yknot

And sorry, I forgot to wrap up: It is also not scout like. We look a thing in the eye, and call it for what it is.

Baden Powell was also an avowed fascist. He admired Hitler's youth movement and called Mein Kampf a "wonderful book". Winston Churchill hated Hindus and Palestinians and wanted to use poison gas against rebellious native indigenous populations. His stalwart defense of Britain helped stem the tide of WWII, but it was based on his vision of the preservation of the British empire. FDR opposed anti lynching bills and put Japanese Americans in concentration camps. LBJ is credited with language so racist and disgusting that it's hard to read modern day despite the fact that's he's credited with some of the greatest Civil Rights advancements of our time. Although he's credited with changing his stripes, Harry Truman was remarkably racist. So, too, Woodrow Wilson, the founder of the League of Nations, the progenitor of the United Nations. McClellan, a Union general, fought for the Union but supported slavery and opposed abolition. Former president Jimmy Carter praised a lifelong segregationist, Lester Maddox. Charles de Gaulle. Ronald Reagan. Eisenhower. All guilty of racist comments based on modern day standards. I am not trying to argue fine points of history, my argument is that people are a product of their time, and we need to look at them through that lens. Scrubbing monuments and parks and streets and buildings of names that give some indication of that relevant history is just "feel good" PC activism and is totally anti-intellectual and anti history.

Navybone, it is completely about erasing history. Or, if you prefer, editing it. Lee made war upon "armed men" only. Sherman burned to the ground and made war on women and children -- his helpless countrymen who were victims of where they were born or what side their menfolk chose. Lee lost the war. Sherman won. Sherman did reprehensible things, but his cause was just. Lee was a gentleman, but fighting for a horrific cause. Under your litmus test, there are few American historical figures worthy of emulation or celebration because they were all products of their time and all did things today we would consider abhorrent. And I'll leave you with this. Baden Powell was an acknowledged racist. Should we strike his name from scout history?

You've got to be careful here, because there are a lot of folks who are unhappy with anything named for such well known slaveholders as Washington and Jefferson. All of our historical founding fathers were cultural elitists. All of them also relegated women to second class status. Depending on circumstance, Lincoln himself made many racist pronouncements in contrast to his more revered and well known comments on emancipation. These people were products of their time. At the time of the Revolution, our founding fathers were considered traitors to King and country. They defied an Imperial power which had outlawed slavery on British soil in 1772 and then in its colonies in the early 1800s. History is complex, grey, and is best understood with all of its glories and warts in place. There were no traitors after the Civil War in the eyes of the Union. All Confederate soldiers and leaders were paroled and none were jailed or executed for treason. The point of that was to unite the country and move it forward. Stonewall Jackson was probably one of the more colorful military figures in U.S. history and a well regarded military tactician. We study Greek generals, we study Roman generals, we don't scrub their names from history or from monuments. Our history here is so short and so sadly politicized, but in Europe or Asia where the formal histories of a region have much longer memories, there are plenty of place names and monuments to historical figures and events that would be their version of a Stonewall Jackson. And just to be clear, I find slavery reprehensible, I am not a Southern apologist or whatever the word would be, I just don't agree with this current fad of trying to erase history.

Very good information. Thank you. In my part of the world there are many abandoned lines that have been turned into hiking trails but the old rails still cross the roads. Lulls you into non observance.

I think this more geared to the idea that girls are often forced by relatives to be more affectionate than boys. However it is a good reminder that if a kid of either gender really doesn't want to hug someone, it shouldn't be forced. I can't fault the GS for doing this and it's in line with their mission of supporting girls, which is something positive linked to their organization. Imagine how great it would be if BSA sent out a press release around Memorial Day, Flag Day, or July 4 reminding people that scouts are one of the few organizations charged with the solemn task of properly retiring flags. Or heaven forbid, if we sold BSA branded US flags once a year instead of popcorn. At least GSUSA is attempting to garner some positive, national publicity for themselves. More than BSA is doing.

You are really dedicated to your kids and thanks for all that you are putting in.

We have probably all blasted over tracks that looked empty or dormant and may not have been. There are so many abandoned tracks around that unless there is obvious signage it's easy to see how an out of area driver might not have realized it was an active rail bed. Where I live, there are ungated crossings, but they are utilized by sporadic freight trains that don't go that fast. Another tragic reminder to stay focused on the road, especially with kids in the car.

Do you really think we even need this? I think this should be dropped. The real cyber issues kids face are far beyond what is in the BSA program and are often emergent. The BSA's program, from what I've seen, is largely static. Most school districts are doing this kind of programming and are a much better source of this kind of information or training in my opinion. Handle it the same way they do with drugs/alcohol in Second Class -- get a sign off showing you've participated in a school or community digital safety program, talk, whatever. More and more schools are pushing technology down to the elementary grades so many of this issues are already being covered ad nauseam. Unless scouts has some kind of special take on the issue -- and we don't as far as I can see -- I'm not sure why BSA has put so much emphasis on it. Or, allow COs to make it optional based on their demographics.

Thank you. Not good news, but thank you for clarifying that.

There was a Reddit discussion on this a few days ago and information there said it has been mortgaged for a line of credit since 2010. If that's true, I don't know why the steering committee wouldn't have known or why the BSA is not putting out a clarifying statement. Regardless, it seems BSA merrily continues to shoot us all in the foot. Whether it's bad information or bad publicity, it hardly seems to matter at this point.

I don't see where anyone is singling out the Mormon faith. In fact, the opposite seems true. For decades, Scouting worked to accommodate the wishes of the LDS church, to the point where BSA allowed a customized program within a program. I personally was never comfortable with that as I think Scouting should generally work in any faith environment or in any interfaith mix. Any minor accommodations should perhaps be more appropriately limited to the CO and unit level. I also personally had an issue with the gender disparities in the LDS church, as I do when they occur in any religion from Christianity to Judaism to Islam. If BSA had built a customized program for hundreds of thousands of Catholics, Jews or Muslims and then they decided to part company, I think we'd be having the same kinds of discussions. It has nothing specific to do with LDS. Scouting has been nothing but a good friend to the LDS church. Your proviso to part without rancor perhaps would be better pointed at LDS leadership, not BSA. As far as I can see, Scouters are sad to see these kids exiting the program and I hope it's clear that they will always be welcomed back should they decide they and their families miss Scouting.

This is kind of the problem. D-Day thinking. "General" driven, top down leadership. Confidentiality rather than transparency. Battle plans. The world has changed. This kind of thinking is outdated. BSA needs to recalibrate to be relevant. We are more "at war" with ourselves than anyone else. National, councils, and units are all on different pages, and nothing has demonstrated that more than the recent fee increase debacle. While I think there are definitely some girls out there that we haven't reached yet who will enjoy scouting, why in the world would we think tens of thousands of them will suddenly abandon their sports and marching bands and other activities to join scouts any more than the boys would? If we are relying on them to save our future, it's not realistic. It's very convenient to blame other youth programs for BSA's ills and to think we need to "do battle", but the problems we have have been self inflicted. BSA needs to retool to serve the needs of the local unit and help get kids outdoors and in the community.

Why does this disease that everything has to be bigger, better, blingy-er always infect organizations? Instead of Bechtel, BSA could have done so much more good if it had developed a program to help retain Council level camps and properties on a regional basis. Property management expertise, help in setting up regional joint purchasing agreements to maximize cost efficiencies, marketing help, seed money to help transition some holdings into public ownership rather than being lost to sale and development. We are not scouts if we can't get kids outside. We are losing too many council camp properties.

Well, they are. But you can't blame a tiger for hunting any more than you can blame a media outlet for trying to sell papers or clicks. The bigger problem is that we have no platform that addresses these headlines. National is basically a corporation and it ought to have more proactive corporate public information responses when things like this happen. Instead it is silent. These cases are tragic but infrequent and do not represent the good that is done by the remaining 99.9% of the organization. The media tiger eats us alive because there is very little push back.

There is no reason to be irked. We promote that we are a character building organization. Scouts and scouters are supposed to be a cut above the rest. Most of them are. Sadly some are not. When that happens, it's a relevant headline in the same way it is to point out that someone accused of arson was a firefighter. It's tragic and ironic.

Frankly, I'm glad that BSA is no longer so tied to LDS. I am not comfortable with the gender disparity, and have never been happy with how the BSA program was modified to fit the needs of one religion. BSA should have had more of an arms length relationship from the very beginning. This transition is very difficult, but I think it ultimately could be healthy. Scouting should work without any kind of special kinds of concessions for any kind of faith environment.

"Trust but Verify" is a much better policy than "A Scout is Trustworthy" because obviously some are not.

We've sometimes worked with folks from our local chapter of Trout Unlimited: https://www.tu.org/conservation/outreach-education/headwaters-youth-program/explore-fishing/boy-scouts-fly-fishing-merit-badge/

This is a marketing message BSA is missing. Getting America's Kids Outdoors would be a great positive message to counteract all the negativity. Doing more to save local Council camps that are closing. Protect parks. Developing partnerships with conservation groups that are working to protect some of the species that are linked to our ranks, like wolves and tigers and bears. There is very little real or functional connection in BSA to conservation, wildlife, parks, etc. Our purpose is so muddled and we miss opportunities right and left to cast ourselves in a better light

Yup, that's some of the logic that the UC kept saying. I am not saying that big or small dens are good or bad. I am saying make what you have work with the kids and the parents you have and ignore the people that say, well, we always do it this way so you should too. And I disagree with your point. I never used parents to split groups apart. They were simply there for talent.

I like big dens. Our unit commissioner was a pain in my neck, constantly telling me to break my dens up into two smaller dens. I listened to what he had to say and understood his concerns, but for whatever reason, for both my sons, large dens worked extremely well. If a teacher can handle a class of 22 or more, there's no reason why a den of 12 or 14 won't work, especially if you have great ADLs and parents, which I was lucky enough to have. Frankly, a lot of the requirements wouldn't have been as much fun with a smaller group. Having larger groups meant that, with boys of very diverse interests, from the arts and STEM to sports and just hard core scouts, everybody seemed to find a pal. I always told them, you don't have to be close friends, but you are den brothers who look out for each other and you are friendly. It worked.

I think 4-H is an example of a youth organization that has done a good job of retooling and managing itself well to meet changing youth and family needs. 4-H also has about 6 million kids with a very similar leader/youth structure to BSA and yet very few reported cases of child abuse. There are problems in every organization -- 4-H isn't perfect either -- but BSA could probably learn something from how they operate.

You've got to be careful with those comparisons because generally the lower scout fee is based on several adults from the unit attending for the duration to provide supervision. YMCA, sports camps, STEM camps -- the kids go, parents don't, and counselors are provided. Having to take a day or so off work to do your shift at a scout camp can be a major hit whether you're self employed or burning vacation days. I think it works out kind of the same in our area although I know other places are different.

First, I really don't care about the social stuff and I don't judge anyone because labels are the worst way to judge whether or not someone is a decent person and trustworthy around youth. I wish to dissociate from the "real men" comment. Second, I think the core of what I want from National is that it abide by the Scout Law. I think if it had used that as a litmus test for every decision made, many of these disconnects between the leadership, councils, and units, would go away. National right now is almost unrecognizable as a scouting organization in its operations and, in my humble opinion, has lost its way.