Swords

[desertrat77 1144]

Is that considered a weapon or a tool?   

Krampus, I had to ponder your question for a moment!

 

Even though I was the greenest boy scout in the BSA at the moment, I viewed it as a tool.   In the era before power edgers, many family in base housing used a machete to edge their sidewalks, etc.  My dad used a machete for yard work, and I had been allowed to edge a couple times with it previous to the hike.   Plus, riding in the big Plymouth around Panama, I had witnessed the Panamanians using the machete for all sorts of tasks.

 

So when the SPL said "here" and gave me the machete, that was the beginning and end of the "safety and expectations" brief.   There were two dynamics working that day.    I had seen machetes in use for nearly four years and understood their use.   And seeing how my fellow scouts were squared away, conducting themselves like scouts (without adults present before/during/after, except for dropping off/picking up), I wanted to be like them.  If I screwed up, I knew there would have been no more machete and no more adventures.

 

Even when my SPL called me over to a certain vine and pointed out a bamboo viper with the edge of his machete, I still didn't view it as a weapon.   All the scouts knew the viper was there (except me) and they just left it alone.

 

Sorry for rambling, but I guess my point is given the chance, scouts of today could do the same things.   But from day one, they are handicapped by misinformation, fearfulness and a million rules.   These are ingrained by the adults in their life.   The scouts just don't get to experience life like they should in this era of safety-over-all/lawsuits.

Edited March 22, 2016 by desertrat77

[Krampus 696]

 

Last camp out the boys asked if they could explore. The PLs said yes and asked the SPL for the ground rules. SPL asked the SM. Basically it was this: Stick together as a patrol, everyone has their ten essentials (PL checks), you give a start and return time and route you are taking, any issues on the route you stay put and the S&R team will find you. They were given "out of bounds" areas. Other than that, enjoy.

 

The adults sat at base camp watching them climb the rocks (think scene in the Eiger Sanction where George Kennedy is watching Clint Eastwood's team climb). One new dad asked, "Isn't it dangerous sending them out without adults? There's snakes and other dangers out there." The reply he got was, "Tommy burned his hand in camp. John nearly stepped on a rattler on his way to the head last night walking along a concrete path. Bobby nearly ate a peanut (allergic) that killed him. Naw, they're less likely to get injured out there than they are in camp."

 

40 Scouts left camp. 40 Scouts returned to camp...all on time or EARLY. No injuries. No mishaps.

 

Somewhere in Irving a BSA lawyer was changing his underwear.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Krampus

[RichardB 220]

Adults restricting the scouts program by their fears is such a pervasive problem that I added a section in my Scoutmaster Specific class syllabus of how to recognize it and prevent it.

 

 

 

Just a thought - if you are teaching "Your" SM class you are not teaching the program of the BSA, you are teaching "your" program.   

[desertrat77 1144]

Krampus, that is right on the money!

 

The scouts are capable of maturity and good judgment, if they are just given the chance to show it.

 

So true:  camp is dangerous!   Burns, cuts, critters, tripping on guy lines in the middle of the night.   Plus bored scouts get into mischief and squabbles.   Out in the field, on their own, they are on a mission.  

[qwazse 4344]

Just a thought - if you are teaching "Your" SM class you are not teaching the program of the BSA, you are teaching "your" program.   

@@RichardB that could be.

 

It could also be that by not augmenting the syllabus, new scouters will read unwritten principles into the G2SS and as a result the most important part of the BSA program -- encapsulated in the first page of the guide -- goes untaught.

[Eagledad 2779]

Just a thought - if you are teaching "Your" SM class you are not teaching the program of the BSA, you are teaching "your" program.   

 

Good observation. I teach the whole syllabus as presented. But also I try to enrich the presentation with personal experiences to help the participants understand the objective better. However, I am very careful to not contradict or take away from any part of the syllabus or the intended purpose of the material.

 

Barry

[Eagledad 2779]

@@RichardB that could be.

 

It could also be that by not augmenting the syllabus, new scouters will read unwritten principles into the G2SS and as a result the most important part of the BSA program -- encapsulated in the first page of the guide -- goes untaught.

What I was trying to do is help the adults understand when they were getting in the way of the growth intended during the scouting activities. First, they need to ask themselves what they think would happen if the adults weren't that situation. Most adults expect the worst and struggle to go forward even trying to get past their fear.

 

Actually you see the effects of some fear in just about every unit. Common fears are allowing young scouts with older scouts because older scouts won't respect and even pick on them. How about the fear that older scouts don't like working with younger scouts, so the adults will go so far as to create a Venturing Crew to fix the problem. The fear may be as simple as adult checking each patrols menu because they don't trust scouts to do their own correctly.

 

I was asked to help one new troop that was 90% female leaders. They didn't even let the scouts perform the opening ceremony at the troop meetings because they didn't feel like the boys had the maturity to perform it to the adults standards. So the adults did all the ceremonies for the boys hoping they would eventually learn by watching. Six months later nothing had changed. I help them through this by asking them to start addressing their fear bysimply teaching the scouts what to do and letting them try. It seems simple, but  you would be amazed at how many adults would rather ignore getting past their fear and holding back the scouts. I know of one Scoutmaster who refused to let his scouts run a PLC meeting because he couldn't believe young scouts could run a meeting productively. He finally let them run the meeting when they were 14. The boys were so frustrated that they started dropping out. The Scoutmaster quit when he realized what was going on. 

 

As I said, all troops struggle with fear to some degree. A little bit is healthy, but when the program is held back as a result, a little guidance to get past their fears can help.

 

I know I keep repeating myself, but typically the adults who where never scouts as a youth are the worst offenders. They just don't know what boys are capable of doing. So I gave them some advice encase they found their activities stalled.

 

Barry

[MattR 2659]

Interesting how multiple threads simultaneously come around to the same subject.

 

Trust isn't a given, it has to be earned, and we really want the scouts to earn it. Swords, rifles, hiking on their own up a rock, doesn't really matter. What also seems to be a constant is that older generations don't trust younger ones. Maybe hindsight is a bit through rose colored glasses. I was one kid that got his rear chewed out for being disrespectful, lazy, and all the other things I dislike about dealing with kids-these-days. But I have to admit, when they do get it, it's a great high. Just a guess but I suspect it was the same for my parents, and theirs.

[TAHAWK 1420]

Just a thought - if you are teaching "Your" SM class you are not teaching the program of the BSA, you are teaching "your" program.   

Interesting issue.

 

BSA says we are on our honor to "support and use the recommended literature, materials, and procedures as I carry out my training responsibilities."

 

Does one fail to support and use the recommended literature" by adding to that literature?

 

What is consistent with the "values" of Scouting if the BSA literature is, beyond any doubt, incorrect and inconsistent with other BSA literature?

 

Now for the tougher issue.  What if the "recommended literature" is simply incorrect - even teaching procedures that are contrary to law?  

 

[Rick_in_CA 401]

Let's assume the replica sword was brought to the meeting without violating any laws.

 

Let's assume that a replica sword is not really a weapon because it was not designed to be used like the object on which it is based. Otherwise if we go by Webster's definition of a weapon, ANY "object that is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you" can be considered a weapon (marshmallow bows and rifles are replicas too ).

 

Let's assume the complainant is a decent person with no malice in their heart toward the person(s) performing the ceremony.

 

Let's assume the complainant knows BSA policy and how to apply it.

 

Assuming all of that, shouldn't such a person have the common decency to 1) Thank the person doing the ceremony for their time and efforts, 2) Diplomatically address their concerns to the CM, CC and person doing the ceremony in a private venue away from Scout's ears and other parents, and 3) Being so knowledgeable about BSA policy and being a former "professional" Scouter (or super volunteer), shouldn't they close their commentary by suggesting an alternate object to be used ((tin foil over a wooden sword) or a similar ceremony that they agree with?

 

It's that last bit I find amazing. Without consideration of any of this (and assuming the points above are correct), the method the complainant used was not open or honest or respectful. That's why I think this smacks of bullying. Why hide? Why not respectfully confront the issue if they are really a person of "good faith" and reason?

You are assuming a lot. Especially that the three things you mention didn't happen. Here is all that the OP wrote:

 

Is there a rule against using swords in Cub Scout ceremonies? I did a great knighting ceremony in February, but someone complained to the Cubmaster, so I couldn't repeat the ceremony this month. The Someone used to be a professional scouter at the area level, retired. His grandson is in my pack. He knows everything there is to know about Scouting. Which is annoying because I think I know everything there is to know about Scouting. If it makes a difference: yes, it was a real sword, but no, it was not sharp. That is: the blade had no edge. I had about as much chance of accidentally hurting this boy with this sword as I did if it had been a baseball bat. That might be a good idea: a knighting ceremony with a baseball bat! What do you think?

Was it anonymous? It appears the OP knows who "The Someone" is, so it isn't anonymous (though it's possible "The Someone" intended it to be). But there is nothing in what the OP wrote that says that any of the "disrespectful" behavior you describe did, or did not happen.

 

What I find "amazing" is how so many on this forum are assuming that "The Someone" mentioned by the OP must be acting like some sort of jerk. We simply don't know.

[TAHAWK 1420]

It is often easy to assume the worst.

[Krampus 696]

You are assuming a lot. Especially that the three things you mention didn't happen. Here is all that the OP wrote:

 

Was it anonymous? It appears the OP knows who "The Someone" is, so it isn't anonymous (though it's possible "The Someone" intended it to be). But there is nothing in what the OP wrote that says that any of the "disrespectful" behavior you describe did, or did not happen.

 

What I find "amazing" is how so many on this forum are assuming that "The Someone" mentioned by the OP must be acting like some sort of jerk. We simply don't know.

I notice you keep ignoring the fact that this person -- who was a professional scouter or ex-professional, and is someone who appears to know a great deal about Scouting -- is acting contrary to the Scout Oath and Law by going behind the presenters back and not talking to him directly. Why is that? Why do you focus on what I assume and NOT on what are the facts I *did* note according to the OP?

 

Why don't you find it "amazing" that this person acted in an unprofessional manner? Why don't you find people talking behind other people's back disrespectful? Why is it you don't think the person with the complaint should face the person he has an issue with, like a man and like a good Scout, and discuss his objections?

 

Maybe you should focus more on what I *did* say than what you think I said.

[DuctTape 1230]

The story does not include any description of the actual conversations between any of the parties. Nor the circumstances in which the conversations were held. To conclude that one acted in a certain type of manner with zero knowledge of the conversation or circumstances is the assumption which I find pre-mature. There are many many ways all of this could have actually transpired, some of which could be described as you believe. Other possibilities could be completely different. For all we know, the person never actually complained. It is entirely possible they were asked their opinion about the ceremony and gave it. I am not suggesting this is what happened, but it is a possibility, thus it is premature to say he went behind someones back. We know very little, almost nothing of what actually happened. You could be right, but I give people the benefit of the doubt until evidence proves otherwise.

[Rick_in_CA 401]

I notice you keep ignoring the fact that this person -- who was a professional scouter or ex-professional, and is someone who appears to know a great deal about Scouting -- is acting contrary to the Scout Oath and Law by going behind the presenters back and not talking to him directly. Why is that? Why do you focus on what I assume and NOT on what are the facts I *did* note according to the OP?

 

Why don't you find it "amazing" that this person acted in an unprofessional manner? Why don't you find people talking behind other people's back disrespectful? Why is it you don't think the person with the complaint should face the person he has an issue with, like a man and like a good Scout, and discuss his objections?

 

Maybe you should focus more on what I *did* say than what you think I said.

And what you keep ignoring is that we don't know that. You know he went behind the OP's back how? I don't see it in the OP's original post. The OP never wrote anything like "he went behind my back to the Cubmaster", he only wrote "...someone complained to the Cubmaster,..." Is it possible that the complainer acted poorly and went behind the OP's back? Yes. But it is also possible that he didn't. We don't know as the OP didn't give us enough information. You are insisting on making an assumption of unprofessional behavior on the part of the complainer. An unfair assumption in my opinion.

[Stosh 3452]

....someone complained to the CM.....

 

....about something they saw being done by a third person....

 

....In my book that's going behind someone's back.....

 

....Next time complain about the problem to the person one thinks is causing it..... after all they are the only ones that can fix the problem.  The CM didn't think it was wrong, but is being dragged into it by the person who refuses to face the problem directly and honestly.