I'm not sure if this will really answer your question, and I have no dog in the fight. But I think think those who are anti-wading liken wading to swimming. Cooling your feet off is not the same as turning a fountain (part of a memorial or not) into a swimming pool, which I think anti-waders feel wading does. Depending on the height of a person, wading could mean immersion of half your body (thinking of children). And people walking through the fountain turns into kids horseplaying as if it Is a splash pad. This is what I think drives the distinction.
That said, I come from a generation where ALL contact with the water in a public fountain was strictly forbidden unless it was specifically designated as a play area. When I was in college one of the "rebellious" things we did was climb into various public fountains, so the idea of sticking even my feet in is just not something I would ever consider. But I don't think it is inherently disrespectful to do so.
That's interesting - and it backs up my impression that the rule should maybe ban dipping too, because that makes it feel *more* arbitrary, rather than as a reasonable middle ground.
I do tend to think that when it comes to rules around these kinds of interactions that it's better to be more absolutist. Or at least easier for people as a while to understand and comply with. Thinking about zoos as an example. They don't let you interact with any animals outside the petting zoo because the next thing you know someone is trying to pet the hippo. It has to be all or, in that case, nothing.
Not from DC, and I am a veteran. Hadn't heard of this issue before. My initial thought was that dipping your toes in seems just as disrespectful, and that fountains aren't pools, and that memorials are supposed to be a way to honor sacrifices in a somber manner. But that is all much stronger than I actually feel - I'm very sympathetic to the "if everyone's using it wrong you designed it wrong" argument. I'm also sympathetic to the fact that Memorial Day has become a BBQ holiday - and honestly that's not wrong, I believe its origins were of a celebratory parade by freedmen to honor the fallen, and seems akin to funerals with brass bands and a party atmosphere.
Long way of saying - getting in the water at all does seem a bit disrespectful to me but also I don't think anyone means harm and maybe it's ok to honor those with a bit more playfulness. It's not my style but it doesn't seem that wrong either.
I think you hit on the "rule" for memorials: they should be somber places to reflect on the subject matter. That's certainly how I view them. I think wading or dipping is contrary to that (unless of course it was intended as part of an experiential memorial for example) because both distract from the somber reflection. I really don't know why they would set an ambiguous rule like "dipping but no wading" as that is just asking for trouble. All that said, the pearl clutching outrage is just obnoxious.
I'm not sure if this will really answer your question, and I have no dog in the fight. But I think think those who are anti-wading liken wading to swimming. Cooling your feet off is not the same as turning a fountain (part of a memorial or not) into a swimming pool, which I think anti-waders feel wading does. Depending on the height of a person, wading could mean immersion of half your body (thinking of children). And people walking through the fountain turns into kids horseplaying as if it Is a splash pad. This is what I think drives the distinction.
That said, I come from a generation where ALL contact with the water in a public fountain was strictly forbidden unless it was specifically designated as a play area. When I was in college one of the "rebellious" things we did was climb into various public fountains, so the idea of sticking even my feet in is just not something I would ever consider. But I don't think it is inherently disrespectful to do so.
That's interesting - and it backs up my impression that the rule should maybe ban dipping too, because that makes it feel *more* arbitrary, rather than as a reasonable middle ground.
I do tend to think that when it comes to rules around these kinds of interactions that it's better to be more absolutist. Or at least easier for people as a while to understand and comply with. Thinking about zoos as an example. They don't let you interact with any animals outside the petting zoo because the next thing you know someone is trying to pet the hippo. It has to be all or, in that case, nothing.
Not from DC, and I am a veteran. Hadn't heard of this issue before. My initial thought was that dipping your toes in seems just as disrespectful, and that fountains aren't pools, and that memorials are supposed to be a way to honor sacrifices in a somber manner. But that is all much stronger than I actually feel - I'm very sympathetic to the "if everyone's using it wrong you designed it wrong" argument. I'm also sympathetic to the fact that Memorial Day has become a BBQ holiday - and honestly that's not wrong, I believe its origins were of a celebratory parade by freedmen to honor the fallen, and seems akin to funerals with brass bands and a party atmosphere.
Long way of saying - getting in the water at all does seem a bit disrespectful to me but also I don't think anyone means harm and maybe it's ok to honor those with a bit more playfulness. It's not my style but it doesn't seem that wrong either.
I think you hit on the "rule" for memorials: they should be somber places to reflect on the subject matter. That's certainly how I view them. I think wading or dipping is contrary to that (unless of course it was intended as part of an experiential memorial for example) because both distract from the somber reflection. I really don't know why they would set an ambiguous rule like "dipping but no wading" as that is just asking for trouble. All that said, the pearl clutching outrage is just obnoxious.