RuddBaron

I don't know of a place that sells them. However, I'll tell you what I did when I was a wee Scout on the ceremony team. I asked mother to make a black sash for me. The sash itself is simple to construct out of black fabric (broadcloth works well)...especially using a modern sash as a guide. The arrow was done in applique (as I believe the original ones were). Cut a basic arrow shape out of white fabric and sew it down before finishing the black sash itself. The arrow should be of basic design, not the current style embroidered on the white sashes. There may even be a drawing of it in the handbook. The whole project shouldn't take more than about an hour if someone knows how to use a sewing machine.

Check out the MacLaren Clan site in North America.

http://members.aol.com/Rapmack/index.htm

The link listed for the STS shows the five tartans mentioned. Two is the standard clan tartan. A 90 degree rotation simply means the either the Wood Badge swatch on the neckerchief is rotated...or perhaps it is the graphic on the STS web site.

Other groups that are not military use that same style jacket. Police, fire, Park Service, Forest Rangers, etc., either have or have had such a uniform. I cannot understand how they think a green tie is "military." Sounds like PC nonsense. What next? Phase out the campaign hat? Perhaps I shouldn't mention that the BSA uniform color scheme is essentially that of the US Marine Corps..........

You can get a green tie of suitable style and color from the USMC or, if memory serves, either the park service or forest rangers. Either way, it's a green tie, not a military uniform item.

Yes! Retro! Do it the old way from a time when our publications had paintings and illustrations by Norman Rockwell. Actually, there's another idea...a Norman Rockwell theme. I think he probably had a painting for just about every activity we do, probably even those at a camporee.

>>> So are you saying that if scouts are doing a good job you will somehow set them us for failure?

Not generally. When I say "set them up for failure" at that age, I mean more along the lines of adding little "extras" that might challenge them a bit more. It takes practice to get it right so it doesn't totally frustrate the kid. Generally if they are doing a good job, I say let them do a good job in peace.

>>> Do you think it is okay for scouts to joke around with leaders? Your message come off like you would control everything we an iron fist. Sometimes with this format it is hard to tell.

Of course they can joke around with leaders, but there is a time and place for everything. I certainly did my share of joking around as a Scout!

>>> What is your capacity, do you only work with the district or are you also with a Boy or Cub Scout troop/pack?

Currently I'm strictly District and OA.

>>> I also do not consider a Boy Scout a child, as I work with the scouts I am not thinking, look at those children playing with fire, I see Boy Scouts, starting a fire, and cooking a meal over it.

They are still children, but they are not ORDINARY children. That's what the Scouting program does for them. Sure, if they prove themselves, it's fine not to treat them as ordinary children. This is part of the graded increase of responsibilities and rights I mentioned. By the time they hit 18, they generally should be considered a peer of sorts.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Letting them fail is GOOD!!! Houston, we have agreement! In some cases setting them up to fail is a good learning tool as well if highly controlled and not done sadistically.

The more I listen to you, the more I get the feeling we're trying to say the same thing, just coming at it from two different directions.

I cannot imagine that B-P would have taken any nonsense of the Scouts. Photographs of him that I have seen at Brownsea show him instructing Scouts...and his mouth is open. An adult being seen is a perfectly valid way of maintaining order, and is often more effective than speaking. A good ability to use one's eyes is often more effective than speaking.

Who on earth said anything about preventing Scouts from having experiences? Yes, we should give the children respect. Respect is a two-way street. But, they (and we) have to realize that they are still CHILDREN, a period in which they grow gradually into adults. Yes, an adult deserves to be treated respectfully by a child just because he is an adult. That is how society works. Furthermore, children need adults to guide them in an age-appropriate graduated system of ever-increasing nresponsilities and privilages. Ever wonder why children with a poor family environment often turn out to be problem adults? If children don't need adult guidance, again I ask why adult leaders are needed, why we bother having teachers in schools, or why we don't let 10 year olds move out on their own.

A simple solution to this, dear boy, is that you do it your way, and I do it mine.

I dare say B-P carried a lot more weight than any of his SPL's, even if he let the SPL's lead.

No organization will ever be fully run by those under 18 (Scouting is under 18...I'm not talking about Venturing here). It's a simple legal matter.

Are you honestly saying that the Council President should, if he can't talk because the troop is being loud, reschedule his talk and waste further time by leaving and having to come back another time?

Intimidation? Hardly. We must come from different worlds. I don't hardly hold with this apparent modernistic liberal trend of allowing children to be in complete control of everything they do. That was certainly not the way society operated in 1910. Contrary to apparent popular belief, adults are in charge of the world. It's not a matter of an ego trip, intimidation, etc. We set expectations for the troop boy leadership, and we guide them and help them accomplish those goals and learn how to accomplish them on their own later as adults. If they already knew how to do them on their own without any advising, what on earth is the point of the program?

Maybe I'm not making myself clear here. I'm not suggesting we do the boys' jobs or even constantly tell them how to do things.

Visiting troops need not be interferance, though I am aware of that potential. It depends on the individual annnd the approach, but if done properly, it can help build a bridge between the unit and the district. It's a lead from the front technique. To quote Patton, the higher up on is, the more time one has to go to the front.

Perhaps my very narrow statements are causing confusion.

>>> I guess I made a bad assumption, when you said you where not going to stand there and take it what did you mean? If not yelling?

Scout sign, for one thing. One can also ask the SPL if this is how his Scouts behave (subtle hint to get them to be quiet). Or, one can speak directly to the boys effectively without yelling.

>>> Okay by me to, but the SM conference would address this, and I would also be talking to the parent. Why are you worry about wasting the scouts time, they are doing that, and the parents need to know this also.

Right. Parental involvement like this is good, especially with the problem kids. Sometimes there is a significant problem behind the behavior, like a divorce.

>>> No, but I am trying! And scouts will be boys.

But I still maintain we need to train the SPL to be able to do this! You seem to be avoiding this one point, why? WE train the SPL so next time he can take control! We do not take control so the SPL will be able to do it the next time or the next time. As long as we step in we become enablers, and we are the problem.

Can you not see how this works? You competely ignored this in you last 2 posts

Not entirely correct. Sure, we train the SPL to do as you say. This is the point of JLT, TLT, and the whole Scouting program. YES, I entirely agree that the SPL should be the one to get the boys to settle down. But, to use our current example, if the SPL takes 30 minutes to get the boys to be quiet so the SM can talk, he isn't doing his job. Maybe we and the system have failed to teach him properly. Either way, an adult sometimes has to step in. This IS NOT a failure of the boy led system. If an SPL has trouble getting the boys to settle down and an adult steps in, the SPL can learn from it. The SM and he can talk privately about how best for the SPL to handle the situation in the future. Usually this only has to be done a few times. The boys are still learning, and learning simply by doing is about like going to college and not having any lectures from the professor. If they are just going to figure it out ENTIRELY on their own, what's the point of having adults around?

Also, in such a situation the SM can give a talk to the rest of the troop regarding respect for the SPL. This is one good way for the SM to use the fact that he is an adult to create a situation conducive for the SPL to do his job.

Again, my statements here refer to very narrow situations that crop up in almost every troop. The boys have specific jobs to do in running the troop, and I personally don't want to do those jobs for them. They learn nothing that way (one of your points). An occasional assistance (even the SM whispering in the SPL's ear what he might consider doing) helps the boys do their job without completely doing it for them.

Next you'll be telling me that the Council President, despite having been invited to speak about the Council activities at a troop meeting, cannot actually speak without the permission of the SPL. Or...should said Council President speak, and the Scouts act up with no response from the adults or boy leadership, the President should just stand there however long it takes for the Scouts to quiet down. All well and good for a brief period, but expecting a guest to stand there for a half hour while the Scouts settle down is patently ridiculous. The adult leaders generally have responsibilities outside Scouting and have only so much time and patience to devote to the program. Requiring them to waste such time punishes them, people who donate their time and resources for the benefit of the boy, for the actions of those same boys, and more so than it punishes the Scouts. If they are required to be outside to meet their parents at a given time and are not because they had to stand around wasting a half hour, it also punishes the parents. (If a parent wants to get his kid at the appointed end of the meeting, fine by me.)

There comes a point in all such scenarios when enough is enough, it's time to stop wasting time, and something must be done by someone. (Perhaps this discussion is an example of a half hour of wasted time?)

As for adults carrying more weight than youth...it's the order of nature. Age and experience beat youth and enthusiasm every time.

Lastly, when I was a boy the District folks sure didn't take anything off of us boys (at things like Camporees, for example). It was the same with the National and Regional folks at Jamboree. Are you honestly telling me that you stand around and take disrespect off of children, even to the point of standing around for a half-hour just to avoid taking command of the situation that the SPL has failed to control (if it takes 30 minutes, he has failed)? I have trouble believing that.

Did I say anything about anyone from District YELLING at the Scouts? I simply said that I do not simply stand there and take disrespect (which includes Scouts talking while I'm talking) just because the SPL can't or won't do anything about it. Usually this entails putting up the Scout sign. This should be the same for anyone, whether they are from District, National, or another troop.

And you can be sure that if I was chastised for refusing to take lip off of Scouts while giving a talk, I would not be involved with that troop again. A troop that permits Scouts to be disrespectful towards adults, particularly guests, and does not permit that adult to respond accordingly is failing to teach the children the order of the world. They are not yet full members of society at that age.

Fine, if they aren't disturbing the adults. However, giving them a set time for taps and then letting them get away with violating it challenges the authority of the leadership of the troop.

If the boys can't get them quiet, I see no reason *I* should have to be up all night because of it. Also, not getting enough sleep CAN be a safety issue, especially in high adventure. When my life depends on a Scout being alert, yeah, I'll make sure they're quiet, with or without the SPL.

Another example: In a troop meeting, let's say the Scout sign isn't working to keep them quiet when the SM is addressing the troop. The SPL fails to keep them quiet, and the SM is constantly interrupted. You'd probably say just to stand there and take it. I say do something like send the offending kids out in the hall...whether the SPL or SM does it.

A grown man is generally going to carry more weight with a boy than another boy. Sometimes a boy needs that extra authority to get through to him. On a canoe trip in the wilderness, for example, threatening to deposit the problem child in your canoe on the nearest shore can be very effective...especially if they think you're just crazy enough to do it. I don't personally appreciate a boy in my canoe refusing to paddle. The other person in the canoe isn't his personal propulsion service. Either he does his part or he is out. You can also threaten to send them home if they are misbehaving during a car ride, stop at a gas station, call their parents and tell them to come pick them up. Usually when the boy's parents get on the phone and have a little chat with their boy about what things will be like if they have to drive all the way wherever they are to get him, everyone settles down. A little of that goes a long way. Having strong adults like that establishes an environment of discipline in which the BOYS can lead, as they are backed up by adults the troop knows will take care of things if needed.

I have addressed troop meetings in my district capacity before, and I can't say that I wait around very long for the SPL to keep the Scouts under control. If he can, fine. Otherwise I deal with it myself. They don't call us Adult LEADERS for nothing. Otherwise we're just chaperones...and not very good ones. Anarchy results. Eventually the boys will realize that they can challenge the boy leadership with impunity, as they know the adults will do nothing.

That's fine when it works...and usually it does. I certainly don't want to be constantly telling the Scouts to be quiet, do their work, etc. BUT...ultimately, if necessary, the adults must act as the disciplinarians. That isn't a failure of the boy-led system. It is an inherent part of the system. Scouts make mistakes in leadership; it's part of the learning process. Haven't you ever been learning how to do something, made some mistakes, and gotten to the point where your instructor had to step in and help out?

Ah yes, Monty Python. How could I forget that one. We used to do a lot of stuff from Monty Python.

You can always try manual labor at night if they need to be relieved of some pent-up energy.

If the SPL and boy leaders cannot get them quiet, then the adults have to step in. Boy-led doesn't mean only boy-led.

Regarding the bedroom situation...at that time in history it was a sign of wealth and position to have a bedroom for the master and a bedroom for the lady. Mansions in Newport are a good example of this, as are many southern plantation homes and castles in Europe. It had nothing to do with the status of their relationship.

You can always do something about King Arthur, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the quest for the Golden Fleece, and other such stories that teach points of morality, duty, and virtue in a chivalric setting (since BSA's principles largely derive from codes of chivalry). Most of these are pre-renaissance, but it's close enough. For pure renaissance, there's always Cyrano de Bergerac.

I'm a bit late here, but that sounds absolutely ridiculous. Certain Order of the Arrow lodges use highly controlled gunpowder charges and KEROSENE to light fires for shows...but never fireworks and gasoline.

What have you obeserved the response of the girls at camp to be when these two teach them these things?

Yeah, you have a point. "Your kind" is more into what I would call cooperative approaches than men. Girl Scouts are from Venus and Boy Scouts are from Mars...sorry...couldn't resist.

And this raises the next academic question of what constitutes a Scoutmaster Conference. The requirement says "participate."

What does participate mean in this context? It seems highly subjective, and thus at the discretion of the SM. If the Scout calls the SM an SOB and is rude during the conference, it seems the SM could easily decide that the Scout didn't really participate.

Why not have someone (a volunteer) work in your council as an unofficial commissioner? Get your council Executive Director (isn't that the name?) to agree to support that person. Have the commissioner chat with the BSA commissioners to get a feel for how to work it. Make the program a success and then have it spread unofficially. Eventually GSUSA might just pick it up as an official volunteer position.

There's another interesting question. If a boy comes to a BOR totally ill prepared, and it is obvious that he is winging it, then the board should turn him down. Now...in that situation, who is at fault? The boy, his Patrol Leader, his Patrol Scoutmaster, the Scoutmaster, or all of the above? Certainly the SM's ought to ensure that the boy is prepared. Does anyone's troop have the PL work on rank advancement with his patrol members and serve as another checkpoint in the system? My old troop about which you have heard me talk so much used to have the older boys do a "pre-board" for the younger ones to make sure they were prepared. Usually if they have to go through a lot of checks before they get to the BOR, there won't be a problem.

Ah, you're in TEXAS. I am familiar with their nonsensical zero tolerance policies. Those are getting more common. They're quite bad in general, as they serve as a deterrent to risk taking and creativity. They say that failure is simply not tolerated. If you can't accept failure as a risk to something like, say, an invention, then you're not likely going to attempt the invention. This nation was built by risk takers, and it is now being harmed by the zero tolerance risk averse.

As for the medication, what was the child supposed to do? Let the other one die? Do we punish those who try to help other people? Perhaps we Scouts ought to watch out........

Right...it's not in the job description, but it's nice.

Visiting when there is a perceived problem is certainly something that should be done. But, visiting before there is a problem can perhaps nip things in the bud or at least let the units see the District as something more than an aloof body that puts on camporees.

I'm not suggesting all DC members need to do this. It does take extra time, and we all have limits. Some are more suited to admin, and some are more suited to field work.