Court at Sea Camp
Today I saw one of the most interesting things I have yet seen in Ukraine. I didn't understand all of it, particularly the end, but I think I understood enough to describe it. I think it says volumes about Ukraine but like the language, I am not quite sure what those volumes say, and rereading my words now, I find it hard to convey my utter disbelief at the time. I thought I made all the right decisions and in the end I wished I was wet.I was at a Scout Sea Camp, much like the one in the Florida Keys where I worked, but this one was with Ukrainian Scouts and of a Ukrainian flavor. They also have many traditions, some of them as equally outlandish as ours, but most have the same consequence for violation - на води - "to the water." For instance, at the beginning of camp, a large, beautiful, round "table" is made in the sand at the center of camp. All sit at the table together, equal, and the meal is begun with a prayer. After the prayer you cannot sit sideways or backwards to the table; you can't leave the table without the Captain's permission; and you can never, at any time, put your feet on the table. Any erring results in your voluntary running down to the beach (about 30 feet away) and jumping into the water. The only dis-robing allowed is to take off your shoes (I think the shoe rule is more based on the cultural respect for footwear, than the importance of dry shoes at camp) and yet your sufficiently wet self must come back to the table until the end of the meal and you can never sit at the table barefoot either (or back to the water you go). Also, guests must go to the water at their first meal, which civilly I was warned about. My first meal, although traditions had been explained to me, I went once for being a guest, once for a transgression, and once because my birthday is in November and sometimes a random reason is picked just to get more people wet. I thought it was fun. I went once again the next meal for another transgression. The rules are very like a drinking game.
I want to point out that lunch is the busiest meal for this tradition for three reasons. First, lunch is always 2 courses. This involves lots of getting up and down, and general commotion which causes forgetfulness and transgressions of excitement. Often the perpetrators don't realize until its too late. Most of these are caught by ever-vigilant witnesses at the table, because lunch is the longest meal and therefore has the most time for careful observation - reason two. Third, lunch is the warmest meal and we were most likely wet before and will be wet after lunch, and are likely to still be wearing swim clothes. This is usually a fun and playful tradition, although once or twice it turned vindictive and this particular story is about once when it transcended to something beyond.
One scout at lunch, was accused of sitting improperly at the table, many corroborated and I, myself, believe I witnessed this behavior; although I do not definitely remember; there is a plausible doubt in my mind. The perpetrator denied recalling, with an elaborate story of being struck by the beauty of a senior staff member as she spoke to him passing by. It was at a particularly chaotic moment in the meal and he was sitting closest to the food line, a particularly chaotic spot. The Captain, the final arbitrator, decided to hold court. An advocate was appointed for each side and alternating comments were entertained. I was duly impressed. It was civil and thoughtful, but it began to draw on, and although the tactical arguments and energy were impressive and entertaining, my interest and others' began to wane. I saw it as a simple issue: there were eye-witnesses. I was surprised the person in question didn't voluntarily go to the water. All 60+ people at the table were involved in the court case; in fact two had been sent to the water for talking during court. And yet, after at least 30 minutes the comments became more intense, I think because most had finished eating, and so finally a vote was called.
Shortly before this point I decided I wanted to speak. First, I thought I would speak in English and ask for a translation of which many present were capable; but after thinking about what I wanted to say, I decided my abilities were capable of delivering in Ukrainian, and any mistakes would be outwayed by my delivery (delivery through translation is a hard obstacle to overcome). So I asked to stand and spoke a short pointed speech that ran something like this:
Unfortunately, I am a poor speaker of the Ukrainian Language and because of this, perhaps I don't understand well what is going on. You have 14 points to your Scout Law? [the word for which I forgot, but made a better point because it elicited a greater response to my not-so-rhetorical question] And one of those is "a scout is honest"? [audience affirmation] Then I don't think it is for us to decide. I think Sasha knows the traditions well, he knows what his actions were, and he should choose for himself if he needs to go to the water.
I had decided not to mention that no court had been necessary for me the day before. I had transgressed a tradition I hadn't fully understood, not all had seen, but when I understood, I went freely and the debate abated. I had talked before with Sasha and had found him excited, loyal, and honest. Later, I wished I had said "If you have doubt in your own mind of your actions but think the violation was plausible, [which from his previous arguments was] then you should willingly go for honor and tradition's sake, and to acknowledge the eye-witnesses' opinion [again, which I will point out, were many]." What ensued was awe-striking.
I honestly had thought my comments would put an end to the arguments which had turned into inane semantically detailed discussions of "sitting" and "at the table." I was wrong, but I did get a round of applause (not a terribly common occurrence at any event in Ukraine and the only one at this court.) Sasha denied recalling his actions, the vote was called, and I abstained. I really didn't feel it was our call. I felt it should lie on Sasha's conscience either way.
The results were 29 innocent to 31 guilty. I was not the only abstention but we were not counted. Even questioning people after, I am still confused why so many (or ANY, besides perhaps friends or teammates) voted for innocence. The Captain was also surprised, and there were calls for a recount. The Captain, wanting a stronger conclusion to such a great civics exercise, said that everyone who wanted to vote "guilty" must go themselves to the water, and a majority would determine. 29 people went!! 2 were excluded from the tradition by the doctor for colds, and so the official count was indeed 31 with many senior staff members among them. I was amazed people felt so strongly. I thought this move would kill the debate; I also thought Sasha would be abandoned by the innocent voters but I had misunderstood and they were not to vote. A senior staff member, himself wet, thanked the voters for upholding tradition; Sasha's lawyer asked the Captain's permission to leave the table so that he could go to the water, so impressed was he with the results; but the Captain, sensing a situation dangerously on the edge of going out of control, denied the request from the lawyer, said 31 was not a majority of all present, and called for prayer, which the Orthodox use to end all meals. After which all were dismissed, which they did with grumblings and astonishment, or with feelings of victory.
I stood unknowing what to think or where to go until I had watched all leave the table... I expected something more to ignite...but it didn't... and so I went to do my dishes.
posted by jjs @ 12:11 AM
3 comments
