I once learned of a philosophy while I was in the
military. It’s not something that is
talked about a great deal. But, the
basic premise of the philosophy is this: “the public’s perception of a
population is defined by 10% or less of that population”. This means that what you and I know about a
group of people is setup for us by less than 10% of that group of people.
For example, a number of years ago the US Marine Corps had a bad public image. It’s not because of the Marines, or the Department of Defense, or the Department of the Navy, or because of recruiting or anything like that. It was because of ignorant buffoons doing stupid stuff that got themselves in the media. This gave the public the impression that Marines were all mean, ill-tempered, drunk, abusive, and unfit for society.
As a Marine myself, I have to admit we are mean (when it comes to warfare and each other), sometimes ill-tempered, and the US Marine Corps was founded in a tavern, so drunk often applies as well(that is something I believe the vast majority of Marines will agree to and wholeheartedly embrace). But, very few of us, very few indeed, are abusive spouses. And fewer still are 'unfit for society'.
For example, a number of years ago the US Marine Corps had a bad public image. It’s not because of the Marines, or the Department of Defense, or the Department of the Navy, or because of recruiting or anything like that. It was because of ignorant buffoons doing stupid stuff that got themselves in the media. This gave the public the impression that Marines were all mean, ill-tempered, drunk, abusive, and unfit for society.
As a Marine myself, I have to admit we are mean (when it comes to warfare and each other), sometimes ill-tempered, and the US Marine Corps was founded in a tavern, so drunk often applies as well(that is something I believe the vast majority of Marines will agree to and wholeheartedly embrace). But, very few of us, very few indeed, are abusive spouses. And fewer still are 'unfit for society'.
But that doesn’t stop the media or the court of public
opinion from lumping Marines into the general ‘@$$hat’ category because of
the actions of a few. Like I said, the small
percentage of this group who are known for this behavior make a bad public
image for the rest of us. Despite the
commercials of the clean-cut, sharply uniformed individuals on the Silent Drill
Team, the amazing battle service record, or the Toys for Tots campaign that
annually receives millions of donations a year to give to children in need.
So. What does that
have to do with the title? I’m using the
story above to point out that the Marines, and other groups’ or populations’
public impressions are not defined by the whole of the organization, but by a
few or small percentage of that group.
So it is with Boy Scouts of America.
We who work in Scouting, whether as volunteers or
professionals, each often do hundreds of Service Hours annually. We serve in churches, community centers,
local parks, schools, and many more places.
In 2013, there were 3,615,306 youth and adult scouts in the United
States. Let’s assume each of those
scouts only did 10 hours of community service that year. That’s nearly 37 Million service hours! And that’s only if every scout averages 10
hours a year. I know personally, I am putting
closer to 100 hours myself every year.
Is that broadcast by national media?
Does BSA get recognized for being the largest service organization in
the USA? Or does non-inclusiveness mar
BSA’s public perception? Or is there
something else that seems to be a large sticking point for the public?
We Scouts and Scouters also know there are many different
portions of the Scouting program. Tiger
Cubs, Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Varsity Teams, Venture Crews, Explorer Posts,
individual units, Districts, Areas, Regions, Lodges, Sections, National
programs, Summer camp Programs, winter camp programs, and more. But, to the average observer, all of these
different points of input are all ‘Boy Scouts’.
Therein lies the problem I specified in my previous
post.
Say 10%, or 361,530, of those Scouts define the public’s
perception of the Boy Scouts. Which 10%
will it be. With the availability and
ease of posting photos on the internet, we compound any potential problems as
well.
For example, Joe Cubmaster, the leader of 50 boys ranging in
age from 6-11, wants to impress the boys with stories from a book he read about
a noted Native American. So, to make the
story come alive more to the boys, he wraps himself in a serape or blanket,
dabs a little paint on his face, and dons a dime-store headdress with green, purple,
and orange feathers while portraying a character in the story. Now, the boys know he isn’t ‘an Indian’ –
he’s Cubmaster Joe. Joe knows he is not
trying to represent anyone or anything in any kind of poor light – he was just
trying to help the boys see the story come to life better. He meant no disrespect, the boys saw no
disrespect. But, then Sally, Joe’s wife,
wants to share how impressed the boys were with her friends on Facebook. And one of her friends shared one of those
photos of Joe to another group who has nothing to do with the Pack, but is
aware Joe exists in the world. And one
of those people shows the photo to another, and eventually this photo is shared
on Pinterest, Imgur, Reddit, or some other web service that shares such
things. And suddenly Joe’s image is a
meme plastered across the internet with thousands of views, laughed at,
defended, complained about, derided, scorned, or used as ‘proof’ that Boy
Scouts are disrespecting Native American culture.
Now, let’s change that story up. A scout unit or camp program was founded 50
years ago. The gentleman who started the
program, we’ll call him Fred Campmaster, was well respected by everyone in his
community for being generous, understanding, accepting, and educated. He had friends in every ethnic community in
the area and elsewhere, he was invited to dinners, and was taught everything
there was to know about those cultures. These
folks offered him help in incorporating some of their ideals and cultural
differences into a camp program he wanted to start. Graciously he accepted and they set about
teaching and learning everything they could about each other’s culture and how
to best invigorate this fledgling program with those high ideals and traditions. Now, however, 50 years later, the outfits
that were once accepted due to many variables - like rural locale, available
funding, lack of complete cultural understanding, lack of availability of
documentation, hindsight, etc. – are no longer even remotely appropriate. But, the group involved maintains they are
just perpetuating the program that was presented 50 years ago, and it helps get
boys to the camp. They don’t know they
are perpetuating stereotypes, they aren’t aware the outfits are offensive, and
some would say they may not care because of their desire to uphold their own
traditions regardless of outcome. And
like the previous example, photos make their way to social media in a matter of
moments. And the ensuing problems occur
again.
Now, John Scoutmaster, leads a small troop of 30 Boy Scouts,
aged 11-18, along with several Adults as support. He took his troop to that out-of-council camp
where Fred Campmaster’s program is being run.
The boys fell in love with the program, and without oversight, brought
it back to their troop program, several States away. They run their program based on what they
think the camp program intended, without further research or
understanding. But, they learned from
someone who claimed it was authentic and reverent. They didn’t intend to hurt anyone’s feelings,
perpetuate stereotypes, or cause any difficulty.
Who’s at fault, though?
Who’s responsible? Not the Cub
Scout leader. Not the Camp Director or
the people who continue their program.
Not the Scoutmaster or the boys in his group. Boy Scouts of America is responsible. At least that is what Public Opinion
says. Despite what you or I might think
or debate about this.
And they aren’t wholly incorrect. Certainly, research should be done by anyone
involved. And, true, these Scouts need
to recognize that the outfits they are wearing don’t look anything like any
photos of Native Americans taken since photography was invented. And the local unit leaders should be aware
that Disney or Hollywood movies are not wholly accurate, and if the outfits the
boys use look anything like a Disney movie, they shouldn’t be used. And certainly, when confronted by those of us
who have some experience in this context, they should accept constructive
criticism and understand we are only trying to protect the boys from harm.
But, ultimately, the Cub Scout leader is not singled out for
his portrayal, the Camp director is not singled out for his inaccuracies, and
the Scout leader is not singled out for perpetuating stereotypes. Boy Scouts of America is blamed for their
failings. And Boy Scouts of America is
responsible for the fallout. And if
confronted, each and every one of us who wear a uniform will be held accountable
by the people who are offended by these incidents.
Now, I can safely say there are many Boy Scout instructors
or advisors who are active in modern Native American culture, who are respected
for what they do, and are accepted among their Native American friends and
communities. But, the approximately 400
people (note, I do not have cold data to support an exact number) spread across
all 50 States who have had any significant training on the varied subjects
related to Native American cultures, are simply too small a number.
So, let’s be generous and say 1,000 adults in the entire BSA
program have a decent amount of education about, experience with, or
involvement in the Native Cultures of the USA.
A little quick figuring determines that each of those 1,000 are ‘responsible’
for educating 3,615 others. It doesn’t
take a rocket scientist to realize that is simply impossible. Each of those 1,000 can do their individual
best in bringing information to the 3.6 Million other Scouts in the US. But, it will not be enough.
I don’t want to sound defeatist. But, the numbers are against us. How do we counter that? We get buy-in from larger programs that
affect more scouts than you or I can individually. Summer Camp programs have to modernize and
accept that their traditions reinforce stereotypes, and that needs to change. ALL
Scout leaders (no matter the level or type of unit) should receive training
that focuses on diversity, stereotypes, and how to avoid them, right along with
the Youth Protection training they are required to have annually. And those groups who insist on continuing
their out-of-date, stereotype-prone, or offensive programs should receive
immediate attention to correct the problems.
And why should we do this?
Because if we don’t, we run the risk of losing any program related to
any Native American culture – the Order of the Arrow, Dance Troupes like the
Koshare and Kwahadi dancers, Summer Camp programs like Mic-O-Say, and likely
more – no matter who approved or validated them initially, or how old the
program is, or how effective it is at bring kids together, or how many Native
tribal leaders may approve of the program.
It took over 20 years for the University of Illinois to get rid of their
parody of a Siouxan Chieftain, called ‘Chief Illiniwek’. And the school was 'given the right' in the long-distant past. But, times change and the use of the image & character didn't. And, they were eventually forced to get rid
of the half-time dances, the cheerleader in the facepaint, the use of the
beadwork on that same outfit, and the logo because ALL were offensive to Native
Americans. And the tide is turning on
that Washington team, too. Eventually
all instances of these team mascots will be removed and repaired.
But, more importantly, we should change our approach because
it is the right thing to do. It's time to be the change.
We are all the same, and must be culpable for the entirety
of the BSA’s Native American programs.
After all, the public opinion, especially the Native American opinion,
is that we are already responsible for these different programs. The small percentage of Boy Scouts who are unaware they are dressing inappropriately have defined a public perception that the Boy Scouts of America are 'playing Indian'. In that public perception of the programs of the BSA we are all the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment