6 ms·

In a small town in Washington state, pride and shame over atomic legacy

26 points by samclemens 11y ago

Zikes 11y ago
I'm sure there could be hours of heated debate over this, but every time a "mascot" issue like this pops up I wonder why they don't just frame it differently: 1) Does the mascot accurately represent the current values of the community, or 2) can a different mascot represent those values better? Teams, schools, even companies will routinely rotate out their mascots/logos/brands/slogans for something new, and they don't generate too much controversy. But when the status quo is deemed politically incorrect, people start to look at that potential change as an affront to their personal values, and their resistance to change can cause stagnation. It's okay to be proud, and it's okay to remember. We don't have to erase or burn history, but we do have to recognize that the future belongs to the new generation, and they get to decide how they want to represent themselves to the world.
barsonme 11y ago
During WWII the Puyallup fairgrounds used to be an internment camp[1]. Growing up in Puyallup, we were taught what had happened. WWII -- specifically Japanese internment -- is a big part of our history curriculum. I think you have to find a balance. On one hand, creating the bomb that ended WWII was a huge part of their lives and is a huge part of their history. I don't think you need to throw that away. But I don't think the bomb should be cheered for any reason, other than perhaps ending half of the bloodiest war we've (perhaps ever) seen. This is something that, I think, they'll grow out of. You can only hold on to the vitriolic or blindly patriotic view of the bomb for so long, and not many of my generation hold the same beliefs that our parents and grandparents do (regarding the bomb). Sooner or later it'll just be another "thing" in the town -- a folksy sort of reference that reminds you of the 1940s -- but that's about it. Anyway, very interesting article. Let's cleanup Hanford please. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Harmony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Harmony
trhway 11y ago
is there a mascot celebrating Dresden bombing? Or fire-bombing of Tokyo? There is not much difference, beside "efficiency", between those and Nagasaki/Hiroshima. Decades ago it seemed a meaningful strategic bombing operations. Today we understand that it was horrible war crimes (though committed because of not fully understanding of the degree of criminality of it than out of a pure evil will... but again, winners write the history ...). We've evolved (and, for example, the Miloshevich/Karadzhich were prosecuted as war criminals for atrocities much smaller in scale than the above mentioned, and nobody would imagine a mascot celebrating those mass killings even though strategically they are indistinguishable from the strategic bombings of civilian targets in the WWII), and taking down the symbols celebrating the crimes of the past looks natural as part of that evolution.
- tsotha 11y ago
  >is there a mascot celebrating Dresden bombing? Or fire-bombing of Tokyo? There is not much difference, beside "efficiency", between those and Nagasaki/Hiroshima. Decades ago it seemed a meaningful strategic bombing operations. Today we understand that it was horrible war crimes... No. No, we do not see it that way.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    For the most part, America stands alone in seeing it that way. It is widely considered a war crime, albeit in a war that was replete with them.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      So you assert. Even if true it's meaningless.
      - deciplex 11y ago
        Well, it does have the meaning "it is widely considered a war crime", which is all I was asserting in the first place. I'm not really interested in a semantic argument with you, nor discussing the topic of whether Americans do or should give a fuck about their image internationally, nor even whether the term "war crime" makes any sense in the first place. The parent claimed "we understand that it was horrible war crimes" and unless you interpret "we" to mean "literally every single extant member of the human race", then the claim is accurate.
aylons 11y ago
Washington is fairly far from NY, but I wonder how these people commenting on how it is not distasteful would feel with a 9/11 mascot for a school team. Specially with bad puns about planes hitting buildings and some light-hearted representations of the tragedy. You see, some people are proud of the 9/11 attacks, even if they did not got to participate in it directly. They may not use the world "liberal revisionist" for people they know who do not agree, but I'm pretty sure they will have some name to call them.
- MrZongle2 11y ago
  Perhaps some people can draw the distinction between a sneak attack on a civilian target by a group of fanatics, and a technology developed during wartime to be used against a declared enemy, with the intent ending such conflict so their friends and family could return home. Or maybe we're just fated to become the Hypersensitive, Hyperventilating States of America at this point.
  - rabbyte 11y ago
    imho, the distinction isn't relevant because it's not about the justification. diplomacy and bombs can both end wars but the culture that glorifies bombs is always going to be morally suspect to the culture that glorifies diplomacy because it's possible we forgot why we needed bombs.
  - aylons 11y ago
    I didn't see they celebrating the atom or the technology. The names, the symbols and the phrase all symbolize the bombardment itself. Of civilians, no less. Not that clear of a distinction.
- liquidise 11y ago
  Luckily for us, this is a benefit of local, state, federal separation of powers. Does the mascot of a small town upset you? That is fine. Plutonium, 9/11 or otherwise. As long as a majority of its townsfolk approve of it. When it can be shown that their mascot is directly denying the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of americans, this will be a valid conversation. Until then, its a squeaky wheel undeserving of grease.
hedgehog 11y ago
If you're a US citizen you can go on the free day-long Hanford facility bus tour. However you feel about the work they did there it's pretty interesting to see bits of the history. http://www.hanford.gov/publictours/ http://www.hanford.gov/publictours/
deciplex 11y ago
Anecdote time: my brother plays baseball for this school and my wife is from Hiroshima. I didn't realize what their mascot is until we visited this past Spring and attended a few games. I was more embarrassed than she was upset, mostly because she didn't care at all.
pvaldes 11y ago
This mascot is just a bad one, and in more than one sense. After a quick look to the article, I'll swear to have read 'wall of fart' somewhere. Aesthetically is a bad design IMAO

26 points by samclemens 11y ago

Zikes 11y ago

I'm sure there could be hours of heated debate over this, but every time a "mascot" issue like this pops up I wonder why they don't just frame it differently: 1) Does the mascot accurately represent the current values of the community, or 2) can a different mascot represent those values better? Teams, schools, even companies will routinely rotate out their mascots/logos/brands/slogans for something new, and they don't generate too much controversy. But when the status quo is deemed politically incorrect, people start to look at that potential change as an affront to their personal values, and their resistance to change can cause stagnation. It's okay to be proud, and it's okay to remember. We don't have to erase or burn history, but we do have to recognize that the future belongs to the new generation, and they get to decide how they want to represent themselves to the world.

barsonme 11y ago

During WWII the Puyallup fairgrounds used to be an internment camp[1]. Growing up in Puyallup, we were taught what had happened. WWII -- specifically Japanese internment -- is a big part of our history curriculum. I think you have to find a balance. On one hand, creating the bomb that ended WWII was a huge part of their lives and is a huge part of their history. I don't think you need to throw that away. But I don't think the bomb should be cheered for any reason, other than perhaps ending half of the bloodiest war we've (perhaps ever) seen. This is something that, I think, they'll grow out of. You can only hold on to the vitriolic or blindly patriotic view of the bomb for so long, and not many of my generation hold the same beliefs that our parents and grandparents do (regarding the bomb). Sooner or later it'll just be another "thing" in the town -- a folksy sort of reference that reminds you of the 1940s -- but that's about it. Anyway, very interesting article. Let's cleanup Hanford please. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Harmony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Harmony

trhway 11y ago

is there a mascot celebrating Dresden bombing? Or fire-bombing of Tokyo? There is not much difference, beside "efficiency", between those and Nagasaki/Hiroshima. Decades ago it seemed a meaningful strategic bombing operations. Today we understand that it was horrible war crimes (though committed because of not fully understanding of the degree of criminality of it than out of a pure evil will... but again, winners write the history ...). We've evolved (and, for example, the Miloshevich/Karadzhich were prosecuted as war criminals for atrocities much smaller in scale than the above mentioned, and nobody would imagine a mascot celebrating those mass killings even though strategically they are indistinguishable from the strategic bombings of civilian targets in the WWII), and taking down the symbols celebrating the crimes of the past looks natural as part of that evolution.

tsotha 11y ago
>is there a mascot celebrating Dresden bombing? Or fire-bombing of Tokyo? There is not much difference, beside "efficiency", between those and Nagasaki/Hiroshima. Decades ago it seemed a meaningful strategic bombing operations. Today we understand that it was horrible war crimes... No. No, we do not see it that way.
- deciplex 11y ago
  For the most part, America stands alone in seeing it that way. It is widely considered a war crime, albeit in a war that was replete with them.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    So you assert. Even if true it's meaningless.
    - deciplex 11y ago
      Well, it does have the meaning "it is widely considered a war crime", which is all I was asserting in the first place. I'm not really interested in a semantic argument with you, nor discussing the topic of whether Americans do or should give a fuck about their image internationally, nor even whether the term "war crime" makes any sense in the first place. The parent claimed "we understand that it was horrible war crimes" and unless you interpret "we" to mean "literally every single extant member of the human race", then the claim is accurate.

aylons 11y ago

Washington is fairly far from NY, but I wonder how these people commenting on how it is not distasteful would feel with a 9/11 mascot for a school team. Specially with bad puns about planes hitting buildings and some light-hearted representations of the tragedy. You see, some people are proud of the 9/11 attacks, even if they did not got to participate in it directly. They may not use the world "liberal revisionist" for people they know who do not agree, but I'm pretty sure they will have some name to call them.

MrZongle2 11y ago
Perhaps some people can draw the distinction between a sneak attack on a civilian target by a group of fanatics, and a technology developed during wartime to be used against a declared enemy, with the intent ending such conflict so their friends and family could return home. Or maybe we're just fated to become the Hypersensitive, Hyperventilating States of America at this point.
- rabbyte 11y ago
  imho, the distinction isn't relevant because it's not about the justification. diplomacy and bombs can both end wars but the culture that glorifies bombs is always going to be morally suspect to the culture that glorifies diplomacy because it's possible we forgot why we needed bombs.
- aylons 11y ago
  I didn't see they celebrating the atom or the technology. The names, the symbols and the phrase all symbolize the bombardment itself. Of civilians, no less. Not that clear of a distinction.
liquidise 11y ago
Luckily for us, this is a benefit of local, state, federal separation of powers. Does the mascot of a small town upset you? That is fine. Plutonium, 9/11 or otherwise. As long as a majority of its townsfolk approve of it. When it can be shown that their mascot is directly denying the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of americans, this will be a valid conversation. Until then, its a squeaky wheel undeserving of grease.

hedgehog 11y ago

If you're a US citizen you can go on the free day-long Hanford facility bus tour. However you feel about the work they did there it's pretty interesting to see bits of the history. http://www.hanford.gov/publictours/ http://www.hanford.gov/publictours/

deciplex 11y ago

Anecdote time: my brother plays baseball for this school and my wife is from Hiroshima. I didn't realize what their mascot is until we visited this past Spring and attended a few games. I was more embarrassed than she was upset, mostly because she didn't care at all.

pvaldes 11y ago

This mascot is just a bad one, and in more than one sense. After a quick look to the article, I'll swear to have read 'wall of fart' somewhere. Aesthetically is a bad design IMAO