Wear of CAP World War II Aviation Badge authorized

[winterg]

I still do not see which of our missions is not being accomplished because we are making an active effort to preserve CAP history and commemorating three quarters of a century of service. Should we just let the past fade and teach future generations half remembered legends about where we came from? I've yet to hear a valid argument how this anniversary program is detrimental to CAP. I personally think that allowing the historical wings on the modern uniform is unnecessary. But there is no harm.

[LSThiker]

Yes, Yes, no.

Those items are already "budgeted" and are part of our three fold mission. The key word is Mandatory as in we are mandated to teach AE, have a cadet program, and do ES  Nothing mandatory about celebrating the 75th anniversary with uniform changes, logos, and commemorative items. I don't remember "Throw a celebration and keep reminding people of your organizations wartime service" in the charter, but maybe I missed it.

Well good then.  Our history is aerospace history.  Our history is also military history.  So we are in agreement that we should keep teaching Civil Air Patrol's history because it is aerospace history and military history.  Since you say we should still teach aerospace history, then celebrating our 75th anniversary is teaching aerospace history and our wartime service is military history.  In order to do this, we must spend money to preserve that history so that we can continue teaching that aerospace history.

Of course how we go about teaching our history is similar to how we go about teaching aerospace education.  I may spend more time on the history and astronomy during AE while another unit may spend more time on the mechanics of flight and meteorology.  To each their own in how we teach the details. 

[Storm Chaser]

I think we can celebrate our history and pass on our heritage without making temporary changes to our uniforms. Regardless of cost, that wasn't a good idea. We have enough issues with the uniform as it is.

[LSThiker]

I think we can celebrate our history and pass on our heritage without making temporary changes to our uniforms. Regardless of cost, that wasn't a good idea. We have enough issues with the uniform as it is.

I agree.  I am not a fan of the wearing the old insignia on today's uniform.  Nevertheless, it was not my call and it seems as though it is not costing the organization.  To each their own in how we present the details.

[Alaric]

Yes, Yes, no.

Those items are already "budgeted" and are part of our three fold mission. The key word is Mandatory as in we are mandated to teach AE, have a cadet program, and do ES  Nothing mandatory about celebrating the 75th anniversary with uniform changes, logos, and commemorative items. I don't remember "Throw a celebration and keep reminding people of your organizations wartime service" in the charter, but maybe I missed it.

Well good then.  Our history is aerospace history.  Our history is also military history.  So we are in agreement that we should keep teaching Civil Air Patrol's history because it is aerospace history and military history.  Since you say we should still teach aerospace history, then celebrating our 75th anniversary is teaching aerospace history and our wartime service is military history.  In order to do this, we must spend money to preserve that history so that we can continue teaching that aerospace history.

Uhh no, If we didn't need to spend money to celebrate the 74th anniversary or the 73rd but we still taught AE (and I know my units did) then your argument is specious. 

[LSThiker]

Uhh no, If we didn't need to spend money to celebrate the 74th anniversary or the 73rd but we still taught AE (and I know my units did) then your argument is specious.

I sent out information on both the 73rd and 74th anniversary of CAP.  In fact, I sent press releases to the local newspaper on each of those days.  I even sent out information for the units on those days as well.

Again, how we present our history is in the details.  Even if CAP does not host large-scale celebrations on the 73rd and 74th anniversaries does not mean we still were not spending time and personal resources on those days.

Besides, your argument was "And in my opinion, if that number is accurate that's 4000 dollars too much".  So I guess we should have been spending money on those celebrations then?

[winterg]

Yes, Yes, no.

Those items are already "budgeted" and are part of our three fold mission. The key word is Mandatory as in we are mandated to teach AE, have a cadet program, and do ES  Nothing mandatory about celebrating the 75th anniversary with uniform changes, logos, and commemorative items. I don't remember "Throw a celebration and keep reminding people of your organizations wartime service" in the charter, but maybe I missed it.

Well good then.  Our history is aerospace history.  Our history is also military history.  So we are in agreement that we should keep teaching Civil Air Patrol's history because it is aerospace history and military history.  Since you say we should still teach aerospace history, then celebrating our 75th anniversary is teaching aerospace history and our wartime service is military history.  In order to do this, we must spend money to preserve that history so that we can continue teaching that aerospace history.

Uhh no, If we didn't need to spend money to celebrate the 74th anniversary or the 73rd but we still taught AE (and I know my units did) then your argument is specious.

I've never seen someone so adamantly opposed to preserving and promoting history.  I just don't get it. The only argument you have offered is that we aren't mandated to do it and therefore should waste no time or resources on it. 
Maybe I am biased as I feel all history, good and bad, must be preserved. But I am trying to see the argument from your point of view and it is not working for me. If you offered an argument that CAP was neglecting another area of responsibility to promote our history program I could see your point. 

[THRAWN]

Yes, Yes, no.

Those items are already "budgeted" and are part of our three fold mission. The key word is Mandatory as in we are mandated to teach AE, have a cadet program, and do ES  Nothing mandatory about celebrating the 75th anniversary with uniform changes, logos, and commemorative items. I don't remember "Throw a celebration and keep reminding people of your organizations wartime service" in the charter, but maybe I missed it.

Well good then.  Our history is aerospace history.  Our history is also military history.  So we are in agreement that we should keep teaching Civil Air Patrol's history because it is aerospace history and military history.  Since you say we should still teach aerospace history, then celebrating our 75th anniversary is teaching aerospace history and our wartime service is military history.  In order to do this, we must spend money to preserve that history so that we can continue teaching that aerospace history.

Uhh no, If we didn't need to spend money to celebrate the 74th anniversary or the 73rd but we still taught AE (and I know my units did) then your argument is specious.

I've never seen someone so adamantly opposed to preserving and promoting history.  I just don't get it. The only argument you have offered is that we aren't mandated to do it and therefore should waste no time or resources on it. 
Maybe I am biased as I feel all history, good and bad, must be preserved. But I am trying to see the argument from your point of view and it is not working for me. If you offered an argument that CAP was neglecting another area of responsibility to promote our history program I could see your point.

Preverving history is one thing, but this is not preserving history. Want to wear old gear? Join a reenactment group. Otherwise, we as an organization preserve our history every time we wear our uniforms correctly. There is a difference between preserving history and dwelling on the past. We've been doing the latter for far too long.

[winterg]

I agree that allowing the old-timey wings wasn't a great decision.  But it's been said that this was done at no cost to the membership unless the choose to buy these items. I don't see the harm.

All I see is the Historians being FAR better at social media and diseminating information to the membership than any other area of CAP. We should be taking our cue from them.

[LSThiker]

Preverving history is one thing, but this is not preserving history. Want to wear old gear? Join a reenactment group. Otherwise, we as an organization preserve our history every time we wear our uniforms correctly. There is a difference between preserving history and dwelling on the past. We've been doing the latter for far too long.

Correct.  If the last few posts were limited to only wearing the old insignia, then I would agree with his point of view.  However, his argument is:

We all have our priorities, looking backwards is not one of mine.  The budget is a zero sum game once issued and I think we need to be spending our money on making sure we are ready to perform our current missions, not talking about how wonderful we were back in the 40's

And in my opinion, if that number is accurate that's 4000 dollars too much

As he presents his argument, we, CAP, should not even be spending money to preserve our CAP history or even discussing CAP history.  Perhaps that is not his true argument, but he has not really communicated that thus far.

[LSThiker]

All I see is the Historians being FAR better at social media and diseminating information to the membership than any other area of CAP. We should be taking our cue from them.

I agree.  The two areas of CAP that I think excel at spreading information are Cadet Programs and History.  Other than the short blurbs in the CAP vector, I do not see much from Operations. 

One of the large issues with CAP, Inc is the lack of communication to the field.  I applaud the work that Ned, Nin, and Blazich do in helping facilitate that communication. 

[Alaric]

Uhh no, If we didn't need to spend money to celebrate the 74th anniversary or the 73rd but we still taught AE (and I know my units did) then your argument is specious.

I sent out information on both the 73rd and 74th anniversary of CAP.  In fact, I sent press releases to the local newspaper on each of those days.  I even sent out information for the units on those days as well.

Again, how we present our history is in the details.  Even if CAP does not host large-scale celebrations on the 73rd and 74th anniversaries does not mean we still were not spending time and personal resources on those days.

Besides, your argument was "And in my opinion, if that number is accurate that's 4000 dollars too much".  So I guess we should have been spending money on those celebrations then?

Point by point

Electronic information doesn't really cost.  Also, what you do for your unit and what National does spending the organizations money are two different things.  If your unit wishes to spend its money on commemorative activities more power to them.

"...time and personal resources..." are yours to spend, organizational money, perhaps not.  If I want to fund a celebration to commemorate the 50th anniversary of a squadron, or the 10th anniversary of a member or anything else, out of my pocket, that's my choice.  If I want to spend my units money on it, then other people may have something to say about.  They may not get their way, but they get to speak out.

You totally misunderstood my point.  I feel 4000 dollars is too much to spend on commemorating the 75th anniversary, so no I don't think we should have spend any money on the 73rd or 74th.

[Alaric]

Preverving history is one thing, but this is not preserving history. Want to wear old gear? Join a reenactment group. Otherwise, we as an organization preserve our history every time we wear our uniforms correctly. There is a difference between preserving history and dwelling on the past. We've been doing the latter for far too long.

Correct.  If the last few posts were limited to only wearing the old insignia, then I would agree with his point of view.  However, his argument is:

We all have our priorities, looking backwards is not one of mine.  The budget is a zero sum game once issued and I think we need to be spending our money on making sure we are ready to perform our current missions, not talking about how wonderful we were back in the 40's

And in my opinion, if that number is accurate that's 4000 dollars too much

As he presents his argument, we, CAP, should not even be spending money to preserve our CAP history or even discussing CAP history.  Perhaps that is not his true argument, but he has not really communicated that thus far.

No my argument is that we shouldn't be spending money on creating logos, and commemorative nonsense for the 75th anniversary, or celebrating what we did in WWII.  Let's look forward.   Every year since I joined CAP NHQ is asking for money, if they need money, first thing is cut unnecessary costs.  I feel the 75th anniversary stuff is an unnecessary cost, National feels otherwise.  I am stating an opinion, which I am entitled to.  Obviously it will not change what National does.

[LSThiker]

No my argument is that we shouldn't be spending money on creating logos, and commemorative nonsense for the 75th anniversary, or celebrating what we did in WWII.  Let's look forward.   Every year since I joined CAP NHQ is asking for money, if they need money, first thing is cut unnecessary costs.  I feel the 75th anniversary stuff is an unnecessary cost, National feels otherwise.  I am stating an opinion, which I am entitled to.  Obviously it will not change what National does.

As the chief historian has stated, no money (or at least very minimal) was spent, except his own, on the historical insignia or on the majority of the history projects.  The designs of the logos were created by members at there own cost.  CAP did not spend money on those designs.  So as I see it, we have not spent money on those items.  The 75th anniversary celebration has been left up to the wings to decide.  Thus, if the wing decides to spend money on that, then "more power to them".  But the spending money on this and that is so far a non-argument as, apparently, no money has been spent. 

Your point has not been about the money only, but rather the entire focus of the history as stated in your first post:

Still too much focus on the past and not enough on the future.  Its the 75th anniversary ,yay, but so what?  I don't remember all this hoopla for the 70th,  lets focus on being a viable organization for the next 75 years and stop living in a time most current members weren't even alive for.

As of now, the only resources spent on any of this has been the time and personal resources of the historians in organizing the projects.  As you have said "...time and personal resources..." are yours to spend". 

[Storm Chaser]

I think we can celebrate our history and pass on our heritage without making temporary changes to our uniforms. Regardless of cost, that wasn't a good idea. We have enough issues with the uniform as it is.

I agree.  I am not a fan of the wearing the old insignia on today's uniform.  Nevertheless, it was not my call and it seems as though it is not costing the organization.  To each their own in how we present the details.

I just hope I don't have to spend too much time making sure members are wearing the right insignia or are wearing it correctly.

[winterg]

And takers on how many members who have AC wings will start wearing the WWII Observer wings?

[Alaric]

No my argument is that we shouldn't be spending money on creating logos, and commemorative nonsense for the 75th anniversary, or celebrating what we did in WWII.  Let's look forward.   Every year since I joined CAP NHQ is asking for money, if they need money, first thing is cut unnecessary costs.  I feel the 75th anniversary stuff is an unnecessary cost, National feels otherwise.  I am stating an opinion, which I am entitled to.  Obviously it will not change what National does.

As the chief historian has stated, no money (or at least very minimal) was spent, except his own, on the historical insignia or on the majority of the history projects.  The designs of the logos were created by members at there own cost.  CAP did not spend money on those designs.  So as I see it, we have not spent money on those items.  The 75th anniversary celebration has been left up to the wings to decide.  Thus, if the wing decides to spend money on that, then "more power to them".  But the spending money on this and that is so far a non-argument as, apparently, no money has been spent. 

Your point has not been about the money only, but rather the entire focus of the history as stated in your first post:

Still too much focus on the past and not enough on the future.  Its the 75th anniversary ,yay, but so what?  I don't remember all this hoopla for the 70th,  lets focus on being a viable organization for the next 75 years and stop living in a time most current members weren't even alive for.

As of now, the only resources spent on any of this has been the time and personal resources of the historians in organizing the projects.  As you have said "...time and personal resources..." are yours to spend".

Yes and I still maintain that there is no value add to the anniversary celebration.  Announce it, sure, change uniform regs, logos, etc.  No.  I do not believe it adds value to recruiting or retention, NIN wrote a great article about not using IACE and NCSAs to recruit as that only affects a limited number of our cadets.  The fact we were around during the 2nd WW is not going to attract some 12 year old or even some 40 year old.  The mission we did then no longer exists.  I am willing to be wrong, but don't think anyone already a member is staying a member because of what we did in 1941.  So my question remains (where is the value add)

[LSThiker]

Yes and I still maintain that there is no value add to the anniversary celebration.  Announce it, sure, change uniform regs, logos, etc.  No.

Other than the WWII uniform items, nothing else has been changed.  A logo was created, but not changed.  Even then, it was created as a personal project of specific CAP members and was selected out of the nominations.  No member was required to submit proposed logos and no member was required to spend any money on it.  The creation of a logo does not subtract from the overall or larger mission of CAP or resources. 

I do not believe it adds value to recruiting or retention, NIN wrote a great article about not using IACE and NCSAs to recruit as that only affects a limited number of our cadets.  The fact we were around during the 2nd WW is not going to attract some 12 year old or even some 40 year old.  The mission we did then no longer exists.  I am willing to be wrong, but don't think anyone already a member is staying a member because of what we did in 1941. 

Neither do I.  Who said it was a recruiting and retention of cadets?  Or senior members for that matter?

So my question remains (where is the value add)

Professional development as the others have stated.  It is part of aerospace history and military history.  It is part of our CAP.  It is the same reason why the military expects officers and NCOs to learn about military history.  What the military, or its leaders, did in WWII has little value to what our current operations are in middle east.  We no longer fight conventional warfare like we did in WWII.  Nevertheless, learning about the history develops the leadership in that he/she knows the past.  He/she gains leadership principles. 

Look at the professional reading list from the Army Chief of Staff in 2013 and see how many history books are on it.  Computer is acting up on pdf files and that is the one that I have saved on my computer:
http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/105/105-1-1/CMH_Pub_105-5-1_2013.pdf

[LSThiker]

And takers on how many members who have AC wings will start wearing the WWII Observer wings?

Already know a few that think they can start wearing the observer wings even though they are not observers.

[winterg]

And takers on how many members who have AC wings will start wearing the WWII Observer wings?

Already know a few that think they can start wearing the observer wings even though they are not observers.

And pictures are already appearing on social media of the WWII wings over military badges on CAP blues.

Edit: Unless I am reading the change letter wrong, the WWII wings can not be worn with any other badge unless you are chaplain.