Re: Changing Vision Council to Site Council
- From: woodstock <thirdwavevisions@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:41:09 -0000
On Jun 29, 6:51 pm, Redelk <red...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 29, 7:32 pm, rainbowwolf <jay_pi...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 29, 5:57 pm, <psychedelictour...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At last year's Vision Council in Colorado there was a group of kids
from Washington State who lobbied a whole day for Washington being the
"Vision" for the 2007 Annual.
The next day the feather was passed to Sailor, who informed the kidz
that there are no sites suitable in Washington State for a gathering
as large as the Annual.
Two things struck me about this exchange:
1) Why hadn't the kids known about past attempts to find a site in
Washington? They're Family and they live in the state. Why hadn't the
kids come prepared with topo maps and site suggestions if they
believed there existed such a site?
2) Why do we rely on outside the area scouts like Sailor and Val to
find a site, when the majority of the burden of scouting should rest
on the Family living inside the state in question. Local Family should
have better knowledge of their National Forests.
For example: I never saw anyone at Vision Council from Arkansas
recommending potential sites in their state. The focus at Vision
Council was on Texas.
I suggest we take the "vision" out of Vision Council. At Vision
Council in Oregon 1997 we chose Arizona because a group of folks
attending that Council had a "vision" of the Rainbow Family having
their Annual on Hopi Land. That didn't happen.
Today on AGR we have a couple of wingnuts suggesting Alaska and
Washington State as next year's gathering. Imagine if they had their
friends attending Vision Council this year. We be wasting everybody's
time looking for a site in Washington or some impractical location no-
one could attend in Alaska.
But if we changed "Vision" Council to "Site" Council then we could
then require folks suggesting their State as a potential Annual to:
1) Live in the state they're suggesting.
2) have some topo maps of potential site available in the state rather
than placing the burden on outside scouts. Local Family who have
scouted areas for regionals should be more knowledgable than some
wingnut "vision".
We could avoid the problems we've had in the past and insure a better
gathering site for next year.
namaste;
bodhihttp://psychedelictourist.blogspot.com
Funny that they say there is no suitable place in Washington State.
There was no suitable place in Texas, Oklahoma, or Arkansas either.
That's why it ended up where it is this year. There were no suitable
places, so they had to try to make due with what we have. It even
ended up in a split camp with no one agreeing and two sites got posted
to Welcomehome.org .
So, if we can pull off a gathering in Arkansas when there were no
suitable locations, maybe we should think about Washington State.
There has never been one there before...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I heard there was in 81.
WA SUCKS, but
there's nice meadows up Hayes River on the Oly Penn...
good water... more than one entrance...
"the man" will never let a Gath happen in the Park of the Gods
though...
check it out on your way to Alaska.
(I bet we could get a group rate on the Ferry (No ID necessary))- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
New Mexico- been a while too. -w-
.
- References:
- Changing Vision Council to Site Council
- From: 菩薩
- Re: Changing Vision Council to Site Council
- From: rainbowwolf
- Re: Changing Vision Council to Site Council
- From: Redelk
- Changing Vision Council to Site Council
- Prev by Date: Re: Changing Vision Council to Site Council
- Next by Date: Re: Where I would like to see 2008 happen....
- Previous by thread: Re: Changing Vision Council to Site Council
- Next by thread: Re: Changing Vision Council to Site Council
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
