The Vietnam War—still causing trouble.

[+Ianatlarge]

Seeking advice from the combined brain power of the Waymarking community.

 

Here is the situation. I came across two monuments to the Vietnam War (let's stick to that name, even though the conflict is known by several), one for Lao soldiers, the other for Vietnamese, in the northern Lao town of Phonsavan. Rather attractive and sizeable monuments in fact, certainly worthy of inclusion within the Waymarking domain, however, where should they go?

 

I found that the Vietnam War category accepts only US personnel waymarks. This excludes waymarks from all others nations involved—including not only the then (now trading partners) enemy of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, but also, with a certain irony, the numerous US allies of that time, including the Commonwealth of Australia. I next considered the "War Veterans" category, but was declined as there is an existing Vietnam War category. I communicated a few times with Torgut, the founder of WVs, but he decided that as his category description specifically excluded Vietnam War waymarks, due to the fact that there is a Vietnamese War category, the two Lao memorials could not go into War Veterans.

 

Putting aside my situation for a moment this lack of a category for non-US Vietnam War memorials will become a growing problem. I know that there are several Vietnam War memorials in Canberra, as well as Sydney and Melbourne. Sooner or later someone, maybe me, will waymark these. I am equally certain that there are memorials to the War in other countries. Where will they go?

 

I could add my two waymarks to abstract public statues, or maybe Buddhist shrines, but it would be better if there is a category for these war memorials. Any suggestions, thoughts?

[+fi67]

I have no idea how to solve this problem right now. But there is absolutely no excuse for both category managers. 

 

Only accepting US memorials is simply insulting, sorry. Also insulting for the US soldiers who died in this war, they have deseved better than put into this arbitrarily limited ghetto.

 

As for the new non-specific category: it was intended to fill the gap. Not to accept a war memorial that is not accepted in any other war memorial category  is completely against the spirit of what was presented at peer review. If this siuation was known before I would not have voted in favor of this category and I am sure almost nobody would have. 

 

Yes, the wording of the category description excludes Vietnam War memorial, but then the wording is wrong and needs to be refined. Exclusion does only make sense if the respective category covers the topic without gaps.

Edited August 19, 2012 by fi67

[+Max and 99]

I have no idea how to solve this problem right now. But there is absolutely no excuse for both category managers.

 

Only accepting US memorials is simply dumb and insulting, sorry. Also insulting for the US soldiers who died in this war, they have deseved better.

 

As for the new non-specific category: it was intended to fill the gap. Not to accept a war memorial that is not accepted in any other war memorial category is completely against the spirit of what was presented at peer review. If this siuation was known before I would not have voted in favor of this category and I am sure almost nobody would have.

 

Yes, the wording of the category description say so, but then the wording is wrong and needs to be refined. No cheap and lazy excuses!

 

Very well stated.

[+BruceS]

Note to all. It is fine to discuss category descriptions and criteria. Please refrain from raising it to personal insults toward the category managers. This thread has been reported as doing just that.

 

Thanks

Edited August 19, 2012 by BruceS

[+Max and 99]

On a quick glance of recently posted Vietnam War Memorials, there is one in Canada and one in Australia, and neither appear to honor U.S. personnel (I can't be certain of that, though). I did not look past the first page of listings.

 

Either I'm misunderstanding the text of those memorials, or the category is indeed accepting SOME others.

 

I do think it's a little odd that only those memorials honoring U.S. personnel are accepted. If the category went to group vote today, would that still fly? Not criticizing the category, just asking if today's criteria and reviewers might have reviewed it differently.

[Country_Wife]

On a quick glance of recently posted Vietnam War Memorials, there is one in Canada and one in Australia, and neither appear to honor U.S. personnel (I can't be certain of that, though). I did not look past the first page of listings.

The Canadian memorials in this category (and there are two listed, but Waymarkers will find that there are more) likely qualify under the existing category guidelines. That's because the Canadians honoured served in the US armed forces. Canada's armed forces were not involved in the Vietnam War. .

Edited August 19, 2012 by Country_Wife

[+Max and 99]

On a quick glance of recently posted Vietnam War Memorials, there is one in Canada and one in Australia, and neither appear to honor U.S. personnel (I can't be certain of that, though). I did not look past the first page of listings.

The Canadian memorials in this category (and there are two listed, but Waymarkers will find that there are more) likely qualify under the existing category guidelines. That's because the Canadians honoured served in the US armed forces. Canada's armed forces were not involved in the Vietnam War. .

 

Thank you for explaining that.

[+silverquill]

 

I found that the Vietnam War category accepts only US personnel waymarks. This excludes waymarks from all others nations involved—including not only the then (now trading partners) enemy of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, but also, with a certain irony, the numerous US allies of that time, including the Commonwealth of Australia.

I find this an unfortunate exclusion. I think the most favorable outcome would be to see if the category management group would consider expanding the category to be more inclusive so that these memorials could have a home. It would result in a richer and deeper category. Categories are frequently modified somewhere down the road like this, so there isn't any real impediment to doing so. If they feel strongly about keeping this narrow restriction, then that is their privilege and we'll have to look for other solutions.

 

 

I next considered the "War Veterans" category, but was declined as there is an existing Vietnam War category. I communicated a few times with Torgut, the founder of WVs, but he decided that as his category description specifically excluded Vietnam War waymarks, due to the fact that there is a Vietnamese War category, the two Lao memorials could not go into War Veterans.

 

 

These are two perfect illustrations of why defining a category, and limiting it based categories that someone else has previously created, is not always a good idea. If these are shut out from the logical category, it would be nice if one of these categories would be flexible enough to give these a home.

 

My inclination is always to be more inclusive than exclusive, and I don't see that any category has much to gain by being so inflexible or in so narrowly defining itself that illogical exclusions occur.

 

 

Putting aside my situation for a moment this lack of a category for non-US Vietnam War memorials will become a growing problem. I know that there are several Vietnam War memorials in Canberra, as well as Sydney and Melbourne. Sooner or later someone, maybe me, will waymark these. I am equally certain that there are memorials to the War in other countries. Where will they go?

 

I could add my two waymarks to abstract public statues, or maybe Buddhist shrines, but it would be better if there is a category for these war memorials. Any suggestions, thoughts?

 

 

Exactly. Although there are often these ancillary categories, there should be a place for these sites under their primary designations. I suppose that if none of the above categories is willing to be flexible enough to make a logical change, then the only other option <sigh> is to create another, more inclusive category. It could be something like Worldwide Viet Nam War Memorials with U.S. excluded. This has been done before with other restrictive categories - like the two neon sign categories that you are familiar with.

 

Come to think of it, I guess I haven't tried submitting any of the Viet Nam War memorials that I've recorded here in Korea. This country had quite an extensive involvement there. I'd hate not to have a place for them.

Edited August 19, 2012 by silverquill

[+Ianatlarge]

"War memorials which do not fit into other war memorial categories"

"Misc waymarks that should fit into an earlier category, but do not"

"Waymarks that don't have a home, but should"

 

-- just a few suggestions.

 

Thanks for your thoughts. My intent was to highlight the fact that there is a significant gap in our coverage. I was hoping that someone from the Vietnam War category might jump into the discussion. I will try contacting them directly. Hopefully, a solution will be found for the Korean, Australian and many other nationalities involved in the war.

[+a1elec]

It is all too familiar if it is not US 90% of the waymarkers are then they don't want to know about it.

 

To hell with the rest of us who put in our time effort and lost our loved ones in the cause that after all the US lost or was it a draw that is still the thorn in the side for the US chiefs to discuss.

 

Just a young aussie digger who unfortunately didn't have the chance to serve for the country in a war.

[+waypointazoid]

I am the founder of the Vietnam war memorials category. Since it is primarily me who is being dragged through the Waymarking mud, I think it is fitting that I clear up these silly assumptions, and affirm the purpose of this category.

 

Long ago, it was decided by this group to include any Allied nation's memorial. In fact, I have approved them myself.

 

However, there is not now, nor will there ever be a place in this category for the North Vietnamese Army, the Viet Cong, or any of their Allies who fought with them.

 

This is an eclectic hobby. If you want to honor the enemies, past and present, of the free world, then knock yourself out: form a group and submit a category.

 

This very type "thing" is why I long ago abandoned this forum, and stopped submitting categories: the lack of respectful decorum.

[+Ianatlarge]

I did not intend that harsh words be spoken, however, waypointazoid has made his point clear. His category, fair enough, however, perhaps a re-wording of the category criteria, and—I would like to make a plea for forgiveness and respectfulness towards the fallen.

 

At one time or another, looking far enough into the past, it seems that every country has had harsh dealings with most other countries. During the US civil war, following the lead of the UK, the states of Australia favoured the south over the north. The USA and Canada have intruded on each others territory on a number of occasions, the bicentenary of the war of 1812 is underway. Need I mention Europe? I doubt that there is one European country that has not at one time or another been at war with every other.

 

Speaking laconically, monuments to war honour the memory of the dead, not the war.

[GT.US]

I did not intend that harsh words be spoken, however, waypointazoid has made his point clear. His category, fair enough, however, perhaps a re-wording of the category criteria, and—I would like to make a plea for forgiveness and respectfulness towards the fallen.

 

At one time or another, looking far enough into the past, it seems that every country has had harsh dealings with most other countries. During the US civil war, following the lead of the UK, the states of Australia favoured the south over the north. The USA and Canada have intruded on each others territory on a number of occasions, the bicentenary of the war of 1812 is underway. Need I mention Europe? I doubt that there is one European country that has not at one time or another been at war with every other.

 

Speaking laconically, monuments to war honour the memory of the dead, not the war.

 

In WWII (where I am an officer) there are memorials from all over the world. I have some with Red Stars on them (That I submitted).

 

I like the idea of a category showing the big picture of all aspects of the war. I can see some sensitivity to that particular war, as the wound is still fresh, and many of us still have memories of it and have had personal impacts of some sort. Given that, I would still find it interesting and informative to see all the ripples from that stone.

 

A funny story slightly related. When I was 11 years old our class was assigned to write a letter to the president of Vietnam asking them to stop the war. We had to write it on white paper first and have it approved, then we would copy it to the blue airmail letter. I wrote a very nice letter telling them if they wanted to be communist, they could stay communist over there, and as long as they didn't come over her and be communist, everything would be fine and no need for a war. Teacher told me I couldn't write that it was okay for anyone to be a communist, so I had to start over.

[HANSENNI]

As the creator of several hundred of the waymarks in this category I'd like to comment on this dialog. For starters I have always supported, and submitted several, Vietnam War memorial waymarks commemorating non US personnel who served and or lost their lives on behalf of the United States and or it's allies during the extended period of the US Southeast Asian Wars for 1959 to 1976. This includes but is not limited to those who served from Australia, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, and the Philippines as well as both regular and irregular forces for the involved counties who served on the side of the US. By the way, Canada provided Canadian Armed Forces personnel as peacekeepers following the cease fire in 1975 and in my opinion memorials dedicated to those personnel should also be included. I would not be opposed to any memorial in this category commemorating those who served regardless of race, sex, creed, color, or national origin as long as they served on behalf of the US side of the conflict. If someone wishes to document memorials for those who served on the side of the opposing forces I think they can and should create a separate category for same.... I suspect that most of us who served in this war would be of the same feeling.

 

Regards,

 

L. Nick Hansen

Master Sergeant

US Army, Retired

1968 - 1988

[+Torgut]

Hi All,

 

I find it ironical to see quite a few people flaming the new category when actually Ianatlarge perfectly understood the situation. In a category in the edge with so many exclusions it would be too much to create now an exclusion of an exclusion.

 

Additionally I find very perturbing when the people in charge of a category changes policies and do not post those changes in the description. It happened to me before to discard the creation of a waymark because I saw it wouldn't be accepted accordingly to the category conditions... just to be pointed out by fellows waymarkers that after all they are accepting this and that anyway. I just found out still another category in such condition.

[+silverquill]

Of course this is a sensitive issue, and it will be decided by emotion rather than logic.

 

If the policy of including monuments to only ONE side of a war were extended, many of the other veteran memorial categories would have to be dismantled.

 

We would have to have two separate categories for the U.S. Civil War, WWI, WWII, just to pick on several of the largest.

 

What makes the war in Vietnam so different? I guess some of us are just emotionally too close to it. That's not logical. But, saying that doesn't make such reasoning invalid. We are emotional beings, but let's at least be honest about our reasons. So, don't expect me to accept ANY waymarks honoring the "other side" in the Korean War Memorial category. Not logical, but it ain't going to happen. (Guess I need to put that in the category description since I just inherited it. I doubt that anyone would find any of these outside of that country to which we can't travel anyway, but who knows).

 

And, because of the way Waymarking.com is set up, a category management group can set up just about any arbitrary requirements or restrictions they want. We have to respect that as well.

 

There are a lot of categories that I would have set up differently, and some probably don't like the way I set up the ones I created. Heck, I don't even like the way I set up some of them. Sometimes the only solution is to do as suggested which is to create a category for the other side. Anyone remember how we ended up with two categories for neon signs, or welcome signs?

 

I do think Ian's point is really worth considering, though. We honor the fallen, not the war.

[+waypointazoid]

It is absolutely ludicrous: this notion that memorials honor the dead and not the war. (in "war" I am assuming we are speaking of the "cause" that the memorialized fought for). Memorials for the dead are called tombstones. Memorials for those who fought in a war are there to honor the very fact that they died for a cause, and they are called "War memorials". War memorials are not about the killing... they are about the dying... the dying of a person who gave his/her life in a struggle to achieve some great blessing for their countrymen. War memorials are about those who put honor above their own lives. To seperate these martyrs from their cause makes about as much sense as saying churchs are not about God, but about the people who attend.

 

People with tombstones are dead.

 

People with war memorials are Honored Dead.

 

Waymarking is different for each of us. It's nice to know there is a database here so that we can find the coolest rollercoasters... it's useful to know where every Post Office is. Sure, it's a game, but for many, it's much more than that...

 

And as for the Vietnam Memorials category, it is first and foremost about honorable men. Men who answered the call in spite of it's flawed political purpose. Because no matter the reason for which the people call, the honorable soldier puts his personal convictions aside and does the bidding of his people. Without question, he stands between his beloved people and the war's desolation.

 

I hold this truth to be clear and true to any human being who is capable of rational thought: That those men who died in Vietnam who fought against oppression and in the name of liberty were honorable men fighting against a dishonorable enemy. And that they have won the right to be honored in a place seperate from those who fought in the name of despotism.

 

And... to think of them as just dead and not war dead is tantamount to stripping them of the honor that they gave their lives to earn.

 

We didn't bury the Americans and their allies in the same graves with the Viet Cong, and we are not going to bury them together in this category either... I won't dishonor them to facilitate a simple game. Some of you may not understand that, and that's OK. some of you may not respect that and I don't care. We don't say the "f" word in this forum because it's classless and disgusting. We don't honor heros in the same place as the people who killed them for the same reason.

[+BruceS]

If the we follow your logic, that this category is for honorable men. I guess the category should exclude memorials to women that served? If it is for honorable men who fought for a cause why does the category exclude memorials for allied nations... were they not honorable? Were not there not a large group of Vietnamese who fought along with US forces for the same cause... were they not honorable?

[+a1elec]

It is absolutely ludicrous: this notion that memorials honor the dead and not the war. (in "war" I am assuming we are speaking of the "cause" that the memorialized fought for). Memorials for the dead are called tombstones. Memorials for those who fought in a war are there to honor the very fact that they died for a cause, and they are called "War memorials". War memorials are not about the killing... they are about the dying... the dying of a person who gave his/her life in a struggle to achieve some great blessing for their countrymen. War memorials are about those who put honor above their own lives. To seperate these martyrs from their cause makes about as much sense as saying churchs are not about God, but about the people who attend.

 

People with tombstones are dead.

 

People with war memorials are Honored Dead.

 

Waymarking is different for each of us. It's nice to know there is a database here so that we can find the coolest rollercoasters... it's useful to know where every Post Office is. Sure, it's a game, but for many, it's much more than that...

 

And as for the Vietnam Memorials category, it is first and foremost about honorable men. Men who answered the call in spite of it's flawed political purpose. Because no matter the reason for which the people call, the honorable soldier puts his personal convictions aside and does the bidding of his people. Without question, he stands between his beloved people and the war's desolation.

 

I hold this truth to be clear and true to any human being who is capable of rational thought: That those men who died in Vietnam who fought against oppression and in the name of liberty were honorable men fighting against a dishonorable enemy. And that they have won the right to be honored in a place seperate from those who fought in the name of despotism.

 

And... to think of them as just dead and not war dead is tantamount to stripping them of the honor that they gave their lives to earn.

 

We didn't bury the Americans and their allies in the same graves with the Viet Cong, and we are not going to bury them together in this category either... I won't dishonor them to facilitate a simple game. Some of you may not understand that, and that's OK. some of you may not respect that and I don't care. We don't say the "f" word in this forum because it's classless and disgusting. We don't honor heros in the same place as the people who killed them for the same reason.

 

Yes they are for honourable people however both sides of a war had honourable people it was only the leaders who initiated the war were those that should not be recognised as an Australian I have an opinion about the leadership that took us to the war in Vietnam along with other major conflicts however I will not express those opinions whilst determining the validity of the conflict both sides have memorials to the fallen and should be equally recognised within the weymarking community.

 

This opinion may be contradictory to the initial voters of the category however all memorial should be respected in this global world we now live. The emotions of the countries involved in the war and the wounds they create should not be cause for exclusion when it come to honouring the fallen from any war.

 

If the we follow your logic, that this category is for honorable men. I guess the category should exclude memorials to women that served? If it is for honorable men who fought for a cause why does the category exclude memorials for allied nations... were they not honorable? Were not there not a large group of Vietnamese who fought along with US forces for the same cause... were they not honorable?

 

Thanks BruceS for you logic. It would be nice to think all category managers will read this debate and see both sides of the argument and maybe include more waymarks in a truly related category instead of creating a micro managed category to exclude rather than include all that are associated with the category be it good or bad but if it is truly related it should be included.

 

To allow this it may require a option to be added in the description to indicate the origin of those fallen who have been honoured.

[+waypointazoid]

If we follow your logic, that this category is for honorable men. I guess the category should exclude memorials to women that served? If it is for honorable men who fought for a cause why does the category exclude memorials for allied nations... were they not honorable? Were not there not a large group of Vietnamese who fought along with US forces for the same cause... were they not honorable?

 

To follow my logic, you first have to follow the thread. Such as this part that I posted:

 

War memorials are not about the killing... they are about the dying... the dying of a person who gave his/her life in a struggle to achieve some great blessing for their countrymen.

 

Any reasonably prudent person would infer from this one quote that the term "honorable men" as used by me in this thread includes women also.

 

And maybe if you follow closely, you would see this:

 

Long ago, it was decided by this group to include any Allied nation's memorial. In fact, I have approved them myself.

 

How am I supposed to believe you missed that, or misunderstood it? I did not imply that Allies are included... I expressed it outright.

 

Am I supposed to believe this is an oversight, and you just didn't see it? Or is this a baiting tactic with a hidden agenda... just for the provocation factor?

 

I'll say it again: It is this very kind of meaningless and disrespectful spin that motivated me to abandon this forum long ago. And from the moderator, no less.

 

For those few who come here to exchange ideas in intelligent, coherent and cordial ways, and who are interested in the future of the category that this thread is based on, I offer you this: Everything you need to know about the future of that category, I have written here in this thread. You have only to read it to know everything you need to know. This is my last word on it.

 

Happy Waymarking

[+BruceS]

I am not going from what you have said in this thread as this thread does not match what the category description indicates and it is the category description that is what is supposed to be used to determine whether a waymark qualifies to be included in the category.

 

From your category description: "Memorials submitted in this category should be those dedicated to members of the United States Military who served and/or died in the Vietnam War." If your category accepts memorials for allies then fix the category description.

 

Should we have two categories for each war? Every other war memorial category accepts all memorials for veterans of that war without regard to which "side" is honored... Why is this one different?

 

I would hazard to guess that if this category were to be formed 30 years in the future there would be only one category accepting all memorials as time has a way of healing the emotions involved.

Edited August 29, 2012 by BruceS

[+waypointazoid]

If it is for honorable men who fought for a cause...

 

These words are a reference to this thread, not to the description.

 

If your category accepts memorials for allies then fix the category description.

 

I could be wrong, but from my understanding, forum Moderators don't have the authority to aribitrarily order category managers to make changes to descriptions. But if this situation isn't any different than the way you have dealt with me in the past, you will likely use your influence to find a way to get around that precedent and take control.

 

Every other war memorial category accepts all memorials for veterans of that war without regard to which "side" is honored... Why is this one different?

 

Absolutely false. You are not going to see Osama Bin Laden's, or any other terrorist's memorial in the Afghanistan Iraq memorial category either.

 

You don't see them because they were designed, submitted, and approved by the peer review system, then published by Groundspeak to be that way. The underlying reasons could not be made any clearer to you, just as they were to peer review. And if I have anything to do with it, or Waymarking, it's going to stay that way.

 

...30 years in the future there would be only one category accepting all memorials as time has a way of healing the emotions involved.

 

This has nothing to do with emotion. It's about respect, and the principles of respect don't change with time. I don't speak for everyone, and I don't judge anyone else's ideas, pro or con unless provoked to do so. But this thread is about change. Those who are willing to shed a simple form of decency to play a game without regard to dignity are mounting a campaign to force that change. And deeper, this is not about the game, it's about politics. It's about mounting an attack on the underlying consideration for structuring the category the way I have. You want to pidgeon-hole me as irrationally emotional when, in actuality, I am expressing an honest and forthright passion for military dignity in all areas of life... including Waymarking. You are attempting to disect my logic in a flawed way because you have an agenda. You are too involved, and have lost your objectivity. This is why, in my humble opinion, Moderators of forums should moderate from the sidelines and not from the backfield.

 

Now, you asked, so I'm going to answer. I think it's a mistake to bury the evil with the righteous. Even in a symbolic way such as a Waymarking catgegory. I don't speak for every war memorial category manager. I don't criticize them either, but since you asked: I do think its wrong that SOME war memorial categories are not divided between the honorable and the dishonorable.

 

From the beginning, I have offered a simple remedy...

 

If anyone wants to create a category for memorials that honor Ho Chi Minh, the North Vietnameese Armed Forces, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Husein, Al Quaeda, the 9/11 terrorists, the Taliban, or even memorials celebrating Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party of Germany...

 

Then get busy; do your homework; do your recruiting; put the idea through the process of review and get yourself a category to manage the way YOU see fit...and follow YOUR conscious.

 

I don't wish anyone any ill will. I have no bone to pick with anyone who has given an honest thought to this matter.

 

My conclusion:

 

It was a mistake to discontinue the Virtual Geocache. It was an abdication of responsibility. It was born out of logistical considerations involving the geocache review process. But it was still a mistake. In it's place, we are left with a game where those responsibiities are the burden of the customer. This has opened a pandora's box of chaos. Instead of the prudence of publication being centered in a few professionals, it has been tossed out to every opinion, sound and unsound, that the cat drags in. The noise created by the unreasonable and outlandish all too often drowns out the reasonable, and turns a pleasurable pastime into a distasteful labor.

 

Were Groundspeak to take a poll this very moment, asking should virtuals return and Waymarking be discontinued, the overwhelming majority of the geosports community would cry out a resounding "yes"!

 

But Waymarking, and it's anarchic form is what we are forced to deal with. The rules are set, and the responsibilities distributed among the masses. Once you, the Waymarking community, have voted to place a responsibility into the hands of one of your peers, with a full understanding of their purpose, you should respect it.

 

Otherwise, what we are left with is just a vulgar brawl.

[+silverquill]

 

Now, you asked, so I'm going to answer. I think it's a mistake to bury the evil with the righteous. Even in a symbolic way such as a Waymarking catgegory. I don't speak for every war memorial category manager. I don't criticize them either, but since you asked: I do think its wrong that SOME war memorial categories are not divided between the honorable and the dishonorable.

 

I don't wish anyone any ill will. I have no bone to pick with anyone who has given an honest thought to this matter.

 

 

I think most of the respondents in this thread have given honest thought to this matter. That can still result in disagreement.

 

There is no question that the veteran/war memorial collection of categories is an inconsistent mess. It is probably one of the best arguments for having a more centralized organization and development of categories. Which categories accept sites that are part of a larger memorial and which accept only sites specific to one war? I still can't keep them straight. So, there is a lot of room to argue about how these categories should be created.

 

One thing that you have to keep in mind, though, is that Waymarking.com strives to be a truly global, international hobby. That means that there may be very different views of who or what is "honorable" or "evil." Should a category be constructed to promote the view or values of one group of people? This is probably best illustrated by the U.S. Civil War Memorials category. Both the Union and the Confederacy considered their cause just and honorable and honored their fallen as honorable heroes in defense of freedom. A case could be made, I suppose, for having two categories, but the single category accepting memorials for both North and South has the more objective, historical perspective. Perpetuating these division base on our perception of who is right and who is wrong continues to promote the divisions of ideology and nationalism. I think that a Waymarking category has a great opportunity to bring a historical, objective approach to an otherwise divisive and emotional area. How much sense does it make to have two categories for every war, one for each side? That is certainly not my vision of a way to promote peace. That is not to say that I don't understand your feelings. I think I really do, and even share some of them.

 

As to your conclusion - well, it veers off from the topic of this thread and I won't address them here except to say this. Despite its roots, and despite the mistakes made when setting it up, and despite the acknowledged organizational chaos, Waymarking has evolved into something quite beyond that into something the is rich and full-bodied, able to stand on its own merits as an intriguing and rewarding activity. We are seeing more and more people coming into Waymarking who have never geocached. I think that is where our future lies, and we need to find ways to promote Waymarking beyond these bounds.

[+waypointazoid]

As usual, Silverquill, you present a most eloquent argument. I have always thought you to be a fair and considerate one. However, eloquence, at the end of the day, is tone and not substance. Your argument, though handsomely presented, is still motivated by subjective reasoning.

 

I think most of the respondents in this thread have given honest thought to this matter. That can still result in disagreement.

 

I agree, most have seemed to be honest opinions, but not all. Bruce stepped in to moderate early on, and more than one have offered some outrageous theories on what motivates the Memorials Managers. In another thread, it was implied that we American managers are dull. And this assumption was based on a totally false premise. In the past, I've been admonished by the moderator for "patriotism", and yet in this very thread, and in the other one, anti-American comments have passed without rebuke. Striving to be "truly global" doesn't mean you censor honest pride from the one, and yet abide veiled insult from the other. The theory that you must diminish the values of one culture to validate the values of another is political, and is as subjective as it gets. There is absolutely nothing objective about that view of "global".

 

There is no question that the veteran/war memorial collection of categories is an inconsistent mess. It is probably one of the best arguments for having a more centralized organization and development of categories.

 

To say that War Memorials is any more a mess than other categories is hyperbole. Consider Restaurants and Historical Markers. There are dozens of categories that have sub-categories. Why don't we just do away with categorys and let people waymark anything any way they wish? One standard, for how to waymark makes the sport dull. Sacrificing diversity for convenience takes the challenge out of it. Why do we not hide caches and tell exactly where they are on the cache page? There's nothing "wrong" with War Memorials, it just doesn't suit you.

 

One thing that you have to keep in mind, though, is that Waymarking.com strives to be a truly global, international hobby. That means that there may be very different views of who or what is "honorable" or "evil." Should a category be constructed to promote the view or values of one group of people?

 

Suppose, if you will, that someone found memorials erected in honor of the Gestapo, the SS, Heinrich Himmler, and to the ''brave and sturdy men" who operated the camps at Auschwitz, Dachau and Bergen-Belsen. To be "truly global" and "fair", why not place these stones of celebration into the Holocaust category? After all, these memorials ARE directly and historically associated with that struggle, and we DO aspire to heal old wounds and promote peace because we are smart enough to know that "there may be very different views of who or what is honorable or "evil". And I'm sure, that in some Aryan Nation compound, there is a beautiful bust of James Earl Ray... the great white martyr who single-handedly struck the most magnificent blow for segregation and White Power, by dispatching with extreme prejudice, Martin Luther King, the icon of so-called "civil rights"...by these standards you present, shouldn't that bust, and a plaque comemorating the freedom fighters who blew up the church in Motgomery, killing two little girls... shouldn't these historically related memorials go into the Civil Rights category?

 

Now, if that doesn't sound ludicrous to you, then you obviously have no moral boundaries in your pursuit of Waymarking. And if it does, then you have to agree that there is a line that you don't cross... and then it all boils down to a matter of degree: Where do you draw that line, and who gets to decide where it gets drawn?

 

Now it becomes a veritable cornucopia of subjectiveness.

 

If our quest is objectivity, then it must come from a set of common values. Not from ignoring what is evil in the pursuit of global apeasement. And the only objective measure we are left with is "what is right, and what is wrong".

 

Anti-semitism

Racism

Tyranny

Religious Fascism

 

Millions have died and are dying because of these "wrongs". To forgive is one thing, to forget is altogether unfitting. To raise a memorial for those who killed and died to further these four wrongs is obscene in the first place. they are the very antithesis of the memorials dedicated to those who fought for the righteous causes:

 

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Worship

Freedom from Want

Freedom from Fear

 

The difference between these two lists is simple. It's the difference between right and wrong. I think most who have commented here know this in their gut, but are willing to sacrifice the sacredness of the honorable for the sake of greasing the game, to atone for imaginary guilty consciouses, or to further commercial enterprise. But right and wrong is black and white, and sticking to the principles of good taste and respect isn't a hat that you hang outside when you walk into the house of Waymarking.

 

Perpetuating these division base on our perception of who is right and who is wrong continues to promote the divisions of ideology and nationalism.

 

Ideology and nationalism are two distinct concepts. There most certainly are divisions between us based on ideology. I've already listed eight of them. And for the rational and just, to abandon their ideology; to compromise it; to capitulate and collaborate with an evil ideology is simply cowardly and opportunistic. Moreover, it is a reckless act to celebrate an evil ideology for the sake of apeasement. It creates a malaise of resolve, and It invites the evil to visit us again. Having an ideology and a set of priciples based on those four freedoms is a self-evident virtue, and has absolutely nothing to do with nationalism...which is a label of selfishness.

 

I think that a Waymarking category has a great opportunity to bring a historical, objective approach to an otherwise divisive and emotional area. How much sense does it make to have two categories for every war, one for each side? That is certainly not my vision of a way to promote peace.

 

Really?

 

Pacifism is a romantic beast. The want of harmony blinds the pacifist to danger. You promote peace by what you do now and in the future, you don't promote peace by diminishing the honor of those who fought for it by throwing their carcasses into a mass grave (symbolically or otherwise) with those fools who fought against peace. And you don't promote peace by ignoring the sacred honor that provided it and continues to offer it to the entire world.

 

It's been said: Those who are willing to forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

 

If you want to find ways to promote Waymarking, then do it without compromising what is right and decent. Waymarking is not the world, it's only part of it. And doing the right thing might not be the first step, but it certainly is the right step.

[+Ianatlarge]

The Vietnam War killed three million people and destroyed three countries. As with all wars it was unnecessary. The Phonsavan province of Laos, however it is counted, became the most heavily bombed area on the earth. US bombers returning from missions would wantonly drop unused bombs killing rice farmers and their families who were compelled to live and starve in caves in order to escape destruction. Now there is a stock exchange in Hanoi and KFC in Phnom Penh. Perhaps if the US military had not travelled a third of the globe to invade three third world countries these changes would have taken place a generation earlier with no loss of life. My sympathies are reserved for those who died in the war and for those who refused to kill their fellow human beings for cold war politics and corrupt politicians.

[+silverquill]

As usual, Silverquill, you present a most eloquent argument. I have always thought you to be a fair and considerate one. However, eloquence, at the end of the day, is tone and not substance. Your argument, though handsomely presented, is still motivated by subjective reasoning.

 

Thanks for your long and considerate response. I won't go point by point, but just add a few comments.

 

Are my arguments motivated by subjective reasoning?

Are your arguments NOT motivated by subjective reasoning?

 

Of course we bring to the table our personal evaluations and judgments concerning these things. Opinions by definition are subjective. We speak from the values that we hold, and that is subjective.

 

I think we strive to anchor ourselves in something greater than personal whim, however. But, it seems that you want to dismiss all of my arguments by suggesting that they are "motivated by subjective reasoning."

 

What we should be concerned about are inconsistencies of reasoning and logic. Have you heard of the logical fallacies of reductio ad absurdum and "straw man?" Or even the one known as reductio ad Hitlerum?

 

Of course I see the lunacy in some of the things you suggest, but none of them follow logically from what I'm suggesting in regard to categories for war memorials and veterans. What I am suggestion is that these categories be set up as objective, historical categories. (Why you think this implies what you call the "romantic beast" of pacifism is a mystery to me). To bring in the possibility of celebrating perpetrators of the Jewish holocaust, racial terrorists, or mass murderers is to resort to the logical fallacies mentioned above. None of those things are implied by what I have said, Maybe this thread has gone so far afield that we've forgotten the original question.

 

The initial issue raised was the inclusion of only U.S. memorials in the Vietnam War Memorial category. I think that you clarified this by stating that all memorials for allied forces are indeed accepted and that all memorials to the opposing side are excluded. It is that exclusion which is in question..

 

Your argument, as it seems to me, is based on a clear view of what and who is'was right and wrong. By claiming to take the moral high ground you try to put those who disagree with you in the realm of those who have lost their moral compass. Such is not the case. My contention is merely that as a matter of history we see both sides and record sites that relate to that history.

 

Hypothetically, if I were to create a waymark commemorating the fallen Viet Cong, would that imply that I support their ideology, their cause, or condone their atrocities? I don't think so. Another example: Although having substantial differences, a waymark for the Hiroshima Peace Memorial would not suggest support for the atrocities of the Japanese Empire during (and before) WWII, but would commemorate those who perished from U.S. bombing. Nor would it imply that the dropping of the bomb was morally wrong. The waymark is for the memorial. It seems that you would view a waymark in memory of the fallen enemy as an endorsement of their ideology and approval of their atrocities. If the waymark is written objectively, I think that is not the case. So, we will probably not resolve this difference of opinion.

 

Nonetheless, please do not think that I don't have a sense of morality, or that I don't value the difference between righteousness and evil. Believe me, living in this divided country that has suffered so much, the distinctions are very clear. My town is home to the national Independence Hall which dramatically presents the struggle for freedom here. And, my visit to the U.N. Memorial Cemetery in Pusan was a moving experience, especially the wall containing the names of every allied casualty of the war, from many nations. This excludes the far larger number of Korean casualties. And, there are NO memorials anywhere to the North, although I have visited the summer home used by Kim Il Sung, which fell below the DMZ when it was drawn. Or I could mention the WWII memorial in Manila with its tens of thousands of names as an equally moving experience.

 

No, we are not in danger of forgetting!

 

~~silverquill

writing from Cheonan, Rep. of Korea

Edited September 7, 2012 by silverquill

[+a1elec]

Well said again Silverquill I totally agree with what you are saying and it is those memorials of the fallen that will be missed and forgotten if we do not acknowledge them just as we do for those of the alied side. Including is not by any means saying it was OK it is saying that respect for both sides losses is equal. As you pointed out the north have no memorials they also for a matter do not have any geocaches on the map either so I don't think any westerner will be waymakring to much in the north. There political policies probably do not allow photos anyway.

 

Remember Russia was also once an enemy dose this mean that when they were allies that do not deserve recognition.

 

Mi Dime in the argument. Flame suit on.

[+waypointazoid]

The Vietnam War killed three million people and destroyed three countries. As with all wars it was unnecessary.

 

I agree. So did the United States. That's why their military was ordered all the way around the world... to repel the war being waged against South Vietnam by the Soviet backed Viet Minh.

 

US bombers returning from missions would wantonly drop unused bombs killing rice farmers and their families who were compelled to live and starve in caves in order to escape destruction.

 

Cambodia and Laos were bombed because that's where the North Vietnamese enemy was...using the Ho Chi Minh trail in bringing the war to the people of South Vietnam. It was the North Vietnamese communists that brought war to the two other countries. The US entry into these countries was reactive, not proactive.

 

Your contention that US bombers dropped "unused bombs" on families as a matter of policy is an outright misrepresentation of history. In fact, General Westmoreland, in his book about his tenure as Commander in that theater complained about how the policy makers of the US would scrub bombing missions he proposed that would have covered hundreds of miles of the trail... all because a single thatched hut was found in reconnaissance photos.

 

You want to talk about attrocites? Let's do.

 

My Lai: US troops killed, maimed, raped, tortured and murdered an entire village of 300-500 civilians in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice... the established US law regulating the conduct of its military.

 

The commanders of the unit were prosecuted by US military tribunal.

 

During that war: the North Vietnamese Army executed over 2,500 civilians and prisoners of war during the occupation of Hue in 1968 alone. Between the years 1967 and 1972, Viet Cong death squads assasinated at least 36,000 and abducted almost 60,000 people. 8 out of 10 of them were ordinary citizens. In fact, between 1954 and 1975 the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong murdered over a quarter of a million non-combatant civilians in cold blood. A terror campaign that makes the Islamic fascist look like amateurs.

 

During the Tet Offensive, many killed and captured Viet Cong were found to be carrying lists of people to be assasinated...

 

"Civil servants, officers, teachers and religious figures were rounded up first and executed after quick "revolutionary" trials. A second roundup fingered leaders of civic organizations, intellectuals, professionals and individual civilians and their families who had worked for the Americans. A barber for example who had cut the hair of Americans had both his hands cut off before being liquidated."

 

Every single one of these murders and acts of mayhem were either sanctioned or ordered by the Communist government in Hanoi, and of course, there were no prosecutions. In fact...

 

These are the barbarians and criminals-against-humanity that they raise monuments in celebration of!

 

I could go on citing the holocausts perpetrated on the South Vietnamese by the NVA and VC, but the system doesn't allow enough typing space.

 

We can argue the politcal prudence of the US (and most of the free world's)entry into that war forever. But the moral prudence of it isn't questionable. The people of South Vietnam chose to be free by plebicite, and the North Vietnamese invaded them for the express purpose of taking that freedom from them, and replacing it with dictatorship. They used every tactic of war and terror that the Natzi's used, and that the Middleast terrorists are using today.

 

The communists initiated and waged that war.

 

The US and her allies shed their blood on that Indochinese soil, at the invitation of the legally recognized, elected, and world sanctioned government of South Vietnam in hopes of preserving their liberty. No matter how you slice it, no matter how much you rationalize, no matter how many fact-distorted and sensationalized Oliver Stone movies you fill your mind with, the historical truths are there. That what the US and her allies did in Vietnam---the core value and aim of it, was honorable, and what the communist-backed regime in Hanoi did was dishonorable--categorically.

 

If you understand the difference between right and wrong, there's nothing subjective about it.

 

My sympathies are reserved for those who died in the war and for those who refused to kill their fellow human beings for cold war politics and corrupt politicians.

 

I'm confused. Are you refering to the US and Allied troops that died, the North Vietnamese that died, the quarter of a million civillians that The North Vietnamese murdered, the ones who refused to take a stand, or are you talking about everyone: the killers, the people who killed them, and the ones without the intestinal fortitude to share in the burdens of liberty? Would those corrupt politicians include Ho Chi Minh, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong? Or, (and I'm being serious) knowing where you are, can you comment freely without fear of your life?

 

I can.

 

One more thing. There is a distinct difference between a victim, a villan, and a hero. If you get shot and killed, you are a victim. If you get shot and killed while trying to take someone's life or liberty, you are a villan. If you get shot and killed while trying to preserve someone's life and liberty you are a hero. The Vietnam Memorials category is for Waymarking the memorials dedicated to the heros of the Vietnam war. It's primary purpose when creating it was to give access to a database of waypoints marking those memorials, so that the generations to come could visit these memorials and reflect on what great men can and will do for the good of mankind. The last measure of devotion these heros are entitled to by their benefactors is careful respect... no matter where or how in life they are referenced. Their memory swathed in honor is the only thing they have left -- it's the only thing left that we can give them. And it isn't about "us versus them". It's not about the economy of catagorizing, or organizing a comprehensive-convenient history lesson. It's about the men who knew the difference between right and wrong and gave their lives in the pursuit of what was right... it's about elevating them up to a place of honor among the righteous that they alone have earned. It's not just about Waymarking, it's about Waymarking honor.

 

So once again, I say: Get busy. Create a category for "Viet Cong Death Squad Memorials" or "Uncle Ho's Army" as the Reds affectionately called it. You have nothing to fear but peer itself. (pun intended)

 

Respect to all.

[+Ianatlarge]

Thanks for the movie advice, but I don't like Stone movies, nor for that matter Walker Texas Ranger.

 

There are atrocities in war, it is the nature of war. Boudicca targeted native Britons who collaborated with the Romans. In retaliation the Romans slaughtered Britons. War attracts the worst people and brings out the worst in people.

 

The western sponsored governments of South Vietnam had no popular support. Their troops were thieving thugs who stole from and murdered their own population. Largely speaking it was Uncle Ho who was universally popular in Vietnam and Indo-China, perhaps more popular than George Washington was in an earlier revolution.

 

The simple fact is that the west blew its chance to influence south east Asia following WW2. In Japan and West Germany the US military administrations built democratic governments and restored the economies. If it had aimed to do so in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, in the same fashion, then all would have been better.

 

What did happen was that it was persuaded to support the corrupt and incompetent French regime, and protect 20,000 inept colonial landowners. After the war many in this region hoped that the US would help expel the pro-Japanese Vichy regime that had ruled during the war, but it did not. At de Gaule's instigation this regime was supported. Big mistake.

 

Essentially, don't kill people, don't invade other countries.

[+BruceS]

This topic has strayed too far away from anything to do with Waymarking thus I am closing it to prevent it from straying further. If any want to discuss this further they are welcome to open a thread in the Off Topic part of the forums.