Aquehongian Lodge #112 YeX1996

Identification AideI am of mixed mind on listing this issue.  John Pannell posted last October on What is an OA Issue? His criteria included:

# There is documented evidence of what lodge or chapter issued the item in question.
# There is text on the patch that reasonably point to it being an Order of the Arrow item.
# Verifiable testimony from someone active in the lodge or chapter at the time the purported item was issued.
# There are design elements used that reasonably point to it being an Order of the Arrow item.

This is an example of the reverse issue.  We have an issue which is not an OA issue, but because “There are design elements used that reasonably point to it being an Order of the Arrow item” I think it should be listed with the notation “Not an OA Issue” to avoid someone thinking that they ‘discovered’ a previosuly unlisted OA issue.

The name, Aquehonga has a long history for Staten Island Scouting.  It of course is the name of a camp at Ten Mile River Scout Reservation which was established in 1938 and used by Staten Island Scout.

Of course, it is also contained in the name of the OA Lodge for the Scouts in Staten Island, Aquehongian Lodge #112.

Back in 1996, Staten Island merged the existing 2 districts in that borough into a single district named Aquehonga.

While the patch contains the MGM Indian Logo and features two native Americans with sashes, it is not an OA Issue.

Aquehongian Lodge #112 eYX1996

Aquehongian Lodge #112 eYX1996

Blue Book style stats:
eYX1996 GMY R M/C – LBL 1996 FDL: BLU 1996 Aquehonga’s First Camp-O-Ree (Not an OA Issue)

[auction-affiliate tool=”lister”]

——————

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
Senator Everett Dirksen
US politician (1896 – 1969)
Share

6 Comments

  1. Bro. AJK says:

    Dear Bill,

    Curious. Does Aquehonga perform district-wide cross-overs? That seems to be a possibility as the OA, I imagine, would be there. The Webelos scout suggests that too.

  2. Ray Gould says:

    I also remember the Order of the Arrow (Gosh Wha Gono in my example) being an integral part of district/council camporees. Native American dancing, unit elections, and tapout/call-out ceremonies all being part of the weekend’s agenda. While it is very much a council/district patch issue, I would not minimize the possible role the OA may have played during the weekend.

  3. nyoatrader says:

    This is part of the problem with these types of issues.

    It was not issued or approved by the Lodge, so not a lodge issue.

    It was separately issued by the newly formed district to commeroate their first Camp-O-Ree and yes the OA had a part in the overall program but it was not their issue.

    So list it as a “Y” with a note “Not an OA issue” or don’t list it and have it ‘discovered’ 10-15 years from now when no one knows or remembers the details of its issuance?
    T o

  4. Ray Gould says:

    Point well taken.

  5. nyoatrader says:

    Frank Mullane sent along this note:

    It may not be important to note, but your article mentioned that Camp Aquehonga goes back to 1938. In point of fact, there have been 5 Camp Aquehonga locations going back to 1913.

  6. John Pannell says:

    Bill —

    In support of NOT listing this item and going through my criteria:

    # There is documented evidence of what lodge or chapter issued the item in question.

    — It is documented to be a district patch, not an OA item.

    # There is text on the patch that reasonably point to it being an Order of the Arrow item.

    — What text? The lodge name is Aquehongian, not Aquehonga.

    # Verifiable testimony from someone active in the lodge or chapter at the time the purported item was issued.

    — None has been offered.

    # There are design elements used that reasonably point to it being an Order of the Arrow item.

    — Well, we do have the people costumed as American Indians wearing sashes and the MGM bowling ball, so there’s something to hang a hat on here, but are the failures on the other criteria enough to exclude this?

    I could argue it both ways. The main reason for listing this as a eYX would be just as you cite, so that no one in the future thinks they have an undiscovered OA issue. The “Y” category is broad enough to allow for this, IMO: “‘Y’ not?”

Leave a Reply