It's finally come to this

[HashTagScouts 375]

8 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I live East of the Mississippi.

In my state, I know of no "local tribes" which have a presence here any longer. I've lived here for more than 60 years. The only tribes claiming their origin in my state are far away. They have no presence here. Occasionally, a representative of a tribe will appear to speak to some issue.  Maybe once a decade.

And even at that, I have little sense or knowledge of their removal from my state, the depth of their connection to my state.

How does one even determine which tribes occupied their area, and their current representatives?

And, "honor."

So, if an OA lodge's ceremony script is respectful of not only Native Americans, but people generally, is that OK?

The Lenni Lenape script of my local OA Lodge is inspiring to me, a non-Native American.

 

None of the script is taken from any actual Lenape lore, it is all entirely made up. While I don't have issue with the scripts themselves, I do think dropping the association to the Lenni Lenape specifically is appropriate.

[KublaiKen 137]

Adding to the confusion is that not all tribal lands were uncontested. Rather than weighing in on who WE think owned the land, I believe it is just another reason we need to get out of the AIA business.

[yknot 1225]

1 hour ago, KublaiKen said:

Adding to the confusion is that not all tribal lands were uncontested. Rather than weighing in on who WE think owned the land, I believe it is just another reason we need to get out of the AIA business.

Exactly. There is controversy surrounding who is a federally recognized tribe vs. who is not; there are multiple advocacy or heritage associations for the same parent tribe; there are disagreements between tribal groups; there is disagreement over who is local vs. who is not, etc.  

[Cburkhardt 347]

Most of the conversation in these postings regards two questions:  “Is what our lodges do with regard to the depiction of Native American culture ever going to be accepted by the larger Native American community?”  And:  “Is the continued engagement by youth members of the Order of the Arrow in the representation of Native American culture fundamental to the achievement of BSA goals?  The answer to both questions is no. 

It is impossible to envision a time when Native American communities will broadly accept the depiction of their culture by our young people through costumed depictions of people or related ceremonial language.  It is just not going to happen from this point forward in our nation’s history.  Respectful study of the Native Americans of the past and present sound like activities that would be respected or encouraged, but not the depictions of their ancestors or contemporaries – no matter how authentic the costuming or perfected the language.

Depictions by our youth members of Native Americans and their culture is entirely unnecessary to maintain an honor camping and service organization.  The BSA can look within its own history and nature itself to find countless non-offensive concepts that can bind together an organization and inspire its most-qualified youth members.

OA cannot survive perpetual controversy and reasonable objections over continuing a now-obsolete activity of having our youth depict Native Americans.  It does violence to our effort to engage more young people in the OA and in Scouting itself.  We would be foolish to continue non-core practices that require us to “explain ourselves” to broad audiences of offended people.

After twenty years of unnecessary battle over cultural issues, we need peace and tranquility to recover organizational health.  We need to focus on reestablishing broad societal acceptance of Scouting as a safe, uplifting and appropriate activity for young people in our country. 

[Eagle94-A1 2418]

Maybe it is time for the OA to die.

First and foremost, it is no longer truly an honor organization. Prior to the 1995 when I became a  chapter advisor,  the election process limited the number of elected, i.e if you had 2 Scouts eligible, you could only vote for 1 Scout, 3-4 eligible = 2 names allowed, 5-6 eligible = 3 names on the ballot, etc. When the change was made, many of us thought it would degrade the significance of the OA over time. And IMHO it has.

Since that time the quality of Arrowman had dropped.  I have seen all eligible members of a troop get elected, about 8 of them.

I have seen an entire group of candidates stop working, saying "no more," and still go through the Ordeal Ceremony.

I have seen a candidate refuse to stop talking go through the Ordeal Ceremony. we actually had him in a work of party of 2: the adult candidate and an adult elangomat.

I have seen Brotherhood eligibility drop from 10 months to 6.

And I Now see that a candidate is eligible to complete the Ordeal up to 18 months after their election.

As for the regalia issue, For every Native against the OA, I can give you Native pro OA. I mentioned the elder who started dancing due to the OA n a previous post. One of the guys I did ceremonies with was not only Native, but the nephew of a tribal councilman. Regalia, when done right, was impressive and inspiring,

The ceremony I recently saw sucked. No other way to put it. Not only were they in incomplete Scout uniforms lacking the medallions ( regret ever mentioning that idea now), they could not even memorize the script. Instead they red off sheets, easily visible. There was no inspiration or memorability.

[Mrjeff 206]

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.

[mrjohns2 458]

3 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

that are not owned or administered by the national organization. 

Just like troops, councils and lodges are chartered by national. So, just, owned in some respects. 

[HashTagScouts 375]

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Just like troops, councils and lodges are chartered by national. So, just, owned in some respects. 

Well, actually even "worse" - they are chartered as a Council program. Thy don't have an independent CO that factors into their decision-making, the Council SE is effectively the IH and COR. 

[Eagle94-A1 2418]

11 hours ago, HashTagScouts said:

Well, actually even "worse" - they are chartered as a Council program. Thy don't have an independent CO that factors into their decision-making, the Council SE is effectively the IH and COR. 

And the SE can do whatever they want. Overrule  the elected lodge officers, overrule the lodge membership voting results, move designated funds from whatever the lodge and/or chapter designated them for to the general operating fund, remove advisers who question them, etc.

I would say MUCH worse.

[InquisitiveScouter 1200]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

And the SE can do whatever they want. Overrule  the elected lodge officers, overrule the lodge membership voting results, move designated funds from whatever the lodge and/or chapter designated them for to the general operating fund, remove advisers who question them, etc.

I would say MUCH worse.

I have seen all the above...

Years ago, in the dim ages.... we had an SE that directed the OA lodge to staff and run a council camporee, on pretty short notice.  The LEC discussed it, voted on it, and decided no, we cannot do that.

SE said, (paraphrasing)  Look at at the glossary of names in your OA Handbook.  See the one that says "Netami Gegeyjumhet"?  That means Supreme Chief of the Fire.  That's me. And, you must always remember, the Supreme Chief of the Fire can put the fire out!"

We staffed the camporee... and it was pretty good, too 😜

https://oa-bsa.org/article/ask-chairman-role-supreme-chief-fire

https://oa-bsa.org/uploads/publications/GOA-202208.pdf

Within the council, the Scout executive is the final authority over the Order of the Arrow and, for this reason, holds the title of Supreme Chief of the Fire. It is the Scout executive’s job to see that the lodge adheres to national policy. Each year the Scout executive appoints an adult volunteer to serve as the lodge adviser. As Deputy Supreme Chief of the Fire, the lodge adviser acts on behalf of the Scout executive in guiding the day-to-day affairs of the lodge. This person normally serves as a member of the council’s camping or program committee and is frequently selected to serve on the council executive board. In some councils, the Scout executive serves as the lodge staff adviser, but in most cases appoints a member of the professional staff to that position. The staff adviser, as Chief of the Fire, acts on behalf of the Scout executive in giving guidance to the lodge adviser and the lodge leadership. With support and counsel from the Scout executive, it is the staff adviser's role to see that the lodge adheres to national policy.

[Eagle94-A1 2418]

Know quite well the SE is supreme chief of the fire and can do whatever they want.

But you think the SE would ask why there is $90,000+ in the OA account before making it an "FOS donation," ( or maybe it went to endowment, but nethertheless over $90K was moved out of the OA fund)

And then when the LA and others question the move, they are removed from office.

And when the LEC says that a "tradition" is not something they are interested in because it seems dated, the SE may want to listen and not say " We did it when I was growing up, we're going to do it here."

And when 90+% of the voting lodge members do not want to change a by-law that is in compliance with national policy, you do not compel the LA to the change is going to happen no matter what the lodge thinks (he learned from the mistake above: have the volunteer be the scapegoat. SE was the one who brought it up and forced the vote)