My personal opinion is that when we look back at historical figures, we have a tendency to view them through our current culture's lens. How I see it, our currently culture tends to hypersexualize men. We tend to put a sexual context on any action taken by a man. I've heard the allegations before that Lincoln was homosexual. Who's to say that he was simply close to the other man? I've heard it was common in Lincoln's time for men to refer to each other affectionately and were also far more affectionate when it came to touching. After the feminist movement and the gay rights movement, things have really changed in that department, at least in the United States.
Long time lurker, but this one finally pushed me into signing up and participating. Let me start by saying none of this is directed at the original poster, but is more my commentary on the overall problem of dissecting historical figures after they are no long around to defend themselves.
Why does every historical hack feel the need to try to go back through history, distort anything they can find and then try to tarnish the character of ever person of notoriety they find? I am not sure the source as none were cited in the post, but there is a definite agenda/angle on each of these, evident in they way each is phrased.
Any true student of history knows that rule #1 is that you have to know the context and culture of the people before you can start overlaying your interpretation of their actions. Personally, I think rule #2 is that you don't know what goes on in another man's head.
So in the end we have some carefully phrased conjecture and a speculation that a decorated war veteran and founder of one of the most influential organizations for young men, might have secretly been harboring thoughts/feelings of what ever the words can be twisted to support. Impossible to ever prove/disprove but I bet you can sell a lot of books with a perceived scandal.
Not saying the man was perfect, but there is no real substance to the points given. As men I think we need to stand up for those that have worked to do good in this world, not try to demonize them and tear down each one and all they fought to build.
Just my 2 cents.
Who cares about the entendres???
The guy gets rep points from me for being a secret agent:
Like Chuck I am also a long time reader but first time poster. I agree with his points 100%.
The post piqued my interest as I am involved in the Scouting movement, as a Cub Scout leader and echo the comments about Peter Pan being a good story - no need to read into the notion that liking this story has any deep sexual meaning. Current Cub Scouts use Rudyard Kiplings Jungle Book as a basis, ie. Leaders take names from the characters and use Jungle Book stories as themes for activities. At this age group fantasy and make believe play a role in having good clean honest fun.
Scouting leaders also pass on the knowledge of how Scouting began and tell the story about BP. I don't think his legacy should be besmirched by taking circumstances from his life and interpreting them in a modern way. I think most people would agree that historical figures lived in different times with different conventions, so why make baseless insinuations about their sexuality.
I think in these modern times the value of a persons worth is measured by the mark they leave on the world - not aspects of their private life taken out of context.
I don't think his legacy should be besmirched by taking circumstances from his life and interpreting them in a modern way.
Typical excuse not to look into truth. Don't be afraid of incriminating information just because it will sully your organization (which does a good enough job of that without any help from its founder).
I find your twist on "truth" interesting. We have a post that references an unnamed source who's interpretation insinuates something sinister by reviewing the past by today's standards. You seem to want this all to be true.
The BSA is currently struggling with a balance between current popular views of homosexuality, and keeping to values that are prevalent in its members, but this thread was about an insinuation that Powell was gay then insinuated he was a pedophile. (2 completely unrelated things)
So again, I ask why it is so important for us to go back and try to soil the character of people who are no longer around to defend themselves? You should hope that history does not judge you so harshly by future standards.
How would being gay "besmirch" everything non sexual that he did? You know like all the growing up, responsibility, earning things, and so on?
If he was gay, the only thing it would prove was that the current leadership are hyprocritical assholes blathering on about some stupid policy that would prove that their founder couldn't have done what history tells us he actually did.
As always, you have great insight Shieldes.