Navybone

1 hour ago, Troop75Eagle said:

But what comes with this particular group, it’s allies among anarchists and politically correct culture certainly is at issue. People will demand change without useful or reasonable  suggestions.

There is debate on the actual “alliance” with anarchist.  There are elements on the extreme left AND right who are using the protest as an opportunity to fan the flames and creat riots.  BLM has a responsibility to try to distance themselves for sure and not get “co-mingled” with these groups.  But again,  BLM protest does not equal riots and violence.   
 

but to your original post that I responded to, BLM  not advocating turning over the government.  And to this point, BLMmis not advocating riots and violence, and destruction all over the country.  

5 minutes ago, David CO said:

You can't riot away racism either.

Right, but you can protest it and bring attention to it.  Not all protest are riots.  Most are not, most are peaceful.  

1 hour ago, Troop75Eagle said:

Indeed, That is far beyond just the trait of expressed racism.  That suggests that the whole system from inception is so flawed (and anti black) that it has to be destroyed and rebuilt with them in mind in whatever self image they have.

Where are you seeing BLM advocating replacing our system over government?  I just  looked all through their site and do not see anything about a revolution or changing any of the principle documents of government.  Do they think that there is a significant racism issue in this country, yes.  But I do not see them pushing for a new constitution, maybe just ensuring they get the rights that the constitution affords them.  You cannot legislate away racism.  

41 minutes ago, yknot said:

Obliterating artwork and history set in stone is not going to accomplish any of the human aims we want. All it's going to do is erase a piece a of history. Also, you would be erasing a monument to a different kind of slave. All three men are mounted on horses who mutely served their masters through no wish of their own. Almost all of humanity of every color, ethnicity and race has only survived because they were able to enslave the horse. The only monuments that exist to these poor beasts are military ones like this one at Stone Mountain. Traveler, Little Sorrel and Black Jack are the names of the horses depicted on Stone Mountain.  Traveler, despite the side he served on, is one of the most famous war horses of all time, often listed in the same breath with Bucephalas, the beloved war mount of Alexander the Great, Napoleon's Marengo, and the Duke of Wellington's Copenhagen. Little Sorrel, Stonewall Jackson's war horse, was stolen from Union troops and made to serve the Confederacy through no equine choice of his own and yet people want to erase him.

I did not realize Stone Mountain was a tribute to horses.  Being funded by the KKK and all.  Opening the anniversary of Lincoln’s Assassination.   Maybe should have just left the people off of it.  Anywhere I can read more about Stone Mountain as a tribute to horses.  The sites webpage says nothing about this.  

48 minutes ago, David CO said:

Now look who is engaging in historical revisionism.  

I am only quoting the cession documents presented to make the case of the states who joined the Confederacy.  If that is historical revisionism, what document from the time should if use.  I mean, they were written by the states themselves.  You don’t have to believe me, You find a copy here:  https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

23 minutes ago, Troop75Eagle said:

I believe destroying monuments is absurd on its face.  The Taliban destroyed them because it was offensive to them. The idea is that it was offensive to their sensibilities.  The fact it was idolatry in Islam is irrelevant. It was just as important to them as a sensibility as others find Stone Mountain offensive or Mount Rushmore.  
 

vultural and artistic achievements have been Swept away and destroyed because of cultural relativism and people in one era.  They deny the future the concrete understanding and review of what was done. Destroying culture and art because it offends people is outrageous.  If one wants to do that, then every neonazi is fully justified in defacing everything they don’t like.  

 

I do not agree with the taliban on anything.  Which is why I spent many years hunting and killing them.  
 

but for this, You are You saying you are ok with Stone Mountain? What it represents, what it honors?  
 

14 minutes ago, David CO said:

 The Confederacy had many reasons for leaving the Union.  Slavery was one of them.  Do you disparage the rest of the organization and their goals for that?  Sometimes one is enough.

No, slavery was the reason they left.  Read each states declaration on why they left.  In each, the reason is slavery.  The efforts in the early 1900’s of the LOst cause or states right was nothing more than way for the south to convince itself that it was not slavery.  But their founding documents betray that reality.  For the 5 initial states in why they left the union (from their words)
 

georgia:  third line - they have endeavored  to weaken out security, to disturb out domestic peace and tranquillity....with reference to that property 

mississippi: second line.  Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world.

s. Carolina: first line...but in deference to to the opinions and wishes of other slaveholding states

texas: takes some time, but third paragraph: she was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery — the servitude of of the African to the white race within her limits....

virginia: last line for the first paragraph:   Not only to the injury of the people, of Virginia, but to the oppression of the southern slave holding states.  

I am see past many things, but slavery of another human based on the color of there skin.  No, I cannot see past that.  Who can?

4 minutes ago, Troop75Eagle said:

 

there is no limit to hurt feelings and desire to eliminate symbols placed in a public forum.  Native Americans despise Mt Rushmore and want it gone, the protestors apparently don’t want symbols of anyone having anything to do with slavery around as the destruction of Jefferson and Washington clearly illustrated.  Stone Mountain is one of the biggest monuments in earth but protestors would just assume blow it up.  
 

Like it or not, this is cultural purging and a point when one group attempts to erase public display of history in a whirlwind of action riding high on emotion. Frankly, they could take a page from the Taliban playbook.  They blew up ancient Buddhist behemoths because it was offensive to Islam.  The various churches over time have destroyed or marred art because it was offensive to sensibilities,  

Stone Mountain is literally the largest monument on earth dedicated to honoring the men who betrayed their country to enslave an entire race due to their skin.  The taliban blew up statues because Islam considers any representation of the human as offensive.  Both of these instances illustrate how narrow the thinking of a culture or people can be.   Are you in agreement that Stone Mountain should be preserved because is it something the US wants to celebrate or honor.   That the South’s effort to break away from the United States over the desire to preserve slavery is something we want to solemnize, and that is it is something we want our children to commemorate and recognize in anything other than repudiation of racism? 

10 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

The first amendment prevents the government from stopping peaceable assembly and redress of grievances.  Rioting and looting are prominently absent.  People keep saying I should listen.  Oh I'm listening all right and hearing just fine.  BLM the organization explicitly calls for the destruction of the family (how's that worked out for the black community over the last 50 years?), and one of their organizers has explicitly stated they have a Marxist ideology.  There's no interest in conversation or dialog from BLM the organization.  And beyond the Confederates statues my own Senator Duckworth has said she'd be open to listening to arguments to take down memorials to Geo. Washington.  There have been calls to take down the Jefferson Memorial.  Sorry, cultural Marxism is real and must be actively opposed.  BLM will set civil rights back 70 years.

There are 17 different items BLM is supporting In their mission.  You have identified one and disparage the rest of the organization and their goals for that?  And it does NOT call for the destruction of the family, rather it calls for recognition that extended families and villages have a significant pace in today’s society.  Do we not want equality under law for all Americans, regardless of race?  Do we not understand that a significant portion of our population is disenfranchised and there is room and opportunity to heal the Division that occurs.  
 

And for Duckworth, her comments are for being willing to having a dialogue.  Do we not want open discussion and debate?  Are we so closed minded?  Cultural Marxism is a new-con wet- dream to encourage right wing conservative government, not an engaged government willing to talk to the people, and understand their concerns. 
 

what are you listening to?  

18 minutes ago, David CO said:

Tell that to all of the liberal mayors and city councils who allow the looting and rioting, the blocking of highways, the destruction of public property, and the threats against honest law abiding citizens.  These liberal politicians don't seem to be able to differentiate between criminal behavior and peaceful protests. 

No, the politicians get it, they understand.  But maybe they are trying to approach this more as an enagagement to address the underlying conditions ina an effort to stop more protest, looting, etc.  but again, protesting is not the same as looting and rioting.  And when peaceful protestors are treated like looters or rioter like some heavy handed politicians have done, then nothing moves forward, nothing changes, and we are stuck in the death spiral of ineffectiveness.  And simp,Ed protesting is seen as the same as looting or rioting.  

18 minutes ago, David CO said:

No.  Listening is not too much to ask.  But yes, sitting idly by while they riot, loot, and desecrate monuments is a bit too much to ask.  At its core, BLM is an anarchist group.

There is a huge difference between whose who loot/riot and those who protest.  And why are the riots occurring?   And for the monuments, specifically the ones honoring confederate leaders or soldiers, do you not understand why they want them removed?  Is it too much to ask they they want a statue of a person or representation that honors, or remembers, or celebrates the subjugation is a single person due to the color of their skin removed.  

12 hours ago, David CO said:

I think that may be exactly what the executives at BSA have in mind.  They want to turn their remaining boy scout camps into commercial camp grounds.  They'll sell the ones they can and commercialize the rest..  

This is why we rarely use BSA campsite anyway.  Would rather use a state park - other than summer camp. 

17 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

Lastly, I have spent the last few weeks listening to my Black friends about their experiences. I have always known racism still exists, but thought it was relegated to the few extreme nut jobs. I am learning that there still exist residual effects of the overt racism which still are an obstacle to my Black friends; obstacles and other situations to which I am immune due to my pigmentation. At its core, BLM first asks that we just listen and not get so defensive. I ask everyone, is listening too much to ask?

I have done the same and I am astonished at what is still occurring in the Navy, a microcosm of society. As a senior in the navy, talking to other senior black officers and sailors about the racism they encounter.  To hear their sides of the story of an event I was actually involved in. Totally unaware of some of the behind the scenes actions of others.   I too assumed the best of people.  Totally agree, is listening too much to ask?  Is it too hard to try to understand what others have gone through, what they are currently still experiencing.  Don’t make it political, make it personal.  We cannot wish is away, with vague stereotypes or cherry-picking of statistics.   It’s hard, it’s an uncomfortable conversation to have.  But it’s time to get comfortable being uncomfortable.  DuctTApe, you put it more eloquently than I can.  
 

What was his departure from the other two troops like.  Was it amicable?  

Just now, InquisitiveScouter said:

Your own words convict you.

If you are accusing me of being intolerant about people who refuse to admit that there are race issues in this nation and staying the course, doing what we have always been doing is enough - guilty as charged. 

I support the BSA's effort to shape the minds and develop today's youth to lead tomorrow.  Tolerance, diversity, and inclusions are concepts that I wholeheartedly support.  I also wholeheartedly support an organization that is willing to take an honest look at itself and admit it can do better.  That is part of an organization I want to be part of.   I'll leave this last note because I feel as if I am trying to push back against the wind.  I find the comments of others to be very revealing, but I am not going to try to change anyone's mind.  We get from our scouts what we put in, what we teach and show by example.   

18 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

So, you tolerate everything except intolerance?

Yep.   Intolerance is nothing more than unwillingness to accepts views, beliefs or behaviors different than ones own.   

4 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Remove the log from your own eye before you concentrate on the speck of sawdust in mine.

I did not imply anything.    I am not black, never have been.   But what I did do was try to understand the challenges my peers have undergone.  Men and women who I know well and respect.   It was eye opening what they have gone through.    Is there something wrong with that concept, something we don’t want to teach our scouts about understanding and empathy?   It’s far easier to just think there are no problems,  to think there is nothing more you can learn, to say “don’t have that problem here”.   

22 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

And as you know, and should be in your experience, the military is the most egalitarian institution in our society.  Of all organizations I have been involved with in my life, the US military is the purest meritocracy I (and you?) have experienced.

it is a meritocracy.  However, as every service chief has clearly stated, there is still racism in the military, and an order or regulation cannot erase it.  And much like the statement and purpose of the BSA statement, there is much that needs to be done, and that everyone need to take a look, have a conversation with those experiencing racism to better understand it, and be brave confront it when you see it.  there is no room for intolerance - be it due to color of skin, religion or political belief.

2 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

@Liz

As a 26 year veteran of the armed forces, I spent more of my career supporting humanitarian missions around the world than I did supporting combat operations under the orders of my civilian governments, which you (we) elected.

Your comment shows an incredible level of ignorance, and is downright unscoutlike.  I recommend you delete it yourself before the moderators do.

I too am a military member with as many years in the service (and still serving) and completely disagree with you.   The US is decidedly not a military state.   There are reasons that military wear (camp pants) are frowned on to be worn at account events.   BSA is not about training youth for military, but for developing leadership, resilience, confidence, and Overall contribute to society as adults.   While this is much like that military offers, BSA is not a military organization.   What Liz says is fine, and I have concern with your lack of tolerance with people who disagree with you.   

1 hour ago, Troop75Eagle said:

 

Hmm...the point being that action-reaction with increasing fervor is not scouting.  Isolating the events of the video is hardly the point.  The escalation of explosive politics and injecting that into BSA as has been occurring and ripping it asunder.  That is the point.

BSA is not saying they will teach intolerance or rioting, the exact opposite.  Rioter are going to riot, for what ever reason, same with looters.  But protesting an injustice, and continuing to portent is as American as apple pie.  And it’s not diversity first, it’s in addition to.   Nothing is binary here.   

4 hours ago, Troop75Eagle said:

with regard to scouts being in danger, I will hasten to add this, if you go and google search for Albuquerque man chased down, you will see protesters chasing a solitary man, laying hands on and threatening to kill.  As a last resort, the man pulls his own weapon and shoots.  The circumstances are definitely a mixed bag of cause and effect but the point is the growing volatility, reaction and counter reaction.

That is not scouting. 

That the guy they have also attacking women on video, before he uses mace and then shoots a guy during a protest.  You are right, that is not scouting.  

1 hour ago, JoeBob said:

So, anybody bet that this is not what the new flag ceremonies will look like?

https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/nfl-kneel.jpg?w=1000

If the scout wants to exercise his or her first amendment right they learn about in CitNation, yep.  

 

2 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Hear, hear. 

When you look at the empirical data and studies done, you cannot reasonably reach the conclusion there is "systemic" racism, nor is there a police bias.  It is perceived...

There are, however, far too many cases of excessive use of force...but race is not a statistically significant causal factor in these.

https://killedbypolice.net/

See the bottom of the splash page for "proven solutions"

None of those have anything to do with race...

When we disguise our feelings as thought, we make all nonsense possible.

Two thoughts,

  First based on your website -  "Police killed 1004 people in 2019. Black people were 24% of those killed despite being only 13% of the population"

Second, and the most important in my mind - this is not about systematic racism or police bias.  That is what some of the protest are about, but it is really about stopping racism in the entire country.  This is not a new problem, it has been part of this nation since its start.  It did not end after the civil war, it did not end with civil rights legislation, it still exist.   That is what the MB and the scouts can help stop.  And if we can, why would we not do that?  I am not saying it has to be a MB, but is should be part of the program.   BSA has the ability to influence young minds in so many positive ways.  

2 hours ago, PACAN said:

The question  on the pamphlet vs a MB is making it Eagle required is where do you want the BSA to inject itself in this area?   My point is early.  This will overtime become another last minute MB done to check the block.  Also believe it or not we are not the primary influence on a boys life.   We see then an hour and a half a week and once a month on an outdoor event if we are lucky.  Just as in Family Life MB family meeting requirement there are sensitive topics that are discussed and we are not going to inject ourselves in these.

Two thoughts, First - MBs are only a check in the block is the scouts leadership lets it be.  If you teach scouts standards and the need to meet them early, you can instill in them the same outlook on standards throughout their lives.  You let them pencil whip it or ignore it, what is the lesson they learn.  And you can control this.  Second - if this is what you see in the value of scouting and the ability to impact a scouts life, why are you doing this?  For some, we are the primary influence.  For some, we may be the only opposing view of that they learn or hear at home.  And I firmly think we should be there for those "some" scouts.  Otherwise, why is Eagle Scout held in such regard?  Why do people spend their hard earned cash and time on scouts?