Scoutcraft and the Law

[TAHAWK]

Other than for trademark purposes, "Scouting" should not be confused with B.S.A. "Scouting" was here in 1908. There were ninety-nine "scout troops" in Cleveland before B.S.A. appeared.

 

"Scouting" is almost entirely done by volunteers. They don't do it for money. They may do it to achieve the stated aims or some version thereof. They may dream of creating "scouting" as they imagine it was. They may do it because they think Eagle looks good on their son's resume. They may need to be The King of the Commandos.

 

One would think that in the 103 years since scouting started in the U.S., some successful competition would have shown up. But scouting, and the B.S.A., languish like the Elks, bowling leagues, and the local garden club.

 

Just don't think the Charter is very important. It neither proves nor controls anything important. You do.

 

(Are "da traditions" related to some exotic eastern religion? Dao? Tao? Beaver worship?)

[BartHumphries]

The Patrol Leaders Handbook (well, the original one, which you can find online -- I don't know about the current one from the store) has a lovely story which basically says that the point of having a Scoutmaster is to keep the law away -- to make sure the kids don't run off too quickly and do something that'll get them arrested.

[Eamonn]

First let me address "That is because you have your fingers jammed into your eyes and ears:"

I think this was totally unnecessary and added nothing to the discussion.

 

Not sure? But I think I was kinda late noticing Vision and Mission statements. The first one I ever seen was on the back of a beer salesman's business card about 20 years back. Not long after that these vision and mission statements seemed to pop up all over the place and it wasn't long till the BSA came up with the first one. Which as far as I know has been revised slightly.

JMHawkins posts " Scoutcraft is making things out of Scouts. The "things" you're making generally being... honorable men."

This is my kind of thinking.

When I looked over the Federal Charter I didn't see any mention of what the expected end result might be.

Something that the Vision and Mission statement spells out fairly clearly.

 

I've been watching Downton Abbey on TV. This second serious starts showing England in 1916. The Great War is going on and in part because the war is happening there is a lot of change happening in England. A lot of the old ways and the class system is being challenged and as we know soon after the war things do change and never return to the way that they were.

One of the biggest changes was in the way working class people seen the world and looked upon the upper classes. This was a big change in values.

While some values remain and have remained, things like the good stuff found in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Peoples expectations have changed and with this there has been a change in values.

I'm not sure about anyone else? But I'm very aware that the world today is a different place than the world I grew up in.

Lots of things have played a part in this change and this change has at times forced me to look at things that maybe I might never have looked at and this has at times altered my view of the world and has effected my values.

The young people we work with and serve today live in a time where there is a lot more information at hand and they are exposed to a lot of different points of view.

Where as for example, I was born in an Irish Catholic home, went to Roman Catholic Schools and never really questioned my religion. Because the information I was given in many ways said that this is the way it is and I just accepted it.

Going back to:

" Scoutcraft is making things out of Scouts. The "things" you're making generally being... honorable men."

We have this year watched what has been called the Arab Spring, people mainly young people demonstrating against governments, clashing with police and sometimes being arrested. In some parts of the world these young people are hailed as being heroic and are seen as being right.

The information from where all of this is happening is being passed on at lightning speeds. Any young person with a smart phone or an Internet connection can receive this information almost in real time.

Are the young people who are being arrested honorable men?

How do the young people we serve process this information?

Does it effect their values?

 

If we are just a outdoor camping organization or camping club then all of this stuff really doesn't matter.

We can spend our time discussing the pros and cons of wet-pits.

While the core values that were around on June 15, 1916 may not have changed I do think that the world is a very different place today then it was back then.

Ea.

 

 

 

[Kudu]

Eamonn writes:

 

"Scoutcraft is making things out of Scouts. The "things" you're making generally being... honorable men." This is my kind of thinking.

 

My point exactly.

 

If instead of Scoutcraft we had a monopoly on baseball, then "leadership" enthusiasts would do exactly the same thing: justify the dumbing down of physical skills by re-defining their trademarked generic words as metaphors for values:

 

"Base Ball means keeping yourself morally 'on base' in your life. Learning to 'play ball' means acting as honorable men."

 

[Twocubdad]

Here, here, Ea.

 

And, Kudu, if our charter defined our purpose as teaching boys "to do things for themselves and others, to train them in baseball, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916." the leadership enthusiastist would still be within the charter.

 

It is significant that Scoutcraft (not baseball) is but one of five purposes (six if you count "kindred values") we are charged with promoting. You can argue the finer points, such as what does patriotism really mean or how the God, Gays and Girls debate fits in, but overall I believe we do a good job of fulfilling the charter. Further, I'll add our mission is not a bad recap of the purpose. The mission to teach "ethical decision making" reasonably captures the purpose -- particularly if you include "kindred values" -- albeit in a late-20th century, corporate-babble sort of way.

 

As to Scoutcraft -- if we use the definition Kudu posted from the Handbook for Boys which defines Scoutcraft as "First Aid, Life Saving, Tracking, Signaling, Cycling, Nature Study, Seamanship, Campcraft, Woodcraft, Chivalry, Patriotism, and other subjects" I would say we do a pretty good job of that, too. Okay, maybe not tracking, I'll give you that one.

 

Of course these topics are not all found in the T-2-1 requirements, some are, but all (except tracking) are found in the merit badges. If there is a suggestion that the charter requires BSA to eternally use the precise program from 1916, down to specific badge requirements, please show me the section of the charter which does so. If the charter is that specific, shouldn't we all still be wearing jodphurs, leggings and campaign hats too?

 

We can debate program and philosophy, but if there were a legal case to be made that BSA is in violation of the charter don't you think someone would have made it by now?

[TAHAWK]

The "charter" does not "require."

[JMHawkins]

If instead of Scoutcraft we had a monopoly on baseball, then "leadership" enthusiasts would do exactly the same thing: justify the dumbing down of physical skills by re-defining their trademarked generic words as metaphors for values

 

Well, since I'm the one who first said that Scoutcraft is making things out of Scouts, perhaps I should clarify my analogy. Woodcraft is making things of wood. For example, a chair. But I can't take an injection molded plastic lawn chair, set it next to Kudu's handmade cedar Adirondack and say "see, I'm doing woodcraft too!" Likewise, I don't think we can say that an adult-led Troop serving as extended classroom time is doing scoutcraft, even if we think the end result is still a chair. Er, I mean an honorable man.

 

Scoutcraft, as in the outdoor adventure stuff, has a magical hold on young men. BP knew what an indoor classroom looked like. He knew what leadership training looked like. He had reasons for building Scouting around outdoor stuff. I don't think Leadership is a bad addition to Scoutcraft, but it's not a replacement for it.

 

As to what relevance the Congressional Charter has to BSA, well, I think Beavah has it right. If BSA doesn't live up the Scoutcraft promise, somone else eventually will and then BSA will fade away because membership will vanish. Teenage boys are not clamoring for character development. They want outdoor adventure. If we want them to get character development, we need to deliver it through outdoor adventure. They want things made out of wood. We think they should have chairs to sit on, not cudgels to beat up strangers with. If we make them cedar adirondacks, they'll have chairs to sit on. If we try to give them plastic chairs, they'll end up with cudgels. The relevant "law" is not one passed by Congress, but one inherent in human nature. Violate the law of the market by making stuff people don't want and eventually you go out of business.

 

If BSA stops making what people want, the government, through the Charter, can speed that reckoning up (by enforcing it against BSA) or slow it down (by enforcing it against BSA competitors), but can't prevent it. If BSA did fade away, it would be very much a shame since a lot of work over the last century went into building the social capital of Scouting.

 

 

[Kudu]

Of course these topics are not all found in the T-2-1 requirements

 

That's the point, isn't it?

 

The 1916 standard for the First Class mastery of Scoutcraft was the First Class Journey: The ability to navigate a 14 mile camping trip through the backwoods without adult supervision.

 

That, by the way, is why our Charter lists "courage" and "self-reliance" as the official virtues of the 1916 program.

 

Now any boy can get "Eagle Scout" on his business resume without ever walking into the woods with a pack on his back.

 

"Leadership skills" enthusiasts oppose testing the mastery of Scoutcraft (or the Patrol Method) against the standard of physical distance.

 

If instead of Scoutcraft we had a monopoly on baseball, then "leadership skills" enthusiasts would say exactly the same thing about testing "First Week Skills" against physical distance between bases:

 

"I would say we do a pretty good job of fulfilling our monopoly charter. Weapons like wooden clubs and horsehide projectiles have no practical use in the 21st century, but we still spend a week of baseball camp signing off pitching, throwing, catching, and bating, albeit in the safety of a shooting range (in accordance with the corporate guidelines of The Guide to Safe Baseball). And why should a boy ever be required to stand at home plate, hit a ball, and round the bases? That would be retesting!"

 

Any boy should get "World Series" on his business resume without every walking to home plate with a bat on his shoulder.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

(This message has been edited by kudu)

[TAHAWK]

Congress has so little to do with the current state of scouting or the BSA that it is a waste of bandwidth to post about it.

 

1916 scouting was, of course, mostly adult planned and adult led. Not so good for our "scoutcrafting" analogy. There was a lot of that going around in the 1930's or Bill would not have spent so much space arguing and teaching against it. It was there in 1950's, and it's still a curse today. The "teacher/classroom" or "parent/child" models are all too common in this 103rd year of U.S. scouting.

 

As for what intrigues kids today, there are facts that suggest less interest in the outdoors than in 1916 - or 1954 for that matter. Go to a "sportsman's show" and talk to vendors about sales of fishing tackle and hunting gear in absolute terms, much less relative terms. The kids are not being coerced into spending time on the Internet. These facts are not at all pleasant to contemplate, but reality often has some relevance, at least to some people.

[Twocubdad]

No, the point is internal changes made over the past 103 years in how we fulfill the purpose of our Congressional Charter do not rise to the level of violating the law.

 

You can -- and usually do -- argue in support of the First Class Journey, 300 feet between campsites or even the infield fly rule, but it is deceitful to suggest BSA is in violation of federal law and we are all a bunch of hypocrites for preaching citizenship and obedience while doing so.

 

 

[Kudu]

You can -- and usually do -- argue in support of the First Class Journey, 300 feet between campsites...and we are...for preaching citizenship and obedience.

 

Yes, that neatly sums it up.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kudu]

Is this better?

 

"Base Ball means to make ethical and moral choices from a moral Base: to play Ball as honorable men."

(This message has been edited by Kudu)

[Kudu]

JMHawkins writes:

 

I think it's easier to instill the components of being an honorable man into boys while they're doing outdoor adventure stuff than it is doing classroom work. Outdoors, especially when it's a little hike away from the trailhead, forces a little more self-reliance on the patrols, and dishonorable behavior creates more obvious problems, more quickly.

 

You think too much like Baden-Powell and Green Bar Bill.

 

As soon as an outdoorsman explains how Scoutcraft and backwoods Patrols teach specific virtues, the Leadership Skills mind scans its library of office management books, discards that outdoor stuff as "old-fashioned," and substitutes an indoor route to the same values, "sitting side by side with adults of character."

 

The book Working the Patrol Method is a perfect example of a treasure trove of Baden-Powell quotes sprinkled over indoor theory.

 

If BSA stops making what people want, the government, through the Charter, can speed that reckoning up (by enforcing it against BSA) or slow it down (by enforcing it against BSA competitors)

 

So if we declare war on our Scoutcraft Charter and two million (2,000,000) Boy Scouts leave the BSA, the government is going to notice? If you think that Congressional regulation is better than a free market, do NOT vote for Ron Paul

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

(This message has been edited by Kudu)

[TAHAWK]

BP, Bill, and every icon of scouting you could mention, all argued for citizenship and obedience. There is not a splinter of evidence in any other direction and mountains of evidence for scouting being intended as a citizenship training program.

 

It is . . . . different . . . . to argue otherwise. Also clearly wrong, I think.

[BartHumphries]

Hiking around in the backwoods doesn't teach character. Camping for a week out there, making pioneering projects, etc., none of that on its own teaches character. The book Lord of the Flies, after all, described a group of kids living outdoors and doing all sorts of Scoutcraft-like things.

 

Character is learned when things get tough and there's some sort of standard to adhere to -- do you cut corners, do you buckle down and keep at it, do you blame others for your mistakes, etc. This generally requires role models who show boys how it should be done -- whether older boys or adult leaders, boys need someone to model. Generally this needs to be explained to boys because most of them just won't get it on their own.

 

That being said, there's really nothing to model when you're standing there lecturing in a classroom-like setting, which is why Scoutcraft is necessary. Not to mention, it can all be really fun, which is why boys will want to go do it.(This message has been edited by BartHumphries)