George Hopkins - soothsayer

[Stu]

This thread is supposed to be about how prescient GH was in calling military references in drum corps a PC-impolite reference in today's society. Referencing the article was meant to suggest that GH might be more right than he was originally given credit in the August thread.

Or GH might have been ‘wrong’ on disparaging the history of drum corps, as well as the military which defends our great nation, by using the sarcastic condescending term ‘weapons of war’.

Considering the intolerance to references to our Second Amendment and the military that defends us (I'm reminded of the boy who chewed a Pop-Tart in the shape of a gun and was expelled for it), I do wonder how long it will be before rifles in drum corps will become so anti-PC that drum corps is forced to change to "curly things".

Drum Corps kids eat a lot of Pop-Tarts, and GH may be way ahead on this one.

Not that I like it at all...

See, this issue is more than just about GH.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Stu

[Stu]

Surely, he doesn't need me to come to his defense, but Stu said...

Thanks! But I did stay at a Holliday Inn Express, so I am ready for the figurative bullets to fly at me (oops, that was not PC for me to type now was it).

[chasgroh]

From the CBS article:

The school police are presumably employed by the district, and follow standards set forth by the district, which likely trumps what the principal might want to do. This transfers the blame from the principal to the school board, but doesn't eliminate the issue itself.

Here's the uncertainty: We don't know the stated policy on guns and gun imagery. If the policy bans likenesses or imagery, then the decision is not surprising. The policy may go too far, but they would have had to put in a specific exception for police, hunting or military references. It appears they didn't, or the principal didn't know it.

As to the guard rifles, any policy would need specific exceptions for security guard guns, police guns, and the color guard. If so, the dad is going to lose (after blowing some of the school budget on legal fees).

But ultimately, who cares what one principal did? Don't infer societal trends from case studies.

Indeed, one principal. It seems, according to the news report I listened to last nite, that AUHSD (Anaheim Union High School District) is going to "educate" those involved with the ban (Read: our principle and probably whomever reported the "offensive" T-shirt) so that this-type incident "...never happens again." I feel confident in that quote. The shirt will be allowed to be worn. Cool!

Edited October 4, 2013 by chasgroh

[Pete Freedman]

So, this shirt issue, those kids being expelled from school for playing with harmless air-foam guns (in their own yard, on their own property, on their own time), the kid who got suspended for drawing a picture of his daddy as an army man, etc…, ad infinitum…, I take it that you do not see any of this as PC run amuck.

Correct. It's PC, but the phrase "run amok" implies a large proportion of schools adopting such policies. What percentage of schools expel students for playing with foam guns on their own property? More broadly, what percentage of schools have similarly ridiculous anti-gun policies?

It may well be high, but again, this article even implies this is a rare event (by not citing other schools where it has happened.) There must be many students in schools who have worn shirts with NRA/hunting/military themes on them, and not been punished. In fact, I bet it's happened at all 29,000 schools. This case is an outlier, or we'd have heard.

Do you realize how easy it is for the media to parade every dumb decision at any of 29,000 schools across your TV screens? As if it were the norm. All to stoke the flames of their political market base. That's why the information is often so inaccurate.

For example, if you're referring to the Larkspur Middle School case in Virginia, the boys were shooting pellet guns at other kids at the bus stop. Whether they or the target students were standing on the designated bus stop is unclear, but the sentence seems harsh (long term suspension, not necessarily expulsion).

Still, some school doing something dumb does not make it the norm.

In the case of the drawing, apparently two kids turned in a science assignment with images on each that the teacher interpreted as a threat, one at least was a gun, the other is not disclosed. It was perhaps the fact that both happened that caused the teacher's interpretation.

Again, one heavy-handed reaction at a time = endless media field days = the impression that that's the way schools are these days. In both of these cases most of the articles I found had identical text and left out the key details I mentioned, by the way.

[Pete Freedman]

Edit: My lame attempt to split up a quote in the new system didn't work. Oh, well.

You clearly have not been paying attention to media reports, as there are, I'll say, hundreds of incidences.

But tens of thousands of schools.

[quote

Does that suggest a "significant trend"? I suppose it depends on how you define significant.

Surely, he doesn't need me to come to his defense, but Stu said "...huge amount of space...", not "long list" as you quoted.

This thread is supposed to be about how prescient GH was in calling military references in drum corps a PC-impolite reference in today's society. Referencing the article was meant to suggest that GH might be more right than he was originally given credit in the August thread.

It was not intended to present a missive, or example, of PC gone amok in society.

Right. Others began riding that horse. And I responded because ultimately the question of the relevance of Hopkin's alternates depends in part on these issues. You can't ask whether a particular guard should use alternates without discussing why.

Considering the intolerance to references to our Second Amendment and the military that defends us (I'm reminded of the boy who chewed a Pop-Tart in the shape of a gun and was expelled for it),

He was expelled for a variety of related behaviors the school wasn't at liberty to divulge to the public. The pop-tart one was enough for the media. And that's all people remember. See how they manipulate us?

I do wonder how long it will be before rifles in drum corps will become so anti-PC that drum corps is forced to change to "curly things".

Drum Corps kids eat a lot of Pop-Tarts, and GH may be way ahead on this one.

Not that I like it at all...

I think it will happen anyway if the trend from military roots toward performing arts education continues, simply because the modern shows are so evocative and specific that they won't find the rifle symbolism relevant. That, combined with anti-gun sentiment increasing (if school shootings continue) and I agree the rifle is doomed.

So what will be the half-life year? The year only half of DCI corps use rifles at some point in the show? I say not by 2020 at least.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Pete Freedman

[Stu]

... the phrase "run amok" implies a large proportion of schools adopting such policies.

Nope; the phrase 'run amok' does not imply large proportion, the phrase means: to go awry; to go into a ridiculous frenzy. The schools which are implimenting such draconian 'no tolerance, irrespective of context' PC policies like those I previously listed, no matter the proportion of schools, are going awry and going into a ridiculous PC frenzy. Therefore they are, by definition, running amok. Unless... do you think their 'no tolerance, irrespective of context' policies are not going awry and not ridiculous?

Edited October 5, 2013 by Stu

[Tim K]

I was looking at some photos from the Norwood, MA July 4th parade and I noticed two "weapons of war" in the color guard section--sabres and rifles that look a bit like lightning rods but to the casual observer would look like a rifle, so I'm not sure George Hopkins' "weapons of war" comment refers to a political belief or a more accurate description of what equipment is for sale.

Now as far as rifles in drum corps today are concerned, it has been many years since rifles have had triggers, a safety, or actual barrels. They are just wood or plastic made to look a but like a rifle. Also, in the 1970's, corps such as North Star and Phantom Regiment used to put streamers at either end which worked great for drum cops but would never pass in the military. Perhaps with the exception of this past year's show by Madison and the Bridgemen's Civil War tribute, have rifles really been used as "weapons of war?"

As a drum corps traditionalist, I love rifles and the great iconic rifle lines such as 27th Lancers or Anaheim Kingsmen, and think rifles can still put to good use today. However, if a corps decides not to use rifles, whether it be for creative reasons or an anti-gun policy, that is their prerogative. Lots of things cause controversy: musical choices, show themes, color guard uniforms that expose bare midriffs, use of props, and now the sue of rifles. Bottom line a corps has to use what works for that corps.

[MikeD]

Well, it's good to know some things can be depended upon.

At least your are getting the head-end of the horse.

[Pete Freedman]

Nope; the phrase 'run amok' does not imply large proportion, the phrase means: to go awry; to go into a ridiculous frenzy. The schools which are implimenting such draconian 'no tolerance, irrespective of context' PC policies like those I previously listed, no matter the proportion of schools, are going awry and going into a ridiculous PC frenzy. Therefore they are, by definition, running amok. Unless... do you think their 'no tolerance, irrespective of context' policies are not going awry and not ridiculous?

Nice try, but in post #31 you said:

...

Is that a knee-jerk compulsion extrapolated from a singe case, or a legitimate concern on the current state of PC run amok?

[Stu]

Nice try, but in post #31 you said:

In post #31 I used the phrase 'run amok' correctly; as in many schools, and the State of California, going awry and/or to going into a ridiculous frenzy, iwith overt, out of control,PC policies which are currently being implimented. Nowhere did I state, or imply, that it was an overly large proportion or a very high percentage of schools. You incorrectly 'inferred' that the phrase 'run amok' means large proportion and high percentage; which it does not.