Troop75Eagle

Historically, Scouts drew directly from and was formed around military traditions and structure. The merit badges frequently had either direct correlation or applicable though that has softened somewhat. There is a reason there is a wide range of commands, formations and activities that echo this. Likewise, the traditional development attributes from scouting up to very recently if not still so allowed enlisting members to have one upgrade rank on coming in. it seems modern parents may not be cognizant of these facts and in some cases bitterly refute or resent it. Be that as it may, the program ought to be a hybrid...in my view. In the service, the leadership development is fairly well developed through enlisted, NCO and Officer. All these steps have training to advance and that include skills and competency with instruction and evaluation. Appropriately, new members observe and learn what to do, each grade learns by example from senior and do on. They have to prove their merit and competency. None of this is new or surprising. The adult military is not a perfect fit but has been an excellent one. While scouts doesn’t have NCO schools or basic training, they do offer the echo of a successful formula. The structure, instruction, incentives, duty, respect and advancement are wildly beneficial to boys...I simply don’t know about how the changes with adding girls has resulted but presumably there is little difference on this score. When I came through, we loved the summer camp, marching, formations, bivouacs, long hikes, attention to uniform and so forth. Being from the south, marksmanship was especially liked and many of the troops played guerrilla warfare on camping trips with great relish. Many, if not most, of the fathers and adult leaders were prior service. (It’s no coincidence the south has traditionally supplied large numbers of military personnel to the armed services). Perhaps many current adults might find this repellent and not why they signed up...this has been said already on this forum except in a far worse delivery. But, that’s how it was in the Chickasaw Council and kids loved it and didn’t turn out as war mongering autocratic adults. Im unfamiliar with many changes since 1987 and don’t know how they work. Adults don’t do the work for the scouts but guide, set limits, arbitrate, set examples and take on the responsibilities that are not for minors. They exercised experience and wisdom where youth lacked and made sure the environment was a fun and learning one. The scouts take the instructions when given and pass them down to their patrol members. The patrol leaders are responsible for organizing, delegating, monitoring and being held accountable for a variety of tasks. At least that is how our troop worked. The hierarchy and rank, like the armed services, worked. I’ve not read a great deal among the threads about the intimate connections with the military serves. That truly puzzles me. The farther from those original attributes and traditions Scouts has drifted, the greater the weakening of the organization as a whole. Times and population change and what worked may be rejected. Doing that, however, irrevocably changes the entire character of the organization and after a period of time. It’s likely that people want to pick and choose the parts they like and remove or brush aside the inconvenient or LDS desirable. If that’s the case, people should be honest and just say they reject the old and want to recreate a new. In the spirit of keeping the tradition and foundations of scouting alive, it seems that instituting some basic history instruction on the organization itself that is more thorough than is given. There may be a reluctance to do that because of a dislike of those cultural ideas and principles that underpinned it’s inception and operation for decades. But unless people will come out and goat repudiate the deeper history, then scouts are owed the knowledge of what the organization was designed to be.

I set out the experience from the 80’s that seems a little different than what I’ve been reading.

The two pronged approach you discuss came after me In ‘87 or I have no memory of it. Historically, Scouts drew directly from and was formed around military traditions and structure. The merit badges frequently had either direct correlation or applicable though that has softened somewhat. There is a reason there is a wide range of commands, formations and activities that echo this. Likewise, the traditional development attributes from scouting up to very recently if not still so allowed enlisting members to have one upgrade rank on coming in. it seems modern parents may not be cognizant of these facts and in some cases bitterly refute or resent it. Be that as it may, the program ought to be a hybrid...in my view. In the service, the leadership development is fairly well developed through enlisted, NCO and Officer. All these steps have training to advance and that include skills and competency with instruction and evaluation. Appropriately, new members observe and learn what to do, each grade learns by example from senior and do on. They have to prove their merit and competency. None of this is new or surprising. The adult military is not a perfect fit but has been an excellent one. While scouts doesn’t have NCO schools or basic training, they do offer the echo of a successful formula. The structure, instruction, incentives, duty, respect and advancement are wildly beneficial to boys...I simply don’t know about how girls respond so I can’t speak to that. When I came through, we loved the summer camp, marching, formations, bivouacs, long hikes, attention to uniform and so forth. Being from the south, marksmanship was especially liked and many of the troops played guerrilla warfare on camping trips with great relish. Many, if not most, of the fathers and adult leaders were prior service. (It’s no coincidence the south has traditionally supplied large numbers of military personnel to the armed services). Perhaps many current adults might find this repellent and not why they signed up...it’s been said already on this forum except in a far worse delivery. But, that’s how it was in the Chickasaw Council and kids loved it and didn’t turn out as war mongering autocratic adults. The platoon part of what you describe s intriguing because I don’t know how it works. Adults don’t do the work for the scouts but guide, set limits, arbitrate, set examples and take on the responsibilities that are not for minors. They exercised experience and wisdom where youth lacked and made sure the environment was a fun and learning one. The scouts take the instructions when given and pass them down to their patrol members. The patrol leaders are responsible for organizing, delegating, monitoring and being held accountable for a variety of tasks. That’s how our troop worked. The hierarchy and rank, like the armed services, worked. I’m at a loss to understand what could be done differently, but clearly, a lot has changed since ‘87.

It’s good to appreciate our own country. I’m not sure where the money is going to come from for a lot of needs on the National wish list. This year hasn’t helped for an already runaway spending habit. But let’s hope for the best

I agree with your statements. There are complications to it however with the last 4 upheavals (sex abuse aside) and how content and changes are made and enforced. Once bureaucracies get involved with changes a lot can happen that isn’t good. This is especially worrisome In determining policing young scouts in their attitudes, comments and behaviors among themselves. The scope of prohibitions and sensitivity has ballooned and will be subjective based on any one adult or child’s sentiments. The scope and breadth of potential proof of determined training and content may well mushroom to having audits from a larger bureaucracy to be certain all goals regarding politically charged content is being instilled and retained before advancement. If it sounds far fetched, maybe it is, but when an institution or organization is hauled before the court of public opinion and can be judged on the basis of a few cases rather than the whole, it becomes more real. people record each other all the time now with phones and PC culture is intolerant and subjective beyond measure. A camping trip where kids are goofing around and say things in jest or act in ways that might upset one person suddenly gets beamed around the world and becomes an indictment of the whole. Kids are not allowed to learn by making mistakes. They are not allowed to relax and be themselves in such an environment. So what is an organization to do? Rely on local parents and leaders? Probably not. Have a rigid system constantly monitored by national because it’s been stung over and over? I would think more likely. Be nice and respectful, the golden rule, teaching negotiation and problem solving no longer are smiled on. We see the common sign of “zero tolerance” for a long list of actions, behaviors, words, phrases, and implied thoughts that make people so paranoid it’s no longer fun. Today, unlike previous generations, the environment is not the same. It is knee jerk reaction, potentially global and much more punitive. That’s why the traditional enjoyment CAN end up so badly and with drastically reduced positivity.

I appreciate your feedback. I understand your idea better. I was, instead, addressing the theoretical and thorny issue of how to balance any group’s influence and dominance over a system and how to manage that. From that particular perspective, it is a balancing act and can take sinister turns either way. But I get that isn’t really what you were addressing. It was really the description of “allowing a single religious group to run a shadow program,’ that motivated my response. There was no real criticism of your observations but rather an expansion of one area that struck a cord with me. There can be a great deal of truth to what you say and it is an inherent problem with a relatively democratic system. I was focused on a big picture scenario of just how a balance could be achieved. My description of somehow controlling composition was a concern in the abstract that any group could face. Likewise, the real problem of when too few people step up to lead guide and assist with time, resources and people and by circumstance or default end up with disproportionate control. One could argue that by virtue of their influence, the organization survived...or could equally fall depending on circumstances. I have a pretty big libertarian streak so I tend to have a robust skepticism of centralized control, especially across the breadth of a nation. I realize that one could make the counter argument that without reasonable control and guidance you end up with a mixed bag. It can be a tough call and requires a great brain trust of balanced thinking and dedication to maneuver. There is an excellent book called, “The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations.” It is worth reading. Scouts may well take some of the examples of AA. It’s chapters are ubiquitous and all run the same with the same content and program. Yet, there is no central authority. When the internet started, investors could not get through their heads the idea of a leaderless entity that makes money. The Apaches could never be conquered or exterminated by the Spanish because they did not have central authority. In a more ugly and unfortunate example, Isis and Al Qaeda have proved maddeningly difficult to stamp out precisely because they are a decentralized franchise. Yet they more or less do the same things. The idea of decentralized control is neither foreign nor inherently flawed and doomed to failure. As a hybrid example, Churches present a classic example of both sides of the picture. Centralized control is good for towing the party lines and consistency in a particular interpretation, doctrine, ritual and practice of theology. One of the biggest enemies of the church is schism, that happens over and over and we have such a wide range of results and content as to be dizzying. Schism in scouts, I think, would be worse since the organization is put on the chopping block and sub groups spend more time invalidating the others than getting things done. So part of the job of any group of leaders, be they local, regional or national, is to convince the members and public that they have legitimacy. That is no easy task at this point for all the reasons everyone has mentioned. This is something, I think, the do not have for the majority gor all sorts of reasons. At its heart, legitimacy comes from individuals. No one can mandate it, force its acceptance, force people to like or respect it nor honor its actions. This attribute is beyond the control of outside forces, hierarchy of leaders and interested parties. This no doubt will enrage those trying to force change with colorful metaphors to describe those not giving their consent to legitimacy. But such is the cost and burden of change.

What you say is in some respects true but there are factors that cannot be overlooked that make the problems difficult to overcome. It seems to me, that when bringing up the Dominance of a religious group, you get into really hot water. Protected class from discrimination aside, the scouts would be in the unsavory position of having to convene committees or Star chambers to adjudicate persons on these sorts Of beliefs and undertaking purges to maintain some desired effect. The idea that one or more people could decide state by state, region by region or nationally on this basis sends a chill down the spine...or it should. That sort of practice and message sent to scouts, parents, volunteers and sponsors would be alarming and dangerous. If it could happen to the Mormons, then any group could be picked on.Eagle is open to all, God and country to each in his belief system. What does it say about an institution that selects and purges or partly purges a belief system they recognize as important? I understand the disproportionate representation and power effect. This portion is supposed to be checked by laws and bylaws that members agree to uphold. Yes, the in group at any given time can change the rules to suit them and remake the organization into some different one. The last 4 major upheavals due to external PC bitterly prove that point. You are correct about what the focal points have traditionally been. But somewhere that broke down and became an ongoing tool for activism and change in the larger society rather than the development of character, leadership, service, brotherhood and skills particular to scouting. I disagree about the region and councils being too separate. The scout book lays down the purpose and particulars among other things. People sign up for that content and local fellowship and activities. At its core, scouting is local and joined at the hip with local family, community and interests. Those common threads and traits are in every community across the US. Local culture, history, tradition, concerns and so forth are what scouts deal with as an anchor to a larger world. This is one reason a national organization can be do pernicious and insulting. It feels it knows what is best for locals. How much more do when outside pressures force change they feel is right when often they have no connection. Ultimately, I would suggest, Scouting is in a bind like all organizations of its type or service groups. Who steps up to the plate to lead? Are the policy hawks, religious, dedicated, educated or even competent? One unfortunate reality is that stewardship of an organization in part or whole is dependent on these human factors. If nobody or fee step up to the plate to lead, then it can fold in part or whole. This happens all the time. If locals aren’t interested, it folds. I happen not to be Mormon, but I can’t help but admire them for bringing hundreds of thousands of enthusiastic people into scouting that set a stellar example for the traditions of scouting. They stepped up, volunteered time, skill and resources to make it happen. For generations of scouts, these participants seem to have not only kept the traditional spirit going but made it respectable and honorable despite the larger decline of service organizations. Is it any wonder that they finally threw in the towel when the institution they helped lead, support and nurture became more twisted from its original character? Is it any wonder that Non Mormons are equally put off and might just feel the same? Why give time, talent, support and new blood to something that no longer exists? Is it bigotry, racism, fanaticism or just plain mean spirited? Some might hasten to say so, but I disagree. Forced change from above is an anathema to many. Forced political and ideological indoctrination robs people of intellectual space and freedom. Let kids learn in the schools and at home. Scouts should be a neutral ground for local kids. now, we’re forced to ask, what will count leaders learn? Do people learn what went wrong and why? Do they find a way to bring back millions of interested people who believed in scouting and what it has done? Do they dismiss and waive off dissenters as good riddance? Who are the leaders and how will they respond? From the ground up? Or from on high with edicts? Do they become pawns of social activism of the day or stick to principles? those are questions that need answering. The proof will come in the future when children choose.

Indeed that is correct. A slightly different approach is that progress is not always forward. Sometimes lateral and indeed backtracking to an effective format. Another one of those bitter ironies of history that people have trouble accepting is that the more people are equal, the less free they become. It’s inverse is true. These objectives do not work in tendency with what people seek to achieve. Communism. That, of course, goes to the lowest possible common denominator where everyone socially is officially equal but only has the freedom to do what they are told and even then hope it turns out correctly. Those societies are, perhaps, the most shocking examples of where everyone is supposed to be equal because it is progress for all. It took the irony fist of government intervention to be sure everyone never bucked the system. We have seen how those societies worked out. Freedom, as it’s been correctly observed, once gone is very very difficult to regain on a societal level. The ideas go further though in distinguishing equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. The latter is where contention arises so fiercely and wherein the danger seems to be the greatest. The latter, it seems, forces the loss of freedom on a colossal scale and presumably bars choice since those not like long the outcome could leave and go elsewhere. That would thwart the desired outcome. It would bar freedom of expression since, again, expression contrary to a specific outcome of equality would block that. Extreme? maybe, but these observations make the point that isn’t publicly discussed. Freedom, equality and equality of outcome are not honestly addressed when overtures and demands for progress ‘forward’ are being made.

Scouts has obviously changed. It has gone through convulsion after convulsion with no end in sight. It has seen two world wars, Korean, Vietnam, Cold War and modern wars. It has rumbled through boom and bust with dignity, pride, bearing, respect and a vital element in the social fabric. it’s ranks have produced many leaders and men of character and its programs instrumental in shaping countless lives in positive ways. My father, uncle and I got our eagles and supported others in our troop. The men I knew were of good caliber, respected, ethical and had a genuine interest in seeing young men succeed (and presumably not just getting out of the house for a few hours). I cannot summon the dead to testify but I feel certain few of them would recognize the institution they worked for all those years. In one sense (sex abuse cases aside) the many changes that have taken place are a repudiation of the time and effort they put in for their beliefs. The culture, the lingo, traditions, images and symbolism with their meanings, the bonding and the sense of adventure and purpose. These have been pulled down at every turn with the implicit statement that ‘your and your understanding and thoughts of the world are and always have been wrong. We are reshaping everything from the top down and will continue to do so.’ Why not? One political change deserves as much attention and respect as the next so keep reshaping it. It’s become clear, that for many people, it’s over. They’ve moved on. The Mormons did and others did. In the future, many more will fall away too. Yet there will be newer people to come in I suppose. They will no doubt accept whatever they are told to do or quit. In this sense, scouting as some sort of entity will persist. The new national chapter will plug in whatever new policies need to take place and force the councils to comply. That’s the true reality. They might clearly say, you know the changes we are making are the right ones, moral, ethical and so on (again, sex abuse aside). What that organization will be is another matter entirely. There are plenty who see the changes as a glorious new day in scouting with a sort of revolutionary ardor to make over an institution and bring it current with what they want it to be. They will win. They already have. A crippled organization racked with scandal and cultural reshaping can’t really cling to anything. People Now demanding changes could easily eliminate or add just about whatever they want and insist it go in a totally different direction. Well, it’s apparently their day. But it’s a pyrrhic one. From an adult perspective, Scouts, among many organizations, is having a hard time competing against social media. Kids want to spend time with their friends,Now, it’s often virtual. When they go to become active, it’s competition against sports, clubs, music and other activities. The pool of eligible kids shrinks drastically. Parents are being worked very hard and driving across town town to a troop with people you don’t know it go to school with is daunting to say the least. Church membership us often a direct feeder into scouts but attendance there has been down for years. So the changes that have been made have already resulted in consequences of alienation and departure. The sense of betrayal on so many matters (abuse included) is so profound that overcoming that plus suspicion of more is going to unquestionably continue. So the changes that are sought will be or have been achieved and those who will be proud of the changes will have their crowning glory. But Scouts...it is and will be something different and with a reward of being an even further diminished institution in the US. Those who clamor for radical and ongoing change can get what they want. But they get it with everything that comes with it or departs at its coming. There are many who realize that boy scouts has had its day and maybe it has. But at its passing, it’s not so clear what part in history it will play. In any event, it will have to basically reinvent itself to determine what it stands for. Scouts will have to appeal to many people to earn respect and compete against forces that have a life of their own. It will have to earn the respect of those (many) who would like to help and participate but feel so alienated that their time and commitments elsewhere make it easy to ignore an organization that no longer maintains its historical credibility (to them). there will be those who say something to the effect of, ‘well, if you don’t like what we are changing to, find something else.’ Fair enough, but that shows a degree of hubris that is hardly inviting. So what can be done about scouts survival? At the moment and after reading posts for months...I don’t have much to say on that. Scouts may have to be re-invented altogether in order to avoid political culture. Some of that exists.

You validate what should be obvious. But there will be apologists for groups that have become a masquerade for every conceivable action imaginable. The apologists will never concede the reality. You’re wasting your time. As you can see and has been the case, no amount of evidence will ever shake loose the narratives that must be maintained at all costs no matter how ridiculous to the contrary. Nothing would shaken the scales from their eyes and if thousands burned businesses and looted the acts would be conceded as wrong, but the organization still valid. The forum has outlived its purpose. The apologists will go on to say the means justify the ends no matter what the cost. There is no threshold of civility or morality that can be crossed, no price to bloody or twisted. History has plenty of these examples. People can read the news from various centrist and reliable agencies like Reuter’s, Assoc Press, and others and see the facts and figures. They can hear the expressly given intent and justifications and rationalizations and vine to the obvious conclusions regarding a subject. There are also those who might do the same thing and simply waive away the obvious conclusions and fumble out a half baked acknowledgement that some of the acts are wrong. The reality, however, is that the latter, like the apologist, engage in willful blindness and will let no reality come between them and what their chosen narrative is. They may as well click the heels of their ruby slippers three times and transport themselves to a different reality. I’ve come to the conclusion that some of those types I’ve seen on this forum have not, do not and will not ever have the true interests of scouting in their heart. Sadly, it seems that like their position, it must be that they prefer the whole system burn to ground in chaotic ashes before ever considering their conclusions grossly in error. I hope the rest of you carry on the interest here, because I’ve grown weary of such people.

That video says a lot. Actions taken leave zero question for intent. Fortunately, they were not particularly skilled and no doubt will come up with all sorts of mitigating ideas. I really can’t think of any reason to take those particular steps except to burn human beings alive. Police aside, burning law abiding parents, civil servants and Individuals to an agonizing death. I’m so weary of apologists excising these people and claiming it’s outsiders and a few radicals not sanctioned. There is a point when making such arguments moves beyond embarrassing but insulting. I’m also weary of politicizing the events for political purposes. Using federal power for political advantage is hardly surprising or new but it is a gross slap to state sovereignty and using law enforcement as pawns. In Seattle, it’s had the added effect of flushing the extreme right anti government militias out. None of that is good and needs to be left to state officials, in my opinion. Their leaders have the tools to deal with this if they choose. They have not chosen to, so that is definitely a problem. Kyle Rittenhouse is newer example. There are details not published yet that seem to indicate a conspiracy among extreme right wing elements recruiting, energizing and equipping young men to go out and give them what for. If such is the case, then that adds a wrinkle to the equation that shows more inexcusable conduct is taking place. It in no way lessens or ameliorates the looting and burning that is a confirmed pattern but does demonstrate the additional problem of other extremists having a grand time. Law abiding citizens AND law enforcement are the victims. Neither side should get a pass because neither side has any decent restraint or moral fiber. We’re long past a civil rights movement and into a criminal enterprise that is a two headed snake of hate, malice, common thievery and chaos. Lest I forget, BOTH these extremes have reached parity on increasing homicidal actions. We are way beyond Boy Scouts in this forum but the leaders and supporters of scouting have a lot to chew on regarding guidance and leadership. Impressionable minds are being manipulated on the streets, scouts need balance and perspective with all this and how to reason through the hype. They need context, history and restraint to critically think rather than be swept away in an emotional hurricane of reckless behavior. Unfortunately, public ally displayed leadership is lacking and the polarization of politics grips adults and youth alike. Responsible adults Ive seen over the decades tone down the hype and teach meditation in thinking and action. It’s normal for youth to be passionate and ready to fly into a cause. But that can lead to radicalism of the worst sort and a desire to rip up the system which is decidedly NOT a patriotic stance not in the nature of grooming responsible adults and the next generation of leaders that scouts has produced. I allege change is more thorough when it is slow, reasoned and embraced by the majority. Each generation wants change fast and within their lifetime and in short order. People seem to forget that such rapid change is more often a disaster when it’s forced, especially by social disorder. Let’s hope responsible people step up and blunt the extremes and move forward in a sane way.

Well, everything you just mentioned describes a tailor made justification for stand your ground laws, expanded castle doctrine and a host of other defense of self and others from agents of unrepentant chaos. It’s a fast track to being labeled a domestic terrorist organization and legitimizing repression and even martial law on an unprecedented scale. There will be evaporating support and a trail of destroyed businesses and lives that will be brought on by their own choice. im not sure what such people expect to accomplish by this advocacy but it will not bring about improvement of any kind, only justification of stereotypes and galvanizing law abiding people in pursuit of keeping law and order over a subset of the population. No matter how these groups shout, the progress and changes gained since 1865 can easily be eclipsed by self inflicted destruction. There is far more that can be lost than they might allege, as a group. It’s their choice just as it is the law abiding citizenry’s choice to respond in the most drastic of ways to meet the threat. Sadly, One can only shrug and say, if that’s you want to play it, so be it. Two can play at that game. Overplaying ones hand is a fools errand.

It should go without saying that any claims left, right or center of an entitlement to ‘redistribute assets’ from any source for any reason without due process is a non-starter. Do actually do such things is yo invite the grim reaper - always especially delighted to have help -come and settle matters. As we know, Advocating such positions is inciting violence and chaos which is not tolerated at all. it is, in my view, incumbent upon those who are associated With , a part of or claiming to be part of an organization that espouses such views to suppress them, denounce them, expel those who do advocate such views and report them to police. The same organization should roundly condemn and report and suppress those advocating those actions at least as aggressively as they advocate the true objectives of their cause. this requires action on their part not just words and statements. If they don’t, then they are identified with those violent elements by passive assent. At such a point, it will not matter what they say in protest, the lack of action-real action-will carry the day. If police are arrested, denounced and prosecuted for their conduct-as they are- then law abiding citizens should expect NO less from those demanding change. Historical inequality and bad treatment won’t matter in the face of violence and the public call to violence.

A lesson for every young person in scouts and beyond is how to think. Not what to think, but how to take in information and evaluate it using critical thinking. Logic, reasoning, careful scrutinizing and weighing a host of factors is a good habit and a lifelong skill. The older I get, the more I don’t like or agree with some of the conclusions and am forced to reevaluate. Sometimes I arrive at a new understanding, sometimes I’m not convinced. But it’s a skill well worth making sure scouts, at least, Have as a basis for coming to well reasoned conclusions and choices. How they choose to apply and reconcile them to their powerful drivers them is another matter entirely.

I do agree with you squarely on one point you raise despite any disagreements on perspective or history. And this doesn’t distract or lessen anyone else here for trying to get at the substance of the matter. Bias does play a role in reporting. It always has. The ability of people to play games, cut and paste selectively, and fabricate in a thousand different ways simultaneously. Information overload and confusion is a problem. The site Bias check is vital. It’s vital since they seem to get things right a great majority of the time and it’s important to have people do it. in a polarized climate, we’re sort of reluctantly reliant on people to clear the smoke better than the average person. I tend to stick to the Reuter’s, AP, NBC, BBC and PBS. But there is so much info and stories that they can cover it all. There is no doubt a reluctance and inability to get Involved in the myriads of local instances individuals bring to the table and that makes it at more difficult to verify the facts. people gravitate, by nature, to the most exciting and even outrageous stories even if they know the sites are dubious. Unfortunately, the Verifiable facts of reporting get lost in sensation and it becomes clear that the human desire for a great story Eclipse complex issues and mundane but accurate writing. There is not enough time in the day to sort through or we’d go insane. Bias check is definitely a big help. I’ve had my understandings on a few things clear up because of them and others who took the time to check. i