Christian Appy discusses the class and racial composition of U.S. fighting forces in Vietnam. How did African-American soldiers’ path to Vietnam differ from that of their white, working-class counterparts?
Week 5 Day 1 Discussion Question 3
March 16, 2016 | 1 Comment
March 11, 2019 at 1:51 pm
Unlike white soldiers, because African-Americans were poorer than white Americans, black soldiers harbored less class-based resentment towards those of their respective race who did not serve in Vietnam. (Appy, 25) In the Legacies sample, 82% of black nonveterans were working class or poorer whereas this number was 47% among white nonveterans. (25) This means that relative to their respective races, black soldiers in Vietnam were less poor than their white counterparts – even while black soldiers were poorer than white soldiers overall. Thus, for African Americans, economic class was a weaker determinant of fighting in Vietnam.
That said, the socioeconomic background of black soldiers contributed to their disproportionate representation in the most dangerous, low-ranking positions. First, black men may have been more likely to re-enlist due to their socioeconomic status. This is because men who re-enlisted received bonuses of $900 to $1,400. (22) Next, black soldiers scored lower on the AFQT used to assign positions in the military. Appy writes: “In 1965, 41% of black soldiers scored in the lowest levels of the AFQT (categories IV and V), compared to 10 percent of the white soldiers.” (22) However, these test scores reflect socioeconomic status, as in the 1960s, roughly half of the men who failed the test were among six or more children and had annual incomes less than $4,000. (31) Thus, through differences in AFQT scores, the lower socioeconomic background of black soldiers contributed to their exposure to more dangerous positions and fewer jobs as officers. Even still, there may have been discrimination after controlling for test scores. Among soldiers who scored in the highest category of the AFQT, blacks were placed in combat units 75% more frequently than were whites*. (22) With this combination of discrimination and the socioeconomic factors of determining one’s duty, prior to a change in Department of Defense policy, black soldiers represented a disproportionate fraction of the deaths in Vietnam (19-21).
Lastly, despite the racial inequalities in military service, fighting in Vietnam was considered a moment of progress by some African Americans. In previous wars, African Americans argued for the right to fight alongside white soldiers. (21) War was seen as a path for equality back home and to demonstrate that African Americans were truly equal citizens. The Vietnam war was hailed as the first truly integrated war. (21) It has also been argued that the disproportionate black casualties in the beginning of the war came from black soldier’s higher re-enlistment rate and proportion of airborne units. (21) Some of this can be attributed to the pay for re-enlistment and the assignment of roles as mentioned earlier.
Overall, Vietnam was a more integrated war and soldiers of all races came predominantly from the working class. However, due largely to socioeconomic situations in America, but also due to military policy, the black experience in Vietnam was as soldier – not officer – and meant a higher rate of death in the early war.
* not necessarily sign of discrimination because if among top section of AFQT scores, the bottom of that top group went into combat positions, and blacks in the top section of AFQT scores were disproportionately towards the bottom of this top group, they would enter combat positions at a higher rate than their white counterparts. (Ex: if test is out of 100%, and top group is all who scored above 80%, but 80-90% has higher concentration of black scores than 90-100%, and only those under 90% are eligible for combat positions, blacks would be in combat positions at a higher rate than whites in the 80-100% range without any discrimination). I do not think this is the case, but given the information provided on page 22, we can only say it suggests discrimination.