G7 Update

[N.E. Brigand]

Back on topic, a history lesson might be useful here. Real history.

The American people had to elect a president in bloodiest year of a bloody civil war. Abraham Lincoln stood for re-election in 1864 against a backdrop of suffering unseen by his fellow citizens – and all for the intangible principle of preserving the union. Lincoln’s opponent seemed to promise the opposite; his election would likely meant peace in the form of disunion.

The relevance here is that 1864 election had to take place even though it risked that the union would be dissolved. That’s democracy. Democracy, as it turns out and as we all should know, isn’t without risk. Where Lincoln in the midst of a civil uprising risked the vote and the union on the prospect that the voters would do the right thing, DCI in its own uprising has put itself in a position where it is denying a vote to those who should have the right.

To those who say the seven might ruin DCI and drum corps, the answer is that is always a risk. Bad ideas aren’t just the province of the mighty. The democratic process allows for the good and the bad, for the majority and for respect of the rights of the minority. Contentious proposals aren’t supposed to alter the fundamentals of the democratic process. Where contentious proposals become contentious programs, the democracy addresses the deficiencies by law, not by seceding or by denying the vote.

To use Lincoln’s words now with reference to DCI, a house divided against itself cannot stand. DCI cannot continue to leave the seven outside its house. They have to be inside.

DCI is a non-profit, not a body politic -– I know that. Yet it is also a democracy to the extent it governs itself through a representative board. The seven have to be represented on that board. That doesn’t mean they deserve seven votes of 12. It just means that the tantrum on both sides should end with a board that reflects a diversity of views, with a democratic process that aims at consensus, at union, even at the risk of something worse.

Both sides in the 1864 U.S. presidential election wanted the Confederacy back in the Union, but the Democrats, the party opposed to Lincoln, were more inclined to obtaining that result through peace negotiations. Some of the Democrats were willing to let the Confederacy depart, but that raises a key part: barring the confirmation of slavery by the Union, the Confederacy wasn't coming back without a fight.

So by your analogy, DCI should act like Lincoln, and thoroughly whup THE SEVEN to get them to return to the fold.

If that's what you meant, I am inclined to agree.

[Jocko the Wonder Llama]

Regardless of what happens (split or not) there are 7 corps who will NEVER see another dime of my money. I fully support DCI and the corps that remain loyal to it.

To Hopkins, Gibbs, Fiedler, Valenzuela etc. Do not expect that your self-serving attempt at a coup-de-tat will make me support your corps at the expense of all others. You and your corps are NOT bigger than the activity. (Your egos however...)

A quick thought: Doesn't DCI hold the copyrights to all DCI performances? If so, they should refuse to allow any of the G7/WE7/MiM/whatever to use ANY of their past DCI performances for recruiting/fund raising/ publicity etc.

[glory]

As usual on this board, we're too focused on assigning blame, not focused enough on solutions. The only reasonable solution has the seven represented by some factor on the board. Absent that, the best we can hope for is the uncomfortable, unsustainable status quo in which the two sides stand apart to the detriment of all.

My point is the seven has taken a step toward DCI. Now DCI must take a step toward the seven. Leadership is needed to break the impasse and start the process toward progress. From DCI's perspective the risk is five or even three seats on its board might be enough to recruit a majority and thus a change. That's the risk. But it's always been there, always will be there and inevitably must be taken. Or else we're already where we dare not be. And that's where blame is all we have left.

HH

[glory]

...So by your analogy, DCI should act like Lincoln, and thoroughly whup THE SEVEN to get them to return to the fold...

A brigand you are! Where's Grant when you need him?

After disaster befell their troops the first day of the battle of Shiloh, Sherman says to Grant: "We've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

And Grant replies: "Yes. Lick'em tomorrow."

Which they did, changing the course of U.S. history.

HH

[skywhopper]

As usual on this board, we're too focused on assigning blame, not focused enough on solutions. The only reasonable solution has the seven represented by some factor on the board. Absent that, the best we can hope for is the uncomfortable, unsustainable status quo in which the two sides stand apart to the detriment of all.

I'm not sure why there's a need for a specific seven corps to be represented on the board. They were well represented, but they lost seats when it became clear they were not working for the good of the rest of the corps, which is how one would hope these things would go. As garfield has pointed out, they can choose to participate or not, but giving ultimatums to the board is not a "step toward" DCI, it's a slap in the face.

Edited January 16, 2013 by skywhopper

[BRASSO]

.

My point is the seven has taken a step toward DCI. Now DCI must take a step toward the seven. Leadership is needed

HH

DCI has made accommodations to the G7 as well, probably more accommodations than they should have in retrospect, imo.

[Jocko the Wonder Llama]

DCI should take a step forward...If only to get a better position to kick the G7 in the ###.

[cixelsyd]

I am referring to the fact that none are represented on the board. I am not saying all seven must be on the board. I am saying its not right to exclude them all.

Last I heard, two of them resigned from the Executive BOD back in 2010, and none have run for election since. They have been excluding themselves.

[skywhopper]

DCI has made accommodations to the G7 as well, probably more accommodations than they should have in retrospect, imo.

Indeed. The TOC was a huge accommodation. Now the MIMPA shows appearing on the DCI schedule are yet another. It's clear the G7 will only settle for full control of DCI.

[N.E. Brigand]

Both sides in the 1864 U.S. presidential election wanted the Confederacy back in the Union, but the Democrats, the party opposed to Lincoln, were more inclined to obtaining that result through peace negotiations. Some of the Democrats were willing to let the Confederacy depart, but that raises a key part: barring the confirmation of slavery by the Union, the Confederacy wasn't coming back without a fight.

So by your analogy, DCI should act like Lincoln, and thoroughly whup THE SEVEN to get them to return to the fold.

If that's what you meant, I am inclined to agree.

Really? Three negative votes for pointing out that glory's request for DCI to act like Lincoln means that they should strong-arm THE SEVEN into staying? But not one substantive counterargument.