a prank, or hazing?

[packsaddle]

Haven't we done this thread before??? Dejavu all over again?

 

When I think about the experience OGE describes and envision the boy he was - having that experience, I understand and deeply sympathize with what he's saying.

[Rick_in_CA]

As with many things in life, how people respond to a given set of circumstances often depends on the individual. While one kid might see a prank as harmless fun, another kid might see the identical prank as being picked on. That doesnt necessarily make one kid right and the other wrong, nor does it mean that the kid feeling picked on is thin-skinned and just needs to man up.

 

I agree with Beavah when he says that there are ways of doing pranks right, and ways of doing pranks wrong. OGEs experience is clearly and example of doing it wrong. The problem is that the line between doing it right and doing it wrong is often very thin.

 

There are so many ways to have fun in scouting, why insist on doing problematic things? Take for example singing for a lost item. This is something I will never tolerate in any unit I am a part of. Its a end this or I walk item for me for several reasons: its un-scoutlike, it teaches poor lessons, and it often (unintentionally) becomes officially sanctioned bullying.

 

Unscoutlike? Is it Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, or Kind? I believe no, no, no and no.

 

What does it teach? Put it in a different context. A scout is walking down the street and sees a man in front of him accidentally drop his wallet. The scout picks it up, what is he supposed to do? 1) Excuse me Sir? You dropped your wallet! or 2) Hey Mister! I have your wallet, sing a song and Ill give it back to you.

 

Bullying. This is from a discussion with a pair of scouters that did this in their troop. Basically they discovered that if a scout sees his buddy drop something, or finds a lost item, he quietly gives it back to his buddy. If he sees an unpopular scout loose something, it gets handed in to the leaders and the unpopular scout has to sing for it. In addition, it was discovered the some scouts were helping the unpopular scouts loose items so they would have to sing. It became one more tool that the bullies used on the weaker scouts, and with what looked like official sanction to the victims. For these reasons they ended the practice in their troop. It didnt help that they had a SM that was a big fan, and dismissed any complaints by the scouts as whining.

 

There isnt any reason to humiliate a scout, or to make them the butt of a joke in order for the others to have fun. If its at someone else's expense? Find something else to do.(This message has been edited by Rick_in_CA)

[Beavah]

Yah, deja vu for sure. I reckon that's at least the 5th time I've read OGE's "the time I was 11 " story.

 

Yah, it's a very emotion-laden and poignant tale.

 

Yah, most folks make decisions based on emotion rather than reason. In that way it's effective.

 

But it's told from only one perspective, eh? That of a young, emotionally immature 11-year old. I reckon that my regular line of work just makes me immune to emotion-laden tales told from only one perspective to try to get people to side with yeh. It's just a tactic.

 

I can't help but wonder what the other perspectives would say, eh? OGE asks us to believe that the older scouts in his troop were all jerks to be avoided and his leaders were all cads, because that's what he thought when he was 11. Do we reckon that's fair to them? Do we have enough empathy to imagine da perspective of Charlie, the older scout who is sharin' activities that he himself enjoyed as an 11-year-old? Do we have enough wit and wisdom to imagine OGE's Scoutmaster as the good person he no doubt was?

 

OGE asks us then to view the two hours of candid-camera pranks shot all over Canada and dismiss 'em as cruel and unscoutly, even though da vast majority of the viewers and the participants find 'em delightfully funny. Do we reckon that's rational?

 

As I mentioned, I can write an equally poignant story about a boy who felt betrayed and hurt because he got wet while canoeing. Betrayed and hurt enough to quit Scouting. I can write the same deeply emotional tale about many lads experience with summer camp swim checks, feelin' the same hurt and shame and tears wellin' up inside, being confined to the equivalent of the kiddie wading pool in humiliation, swearin' that they'll never again participate in an organization that treats people like this. I can write da same tale of woe from the point of view of a FCFY lad at his OA Hazing Ritual, I mean Ordeal. Scared and afraid, unsure of himself, but no one would talk to him, he couldn't ask questions, he'd never done a "survival" type campout, he wasn't accidentally left out, he was forced to stay out by da rules and peer pressure, got his bag wet, got cold. Swore he'd never again trust anyone in the OA and never returned.

 

We can find and write one-perspective emotional tales seen through the eyes of children that would suggest we should ban the OA, forbid water activities, abolish every sport, jail every parent, fire every teacher.

 

Count me a skeptic. I think the jokes that ol' Alan Funt played were funny. I find da Canadian show witty and creative. I think if yeh have an issue with kids gettin' spooked while canoeing in your troop that rather than ban canoein', yeh work to be more thoughtful about preparation and support. I think if yeh have an issue with poor pranks in your troop that rather than ban pranks yeh use the opportunity to teach better judgment on how to do 'em well, or yeh build better Scout Spirit among your older boys so that pranks are fun.

 

Beavah

 

[DLChris71]

On a side note, in my old troop you basically went through the canoe MB every trip out, that is before you loaded your canoe you put out, flipped it, and recovered just so everyone knew how to and what to do before heading down river. All the strokes were gone through...I guess requirements 6 and 7. Do other troops not do that?

[BDPT00]

Only seeing the story from one perspective?!

Whose perspective is the only one that matters?

I can't believe I'm reading this crap. Here we are, the guardians and mentors for parents' precious cargo, and we turn them over to a bunch of thugs who are going to tease them in a proper fashion so that it becomes a growth opportunity, and that these young guys can do the same to the next awaiting victims in a few years.

I know several Scouters who are Ordeal members, and have been since their youth, because they don't trust anybody wearing a sash. Why should they? The only perspective they have is their own memory.

I'm with Rick_in_CA. If this is what you think builds character and citizenship, count me out. I've done my share of ruining potential pranks, and I will continue. Scouting is supposed to be a specail place. Kids can get picked on in plenty of other organizations. They're trying out Scouts, and you want to tease them. Basically, you're saying Boy Scouts is no better than any other choice.

We're the adults. We're the leaders and mentors. We're the ones who've been trained. And here we are, discussing where the line is for bullying and pranks. We know better than those troops who crossed a line, and we can control our well-intentioned traditions of building men who follow our example, and the example set by the older (14 year old?) kids who've been there before. And when that line is crossed, we all raise our hands and say, "It wasn't our fault" and "That wasn't supposed to happen; never did before." It was just an innocent prank, sanctioned by the leadership in the Boy Scouts.

We're obviously polarized on this issue, and I'm one of the weak ones who can't take a joke, and don't think innocent pranks are fun. So be it. Here I stand.

BDPT00

[OldGreyEagle]

Beavah, at times you are alleged to twist people words, well, here you lied

 

"OGE asks us then to view the two hours of candid-camera pranks shot all over Canada and dismiss 'em as cruel and unscoutly, even though da vast majority of the viewers and the participants find 'em delightfully funny. Do we reckon that's rational?"

 

When did I say to dismiss the Canadian film as cruel? I never said that, I did not imply it, I did not reference it. If they best you can do is lie about your opponent, then I figure I don't have to do anything

 

Yes, you will read this story agaim, anytime somebody has a thread about "Jokes, Pranks, whatever you call it and its dismissed as behavior that we should accept. Not now, not ever. If that rubs you wrong, I guess its great to live in a country where we can hold opposing views

[Tampa Turtle]

Mom...Dad, stop fighting!

[Twocubdad]

 

So let us run the cost/benefit analysis of OGE's snipe hunt vs. Beav's canoe trip.

 

On the plus side --

 

Canoeing -- Scouts learn a sport which may become a life-long activity. Physical fitness. Comraderie of time spent in the boat with your buddy. An opportunity to enjoy the outdoors and quietly float up on wildlife. Sense of accomplishment of arriving at camp on a long day on the water and overcoming obstacles (literally) and possible hardship. Risks of activity are managed by adults with some basic knowledge of the sport and minimal Safety Afloat training. For guys who are having a really bad time, like Beav's little fellow, the troop leaders are there to encourage and help him along (although no one can guarantee a positive experience.) A chance to learn who your real friends are -- the guys who help you clear your swampped canoe, chase after your gear floating down the river and treat you for hypothermia; or the guys who paddle on laughing at your misfortune.

 

Snipe hunt -- potential for learning important life lessons about trust and the ability to laugh at yourself. Opportunity to enjoy the outdoors at a time of night kids don't often get out, possibly seeing nocturnal animals and stars you may have missed otherwise. (Although bent down holding a snipe bag an constantly calling "Sniiiiiipe!" probably lessens this opportunity.) A chance to see who your real friends are -- like Stosh's SPL who spent the hunt with you or OGE's SPL who lured you into his confidence then made

 

 

-----------------

 

I'm going to stop here 'cause I'm feeling a little silly for having wasted the last 10 minutes of my life writing the above.

 

Everybody dang well know's the point here. The purpose of the canoe trip was a positive one. That some kid had a bad time, irrationally blamed everything on his boat buddy and quit Scouts over it is unfortunate. But was that the intent of the trip? Did the leaders not do what they could to make the trip a fun, positive activity for everyone? I'm guessing the leaders spent quite a bit of time working with this little fellow, helping him along, calming his fears and anxiety.

 

On the other hand, the whole purpose of a snipe hunt is to embarass and humiliate someone.

 

Let's quit pretending the two "activities" are of equal value.

[Beavah]

And yet I've sat at Eagle Courts of Honor and chattin' with fellows goin' off to college, and they are far more likely to tell da tales of great pranks and fun times then they are to tell the tales of individual canoe trips.

 

So which then is da greater benefit?

 

Just like hittin' the Cubmaster with a banana cream pie can be one of those fun, memorable experiences that change kids perceptions positively, so can the truly amusin' prank.

 

Now OGE, I missed that, eh? Despite your Merlyn "liar, liar, pants on fire" imitation, are yeh now in fact endorsing all kinds of pranks like the ones depicted on that Canadian candid camera show? Even though they involve deception, make people the "victim" of a joke so that others can laugh and all that claptrap? It's OK for scouts to play any of those pranks on each other? Pretendin' to hold a seance and leavin' a kid holdin' a roll of toilet paper on a toilet seat in public and all that?

 

If yeh are, then I take back what I said, because we're not in disagreement. Pranks from snipe hunts to explodin' diet coke bottles can be just fine. But if yeh aren't in fact endorsin' that, then I don't reckon I'm a liar now, am I?

 

It's a simple question, really. Is it OK for kids in camp to emulate Alan Funt? Prime-time kid-friendly TV from the 50s is no longer acceptable?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Beavah]

Whose perspective is the only one that matters?

 

Sorry, missed this BDPT00. Do yeh really think that only one perspective matters? Please don't have more than one kid, then. As a fellow who grew up as an older child, I can't imagine what my life would have been like if Ma and Pa Beavah had believed that my younger siblings' perspective was the only one that mattered.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[OldGreyEagle]

Beavah where did I say did or did not endorse the canadian thing?

[Tampa Turtle]

Prank or Hazing?

 

Are we talking about Romney now?

[FScouter]

"I can write the same deeply emotional tale about many lads experience with summer camp swim checks, feelin' the same hurt and shame and tears wellin' up inside, being confined to the equivalent of the kiddie wading pool in humiliation, swearin' that they'll never again participate in an organization that treats people like this."

 

Hmmm.... If the purpose of summer camp swim checks is to belittle, humiliate, embarrass, and make a kid the unwilling source of laughter from the rest of the group, then maybe they should be eliminated. But that is not the purpose of a swim check is it?

 

Very easy to defend the practice of swim checks. But still no believable justification or positive purpose for making a kid the butt of a joke. Still, there will be those to passionately continue the practice anyway.

[packsaddle]

A prank intrinsically involves deception.

#1 Trustworthy - NOT

#2 Loyal - not to the recipient

#3 Helpful - probably not

#4 Friendly - perhaps not for the recipient

#5 Courteous - NOT

#6 Kind - NOT

#7 Obedient - N/A?

#8 Cheerful - perhaps not for the recipient

#9 Thrifty - N/A?

#10 Brave - depends on how big the recipient is

#11 Clean - huh?

#12 Reverent - who knows?

 

All in all, I'm not sure how the above benefits anyone.

 

[Oak Tree]

Beavah,

 

You normally have great wisdom and I love reading your opinions.

 

In a recent post you commented to RichardB that he'd managed to come up with an issue where everyone on the forum disagreed with him, and you asked if he might reconsider his opinion based on that.

 

So let me ask you the same thing - given the number of experienced, rational forum members who seem to be taking an opposite position from you on this one, is there any possibility that might cause you to rethink your position on this? I really appreciate that calm, intelligent, rational people are willing to mull over their opinions and reconsider them at times.

 

I find OGE's story to be a useful one. I know I've seen it several times (and I didn't even read it this time because I am so familiar with it), but I know that new people to the forum haven't seen it before, and it's relevant to the discussion. I think it is in fact a good presentation of how a prank can look to the person who is the victim. It's something good to consider for those who haven't thought of how it might come across.

 

Sure, there are good ways to have fun pranks, and we've all seen older boys have fun with each other. And yes, part of what we hope from Scouts is to toughen boys up, at least in the sense that they realize that they can deal with being cold, or wet, or hungry - they can take some action and improve things.

 

And I know that you can't always trust authority figures, but I don't think that's a lesson I really want to focus on teaching to my Scouts. They can learn that somewhere else.

 

One thing I've told my Scouts is that I respect people more when they change their position, or when they admit they made a mistake, or when they take full responsibility for something that goes wrong. I've gotten to the point where I am happy to say "It's my fault; I'm sorry." I'll say it regardless of who all else might be at fault, or what percentage of the blame is mine.

 

Is there any way at all that you might admit that pranks like this might not be a positive thing?