I Me Mine, I Me Mine......And A Baked Spud.

[Eamonn 61]

Some little while back in these forums we looked at troop or unit ownership. In the days that have followed most of us have been very careful not to use My Troop or My District. I tend to agree with the premise that we don't own but do serve. Still over the years a lot of people have become mine. I have a group of people who forever will be My old Scouts and are now My friends. Please forgive me if fall victim to using the "My" word.

One bad thing about growing old is that I have started to lose track of time. Not hours or minutes but years. Is it really four years since everyone was stockpiling water in preparation for the Y2K bug??

I can't remember how many years back that it was when I first met Kim. I do remember that I was at that time a Cubmaster and we met at the pack picnic that we held in my back yard. Even though I say it myself it was a great event we had a round robin of activities for the Cubscouts, they were building bird houses, painting T-shirts, playing all sorts of games. It was great. We closed with a camp fire and a awards ceremony and then fed everyone baked potatoes. Kim was thinking of allowing her son to join the Tiger Cubs. We had chatted as her son and his Dad had hammered nails into the wood to make the bird box. Over the baked potato I had put the move on her to join the pack committee. Which she did but soon moved to become a Den Leader. Soon after I left the pack,she remained as she had another little fellow to put through the program. Her mother worked for the local evening paper, so again I asked if she would join the District Committee and help with marketing, again she said yes. Over the years she has said yes to a lot of stuff serving as program director for the district day camp for a number of years and both her and her husband have served as wagon master for the council partent and son weekends. Over the years we have laughed at what a good investment I made in that baked potato.

Last year when we started to recruit participants for the Wood Badge course, Kim was the first person to sign up and pay the deposit.

I just got word via E-mail from her ticket counselor that she has completed her ticket. Again she is the first fron the course to do so.

Both her boys are now in a troop. Her husband is an ASM and she serves on the troop committee. I was at the troop court of honor to see the older Lad become a Life Scout.

Kim has received the District Award of Merit and has done wonders for both the district and at the time the pack. She worked as the crossing guard and her Scouting was and is infectious. When I was the Cubmaster we used to talk a lot on the phone and spend a lot of time in each others houses, now we just send each other the odd E-mail. Still no matter how wrong it may be Kim will always be one of My Leaders.

Eamonn

[matuawarrior 10]

Good Job Eamonn.

 

Your mentorship is paying off. Scouting is based on relationships. How well we relate to others builds the oreganization.

 

As for the "MY" troop debate. I never understood why some leaders won't take ownership of the program. If we have to argue over semantics, I'd rather go camping with MY scouts and MY troop than to waste my time over some thing that will not help me help my scouts.

 

There are bigger problems out there that need solutions than to bicker over who actually owns the troop or scouts or programs. Does it really matter? I may not actually own it BUT I am claiming ownership. The word "MY" may not have to imply ownership. It could also imply a "Belonging to" as in MY team of who I am a member of.

 

In the last couple of months this Forum has gone off on a wierd tangent on small things that have no place in the Scouting Program.

 

I am sorry Eamonn for venting.

 

 

Have a Blessed New Year,

Matua

 

 

[Bob White 20]

Before this goes to far askew, let me say that my comment regarding "my troop" was quickly latched on to, twisted and contorted by a couple of posters who are renowned for doing so.

 

Please try to understand that the original post was not a condemnation of the word "my" or suggesting in any way that a person should not take ownership of their friends, families, spouses, jobs, accomplishments, etc. etc.

 

It was a simple observation, and a related recommendation, that I was taught nearly 30-years ago as a new scout leader. I have seen so many examples of it that I accept it and have used it for many years.

 

One of the biggest problems in troop scouting is the tyrannical Scoutmaster. The one who controls it all and refuses any method other than his own, even to the point of rejecting the scout methods unless they happen to agree with his own. They doggedly follow this behavior even to the death of the unit, which was caused by their own behavior.

 

Every one of these (and I have seen many) referred to it as "MY TROOP". It is a reflection of their total dominance of the unit.

 

I was taught a simple tool to help avoid this mindset and keep the role of scout leader in perspective. It is the avoidance of that phrase. I was taught to use a very non-aggressive term, "the troop I serve". It is simply a reminder, to me and those around me, that I am not the be all and end all word of authority in the troop. I am a part of a team that serves the boys through the scouting methods.

 

That's it. That's all I ever said. If you want to say "my leaders", "my wife", "my house", that's fine, that's not what I was talking about. I was referring to the egomaniacal mind set that can kill a unit, and chase boys from scouting, and how one way it manifests itself is in the phrase "my troop", and how one simple, harmless, way to remind yourself of your place in the grand scheme of scouting is to avoid that phrase and substitute it for "the troop I serve" or something similar.

 

There is no need to rebut this post. If you choose to agree or disagree, that's your personal choice.

 

I return you now to your regularly scheduled topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Adrianvs 10]

I agree with the sentiment to which Bob refers. I have seen the mentality to which he refers and it is harmful. In my experience, however, it wasn't demonstrated by a use of the words MY and MINE. It was usually someone referring to "the troop" who exhibited the mentality in question. "The program" is another favorite of those whom I have seen playing the master. As Bob said, the mentality is the true target, not the words that may be used to express it in some cases.

 

In the English language, the word MY denotes association. Ownership depends upon the item in question. The slave refers to "my master" and the master refers to "my slave." The child refers to "my parent" and the parent refers to "my child." My God and my toaster are two very different things which are associated to me. The nature of this association is entirely dependent upon the nature of the item itself. My friends would agree, . Like DSteele, I think that removing the MY from our language divorces us from the close association that we should feel to our troops, camps, fellows, and organization. It is an artificial separation and reminds me of the fake professionalism of those who are trying to control through expertise. Perhaps in my case, the "owners" have always used distant terms akin to "the troop that I serve" rather than associative ones like "my troop." There is no "my gas station" or "my post office." There may be for some of you. There is a "my camp" and a "my troop."

 

It would be truely disturbing to hear someone refer to "my troop" in a possessive sense. Fortunately, I have never seen such a case. If it does happen, however, let's not bastardize the language and divorce ourselves from the natural bonds of fellowship by adopting an obtuse phraseology. If you don't "belong" to a troop, then don't refer to "my troop." But, there is nothing wrong with those that do.

[Bob White 20]

"let's not bastardize the language and divorce ourselves from the natural bonds of fellowship by adopting an obtuse phraseology."

 

I do not believe that this kind of dramatization adds anything to your point. Nothing I offered fits this description in any way.

 

I do not know what your experience has been working with multiple units, or over what period of time, but we obviously differ in our background and experiences. I respect your opinion, but I stand by mine.

 

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"It was a simple observation, and a related recommendation, that I was taught nearly 30-years ago as a new scout leader"

 

As you are fond of saying, old stuff isn't necessarily good stuff.

[evmori 11]

Must be snipe hunting season!

 

matuawarrior put it very well. "My" designates membership in. When I refer to "my Troop" I mean the Troop I am a member of. There is nothing wrong with taking ownership. Some posters seem to think because they don't use the word "my" they are not falling into the "control" thing. It could be they don't use "my" because they do fall into the control thing & don't want to admit it.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

 

[purcelce 11]

I use the word "my" for several things.

 

My God, country, job, kids, house, church, road, troop, lodge, district, and council.

 

All the above are a part of my life, yet I don't own any of them. (I rent the house ) However the 2 year old that lives in my house uses the word "mine" for everything he touches...

As Mataua said "I may not actually own it BUT I am claiming ownership." sums my sentiments to the me, mine, yours, his, hers, ours, and yours.

 

Happy New Year, and may God make 2004 the best for you!

[Bob White 20]

Did I say this had anything to do with anything other than referring to yourself in relationship to a scout unit?

 

What is this great attraction to twisting a very simple idea? To say "in the troop I serve" does not separate you from the group. If anything, it identifies and defines your role in the group. At the same time it acts as reminder to keep that relationship in perspective.

 

I am not asking anyone to agree but please quit misrepresenting what I have said.

 

[scoutldr 732]

Oh, geeez...here we go again. Eamonn, as a Cuban friend of mine says..."sometimes it's better to let lying dogs sleep."

[evmori 11]

"At the same time it acts as reminder to keep that relationship in perspective."

 

So those of us who use "my" have a relationship problem? I tend to think otherwise and propose the reverse is true!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

At Philmont, a few years ago, I visited with one of the employees. He pointed out to me that sometimes they had to chase people off the land. Apparently, there are Scouts and Scouters, past and present that believe that they have ownership by association and circumvent proper registration.

 

Most of us love Philmont and take ownership of our experiences. Most, and I mean hundreds of thousands, do not cross the "three mile limit" of personal ownership of the land, irrespective of language usage. I suppose if we did, then the staff would have a larger problem.

 

It is true that proper wording can help change behavior. Before we change the behavior in question, it should be noted as being a behavior that needs changing. It is also polite and important to ask the person if they wish to change their behavior first.

 

Aberrant behavior is not considered the norm and a person's language is not always indicative of their acts. More data should be collected prior to making that decision.

 

Fuzzy Bear

 

[dan 10]

How does this sound?

My Boy Lead Troop

My SPL

 

 

[evmori 11]

dan,

Your point is???????

[NJCubScouter 1389]

My contribution to this discussion is:

 

Eamonn, I like the title of this thread, the first part anyway. Good song. One of my Christmas/Hanukkah presents this year was the new Beatles album with that song on it. (Ok, the album is 33 years old, but it is newly remixed back to its originally intended state minus all the Phil Spectorizing, and almost all the songs, including I Me Mine, sound better. Nice that they could do that for George even though he is no longer around to hear it.)