Zahnada

DS,

It sounds like you would tell your 15 year old self, "There will be some rough spots, but you have a wonderful and full life ahead of you. Be sure to enjoy it."

I think I might have the same conversation with a 15 year old version of myself. Except, I would tell him to never get locked into an AT&T cell phone contract that seems like it will last for the rest of all natural life. And to start flossing regularly as soon as possible.

... of the fictional/ media variety.

In the Issues and Politics section, there was a debate on the portrayal of scouts in movies. The discussion then turned to the opening of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade with Indy as a scout (riding horses and jumping from trains while evading the bad guys).

So what are the other great representations or references of scouts in movies, books, television, etc?

Hendley (the Scrounger) from The Great Escape was a boy scout.

James Kirk apparently wasn't a Boy Scout.

The vice president in "Dave" is referenced as "the Boy Scout"

Are there any more you can think of? If nothing else, we might get a list of good movies to watch over the Holidays. (by the way, I recommend Indiana Jones/ Great Escape/ and Star Trek II for anyone who hasn't seen them).

I love Indiana Jones! Great movie!

But back to the original topic, I think the image stems from conceptions of Cub Scouts. The two groups are solidly linked in the minds of most boys and adults. But they shouldn't be. As we all know, Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts are two very different groups that have two very different programs (mostly based on age differences).

Many Cub Scouts either don't join Boy Scouts or drop out because of the image. What's the image of Cub Scouts? After school, a group of boys goes to someone's mom's house and they wear their uniforms and make arts and crafts. There's no high adventure (naturally because of age) and limited camping. The boys have little responsibility, control, or leadership given to them through the program. (I would like to appologize for my stereotypical representation of the Cub Scouts. I know there are many Cub Scouters in this forum who run a much more exciting program than the one I described. But this is the general image from what I've seen.)

So, if Boy Scouts is seen as simply an extension of Cub Scouts, of course it'll be seen as geeky. Boys who enter the dreaded middle school years want to be free from their parents. They want to be outdoors, doing athletic stuff, they want to take control. Cub Scouts never offered any of that so why should they believe Boy Scouts will?

In my opinion, boys don't understand the differences between the two programs enough. The geeky image comes from Cub Scouts. If a middle school boy does anything that elementary school boys do, it's considered geeky. I think a firm separation between the two programs needs to be established. I don't know how this can be done. It's the inherent problem with a program that spans 10 years of a growing boy's life.

DSteele,

You said, "If someone were to stand up and say (in any way that drew attention to themselves) "I like sex with my own gender and the opposite gender!" They would receive a letter informing them that membership in the BSA is a priviledge and not a right and the letter would then outline the appeals process."

I don't mean to get in a semantics battle over the wording you used, but I am actually curious about something. Does a person need to be sexually active with members of the same sex for them to be removed from BSA? What if a person is attracted to their same sex, admits this attraction, but never acts on the impulse? If a scout says, "I'm gay" but has never committed any homosexual act (and therefore never violated those particular moral guildlines), is that still grounds for removal?

The line for this whole issue is very fuzzy to me. Maybe because I don't see sexuality as a black and white thing.

Thanks.

Well, the holiday season is back again. I was wondering if your troops have any special traditions they do during this time of year. What do you do to make December special?

My troop delivers canned food to families every year at this time. We use to have troop day outings as well (swimming pool, movie, basketball). For some reason, there's always something different about this time of the year in scouting.

What do you do?

What's also interesting is that scouting is considered "geeky" primarily in middle school. Many boys join Cubs in elementary school (and later drop out), but it's not geeky then. Once you hit high school, most consider it geeky for the early years until they start working on their college resumes.

"Gee, I have nothing for leadership, community service, or honors."

"Well, I was a Patrol Leader, Senior Patrol Leader, summer camp staffer, etc. I also have over 500 hours of community service. And I have one of the greatest honors that a young man can achieve."

I remember that by junior and senior year, many people were regretting their decision to leave scouting. Sure, they missed it for many of the wrong reasons, but it was no longer geeky. It was an organization that the country respected and that brought boys life skills that are meaningful on and off of a resume.

Once college and real life hit, scouting is often a side activity. It's always fun to know someone and then discover that they're an Eagle. Suddenly the conversation is much easier.

So, I think we need to focus on those middle schoolers. It's the worst time of life for many boys because popularity takes priority. Somehow, scouting is not considered the popular thing to do. And I'm stuck on how to get middle schoolers to change their minds.

From personal experience: never be bashful!

The best publicity is on a person-to-person basis. In our current situation, it is not unlikely that you'll meet someone who openly criticizes scouting. That is the time to tell them the truth. Be tactful and courteous, but let them know all the great things about scouting.

I was in group where a project was being made that required knots. I proudly announced, "It's ok, I'm an Eagle Scout!" and kneeled down and tied two-half hitches. Three more Eagles materialized out of the group and we all started tying knots. The non-Eagles were all astonished. These people are Eagle Scouts? These people who aren't geeks and aren't weaving daisy necklaces with their mothers are Eagle Scouts?

Proudly show your scouting skills to everyone. Being a scout and especially an Eagle has made many of us who we are today. Don't be afraid to let others know that fact.

If anyone's interested...

There's a Native American basketball team (actually from a reservation I believe) that call themselves "The Fighting Whites" or something of the sort. I personally think it's hilarious. I think their logo is something that looks like the Monopoly Man. I wish I remembered the details more.

Here's some clarification on the Stanford Band.

In 1991 during a game against Notre Dame, the Drum Major (aka conductor) dressed like a nun and conducted the band with a cross.

Then there was the game where the half time show featured jokes about the Irish potato famine.

The mascot was the Stanford Indian, but pressures from groups made them get rid of that and they became the Stanford Cardinal (I wonder if they had any ironic intent when they basically went from being the Stanford Indians to the Stanford Reds).

The band needed a real mascot so they tried to find one that would kind of mock the whole mascot tradition. They actually wanted to be the Stanford Robber Barons, but the university wouldn't allow that. So they chose the Tree. A pretty random icon.

The thing about the band is that they aren't a traditional band. They scatter between formations in themed shows with many jokes. Games against USC always have several OJ Simpson jokes. They were banned from the state of Oregon because they made fun of the spotted owl controversy (a formation of OWL turning to AWOL and then some formations of chainsaws).

So, to bring this to the real issue, where does the issue of taste come into this? The band is loved and hated by many alumni and students. They have fun and can be very amusing.

So, back to OA, if all ceremonies only have white boys in huge headresses in front of Teepees banging on tom-toms, then yes they are stereotypical and offensive. But if the scouts work hard to make their ceremonies and activities a celebration of a culture that was practically obliterated, then I feel it is a very powerful organization. I'm not sure if all my thoughts are tying together.

Anyway, people would probably take more offense if the OA portrayed modern Native Americans realistically instead of mystically. Reservations are not pretty sights. There is poverty, alcoholism, gambling, abuse, etc. Just like there really was an Irish famine and a spotted owl controversy.

Isn't it interesting that the truth is often more insulting than the stereotypes?

I believe Hunt brought up an interesting point that was overlooked.

What is the actual issue? Is it that this boy has gotten someone pregnant or that he was having premarital sex?

As Hunt said, the pregnancy is a consequence of a poor decision. But how many other boys are also making that same decision without the consequence?

As a hypothetical (that has actually happened to me, and probably some others), what if you walk up on a group of boys who are talking. They don't notice your pressence. You hear one of the boys talking (or bragging) about his sexual exploits. Should he be disciplined or removed from the troop? It's a tough situation.

I agree with KoreaScouter that a middle ground must be found between sweeping this incident under the rug and making this boy wear the scarlett letter. I personally think that if he wants to stay in the troop, he should be welcome.

I have some quick side-questions from parts of the discussion that interested me.

"If a troop is all of one faith, (and the event is approved by parents, and church) the BSA has no rules or guidelines against it."

If there's one person who either isn't the same religion or doesn't feel comfortable with whatever religious event is being sponsored by the troop, does that veto the activity? Or is this person just given the choice not to participate?

"How is a parent, who realizes that a higher percentage of scouts than non-scouts attend college, be misusing the program?"

This sounds like a great stat for us to use when discussing scouting with others. Do you have any actual numbers or a source that I could quote if I'm trying to talk a boy into giving scouting a try?

Thanks.

Eamonn,

Excellent post. However, I can think of a few guys in my troop who would actually jump up if you yelled "Charge!" But your point is well taken. I really like the term you used. Instead of "follower" (which in my opinion, can be seen as a passive job), you said "active participant."

I also like the naming game for jobs you started. I would like to say that Troop Guide and Instructor are two of the most properly named functions in the troop.

You got me Proud Eagle.

I sat here thinking up adjectives and then mentally crossing them off. "Gee, that kind of fits with this point. That one is covered by the oath." Talk about having your bases covered.

I would like to add "A Scout is Moral." I know it's repetitive especially with "morally straight" but some things are good to repeat. A scout should establish their own moral code, evaluate that moral code, and then live by it. I wanted to say, "A scout is (insert adjective for "integrity")" but my brain froze.

OGE,

You mention some great names in that post. They were definitely some extraordinary and great people.

However, are they necessarily good leaders just because they are good at what they do? I apologize that my knowledge of some of those people is very vague so I can't address your post more thoroughly.

But let's start with The American Caesar. My favorite old soldier who would never die, General MacArthur. He was a great general and a brilliant man. And he was a great leader in rebuilding Japan and during WWII, but he followed orders during both. Korea was a different MacArthur. The Pentagon (his leaders) didn't trust him because he couldn't follow orders. They started going past him and sending orders through General Ridgway. MacArthur's inability to follow may have resulted in the Chinese entering the war, the war lasting three more years, and thousands of soldiers dying. Naturally, this is all speculation because I can't know what would have happened if there were no MacArthur, but I've read many reports that agree with this assessment. Basically, he ignored the Joint Chiefs and approached the Yalu River with American troops which ticked off the Chinese.

So, was this good leadership? The tricky part is that he was an excellent leader most of the time. But when he started not following, things went bad. So I would say that a person only sets themselves up for destruction if they try to lead without being capable or willing to also follow.

This doesn't answer the question of whether being a follower is a sort of prerequisit to leadership. I would argue that although rising to the rank of Five Star General of the Army is mostly political, Mac (and every other military man mentioned) would have to be a good soldier. Nobody would promote a man if he wasn't willing to follow orders. So in the case of the military, I think the set up of rank advancement pretty much makes following a requirement. A man must be a soldier before he can be a general (not necessarily front line soldier, but someone who takes orders and follows them). And obvious exception is someone like Caesar. So with that in mind, I'll restrain from making any definitive statements.

Bob,

I believe we have a misunderstanding. I'm saying that the word "followers" can have a "negative connotation" in our society. I'm not saying it is negative. I'm not saying that others think following is negative. I'm saying that it's unfortunate that when you say "follower" it can sometimes be seen as a negative trait.

As for agreement, why on the first page of this thread there are three posters who say that the term "follower" can have negative connotations.

"I think "follower" has a negative connotation.

"Our modern society has exhaulted the word "leader" while applying a negative connotation to the word "follower.""

"Follower has taken on poor connotation, no one seems to want to be a follower."

When I posted the remark you are referring to, this seemed to be one somewhat consistent thoughts that people had on the subject. So I'll admit that the word "everybody" was ill placed because obviously you don't agree. However, it is more than one post or one person who feels that our society has attached a negative connotation to the word.

I think you must have read something wrong because I never said (or meant to say) that following is negative.

I actually don't know what you mean by, "What I would agree to Zahnada is an attempt at an honest representation of the circumstances. I do not find evidence of that in your posts in this thread." What do you mean by this?

Does this help explain what I have said?

I think the conflict in this thread is from two different interpretations of the original quote (and the confusion on whether the "original" quote comes from this thread or another thread).

Some are arguing for and against the quote, "Before a person can become a leader, they must be a follower."

Some are using the quote, "Being able to follow is a necessary part of leadership."

Does this distinction make sense? Are my observations correct?

Then the argument is becoming circular because two different things are being argued. It's like the gay topic (and NO! I'm not trying to send this thread in that direction) when some people argue about the moral reasons for the policy and others focus on the legal part of BSA's right to make that policy. The argument doesn't move forward because not everyone is starting from the same place.

Bob, you wrote:

""Everyone seems to agree that the term "follower" has a negative connotation."

I really didn't want to get back into this topic, but this is the kind of misleading stuff that drives me nuts. Show us any evidence as to the validity of that statement. I find few if any posters in this thread who have even hinted that "follower" is negative. So where do you come up with everyone?

My own stand has been that it is neither positive or negative as a term, just that it is unrelated to whether or not a boy can be taught how to lead.

Bob White"

I was hoping the word "seems" would keep the statement from being too definitive. It should have conveyed that it was all my observation and opinion.

I wrote "negative connotation." I didn't say that posters feel being a follower is negative. Many poster have in fact said that they feel there is a negative connotation to the word. Our society has often turned "follower" to mean things like spineless, or incapable of leading, or other negative traits. And so the word has a negative connotation in that it can create negative imagery.

This was stated in the third post to this thread and I felt many posters agreed with it. Apparently you disagree. In which case I change the statement "Everybody seems" to read "Many people seem."

Is this more agreeable to you?

Whew!

I never expected that I would have to explain my intent when starting this topic. But things have started to get a little tense around here.

There's no denying that this topic came from another thread. I mentioned that in the initial post. When someone stated the "leaders need to be followers" quote, Bob White asked what that quote means. At the time I thought it was an honest question. Since then I've decided the question was purely for argumentative reasons or rhetorical reasons at best. Anyway, I sent Bob a private message explaining my take on the quote. We had a brief conversation back and forth.

The conversation left me unfulfilled because the dialogue was overshadowed by animosity between Bob White and the original poster. I wanted to start the topic off fresh so I posted it in its own thread.

And here we are.

Some good has come from this topic though. Everyone seems to agree that the term "follower" has a negative connotation. There's also agreement that it shouldn't be that way. Just be reminded of this before you throw out words like "follower" and "leader" to a group of scouts. Telling Tim, "Follow Bill" may be a negative experience for Tim. Be careful with wording.

However, there are some other questions that this topic has raised. How do we teach leadership to boys? We all agree that experience is important as are leadership tools/skills. To what extent do they rely on each other? Is one boy in a patrol a leader or is he an elevated team member? Where does Setting the Example fit into this if following is not necessary.

I guess the real question is: Do we need a balance between seeing and doing when teaching boys leadership?

2 Part Plan for a Successful Troop

Part 1: Fun outings and plenty of them. This is great advice and has already been discussed here.

Part 2: Even with the focus on the outings, do not forget the importance of the troop meetings. The meetings should not be boring or useless. They should be fun and great preparation for the amazing outings you will have. The boys should want to come to the meetings each week. Remember, a team can't play well unless it practices.

I'm going to briefly slip in Bob White mode and recommend that you read through the scout handbook and SPL handbook to get ideas. When in doubt, fall back on the program.

A topic was started in another thread that really interested me, but didn't get much discussion. Personally, I find the leadership of scouting to be one of the greatest merits in the program. It is one of my main interests.

Some people love the quote, "Good leaders must first be good followers" (or some variation of the quote). What does this quote mean to you? Do you agree with it? How does it apply to scouting?

Great post, DS.

Awareness is one of the keys to working with kids. There are plenty of boys with other disorders (diabetes, ADD, Essential Tremor, etc) and as leaders we need to be aware of what these disorders are. However, what we do with this knowledge often depends on our own judgment. I'm sure (sorry to speak for you DS) that Dave did not want to be babied or pitied as a child. He truly is an amazing person just like the thousands of boys with other disorders. My applause to them all.

Does anyone have any information about the new JLTC? When are they going to distribute the curriculum? What changes are there?

DSteele,

Thanks for bringing this topic back around. A debate about the use of black powder in scouting may be a good topic, but let's remember that a scout has died. As you said, one death is one too many.

For all interested, this is from the Cascade Pacific Website:

"The Chris Kroker Memorial Fund has been established at US Bank, contributions may be submitted at any branch. Cards and letters may be submitted to the council office (2145 SW Naito Pkwy., Portland, OR 97201) and will be delivered to the family. "

Please check equipment and have a safe summer. This poor family.

_________________________________________________________

Cannon explosion kills teenage boy at Boy Scout camp

08/06/03

PATRICK O'NEILL

A 16-year-old Aumsville boy died Tuesday of head injuries he received when a ceremonial cannon exploded at a Boy Scout camp on Friday.

Christopher Kroker was injured when a muzzle-loading cannon blew apart after a flag ceremony at Camp Meriwether near Tillamook on the Oregon Coast.

He died at Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center at 2:45 p.m.

Boy Scout officials are trying to figure out what caused the cannon to malfunction.

Don Cornell, director of field services for the Cascade Pacific Council of the Boy Scouts of America, which runs the camp, said the cannon has been used for four years to fire a salute to the flag in the evenings.

The cannon, about 21/2-feet long, has a bore of 11/4 to 11/2 inches in diameter. The device is loaded with black powder tamped into place and held with a cloth wad. Cornell said the powder is ignited with a burning stick placed over the cannon's touch-hole at the rear of the device.

Kroker attempted to fire the cannon during an evening flag ceremony but for some reason the powder failed to ignite.

After the ceremony, the Scout tried again to ignite the powder. Cornell said that is standard procedure. Simply leaving the powder in the barrel would have created a hazardous condition, he said.

Several witnesses said Kroker apparently used proper procedures in both loading and firing the cannon, Cornell said, adding that an adult was supervising Kroker at the time of the explosion.

"We're just at a loss as to why it happened this time," Cornell said. "It appears he followed all the procedures. Others on the scene say it looked like he did everything properly."

Cornell said Kroker was one of four or five staff members at the camp who have been trained in the use of muzzle-loading weapons and who supervise instruction of other Scouts.

The camp is operated on a frontier theme and features classes in blacksmithing and black powder riflery.

This was Kroker's second year as a staff member who trained others how to use black powder rifles.

The camp won't replace the cannon, Cornell said. But after a weekend review of safety procedures, the organization has resumed its black powder rifle program.

Cornell described Kroker as "a very fine example of a young man and a Scout. Adult leaders would praise him for how well he worked with Scouts."

Detective William Hakim, a bomb technician with the Oregon State Police, said a wide range of factors might have played into the accident. He isn't involved in the investigation of the Boy Scout cannon, but he has extensive knowledge of the characteristics and behavior of black powder.

Black powder is a fast-burning substance that rapidly produces gas when ignited. A small pile of black powder will produce a kind of "whoosh," when ignited in the open, he said. The tighter it's packed the faster the resulting gas expands.

Hakim said it's conceivable that temperature or moisture affected the wadding material holding the powder in the cannon's barrel, making it seal too tightly or that the barrel was obstructed by some other object. Or there might have been some structural weakness in the cannon, he said, or a combination of those or other factors.

Christopher Kroker was the son of Roy and Donna Kroker of Aumsville. He is survived by a sister, Kim, and brother, Michael. No funeral arrangements were announced.

I was having trouble finding good sites and as soon as I posted the question, I found my answers. If anyone else is curious, http://www.bsacamps.org/lnt.html is a great site for No Trace Camping. Of course if anyone else has some tips or great resources, I would still love to know. Thanks.