Adrianvs

"If an institution doesn't have Native American's permission to use their culture, their clothes or langauge then these identifying attributes should not be used." I certainly understand the premise behind this, but I think the problem comes in determining exactly who owns a cultural item. The native american tribes were a remarkably diverse group and not all the cultures have modern day adherents. Even in cases where they do, from whom must one get permission? Does anyone know how many Sioux chiefs there are? Which one could authorize the use of a Sioux bonnet? Would we have to seek out a Crow council to use the very similar bonnet? What if the Sioux killed them all? Keokuk, the Sauk chief, wore a Sioux bonnet when visiting Washington (the city). If we get permission from the Sauk tribe, may we use this bonnet? Of course the most difficult dilemma is determining how one gets permission from a tribe. Should every person who claims some tribal heritage (or the generic indian) give their permission for use of items as alien to them as the lorica segmentata? On the other hand, I do see how some indians may be annoyed by the scouts' usage of these artifacts and symbols. The Sioux bonnet itself has lost nearly all of it's symbolic majesty from generations of cheap and hokey reproductions akin to the Burger King crown. I've seen my share of improperly outfitted OA ceremonialists but much of this has as much to do with bad taste as bad cultural awareness. At least they are trying to look good and impressive. With so much deliberate offensiveness and mockery, especially regarding religion, it seems that the OA is fairly benign.

"So, in Boy Scouts are no secret societies, but there are?" If the OA were a secret society, it would have secret membership, secret finances, secret meetings, and secret activities. As it stands, all of these things are open to non-members, and even the secret aspect (the details of ceremonies), are open to concerned parents or other individuals. It is simply a prudential judgement not to reveal the "plot" of ceremonies to those who are not members. This lessens the effect if the individual ever happens to become a member and participate in the ceremonies. But even this isn't really secret in the sense of secret societies. If you are posting about a book, movie or game, you would not want to post any Spoilers. It is much the same. If you REALLY want to know, speak to a lodge officer. I see it as a matter of respect not to inquire, however.

"'It is not an easy process and it applies only to the LDS Church.' Why do the Mormons get such special consideration?" I didn't find the question offensive at all. In fact, it came to mind when I first read the post. I didn't ask, however, because I assumed that it wasn't really a special consideration. I imagine that it is the case that it has just been done for the LDS church. I reckon that the BSA would accommodate other bodies per their request. If Catholic dioceses wished to correlate parish troops at the diocesan level with units at the council level, I see no reason that the BSA would not be as accommodating. This is unlikely, as parishes are somewhat more autonomous regarding programs than wards are, but it is possible.

It would seem that the answer depends on what you define a troop as. Is it the numeral, the relation with the council, the members, the equipment, the charter organization, the patrols, or some combination of these? It's obviously a combination, but exactly what may depend upon the circumstances. I live on a geographic council border, so it seems relatively easy to disband a troop and reform one in a community 20 miles away. This doesn't mean that the troop itself has moved (I don't think), just that a new one has formed. In any case, this shouldn't be done lightly as you might simply be trading Louis Bourbon for Maximilien Robespierre, if you catch my drift.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

FOG, Yes yes, berserkers were a type of Viking warrior. Also let's not forget the Spartans, Fighting Irish, Cavaliers, Padres, Proud Eagle, It is my understanding that facepaint is prohibited above the lodge level, but is the decision of the lodge within it's program. I admit that we have used moderate facepaint during and since my time as a ceremonialist. Of course, we don't use Sioux plains outfitting either..

I think it was Seton who idolized indian culture. He authored "The Gospel of the Redman" although Beard likely used culture references as well. "I always thought that New York City should add a professional athletic team and name them "The New York Jews" and have as a mascot a "respectful" dark skinned, large nosed, yamulke wearing, Hasidic jew. Maybe that would bring home the point to some." If the Jewish character were an historical warrior figure, I don't think it would be offensive. The New York Maccabees, perhaps? Of course, given the current trend of leftist anti-Semitism, it would likely be protested by non-Jews as a "Zionist plot." Perhaps we could go with European tribes. The New York Berserkers? I bet the Vandals would have some interesting post-game parties. At least the fans would have a good time..

Not quite, NJ. Most who study "Nazi Affairs and the Holocaust" aren't Nazis or sympathizers. In fact, Marxism is more alien to the rest of Russian culture than Nazism to German culture. The post reminds me of Chesterton's journey. A self-described pagan by twelve and agnostic by sixteen, he set out to create his own philosopy based on the way he saw the world. As he neared completion on the new philosophy, he made a startling discovery. It was nineteen hundred years old.

First of all, associating the "pilgrims" with the US government (past or present) or all those of "European" ancestry is absurd. It's just another form of the "All them ----- are the same" bias. Neither the red tribes nor the white ones would have appreciated being lumped together then. I doubt that any reasonable one would now. Regarding the Oath, imagine that we are teaching a youth an outdoor skill like firebuilding. If the scout is performing the task improperly, we should inform him of his error and give him advice or demonstrations of proper methods. One improper extreme would be to tell him that all methods are equally valid and fail to assist him in doing it correctly. Another would be to "kick him out" or prevent him from trying to correct the mistakes. Yes, the Oath seems subjective at times. Perhaps the youth knows a technique more effective than your own. Perhaps you are in error. You must still inform him of what you believe to be true or you are doing no service at all.

I used to be a moose... Wait a minute.. I never went to Wood Badge. Must have been in a real troop.. Nevermind.

Outdoor Thinker, I think that I can relate as a fellow campsick college student and I'm glad that you stumbled upon the joys of summer camp staff. I became ecology director this past year as the previous director (who has a PhD in Biology) decided to become an archery instructor. heh, How's that for following your interests? Anyway, I may be selected as program director next year but would be just as happy to continue where I am. At least around here, no one staffs for the money and it is hard to justify to others why one would work at camp for the whole season. It will always be worthwhile for me, however. We've had female Venturers on staff in the past, and it seems they fit in well with the program and enjoyed themselves. Last summer there was a female Venturer "pseudo-staff member." I guess you could consider her a CIT (counselor in training), but the camp director insisted that she was a camper. Anyhow, she assisted the aquatics staff while earning her BSA lifeguard. She plans on being on staff next year and if I am program director she certainly will. She has a real appreciation for the program and what it has done for her younger brothers who are in scouting. Coincidently, the other female staffers (two sisters) were also on aquatics staff. In retrospect, it seemed easier for the female staffers when there were two of them. Do you have any perspective on this? Were there other female staffers with you? Would it have been different if there were or weren't? I would like to get some perspective on this as it was hard at times for her to balance her roles, especially in the eyes of others. (I'm an unrepentent thread hijacker , but feel free to answer privately or in another thread if you wish.)

Well I guess I learned a few things on summer camp staff last year. - The best camp theme will always be "summer camp" - Scouts can easily be convinced that a state of war exists between Eco-Con and Scoutcraft. - If you learn the day before that nearly one out of every four scouts in camp has signed up for your two-day Environmental Science session...it's no problem. - Give the scouts a good time and the scoutmasters will have one too. - Twenty-nine year old veteran staffers are not above using a band of first year campers to ambush another's area with shaving creme and toilet paper. - Chemical stump remover isn't THAT toxic. - All ceremonialists should know that there is a difference between aprons and breechcloths. - Staffing isn't a job; it's a vocation. - Sometimes even scoutmasters need someone to talk to. - Inspectors can find the camp on fire and still give you an excellent rating. - Performing the Beans skit for a half an hour feels like three minutes. - There will always be an 'expert' scoutmaster joining a merit badge each week. - Some aquatics directors seriously expect the mighty chief to wear a personal floatation device. - The mighty chief will never wear a personal floatation device. - Merit badge counselors exist to envliven a scout's interest in a subject and help him to complete the requirements, not keep him busy for a set amount of time. - If a staffer claims that he was told to drink glow stick fluid by the camp director, he is likely misinterpreting the discourse. - You are on call and under inspection from 7:30 am to after 10:00 pm. - Yes, science can be fun. - Rest assured that somewhere in the corner of some forest in North America, the Tap will live on. - Meals can be as entertaining for the scouts as campfires. - The rainbow may be shattered and the earth re-covered by flood, but the mighty chief will never wear a PFD. - No lock on earth can make the boathouse impenetrable by staffers. - Despite what you may have heard, the staff has never cheated in the Cardboard Boat Regatta. - The riot is an approved scout activity. - When the nurse fakes an injury to stay another week, you know that you're doing something right. - This is your home. The rest of the year, you are in exile. - Your primary mission is to recreate the magic you experienced as a youth. If you succeed in this, the rest will have fallen in place.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Two years as a Cub Scout (Webelos). Seven years as a Boy Scout. Almost four years as an adult.

So many good ones.. Our camp songs have been exclusively oral tradition for longer than I can remember, so the songs are rather different from any offical written version and the titles are only guesses.. Boom Boom (Ain't It Great To Be Crazy)- This one turns out to be an amalgam of two very different songs, so there are about thirty verses The Mountain Dew song - I'm actually one of the few that won't drink it. Don't Want No More of Boy Scout Camp - Standard verses with a few camp-specific ones.. Vito's Orchestra - named for the staffer who introduced it The Birdy Song - Best sung on less than 6 hours sleep.. The Wapello Fight Song - Rah Rah Wapello I also enjoy a simple little song (and dance) about a particular moose, but it has it's share of detractors. Of course my favorite is the Wapello Hymn, which we sing at the end of campfires. There are also some other serious songs we sing at this time, America (beautiful song done in a round), On My Honor (quick version), and Taps. There are also the other songs we don't sing with the scouts, but I don't need to list them.

I can use the phrase "A scout does not have to be a follower in order to be a leader." to justify all sorts of rejections of the program. It has nothing to do with the word or the concept. I'm sure the training session that attacked the word "follower" was very interesting, but you can't reject reason because the word "follower" has negative connotations.

Regarding the ceremony, remember that it isn't an Order of the Arrow event so it can be performed by any competent ceremonialists. It doesn't even need to have a native american theme, but this is usually an impressive and meaningful way to convey the significance of the event to the youth. It also fits well with the outdoor focus of scouting and Boy Scouting in particular. Just be sure to have some role for the troop in the ceremony as it is what they are crossing over to.

Regarding the removal of headwear in church buildings, I think the rules of the church should apply. Where the rules are not given or known, I think that distinction should be made between the actual body of the church (narthex, nave, sanctuary, etc.) and other parts of the building. I don't consider myself to be inside a church if I am in a connected classroom three stories and two wings away from an actual worship area. On the other hand, it has been seen for centuries in Western society as a sign of respect to remove one's hat in various situations. This has often included removing one's hat indoors, whether at a public or private building. In most modern churches, it is the custom for men to remove headwear in the religious area itself. As a matter of respect and courtesy, one should do so. Even if the uniform were incomplete without unform headwear (a false notion), respect and courtesy would dictate hat removal. We must remember that church (and other organization) buildings are borrowed spaces, and in some cases sacred spaces. Let's not allow our arrogance and contempt be visibly demonstrated in such cases. Regarding Scouting as a game, I recall that BP described it as such. An important and useful game, but a game nonetheless. "A Scout is Courteous... A awhile back, in April, we had a campout with alot of the first year boys along. We had some rather mild weather and when the boys woke up at 5:30 am, they decided to take their baseball and gloves outside and play catch. It didn't take long to rouse most of the camp. The SPL chastised them for making so much noise." As a scout, I have been woken up at 6:00 am by noisy scouters on numerous occasions. One man's custom is another's inconvenience. Let us not forget that our own preferences are often quite arbitrary.

"...but when I had to wear one, the brim had to be flat and level." In "Scouting for Boys," Baden-Powell illustrates the brim as being reasonably flat and level. The only exception is in illustrations of Tommy Tenderfoot or some other unfortunate attempting to use an improper method.

I see nothing wrong with Scoutmasters being merit badge counselors. In fact, I think it is a good idea for a scoutmaster to have some skill or study that he can teach to the scouts. But this doesn't have to be done within the merit badge system, of course. Besides, shouldn't a scout be taught some skill at least a while before he is expected to show meritorious performance at it?

From your posts, Bob, I have seen that you have an thorough understanding that a leader is not just someone who gives orders. Likewise, you should realize that a follower is not just someone who obeys orders. Our modern society has exhaulted the word "leader" while applying a negative connotation to the word "follower." The problem is that one is a logical compliment to another. One may be a leader in one situation and a follower in another. I doubt that one should be a leader or a follower in all situations. Just as the word teacher and learner are both words with positive connotations, so too should be leader and follower. I submit that a teacher should be a good learner. Should the same not be true for leaders? One a related note, I've been interested in the life of Teddy Rooseveldt for some time. One thing about him has always struck my mind as the image of a good leader. When Rooseveldt was commander of the Rough Riders, he never said, "Charge!!" He would say, "Follow me!!" Following is imitation of the leader. A true leader has followers. A false one has servants. "Follow me."

"Now here is a good warrant," Cried Alfred, "By my sword; For he that is struck for an ill servant, Should be a kind lord. "He that has been a servant Knows more than priests and kings, But he that has been an ill servant, He knows all earthly things. "Pride flings frail palaces at the sky, As a man flings up sand, But the firm feet of humility Take hold of heavy land..." -G.K. Chesterton in "The Ballad of The White Horse." The man who has never seen or admitted an authority above himself and thus never been in the position to follow is a dangerous and ineffective leader. Another quote comes to mind: "'Do you realize what I have done for you? You call me "teacher" and "master" and rightly so, for indeed I am. If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another's feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should do also.'" Just as the master must know how to be a servant, the leader must know how to be a follower. The leader understands "the vision, goals and methods" but he does not cognize them directly. He has learnt them from his mentors; he followed his leaders. "Is a patrol member a follower of the Patrol Leader, no." While the reciprocal relationship between Patrol Leader and member is true and appreciated, the labeling of one person as a leader without implying that there are followers is illogical. Perhaps this is a following of example rather than orders. That doesn't mean that there are no followers. In fact, it CANNOT mean that there are no followers. What makes a leader is the presence of followers. Otherwise, he is just going about his ordinary business. What makes a good leader is 1. Who he himself is following, and 2. How well he understands the role of the follower. This may be from good or bad experience, but the poor follower is unlikely to be a good leader. Cliche? Perhaps. But there are a lot of cliches in Scouting. "A scout is Trustworthy...Loyal...Helpful...Friendly...Courteous...Kind...Obedient...Cheerful...Thrifty...Brave...Clean...Reverent. Besides, how can a Scouter demonstrate obedience if he does not posess the property himself? By reciting the word. By pointing to the word in the current handbook? What is a handbook if we do not follow the authors?

Regarding the SAR, does it matter on which side the ancestor fought? Just kidding.. You've got some interesting connections, DSteele. I didn't think that I had any Revolutionary ancestry, but I remembered that my paternal grandmother told me about being related to the Hale family and descended from Nathan Hale. My father's side of the family hasn't been researched very much. My mother's side has been researched very extensively, though it is quite unWASPy. haha.. Basically a lineage of German Catholic farmers who left Germany around 1800. Not many historical figures there, but some of my ancestors (a few greats away) were close friends of Sac and Fox chieftain Keokuk, a semi-famous figure. Anyhow, this side is the family history I know and associate with. Pardon my musings..

Oops.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

I will be twenty-two years of age next month.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

DSteele, (I want to call you Greg; I have no idea why.) No offense taken at all.. I mentioned Bob because he is usually very quick and direct in throwing out the official policy to shed some light and/or heat. I wasn't addressing the questions to him alone; I just wanted someone to give any official guidelines for committee member roles. Since Bob gives laoconic accounts of official policy about 90% of the time, I mentioned his name. I consider Bob a big asset to this board, but I will admit it was good-natured ribbing when I directed one of the questions to him. Please do answer or comment on any of the questions I have posed (including the official sources). I will always consider you as "the professional" of the board. The word has a literal meaning, but for me it implies quality of performance, expertice, and dedication. Of course I would value your personal experience, reflection, or account of policy.

All the reasons for excluding or limiting Scoutmasters (and assistants) in BOR's makes sense. That wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to when these reasons don't apply because committee members behave just like assistant scoutmasters. They are just as close to the scouts, just as involved in "running" the program, etc. I take it the idea is that these committee members work with themselves and scoutmaster to support the program, but this just isn't the practice much of the time. I don't know how common this, it usually comes to mind when I find out that some scouter I know is really a committee member and not an Asst Scoutmaster. In most cases, there are enough "nonscoutmastering" adults to form the committee. It just turns out that half the assistant scoutmasters are really committee members. We all understand the issue of scoutmasters behaving like committee members. I want to understand committee members acting as assistant scoutmasters. Bob, is there something official on this. Yes, the books require committee members in all BOR's. But, what is the purpose if they are indistinguishable from scoutmasters?