HelpfulTracks

2 hours ago, Pselb said:

Have someone other than your religious faith, put on your religious regalia, and have them demonstrate your form of worship for others who are not of your faith and then they come and say, it is being done respectfully and with all sincerity.  Would you believe them?  I have never seen any Order of the Arrow "performances" (for lack of a better word), but I'm thinking that no matter how hard they try, there's going to be a big disconnect along the way and therein lies the rub.

You are under the false impression that all regalia, dances and songs are religious on nature. Some are and those should be avoided by the OA. The OA officially discourages the use of such items and urges lodges to work with local Native Americans to understand the differences and be respectful of the cultures. OA routinely host seminars that help Arrowmen understand the difference. Last summer there was a national seminar held at Philmont called Wachipi, many if not most, of the instructors on hand were Native Americans.

My son is in charge of a lodge Pow-wow this Spring and is working with other, including Native Americans, to present a respectful and accurate event as possible.

In fact, my sons involvement in OA is directly responsible for my wife deciding to research our family stories that both of our families have Native American ancestry. Some stories were likely wrong, but some appear to be valid, and she found connections to our family in Dawes Rolls. She is working to validate those (genealogy can be as complicated as it is fun.). That has sparked a greater interest in our children to learn out their family history, not just the Native American aspects.

The OA has the opportunity to be a benefit to our cultures, Native American on non-Native American, it is all in how it managed. Some activist will never embrace that, and some Arrowmen will never figure out how to be respectful. But it appears to me that both groups are working hard to create something of which we can all be proud.

I recently attended a Pow-wow that was co-sponsored by an OA lodge and a Native American organization. While eating at a nearby restaurant I couldn't help but overhead a woman ranting about the "Indian costumes" the people were wearing. While she was going on about "that's not how Indians dress or how they dance," I was thinking she has no clue. Many of those in "costume", or regalia, where actually Native American, and the regalia was mostly very accurate to the nearly 200 year old inter-tribal tradition of Pow-wows. And while you will hear the terms tradition, honor and respect spoken often at Pow-wows, she still thought it was wrong and "those people" should be ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately, that is not uncommon. I have even seen Native Americans protesting other Native Americans at Pow-wow, so who was right

The OA has definitely done some things that are less than respectful in it's history, but for the most part they are trying to get it right, and be respectful. Lodge are urged to work with local Tribal nations to be be respectful (no war paint, no dances, singing/drums or regalia with religious meaning.) in their dance teams. We are urged to use local Tribal regalia for ceremonies. (Pow-wow dances, singing/drums and regalia by nature is mostly from plains traditions). Obviooulsy the Native Americans that are involved with lodges are supportive and want to see things done with respect. But others don't want OA to have any references (including the arrow). Again, who is right?

On 1/29/2018 at 12:01 PM, David CO said:

Cultural appropriation is an appropriate term for what the OA is doing.

Is it? What does it really mean? How many different definitions are there of cultural appropriation? To whose definition should we subscribe? What if a small number of a gorup are offended, but the broader group is neutral or even supportive? Is it still wrong? What if the people that are mostly offended are not even part of the group they they feel is agreived. I heard an African American minister refer to that as "appropriating my moral indignation."

I think we can all agree that being hateful and derogatory toward someone or degrading them is well out of bounds and wrong. But the "culture wars" have expanded the boundaries of what is inappropriate to the point of being weaponized.  Sporting dreadlocks or wearing your pants a certain way if you are not from the culture that is associated with, has become grounds for calling someone racist. Restaurateurs have been maligned for creating dishes from cultures other than their own. Calm and civil discussion has been quashed because of fear of being labeled a bigot because you have a different point of view.

 

Just now, Eagle94-A1 said:

Don't know what the bylaws say, but I know the pros DO influence who is on such things as the district and council committees. My SE wanted me to replace members of the district committee because they were thorns in his side. He was even telling me who to replace them with. Of course he was trying to use the nominating committee to get his selections approved. He used the nominating committee process the same way to get rid of council committee members too. I can assume the CSE has the same type of influence for the regional and national committees too.

Influence is one thing, vetoing is another altogether.

But even influence has its limitations. Most professionals are there for a few years at most. "Up or out" is what I frequently hear them say, which appears to hold true, as I have seen a number of close friends move on to other areas. My experience is that good execs move on to other councils/national or they find new careers (with a few logical exceptions).

The nominating committee and other volunteers, live in the community. They have friends, relatives, customers and neighbors that they must live and deal with for as long as they are in the community. Beyond that, in most states, failing to comply with bylaws can expose board members legally and financially. Every board member I know is either a long time Scouter, a savvy business/educational member of the community or both. I don't care how much we like or respect the SE/DE, we will not put that before doing what is best or the Council/District or before exposing ourselves to legal ramifications.

I have had great relationships with my professionals, but if they were doing something that I did not think was in the best interest of the Council or District, I would not hesitate to point it out. I have in fact, and my concerns where addressed. In some cases I have not agreed with their actions, or lack there of, but none of them were against bylaws or policy and were at least logical.

16 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

At the end of the day, here in the real world, the electors of our western district unanimously voted for a candidate for District Chairman and the ruling Scout Executive vetoed their votes.  Since then, they have reused to elect a Chairman.  We are in the second year of this impasse.  The SE wanted "community leaders" ($$$$$) in the top spots.  That SE is gone, but his replacement is sticking to being the Caudillo, Bylaws notwithstanding.

Any what do the bylaws say about the SE's power to veto?

Just now, ItsBrian said:

I’m aware, I probably will most likely obtain my CNA certification (in senior year), work as one throughout college and then after college most likely volunteer on a squad.

Sounds like a great plan. Best of luck!

Just now, ItsBrian said:

As said in other threads, I’m in a Vocational HS for the health field and I graduate as a CNA. I plan on getting my masters and going into occupational therapy, and have 0 plans on going into the emergency field haha.

Ive been tempted to volunteer on a local squad and having them pay for EMT though.

Well, depending on where you live, WFR may be an option for a squad to pay for. Or perhaps you could talk your council into sending your to WFA instructor and wrangle WFR in the mix somehow. Or it might be useful if you planned on working at Philmont or NT for a Summer. There are a number of ways you might be able to make it worth someones while to pay your way. Your an Eagle (almost) if you put your mind to it, I be you will figure a way.

Just now, ItsBrian said:

So expensive though, I was lucky to have my school pay for EMR. From my research, EMR and WFR range from $700-1000+.

I did not remember the price, but no, it is not inexpensive.

That is another reason my son has not taken it yet. He is busy earning money for other things like Philmont OATC, NOAC and a car.

But, depending on your future plans, it could be a skill worth investing in.

Just now, ItsBrian said:

I’ve never see wilderness first responder before, only WFA which is 16 hours.

Maybe that’ll be my next venture after EMR!

It would be a good one from what I understand from talking to the instructor. Much more rigorous and in depth. Also, you are out in the woods in real life simulations of emergencies. My son took WFA and wants to take WFR.

I would love to take it, but it isn't that easy to find a two week block left over from other Scouting activities, without completely neglecting my family.

2 minutes ago, ItsBrian said:

EMR classes can last for weeks/months, as it is usually 60-80 hours usually.

Yes, Wilderness First Responder is 2 weeks (80 hours) of class time. WFA is 16 or 20 hours, I forget.

I have taken WFA. For a layman, it is a bit of a fire hose. Even with a very good. working knowledge of first aid you cover a lot of material, in depth, over a short period of time.

The material is contextual to being in the wilderness where you are more than a couple of hours from professional help. Basically, to keep the person alive until help arrives or you can evacuate.

There is a Wilderness First Responder class which I think is a 2 week class. I was told it is the equivalent to EMR but again, with a wilderness context.

1 hour ago, Col. Flagg said:

Well, maybe BSA could have done something innovative like 1) survey their membership and abide by what the majority wanted, and 2) include membership in the development of any program changes since they will be the ones that have to use them and support them in the field.

Part of evolution must ALSO include changing the way you manage the organization. If BSA is going to change so much, they should at least also change how the do things. That should not be too much to ask.

I don't believe trying to run any organization by a consensus vote of the entire membership would work. If A and B are the choices, people would scream about not having C and D as an option. There will always be those that want E and F as well. Give more than 3 options you might get a plurality, but rarely, if ever, a majority. Any more than 3 options and you are unlikely to even get as strong plurality. not to mention, current members are not the only ones that are the target market.

The membership is involved in developing programs, I have seen it first hand. But there are millions of us, how many do you think they can involved without it breaking down into complete chaos. There are some on this forum that believe the professional control things with an iron fist. The professionals do have a great deal of influence, but at the end of the day they don't have a vote (except for the CSE).

The overwhelming majority of Scouts and Scouters do not get involved beyond their unit, which is fine. But, if they never show up for district or council meetings to have their voices heard then they won't have a say in how the organization is run.

I have avoided commenting in this thread due to my contribution to the closing of a previous political thread. But, what the heck....

The question was asked if this is real news or fake new.

My question is, why is this considered news at all?

Nothing here really rises to the level of news worthy.

We have a "news organization" with a less that sterling reputation, using unnamed sources. The article uses dozens of one to three word quotes (no real context) with only a couple of lengthy quotes. One could make the breakfast menu a Shoney's sound controversial doing that.

We have a organization that is trying, for better or worse, to evolve an iconic program. There are many varied and strong opinions that drive uncertainty on how that should happen. How is that uncertainty surprising or news worthy? It is to be expect.

We have a culture in today's society that is incapable of resolving issues through discussion and compromise. Different groups want things 100% their way or they prefer to burn things to the ground. Where opinion that gets repeated enough becomes fact, regardless of the truth. We have "news organizations" that cherry pick the verbiage and write with a bias towards advocating a position rather then even attempting to present and neutral unvarnished report.

And finally, BSA has been blasted on this forum for announcing the policy change with without having a plan in place. But if on Oct 11th BSA had come out with a complete plan for this the uproar would have been about not asking the volunteers.

9 hours ago, Pselb said:

History of the Campaign Hat. The current drill sergeant hat evolved from the 1883 campaign hat. That headgear was a modified (flat brim versus upturned brim) Montana Peak, which was adopted for wear by the army in 1911, and abandoned in 1942.

Boy Scout of America are the only non-military organization in the US authorized to wear US military uniforms.  Sea Scouts is the last remnant of this.  Originally Boy Scouts wore the same uniform as the soldiers of WW I eventually replacing buttons so as to indicate BSA rather than the uniform.  Collar brass was also changed from US to BSA. 

The Scouting movement makes the neckerchief part of its uniform. ... The origin of the Scouting neckerchief seems to be in Robert Baden-Powell's participation in the Second Matabele War in 1896; where he worked with Frederick Russell Burnham, an American-born scout employed by the British Army.

It would appear that these items were not appropriated from any ethnic nor concerned sources.

If you look closely at pictures of the campaign hat, the BSA version is not the same as the British version. 

But the concept of the necker and the Stetson campaign hat both came from FRB. BP adopted them from Burnham, because of their utility, during their time together in South Africa.

Culture is not purely ethnic. The western (cowboy) culture is one that, I hear, is or was popular in Europe and Asia.

My point is the race to be the "more aggrieved" party is a fools folly. With thousands of years of human history where an how do draw lines of what is and isn't cultural appropriation. More importantly it appears generational in some cases. One generation of a particular group being offended by something a previous generation of the same group encouraged, or inturn "borrowed" in part or in total from other cultures. Arguments made over the cultural appropriation of rock and roll and BBQ a few years back comes to mind.

Scouts! The Rise of the World Scout Movement

Produced in Canada I believe.

On 1/25/2018 at 12:59 PM, Col. Flagg said:

If OA is going to be forced to give up the native american aspects of OA then WB should have to give up their "regalia" and "props" as well.

And put out a call to the rest of the world to drop the campaign hats and neckers as well.

For that matter, probably a good many Scouting skills as well.

6 hours ago, Oldscout448 said:

I'm not bad  maybe,but I ain't no Alvin York, those West by God Virginiains can some shoot.  

Just wanted to show Alex that it's not all that hard.

Just for the record, Alvin York was a Tennessean. I have been camping up near is birth place and there are markers everywhere.

8 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Have you reached out to your local tribe(s) to invite NAs to work with the OA?  From what I can see, the Seminoles did work with the local OA chapter.... but which others?   I wonder how widespread the support is from various tribes and if they truly see this as honoring them.

If the support isn’t widespread from NA tribes I wonder if it is worth the effort to fix that or to simply create new traditions as some have suggested.  If it is widespread then perhaps it is simply correcting the areas that are not working with NAs.

I didn't need to, it had already been done before I came to my current lodge.

As for other lodges and what they are doing it is difficult to say.

Lodges can be involved with individuals from the tribe, representative, governing bodies or Native American associations or nobody at all. I do not know how many Lodges have the official approval of any particular tribe.

At the Council level the  registrar validates that the MBs are in the system and that the rank dates matchup, but shouldn’t take but a few minutes. Then files the signed EBoR form. The rest is done by volunteers. 

The cynic in me say the throwing a outrageous figure, so they can look good when the lower it to what the think it cost them. 

The sad thing is this will make it more difficult for kids, particularly those  living in depressed urban and rural areas, to obtain their Eagle. 

Im not a fan, the Council needs to find another way.

32 minutes ago, David CO said:

I thought he was joking, so I responded with a joke. I thought everyone would recognize it as a joke. My mistake. Since you have taken offense at my joke, I invite a moderator to delete the post.

I found it hard to believe that anyone would seriously consider the OA stories and activities to be some sort of performance art that should be compared to classic works of literature.

Actually, the OA Legend draws heavily from the works of Cooper as well as fictional writers, including Longfellow.

Regardless, lampooning, as you demonstrated above,  is the act of using sarcasm to mock someone. The OA has never sought to mock anyone. The use of Native American culture was meant as an honor, in fact one of the founders was honored by at least one tribe for his efforts.

While individual members, chapters and lodge are not perfect, the OA strives to be respectful in it use of Native American imagery and lore and encourages working with local tribes.

We tend to hear a great deal about those that are offended by the OA, but those Native Americans that routinely come out and support, teach and work with the OA are seldom given the same voice.

3 hours ago, David CO said:

Aren't we?

When we make up fake characters and legends, aren't we lampooning the culture? 

Was James Fenimore Cooper lampooning when he made up the characters and legends in Last of the Mohicans?

I have an opinion but given some of the reactions I suppose a little self censorship would be appreciated. 

We have heard this rumor in various incarnations before, and it has never materialized.

That said, I have no doubt there will be a very concerted effort to do away with Native American references to almost any degree within a few years. It saddens me greatly, but there are too many that are too loud in that very vocal minority that wishes it to be so.

Just now, Sentinel947 said:

Thread got closed more for being totally unrelated to the original topic. Not the content of the totally off topic posts. 

 

Fair enough, thanks!

For the record, I was clowning around about the Super Soakers at 20 paces.

I thought it was funny.

I guess I was wrong.