A disconnect at camp

"Nan" wrote in message
...
But using a land line to report problems to your parents isn't "at
will". Sorry, but with the invention of new and better(?) ways to
communicate, the perceived 'need' for immediacy (thanks for the
phrase, Banty ;-) has been born. If we got along okay without it
before, then kids can get along without it now.

I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with you. You guys can hash it out.
Actually, I like the idea of cellphone-free camps, but I'm not arguing this
point.

I just cringe whenever anyone says we got along okay without X our kids can,
too. It's true, but every generation says that about the generation after
it. Heck, our ancestors got along without electricity, television, phone,
heating, a/c, cars, buses, trains, airplanes, running water, sewage system,
you name it. We can get along without all that, too, but we don't do we?
Okay, someone is going to pipe in that they don't have a car, but bikes
weren't always around, either. The point is, just because it can be done
because our ancestors did it doesn't mean it has to be done or should be
done that way. There's a reason we modernize, because it's more convenient,
because we like it better. If we didn't it's just as easy to get rid of it
all and live more simply, but the majority of us don't for a reason. There
are a minority in the Western world who do live more simply, but anyone on
this ng at least uses a computer. Again, not arguing the point, just the
reasoning behind it.

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
All my kids went to overnight camp, although the two younger ones
were
only at sports camps and not scout camp IIRC.

Through this whole conversation, I've had "summer camp" in mind as a
place where kids were put on a bus and sent away for several weeks, up
to the bulk of the summer. I did go on overnight girl scout camping
trips as a kid, but those were one or two nights, and since my mom was
an assistant leader, she was always there. The only other camp I went
to was church choir camp one year, and that was for maybe a week (I'm
thinking Mon-Fri, or even Mon-Thurs, but I was only 8 or so, so I
can't remember). I have only good (but vague) memories from that
camp.

DD has been overnight (one night only) with the scouts, both with and
without me. DS probably will when he's old enough. And it's quite
possible that one or both may go on some kind of week-long trip of
some kind with an activity they are involved in at some point in their
lives.

Bizby

"toypup" wrote in message
om...

"Nan" wrote in message
...
But using a land line to report problems to your parents isn't "at
will". Sorry, but with the invention of new and better(?) ways to
communicate, the perceived 'need' for immediacy (thanks for the
phrase, Banty ;-) has been born. If we got along okay without it
before, then kids can get along without it now.

I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with you. You guys can hash it
out. Actually, I like the idea of cellphone-free camps, but I'm not
arguing this point.

I just cringe whenever anyone says we got along okay without X our
kids can, too.

I don't like that argument either.

There's a reason we modernize, because it's more convenient, because
we like it better. If we didn't it's just as easy to get rid of it
all and live more simply, but the majority of us don't for a reason.

Yes, but the reasons aren't always good ones. So people yammer on
cell phones in public, not caring who they are disturbing, they run
around with TVs in their cars so they never have to speak to their
children, they spend all night playing computer games instead of
cleaning their house or enjoying their families, and so on. People
have a tendency to translate, "I can" into "therefore I should" and
perhaps particularly in America, land of independence, into "and you
can't stop me."

I don't think I've ever heard a single person here say that cell
phones should be banned or destroyed altogether. Only that they are
not appropriate at all times and places. I have a good friend who
insisted with a straight face that she *had* to keep her phone turned
on in church, or even attending a wedding or funeral, because it was a
safety issue. If something happened to her kids, she needed to be
reachable immediately, 24/7.

One of the problems with instant world-wide communication is that we
hear constant horror stories of what might go wrong. And it's natural
to want to protect our children, but you can go overboard. I know a
woman who almost won't let her kids out of her sight. She does
surprisingly let them go to school, but if they have a field trip and
she can't go, then she keeps them home from school for the day. They
can't go to day camp unless she or her husband are there with them.
The parents still attend all birthday parties with the kids (the older
is going into 3rd grade). She will likely keep them safe, but at what
cost? The older child is known for asking "What if?" questions like
when we were talking about tool safety in cub scouts, "What if someone
took a saw and sawed through that pole and then the whole house fell
down?"

Even I can look back on my own childhood and realize that I had much
more freedom at a much earlier age than my kids. It remains to be
seen what all this ultra-dependence is going to do to this generation
of America.

Bizby

In article , bizby40 says...


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
.. .
"bizby40" wrote:
I don't like the idea of overnight camp because I don't like being
away from my kids for so long. Also, I don't think either has the
right personality for it, so I don't think they'd enjoy it.

One of those is your problem, which is maybe going to be their
problem
in the future. And one of those is possibly a valid assessment.
Although it may be that your view of what they would enjoy because
of
your bias.

Well, the idea of sending them away to an overnight camp has never
even really come up. People around here just don't seem to do that.
And you know, I never did it as a kid either. So, I doubt I'll ever
really consider it until and unless one of them actually asks to go.

But my assessment of how they'd like it is based on how they deal with
the day camps they've been to.


My son has done both day camp (most weeks the last few summers) and overnight
camp, including week long Boy Scout trips. His first was a week long canoe trip
in the Adirondacks. He was only ten and had just graduated to Boy Scouts. It
still is a highlight of his childhood.

As I said before, the daycamp has a no-see policy regarding cellphones, and does
not allow other electronica. The boy scout troop didn't allow cellphones or
electronica, but there are strict policies which require quite a few adults to
be with the boys at any time, and they all have cells. But - you're right,
there's not a lot of coverage in a place like the Adirondacks. Communication is
mostly by driving to town and calling on a local phone (doesn't have to be a pay
phone). The cellphones mostly functioned as a way to let the parents know when
the boys would be arriving when they were on their way back.

There really is an undercurrent of parental possessiveness expressed here that
can deprive a child of some really great childhood experiences. A highlight of
my childhood was camping two summers in a row for a week at a Girl Scout camp in
the Wichita mountains in Oklahoma. I was an awkward child from not the most
happy marriage, and camp was a way to grow and try out ways of coping away from
all that. I don't know what the cell coverage is there now

Banty


--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm

"bizby40" wrote:


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
.. .
All my kids went to overnight camp, although the two younger ones
were
only at sports camps and not scout camp IIRC.

Through this whole conversation, I've had "summer camp" in mind as a
place where kids were put on a bus and sent away for several weeks, up
to the bulk of the summer. I did go on overnight girl scout camping

No the scout camps I went to were generally just one or two weeks.
Same with day camps.

trips as a kid, but those were one or two nights, and since my mom was
an assistant leader, she was always there. The only other camp I went
to was church choir camp one year, and that was for maybe a week (I'm
thinking Mon-Fri, or even Mon-Thurs, but I was only 8 or so, so I
can't remember). I have only good (but vague) memories from that
camp.

DD has been overnight (one night only) with the scouts, both with and
without me. DS probably will when he's old enough. And it's quite
possible that one or both may go on some kind of week-long trip of
some kind with an activity they are involved in at some point in their
lives.

My dd#1 and dd#2 work full time - especially dd#1 because dd#2 has
very irregular hours. Their children mostly go to day camps which it
seems that they start to schedule in January.. But dd#1's youngest
child just went to Boy Scout camp for a week about two weeks ago.
He's almost 12 and he's never been to overnight camp without his mom
before although last year he went to camp WITH his mom as one of the
leaders. Right after the Boy Scout camp, he went to eco-day camp,
which apparently, except for coming home to sleep at night, was pretty
much as strenuous as overnight camp.

My two oldest dds started to go to day camp (even though I didn't WOH)
when they were about 9 and 7, although they had done Vacation Bible
School before that. The next year they went to overnight Girl Scout
Camp for a week. The main fear, in those days, was that they might be
homesick and there were instructions for parents as to how to deal
with that as far as preparation went. I don't know about dd#1, who
was a pretty stoic kid as I've said, but dd#2 just didn't have a
problem with it, and neither apparently do either of her kids who have
done quite a few sleepovers from a VERY early age.

[DD#1 started at a new school in 3rd grade, and the lady down on the
corner happened to mention that her son - in dd#1's class, was crying
hysterically in the morning and didn't want to get on the bus because
all the kids had been told such stories by older kids about how mean
his teacher was that he and the other kids were all scared of her. I
asked her about it and she said "Oh nobody's crying now except Mary,
and she only cries in reading group" But she had not seen fit to
mention this to me before.]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 05:53:09 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:


"Nan" wrote in message
.. .
But using a land line to report problems to your parents isn't "at
will". Sorry, but with the invention of new and better(?) ways to
communicate, the perceived 'need' for immediacy (thanks for the
phrase, Banty ;-) has been born. If we got along okay without it
before, then kids can get along without it now.

I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with you. You guys can hash it out.
Actually, I like the idea of cellphone-free camps, but I'm not arguing this
point.

I just cringe whenever anyone says we got along okay without X our kids can,
too.

Cringe? Why would anyone "cringe" when someone states that kids can
get along without their precious cell phone for a week at camp?

It's true, but every generation says that about the generation after
it. Heck, our ancestors got along without electricity, television, phone,
heating, a/c, cars, buses, trains, airplanes, running water, sewage system,
you name it. We can get along without all that, too, but we don't do we?
Okay, someone is going to pipe in that they don't have a car, but bikes
weren't always around, either. The point is, just because it can be done
because our ancestors did it doesn't mean it has to be done or should be
done that way. There's a reason we modernize, because it's more convenient,
because we like it better. If we didn't it's just as easy to get rid of it
all and live more simply, but the majority of us don't for a reason. There
are a minority in the Western world who do live more simply, but anyone on
this ng at least uses a computer. Again, not arguing the point, just the
reasoning behind it.

Nobody is saying anyone should get rid of it all. We're arguing
against the necessity of having something that isn't necessary for a
week.

Nan

On 10 Aug 2006 22:50:57 -0700, "L." wrote:

Either you people are incredibly naive or incredibly stupid. Either
way, I am damn glad I'm not your kid.

So are we, Lyn. You're rude, obnoxious and obviously parented
poorly. I'd be embarrassed to be your mother.

Nan

"toypup" wrote:
"Nan" wrote in message
.. .
But using a land line to report problems to your parents isn't "at
will". Sorry, but with the invention of new and better(?) ways to
communicate, the perceived 'need' for immediacy (thanks for the
phrase, Banty ;-) has been born. If we got along okay without it
before, then kids can get along without it now.

The point is that it should NOT be at will. It isn't a safety issue.
Camps should be safe, or the kids should not be going. It is that
kids need to gradually separate from their parents so that they can
function on their own. If the kids never have to deal with anything
independently, they won't learn how.

I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with you. You guys can hash it out.
Actually, I like the idea of cellphone-free camps, but I'm not arguing this
point.

I just cringe whenever anyone says we got along okay without X our kids can,
too. It's true, but every generation says that about the generation after
it. Heck, our ancestors got along without electricity, television, phone,
heating, a/c, cars, buses, trains, airplanes, running water, sewage system,
you name it. We can get along without all that, too, but we don't do we?
Okay, someone is going to pipe in that they don't have a car, but bikes
weren't always around, either. The point is, just because it can be done
because our ancestors did it doesn't mean it has to be done or should be
done that way. There's a reason we modernize, because it's more convenient,
because we like it better. If we didn't it's just as easy to get rid of it
all and live more simply, but the majority of us don't for a reason. There
are a minority in the Western world who do live more simply, but anyone on
this ng at least uses a computer. Again, not arguing the point, just the
reasoning behind it.

I'm not saying that we have to get along without those things, but I
think one of the points of some camps is to show children that they
CAN get along without them. They can get along without TV. They can
deal without a cell phone. And in some cases without A/C or
electricity or running water (or hot water) or sewage treatment
systems. Depending on the camp. They can learn to swim and do
crafts and build a campfire. They can sing songs around the fire
instead of looking at TV or playing computer games.

(Kids aren't usually going to be driving yet, so transportation
doesn't come into it)

And if that isn't the point of it, then it should be a point - one of
the things that parents should be teaching children. They don't need
their parent holding their hand and helping them with their homework
all the time. You can go camp in the woods or on the beach, with out
the umbilical cord to the modern day world and survive and even have
fun.

THAT is the safety issue. Just because we have those modern things,
we should all be prepared to do without them because sometimes the
infrastructure fails in one way or another - no electricity due to ice
storms or heat waves - and we need to know how to cope without it.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:46:47 -0400, "bizby40"
wrote:


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
.. .
All my kids went to overnight camp, although the two younger ones
were
only at sports camps and not scout camp IIRC.

Through this whole conversation, I've had "summer camp" in mind as a
place where kids were put on a bus and sent away for several weeks, up
to the bulk of the summer. I did go on overnight girl scout camping
trips as a kid, but those were one or two nights, and since my mom was
an assistant leader, she was always there. The only other camp I went
to was church choir camp one year, and that was for maybe a week (I'm
thinking Mon-Fri, or even Mon-Thurs, but I was only 8 or so, so I
can't remember). I have only good (but vague) memories from that
camp.

When I speak of "summer camp" I refer to the week-long camps provided
by the YMCA that I went to as a kid. My ds attended a church camp
that was 4 days/nights and an asthma camp that was 3 days/nights. I
wouldn't have considered an extensive camp stay in either situation.

Nan

On 11 Aug 2006 05:16:06 -0700, Banty wrote:

In article .com, L. says...


Rosalie B. wrote:
And they need to know some other skills for coping OT just running to
the cell phone and calling mommy.


How do you expect a child to "cope" with situations like these?

http://www.campsafetyproject.org/id14.html

Either you people are incredibly naive or incredibly stupid. Either
way, I am damn glad I'm not your kid.

So, have you perfected your teletransporter yet?

Did these kids have cells? Do you think that would have made the difference?
If so, explain. Were they prevented from calling home on a camp phone?

IOW what's the rest of the story, and how do these relate to this discussion?

Really, digging up these rare instances and pointing to them they way you do
belies a distortion of reality. A former highly respected regular here, Chris
Biow, had a signoff that is very good to keep in mind. It's the few stories
like this that stick in some folks' minds, not the millions of successful camp
experiences. It's like folks who are afraid to fly, because they focus on the
few crashes that hit the news, not the thousands of daily successful flights.

"Beware the vividness of transient events."
Karl von Clausewitz


Banty

I remember Chris. Whatever happened to him?

Nan