Boy Scout kilts

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Was our Country not founded by Law breakers, (it was indeed a Revolution you know)?

The American war for independence began as a demand by the British subjects in North America to be treated with the same equality under the law as was accorded to British subjects in the mother country. That these demands led, ultimately to rebellion and independence is an indusputable fact. However, to suggest that the leaders of that rebellion were law breakers ultimately casts gentlemen like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, et al, in the same light as petty criminals, juvenile delinquents, and other social misfits who choose to ignore, rather than follow and enforce, the rule of law.

Were the men who signed the Declaration of Abroath merely following the rules of the organization that they belonged to?

In a nutshell, "yes". They were exerting their rights as an independent nation which was under constant military threat from their neighbor to the south. There was absolutely nothing unlawful in their actions.

More to the point, I don't understand why Scout leaders in the Boy Scouts of AMERICA want to dress as though they belong to some other scouting organization. I agree totally with Gordontaos that the best troops are those where every boy is in the proper uniform, and where the leaders make scouting exciting by leadership, rather than by wearing the kilt as a costume to the meeting.

Especially when so many of them do it poorly and make a mockery of both the scout uniform and the kilt.

[kiltedfarmer]

More to the point, I don't understand why Scout leaders in the Boy Scouts of AMERICA want to dress as though they belong to some other scouting organization. I agree totally with Gordontaos that the best troops are those where every boy is in the proper uniform, and where the leaders make scouting exciting by leadership, rather than by wearing the kilt as a costume to the meeting.

Especially when so many of them do it poorly and make a mockery of both the scout uniform and the kilt.

Being an Eagle Scout for the last 40 years, O of A brother, and a Woodbadged Scout leader, I agree that the Scouts should be proud of their uniforms. For a while there we had a problem keeping the boys squared away, but it was because many of the Scouters were not wearing their uniforms properly either, and the boys thought it was OK. Then we started having uniform inspections and things improved drastically. Of course we do make exceptions from time to time, like authorizing Class "B"s while hiking, camping, and physical fitness events, etc...

We also make exceptions for other special events. We have an Eagle Court of Honor coming up next week, and those of us who are Woodbadgers (five of us), and also members of the Clan MacLaren Society of North America will be wearing our MacLaren tartans to the event. We usually only do this for Eagle COHs, or FOS events. We have received positive feedback from District and Council representatives for this, and it has also inspired other Scouters to sign up for Woodbadge training. In this aspect wearing a kilt as part of the uniform has been a positive influence.

[gordontaos]

Please forgive me for being such a luddite and not knowing how to properly reply to "MacMillan of Rathdown"

" However, to suggest that the leaders of that rebellion were law breakers ultimately casts gentlemen like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, et al, in the same light as petty criminals, juvenile delinquents, and other social misfits who choose to ignore, rather than follow and enforce, the rule of law."

Not to hijack this thread...but, King George III might have disagreed with you.
I believe that the quote is "One Man's Hero is Another Man's Traitor".

"They were exerting their rights as an independent nation which was under constant military threat from their neighbor to the south. There was absolutely nothing unlawful in their actions."

Its just a good thing that the Pope went along with the signers. My relatively uneducated thoughts are that the Pope could just as easily gone in favor of the English.

Life does get pretty interesting when you take an open and philosphical approach to history!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Of course George III might have disagreed with me. But then he never wore kilts.

It should probably be pointed out that neither Robert the Bruce nor Pope John XXII wore kilts either (and for that matter neither did Baden-Powell or Frederick Russell Burnham) and as far as is known neither one of them were ever Boy Scouts. That said, I find it was unlikely that the Pope would have sided with Edward II when presented with the Declaration of Arbroath. Here's why:

In 1309 the King of France recognized Robert the Bruce as King of Scotland. In 1310 the Church in Scotland came out on his side (despite the renewed excommunication by Pope Clement V and the threat of placing all of Scotland under interdict). By 1311 Robert had successfully invaded England and sacked Durham and Hartlepool. By 1314 he had driven the English from Perth, Dundee, Dumfries, Roxburgh and Edinburgh. Only Stirling remained occupied, and on June 24 of that year, Robert the Bruce, King of Scots, defeated Edward II at Bannockburn. In 1318 Berwick, the last English stronghold in Scotland fell and the Scots were free of foreign invaders.

Edward II was suffering defeat on all sides (in 1316 Edward Bruce, Robert's brother, became King of Ireland) and, more or less throwing in the towel, he appealed to Pope John XXII to renew the excommunication of Robert (which had occurred in 1310 during the papacy of Clement V). This caused outrage throughout Scotland and resulted in the unprecedented gathering of all three estates-- the nobles, the clergy, and the representatives of the burghs, by some accounts more than five hundred people in all-- in Arbroath in 1320. The result of this was the now famous Declaration of Arbroath, which was duly sent to the pope in Avignon, France.

That's right, France. England's traditional enemy and the traditional ally of Scotland who, when called upon, had never hesitated to harass the English to assist French military goals. And of course John Paul XXII was French. The political pendulum had swung the other way. There was no way a French pope, in France, would go against France's most useful ally and side with France's most implacable foe. And the Scots knew it.

So the idea of John XXII siding with the English is about as likely as finding a ham sandwich at a Bar Mitzvah. Could happen, but it would fly in the face of orthodox historical thought. But, if the pope and been English, well there's something to conjure with.

[gordontaos]

MacMillan of Rathdown has provided us all with a valuable lesson in Civics and Citizenship. His explanation of the history behind the Declaration of Abroath is succinct and understandable.

However, although the signers of the Declaration of Abroath were not breaking any laws, as George Washington and Co. were, they were changing the rules and the status quo. Just as you Scouts and Scouters who wear kilts are attempting to change the rules and the status quo of the BSA today.

So,(and here is where I get into big trouble), are we teaching our youth in the Scouting program to have blind obedience to rules and regulations, or are we trying to teach our youth to think for themselves? Perhaps the answer to my question is based upon age appropriateness, and that is why we have the Venturing program.

[longhuntr74]

edited for brevity...

So,(and here is where I get into big trouble), are we teaching our youth in the Scouting program to have blind obedience to rules and regulations, or are we trying to teach our youth to think for themselves? Perhaps the answer to my question is based upon age appropriateness, and that is why we have the Venturing program.

I think perhaps the discussion is more about individual expression vs. belonging to a group and conforming. Don't you think? It has nothing to do with thinking for themselves vs. obedience....which I would like to add that Scouting should be teaching those two traits simultaneously...they are not mutually exclusive.

It really gets back to the fact that BSA is a volunteer organization and one that people choose to be a part of. IMHO if you choose to be a Boy Scout, you inherently agree to conform to the rules and regulations of that organization...it goes along with membership...and doing so demonstrates GOOD CITIZENSHIP.

I'll try not to belabor this discussion any longer. I place myself in the camp of believers that fully uniformed troops are disciplined troops and typically have the best program. I've seen all ranges in my travels around the US so I have some observations outside of one particular council. I do not have a problem with wearing of the kilt on rare occasions if there is a good reason and if you've gone through proper channels to get some sort of official sanction. If wearing the kilt with your BSA uniform, I believe it should be to educate about culture or as part of a group (such as the wood badge / friends of scouting efforts that you describe).

[AFS1970]

I was a Cub Scout just before the uniform regulations were being relaxed. Even then I remember reading about the problem of parents using older hand-me-down insignia on newer uniforms. But the worst part was when they decided you did not need uniform pants anymore. In my mind the youth were being trained to not wear uniforms more than they were being trained to wear them. This becomes more evident when we see Boy Scouts who came up through the ranks wearing incomplete or sloppy uniforms. I can attest to this in my time as an Explorer Advisor, even with our distinctive uniform, it was an uphill battle to get everyone in uniform.

Now how is this related to the Kilt? Well it seems to me that those wishing to wear the Kilt with a BSA uniform may in fact be wishing to wear more of a uniform than most units. It is the execution of the idea that seems to be lacking. We know that changes do get made to the uniform regulation, and some of them are very cultural. I know one of the approved neckerchief designs in African Kente Cloth.

So it would seem to me that this is a simple matter of petitioning BSA HQ for the Kilt to be accepted as an alternate uniform. I would think that since a uniform must be uniform it would have to be a a unit wide thing, not an individual thing. It might even be a good lesson in citizenship for the Scouts, to see how a process like this works through all the levels, unit, council & national office.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

MacMillan of Rathdown has provided us all with a valuable lesson in Civics and Citizenship. His explanation of the history behind the Declaration of Abroath is succinct and understandable.

Since you obviously value my comments let me point out that when you say:

However, although the signers of the Declaration of Abroath were not breaking any laws, as George Washington and Co. were, they were changing the rules and the status quo.

you're wrong. The Declaration of Arbroath didn't change any rules or alter the status quo of Scotland. It exerted Scotland's existing status as an independent nation and reasserted the fact that Scotland's sovereign was only the sovereign so long as it was the will of the people, which harkened back to Pictish and Celtic practices.

Likewise, it did not, in any way, advocate the wearing of kilts by Boy Scouts in the USA.

That said, -- and this is not directed at you, personally-- neither do I advocate Scouts in the US wearing the kilt as part of their uniform. I base this on two things:

(1) kilts are expensive, and the wearing of the kilt would be beyond the economic reach of some; thus, this might, in some way exclude, or be a stumbling block, to these boys participating in Scouting activities;

(2) This is supposed to be The Boy Scouts of America and the kilt isn't really part of the mainstream of this nation. (I would hold the same view if this discussion was about the boys wearing turbans.)

Now anyone is totally free to disagree with my POV, and dress in whatever manner they feel best adheres to the ethos behind the uniform regulations of the BSA as a single building block in the overall structure-- and purpose-- of Scouting.

If, judged by one's personal moral compass, it sets a good example to the Scouts they are supposed to be leading to ignore the regulations to gratify their desire to be seen in a kilt, well that is a decision that I believe does much to undermine the leadership principles of Scouting, and is a great dis-service to the boy's involved in the program.

Anyone may disagree with my views, but X MARKS THE SCOT probably isn't the best place to argue what is-- or is not-- a Boy Scout Uniform. Those that want to know the answer to this can find the definitive answer by contacting the BSA headquarters in Texas.

[macwilkin]

MacMillan of Rathdown has provided us all with a valuable lesson in Civics and Citizenship. His explanation of the history behind the Declaration of Abroath is succinct and understandable.

However, although the signers of the Declaration of Abroath were not breaking any laws, as George Washington and Co. were, they were changing the rules and the status quo. Just as you Scouts and Scouters who wear kilts are attempting to change the rules and the status quo of the BSA today.

So,(and here is where I get into big trouble), are we teaching our youth in the Scouting program to have blind obedience to rules and regulations, or are we trying to teach our youth to think for themselves? Perhaps the answer to my question is based upon age appropriateness, and that is why we have the Venturing program.

Apologies for the continued hijack, but I'm lecturing on the Revolution right now in my summer class, and I wanted to respond to the claim that Washington, Jefferson, and so forth were "lawbreakers" -- while I understand what Gordon is trying to claim here, I'm not so sure that the founders would agree with his take on the issues. Remember that the founders believed that "natural laws", a la John Locke, trumped the laws made by men -- "life, liberty and property", according to Locke, who was instrumental in the creation of the Bill of Rights under William & Mary in 1689 after James II was tossed out in the Glorious Revolution. As Rathdown posted earlier, the founders saw themselves as English subjects fighting for their rights as the same before 1776.

And, the status quo really didn't change that much after 1781. To imply that the new American Republic was a totally egalitarian society is simply incorrect. Ask any slave, woman or the First Nations.

OT history lecture over.

T.

[Standard]

Back on topic. I am the lead advisor for a Venture Crew. My District Executive asked me to wear my kilt to a meeting that my (20 year old) son and I were attending to help in setting up a new Venture Crew at a nearby college. Some of the extenuating circumstances in this case could be 1. the college has a Highlander as their mascot, and 2. this was/is a Venture Crew and not a Boy Scout Troop.