KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
ANDREW CUTLER
Publisher/Editor
ERICK PETERSON
Hermiston Editor/Senior Reporter
THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 2022
A4
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
State gives
Oregonians
whiplash on
wildfire map
he Oregon Department of Forestry
said it knew from the start that it
did not have enough time to do
public outreach for the new state wildfire
map.
Why wasn’t it upfront with Oregonians?
The state released the map on June 30. It
notified more than 80,000 property owners
that their properties were considered at
high or extreme risk for burning. Most of
those owners could face new requirements
for removing vegetation around any homes
and new building codes.
And now the map has been pulled. The
notices to property owners are withdrawn
and any appeals to the state that concerned
property owners have made are canceled.
That’s because the map is likely going to
be changed.
Could this have been implemented more
poorly? It would have taken some work.
Property owners may feel like they
have whiplash courtesy of their govern-
ment. Surprised by the announcement.
Surprised to learn what they might have to
do. Surprised to learn that the state has not
finalized what they would have to do. And
then surprised as they gather information
to appeal the classification of their prop-
erty that the state cancels any appeals.
It’s not how Oregonians want their
government to treat them.
It’s unfortunate because Gov. Kate
Brown and the Oregon Legislature got
serious about wildfire with the legisla-
tion that led to the creation of this map —
Senate Bill 762. The law required so much
important action to reduce wildfire risk —
utilities needed to have wildfire plans, the
state needed to look at building codes and
the wildfire risk map.
Those are all things the state should be
looking at. It’s how the state did them that
is the problem.
The core of the bill was the wildfire
risk map and new requirements for prop-
erty owners. The state didn’t do a big ad
campaign to notify Oregonians this was
going on. It didn’t announce that it knew
public outreach was insufficient because
the deadline dictated for the map by the
legislation came so fast.
When Doug Grafe, the wildfire
programs director in the governor’s office,
gave a presentation in early June to a
Senate committee about wildfire and SB
762, he didn’t have slides highlighting the
possible problems. He talked about how
much Oregon was doing on wildfire. He
joked he was a bit overwhelmed by the
eight grant programs and six sets of rules
and codes in progress.
“I’m reaching my peak ability to keep
up, honestly, with all the goings on,” he
said.
If he is in charge and was having trouble
keeping up, it’s no wonder Oregonians are,
too.
To be fair to Grafe, he did know prop-
erty owners were going to be concerned.
Grafe and Mark Bennett, chair of the
wildfire programs advisory council, both
acknowledged that in response to ques-
tions from the committee. Should that
concern, though, of how a state program
would impact Oregonians — no matter
how well intentioned — have been the
focus of the presentation?
The best thing that can be said about the
way the map was implemented is that it
raised a ruckus. If Oregonians didn’t know
what was going on before, many more
surely do now. But it’s going to undermine
confidence in the map and the ability of
the state to implement programs.
T
Denying or repressing history is profoundly illogical
BRIGIT
FARLEY
PAST AND PROLOGUE
A
nother Washington State Univer-
sity summer term is in the books.
I taught World War II in the
Pacific this time, a conflict that always
sparks discussion about how people
respond to difficult moments in their past.
The Pacific war features several events
that cause controversy decades later:
Japan’s invasion of China, the Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor, the internment
of Japanese-Americans, discrimination
against African-Americans and the atom
bomb. All of the latter constitute a rich
vein for discussion and reflection. Yet
segments of U.S. and Japanese society
insist on distorting, or repressing discus-
sion of these and similar episodes.
Japan’s 1937 invasion of China
numbers among the best-documented
events of the 20th century. There are
numerous first-hand accounts plus video
detailing Japanese soldiers shooting and
abusing Chinese civilians during what is
now known as the “rape of Nanking.” Yet
some Japanese have labeled this unim-
peachable evidence “fake news.” Author
Tanaka Masaki titled his book on the
Chinese war “What Really Happened in
Nanking.” Masaki maintains variously
that the Nanking atrocities represent a
Chinese smear campaign against Japan,
that no Japanese newspaper reported
on this at the time (Japanese media was
heavily censored) and that civilian deaths
“happen in every war.”
By the same token, the curators
of Tokyo’s Yasukuni shrine, which
commemorates soldiers who fought in
Japan’s wars between 1895 and 1945,
assert that Japan fought the U.S. for
national survival. In this version of the
war, Japan was the innocent victim of
U.S. barbarism in the deployment of the
atom bomb. To be sure, these are not
majority opinions, and one well-known
Japanese museum invites visitors to think
critically about the war’s origins. “When
you fight another man, and hit and kick
him, he will hit and kick back,” an exhibit
reads. “One side will win. Do we recall
that we were kicked, or that we did the
kicking ourselves?” Still, it is hard to
understand why some Japanese cannot
discuss their nation’s checkered 20th
century history in a fact-based way all
these years later.
U.S. citizens too have had difficulty
with controversial aspects of World War
II. In 1994, the Smithsonian Air and
Space Museum in Washington, D.C.,
decided to mark the 50th anniversary of
the end of the Pacific war with an exhibit
starring the Enola Gay, the B-29 aircraft
that dropped the atom bomb on Hiro-
shima. Museum leadership hoped to
encourage discussion about the decision
to use the bomb by including materials
demonstrating the toll it took on Japa-
nese civilians. Air Force Association
and American Legion representatives
objected, labeling any consideration of
the bomb’s negative impacts off limits
and potentially treasonous. Attempt-
ing to respond to these groups, cura-
tors revised the script, which then drew
charges from antinuclear activists that
the bomb’s horrific impact on Japan was
being whitewashed. As the exhibit ulti-
mately pleased no one, it was eventually
scrapped.
In 2022 America, objections to the
teaching of aspects of World War II
echo the Enola Gay exhibit criticism.
In Muskego, Wisconsin, a school board
recently rejected a novel entitled “When
the Emperor Was Divine,” which chron-
icles the internment of a Japanese family
in 1942. Its critics deemed it “unbal-
anced” and “too sad.” The internment of
Japanese-Americans on the west coast
remains a well-documented chapter in
what Americans routinely refer to as a
“good war.” It is outrageous that a school
board would veto a well-regarded novel
depicting internment’s impact on an
ordinary Japanese-American family. It
is a fact as well that African-Americans
faced discrimination in defense employ-
ment in World War II America — Pres-
ident Roosevelt had to issue Executive
Order 8802 to help remedy this problem.
They also had to endure segregation in
the ranks of the armed forces and on mili-
tary bases as they prepared to fight Nazi
racism and Japanese militarism with-
out full citizenship in their own coun-
try. Students in Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma,
Tennessee and elsewhere will likely
never know about these things because
their governors and legislators decided
that discussion of racism in America
would make them feel bad.
Denying or repressing history is
profoundly illogical. Each human is
a mortal and fallible being. Most will
admit as much. Yet somehow, in the
minds of the history deniers, when those
imperfect individuals come together as
a nation, they are somehow above crit-
icism. Groupings of imperfect people
will make mistakes or go rogue. That
is inevitable. It is essential to teach and
exhibit history, warts and all, so that
those imperfect people can learn how
to avoid decisions that lead them down
destructive paths. President George W.
Bush likely had Japanese internment in
mind when he made a public show of
refusing to scapegoat American Muslims
for the sins of the 9-11 hijackers. Honest
appraisals of history are particularly
important for Americans, whose found-
ing document states that they wish
to form “a more perfect union.” If we
acknowledge the unvarnished truth
about the American story, we’ll come
closer to that elusive goal.
———
Brigit Farley is a Washington State
University professor, student of history,
adventurer and Irish heritage girl living
in Pendleton.
down of the employee’s relationship
with the employer were found or deter-
mined.”
We were not aware of this determi-
nation until years later. The city kept
it from us. If it hadn’t been for our
persistence we would never have known
that he was found innocent of miscon-
duct. No specific factual circumstances
were found that corroborated any
evidence of misconduct.
The city manager had the authority
to fire my husband without cause, being
a supervisory employee. What he didn’t
have the right to do was lie to the Oregon
Department of Public Safety Standards
and Training about the accusation of
misconduct. He disregarded the hear-
ing’s board findings and instead notified
DPSST that my husband was guilty of
misconduct. My husband’s police certif-
icates were revoked, which kept him
from accepting any other law enforce-
ment job.
We have tried repeatedly to get the
East Oregonian interested in telling our
side of the story and mostly to quit using
the term misconduct in any articles
pertaining to my husband. He was not
guilty of misconduct and the hearing’s
board confirmed that.
You can’t fight city hall.
Kathy Ward
Pendleton
YOUR VIEWS
City of Pendleton
firing people without a
truthful explanation
No surprise the city of Pendleton is at
it again firing people, such as the airport
manager, without a truthful explanation.
In 2002 they did the same thing to my
husband, Gary Ward, who was the city
of Pendleton’s police chief.
They fired him, deciding on their own
that he was guilty of misconduct. The
hearings board that was convened found
the following, and I quote, “No specific
factual circumstances other than the
irreconcilable and irremediable break-