NJCubScouter

Wow! I sure hope a number of those parents signed up to be leaders, though.

Hey, I wonder when and why they discontinued the patch for the Warrior Patrol. That was my patrol. Too militaristic maybe; or maybe it was the idea of portraying Native Americans as being overly militaristic. (I see there's an "Indian" now, but he's not fighting anybody.) When I look at these patches I remember we had a Bat, Cobra and Panther patrol in addition to the Warriors. Maybe a Wolf too, it's been awhile. No "Pedro Patrol," good gosh, I wonder how many boys pick that one. I also suspect that the "Badger Patrol" is not in the Top Ten.

Colors have changed too. When I started all the patches were in all-black thread on a red background, then I think around 1972 it switched to the same bright-green background that was also used in the rank and position patches at the time. I don't remember if the 70s patches were in full color like they are now, I don't think so.

Yaworski, you respond to one sentence taken from the middle of my post, but you miss the point of the whole thing. I never said anything about "crying" or about removing words from a language. I didn't state any criticism or condemnation or make any value judgment about the settlers' treatment of the Native Americans. (Mind you, I could, but I didn't.) That is not what this thread, or my posts in it, are about.

All I am saying is that the facts should be taught in school. All the facts, not just the section of the facts that make us feel good. The facts about the English settlers, about the Normans, about the Turks, about one Native American tribe attacking another, about all of them, on all sides, the attackers and the attacked. Everybody should be given the facts and permitted to draw their own conclusions. If someone wants to conclude that it was ok to give the Native Americans smallpox-infected blankets as a "gift," because of the Persians and the Normans and one tribe against another, well, fine. But they have to know the facts first before they can draw that conclusion. A historical judgment based on incorrect or incomplete knowledge of the facts is worth nothing.

However, I do have to point out a difference between the history of the Native Americans and that of the Persians, Egyptians, Zulus or whoever else, which explains why people in this country are more interested in the history of Native Americans. They were here. We are not in Persia or Egypt or Africa. If we were, we would probably be more interested in what happened there. But we are here, so we are interested in what happened here. I am not defending this kind of parochialism, but it is part of human nature.

And, by the way, if you "see no one crying out about the horrible Normans squashing the Saxon way of life," you must not have read "Ivanhoe." And in some cave in Northern Egypt there is probably an etching expressing outrage about these Greek invaders under Alexander the Great swooping in here and taking over our land. History repeats itself, only the names change.

But kids deserve to know the names, and the dates, places, etc., without the government or the textbook writers deciding that some of the facts don't fit the approved agenda.

I alluded to this earlier, but I want to expand on it a bit.

I don't want anybody to think I am picking on the United States or its history. What I am criticizing is the way history was taught in the past. I want to be fair, and point out that U.S. history is by no means alone in the sugar-coating and twisting of history for reasons of "patriotism."

To give an example, I thought of a figure from medieval British history who is universally thought of as a supremely evil, wicked man -- King Richard III. His distant cousin and immediate successor, Henry Tudor (King Henry VII) is thought of as a good guy, uniter of England after the Wars of the Roses, etc. How do we know these things? Mostly from the plays of William Shakespeare, from whom generations of high school students (and movie-goers) have learned what happened. The most dastardly act attributed to Richard III is the murder of the "Princes in the Tower", the "princes" being Richard's two nephews, the older of whom was the deposed King Edward V (age 12.) Shakespeare tells us that Richard III deposed his nephew and usurped the throne, and had the boys placed in the Tower of London (for "safe keeping") -- both of which are undeniably true -- and then had them killed. To the extent that American school children learn anything about this historical era, this is what we learn. What we do not learn is that there is at least as much evidence that the murders took place somewhat later than Shakespeare says and were ordered by Henry VII, who was much further down the line of succession than Richard III had been and had ample motive to get the young former king out of the way to eliminate a rival claimant. We also do not hear much about Shakespeare's "conflict of interest" in this matter -- his greatest supporter was none other than his Queen, Elizabeth I, who by the way, was a granddaughter of Henry VII. Shakespeare's account was raised to the level of "history" by Elizabeth and her successors, all descendants of Henry VII. It is a classic case of "the winners write the history books."

If you look around, you will find a few web sites dedicated to clearing the name of Richard III, but these have the same sad tone as those run by the descendants of such as Aaron Burr or Benedict Arnold. History has made its judgment on Richard III, however incorrect it may be.

For those of you who are still awake, my long-winded point is that history ain't so simple, so (and here's the real point): When there is a change in the way in which a historical event or era is taught, the change is not necessarily bad. The change can just as easily correct a previous misstatement of historical fact, as introduce a new misstatement.

In the case of American history, I don't see the teaching of history as being as unbalanced as William Bennett (or Rooster) claims. Rooster lists a number of things he claims are currently taught about American history, and then says "parts are true." In fact a substantial amount of what Rooster lists is true. I especially liked this one:

Industrialists, who cared more about money than society, exploited the workers in the Northeast and West during the 1900's. Furthermore, our government sheltered them and aided their efforts.

That is completely, absolutely true and there is really little or no dispute about it. It is what I learned in high school, but before I could learn it, I had to un-learn what I had learned in elementary school about this country being built by upstanding industrialists interested only in progress. (Or at least that is the impression I have of what I learned, all of this was 25-30 years ago.)

But the real point is, are today's students taught only or even mostly bad things about the U.S.? I don't think so. When I have browsed through my children's history books, they seem fairly well balanced to me. What I think really upsets people like William Bennett is that the one-sided, sugar-coated, fairy-tale version of American history, in which G.W. could not tell a lie, is no longer taught in most schools. If indeed it is no longer taught, I am glad. It may have made us feel good as children, but it is not the whole truth.

I would hope that on the anniversary of 9-11 we would focus on things like remembering those who gave their lives because they were Americans, honoring those who performed herculean efforts (and in some cases sacrificed themselves) to save others, and also to honor all of those millions of Americans who contributed to the relief efforts, and ourselves as a nation for the way we came together in this time of tragedy, for the common purpose of recovering from our wounds and bringing to justice those who attacked us.

If I have missed any specific aspect of what I am talking about, I think you get the gist. When we remember 9-11, let's focus on what unites us. Let's all wave the flag -- as my pack will be doing literally as we participate in uniform in a ceremony hosted by a local minor-league baseball team, but endorsed by council.

What I think people should not do, especially in connection with the "anniversary" or "Patriots Day" as some are calling it, is to use 9-11 to promote their ideological or political agenda. (Or their commercial agenda, though that is not directly relevant to this thread, at least not yet.) Unfortunately I believe that Mr. Bennett has done just that. He certainly is not the first.

I understand that Mr. Bennett feels that the public education system in this country is terrible. He has been saying so for years. I just don't see how the 9-11 reference advances his argument, except to try to tug at peoples' emotional heartstrings. I say, stick to the facts and try to persuade people that way, not implicitly invoke the mutual horror that we experienced to promote your educational (and ideological) agenda.

I also disagree with Mr. Bennett factually. My children all attend (or have attended) public schools and have been taught the basics of American History that Mr. Bennett contends are being left out. Maybe my school district is unusual, but I don't know why that would be so. Are my children specifically taught that this is the "best nation on Earth"? I have to admit that I am not sure. I also am not sure they should be taught opinions, at least not until they learn the basic facts and are capable of evaluating the opinions for themselves. In elementary and high school they should be taught the facts of American and world history as well as the critical and reasoning skills necessary to draw their own conclusions.

Unfortunately, I think the type of education Mr. Bennett is advocating -- in other words the type of education that I received in the 60s -- unfortunately left out some important facts, idealized or in some cases, outright falsified some facts. The settlers of this country wiped out many Native Americans and "appropriated" their land. Jefferson and Washington, however great the things they did, owned slaves. Much more recently, in the 50s through the 80s, this nation overthrew democratic governments in nearby countries to install dictators more to our liking (or tried to), often at the cost of innocent lives. I was never taught those things in school. I was, however, taught that the Spanish started the Spanish-American war by blowing up the Maine. It didn't happen, and our government knew it, and more importantly, at the time I was taught this in school, historians knew it wasn't true. More trivially, I was taught that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree, not as a fable with a valid and important lesson (which it is), but as the truth. There are other examples.

I'm not saying to inundate kids with all this in the first grade. I'm not saying to teach kids that these things make this a bad country. I also don't think that the even-worse conduct of other nations over the centuries should be sugar-coated as they often are. It is really only when you have a broad understanding of human history that you can appreciate how great this country is. But I don't think it benefits anyone to give kids the kind of education where they get to college and, as I did, suddenly realize, hey, those elementary and high school history classes left out some important stuff.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

You know, as recently as a couple of months ago, we could SOMETIMES have a discussion of routine topics (outside of "Issues and Politics") without it turning into an argument with personal jabs, or "bashing" references to people's affectional orientation (which are totally irrelevant to the topic.) This ideal seems to be becoming more and more difficult to achieve in this forum.

Can't we all just get along?

Stressbaby, I just read your second post. If you were to tell me that this troop had been using this method for 10 years and it was working fine, membership was up or steady, boys were advancing and learning and attending and leading and everything else with no regular meetings, I might say, hey, whatever works. But you say it is a NEW troop and though you didn't say so specifically, I get the impression that the "results" so far are inconclusive at best. That being the case, I personally would not want to have my son experimented on in this manner. If I may also "read in" to your posts, could it be that this method has been chosen because it is more convenient and less time-consuming for the adults (leaders and/or parents)? If so, perhaps you need new leaders who are willing to give the program the time and energy it requires.

In other words, a troop that ONLY camps, does service projects and special events, and during or after these events, the PLC meets to plan future events, and the patrols meet? It seems to me that you would be missing part of the program. The last time I attended a Boy Scout meeting (as opposed to Cub Scouts) was 1976, but I cannot imagine that the program has changed so that you can deliver it without regular troop meetings. And although my son's Cub Scout dens have NOT met weekly as mine did back in the 60s, both of the troops that I have inquired about so far for my son, meet weekly. Not just regularly, weekly. That may not be absolutely necessary. But no regular meetings at all, I don't see how it would work.

Venturer2002 says:

I believe that this thread was intended to bring attention to the double standards used in judging scouts by certain forum posters.

Well, I believe this thread was started for the purpose of creating a childish spat -- which for some people appears to be the favored level of discourse.

OGE, as they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I'll leave it to others to interpret exactly how that applies here, as I run quickly in the other direction, under my assumed name.

I think many organizations do something comparable. The bar associations that I have been a member of have an officer with the title "President Elect." He or she is between the President and First Vice President in the hierarchy, and at the next rotation of officers (usually annual) automatically becomes the president. The First Vice President is then usually elected President Elect, but I don't think it is automatic.

One question I would have about doing this with the SPL/ASPL is, how would it work in a troop with more than 1 ASPL? Maybe that is no longer in vogue, but I remember that when I was a Scout back in the last millenium, my troop usually had 2 ASPL's. Maybe in a troop that has enough Scouts to justify having 2 ASPL's, you could do as described and elect an ASPL who will move up to SPL in the next rotation, but then also give the SPL the option of appointing a second ASPL who is not assured of "promotion." Of course, this second ASPL could run for the elective ASPL spot in the next election, or just remain in the appointed spot as long as the SPL-at-the-time wants him there.

Sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, sexual abuse, comment with sexual content... I think we are getting hung up on terminology. It was at the very least a comment with sexual content, and it was coupled with a refusal to give the younger Scout back his property. The older Scout clearly crossed a line, and what we are debating is (or should be) how far across the line he went, or maybe exactly which line he crossed. Serious consequences are warranted. Reasonable minds can differ as to whether removal is necessary, but I think it is clearly one of the range of options reasonably available to the troop. I think that reasonable minds can also differ as to whether this conduct has to be reported to council (though I suspect BobWhite would disagree with me on that.) On that point, it is relevant whether the older Scout "meant it," in other words, was he making a sexual pass at the other boy, and I think it is clear that he was not. He was implying that the other boy was gay, and he probably wasn't even serious about that. He was likely "just making fun," but his words and actions took it to a whole other level that he probably didn't realize he was taking it to. That doesn't mean it was an "accident." In the law we have a level of culpability above "negligent" and below "intentional," called "recklessness," sometimes called "gross negligence." (And sometimes the latter 2 are distinguished from each other, and it gets very confusing trying to draw a line between them.) And sometimes a level gets added to recklessness, such as "wilful wanton recklessness" or "recklessness manifesting extreme indifference." I say this not to confuse things or to give a law lesson, but to suggest that the conduct described in this thread may be "punished" without knowing exactly what was in the older Scout's mind at the time. It was more than just a "mistake" or "carelessness." It was an action showing little or no concern about what the result would be, and that type of conduct needs to be corrected and prevented. Recklessness can be punished very severely by the law -- if you kill someone due to reckless conduct, it is manslaughter or aggravated manslaughter, and you can go to prison for awhile, sometimes a long while in the latter case.

Which leads to another possible comparison. If I say to you, "I'm going to kill you," everything depends on the context: How I say it, how you take it, what else is going on at the time. Depending on the context, it can be a joke, or it can be a prelude to homicide that puts you in great fear. Maybe there's a scale of 1 to 10 that it could be put on, most benign to most malignant. The conduct in this scenario was not a 10 (the worst), but it was not a 1, either. It is somewhere in between, and the point at which discipline (including protection of other Scouts) starts also is somewhere in between. Everybody seems to have their own set of numbers, but for most (including me), in this case, the number for this conduct is at least as high as the number where discipline starts. BobWhite might put it several rungs higher, I put it at least one rung higher, but in neither case would the reaction of the troop leadership (basically just shrugging it off) be justifiable.)

Yaworski says:

You're absolutely right. Calling homosexuals "gay" is "calling them names." They are "homosexuals" and should only be called that. To call them "gay" implies that heterosexual people are unhappy.

I think you need to brush up on your lexicography. According to the online Webster's dictionary I just consulted, one of the meanings of "gay" is "homosexual." So "gay" is correct, regardless of whether any particular gay or straight person is happy or not.

I know, I know. You probably think the dictionary writer is a "poof."

As for the rules of the board about names, that really has nothing do with whether you're willing to stand behind what you've said.

I am. My name has nothing to do with it.

Is your "Hebrew name" the name that folks in your neighborhood call you?

I suspect that almost everybody else knew I was making a joke. If not, oh well, I'd better give up the idea of going into comedy as my third career.

Bob says:

"This boy is not a scout, he is a thug hiding in a scout uniform."

To which Yaworski says:

I was going to respond but you're not worth the time.

To which I say: No response is necessary. If the kid did what the original poster said he did, he is a thug. Maybe some long for the good old days, like when I was a Scout, and bullying and hazing were laughed off by the adult leaders. I don't.

(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

Our pack basically does all its fund-raising (other than dues) through the popcorn sale. Our net last year was probably in the $1,700-1,800 range. It is a big, big deal in our council especially on the Cub side of things.

Our council has a variable rate structure for popcorn. The max to the unit is 37 percent, which you get IF you do a show-and-sell (probably at a certain minimum level of committment, last year our pack bought $2,000 worth (price to the customer) and is doing the same this year.) AND your unit representative (the "popcorn kernel", ha ha) must attend all the mandatory orientation/planning/whatever meetings, I believe there are 2. AND I believe you must get everything in (and out) on time. You do all that, you get the 37 percent.

I am not sure what the lower rates are, because during my time as a leader, we have never been interested in getting anything but the highest rate and will do what we have to do to get it (which this year almost included me going to the first popcorn meeting to sub for our "kernel", who was on vacation. Fortunately, 2 days before the meeting she was able to get someone else to go instead.) (And also included standing outside stores on Sept. 15, 2001 (a date planned long in advance), about 40 miles from the World Trade Center, and trying to sell popcorn with swarms of volunteers from other organizations hovering around us collecting money for Sept. 11 relief at the same time. That was not a pleasant or comfortable experience, let me tell you. We also donated a percentage of our profits that day to the council's Sept. 11 relief fund along with any "extra" money that had been donated to us over and above the popcorn price. I think we donated almost $500 altogether, almost half of which was from one person, with no connection with the pack. He was just some guy walking into a sporting goods store, saw we were also collecting for Sept. 11, bought some popcorn -- and handed one of the Scouts $200 extra in cash.)

Listen, this "names" business is very simple. The rules of this forum allow a member to choose a user-name that either does or doesn't reveal his "real" identity.

I followed the rules.

I wonder, Yaworski, whether you follow the rules. Your use of the word "poofs" is a slur against a group of people, it just doesn't sound so offensive to us in the US because it is generally not in use here. You probably get some leeway from the forum moderator because of that. (If most of the people on this board were British or Australian, the result might be different.) If, however, you use this term in a Scout setting, there you are breaking the rules, in my opinion. The BSA excludes avowed gays, but (bless it's little heart) doesn't approve of calling them names.

Of course, that's probably not really relevant to you anyway; you told someone else that you have no Scouting "duties," which to me means you have no position anywhere in Scouting, since every Scouting position has some duties. Just so everybody is clear, that would mean you are not a Scouter at all.

Signed,

Chaim Abraham, ben David (my Hebrew name, the "last" name being my father's first.)

Thank you for your comments, BobRussell. I just want to point out that when you say people from my district could identify me from my profile, actually I tried to make my profile vague enough so that would probably not happen. All my profile says is that I am an Assistant Cubmaster somewhere in the Patriot's Path Council, which covers 4 counties and parts of others (in the most densely populated state in the country), that I used to be a Den Leader, and that I was a Boy Scout and held all the standard youth leadership positions.

That has to describe a couple hundred guys, right? A couple dozen at least? (Why does this sound like "Get Smart"? Is the next line, "Would you believe, 2 former unit commissioners in a row boat."?)(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

Bob, I may be imagining this, but it seems to me that the BSA may already have gone through one phrase of calling "training" "development," at least to some extent. If I recall correctly, when I took what is now called JLT, it was "TLD": "Troop Leader Development." This would have been in 1973, when many changes in terminology had just been made, as you know. Whether the adult training programs had their names changed also, I don't know.

When I get home I will check my old uniform, which I am pretty sure has the "TLD" patch on it. I remember that when my father did WoodBadge a couple of years after I did "TLD," we compared notes and much of the course material was similar, the same terminology for the "competencies," etc.

The only hangup that I can see in calling training "development" again would be that "development" has come into vogue among many universities and colleges, and possibly also non-profit organizations in general, as a euphemism for "fund-raising."

Yaworski (notice I don't play games with your name):

You are a funny guy. You read into other peoples' posts whole paragraphs that are not there and are not even meant, while at the same time you complain that other people read into your posts things that you clearly do mean.

Without citing chapter and verse, I did not say I was offended by the statement in question. Most of your statements that I find offensive are insults directed at forum members. Also, I for one have no interest in who you would like to engage in reproductive activities with. (I think I need the triple-G, the Good Grammar Guys, to send out a towtruck on that one.)

As for why I do not use my real name, not that it's really any of your business, but what the hey. Other than the fact that it is sort of a tradition among many people online, I made a conscious decision when I joined this forum (as I have with other Scouting forums) that I wanted to keep my opinions separate from my real-life Scouting activities. I knew that I would be posting about controversial subjects, including, well, you know what. I do not discuss that subject with other leaders or parents in my son's Cub pack, and I did not particularly want some parent or kid reading this forum and having my opinions become a subject of discussion in my "real life." There is also an open question, which has been discussed in this forum, about what the BSA's "policy" is (or will become) regarding leaders who "publicly oppose" that other "policy." I am not interested in becoming the "test case." It's just not worth it. For me, Scouting is my son and his pack and eventually, his troop. This forum is just a diversion, and also a way that I might learn some information to help me be a better leader. (Not this thread, of course.)

Ed says:

I have been told I must attend training classes for my job that I didn't want to take for one reason or another. I went & basically it was a waste.

But can you really say you learned nothing? I think it would require a great deal of work (and maybe a hidden set of headphones and a walkman) to sit in a class and learn absolutely nothing. I bet you did learn something, and I bet the DE's in OGE's class learned something as well. If I remember his post correctly, it has had a positive impact on at least one of them. I think that that's inevitable.

For myself, I remember that when I was signing up for classes before my freshman year in college, my counselor strongly recommended that I sign up for a particular introductory course, even though I had no interest in the subject. I didn't really want to do it, but I took the advice... and ended up liking the class so much that I soon switched my "minor" to that subject.

I don't know why I bother, but...

Yaworski, who exactly was it who critized you for saying "I don't consider most women Scouters to be "chicks" or otherwise sexually attractive to me"? Or any words to that effect? What day was the post? What time? I don't see it.

Here's what I did see: In the topic, "Talk About a Reversal of Fortune," eisely made a statement, "I don't care what the motivation was for the DE's taking woodbadge." We all (including you, Yaworski) knew what he meant. He meant it doesn't really matter whether a DE goes because he wants to or because his CE/SE told him to, as long as he goes. (Or she.) You then, with sarcasm hardly befitting the rather mundane subject of why DE's go to Wood Badge, said "So if he was there to pick up chicks, that's okay by you?" Eisely, quite reasonably, responded "Female scouters also take woodbadge training, although I personally don't think of them as chicks." If you thought that was a severe criticism, you are oversensitive. (Maybe you're really a sensitive liberal in disguise.) Then you made the post that I think set off BobWhite, which out of deference to him and others I will not quote. It contained an acronym which I have seen before, but only once and it was on this board, I believe, or perhaps the Scouting board on AOL. I don't get offended so easily as others, I just think it's stupid, and especially has no place in this type of forum, where a lot of people will be offended, and justifiably so. The acronym does contain our language's most famous swear-word used in a sexual way (as opposed to one of the many other meanings of the word, as in SNAFU or FUBAR.)

Obviously, BobWhite was primarily responding to that acronym and its meaning, along with the general tone and other vulgar language that you use in some of your posts, when he started his thread about you. I don't see any reference in Bob's post about your opinion regarding the appearance of female Scouters. I don't think he cares. I sure don't.

If there is another post that you think is relevant, please identify it. Or don't, I don't really care that much. But you talk about the "truth" so much, let's see if you know what it means.

Ah yes, Yaworski, your posts definitely rank right up there with the Declaration of Independence.

Ed says:

The Scouts in my Troop don't dance with each other. I was refering to the type of dancing these guys might do at school dances. Is that sexual harassment? I think not.

Ed, the term you used in the post I was responding to was "sexual meaning," not "sexual harrassment." The type of dancing you were referring to has sexual meaning, that is the whole point of it. Just as the words and actions of the boy in question had sexual meaning. Forget sexual harrassment. It was a sexually-oriented action. Does an action with sexual meaning have a place at a school dance? Well, we could debate the morality and everything, but I think we'd have to agree that to some extent it does. People will be people. But the key is that the conduct at a school dance is consensual -- in fact, if it is not, then it does start to become sexual harrassment, or worse. But at a Scout camp, an action with sexual meaning has no place even if it is consensual.

That's ok Yaworski, I'll let the readers judge for themselves whether my interpretation of what you said was correct or not.

My oh my, how one person can take a discussion down a road...

It has always seemed to me that it is better for a person to attend an educational experience (whether it be called training, school, orientation, continuing ed, or whatever) reluctantly, with a negative attitude, etc. than not to attend at all. Chances are you will learn something even if you did not think you would, even if you did not want to, etc. (Never an issue for me, I like school, in fact in 2 weeks I am voluntarily attending the weekend-long statewide training class for new school board members. It should be an interesting comparison with Scout training.)

My pack has one den leader who kept making excuses why he could not attend basic training. The cubmaster and I stayed on his case most of the school year until he went. He definitely learned something and is doing a better job. (Same issue with his uniform, he was a Tiger leader from September to about April before he finally broke down and bought the uniform, and believe me it was not a financial issue. But again it was the CM and I reminding him at every pack meeting that he attended in civvies, till he finally got worn down and got the uniform. Does he want to wear it? I don't care -- the boys do not see his reluctance, what they see is a leader in a uniform, and that serves as a good example to them.)

So if your OGE's council's DE's only attended Wood Badge because they were ordered to, so what? If they learned something despite themselves, they will still be better at their jobs, to the benefit of all the Scouters they work with, and ultimately the Scouts.

It is true that you probably learn more when you are enthusiastic about it, but as I said, given the choice between someone picking up 20 percent of the material at a class or training session, or zero because they didn't show up, I'll always take the 20 percent.