Stu Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Its going to be fun in the future trying to explain to an outsider in any coherent and intelligent manner why we call costumed performers in makeup, that prancing and dancing with twirly things are still called a " Color Guard ". Things change. I get that. But minikors chosen for things need to be grounded in reality here too it seems to me, or else it enters into the realm of the totally absurd. Just what exactly is being " guarded " and how so, and why so, with twirly things ? When one looks up in a dictionary or a reference source the definition of " a Color Guard " its pretty self explanatory and not open to much confusion as to what consitutes a " Color Guard ". This defimition has not changed, and will not change anytime in the future. So if a " Cadets " unit wants to eschew the use of wooden rifles, thats cool. But then the caption " Color Guard " in DCI judging needs to be changed to reflect the new reality that there are no longer any " Colors " that are depicted that require being honored and " Guarded " in the show performance by " a Cadets ". And why call the unit " The Cadets Corps " ? I've read of " Kaydettes " without the utilization of rifles. But it would be a first for me to read of a unit that call themelves " Cadets"... has adopted a military style " uniform ", calls themselves " a Corps "... has a " Color Guard ", a " Drum Major " that makes a " military salute " after its announcement prior to its start, goes to a " retreat" at shows, but has no wooden rifles. The incongruity of this to an outsider must create much confusion it would seem to me. But... if GH is somehow conflicted and uncomforable with his unit's time honored traditions of the use of the wooden rifles in his " Cadets Corps " then that is his perogative. He's their Director, and its entirely within his domain to make this choice for his unit moving forward. DCI has always had Corps that are unlike one another in look, style... with much diversity present. This decision for a Cadets Corps not to carry wooden rifles in their unit anymore offers one more chance to see the future diversity that will still be present in the activity moving forward, imo Using this reasoning NASCAR (National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing) needs to change their name because the vehicles used in that form of racing are no longer 'Stock' at any level but completely custom built in every aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Its going to be fun in the future trying to explain to an outsider in any coherent and intelligent manner why we call costumed performers in makeup, that prancing and dancing with twirly things are still called a " Color Guard ". Things change. I get that. But minikors chosen for things need to be grounded in reality here too it seems to me, or else it enters into the realm of the totally absurd. Just what exactly is being " guarded " and how so, and why so, with twirly things ? When one looks up in a dictionary or a reference source the definition of " a Color Guard " its pretty self explanatory and not open to much confusion as to what consitutes a " Color Guard ". This defimition has not changed, and will not change anytime in the future. So if a " Cadets " unit wants to eschew the use of wooden rifles, thats cool. But then the caption " Color Guard " in DCI judging needs to be changed to reflect the new reality that there are no longer any " Colors " that are depicted that require being honored and " Guarded " in the show performance by " a Cadets ". And why call the unit " The Cadets Corps " ? I've read of " Kaydettes " without the utilization of rifles. But it would be a first for me to read of a unit that call themelves " Cadets"... has adopted a military style " uniform ", calls themselves " a Corps "... has a " Color Guard ", a " Drum Major " that makes a " military salute " after its announcement prior to its start, goes to a " retreat" at shows, but has no wooden rifles. The incongruity of this to an outsider must create much confusion it would seem to me. But... if GH is somehow conflicted and uncomforable with his unit's time honored traditions of the use of the wooden rifles in his " Cadets Corps " then that is his perogative. He's their Director, and its entirely within his domain to make this choice for his unit moving forward. DCI has always had Corps that are unlike one another in look, style... with much diversity present. This decision for a Cadets Corps not to carry wooden rifles in their unit anymore offers one more chance to see the future diversity that will still be present in the activity moving forward, imo Its always been a challenge decribing to most what we do period in ths activity. With that said " color guards " really haven't been guarding anything for decades now....many decades...it's become just a figure of speach or lack of a better way of calling what we do or maybe just a glimpse of the past..who knows...even WGI...which is WINTER GUARD INTERNATIONAL is also called the same for the percussion side....but as you said..its just moving forward...PR a few years back in the Juliet show chose not to have traditional rifles either...didn't fit the show so there have been many times corps have chose not use the traditional. No biggie although I like the traditional equipment at least in part. Edited October 10, 2013 by GUARDLING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Using this reasoning NASCAR (National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing) needs to change their name because the vehicles used in that form of racing are no longer 'Stock' at any level but completely custom built in every aspect. Yes. Another good example of another that certainly warrants a name change to reflect the new reality. I'm sure we could think of a few others too if we put our minds to it. Its just silly ( as well as disingenuous it seems to me) to continue to call something that which it no longer is, particularly from an educational perspective where we say that we still use the dictionary as a valuable research tool to define for us and others what words are understood to mean. Edited October 10, 2013 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) " color guards " really haven't been guarding anything for decades now....many decades...it's become just a figure of speach I agree. So many are so quick to acknowledge the huge.... HUGE... transformational change in the activity over the decades from what it once once, but oddly these same people tend to cling to the same tradition of maintaining nomenclatures such as " Color Guards ".... " Corps "...... " Cadets "..... " Drum Majors "...... " Military Salutes "....,. " Retreats "..... " Color Guard Caption ".... and so forth ? How do we explain this inability and resistance to change the nomenclatures to fit the new realities ? As you correctly mentioned, its " been decades now ". So what are we waiting for, do you suppose ? Why the delay ? Edited October 10, 2013 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Yes. Another good example of another that certainly warrants a name change to reflect the new reality. I'm sure we could think of a few others too if we put our minds to it. Its just silly ( as well as disingenuous it seems to me) to continue to call something that which it no longer is, particularly from an educational perspective where we say that we still use the dictionary as a valuable research tool to define for us and others what words are understood to mean. No it is not silliy; and I completely disagree that NASCAR warrants a name change for two very viable reasons: 1) The historical aspect of where the sport came from is rather important; and 2) The branding is ingrained to a point that it would cost the corporation hundreds of millions to retool and rebrand. Another example of no need for a name change is the NFL (National Football League). This American sport got its name of Football because the original rules were very near soccer, then it incorporated some semblance of rugby rules, and then morphed into what it is today. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the NFL to change their name to the NPPKRL (National Punt Pass Kick and Run League) to better reflect how the sport is ‘now’ for the very same two reasons as NASCAR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) I agree. So many are so quick to acknowledge the huge.... HUGE... transformational change in the activity over the decades from what it once once, but oddly these same people tend to cling to the same tradition of maintaining nomenclatures such as " Color Guards ".... " Corps "...... " Cadets "..... " Drum Majors "...... " Military Salutes "....,. " Retreats "..... " Color Guard Caption ".... and so forth ? How do we explain this inability and resistance to change the nomenclatures to fit the new realities ? As you correctly mentioned, its " been decades now ". So what are we waiting for, do you suppose ? Why the delay ? good question...I guess I can have lots of theories but who knows...i know, what an answer...lol...., not caring or important enough,laziness, flash back to that tradition, whatever, its a good question. As I said some have changed their own personal name just as a few corps dropped the drum and bugle thing to be called something other than that., Edited October 10, 2013 by GUARDLING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) . Another example of no need for a name change is the NFL (National Football League). This American sport got its name of Football because the original rules were very near soccer, then it incorporated some semblance of rugby rules, and then morphed into what it is today. I don't see it that way at all, Stu. The Americanized version of " football " was distinctly dissimilar right from the getgo with the games of Soccer and Rugby. Similarly, there is a clear, unmistakeable difference between the games of " cricket " and that of " baseball ", while drawing some ideas from the other. While these sports certainly drew a few aspects from others, they are wholly different sports in rules, equipment, players, instument of competition in size, weight, texture, and 50 other clearly identifiable characteristics that made these sports completely unlike the other sports. Is " Soccer " like " Ice Hockey " ? Well yes, in that they both have " nets ", both have " goalies ", and other matching characteristics they both share in the sport. But fundamentally, the sport of " soccer " and the sport of " Ice Hockey " are primarily known for their dissimilarities and uniqueness from each other, than for some mutually shared characteristics they share in passing. More importantly, the sports of " Rugby " and the sport of " Soccer " that you merntioned here are primarily known for the absence of change in fundamental aspects of their sport since ( for example ) 1965. These sports at their most fundamental levels have changed little. By choice. By design. Neither " Rugby ", nor " Soccer " can be even remotely compared to the scope, breadth, and depth of the wholesale transformational changes undergone in our activity since 1965. As such, the change in nomenclatures has not kept up with these changes, oddly enough. There appears a need to change all aspects of the activity in some quarters, yet with an apparent quixotic compelling need to keep the traditional nomenclatures fully intact. Thats rather odd to me. I dont quite understand the apparent contradiction in this. Oh well. Its no big deal in the grand scheme of things, I suppose. Edited October 10, 2013 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 ... The Americanized version of " football " was distinctly dissimilar right from the getgo with the games of Soccer and Rugby. "1867; The game of football got introduced at the college level in the US after almost 200 years since its introduction. In 1867, the first sets of rules for American football were drawn up at Princeton College. According to the Princeton rules, twenty-five players were allotted to each team. Meanwhile, Rutgers also established its own football rules based upon London Association Football Rules. Princeton and Rutgers played the first historical match of football on November 6, 1869 at New Brunswick. The game then had almost the same rules as soccer except that the handling of ball was allowed when a player was stationary. However, running with the ball and throwing it was also not allowed. The winner was decided based upon the team who scored six goals first. Rutgers won the match." - historyoffootball.us "1869; Rutgers and Princeton played a college soccer football game, the first ever, November 6. The game used modified London Football Association rules. During the next seven years, rugby gained favor with the major eastern schools over soccer, and modern football began to develop from rugby." - NFL.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) ... the change in nomenclatures has not kept up with these changes, oddly enough. There appears a need to change all aspects of the activity in some quarters, yet with an apparent quixotic compelling need to keep the traditional nomenclatures fully intact. Thats rather odd to me. I dont quite understand the apparent contradiction in this. Oh well. Its no big deal in the grand scheme of things, I suppose. The lack of change in nomencalature is not odd to me; a name change for NASCAR or NFL would entail a massive, huge, outrageous monetary cost as well as a rebranding nightmare. Another example in which it would be rather idiotic to change a name brand: Coca Cola (Coke); in 1865 the company originally had extract from the coca leaf in the formula; however in 1929 the company removed it from the formula. Even though the brand name is the trademark of a multi-billion dollar industry, according to your position the company should now change the brand name to represent the current formula. Rather a ridicules idea to me, especially from a marketing nightmare standpoint. Edited October 10, 2013 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) didnt this start over what to call a " color guard" and for decades havent guarded a thing?...if so I dont think the earth would shift if it was called performace ensemble or whatever one wants to call it............its drum corps.or whatever one wants to call it........lol Edited October 10, 2013 by GUARDLING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts