DESERT Rangers -- who are they when NOT in the desert?

[CaptainPatch]

This was just a peculiar thought that struck me.

In the Wasteland, "Desert Rangers" is entirely appropriate. But what happens to the organizational identity when the operational gets to the point where _desert_ is definitely the minority environment? Moving into California, WL2 will be spending a lot of time in an area that was formerly all "big trees" areas, consisting of hundreds of thousands of square miles of forest. Definitely NOT "desert". (Whether or not the tree dominance was destroyed by WW3 remains to be seen. I'm guessing, probably not, as there are/were few nuke targets in that region. Add 100 years of no tree harvesting ...) Once you get North of Death Valley, the flora goes into overdrive.

So IF the Desert Rangers expand continuously, being labeled "Desert Rangers" becomes a non-sequitor, non-intuitive to people encountering the Rangers for the first time. Would that shift in regional operations be enough to warrant another name/identity makeover?

[Drool]

Just how much stone working do the Masons do? How often does Rotary International switch meeting locations between member homes?

They'd still be based in the desert, and plenty of organizations move beyond their original intent or name, and keep the old name out of tradition.

[CaptainPatch]

Just how much stone working do the Masons do? How often does Rotary International switch meeting locations between member homes?

Not the best examples. The Masons are steep in the mystical lore of Architecture, from back when Free Masonry was mysterious occupation. (To non-architects, what they did was practically Magic.) The Rotary Club formed as automotive enthusiasts whose main function was to have road rallies. This was back when owning a car showed that you were well-to-do. As a sideline to show that they weren't _total_ party animals, they delved into community philanthropy. The same happened with Elks, Lions, Bisons, and umpteen other fraternal organizations.

I raise the point about _Desert_ Rangers because it's as innocuous as having a US Navy Shipyard in the middle of the Mojave. Or Alpine troops having their HQ in Kansas.

[Hasenklein]

"As a team of Desert Rangers, you've vowed to restore order and justice in a land where there is none..."

To me, the term "desert" is broad enough to encompass areas simply lacking order and justice.

As for people who meet the Desert Rangers for the first time, the term implies that the guys managed to survive in a rather hostile environment, and that they are part of an organisation. For those people, the question is not who the Ranger "truely are", but how to deal with them appropriately., and I think the term "Desert Rangers" informs their actions to the degree that these guys may seriously kick their butts.

Even it doesn't people will have to decide whether they are facing a party of freaks or a party of characters who know what they are doing and who have to be taken serious; however, I cannot see that this decision can be avoided by giving the Rangers a different "official label".

[Oktobermensch]

I think its the same as having "Marines".
They still do naval-based operations like boarding enemy ships and landing on enemy territory, but they are just as capable of performing on land as frontline troops.
Same with "Desert" Rangers. They still operate in desert areas and are adept at dealing with conditions there, but since their main job is law enforcement (just as marines are soldiers first and foremost), there should not be a problem with them operating outside of desert and still keeping their name, or simply calling themselves Rangers.

[CaptainPatch]

I think its the same as having "Marines".

Marines are at least amphibious in nature, so finding them on land is not entirely unexpected.

Butttttttt, you've got a point. I was thinking back to a couple of older "fish out of water" TV series: "McCloud" which was about a rural Sheriff needing to do some work in NYC -- and then staying there. And "Due South", which was about a Mountie assigned to the Canadian Consulate in Chicago. People in urban areas have a kneejerk WTF reaction to NON-urban organizations setting up shop in urban areas.

And then there was "Walker, Texas Ranger" of course. [Then again, "Texas" pretty much said it all.]

[clippedwolf]

The desert in "Desert Rangers" is part of their history and origins, I think they would be proud to keep it.

You know, typing that I couldn't help but think that the front line rangers might have a derogatory name for everyone who sits back at HQ: "Dessert Rangers".

[CaptainPatch]

The desert in "Desert Rangers" is part of their history and origins, I think they would be proud to keep it.

You know, typing that I couldn't help but think that the front line rangers might have a derogatory name for everyone who sits back at HQ: "Dessert Rangers".

ROFLMAO

[Drool]

I raise the point about _Desert_ Rangers because it's as innocuous as having a US Navy Shipyard in the middle of the Mojave. Or Alpine troops having their HQ in Kansas.

Well, thus the second half of my post. Unless they move their central HQ, they'd still be based in the Desert, the core of their sphere of influence would still be in the desert, and so they'd probably keep their name out of tradition. Rotary International doesn't change meeting locations and hasn't since the first year of their founding. The Masons aren't stone workers. Organizations move beyond their original formulation but keep the name, if for no other reasons than tradition, comfort, laziness, and so non-members will know they're the same group. If the Rotaries changed their name to Global Philanthropy next week, nobody would know who the hell they were. Changing the name would just cause confusion.

Also, I don't personally see them expanding enough that the majority of their territory is non-desert. Of course, I wouldn't have expected them to move into California, either. Perhaps there's something that needs to be dealt with, and setting up a new center is more akin to setting up a FOB as opposed to attempting to conquer southern California.

[CaptainPatch]

Also, I don't personally see them expanding enough that the majority of their territory is non-desert. Of course, I wouldn't have expected them to move into California, either. Perhaps there's something that needs to be dealt with, and setting up a new center is more akin to setting up a FOB as opposed to attempting to conquer southern California.

I figure sooner or later they will bump into some other substantial group that suggests a merger would be to everyone's benefit -- which would _then_ cause a name change so that neither party feels subordinated. In FNV, when the NCR Rangers merged with the AZ Rangers, the resulting merger became simply known as "Rangers". That simplification seems to me to be a more universal fit for an organization that operates in more than one environment.

[Oktobermensch]

If Rangers grow large enough and start encompassing large amount of former USA, you could call them American or Continental Rangers (just like you had the Continental Army during the Revolutionayy War)

[CaptainPatch]

Just out of curiosity, how many here know where "Rangers" originated from? I'd guess it was Roger's Rangers in the French & Indian War (the North American theater of the 7 Years War). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers%27_Rangers
It's obvious that the Arizona Rangers drew their inspiration from the Texas Rangers. I'm pretty sure that Stephen F. Austin drew his idea to create Texas Rangers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Ranger_Division from his knowledge of Rogers' Rangers in American History. Rogers' Rangers were composed of rugged frontiersmen, able to live off the land if need be, and operate in small detachments, or combine for larger operations.

A worthwhile black-and-white film about Rogers' Rangers worth seeing is "Northwest Passage". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage_%28film%29

[Woolfe]

Aren't the Texas Rangers now part of the US Marshals. Still seperate entity but recognised as part of the US marshals or something.

[Drool]

Actually... they look to be a weird blend of state police, county sheriffs, and... the FBI, maybe with a little sprinkling of the National Guard to flavor. They're a state-wide police and investigative force and apparently a part of the "Department of Public Safety". It seems that the Texas State Police were dissolved in 1873, so the Rangers probably shoulder the majority of those duties. Also, apparently, because they're so iconic and long lasting, they can't be legally disbanded.

Texas is weird.

[CaptainPatch]

Texas is weird.

Understatement. Texas has been primed to secede from the Union ever since the Confederacy lost the Civil War. (Sort of like a kid threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue if he doesn't get his way: He can't do it successfully, but he keeps threatening anyway.) Having it's very own agency that "does it all" demonstrates that IF the day ever comes, _all_ of those law enforcement niches will be filled -- by just ONE law division.

[Drool]

Eh. Vermont's been making more noise about seceding lately than Texas. Texas just likes having it as a club. Vermont has an actual political party dedicated to it.

Vermont's weird too.

[TΛPETRVE]

Texas has Leatherface. Hooray for chainsaw secession.

[Zombra]

A name is a symbol; it has no intrinsic meaning except identification. It may also happen to describe what it's identifying, but not always; in fact, rarely. If a guy tells me he's a Green Beret or a Black Belt, I respect him even if he's not wearing a green beret or a black belt, you know? The Rangers don't need to change their name unless they damn well feel like it. Perhaps in new areas their reputation would precede them, making a name change counterproductive. Even if it didn't, they would establish themselves through their actions, and people who laughed at "desert" Rangers operating in a jungle would soon learn respect.

Personally, I always lose respect for an organization's integrity when its name changes, even (perhaps especially) if the new name is "adapted" to new circumstances. "We're the Jungle Jumpers now!" There's no dignity in that.

[CaptainPatch]

A _name_ is "John Doe". A _brand_ is "______, a name you can trust!" A descriptive name is one that describes the organization in some way: Texas Rangers -- where they are from. Park Rangers -- where they work. Ocean Rangers -- an operational environment and concern. US Army Rangers -- who they work for. Royal Rangers -- a mentoring organization. Parkside Rangers -- a college (my alma mater) Athletic teams name. ALL of these are "Rangers". Some of them have some kind of reputation. There is a mental association that is in place for nearly everyone, if they simply hear "Rangers" they immediately think of the ONE that they are most familiar with. They need to hear the label in some kind of context to know which particular rangers are being referred to.

Why was the word "Desert" connected to the name "Rangers" in the first place? I thought it was obvious that the intent was to describe "where we work and live". And to differentiate themselves from the US Army Rangers to which they, quite frankly, they had a stronger connection. That is to say, "We are NOT the US Army (anymore)."

Reflect on a reverse situation: If the original group was the _Ocean_ Rangers, operating from somewhere on the Pacific coast, if they started to conduct regular operations in the Mojave, wouldn't that seem peculiar if they decided to keep calling themselves "Ocean" Rangers when the nearest ocean was umpteen hundred miles thataway?

[Drool]

Why was the word "Desert" connected to the name "Rangers" in the first place? I thought it was obvious that the intent was to describe "where we work and live". And to differentiate themselves from the US Army Rangers to which they, quite frankly, they had a stronger connection. That is to say, "We are NOT the US Army (anymore)."

"Toward this end, the Desert Rangers, in the great tradition of the Texas and Arizona Rangers a century before, were born."

They were aping the Texas and Arizona Rangers. Texas and Arizona didn't exist anymore, but the desert did. Like the Texas and Arizona Rangers, they brought law to a lawless region. Wasteland borrowed from wild west themes as well as post apocalyptic ones.