Racial I.

This is coolbert:

WARNING!! IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED BY LANGUAGE OR A DISCUSSION OF SUBJECT MATTER THAT IS OF CONTROVERSIAL, INTENSE, FRANK, AND ADULT NATURE, HIT ESCAPE NOW.

Otherwise, scroll down.















From a comment to the blog by JS Bolton:

"Some mutinies on ships, or insubordination by minority conscripts"

[This is the controversial type of stuff normally I shy away from. This is a tell-it-like-it-is blog entry, to say the least.]

There were several "incidents" of a racial nature that created quite a stir during the Vietnam War.

[this sort of stuff all at the same time, infuriates me, saddens me, and scares me!! The potentiality of WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THESE INCIDENTS IS PROBABLY A LOT WORSE THAN WHAT SOME WOULD SUGGEST OR BELIEVE TO BE THE CASE!!]

Two of these incidents involved American aircraft carriers. One carrier at the time was actually in preparation for combat mode, the launching of aircraft from Yankee Station in the Gulf of Tonkin against North Vietnam. Nothing less than mutiny occurred aboard these ships. Mutiny that was of a racial and hateful nature. Unprovoked too!!




A third incident occurred in the mutiny and take over by inmates of the Army stockade in Vietnam, located at the logistics hub of all of South Vietnam, Long Binh. Called Long Binh Junction. This mutiny too was of a hateful and racial nature. Again, unprovoked too!!

This stockade was derisively known as the "Long Binh Jail". Shortened to LBJ. Just like the President's initials at the time, LBJ [Lyndon Baines Johnson].

Some of the "suggested" reasons why the riot [mutiny] occurred at LBJ were:

* NO hot showers.

* NO flush toilets.

* Bologna [baloney] sandwiches served on Sunday.

Bullshit!! Bullshit!! A thousand times bullshit. Troops in the field, and stateside too, had to do without hot showers, flush toilets, and eating baloney sandwiches on Sunday. IT IS A TRADITION TO SERVED, AT THE NOON MEAL, ON SUNDAYS, BALONEY SANDWICHES!! TO GIVE THE MESS COOKS A BREAK. During my two months of basic training [1966], we lived in tents and went to crap at an outhouse. Suitable accommodations and not inconvenient. Even good for you. You become accustomed to living in conditions as you have when you deployed to Vietnam.

[remember too, those jag-offs at LBJ were convicts of the worst possible sort. Just reprobates!! A convict is NOT supposed to have it nice!!]

Regarding the question of what is mutiny:

"the question persists; what is a mutiny? . . . High-level brass can be just as confused. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing following the Vietnam-era disturbances on the U.S. aircraft carriers Constellation and Kitty Hawk, the chairman asked Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, then Chief of Naval Operations, to define mutiny. Zumwalt passed that one on to his lawyer."

[this is the Chief of Naval Operations [CNO] NOT being able to give a definite, concise answer as to what constitutes a mutiny!!! NO WONDER WE LOSE WARS IN THIS COUNTRY!!]

"there has emerged no precise or universally accepted definition of mutiny. Ambiguity has clouded every effort to create one. The only consistent element, despite the number of crewmen involved and the growth of simple disobedience into violence, is the necessary presence of usurpation and subversion of authority."

[NO!! NO!! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!! Mutiny is a crime with a clear and precise definition. Collective disobedience to orders. Collective being the operative word here. An individual CANNOT mutiny. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A SINGLE PERSON TO MUTINY!! It must be a group effort. A group of soldiers or sailors disobeying orders and doing so in concert. THAT IS MUTINY!! Nothing difficult about that to understand!! Easily understandable by even the most casual of observers. That an "expert" who has written a book on mutiny or that the CNO cannot understand what mutiny is constitutes an intellectual dereliction of the highest order!!]

Further comments regarding these "incidents":

"Two days after the ship weighed anchor and set its course for Viet Nam, trouble broke out in the mess hall. According to one version, a white mess cook refused to give a black two sandwiches instead of the usual one. The black swore and called him a honky, and the mess cook slugged him. In another version, a black stepped away from his mess tray without putting an OCCUPIED sign on it, and a white mess boy tried to take it away."

[it may very well that the policy was to give out only one sandwich rather than two as a means of economy. YOU NORMALLY CANNOT TAKE AS MUCH FOOD AS YOU WANT IN A MESS HALL [called a galley on a ship!!]. This cook was only following policy. Probably not a cook serving anyhow. Probably a low ranking enlisted man serving and only doing what he was told to do!!]

[I hope no one in their right mind suggests that a group a mutineers rampaging and attempting to murder other crew members is justified in doing so by such "slights" as not getting an extra sandwich or having their tray accidentally removed by another crew member!!]

Persons rampaging though the innards of the ships carrying iron bars, steel chairs, chains, and other home made weapons, and doing so in a group, attacking without provocation other sailors are using lethal force, whether they realize it or not. This was not just fisticuffs or other "misdemeanors" of a less serious nature. When someone is using lethal force in such a manner, it is legally permissible for lethal force to be used to combat such actions. In other words, shooting the miscreants would be totally within legal bounds!!

[these articles speak of white and black personnel "fighting". Bullshit. When they say "fight", what they mean is that a group of ARMED blacks attacked whites with the purpose of causing grave bodily harm or even death, and the whites fought back to defend themselves. This was not a case of groups of whites and blacks rampaging through the ship. ONLY ONE group was acting in concert with lethal intent, and that was the black sailors!!!]

There is something else here not mentioned. Probably not mentioned with intent. The Kitty Hawk, while on combat station, in all likelihood, had nuclear weapons aboard. Since the Navy will never neither confirm or deny the presence of atomic bombs, this cannot be certain. In my estimation, nukes were present on those ships.

Having nukes on board changes the situation dramatically. It is my belief that the presence of nukes means that the Kitty Hawk, the ship and it's complement, were a nuclear equipped unit. In that case, special restrictions, policies, and regulations would be in effect upon the crew, commander, and the ship itself. Especially with regard to safeguarding nukes. IT IS TOTALLY IMPERMISSIBLE FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO BE COMPROMISED IN ANY FORM. AGAIN, LETHAL FORCE CAN BE USED TO PROTECT NUCLEAR WEAPONRY. THE MUTINY AS OCCURRED ABOARD THE KITTY HAWK WAS A SITUATION I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT REQUIRED A MUCH MORE FIRM AND DEFINITE RESPONSE!!

Also, that description of the "riot" at the LBJ is also under-stated.

Again, this was not a case of "prisoners" rioting. It was an insurrection against the small number of white inmates who were subject to lethal force from roving bands of black inmates. If "fighting" did occur, it was again, from whites fighting back to defend themselves against a mob using weapons on them.

One guard was quoted at the time, in the "Stars and Stripes" [military newspaper] that the black inmates had ripped off their uniforms, beat and raped the white inmates, and bodily threw them out of the LBJ compound as if they were rag dolls. One white troop WAS beaten to death, without any provocation that could ever be determined!!

[such behavior in legal circles is referred to as SAVAGE AND BARBARIC, WANTON AND UNPROVOKED!! This is an apt description, to say the least!!]

What amazes me most of all about these "incidents" is the almost "kid-gloves" approach taken to quelling the mutinies. Normally the military would have an absolutely NO-NONSENSE-TAKEN-AT-ALL approach to stopping these "disturbances" and severely punishing the guilty. This DID NOT occur. Proceedings were taken of a judicial nature. But NOT EVEN close to what would have normally been expected. In the case of the LBJ "disturbancee" some of the mutineers held out for MONTHS and only were "persuaded" to cease and desist by cajoling and coaxing???!!!

[I would also bring your attention to the fact that on the Kitty Hawk, the white sailors outnumbered the black sailors by a ratio of about 20:1. And yet, the danger aboard ship during the Kitty Hawk mutiny was from the black sailors and not the white ones!! What would have happened if a goodly number of white sailors decided to retaliate in kind? The blacks would have been so badly outnumbered they would not have stood a chance. Seized and pitched overboard to the sharks. SUCH STUFF OCCURS ON U.S. NAVAL VESSELS. HOMOSEXUALS AMONG THE CREW WHO TRY TO MOLEST OTHER SAILORS ARE FROM TIME TO TIME FOUND MISSING WHILE THE SHIP IT IS AT SEA!! I DO NOT MAKE THIS UP. Thank GOD the white sailors were much disciplined that the black ones aboard the Kitty Hawk, otherwise you would HAVE REALLY HAD AN INCIDENT!!!]

SOMETHING IS JUST NOT RIGHT WITH ANY OF THIS!!

Well, that is an understatement.

coolbert.