Recalling Chief/Camp

These are the positings from the old message board !!

Bob Aronoff

Recalling Chief/Camp

Post by Bob Aronoff »

Thanks to Bruce Novak, Mel Cohn, and Camp's unofficial historian, Mark Brecker (psuedonym Uncle Moshie?), for vignettes on Camp life and inner workings. Mark is an extraordinary witness to Camp history with his long tenure there.

These insights drive home what was lost when a unique place like Camp Alton was apparently sacrificed for the almighty dollar. While I'm not privy to the reasons for its sale, a "shrine" like Camp is sorrowfully gone forever. A compounding sadness is that Chief's efforts ended up for naught while his own family kin sold his dream (and Chief's original backers) down the river.

Too serious a thought? Don't think so.

I tend to think Camp was a singularly and distinctly "Jewish" experience without equal and foolishly lost for eternity. Camp and Chief were owed and deserved a better fate.



aronoff@sbcglobal.net
Uncle Moish
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:11 pm

Re: I Thank Bob, [but]

Post by Uncle Moish »

for his kind personal words about contributors to the message board, but it is unfair to expect one person [or even family] to absorb the entire financial loss had camp been otherwise alienated.

Financial loss includes lost opporturnity. If 3 million dollars were a potential but "only" half a million if one were totally idealistic, there would be, if the latter route were taken, a 2 1/2 million dollar loss.

Had 98 of us been willing to share in covering 98% of this two and a half million [the figures are purely hypothetical], I am sure the person/family would have picked up the other 2%. This may not sound monumental, but it would be twice the sum the rest of us would have contributed.

"Rabbi" Brecker

P.S. Many campers and staff members were not born Jewish and often practiced other faiths. I dare say that there was no "divide" in contribution towards and love for Alton discernable by such a "distinction without a difference".



mark@lgpltd.com
kappy

Re: I Thank Bob, [but]

Post by kappy »

Uncle Markie,

I respectfully disagree. Several people were interested in finding a solution, but they were not met with a spririt of cooperation. If the sale of camp was judged strictly from a financial position it would have to be compared with the sale of Manhattan. Camp was appraised at 28 million dollars during the real estate boom a few years before. Surely a little patience would have seen the property value rise above 3 million.

The rhetoric of the leaders of camp was always that materialism was distasteful and that camp was bigger than any individual. It seems that it was just rhetoric.


a.e.kaplan@att.net
Uncle Moish
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:11 pm

Idealism Has Its Limits

Post by Uncle Moish »

Kappie Babbie,

As one of my kinder in 1984 and having had your dad as swim counselor in 1953 [my first year], I surely feel your [our] pain.

Materialism as a SOLE goal remains, I am sure, a strong belief of all Altonians including those who realized a significant material gain from its sale.

Let me say this. We are [biblically] mandated to give at least 10% of our income to chairty. [I am not sure if it is of the gross or net; I'd guess the former.] We may give more. But we may NOT give more than 30%. Perhaps this is because one's consequential financial status would be so diminished that continuing tzeddakah would become much less beneficial to those in need.

So, if you were to say that maintaining camp would have meant a 5%, 10%, 20% loss to the sellers, I'd agree. But you are talking of sums which to most of us [and surely to me] are so astronomical that all I can say is I'd find it hard to believe that many so situated would have done otherwise.

I too have heard rumors about "lack of spirit" [not to mention cooperation - but prize campership was at least nominally abolished as the '50's were coming to an end]. However one would be hard pressed to find people involved providing specifics. And while many "were interested in finding a solution", there are some problems [the Middle East, for instance] where the only solution is regretably a "final solution".

Camp is literally gone. But its spirit [as evidenced in the endeavor of which we are now engaged and as afforded to us by Gary Sharoff] remains and thrives.

Keep Caring,
Uncle Markie



mark@lgpltd.com
Uncle Moish
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:11 pm

Re: IMPORTANT CORRECTION

Post by Uncle Moish »

I meant being AGAINST materialism as a SOLE goal characterizes all Altonians including those who came [after many decades] to realize a significant, financial gain from those sacred premises. If my error offended anyone [what else is new?] I [again] apologize.
Markie



mark@lgpltd.com
KenWarshaw
Member
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 8:00 pm
Location: Hingham, MA

Re: Idealism Has Its Limits

Post by KenWarshaw »

I have a couple of questions/issues with your post. First, what is wrong with materialism? In a hypothetical situation, let?s say I make $100 million a year. If I only give $1 million to charity, does that make me a bad person in the eyes of God (or whoever/whatever) may be watching because I only gave 1%?

Second, how can you go around referencing the bible in this day and age? The bible is so filled with contradictions that we cannot follow its ?teachings? and survive as a people. If the bible is to be held on some sort of scriptural pedestal, then we can not and should not pick and choose which lessons and which passages we throw out into the public. If you tell me that the bible expressly says that I have to give at least 10% of my income to charity but no more than 30% (a very specific regulation) then you should probably follow it up with stating that any woman leaving her home without a male escort should be stoned to death (maybe it is simple execution, but stoning sounds more dramatic) or any of the other ridiculous ?laws? that the bible gives us.

I do not necessarily argue with you about the majority of Altonites being against the SOLE goal of materialism, or that the sale of our beloved grounds was not much, much deeper than the many posts on the message board make it out to be. But making a biblical argument (or even a reference) to substantiate it only reduces the power of your argument?which I guess was contrary to what you hoped would be the outcome.

Ken



kwarshaw@linwoodcom.com
Uncle Moish
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:11 pm

Re: Kennie Babbie, I Only Pretend

Post by Uncle Moish »

to grasp spiritual matters. I have no training and relatively "late" began to try to make up for lost time. So, you have only my impression of your questions/comments which I hope to accurately synopsize:

1. Is a person bad who only parts with 1% of one's income?

I don't know. But one is a better person if it be 2%, and even better if 3%, etc. [Yes, it could be done for publicity, to generate double the business, etc., but all things being equal...]. I don't know at what statistical juncture one tips into the good from the bad category. I am happily relieved of making that judgment call by the 10-30% parameters bestowed.

2. Was the Bible a good reference point "once upon a time" which has now has been trumped by the wonderful progress the world has seen?

The Bible works when sincerely invoked, and even then, not always. At least apparently not always. The Hitlers and Stalins [and many others] felt it to be obsolete. Yet today, in no time as to the former and barely a century for the latter, Nazis are marginalized, the walls [Berlin and otherwise] have tumbled, etc., while followers of the Bible are, after 3 millennia, still motivated to spread the word, establish soup kitchens, visit the sick, tend people with aids, shop for the elderly, etc. etc.

3. Isn't the Bible so filled with contradictions that any people trying to follow it would not survive?

There are SEEMING contradictions, many of which when intently demarcated may be resolved, others remain, but the PROCESS of synthesizing these is in itself salutory. At the time of the cannonization of the [so-called] Old Testament, and then the New, there were many nations practicing idolatry, hedenism, epicurean... whatever. None of these survived for long. The nations following the Bible [including the Moselm nations, the Koran being an addition, not a substitution, to the Bible] have been around for a multitude of centuries [and more].

4. Can we "pick and choose" verses from the Bible and reject others and/or ought we spout it from the beginning to the end or else be still?

We stand for the reading of the Ten Commandments. I was told this was wrong [and agree] because it implies that some verse are more equal than others. To reject the validity of any part would, by logic, impugn the entirety. But if you come across someone who is, say, stealing, it seems to make sense to refer to those passages to which stealing is germane [otherwise you blow a chance at, excuse the expression, "reformation"].

5. Why would you [Mark] not trumpet equally the "obligation" to stone a woman who leaves her house without an appropriate male escort?

For one thing, I know not of this being in the Bible but have HEARD it was in the Koran. But I think what I have to say would be apt if it were in the Bible and, while far from an Islamist, believe the latter's scholars express similar sentiments. There are indeed parts of scripture which tend to be allegorical. Notwithstanding those who are [too succesfully] hijacking Islam, the import of that verse is a warning both at and even more FOR the gentler gender [notwithstanding that our next President will in all likelihood be female]. I need not tell you what happens all too frequently in this world to women who go out unprotected. [Nuff said?] You may find interesting the death senstence on a "stubborn and rebellous child". You know what, Ken Ken. It never happened [the death sentence; many an unruly kid.] For dozens upon dozens of offenses the death penalty is prescribed, and I mean, not in the Koran - albeit there also - but in the Bible! Yet despite this, during the centuries of San Hedrin rule, where once in 70 years the death penalty was imposed, that San Hedrin was denominated as "bloody". Kensky, almost anything taken out of context, seen in a vaccuum, or which appears without a familiar foundation will invariably have the apparency of being "ridiculous". [Can you imagine Attillah the Hun's reaction to a Shakespearian play?]

6. Mark, don't you realize that by alluding to the Bible to show how wrong the sale of camp had been results in many people finding it, as a result, acceptable?

First, I did not claim that the sale of camp was proscribed by Biblical principles. What I am saying is that since the standards set forth in that august [some would say "austere"] work are not violated, where do we mere mortal come to be so critical. I can say [from the Bible, I believe] "Do not criticize your fellow human being until you come into his place". Or, a Native American saying: "Do not criticize another until you have walked xx miles/kilometers in his moccassins". [Gary, where is spell check when I need it!] And for those of us who probably would have followed the same path had he/she been the owners of Clay Point, let me say [hopefully not too seemingly crudely] "If the shoe fits, wear it."

Best to my [Newish] Grand-Nephew.

Uncle Markie



mark@lgpltd.com
KenWarshaw
Member
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 8:00 pm
Location: Hingham, MA

Re: Kennie Babbie, I Only Pretend

Post by KenWarshaw »

Mark,

1. I tend to think that judging a person on the amount he or she deems necessary or worthy to donate is somewhat shallow. I, for example, gave only $100 this year (to the DNC, of course). WHile I am normally a regular contributor to NPR, several arts groups and political organizations, circumstances this year (new baby, new house, etc.) were not conducive to charitable donations. And what about the poor? Certainly they should not give even 1% of their precious income...that would be foolhearted to say the least.

2. I would argue that it is not progress that has rendered the bible obselete but rather the hindsight that progress has allowed us to have regarding it. It was never a good reference point, just like the Earth was never flat. Simply becuase an overwhelming majority of people believe(d) in it, does not make it truth or a home base to refer to when we find it convenient. The bible is filled with bigotry, racism, and hypocricy. And, I tend to think, has very little to do with religion, which is why I think this post cannot be deemed "offensive" by those of you (us) who are religious. Religion is much deeper than an archaic collection of ramblings by people so indoctrinated with falsehoods that logic and reason were foreign to them.

3. The document is not validated simply by virtue of some successes throughout the centuries. For every successful community founded by biblical beliefs (including our own US of A), there are a half a dozens wars and millions upon millions of dead bodies also made possible by that same book.

4. If a teacher gives proper instruction to his class all year, but contradicts a couple of his lessons along the way, we make very little comment of it. But if a teacher contradicts himself (or worse yet, he contradicts KNOWN truths) day in and day out, we have that teacher removed and at the very least, we teach our children to ignore his lessons completely. The bible is so filled with hypocricy that it simply must be disregarded (or regarded, if you so choose) as a whole.

5. see above

6. You seem to have proven my point. Using a non-biblical reference (like your very appropriate Native American reference) would have made a much better argument and certainly would have avoided my (at this point) ridiculously long and cumbersome post on this board.

Thanks,
Ken



kwarshaw@linwoodcom.com
MUSA el MOUSAOUIS

Re: Ken, Did You

Post by MUSA el MOUSAOUIS »

miss or avoid most of the six points [and/or was it done knowingly]?

At any rate, let me beseech Sir David the Davis to guide you [and me] to greater rationality unburdened by prejudices so ingrained that they are unperceived.

Pitz Schvitz



mark@lgpltd.com
DDD
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 7:00 pm

Brief thoughts re: religion, charity, sale of CA

Post by DDD »

An interesting thread. Since Uncle Moishe asks me to weigh in, for whatever this may be worth...

Ken, do you mean to suggest that any
application of Biblical principles/teaching to contemporary life issues is suspect, as the Bible (yours, mine, theirs and and ours ;-) ) is an
ancient document not pliable to a scientific reading?

I think a overly-skeptical approach such as that tends to 'prove too much' - the smart
and concerned people who wrote the Bible and the Talmud, etc., really were trying to address authentic human problems, some of which are
universal and endure, in new guises, today.

A few rules that don't make prima_facie sense in today's context don't disprove that, from my perspective.

On the other hand, even as a believer (of sorts ;-) ) I do take a critical view of Scripture; I think it is well that most people should do so.

But I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so if I've misapprehended, then Sorry!

Also, if this is dull for most folks we three can discuss offline.

DDD
Bruce C. Novak

Isn't this supoosed to be about Chief

Post by Bruce C. Novak »

I thought I was looking for former camper's and counselor's memories about Chief. These writings have nothing to do with Chief.


bcnone@hotmail.com
KenWarshaw
Member
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 8:00 pm
Location: Hingham, MA

Re: Brief thoughts re: religion, charity, sale of

Post by KenWarshaw »

Dave,

It's not that any biblical teachings are obselete or suspect, it's that the document as a whole is so suspect, that to pick and choose specific lessons from it does not provide a solid argument when debating (or trying to convince) a logical thinker.

I guess my point is that there are so many other reference points with which to make an argument (as Mark illustrated with his Native American quote from his second post) that going to the bible to get nothing more than an ambiguous quote seems contradictory to his ultimate goal of making a strong argument.

Ken



kwarshaw@linwoodcom.com
DDD
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 7:00 pm

Re: Isn't this supoosed to be about Chief

Post by DDD »

Bruce- fair point.

Alas for me, I never knew Chief. I only heard the tales from those that did.

I have read at least one of his books, and I would like to read another at some time. FYI (for everyone's info.) I was able to find web references to both "A Teacher Speaks" and "Yankee Voices" via a google search including his name and the title of those books.

DDD
Meek Mark

Re: Quite a Reflection of Chief

Post by Meek Mark »

Brucie,

In addition to being a phenomenal athlete, lover of animals [and kindness to at least one dumb animal], Chief was a sincere and honest intellectual possessing keen intellect and insightful perceptions.

His thinking and the processies he precipitated greatly reflect what is now occurring. That the mention of his name [and title] has generated a bit of a philosophical debate indeed says volumes.

Pitz Schvitz



mark@lgpltd.com
3FW

Re: Idealism Has Its Limits

Post by 3FW »

Yeah, but Ken, who really cares what you think, ya know?
Post Reply