Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/01/19 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    The south left the union because of the threat of slavery ending. They said it as much in the CSA's founding documents. The Civil War was fought over slavery first and foremost. Economics and states rights all come back to slavery. As for former confederates reintegrating, it simply means they were more useful to the Union being reintegrated than being in prison. Former Nazi scientists were scooped up by the US government at the end of WW2, despite their involvement in Nazi Germanys war crimes. Sometimes after a war, pragmatism overrules idealism.
  2. 2 points
    Honestly did not read anything after the first line and glad I did not after the last line. At the end of the day, the US civil war was a war about slavery. And where does that apply to scouting? It does not.
  3. 1 point
    The times are changing. If it were not for change, would we still be living in the dark ages thinking we are bloody enlighten as we've a priestclass that tell us what to think being that we can't read latin, let alone even read? My thinking, time to end the Civil War and move on. And, if it means putting the Southern icons and statues along with the lies and revisionist babble of the Daughters of the Confederacy on the trash heap of history, and the 900 section of the Library of Congress so be it.
  4. 1 point
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition_of_monuments_to_Vladimir_Lenin_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firdos_Square_statue_destruction https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-21666091/syria-crisis-raqqa-crowds-topple-assad-statue Perhaps you can find Nazi memorials in Germany...nope. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/germany-has-no-nazi-memorials/597937/ There are many, many, many more examples of former leader status being torn down. I think it is probably the opposite. USA was one of the few countries to honor traitors who tried to keep in place a system of slavery and murdered tens of thousands of people in their effort. Lee was a great general but had a choice. Lincoln wanted him to stay with the Union. He made his choice as did Jackson... we should not honor these people. Just as Iraq no long honors Saddam, Ukraine Lenin, Syria Assad, etc. What you fight for matters.
  5. 1 point
    These works are beautiful representations of public art that are a snap shot of a historical moment and help tell the history of the time they represent. It is shameful and ignorant that anyone should suggest their destruction, removal or denigration. This doesn't happen in many other countries, just the idiotic United States and Iran apparently. Historical monuments of different viewpoints and eras in history are deserving of preservation and protection.
  6. 1 point
    Baden Powell was also an avowed fascist. He admired Hitler's youth movement and called Mein Kampf a "wonderful book". Winston Churchill hated Hindus and Palestinians and wanted to use poison gas against rebellious native indigenous populations. His stalwart defense of Britain helped stem the tide of WWII, but it was based on his vision of the preservation of the British empire. FDR opposed anti lynching bills and put Japanese Americans in concentration camps. LBJ is credited with language so racist and disgusting that it's hard to read modern day despite the fact that's he's credited with some of the greatest Civil Rights advancements of our time. Although he's credited with changing his stripes, Harry Truman was remarkably racist. So, too, Woodrow Wilson, the founder of the League of Nations, the progenitor of the United Nations. McClellan, a Union general, fought for the Union but supported slavery and opposed abolition. Former president Jimmy Carter praised a lifelong segregationist, Lester Maddox. Charles de Gaulle. Ronald Reagan. Eisenhower. All guilty of racist comments based on modern day standards. I am not trying to argue fine points of history, my argument is that people are a product of their time, and we need to look at them through that lens. Scrubbing monuments and parks and streets and buildings of names that give some indication of that relevant history is just "feel good" PC activism and is totally anti-intellectual and anti history.
  7. 1 point
    I had ancestors from Massachusetts and southern Kentucky soldering on both sides during the Rebellion. Lee waged war against the United States - the Constitutional definition of "treason." Fortunately, for the Rebel leadership and for the nation, Stonewall types were not in charge on the U.S. side when it all ended in 1865. Even Jefferson Davis was spared, perhaps in gratitude for his management of the war. As for your "just" "cause," the citizens of Maryland and Pennsylvania whose property was looted in 1863 and 1864 in return, at best, for worthless rebel script would disagree that war was only waged on "armed men," as would the prisoners in Andersonville, the free Blacks enslaved and sent south by rebel armies, and the Black soldiers massacred at Ft. Pillow by Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest, later a founder of the terrorist KKK. And we have the burning of Chambersburg: "Rampaging through the town [of Chambersburg, PA], Confederate soldiers broke into houses and evicted residents, smashed furniture, heaped the pieces into piles, and then set them on fire. By eight a. m. the city was in flames. As the city burned, renegade soldiers robbed citizens, looted stores, and drank whatever liquor they could find. Some demanded ransom money to spare a home, then torched it anyway after the ransom was paid.Not all Confederates participated in the sacking of Chambersburg. The Masonic Temple was spared when an officer who was also a Mason posted guards to prevent its burning. When the colonel of the 21st Virginia Cavalry refused to obey the burning order, he was arrested and his entire unit sent out of town.Other Confederates tried to help frantic citizens retrieve household goods before their homes were burned. In the end, perhaps 550 buildings went up in flames. In spite of the widespread arson and looting, the Rebels killed only one civilian, an elderly African American. Angry citizens killed at least five Confederates by the time the raiders had withdrawn." War is brutality and violence. Blood begets blood. Neither side is due a white wash in the "Civil" War. Lists of U.S. misconduct can be compiled, but such list is needed (yet) as no one has posted here asserting that the U.S. "fought only armed men." Given Sherman's deliberate goal of breaking the will of the Rebel civilian population, that would be as feckless as asserting the myth that only "armed men" were targeted by the rebels. The "Glorious Cause" was the preservation of chattel slavery. Never have men fought more bravely, including my ancestors of the "Orphan Brigade," for a more odious cause, unless it was the Waffen-SS. Judging the conduct of past generations by today's standards is risky business and does not lead to understanding of the past, as opposed to "virtue signaling." Lee famously had misgivings about the rebellions and slavery. Most rebel leaders did not.
  8. 1 point
    You've got to be careful here, because there are a lot of folks who are unhappy with anything named for such well known slaveholders as Washington and Jefferson. All of our historical founding fathers were cultural elitists. All of them also relegated women to second class status. Depending on circumstance, Lincoln himself made many racist pronouncements in contrast to his more revered and well known comments on emancipation. These people were products of their time. At the time of the Revolution, our founding fathers were considered traitors to King and country. They defied an Imperial power which had outlawed slavery on British soil in 1772 and then in its colonies in the early 1800s. History is complex, grey, and is best understood with all of its glories and warts in place. There were no traitors after the Civil War in the eyes of the Union. All Confederate soldiers and leaders were paroled and none were jailed or executed for treason. The point of that was to unite the country and move it forward. Stonewall Jackson was probably one of the more colorful military figures in U.S. history and a well regarded military tactician. We study Greek generals, we study Roman generals, we don't scrub their names from history or from monuments. Our history here is so short and so sadly politicized, but in Europe or Asia where the formal histories of a region have much longer memories, there are plenty of place names and monuments to historical figures and events that would be their version of a Stonewall Jackson. And just to be clear, I find slavery reprehensible, I am not a Southern apologist or whatever the word would be, I just don't agree with this current fad of trying to erase history.
  9. 1 point
    As for PR, I know many of the people on this board has seen it, but perhaps many of you haven't. This is from Scout South Africa, and this is that kind of advertising that the BSA needs.
  10. 1 point
    Concur. The image of Scouts themselves may be the only thing untarnished by the issues and controversies of the last several years. That is why the message we put out to the world should not mention the Boy Scouts of America or the institution of "Scouting." Scouts, Scouts, Scouts . . . young men and young women . . . future leaders, future heroes. Scouts change the world.
  11. 1 point
    While there is less community it certainly isn't less relevant (look at suicide rates over the past 50 years), and I think that's the key to your last question: what image should the BSA project? There may be fewer parents interested in developing responsibility and self sufficiency in their kids, but the BSA isn't even close to getting the attention of those that are left. But I do agree that the image problem is a wreck. Part of the problem is the need for some better PR. Maybe we can get our UK friends to ask the Duchess of Cambridge if she'd pop on over and visit some scout troops around here. Unfortunately, the bigger issue is we're stuck in the middle of the culture war. Fifteen years ago all the liberals I knew viewed the BSA as a youth military development organization, Jr Jr ROTC, if you will. And while they still do, now the conservatives see us as morally bankrupt. Who wants to put their kids in that mess? And before anyone says "that's not my troop!" it's the image we have. And yes, this image is compounded by the fiscal incompetence of national. People with little or no experience with scouts are who the message needs to be focused on. So, the culture war, which led to the enormous split in this country, is getting worse and the BSA is a lightning rod for it. In the meantime there are parents looking for healthy activities for their kids. Talk about needing leadership at the highest level. Kool-aid drinkers need not apply. Here's a message: Not only a message but a way to focus a program that has gotten bloated. The simplest way I can describe the bloat in the current program is to consider a very old idea that I'm paraphrasing: Nobody cares what you know or think, they only care about what you do. Put another way, the methods don't support the aims as well as they could. In a nutshell, every method needs to be gone over to see what is supporting the aims and what is getting in the way. Since the BSA doesn't even describe how the methods lead to the aims, I'm fairly sure they don't do this. Here's an off the top of my head view. First, advancement: Other than safety related issues, all of the describe and discuss requirements are nothing but a drag on having fun. They do not promote fun, leadership, independence, or responsibility so chuck them. Everyone knows that most of the requirements to get eagle are just a slog of check boxes. That's what's killing the program. Next, add requirements that develop creative problem solving, both individually and as a patrol. By creative problem solving I mean find a problem and fix it. The eagle project should be the last in a series of problem solving projects and not just the only one. Give the scouts more freedom and encourage them to pick their own projects. A first class requirement could be to organize an outdoor activity for your patrol and lead your patrol in that activity. I know, this is close to a very old requirement but I like it. Along with the above, to encourage community, teamwork, and just plain getting along with each other, make a few rank requirements be for the entire patrol. Advancement is completely personal and yet we're trying to develop people skills. To support this, make some MB's that are patrol based. So, as a patrol, learn a skill and then go do it. That's a simple way to encourage patrol method, do something different, and do something other than cook as a patrol. It could be as simple as making some requirements that encourage a patrol to do a MB together and follow through with an activity based on it. The MB program is a hidden gem that has been sidelined and obfuscated by boring requirements and MB mills. Use them to be part of the program. Next, quit trying to teach everything a kid should know with advancement. Cyber security, nutrition, Citizenship in the Nation, etc are things that are either taught in school or are so far from having fun learning to be responsible that they're just a drag. We can't be everything for everyone. Figure out where the line is. As for the adult method, the adults don't understand the program. The program is how the methods lead to the aims and we know how well that's taught. So teach it. Next, it's easy for a troop to get in a rut. I have never seen any training from the BSA that describes typical problems and how to solve them. They only teach skills that you have to do. So there are no case studies in how to fix a failing troop. Many people here say there are plenty of good units and I agree, but there are a lot more mediocre units. JTE was supposed to help those units. It hasn't and it won't. Giving people metrics won't teach them how to solve their problems. It's like telling an alcoholic to just drink less. Outdoor method: I think kids still like it. Wilderness survival skills are always a hit. However, there are issues. First, IOLS is way too short and fewer adults know the skills they need to teach. Take half of woodbadge and put it back to teaching outdoor skills and making fun activities using them. And if scouts are tired of the same campouts, how about a hike somewhere fun? Or star gazing from inside your sleeping bag? It doesn't need to only be a campout. The biggest challenge and biggest reward is getting scouts to learn how to solve their own problems and come up with their own events. That should be a big focus of all the methods starting at the first rank. Uniform: Just simplify it so the scouts can own it and afford them. I would much rather see a $10 shirt that a scout can raise his own money to pay for, and 1/10th the patches, so the scouts can put them on themselves (how about POR and rank pins?), then the high tech bling boards we have now. Quit thinking of it as a dress uniform and more of a field uniform and scouts will start wearing them in the field, and maybe even to school. There is nothing inherently wrong with scouts, the aims, or the methods, but there is a huge need for real leadership that is willing to ask some hard questions and get away from the mindset that we have to do something because that's how we always have done it. I completely agree with the comments about changing the hiring practices, controlling costs, and giving volunteers more room to innovate. It won't be a simple fix, but it's doable with the right people.
  12. 1 point
    Just be sure not to wear a red shirt! 😂
  13. 1 point
    As I recall, back in the 70's BSA was hard on the ropes due to an unpopular war, declining numbers, a negative image and program changes that the rank and file were unprepared for. But, overtime National was able to save it's self. The waters may be rough, but the ship is still afloat. I've a feeling it's still too early for the eulogy, and that the storm can be endured...
  14. 1 point
    I agree, this video is not the best for a Scout activity, but a start of discussion. Here is my favorite video, courtesy the USDA Forestry Service: "An Axe To Grind" in two parts, note.
  15. 1 point
    Nope, the Scout Executive of the Council is there to raise money first, insure no bad issues make it to the press, meet their own goals for their bonus plan. Waaay down the list is start new Scouting units. The local DE is more in tuned to that effort. The SE (or CEO in many councils) would not be bothered with that. Main help should be the district volunteer staff, but that effectiveness varies widely from district to district.