Mrjeff

4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

No one said otherwise.  Read the post... 

 

That means events and business...

What other points are incorrect??

Ok, its a pretty simple train to follow:  attend the ordeal, complete the ordeal, remain active by paying dues, attend events, wear Sash.  Or attend the ordeal, complete the ordeal, don't remain active by not paying dues, don't attend lodge events, no Sash. Obviously I did read the post and perhaps you should read the mountains of literature available explaining the purpose and mission of the OA.   In fact it's now impossible to register for an event like NOAC unless you are an active member of your lodge.  Should I continue?

4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Since it is not really an election, but rather a selection, now, I do not ask.

What I do tell them is that Order of the Arrow is part of our UNIT program, not the Lodge program!

WE use it as selection for an honor within OUR Troop.

I have talked with many Scouts who fear one of three things:

1.  I'm rejected.  OK, so what? So now you KNOW, rather than walking around guessing.  And that is an indication to you that there MAY be some area for improvement... if you should decide to improve.  Would you rather know, or would you rather guess?

2.  I do not want to be in the OA.  Fine, no one says you have to go through an Ordeal.  But, if you are selected by your fellow Scouts, you now have OPTIONS.

3.  I'll deny someone else the chance (rare). NO!  Because it is not an ELECTION.  It is a SELECTION.  No one else loses a slot because of your being on the Selection Menu (versus ballot).

By the way... and I have said this around here until I am BLUE in the face.  An Arrowman's FIRST duty is to his UNIT!  Not to the lodge!  Nothing obligates you to service to the Lodge.  If you choose to go through the Ordeal induction Ceremony, you are ALWAYS a member of the Order of the Arrow. 

Should you not wish to pay the dues next year, you will not be a member of the Lodge.  So what?  You still may wear your sash at any and all OA observances.  Just take off the flap...

I'm not sure where some of these points come from, but several are incorrect on so many levels.  For example the OA Sash is only worrn at OA events or while conducting OA business.  You can breathe because your correct that ones first responsible to their unit and just like most things in life a person gets out of the OA to the level they contribute.  The OA should work in conjunction with the units to enhance the Scouting experience and not compete with each other.  Oh well, that's enough for now.

Thank you so much for that reply!

AMEN!!!!

56 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

Agreed.

If a SM feels that a youth is not necessarily living up to the Scout Oath or Scout Law demonstrably, it's a good time to have a SMC with that youth and explain why they aren't going to get on the ballot. The very idea of trying to deny a youth AFTER they have been elected by their troop pretty much is public shaming. Having that conference with the youth, maybe you'd learn some things that are going on in that kids life, and it may just sway your opinion of them that being in the OA just might be an additional outlet for the kid to right themselves. I've seen enough Scouts flourish in leadership positions in OA that just didn't jive well with the youth in their troops (and, after seeing some of the members of their troop within the OA, I get why). 

Perhaps its time for a change of command.  The incoming unit leader could focus on the fun and not worry about "what these boys need to learn is...."  The adult leadership in the OA should learn that the lodge doesn't belong to them and what they did is irrelevant unless it aligns with what the voting members want.  Jezzzzzzzzzz.............what happened to just having a good time ?

In order for a youth to be elected they must have Scoutmaster approval.  The election team really has no idea who is eligible and they rely on the list provided by the SM.  This approval or disapproval MUST be exercised before the election and its really that simple. 

Again I have to ask, what does a national committee know about the successes or failures of a local lodge?  I would wager that it ain't much.  Make suggestions, provide help if requested, worry about NOAC, but leave the workings of the individual lodges to the local councils that are not owned or administered by the national organization.   Their words, not mine.

5 hours ago, BlueandSilverBear said:

Defer to the Scout Law and be courteous and kind.

How about trustworthy, loyal,  brave, clean and reverent?

⁹0The national committee should mind their own business.   If a lodge can come to an agreement with their local Native Americans then leave them alone.  If not give advice concerning alternatives.   But don't issue cease and decist directives where there is no problem.

On 1/13/2023 at 12:36 PM, yknot said:

At the pack level some years ago, one of the leaders excitedly brought in some OA dancers, thinking it would thrill the youth and inspire word of mouth recruitment. Instead, at least half the parents dragged their cubs out the door within minutes and pack leadership had to subsequently field some rather outraged questions from the school district since it was held in a gym, and issue assurances it would never happen again. At the troop level, interest in OA has been zero to minimal for the better part of a decade. Parents and  youth here are heavily focused on pursuing Eagle and any other accolade that will look good on a college resume. In this social media age, however, people have increasingly become sensitized about recognizing and not being associated with anything that could be construed as demeaning, questionable, or politically incorrect. Frankly, people outside of scouting and even many within it, don't know what OA is, which is maybe good. But once they understand what it is and read up a little about it, they generally don't seem to get much past a couple of the words or a stray post on Facebook before deciding it's not for them. This has come up in BORs with scouts and in conversations with parents. Personally, I think rebranding OA away from the AI imagery and language to become something more focused on the scouting trail could be a boost to membership.  I think if there was a national youth survey on how they currently view OA and its associated imagery, ceremonies, and language, it might help give a better picture of how to shape a meaningful scout honor society. 

I heard this rumor too, but could not substantiate it.  

On 1/11/2023 at 11:30 AM, fred8033 said:

I'm just an OA member embarrassed by my organizations practices.  Is it a huge embarrassment?  No.  My embarrassment is more about not wanting to be associated with the practice.

I should be proud of everything about OA.  It's the whole point.  OA is an honor society.  It's about service and fellowship.  Instead, OA has as major area that I'm embarrassed to talk about.  

 

https://ictnews.org/news/order-of-the-arrow-is-a-secret-scout-society-in-the-spirit-of-the-lenni-lenape-a-lenape-leader-disagrees

Lenni Lenape elder and tribal pastor John Norwood responded to Indian Country Today in an email, that his view on the Order of the Arrow’s adherence to said traditions and practices are plainly “not authentic.”

“It is my understanding that the original ‘lore and ceremony’ of the Boy Scouts of America, Order of the Arrow was allegedly based upon what was claimed to be Lenape culture, although I am uncertain as to whether that remains true, Norwood wrote in an email. 

 

The order was “based upon a version of the old Northern Unami dialect of Lenape, called ‘Mission Lenape,’ which was probably gleaned from Moravian missionary documents going back to the 18th and early 19th centuries.

“The BSA/OA's use of Native dress and ceremony originated around the time that other non-Native organizations adopted Native dress, lore, and ceremony for their usage, ironically during a period in history when many Natives were discouraged from embracing our own tribal culture and identity and when government and social forces sought to terminate tribes. Often such groups with a history of using Native dress, lore, and ceremonies will claim that permission was granted by some “Indian” at some point in the past. Whether or not this is true is immaterial. No single individual tribal person has the authority to place the cultural knowledge and property rights of a tribal nation into the public domain.”

 

Norwood said that no matter the intentions, the wearing of Native dress by non-Native people is appropriation.

"While I respect each tribe’s right to its own perspective on the issue, I believe that no matter the sincerity of the participants, the use of Native dress and ceremonies (even when accurately portrayed) by non-Natives is a misappropriation of our culture. I appreciate the effort to consult with area tribes, as expressed in the OA manual. However, this should be done in order to gain an understanding of, and appreciation for, regional tribal heritage, not in order to mimic it." 

 

"The problem with gaining permission to use tribal dress and ceremony from regional tribes is that the history of the United States includes the disruption and displacement of tribes to the extent that a region may not contain all of its original indigenous tribes, which would still have a claim to the cultural heritage being appropriated. Moreover, even if one generation of an authentic tribe granted such permission, another generation would still have the right to withdraw such permission. Also, there are some non-historic cultural enthusiast groups that illegitimately claim tribal identity and authority, which would fraudulently grant such permission to those seeking their blessing to “play Indian.”

 

Norwood says using a drum for "Native" song created by non-Native people is also appropriating culture.

"The songs and ceremonies and regalia of our people belong to our people. They represent a heritage that has passed from one generation to the next during centuries of persecution. Some elements of regalia or songs or ceremonies are particular to a clan or family or society within a tribe and require some personal achievement and/or special permission in order to gain the right of use, even for tribal people."

This is wonderful, but I can find a tribal pastor to say the exact opposite so who do we listen to?

Ok guys, I am a lodge advisor and my support of youth leadership is unwavering.  If a national OA Committee made up of mostly youth members the decisions that they make would be more palatable.   As it is that committee is made up of adults.   These far reaching choices should be made by the kids who are affected by these choices.  If the pieces keep getting chopped off, soon there will be nothing left, and to me, it looks like that may be the goal.  

I guess that my major concerns are these.  The OA started out as a way to honor a few outstanding camp staff members.  It then became a society of Scout Honor Campers and then the Scouting National Honor Society, all the while focused on service and camp promotions.  The trappings and ceremonial movement are very close to those of another ancient and respected organization and my fellow travelers know exactly what I am talking about.  If those specific things were removed there would be no Order of the Arrow.  Youth leadership is supposed to be the groundwork of the OA but the many decisions effecting the order are influenced by adults or made without regard to the opinions of the youth leadership.  These decisions are also made with little or no regard for the members who make up the order.  These decisions do not take into account of the differences between the cultural and social norms that exist throughout the United States.  They also fail to consider the relationships that exist between cultural entities within specific geographic regions.  With a little creativity solutions could be created that would be generally accepted across the board.  If the local tribe located in the southeast supports the program, then let it be.  If the local tribe in the mid west objects, then make the necessary changes.  Clearly, the BSA will never be as it once was and neither will the OA but if it ain't broke don't fix it, even if it creates differences in the way the program is presented.  

On 1/11/2023 at 11:30 AM, fred8033 said:

I'm just an OA member embarrassed by my organizations practices.  Is it a huge embarrassment?  No.  My embarrassment is more about not wanting to be associated with the practice.

I should be proud of everything about OA.  It's the whole point.  OA is an honor society.  It's about service and fellowship.  Instead, OA has as major area that I'm embarrassed to talk about.  

 

https://ictnews.org/news/order-of-the-arrow-is-a-secret-scout-society-in-the-spirit-of-the-lenni-lenape-a-lenape-leader-disagrees

Lenni Lenape elder and tribal pastor John Norwood responded to Indian Country Today in an email, that his view on the Order of the Arrow’s adherence to said traditions and practices are plainly “not authentic.”

“It is my understanding that the original ‘lore and ceremony’ of the Boy Scouts of America, Order of the Arrow was allegedly based upon what was claimed to be Lenape culture, although I am uncertain as to whether that remains true, Norwood wrote in an email. 

 

The order was “based upon a version of the old Northern Unami dialect of Lenape, called ‘Mission Lenape,’ which was probably gleaned from Moravian missionary documents going back to the 18th and early 19th centuries.

“The BSA/OA's use of Native dress and ceremony originated around the time that other non-Native organizations adopted Native dress, lore, and ceremony for their usage, ironically during a period in history when many Natives were discouraged from embracing our own tribal culture and identity and when government and social forces sought to terminate tribes. Often such groups with a history of using Native dress, lore, and ceremonies will claim that permission was granted by some “Indian” at some point in the past. Whether or not this is true is immaterial. No single individual tribal person has the authority to place the cultural knowledge and property rights of a tribal nation into the public domain.”

 

Norwood said that no matter the intentions, the wearing of Native dress by non-Native people is appropriation.

"While I respect each tribe’s right to its own perspective on the issue, I believe that no matter the sincerity of the participants, the use of Native dress and ceremonies (even when accurately portrayed) by non-Natives is a misappropriation of our culture. I appreciate the effort to consult with area tribes, as expressed in the OA manual. However, this should be done in order to gain an understanding of, and appreciation for, regional tribal heritage, not in order to mimic it." 

 

"The problem with gaining permission to use tribal dress and ceremony from regional tribes is that the history of the United States includes the disruption and displacement of tribes to the extent that a region may not contain all of its original indigenous tribes, which would still have a claim to the cultural heritage being appropriated. Moreover, even if one generation of an authentic tribe granted such permission, another generation would still have the right to withdraw such permission. Also, there are some non-historic cultural enthusiast groups that illegitimately claim tribal identity and authority, which would fraudulently grant such permission to those seeking their blessing to “play Indian.”

 

Norwood says using a drum for "Native" song created by non-Native people is also appropriating culture.

"The songs and ceremonies and regalia of our people belong to our people. They represent a heritage that has passed from one generation to the next during centuries of persecution. Some elements of regalia or songs or ceremonies are particular to a clan or family or society within a tribe and require some personal achievement and/or special permission in order to gain the right of use, even for tribal people."

This is really awsome and displays just how easy it is to do a Google search and cut/paste one article to substantiate your opinion, for which you are completly entitled.  However; it does not negate the fact that I have never met a First Nation citizen who has any negative thoughts or issues with our current Order of the Arrow practices or customs.

On 1/11/2023 at 11:30 AM, fred8033 said:

I'm just an OA member embarrassed by my organizations practices.  Is it a huge embarrassment?  No.  My embarrassment is more about not wanting to be associated with the practice.

I should be proud of everything about OA.  It's the whole point.  OA is an honor society.  It's about service and fellowship.  Instead, OA has as major area that I'm embarrassed to talk about.  

 

https://ictnews.org/news/order-of-the-arrow-is-a-secret-scout-society-in-the-spirit-of-the-lenni-lenape-a-lenape-leader-disagrees

Lenni Lenape elder and tribal pastor John Norwood responded to Indian Country Today in an email, that his view on the Order of the Arrow’s adherence to said traditions and practices are plainly “not authentic.”

“It is my understanding that the original ‘lore and ceremony’ of the Boy Scouts of America, Order of the Arrow was allegedly based upon what was claimed to be Lenape culture, although I am uncertain as to whether that remains true, Norwood wrote in an email. 

 

The order was “based upon a version of the old Northern Unami dialect of Lenape, called ‘Mission Lenape,’ which was probably gleaned from Moravian missionary documents going back to the 18th and early 19th centuries.

“The BSA/OA's use of Native dress and ceremony originated around the time that other non-Native organizations adopted Native dress, lore, and ceremony for their usage, ironically during a period in history when many Natives were discouraged from embracing our own tribal culture and identity and when government and social forces sought to terminate tribes. Often such groups with a history of using Native dress, lore, and ceremonies will claim that permission was granted by some “Indian” at some point in the past. Whether or not this is true is immaterial. No single individual tribal person has the authority to place the cultural knowledge and property rights of a tribal nation into the public domain.”

 

Norwood said that no matter the intentions, the wearing of Native dress by non-Native people is appropriation.

"While I respect each tribe’s right to its own perspective on the issue, I believe that no matter the sincerity of the participants, the use of Native dress and ceremonies (even when accurately portrayed) by non-Natives is a misappropriation of our culture. I appreciate the effort to consult with area tribes, as expressed in the OA manual. However, this should be done in order to gain an understanding of, and appreciation for, regional tribal heritage, not in order to mimic it." 

 

"The problem with gaining permission to use tribal dress and ceremony from regional tribes is that the history of the United States includes the disruption and displacement of tribes to the extent that a region may not contain all of its original indigenous tribes, which would still have a claim to the cultural heritage being appropriated. Moreover, even if one generation of an authentic tribe granted such permission, another generation would still have the right to withdraw such permission. Also, there are some non-historic cultural enthusiast groups that illegitimately claim tribal identity and authority, which would fraudulently grant such permission to those seeking their blessing to “play Indian.”

 

Norwood says using a drum for "Native" song created by non-Native people is also appropriating culture.

"The songs and ceremonies and regalia of our people belong to our people. They represent a heritage that has passed from one generation to the next during centuries of persecution. Some elements of regalia or songs or ceremonies are particular to a clan or family or society within a tribe and require some personal achievement and/or special permission in order to gain the right of use, even for tribal people."

This is really awsome and displays just how easy it is to do a Google search and cut/paste one article to substantiate your opinion, for which you are completly entitled.  However; it does not negate the fact that I have never met a First Nation citizen who has any negative thoughts or issues with our current Order of the Arrow practices or customs.

10 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I'm just an OA member embarrassed by my organizations practices.  Is it a huge embarrassment?  No.  My embarrassment is more about not wanting to be associated with the practice.

I should be proud of everything about OA.  It's the whole point.  OA is an honor society.  It's about service and fellowship.  Instead, OA has as major area that I'm embarrassed to talk about.  

 

https://ictnews.org/news/order-of-the-arrow-is-a-secret-scout-society-in-the-spirit-of-the-lenni-lenape-a-lenape-leader-disagrees

Lenni Lenape elder and tribal pastor John Norwood responded to Indian Country Today in an email, that his view on the Order of the Arrow’s adherence to said traditions and practices are plainly “not authentic.”

“It is my understanding that the original ‘lore and ceremony’ of the Boy Scouts of America, Order of the Arrow was allegedly based upon what was claimed to be Lenape culture, although I am uncertain as to whether that remains true, Norwood wrote in an email. 

 

The order was “based upon a version of the old Northern Unami dialect of Lenape, called ‘Mission Lenape,’ which was probably gleaned from Moravian missionary documents going back to the 18th and early 19th centuries.

“The BSA/OA's use of Native dress and ceremony originated around the time that other non-Native organizations adopted Native dress, lore, and ceremony for their usage, ironically during a period in history when many Natives were discouraged from embracing our own tribal culture and identity and when government and social forces sought to terminate tribes. Often such groups with a history of using Native dress, lore, and ceremonies will claim that permission was granted by some “Indian” at some point in the past. Whether or not this is true is immaterial. No single individual tribal person has the authority to place the cultural knowledge and property rights of a tribal nation into the public domain.”

 

Norwood said that no matter the intentions, the wearing of Native dress by non-Native people is appropriation.

"While I respect each tribe’s right to its own perspective on the issue, I believe that no matter the sincerity of the participants, the use of Native dress and ceremonies (even when accurately portrayed) by non-Natives is a misappropriation of our culture. I appreciate the effort to consult with area tribes, as expressed in the OA manual. However, this should be done in order to gain an understanding of, and appreciation for, regional tribal heritage, not in order to mimic it." 

 

"The problem with gaining permission to use tribal dress and ceremony from regional tribes is that the history of the United States includes the disruption and displacement of tribes to the extent that a region may not contain all of its original indigenous tribes, which would still have a claim to the cultural heritage being appropriated. Moreover, even if one generation of an authentic tribe granted such permission, another generation would still have the right to withdraw such permission. Also, there are some non-historic cultural enthusiast groups that illegitimately claim tribal identity and authority, which would fraudulently grant such permission to those seeking their blessing to “play Indian.”

 

Norwood says using a drum for "Native" song created by non-Native people is also appropriating culture.

"The songs and ceremonies and regalia of our people belong to our people. They represent a heritage that has passed from one generation to the next during centuries of persecution. Some elements of regalia or songs or ceremonies are particular to a clan or family or society within a tribe and require some personal achievement and/or special permission in order to gain the right of use, even for tribal people."

This is really awsome and displays just how easy it is to do a Google search and cut/paste one article to substantiate your opinion, for which you are completly entitled.  However; it does not negate the fact that I have never met a First Nation citizen who has any negative thoughts or issues with our current Order of the Arrow practices or customs.

I think that you have identified the issues!  We have turned into a culture that accepts good enough rather then quality.  Everybody who shows up gets a pass no matter how they participated. Everything should be available to everyone and everyone's rights and feelings are more important then your own.  Thomas Payne stated that if you are afraid to offend you cannot be honest.  I would venture a guess that if you asked, your Scouts wouldn't even know who Thomas  Payne was.  Perhaps the BSA and all of its goals,nstandards and traditions has run its course, outlived its usefulness and should just pass into obscurity.  This may be a better fate then turning it into something that is only a shell of what it once was.

22 minutes ago, KublaiKen said:

We're like the dinosaurs, but we have the advantage of seeing the comet coming. Please keep me apprised of how hiding your head in the sand works out.

I'm a little confused.  

6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

No need to be rude.

My "dog in the fight" is being an OA member and my not wanting to be seen as prejudiced.  Cultural appropriation is a hot topic.  Many reasonably view it as yet another form of discrimination.  I'm very conservative, but I see the arguments as reasonable.  

"Speak on behalf" ... I read one of the above articles.  It had a good point.  No one really has the right to speak on behalf of the tribe to "give" permission.  The speaker himself (a tribal member) well represented reasons for not using the Lenapi lore.  

It's time for OA to stand on it's own honor; not a caricature of another culture.

Not being rude simply stating that if you are not a member of the first nation you really don't have a complaint that needs to be the basis of policy.  Exactly is the speaker?  Is he a chief, an elder or a fringe radical?  WHO IS PUTTING THIS STUFF OUT THERE?  Why is it so hard to answer this question, doesn't anybody know or is it just made up BS used by people to advance their own agenda?  Like I  said before, I have never met or spoken to a Native American who has any issue with the OA and the use of Native American regalia.   Somebody somewhere can find something offensive in anything.  If its offensive to you then you have a choice not to do it.  You do not get to choose whether or not I do it.

20 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I'm one.  I've been called Reagan era republican.  I cringe in hindsight that I'm now associated with about eight years ago bringing in a BSA scout Indian regalia dance team to our cub scout pack for our pack program.  Was it wrong?  Not explicitly.  Do I want to be seen as the guy who brought them in?  Absolutely not.  

It's similar to telling crude inappropriate jokes.  I really don't have trouble with most and will defend a person's right to tell the jokes.  I just don't want to be seen as the guy telling the joke or asking someone else to tell the joke.  

BSA's use of indian lore in scouting has turned into an off-color joke.  Time to change.  Heck, the NFL and MLB made the change.  Time for BSA to clean up.

Unless you are a tribal member with tribal status and can speak on behalf of First Nation citizens, then you are not one. You are entitled to your ideas and opinions, but really "don't have a dog in the fight."  Since you like to mention sports teams,  why don't you do a little research into the Florida State Seminole and see where they stand on the issue.

Unfortunately this is just another step in the systematic suicide of the Boy Scouts. I agree that the BSA is a private organization that requires an application and a membership fee.  Therefore the private organization can restrict who can be accepted for membership.  At one time each member had to agree with the scout oath and law and recognize their duty to God.  It was that simple and it worked for a long time.  Like it or not, agreemor not, the Boy Scouts stopped using these strict guidelines and turned the BSA into a club med that is open to everyone and has a place for everybody.  Sincce it is for everybody and no one can be offended they slowly cut the guts out of a great organization.   I would agree that I would rather discontinue the Order of the Arrow rather then see it be reduced to an embarrassing state.  When we the stakeholders are fed a bunch of happy crap and membership is continuing to fall someone is not making good decisions.  And don't try to convince me that the recent growth spirt is not based on the sudden influx of girls because it is.  Before long the liberal, all appeasing,  never offending national grand poo-pas wont have to worry because the loyal, long time Scouters will all be dead and there just won't be anyone to replace them.

11 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Just 1 example here:

Boy Scout OA Dance Teams - PowWows.com Forums - Native American Culture

Just one of many negative quotes from various forum members from tribes about order of the arrow...

Then there are articles about BSA and NA:

Boy Scouts ‘have been one of the worst culprits’ of cultural appropriation - ICT News

Order of the Arrow is a ‘secret’ scout society ‘in the spirit of the Lenni Lenape’ - a Lenape leader disagrees - ICT News

Personally, I think we make a mistake when we generalize or even reference "Indian" culture.  There isn't an "Indian culture" in the USA.  There are tribal cultures.  If a specific tribe is working with a lodge, I'm not sure why anyone from the outside would have an issue.  I know there are several lodges that have good relationships with tribes.  I hope that can continue.

That said, to think no one from the NA community has a problem with this is completely wrong.  

However, BSA & National OA can make whatever decisions they think is best.

WHO ARE THEY, anyone can right down  anything but exactly who are the complainers?  If it is some Berkly professor who thinks its ok if a boy thinks he's a girl or if a girl thinks she's a cat, then they do need to "shut the hell up."  

11 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

uh, James Dale... BSA vs Dale

They DID revoke his membership because he is gay.

And that Supreme Court decision still stands.  BSA may have changed their policy, but the right for a private organization to define its membership standards is law.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/61/boy-scouts-of-america-v-dale

Oh boy, like I said, just try and revoke the membership of someone because they are gay, and see where that goes.

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA v Dale .... BSA has the 1st amendment right to revoke membership of someone who is gay.  I am 100% certain they have the 1st amendment right to revoke membership of someone who violates their policy on usage of regalia.  BSA has the power to set the policy for their organization (with some limits on protected classes in some cases).  If they decide that usage of regalia in the OA would violate their principles, they could kick them out.  

Right......try to revoke the membership of someone who is gay!!!! Also, the BSA has openly stated that they do not own the local councils, and each council is autonomous with their own board of directors.  Cant have it both ways.

This whole pile of $&!+ is based on supposition, conjecture and opinions.  Who are the people making this an issue.  Are they tribal members,mare they tribal elders,  do they have any tribal status at all? Or are these decisions being made by a committee who is just guessing?  An administration can fill committees with people who will forward their agenda.  I gald that I was informed that national committee members work hard because in 50+ years in scouting I don't know anyone on a national  anything. This post started out discussing how jacked up and sideways the OA has gotten for many Scouts and Scouters.  Maybee some of those hard working mystical national committee folks could use their unquestioned expertise to help improve the lodges that are not doing very well.   All of this stuff might be easier to stomach if anyone knew the reasoning behind this mess. I wish someone could direct me towards the first nation citizens who dislike what the OA is doing, because EVERY FIRST NATION MEMBER that I have actually spoken are very supportive.  Again, show me the valid comparative research and justify these decisions to each and every stakeholder,  or leave it alone and quit stirring  crap.