 1972 the VC assassinated about 37,000 people (of whom only 20% were government officials) and abducted over 58,000. Cite: “America in Vietnam” by Guenter Lewy.
**
You have to read the right books.
These people are not making this up.
Other books:
“Bloods” -edited by Wallace Terry. An oral account of black veterans’ experiences in the war.**
See “Stolen Valor” by BG Burkett and Glenna Whitley. They checked the military records of the men cited in “Bloods” and discovered that many of them were, in fact, just making it up.
They also discuss the “Winter Soldier Investigation” and the fact that many some of the men who supposedly testified about American atrocities later denied that they had ever heard of the investigation. Somebody was just making it up.
Sorry, I missed this. See Guenter Lewys “America in Vietnam” for a discussion of the fact that blacks died in Viet Nam in almost exactly the same proportion as their population level in the US. (Actually slightly lower.)
See the following study which shows that deaths in Viet Nam were very evenly spread over the economic spectrum:
I love this study, Zig. To begin with, we note that:
Uh-huh. Those US Army studies are of course famous for their objectivity and impartiality. Anyway, what does that word mean, “marginally?” Compared to the national average (WTF?), poor communities had a slightly higher casuality rate, and wealthy communities a slightly lower casualty rate. Can this be taken to mean that the the poor suffered significantly more than the rich, when compared directly to each other?
To arrive at their conclusions, the report continues:
Ah, yes, solid statistical research. You’ve gotta love it.
Hubba-hubba.
I just had to react to this, because when I served in the late 1980s, the Army must have been at least 70% black, and 95% poor. I was the only enlisted man in the entire company with a college education; all the other college grads were officers. I’m sure that under the draft the composition of the Army was different, but am not willing to believe the difference was that significant without considerably more evidence. Note that even your study recognizes that front-line Vietnam soldiers tended to come from working/ lower class backgrounds.
Do you have in your possession, or know where we could find, statistics on the racial compostion of the US Army between, say, 1965 and 1972?
Really? Can I one hold Platonism and ignoring Plato at the same time? Okay, let’s say one can do that, but one should present the basic premises and values that make one’s position clearly for such position to attempt to be considered valid.
Let me read your posts more carefully and look for it, just in case - maybe I have missed it.
Martin, this is a classic dodge used by ideologues when caught up in a contradiction. Since there are many ways to define something, and since many ideologies are hopeless muddled nowadays (Marxism perhaps chief among them) it’s pretty easy for an ideologue to say “that’s their beliefs. I don’t believe that, I believe this” to get out of logical contradictions and the like.
Marxism/Socialism is especially flexible that way, because Marx was pretty damned contradictory and changed his focus and POV over the course of his lifetime. That, and the epistemological foundations of Marxist politics and economics are different enough from normal liberal politics and neo-classical economics that most attempts to address the flaws of Marxism beg the question at a foundational level. Doesn’t help that Marxism embraces contradiction either.
You thought maybe Greenpeace was going to fund a study along these lines? I assume that you can cite some US Army studies that are not objective and impartial.
**
You can read their full report in Operations Research, Vol. 40, No. 5, September-October, 1992. You can find synopses in the book “Stolen Valor” by BG Burkett.
Some findings:
30% of KIA came from lowest third of income range.
26% of KIA came from highest third of income range.
Lowest tenth of income range suffered 28 dead/100,000.
Highest tenth of income range suffered 23 dead/100,000.
The income range of the dead was determined from their home addresses.
**
Yes, real statisticians do seem to be obsessed with any possible flaws in their research. Still, beats hell out of just making numbers up cause of what “everyone knows.”
**
No, Hubba-Hubba would be a statement like “when I served in the late 1980s, the Army must have been at least 70% black, and 95% poor” with absolutely nothing to back it up.
**
There is a great quick reference book call “Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War” by James Dunnigan and Albert Nofi. Its main weakness is that it doesn’t give cites for its figures. But I am familiar with a lot of the figures from other sources and have come to trust this book (up to a point). This book contains the following:
For 1972 only (total service, not just in Viet Nam):
Air Force…………4.4% black
Army………………17.0% black
Marines……………8.2% black
Navy……………….6.0% black
Overall……………11.1% black
I have seen a figure that says that for the Army only, in Viet Nam, from 1964 – 1972 the figure is 20% black. But I can’t give you a source for it at this time.
Total Viet Nam dead:
Black…12.36%
Am. Indian…0.38%
Asian…0.20%
Malay…0.43%
White…86.31%
Unknown… 0.21%
Perhaps, Zigaretten, you have heard of Project 100,000 then? Basically, Moynihan (ass’t sec. of labor) and McNamara (then sec. of defense) decided to lower the intelligence standards to allow poorer people into the army in a special program called Project 100,000. This in part was prompted by the fear that all of our best men would be killed in the war and we’d be left with a bunch of uneducated and poor men. LBJ saw it as a wonderful bridge between his great society and his war efforts.
As McNamara put it, “The poor of America…have not had the opportunity to earn their fair share of this nation’s abundance, but they can be given an opportunity to serve in their country’s defense (ha!) and they can be given an opportunity to return to civilian life with skills and aptitudes which for them and their families will reverse the downward spiral of decay” (appy, 32).
But, as Appy reports: “The effect of Project 100,000 was dire. The promised training was never carried out. Of the 240,000 men inducted by Project 100,00 from 1966 to 1968, only 6% recieved additional training, and this amounted to little more than an effort to raise reading skills to a fifth grade level. 40% were trained for combat, compared with only 25% for all enlisted men. Also, while blacks comprised 10% of the entire military, they represented about 40% of the Project 100,000 soldiers. A 1970 Defense Department study estimates that roughly half of the almost 400,000 men who entered the military under project 100,000 were sent to Vietnam. These men had a death rate twice as high as American forces as a whole…Project 100,000 and the abandonment of all but the most minimal mental requirements for military service were crucial institutional mechanisms in lowering the class compostition of the American military.”
You see, since General Westmoreland believed in a war of attrition, the US needed many men to fight in order to win. What better place to get them?
Also, says Appy: “At the beginning of the war blacks comprised more than 20% of American combat deaths, about twice their portion of the US population…” (p 19)
Appy talks about the draft being unfair to those of lower-class and color, as well as the fact that in Vietnam the percentage of poor/minority troops sent to the front line vs. white middle or upper class was horrendous. (Am still trying to find cite in book).
if I dodged…is this type of reasoning not a trap? basically personifying an ideology, narrowing it down through over simplification to one person…
Marx didn’t invent communism. He had great ideas, he is a great role model, and is definitely the grandfather of MODERN communism. I am not trying to distance myself from him at all. But there are many more who have added to and redefined communism in a lot of ways. Are you saying I cannot call myself communist if I am a Sartrean communist? Or Frommian?
Am I thus trying to evade some sort of contradiction? (What contradiction by the way, you never made that clear?)
When you say Marxism/Socialism is flexible, do you mean to say that it is expansive, and that a great variety of people have had their own interpretations on the general theme? If so, then I am glad that communist theory is flexible. If not, where is the room for the philosophy to grow, to evolve?
Weak argument on your part, I think. basically, what you are saying is that if I don’t believe all of “this”, then I am not truly “this” or I do not have an answer to justify “this.”
Illogical just as “America love it or leave it”
or “either you are against the Terrorists or you are against us”
Of course. According to “Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War” 354,000 men were inducted in this program. 157,000 were drafted and 197,000 were volunteers. This would make them about 4.2% of the total military and if you are correct that half of them went to Viet Nam they would make up about 6.3% of the forces in country. About 2,100 of these men were killed, making them about 3.6% of the total killed. So it would appear that they were only about half as likely to be killed as “Non-Project” soldiers. Not very good cannon fodder.
Are you aware that a similar project was tried during WWII when 100,000 convicted felons were released from prison on condition of military service?
Perhaps they were forced to “negotiate” because France still occupied Hanoi with 200,000 soldiers as opposed to 76,000 Viet Minh regulars. (Ho Chi Minh, A Life by WJ Duiker, pg 456)
The “Pathet Lao” only controlled half of Laos because the Viet Minh, under Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, invaded Laos at the end of 1952. (A History of Laos, Martin Stuart-Fox, pg 82)
It was this particular CNN.com article that referred to the 1984 election as “disputed”.