Honoring heroes vs. promoting an agenda

[+Happy Bubbles]

I just read a description of a brand-new cache that makes me feel uncomfortable. It`s not near me and I have no intention of finding it, nor do I want the powers-that-be to take any action on it; I'm just interested in reading a civil forum discussion about what is and is not appropriate on a cache page.

 

The cache is hidden in Okinawa, Japan, and it is hidden in honor of a Marine who died on Okinawa during WWII. The cache description contains a lengthy summary of his actions during the battle. The citation contains some far-from neutral language, telling about "boldly blasting near-by cave positions and neutralizing enemy guns as he went," and how "Inspired by his courage, every man followed without hesitation, and together the intrepid Marines braved a terrific concentration of Japanese gunfire" and later "he instantly attacked, waged a furious battle and succeeded in killing many of the enemy and in forcing the remainder to cover in the caves."

 

When I read this cache description, I can`t help but recall my own experience visiting Okinawa and the Peace Memorial Park and other monuments there that show the other side of the war. The Japanese high school I teach at takes an annual trip to Okinawa, and every year the students are moved to tears by the stories they hear about kids their age and younger who were conscripted into a battle they did not want to fight and killed by marines like Major Henry A. Courtney, Jr. The Himeyuri no To is a particularly poignant monument to the students of a girls' school who were drafted to be nurses and all slaughtered when an American grenade destroyed the "near-by cave position" they sheltered in. My students come away from their trip talking about the value of peace and how important it is to never forget the horrors of war. I wonder what they would think about this cache description? What other Japanese would think? How the Okinawan survivors of the Battle of Okinawa would feel about it? How would reading such a thing affect their opinions of caching, cachers, and Americans in general?

 

Conversely, how would most Americans feel about a cache hidden in Hawaii in honor of a Japanese soldier who died killing Americans at Pearl Harbor? Words like, "bold," "intrepid," and "He gallantly gave his life for his country" were often used in reference to kamikaze pilots at the time. But modern Japanese generally avoid such language; a decades-long backlash against the militarism and imperialism that led to the war has resulted in a general public inclination towards pacifism, and the ones who glorify the actions of WWII era soldiers are usually part of a radical fringe minority.

 

This cache to me seems very distasteful, and disrespectful. There is a large American military presence on Okinawa, and it is a source of significant tension between Japan and America. The local population complains that the Americans are disrespectful of Japanese laws and culture, and has been agitating for a reduction in the American presence, while Washington and Tokyo have been doing their best soothe the Okinawans and make the American military presence less obnoxious. This cache seems antithetical to the spirit of peace that the Okinawan government seeks to promote, and potentially insulting to the local people. To me, it doesn`t seem like an appropriate cache for a guest to hide in a foreign country.

 

Does it violate the guidelines? They read "caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda." While at first glance hiding a cache "in honor of those Marines who went above and beyond" does not seem like a social agenda, when viewed in the broader context of US-Japan-Okinawa relations it seems like a very politically-charged statement.

 

What do you think?

Is it tasteful?

Is it a guideline violation?

Would you publish this cache if you were a reviewer?

Would you publish a similar cache for a Japanese soldier at Pearl Harbor?

 

The text of the cache description:

This is my first cache hide in Oki. It is starting out full of Travel bugs and coins. I have another series just like this outside Camp Pendleton, CA. This series will all be ammo cans hidden in honor of those Marines who went above and beyond. Semper Fidelis!

 

The President of the United States takes pride in presenting the MEDAL OF HONOR posthumously to

 

MAJOR HENRY A. COURTNEY, JR.

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE

 

for service as set forth in the following CITATION:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as Executive Officer of the Second Battalion, Twenty-Second Marines, Sixth Marine Division, in action against enemy Japanese forces on Okinawa Shima in the Ryukyu Islands, 14 and 15 May 1945. Ordered to hold for the night in static defense behind Sugar Loaf Hill after leading the forward elements of his command in a prolonged fire fight, Major Courtney weighed the effect of a hostile night counterattack against the tactical value of an immediate Marine assault, resolved to initiate the assault, and promptly obtained permission to advance and seize the forward slope of the hill. Quickly explaining the situation to his small remaining force, he declared his personal intention of moving forward and then proceeded on his way, boldly blasting near-by cave positions and neutralizing enemy guns as he went. Inspired by his courage, every man followed without hesitation, and together the intrepid Marines braved a terrific concentration of Japanese gunfire to skirt the hill on the right and reach the reverse slope. Temporarily halting, Major Courtney sent guides to the rear for more ammunition and possible replacements. subsequently reinforced by twenty-six men and a LVT load of grenades, he determined to storm the crest of the hill and crush any planned counterattack before it could gain sufficient momentum to effect a break-through. Leading his men by example rather than by command, he pushed ahead with unrelenting aggressiveness, hurling grenades into cave openings on the slope with devastating effect. Upon reaching the crest and observing large numbers of Japanese forming for action less than one hundred yards away, he instantly attacked, waged a furious battle and succeeded in killing many of the enemy and in forcing the remainder to cover in the caves. Determined to hold, he ordered his men to dig in and, coolly disregarding the continuous hail of flying enemy shrapnel to rally his weary troops, tirelessly aided casualties and assigned his men to more advantageous positions. Although instantly killed by mortar burst while moving among his men, Major Courtney, by his astute military acumen, indomitable leadership and decisive action in the face of overwhelming odds, had contributed essentially to the success of the Okinawa Campaign and his great personal valor throughout sustained and enhanced the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service. He gallantly gave his life for his country.

 

And, for contrast, from the Okinawa Prefectural Peace Museum:

 

In late March 1945, a fierce battle such as has rarely been seen in history took place on these islands. The "Typhoon of Steel" that lasted for ninety days disfigured mountains, destroyed much of the cultural legacy, and claimed the precious lives of upward of 200,000 people. The Battle of Okinawa was the only ground fighting fought on Japanese soil and was also the largest-scale campaign of the Asia-Pacific War. Even countless Okinawan civilians were fully mobilized.

 

A significant aspect of the Battle of Okinawa was the great loss of civilian life. At more than 100,000 civilian losses far outnumbered the military death toll. Some were blown apart by shells, some finding themselves in a hopeless situation were driven to suicide, some died of starvation, some succumbed to malaria, while other fell victim to the retreating Japanese troops. Under the most desperate and unimaginable circumstances, Okinawans directly experienced the absurdity of war and atrocities it inevitably brings about.

 

This war experience is at the very core of what is popularly called the "Okinawan Heart," a resilient yet strong attitude to life that Okinawan people developed as they struggled against the pressures of many years of U. S. military control.

 

The "Okinawan Heart" is a human response that respects personal dignity above all else, rejects any acts related to war, and truly cherishes culture, which is a supreme expression of humanity. In order that we may mourn for those who perished during the war, pass on to future generations the historic lessons of the Battle of Okinawa, convey our message to the peoples of the world and thereby established, displaying the whole range of the individual war experiences of the people in this prefecture, the Okinawa Prefectural Peace Memorial Museum.

[+Too Tall John]

My understanding of the guidelines is that, as long as the cache page is simply stating fact rather than giving an opinion, the cache is ok. The language in question is a direct quote of the citation from the Medal of Honor, and as such would be allowed, in my opinion. Of course, I am not a reviewer.

 

That said, I would tend to agree with the overall spirit of the OP: Is this really in good taste? I don't think so.

 

I have seen reviewers here in the forums state that they have to publish a cache that meets the guidelines, whether they like the cache or not. In other words, they couldn't reject the cache because of bad taste.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Too Tall John

[jholly]

Well it is not asking us to honor and revere Major Courtney, it just presents the commendation so there is no agenda. At least from what you presented. Tasteful? Since you did not give more information on the cache that is pretty hard to answer. I don't see any reason why it should not be published if it meets the guidelines for no agenda. As for a cache honoring a Japanese pilot in Hawaii, well I might not agree with it, but the cache owner is entitled to his or her opinions and I have mine. Would I be offended? No, I served in the Armed Forces so someone could do that, even if I didn't agree. Would it inflame some people, I imagine it would. Is there a high chance it will get stolen? Probably. Would I publish a cache in Hawaii in honor of a Japanese pilot? Nope.

 

But since your asking questions, I have one. Why is the largest percentage of visitors to the Arizona memorial Japanese tourists? Is it to revel in the victory of the Pearl Harbor attack? Or is it just because it is part of the history of WWII, or something to go see while on vacation in Pearl harbor?

 

[+briansnat]

There are sometimes fine lines between what may be considered promoting an agenda and providing historic background. History is generally written by the victors, so being a worldwide sport, I'm sure there are many people who may see another person's history as offensive.

 

If you believe that the cache is inappropriate you can write contact@geocaching.com.

Edited February 23, 2010 by briansnat

[Clan Riffster]

While I agree that it might (key word) stir up some negative feelings from the sensitive side of the local population, it wouldn't offend or incite me. Neither would your hypothetical Pearl Harbor Japanese pilot cache. As any soldier can tell you, war is a gruesome thing. A cache like the one you describe serves as a reminder for that.

[+narcissa]

In my opinion, if the cache description says that the cache itself is hidden in honour of a soldier, that's over the line.

[+pppingme]

In my opinion, if the cache description says that the cache itself is hidden in honour of a soldier, that's over the line.

So you think a cache hidden in honer of a soldier and teaching about history from a global war shouldn't exist?

 

Wow, based on that there are 52 caches honoring obama that should be archived immediately, every one of them offend me.

[+thedeadpirate]

[Alan White]

I'm surprised that cache was published in its current form. A little while ago a cache at a local memorial to the Sharpeville Massacre was denied publication until every reference to that event was removed.

 

"Honouring heroes" may seem like a laudable thing to do but the determination of what makes someone a hero is often a political one - one person's hero may be another person's terrorist - and I don't want to see politics on a cache page.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The cache presents an educational opportunity about our shared history, an opportunity for cachers to learn about something which happened in that place, and presents the actual wording of an award. It acknowledges the actions of the man without stating any advice or guidance as to how the finder should think about the place, incident or commendation.

 

From your excellent English writing skills I wonder if you might be an American teaching in Japan and perhaps overly sensitive to the issue, and carrying on a bit of an agenda yourself. Those who seek to revise our views of history sometimes do have their own reasons.

 

As a teacher how would you present the soldier and his award to your students? Would you say that the soldier fought there and read the citation as it was given him, presenting them with a true fact of history, or would you go on to express how you feel that it is wrong to honor such men as heroes and explain how the students must be politically correct and culturally sensitive in their thinking? Could you teach about that incident and that man without injecting your agenda?

 

Regardless of why you choose to be offended by that cache description I think it would be a gross disservice to begin eliminating caches which simply detail historical events.

 

I love caches that educate me, that bring out details of history that I would not have otherwise known. I think this cache does that without promoting any agenda of the cache owner and thus it is perfectly acceptable.

[+Touchstone]

Somewhat similar previous discussion.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Somewhat similar previous discussion.

In this post in that linked thread a Reviewer presents a basic tutorial on where a cache description crosses the line from marking a place to promoting an agenda.

 

Still fuzzy, and it always will be, but he gets across the decision process Reviewers must engage in to determine what is or is not an agenda.

[+flask]

a word to the tastefulness of it, and not the guidelineliness of it:

 

in the cemetery down the road from my house there are a number of men buried who died fighting in the american civil war. one family erected a monument to their lost sons "died fighting the rebellion of 1861", but not too many feet away is the grave of a man who died during the war fighting for the confederacy, unusual in this state, which not only wasn't a border state, but had the highest per-capita union casualties in that war.

 

every year at memorial day when the town crew come to put little flags on the verterans' graves, they bring one confederate flag for the one man here who died under that flag.

 

during world war II german POWs being held on american soil and who died while in custody were buried with military honors under nazi flags, manufactured in the US for that purpose.

 

the turkish government holds official observances of anzac day.

 

to me it is touching that we may honor our enemies on foreign soil. perhaps others will wish to honor us similarly.

 

call me crazy, but maybe there'd be less foreign in the world.

[+Walts Hunting]

That said, I would tend to agree with the overall spirit of the OP: Is this really in good taste? I don't think so.

 

So bad taste should be part of the guidelines. Who gets to decide what is bad taste? Mine is significantly different than my wife's so I imagine the definition varies widely.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Walts Hunting

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

While you feel it is disrespectful, I do not.

 

You seem to be exerting your own political agenda into this.

 

In response to your questions:

 

What do you think? answered

Is it tasteful? a matter of opinion

Is it a guideline violation? no

Would you publish this cache if you were a reviewer? yes

Would you publish a similar cache for a Japanese soldier at Pearl Harbor? no, but would not object to a Japanese placement either

----------------

Having spent a considerable amount of time in Okinawa...

 

I had typed a loooong response. Before submitting same, I re-read it and finally determined that my response was just as political as is your original post. Therefore, I trashed it to provide the direct response above.

 

You have a valid political argument, and I would love to discuss it with you. You probably wouldn't agree with me, even though I think you could perhaps view it all in a different light.

 

I thought best just to answer your questions and let it go at that.

[+Castle Mischief]

Folks, you can be offended by something, or at least concerned that other people might be offended without pushing an agenda.

 

I don't find the listing offensive. It's a little "winning-side-centric" but that happens. More importantly, I don't think that it violates the current guidelines.

[+Castle Mischief]

That said, I would tend to agree with the overall spirit of the OP: Is this really in good taste? I don't think so.

 

So bad taste should be part of the guidelines. Who gets to decide what is bad taste? Mine is significantly different than my wife's so I imagine the definition varies widely.

 

Did the post you quoted suggest that bad taste is a criteria for the guidelines?

[+okie-wan]

I see nothing distasteful here.

The Major won the Medal of Honor, our nation's highest decoration.

Today, we use the word hero so frequently it has come to mean almost nothing.

 

 

Sergeant

United State Marine Corps 1967-1971 "Affording the enemies of America the opportunity to die for their country since 1775."

[Alan White]

Would you publish this cache if you were a reviewer? yes

Would you publish a similar cache for a Japanese soldier at Pearl Harbor? no, but would not object to a Japanese placement either

I don't understand that. Assuming that you were responsible for reviewing both caches, on what grounds would you publish the former but not the latter?

[+StarBrand]

I recently read the account of a running 4 day battle between American forces and the Lakota people. Thirty eight American soldiers died and 1 Medal of Honor was awarded. Nobody is quite certain of the Lakota casualties but it was estimated that as many as 80 may have died during the conflict. It was a brutal winter battle that included a 100 mile night march to relieve a handful of soldiers and civillins defending a small outpost.

 

I don't have the exact text of the Medal of Honor citation but a Sargent was awarded it with a few simple words - something like "Showed great bravery and fought gallantly while he stayed at the base of a hill allowing 10 of his men to escape to the top - the Sargent died while doing this". In another book - written 30 years later, a Lakota warrior remembered the battle a bit differently.

 

This warrior spoke of how the Lakota overwhelmed the Army position and had scared off most of thier horses. He spoke badly of cowards in the army dropping thier rifles and running away. He however vividly recalled what he described as a "cunning warrior" that fought off thier party alone. He describes the Sargent shouting and gesturing for his Men to get up the Hill while he fired his rifle, killing several braves on horseback. When the rifle ammo was expended - he jumped quickly from rock to rock dodging arrows and firing his pistols. When the bullets from those were gone, the man heaved great stones at them and continued moving around quickly. Finally surrounded with nothing more than a knife, he charged the mouted warriors and managed to kill 2 of them and knock several others off of thier horses before finally being killed from multiple arrow, knife and spear wounds. Meanwhile - his men were able to climb the hill and find a more defensible location. The Lakota braves were so impressed with the skill and bravery that they had witnessed that they stopped the battle and prayed over his body - even leaving a few of thier own personal totems on his body. These were left so that no one would desecrate the brave soldier.

 

Long way of saying that brave people recognize and honor bravery even amoung thier enemies. We should not worry about the few folks that get offended - 70 years later.

[hoosier guy]

Star you have just written the most sensible post I have ever seen on the internet. I tip my hat to you.

[+Too Tall John]

That said, I would tend to agree with the overall spirit of the OP: Is this really in good taste? I don't think so.

So bad taste should be part of the guidelines. Who gets to decide what is bad taste? Mine is significantly different than my wife's so I imagine the definition varies widely.

Did the post you quoted suggest that bad taste is a criteria for the guidelines?

Nope, not at all. My post again:

My understanding of the guidelines is that, as long as the cache page is simply stating fact rather than giving an opinion, the cache is ok. The language in question is a direct quote of the citation from the Medal of Honor, and as such would be allowed, in my opinion. Of course, I am not a reviewer.

 

That said, I would tend to agree with the overall spirit of the OP: Is this really in good taste? I don't think so.

 

I have seen reviewers here in the forums state that they have to publish a cache that meets the guidelines, whether they like the cache or not. In other words, they couldn't reject the cache because of bad taste.

No calls for guideline changes at all.

 

In fact, I would call for quite the opposite. Having to make reviewers judge "taste" would be a nightmare; for reviewers, who would suddenly have to enter very murky ground at times; for cachers, who would have to wait for longer review queues to get their caches approved; for Groundspeak, who would have to field even more complaints about "My cache didn't get listed! Whaaaaa!!!!!"

 

"Bad Taste Guideline"=Bad Idea!

 

Edit to Add: When I hit the "Submit" button, I had a sneaky feeling that I was forgetting something I wanted to say. wimseyguy brought it up in this (later) post:

That would return the reviewers to the days of the "WOW" factor test for virtual caches.

The "WOW Factor" test eventually led to the end of new Virtual Caches on this website, so. . . Edited February 23, 2010 by Too Tall John

[+Too Tall John]

. . . Long way of saying that brave people recognize and honor bravery even amoung thier enemies. We should not worry about the few folks that get offended - 70 years later.

An excellent point, StarBrand. You've brought my opinion of "This is bad taste!" around to "This might be bad taste, but I'm ok with it." I must say, when I read...

In another book - written 30 years later, a Lakota warrior remembered the battle a bit differently.

... I imagined the story ending quite differently than it did.

[+wimseyguy]

TTJ nailed the answer in post #2. All I could add is that there is a subtle distinction between honoring an individual and the group that they represented. And often times it seems that distinction is where caches cross the line from informative to agenda-laden.

 

I doubt that a good/bad taste phrase would ever be added to the guidelines. That would return the reviewers to the days of the "WOW" factor test for virtual caches.

[+narcissa]

In my opinion, if the cache description says that the cache itself is hidden in honour of a soldier, that's over the line.

So you think a cache hidden in honer of a soldier and teaching about history from a global war shouldn't exist?

 

Wow, based on that there are 52 caches honoring obama that should be archived immediately, every one of them offend me.

 

The cache can point to a historical marker or memorial, but the cache itself should not honour a soldier or political figure. Caches are supposed to be free from any political or social agenda.

 

Caches honouring Obama would count as having a political agenda, imo.

[+narcissa]

I'm surprised that cache was published in its current form. A little while ago a cache at a local memorial to the Sharpeville Massacre was denied publication until every reference to that event was removed.

 

"Honouring heroes" may seem like a laudable thing to do but the determination of what makes someone a hero is often a political one - one person's hero may be another person's terrorist - and I don't want to see politics on a cache page.

 

This, exactly.

 

Additionally, the glorification of war is, in and of itself, promoting a political and social agenda. I think caches should be placed near historical sites when possible, but the cache page should not be used to tell people who is a hero, who is an enemy, etc. History isn't black and white, and geocache descriptions are not an appropriate avenue for interpreting history and politics.

[jholly]

I'm surprised that cache was published in its current form. A little while ago a cache at a local memorial to the Sharpeville Massacre was denied publication until every reference to that event was removed.

 

"Honouring heroes" may seem like a laudable thing to do but the determination of what makes someone a hero is often a political one - one person's hero may be another person's terrorist - and I don't want to see politics on a cache page.

 

This, exactly.

 

Additionally, the glorification of war is, in and of itself, promoting a political and social agenda. I think caches should be placed near historical sites when possible, but the cache page should not be used to tell people who is a hero, who is an enemy, etc. History isn't black and white, and geocache descriptions are not an appropriate avenue for interpreting history and politics.

 

So if a cache is placed near a historical site should it only talk about how pretty the flowers are in spring? If anything is mentioned about the historical site then it is promoting and agenda?

[+narcissa]

 

This, exactly.

 

Additionally, the glorification of war is, in and of itself, promoting a political and social agenda. I think caches should be placed near historical sites when possible, but the cache page should not be used to tell people who is a hero, who is an enemy, etc. History isn't black and white, and geocache descriptions are not an appropriate avenue for interpreting history and politics.

 

So if a cache is placed near a historical site should it only talk about how pretty the flowers are in spring? If anything is mentioned about the historical site then it is promoting and agenda?

 

If I was making the call, much detail beyond "there's a historical plaque nearby with information about the site" is getting into iffy territory. Filling up the cache description with a particular interpretation of an event is promoting that viewpoint.

 

I don't know what this business about flowers is about, but creating strawman arguments and being snarky is unnecessary. The "agenda" guideline is a tricky one, and I was simply stating how I would interpret it.

[+Sioneva]

 

This, exactly.

 

Additionally, the glorification of war is, in and of itself, promoting a political and social agenda. I think caches should be placed near historical sites when possible, but the cache page should not be used to tell people who is a hero, who is an enemy, etc. History isn't black and white, and geocache descriptions are not an appropriate avenue for interpreting history and politics.

 

So if a cache is placed near a historical site should it only talk about how pretty the flowers are in spring? If anything is mentioned about the historical site then it is promoting and agenda?

 

If I was making the call, much detail beyond "there's a historical plaque nearby with information about the site" is getting into iffy territory. Filling up the cache description with a particular interpretation of an event is promoting that viewpoint.

 

<snip>

 

Um, the cache description was "filled up" with a straightforward typing out of the historical citation issued, not an interpretation of it. It's a fine point, but a valid one.

[+narcissa]

 

If I was making the call, much detail beyond "there's a historical plaque nearby with information about the site" is getting into iffy territory. Filling up the cache description with a particular interpretation of an event is promoting that viewpoint.

 

<snip>

 

Um, the cache description was "filled up" with a straightforward typing out of the historical citation issued, not an interpretation of it. It's a fine point, but a valid one.

 

But is it necessary to put it there? What is the motive behind using the cache page for that? Honouring a soldier is glorifying the war, and that's an agenda. Geocaching is a game that everyone should feel comfortable playing. Using caches as a platform for any kind of political or social agenda means there's a risk that people will be alienated.

 

Everyone thinks their cause is worthy. Geocaching is not the place for these battles.

Edited February 23, 2010 by narcissa

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Um, the cache description was "filled up" with a straightforward typing out of the historical citation issued, not an interpretation of it.

 

the "Historical Citation Issued" is a one sided interpretation of the events.

[+StarBrand]

..... Honouring a soldier is glorifying the war, and that's an agenda. ...

 

No - it honors the soldier and what he/she did. War is not pretty, not likeable but it has happened in the past, is happening right now and will happen in the future. In all such battles - some individual actions will stand out. Some markers will recognize that - placing a cache nearby noting the marker should not be a big deal.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Would you publish this cache if you were a reviewer? yes

Would you publish a similar cache for a Japanese soldier at Pearl Harbor? no, but would not object to a Japanese placement either

I don't understand that. Assuming that you were responsible for reviewing both caches, on what grounds would you publish the former but not the latter?

You are correct. I "mis-answered" the question. I do so apologize.

 

Corrected answer: Yes.

 

I wrongfully interpreted it as: Would you "place"...

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding (on my part).

[+StarBrand]

Um, the cache description was "filled up" with a straightforward typing out of the historical citation issued, not an interpretation of it.

 

the "Historical Citation Issued" is a one sided interpretation of the events.

See my post (#21 above) - sometimes the true story is well beyond the citation - and is well recognized by both sides.

[+narcissa]

..... Honouring a soldier is glorifying the war, and that's an agenda. ...

 

No - it honors the soldier and what he/she did. War is not pretty, not likeable but it has happened in the past, is happening right now and will happen in the future. In all such battles - some individual actions will stand out. Some markers will recognize that - placing a cache nearby noting the marker should not be a big deal.

 

Placing the cache noting the marker isn't a big deal.

 

Using the cache description to provide an interpretation of the historical facts is promoting an agenda.

 

What the soldier "did" is subject to interpretation. To some people, that soldier is a hero who should be honoured, to others that soldier is an enemy who should be forgotten, to others the entire war is a disgrace that shouldn't be honoured in any way.

 

Geocaches are not the place to make these determinations. Geocaches can and should lead people to places of interest, and that's it. The geocache should not be placed with the intent to promote a particular interpretation of history.

[+narcissa]

Um, the cache description was "filled up" with a straightforward typing out of the historical citation issued, not an interpretation of it.

 

the "Historical Citation Issued" is a one sided interpretation of the events.

See my post (#21 above) - sometimes the true story is well beyond the citation - and is well recognized by both sides.

 

That still doesn't mean that a geocache description is an appropriate place to promote these interpretations of history.

[+StarBrand]

..... Honouring a soldier is glorifying the war, and that's an agenda. ...

 

No - it honors the soldier and what he/she did. War is not pretty, not likeable but it has happened in the past, is happening right now and will happen in the future. In all such battles - some individual actions will stand out. Some markers will recognize that - placing a cache nearby noting the marker should not be a big deal.

 

Placing the cache noting the marker isn't a big deal.

 

Using the cache description to provide an interpretation of the historical facts is promoting an agenda.

 

What the soldier "did" is subject to interpretation. To some people, that soldier is a hero who should be honoured, to others that soldier is an enemy who should be forgotten, to others the entire war is a disgrace that shouldn't be honoured in any way.

 

Geocaches are not the place to make these determinations. Geocaches can and should lead people to places of interest, and that's it. The geocache should not be placed with the intent to promote a particular interpretation of history.

So cite the text as being a fact - it IS there - and allow the reader/visitor to interpret it. Cite the text or not, note the marker or not - fact remains - the marker is there at the coordinates and those that will be offended by its nature will still be offended.

[+narcissa]

 

So cite the text as being a fact - it IS there - and allow the reader/visitor to interpret it. Cite the text or not, note the marker or not - fact remains - the marker is there at the coordinates and those that will be offended by its nature will still be offended.

 

Why does the geocache description need to repeat information that is available at the site?

 

People can and will take offense to all sorts of things, but we should do all we can to keep the geocaches themselves free of this kind of controversy. All the geocache should do is bring people to the location.

 

Using geocaches and geocache descriptions as platforms for agendas and causes is against the guidelines, regardless of what the agenda is. Honouring a soldier in the cache page is an agenda.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Um, the cache description was "filled up" with a straightforward typing out of the historical citation issued, not an interpretation of it.

 

the "Historical Citation Issued" is a one sided interpretation of the events.

See my post (#21 above) - sometimes the true story is well beyond the citation - and is well recognized by both sides.

I think that more often the Citation goes well beyond the true story. Much will depend on the literacy of the person telling the story.

[+the pooks]

I agree that the cache listing is insensitive to the locals. The citation could have been paraphrased to be less explicit about how the enemy was killed, especially in this case where so many civilians suffered. I understand that the cache is technically within guidelines, so one cannot do much about it, but still.

[+keehotee]

 

So cite the text as being a fact - it IS there - and allow the reader/visitor to interpret it. Cite the text or not, note the marker or not - fact remains - the marker is there at the coordinates and those that will be offended by its nature will still be offended.

 

Why does the geocache description need to repeat information that is available at the site?

 

People can and will take offense to all sorts of things, but we should do all we can to keep the geocaches themselves free of this kind of controversy. All the geocache should do is bring people to the location.

 

Using geocaches and geocache descriptions as platforms for agendas and causes is against the guidelines, regardless of what the agenda is. Honouring a soldier in the cache page is an agenda.

 

Exactly!

How horrified would we all be if somebody placed a cache near Ground Zero in New York City, with a description of events written from an Al Qaeda point of view???

 

It would fit within the same guidelines - and sympathisers would use the same arguments you are all using to justify it being there. But would it be acceptable? No, it b****y wouldn't!

[Andronicus]

I think that these offended people need to examine the actions of their former government before taking offence to the actions of a man who was defending himself, his fellow soldiers, and his country.

 

If you look at the prevailing opinion of the Germans (they also lost that war), they have come to realize that the Nazi were evil. They love movies like "Inglorious Bustards" even though it is about killing Germans. They have realized that the Nazi German cause was wrong and it was right for the Allied nations to fight (and yes, kill) the Nazi army. That said, of course, lots of the Nazi soldiers were not evil (or even bad) people. But in the end, they were the ones standing in the way of the Allied nations stopping the Nazis.

 

If you study the history of the Japanese government of the time, what they did to the Chinese (and others), what they did to their own people (you even listed some of the things they did), and the lead up to the war, I think you will come to the same conclusion as the German people. There realy is no gray area in this matter.

[+Danbike_Lizbike]

My late father's last assignment with the Army was at Patch Barracks outside of Stuttgart. Geocaching was not even a dream in the late 1950s and there were not too many memorials to the Wehrmacht back then. If you go do some digging on GC.COM in the Stuttgart area, specifically near Patch, you will find multiple caches honoring different units of the Wehrmacht from the WW2 time period. I'm not going to use a politically sensitive word, but if you uniform has a symbol on it, they you might be construed as supporting that movement.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Danbike_Lizbike

[+narcissa]

I think that these offended people need to examine the actions of their former government before taking offence to the actions of a man who was defending himself, his fellow soldiers, and his country.

 

If you look at the prevailing opinion of the Germans (they also lost that war), they have come to realize that the Nazi were evil. They love movies like "Inglorious Bustards" even though it is about killing Germans. They have realized that the Nazi German cause was wrong and it was right for the Allied nations to fight (and yes, kill) the Nazi army. That said, of course, lots of the Nazi soldiers were not evil (or even bad) people. But in the end, they were the ones standing in the way of the Allied nations stopping the Nazis.

 

If you study the history of the Japanese government of the time, what they did to the Chinese (and others), what they did to their own people (you even listed some of the things they did), and the lead up to the war, I think you will come to the same conclusion as the German people. There realy is no gray area in this matter.

 

Geocaching is not the platform to debate these ideas.

[Clan Riffster]

Who gets to decide what is bad taste?

Apparently, my wife does. She's the one who vetoed my "Everytime You Hide A Film Can, God Kills A Puppy" T-shirt, as well as my "Nuke A Gay Whale For Jesus" geocoin.

 

Honouring a soldier is glorifying the war

Not true. Ever. You can honor and respect the warriors who defend your country, or the country of another, without glorifying or even slightly supporting the war they fought it.

 

the "Historical Citation Issued" is a one sided interpretation of the events.

As is every Historical Citation. The winner gets to write the history books, remember?

 

Why does the geocache description need to repeat information that is available at the site?

Conversely, why shouldn't it? Just to pacify a smattering of Barking Moonbats who cringe at the mere thought of conflict? If you want to lead the charge againt something like this, the place to start would be the plaque that cites the event, not the cache that replicates it. Perhaps you could head over to Okinawa and stir up the population against the plaque? You could raise quite a ruckus, standing on a pedestal, shouting "Hey guys! You're supposed to be offended by this plaque that's been in your country for several decades! Come on... Somebody?... Anybody?... Bueller?... Hello? Is anybody listening? You really should be offended by this!... Please?..."

 

How horrified would we all be if somebody placed a cache near Ground Zero in New York City, with a description of events written from an Al Qaeda point of view?

I can't speak for "we". I can only speak for me. I would not be horrified by such a cache. The events of 9-11 were truly terrible. As citizens of the attacked nation, we've been bombarded with reasons why this should not have been done. Why it was unjust, evil and cowardly. What we have not seen is the other side of the coin, expressing, without the rhetoric, why it was done. Personally, I would love to hear the other side of the story, but I doubt that story will be told until the next generation.

 

Geocaching is not the platform to debate these ideas.

It's not a debate. It's a plaque.

[Andronicus]

Geocaching is not the platform to debate these ideas.

 

This isn't geocaching, this is a forum. And that was my opinion, not a debate.

[+narcissa]

Not true. Ever. You can honor and respect the warriors who defend your country, or the country of another, without glorifying or even slightly supporting the war they fought it.

 

One person's defender is another person's aggressor. Geocaches should steer clear of honouring soldiers precisely because it can be politically sensitive.

 

Conversely, why shouldn't it? Just to pacify a smattering of Barking Moonbats who cringe at the mere thought of conflict? If you want to lead the charge againt something like this, the place to start would be the plaque that cites the event, not the cache that replicates it. Perhaps you could head over to Okinawa and stir up the population against the plaque? You could raise quite a ruckus, standing on a pedestal, shouting "Hey guys! You're supposed to be offended by this plaque that's been in your country for several decades! Come on... Somebody?... Anybody?... Bueller?... Hello? Is anybody listening? You really should be offended by this!... Please?..."

 

Please don't make assumptions about my political beliefs and affiliations because I think geocaching should be neutral. Your comments are inflammatory and unnecessary.

 

There is no good reason why a cache description should reiterate the words on the plaque. The decision to read the plaque, ignore it, or lobby for its removal should be made by the individual. The purpose of the geocache is merely to bring people to the location. Telling geocachers to honour someone is an agenda.

 

Everyone thinks their personal agendas and causes are worthwhile. It is not up to the cache owner, or the reviewer, or Groundspeak to pick and choose which are worthy and which are not. ALL political agendas should be kept out of geocaches.

 

I can't speak for "we". I can only speak for me. I would not be horrified by such a cache. The events of 9-11 were truly terrible. As citizens of the attacked nation, we've been bombarded with reasons why this should not have been done. Why it was unjust, evil and cowardly. What we have not seen is the other side of the coin, expressing, without the rhetoric, why it was done. Personally, I would love to hear the other side of the story, but I doubt that story will be told until the next generation.

 

Geocaching is not the platform for that discussion, however worthwhile it might be.

 

One of the things I love about geocaching is that it's helped me to form friendships with people I wouldn't have met otherwise. Many of those people have very different world views than me, but we can bond about geocaching, and the environment doesn't get poisoned by competing ideas. If people were allowed to use geocaches to promote their personal beliefs and causes, the game as it exists today wouldn't be possible.

[+Castle Mischief]

Narcissa, I respect your opinion, but I don't think it's in-line with the current rules regarding agendas. The fact is that the plaque is already there. Mentioning the words on the plaque doesn't make it more there than it already is.

 

I'd be one of the first to side with you in regards to it being kind of tacky, considering the very one-sided account of the events. But I don't think we want reviewers to put in the position to judge tacky. Tacky isn't in the guidelines.

 

There could be a very lively debate about the appropriateness of the plaque itself, but frankly that would be better placed in the off-topic forum or on a completely different forum site altogether.

[jholly]

Not true. Ever. You can honor and respect the warriors who defend your country, or the country of another, without glorifying or even slightly supporting the war they fought it.

 

One person's defender is another person's aggressor. Geocaches should steer clear of honouring soldiers precisely because it can be politically sensitive.

 

That might be, but there is no reason to get your knickers in a bunch just because the other side sees your defender as an aggressor. There are plenty of statues around this country honoring Southern soldiers. There is even a mountain being carved to honor Chief Sitting Bull. If a cache was placed honoring any of these I simply would not be the slightest bit upset. And for things that took place nearly 70 years ago it probably is time accept and to move on.

[Andronicus]

One of the things I love about geocaching is that it's helped me to form friendships with people I wouldn't have met otherwise. Many of those people have very different world views than me, but we can bond about geocaching, and the environment doesn't get poisoned by competing ideas. If people were allowed to use geocaches to promote their personal beliefs and causes, the game as it exists today wouldn't be possible.

 

Well, I have to aggree with you on that one. Not sure if the same logic can be flowed to a cache page though...