It's finally come to this

[HashTagScouts]

8 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I live East of the Mississippi.

In my state, I know of no "local tribes" which have a presence here any longer. I've lived here for more than 60 years. The only tribes claiming their origin in my state are far away. They have no presence here. Occasionally, a representative of a tribe will appear to speak to some issue.  Maybe once a decade.

And even at that, I have little sense or knowledge of their removal from my state, the depth of their connection to my state.

How does one even determine which tribes occupied their area, and their current representatives?

And, "honor."

So, if an OA lodge's ceremony script is respectful of not only Native Americans, but people generally, is that OK?

The Lenni Lenape script of my local OA Lodge is inspiring to me, a non-Native American.

 

None of the script is taken from any actual Lenape lore, it is all entirely made up. While I don't have issue with the scripts themselves, I do think dropping the association to the Lenni Lenape specifically is appropriate.

[KublaiKen]

Adding to the confusion is that not all tribal lands were uncontested. Rather than weighing in on who WE think owned the land, I believe it is just another reason we need to get out of the AIA business.

[yknot]

1 hour ago, KublaiKen said:

Adding to the confusion is that not all tribal lands were uncontested. Rather than weighing in on who WE think owned the land, I believe it is just another reason we need to get out of the AIA business.

Exactly. There is controversy surrounding who is a federally recognized tribe vs. who is not; there are multiple advocacy or heritage associations for the same parent tribe; there are disagreements between tribal groups; there is disagreement over who is local vs. who is not, etc.  

[Cburkhardt]

Most of the conversation in these postings regards two questions:  “Is what our lodges do with regard to the depiction of Native American culture ever going to be accepted by the larger Native American community?”  And:  “Is the continued engagement by youth members of the Order of the Arrow in the representation of Native American culture fundamental to the achievement of BSA goals?  The answer to both questions is no. 

It is impossible to envision a time when Native American communities will broadly accept the depiction of their culture by our young people through costumed depictions of people or related ceremonial language.  It is just not going to happen from this point forward in our nation’s history.  Respectful study of the Native Americans of the past and present sound like activities that would be respected or encouraged, but not the depictions of their ancestors or contemporaries – no matter how authentic the costuming or perfected the language.

Depictions by our youth members of Native Americans and their culture is entirely unnecessary to maintain an honor camping and service organization.  The BSA can look within its own history and nature itself to find countless non-offensive concepts that can bind together an organization and inspire its most-qualified youth members.

OA cannot survive perpetual controversy and reasonable objections over continuing a now-obsolete activity of having our youth depict Native Americans.  It does violence to our effort to engage more young people in the OA and in Scouting itself.  We would be foolish to continue non-core practices that require us to “explain ourselves” to broad audiences of offended people.

After twenty years of unnecessary battle over cultural issues, we need peace and tranquility to recover organizational health.  We need to focus on reestablishing broad societal acceptance of Scouting as a safe, uplifting and appropriate activity for young people in our country. 

[Eagle94-A1]

Maybe it is time for the OA to die.

First and foremost, it is no longer truly an honor organization. Prior to the 1995 when I became a  chapter advisor,  the election process limited the number of elected, i.e if you had 2 Scouts eligible, you could only vote for 1 Scout, 3-4 eligible = 2 names allowed, 5-6 eligible = 3 names on the ballot, etc. When the change was made, many of us thought it would degrade the significance of the OA over time. And IMHO it has.

Since that time the quality of Arrowman had dropped.  I have seen all eligible members of a troop get elected, about 8 of them.

I have seen an entire group of candidates stop working, saying "no more," and still go through the Ordeal Ceremony.

I have seen a candidate refuse to stop talking go through the Ordeal Ceremony. we actually had him in a work of party of 2: the adult candidate and an adult elangomat.

I have seen Brotherhood eligibility drop from 10 months to 6.

And I Now see that a candidate is eligible to complete the Ordeal up to 18 months after their election.

As for the regalia issue, For every Native against the OA, I can give you Native pro OA. I mentioned the elder who started dancing due to the OA n a previous post. One of the guys I did ceremonies with was not only Native, but the nephew of a tribal councilman. Regalia, when done right, was impressive and inspiring,

The ceremony I recently saw sucked. No other way to put it. Not only were they in incomplete Scout uniforms lacking the medallions ( regret ever mentioning that idea now), they could not even memorize the script. Instead they red off sheets, easily visible. There was no inspiration or memorability.

[Mrjeff]

Again I have to ask, what does a national committee know about the successes or failures of a local lodge?  I would wager that it ain't much.  Make suggestions, provide help if requested, worry about NOAC, but leave the workings of the individual lodges to the local councils that are not owned or administered by the national organization.   Their words, not mine.

[mrjohns2]

3 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

that are not owned or administered by the national organization. 

Just like troops, councils and lodges are chartered by national. So, just, owned in some respects. 

[HashTagScouts]

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Just like troops, councils and lodges are chartered by national. So, just, owned in some respects. 

Well, actually even "worse" - they are chartered as a Council program. Thy don't have an independent CO that factors into their decision-making, the Council SE is effectively the IH and COR. 

[Eagle94-A1]

11 hours ago, HashTagScouts said:

Well, actually even "worse" - they are chartered as a Council program. Thy don't have an independent CO that factors into their decision-making, the Council SE is effectively the IH and COR. 

And the SE can do whatever they want. Overrule  the elected lodge officers, overrule the lodge membership voting results, move designated funds from whatever the lodge and/or chapter designated them for to the general operating fund, remove advisers who question them, etc.

I would say MUCH worse.

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

And the SE can do whatever they want. Overrule  the elected lodge officers, overrule the lodge membership voting results, move designated funds from whatever the lodge and/or chapter designated them for to the general operating fund, remove advisers who question them, etc.

I would say MUCH worse.

I have seen all the above...

Years ago, in the dim ages.... we had an SE that directed the OA lodge to staff and run a council camporee, on pretty short notice.  The LEC discussed it, voted on it, and decided no, we cannot do that.

SE said, (paraphrasing)  Look at at the glossary of names in your OA Handbook.  See the one that says "Netami Gegeyjumhet"?  That means Supreme Chief of the Fire.  That's me. And, you must always remember, the Supreme Chief of the Fire can put the fire out!"

We staffed the camporee... and it was pretty good, too 😜

https://oa-bsa.org/article/ask-chairman-role-supreme-chief-fire

https://oa-bsa.org/uploads/publications/GOA-202208.pdf

Within the council, the Scout executive is the final authority over the Order of the Arrow and, for this reason, holds the title of Supreme Chief of the Fire. It is the Scout executive’s job to see that the lodge adheres to national policy. Each year the Scout executive appoints an adult volunteer to serve as the lodge adviser. As Deputy Supreme Chief of the Fire, the lodge adviser acts on behalf of the Scout executive in guiding the day-to-day affairs of the lodge. This person normally serves as a member of the council’s camping or program committee and is frequently selected to serve on the council executive board. In some councils, the Scout executive serves as the lodge staff adviser, but in most cases appoints a member of the professional staff to that position. The staff adviser, as Chief of the Fire, acts on behalf of the Scout executive in giving guidance to the lodge adviser and the lodge leadership. With support and counsel from the Scout executive, it is the staff adviser's role to see that the lodge adheres to national policy.

[Eagle94-A1]

Know quite well the SE is supreme chief of the fire and can do whatever they want.

But you think the SE would ask why there is $90,000+ in the OA account before making it an "FOS donation," ( or maybe it went to endowment, but nethertheless over $90K was moved out of the OA fund)

And then when the LA and others question the move, they are removed from office.

And when the LEC says that a "tradition" is not something they are interested in because it seems dated, the SE may want to listen and not say " We did it when I was growing up, we're going to do it here."

And when 90+% of the voting lodge members do not want to change a by-law that is in compliance with national policy, you do not compel the LA to the change is going to happen no matter what the lodge thinks (he learned from the mistake above: have the volunteer be the scapegoat. SE was the one who brought it up and forced the vote)

[BetterWithCheddar]

On 1/17/2023 at 12:48 PM, Eagle94-A1 said:

Maybe it is time for the OA to die.

Maybe it is.

I'm a former Lodge Chief. I was never drawn to the ceremonies or cheerful service. I appreciated the recognition as a youth, but was an active OA-member because it allowed me to go to my favorite council camp more often with my Scouting peers (the ones around the same age as me).

If the OA were disbanded, Venturing would enjoy new life.

[Eagle94-A1]

1 hour ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

If the OA were disbanded, Venturing would enjoy new life.

If the part about limiting all programs to 18 and under  in the Churchill Plan is "revisited" and implemented, Sea Scouts, Exploring, and Venturing will die.

Yes there wqs outrage over the move when it was leaked. Yes the National Sea Scout Commodore, the top volunteer for that program was shocked when he read it in the leak. Yes National said that was not going to happen , but they would"revisit" the  issue when if needed.

And when has national ever listened to their volunteers? I can count on one hand when they have. the Tiger and BB Gun policy that was rescinded when it was publicized 3 to 4 months after it went into effect, but no one, INCLUDING NCS trained shooting sports directors who went thru training after the policy went into effect. All hell broke loose on social media.  The other policy reverse was when it came out that folks would not be considered "trained" unless they did the current training as previous training would not considered. To paraphrase one longtime volunteer,  we have folks who have forgotten more about Scouting than the training writers ever learned and the volunteers still know more about Scouting than ythe writers.

[SiouxRanger]

On 1/19/2023 at 8:22 AM, InquisitiveScouter said:

SE said, (paraphrasing)  Look at at the glossary of names in your OA Handbook.  See the one that says "Netami Gegeyjumhet"?  That means Supreme Chief of the Fire.  That's me. And, you must always remember, the Supreme Chief of the Fire can put the fire out!"

Sounds like the 12 year old who owns the basketball demanding an extra point or two to win or will take his ball home.

An SE who shut down the OA would enjoy substantial financial backlash.

Just last week, at a council level committee meeting, it was pointed out that unit participation at the council's summer camp from virtually every unit in a certain district was nearly zero-about 3 to 4%.

The reason?  That district used to be a council, but was merged out of existence.  And the merger was resented.  They lost their beloved camps.

More than 45 years ago.  A long shadow.

And, holding the power to take $90,000 earned or donated for certain OA purposes does not justify the taking of it for other purposes.  Some would call that fraud.

"Buy an OA patch-proceeds pay for sashes for Ordeal Candidates." (Or whatever.)

"Ooops-the SE needed a new laptop--sorry, no free sashes."  (Or whatever.)

I used to give $500 a year, but once I figured out how the money was being handled/mishandled, I quit--25 years ago.  Small potatoes, but Ive seen camporees where the pros cut back the (budgeted) patch order by half, by about $150, and were short half the patches because the budgeted attendance was met.  So, $150 was important to the pros then.

It is a sad state of affairs.

I don't understand why the pros can't seem recognize the immeasurable goodwill embodied in the faithful volunteers and figure out how to capitalize on it.

But that goodwill is frittered away, time and again.

It may be that many volunteers have lost their confidence in the professional administration of the program and now will not trust a new administration.  The shadow is LONG.

I know many volunteers that won't contribute a penny, but donate tons of time.  I think largely on the sentiment of,  "The council can't afford to pay me to do this work, so I'll donate my time and that will be my contribution."

Another group of volunteers learn of a camp need, and purchase the needed item and has it delivered to camp.  They KNOW that their money is going for a known need and not likely to be diverted.

My council, in my 25 year window, has gone from a very robust FOS model supplemented by a United Way model, to an "event model," that is, Distinguished Citizen dinners, and golf and sporting clays events.  FOS is nearly totally defunct in my council.

How successful is the change of funding models?

In the last 25 years, my council's gross revenue has dropped by 20%, and the number of registered scouts-perhaps by 50%.

Perhaps the SE quoted (paraphrased) above was thinking of Oppenheimer's quote upon the detonation of the first nuclear device from the Bhagavad Gita:  "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

[SiouxRanger]

I want to thank all who have posted about resources regarding Native American perception of and issues with non Native American "cultural appropriation" of Native American culture.  I am overwhelmed with other matters at the moment, and I feel that this is a rather large area of inquiry, and as I want to understand it and not do it a disservice with a cursory analysis, I will attend to it in detail when I can devote the time I think it will take.  The resources posted will be of immense help to me and others interested in understanding this topic.