Minneapolis Corps Directors Meeting

[GUARDLING]

As with the word "Men" in the Constitution, "brotherhood" is meant to be representative.

I've never heard a single constitutionalist suggest that the term "Men" was intended to be only men. GEEEZZZ, is right!

No and I just checked this with a History teacher friend of mine....we have idealized that term to mean all now BUT It did not mean it then Women, blacks and others were NOT under this " Term "

If we ( ALL MEN ) are equal then why all the equal rights controverseys.......GEZZZZZ is right !

But way off topic.... Sorry back to more pleasnt things....oh yeah its G7.....lol....

[GUARDLING]

No and I just checked this with a History teacher friend of mine....we have idealized that term to mean all now BUT It did not mean it then Women, blacks and others were NOT under this " Term "

If we ( ALL MEN ) are equal then why all the equal rights controverseys.......GEZZZZZ is right !

But way off topic.... Sorry back to more pleasnt things....oh yeah its G7.....lol....

ughh sorry for the spelling I must hit spell check or type slower

[garfield]

No and I just checked this with a History teacher friend of mine....we have idealized that term to mean all now BUT It did not mean it then Women, blacks and others were NOT under this " Term "

If we ( ALL MEN ) are equal then why all the equal rights controverseys.......GEZZZZZ is right !

But way off topic.... Sorry back to more pleasnt things....oh yeah its G7.....lol....

OK, I get your point. I was including the eventual amendments in my thinking, and I'm not going to argue with a history professor!

But I would ask what amendment could be offered to correct the term "brotherhood". "Person-hood"? "Human-hood"?

On topic, the term was used as the best example of the intent that the original malcontents had. Can we agree that you can modify the word if necessary, but you shouldn't fiddle with its intent?

Edited August 5, 2010 by garfield

[GUARDLING]

OK, I get your point. I was including the eventual amendments in my thinking, and I'm not going to argue with a history professor!

But I would ask what amendment could be offered to correct the term "brotherhood". "Person-hood"? "Human-hood"?

On topic, the term was used as the best example of the intent that the original malcontents had. Can we agree that you can modify the word if necessary, but you shouldn't fiddle with its intent?

AGREE.................I thought about what I wrote and I want to apologize . I'm not challenging anyone's belief in a given word or if the wording is fitting in either politics or DRUM CORPS. Personally I don't buy either and intent of a word can be debated and challenged. The key I think is what is the relevance of a given word to today's world and yes in drum corps also. JMO

[JimF-LowBari]

I'm not sure what you're saying here, Jim, but again, directly from the horse's mouth, DCI is not in the "business" of organizing or participating in parades. Many corps can participate in one parade, and each can be paid, and that's fine with DCI.

DCI's function is to promote and grow the activity in order to pay out more to support corps and their growth (not just the elite!). Part of that function is organizing a tour/exhibition/contest each summer. As any two corps participating in any such function is, by definition, duplicating the function of DCI, doing so is prohibited.

When you put yourself in the mindset of the voting BOD, who are charged with the function of preserving and growing the activity overall (where their own corps' needs are placed secondary), this rule makes perfect sense. When you think like a Combine founder with a "brotherhood" mindset this rule makes perfect sense. It's sense has been vindicated by the fact that it's not been overturned in 38 years.

And considering the rule is not written for a single corps - only for two or more corps - it's reasonable to assume that it was directed at a group of corps acting outside of DCI. While I'd not put Royer, et all at the level of Jefferson or Madison, it is quite impressive that they realized that the egos of men sometimes grow out of proportion to the mission of DCI. My impression of this rule is that it's a significant roadblock to the out-sized egos we're witnessing today.

I think the rule should be celebrated and reinforced, if possible, instead of us trying to find ways around it.

One can't be "kind of" pregnant; you're either a "brotherhood" or your not. Period.

EDITED: for clarity

Well my main point was "conflicts with the mission of DCI" is vague and open to different interpretations. On one extreme a bunch of corps having their own competitions would easily be determined as a conflict with DCI and it's mission. But it's when we get outside of the competitive field that we get into grey areas and things could be called either way. That's the part I was trying to discuss but guess was unclear.

I'll use some of my experiences as examples to hopefully make my point clearer.

1) Jr corps performing at Spring Standstill concerts. Actually Westshore, Buccs and Crossmen used to perform at each others shows. Pretty sure we had Crossmen and a local Jr corps the same year some times.

2) A non-DCI entity hosting a day after DCI Finals field exhibition field show. Billed publicly as "last chance for corps to perform without being judged". Privately billed as "last chance for gas money". My Sr corps actually did this the days after Philly DCI.

3) Crossmen and Cadets would debut their shows at a field exhibition show Gettysburg, PA in the early 2000s. Show held as part of the Gettysburg Brass Band Festival (not kidding). Show also included an Alumni-type corps doing a standstill and a fife & drum corps.

Maybe since these are outside of the competative season there is not a conflict with the mission. But say there is a mid-season (non-competition) peformance chance for two corps at the same venue. Would this or would this not be a conflict with DCIs mission? Or to put it your way "Hurting the Brotherhood"

I could go either way:

Not a problem, since this would promote DCI and the corps to this area.

Problem, since doing this would take time away from the educational part of DCIs mission. (Kinda like parents who complain that field trips take away from kids study time.)

Edited August 6, 2010 by JimF-LowBari

[HockeyDad]

" BROTHERHOOD " Its a term ... a word I think IMO thats it. Doesnt mean take care of..GEZZZ i have 2 brothers Im not surrporting their ### ...lol

Our own Constitution also says " ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL " well , what about Women, minoritities, gays, we know thats not true. JMO

Actually that's the Declaration of Independence you're quoting. You know, ....we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....

[garfield]

Actually that's the Declaration of Independence you're quoting. You know, ....we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....

OMG, I'm such an idiot. :tongue:

My Dad is rolling over in his grave.

[GUARDLING]

Actually that's the Declaration of Independence you're quoting. You know, ....we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....

Yes and I think we all get the point on how words in different times can mean different things. but I think ( Garfield and I are in agreement )

[Martin I. Zing]

This doesnt really support anyones point here but the question that comes to me after I read this is...

What if the delusional power brokers in drum corps had realized years ago that drum corps they way the envision it will NEVER be more than a small niche activity?

I think they realize it now. Better late than never. That is why they are attempting to do something about it in an effort to save the activity by slicing off and creating a hybrid version for the upper third of the top performers BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE TO SAVE IT. This is an attempt to keep the genre healthy and alive while growing an audience and not having to worry about carrying the weight of the entire activity on their backs while doing it. It is simple survival.

[audiodb]

I think they realize it now. Better late than never. That is why they are attempting to do something about it in an effort to save the activity by slicing off and creating a hybrid version for the upper third of the top performers BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE TO SAVE IT. This is an attempt to keep the genre healthy and alive while growing an audience and not having to worry about carrying the weight of the entire activity on their backs while doing it. It is simple survival.

The sky is falling!