New York City - The Grateful Dead play the Felt Forum.
Phoenix, Arizona - The Who play Veteran's Memorial Complex.
The Founding of Save Mount Diablo
Extraordinary changes in land use development took place inPublic perception at the time was that the State Park included the entire mountain. The truth was the State Park stood alone at the summit and down to
At meetings of local conservation groups Dr. Mary Bowerman, a student of the mountain's botany since 1930 and author of The Flowering Plants and Ferns of Mount Diablo, California, would rise to ask "What can we do to help save
Brazilian President Emílio Garrastazu Médici visited Washington on December 7-9, 1971, two weeks after the Uruguayan elections with the outcome still uncertain. Garrastazu Médici held several meetings with President Nixon, the National Security Council adviser Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State William Rogers and the soon to be Deputy Director of the CIA, Vernon Walters. In several of the memos reporting conversations with the Brazilian President, Richard Nixon mentions Brazil’s help in influencing Uruguay’s elections. Henry Kissinger highlights Garrastazu Médici’s support of the "Nixon Doctrine" in Latin America. Under the doctrine, a nation like Brazil, was to be a surrogate regional power acting in U.S. interests.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
To: The Acting Secretary
From: AF - C. Robert Moore [CRM initialed]
Nationalization of British Petroleum in Libya
The Libyan Radio and Libyan News Agency announced December 7 the nationalization of British Petroleum's subsidiary in Libya, BP Exploration Company (Libya) Ltd. BP may have been nationalized because of Libya's intense dissatisfaction with what it believes is the UK role in the Iranian seizure of the Persian Gulf islands. The seizure may also have reflected LARG frustration over its inability to resolve a long-outstanding financial dispute with the UK centering around the aborted sale of a missile defense system by the UK to the former regime for which the monarchy had made a substantial down payment.
In seizing BP Libya, the LARG hits the British government as well as the company, since HMG owns nearly 50 percent of the parent company. Libya announced a new company will be formed, the Arabian Gulf Prospecting Company, to take over BP'S assets.
With production in Libya of 200,000 barrels per day, BP is one of the largest oil producing and exporting companies there. Its importance to us is that it operates in equal partnership with Nelson Bunker Hunt of Texas. There was no indication Libya intends to take over Bunker Hunt or to nationalize other companies. However, BP was the operator of the joint BP-Bunker Hunt concession. If BP withdraws its personnel, there may be temporary difficulties in finding technicians to carry out oil operations in that concession area. The Libyan action will also throw a fright into the other oil companies, chiefly American, regarding their future.
The British Embassy in Tripoli expressed fears December 4 that Libya might take some drastic move against British interest, including a break in diplomatic relations. As yet, there is no indication either side intends to break relations. However, earlier unconfirmed reports indicated Libya was transferring funds out of London. Its total funds there probably amount to over $2 billion. If confirmed, this transfer obviously might pose major financial problems, at least temporarily, for the UK.
Secret Telegram
From: American Embassy New Delhi
To: Secretary State Washington DC
1. Summary: Foreign Minister Swaran Singh asked me to see him December 7, and proceeded to review at length historical development
2. At his request I called on Foreign Minister Swaran Singh, December 7. The Foreign Minister began by saying that he thought it would be useful for us to review what has happened and to "project ourselves in the future difficult situation". He thought it was important to be able to see "where things are moving".
3. The Foreign Minister said that on the Eastern side "we are quite clear on what we are doing".
4. The Foreign Minister said that recognition had become a necessity because they were concerned about certain allegations that were being bandied about. The Chinese had already alleged that
5. Another aspect of recognition was the practical rather than ideological one, "there are fairly large areas over which we now have control". The military writ of
6. The Foreign Minister said it was no secret that the Bengali component of the civil service of
7. In these circumstances, the Foreign Minister asked rhetorically, what were
8. The Foreign Minister said that wherever the army had gone they had been openly welcomed. Under strict orders they were behaving in such a way as not to damage persons or property. They were not out for anyone's blood. It was their hope that military operations would lead to a minimum of destruction. He claimed the army was avoiding direct conflict with the Pakistani army. All of this was background for the GOI decision to recognize Bangla Desh.
9. The Foreign Minister said that this Indian step should also help to consolidate the moderate forces in Bangla Desh. There were those who were opposed, i.e., extremists led by Toaha, etc. It had therefore been necessary that there be some consolidation of forces. The Foreign Minister said that their consolidation of forces also kept the door open for
10. The Foreign Minister said, "We are greatly disturbed by the thought that there was a misunderstanding in the
11. Against this background suddenly
12. The Foreign Minister asked rhetorically what was the projection for the future, particularly in light of the extremely political attitude of the martial law administration. He felt certain this was a question that the
13. I thanked the Foreign Minister for his exposition and said that I didn't believe the USG had ever charged that
14. I told the Foreign Minister I agreed that it was a telling point that Pak air attacks on Indian air fields took place prior to their announcement of an alleged Indian assault on the western frontier, it was a matter of personal regret but should be noted as a reflection of the changed mood in Congress that, from the latest information I had received, the House of Representatives had voted out an appropriation bill which suspends economic aid, with certain exceptions, until hostilities had ceased or until the President had certified that it was in the US national interest to resume it.
15. As for the situation in the United Nations, despite the Soviet veto, the vote had been eleven and two in support of a resolution calling for cessation of hostilities, which indicated strong support for a cease-fire and withdrawal. The matter would now probably be presented to the General Assembly where action would have no binding effect but I anticipate there would be strong support for some resolution to stop the conflict. I told him I believed there was a general feeling in the
16. The Foreign Minister asked me to do "with a personal request to Secretary Rogers that he should review the situation" particularly in its future context. He said, "we can't wish away each other". He added that the government had been under severe pressure in Parliament. He felt that, all things considered, the reactions to the American position had "not been too shrill yet". I rejoined that I thought it was "more shrill than I had expected".
17. The Foreign Minister said whether discussion took place in the Security Council or the General Assembly, the GOI was aware of the US position. They didn't agree since they felt we were ignoring certain basic aspects. The GOI believed that nothing was going to happen unless this basic problem was solved. But, he said, "President Yahya is on a collision course". Declaring people elected unopposed and continuing to hold Sheikh Mujib in prison wouldn't ease the situation. Even now the best step for Yahya was to talk to the Bangla Desh leaders.
18. I reminded the Foreign Minister that President Yahya had expressed a willingness to talk with any Bangla Desh leaders who were not accused of crimes. The Foreign Minister said that since that time a month had passed and there had been no contact at all. Yahya kept thinking in terms of quislings who would throttle the elected leaders of the people.
19. In response to my question whether the Bangla Desh government would be led by the same people as were now in Mujibnagar, the Foreign Minister said that he didn't know, but it was for them to decide. The GOI did not need to replace the existing administrative setup. It didn't want to interfere. This had been considered very carefully. Whatever was decided by the 167 elected leaders would contribute to stabilizing the situation. The Foreign Minister suggested that the USG do some forward thinking on how we saw the situation developing, particularly as it had been clearly demonstrated that the people were solidly in support of the Bangla Desh government, and opposed to the military regime.
20. 1 told the Foreign Minister I had been surprised by his statement that the Indian army was avoiding direct contact with the Pakistani military in
21. The Foreign Minister said he would like to believe that our two countries would both try to avoid "their being on a deteriorating decline". I said I shared completely his hope for no further decline in our relations. He said, "we believe we are being a service to democratic forces and to stability in the world". What was being done would take a great deal of effort, but
22. Comment: The Foreign Minister was calm and gentlemanly throughout his presentation. I have previously suggested that the realities in this area receive careful study looking to the future.
Keating
WABC Music Power Survey for Week of 7 December 1971
TW LW
1. Family Affair - Sly & the Family Stone (Epic) *2 weeks #1* 1
2. Got to Be There - Michael Jackson (Motown) 3
3. Gypsys, Tramps and Thieves - Cher (Kapp) 2
4. Baby I'm-a Want You - Bread (Elektra) 5
5. Theme from Shaft - Isaac Hayes (Enterprise) 6
6. Have You Seen Her - The Chi-Lites (Brunswick) 4
7. Cherish - David Cassidy (Bell) 10
8. Brand New Key - Melanie (Neighborhood) 29
9. Scorpio - Dennis Coffey & the Detroit Guitar Band (Sussex) 11
10. All I Ever Need Is You - Sonny & Cher (Kapp) 17
11. Imagine - John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band (Apple) 7
12. Old-Fashioned Love Song - Three Dog Night (Dunhill) 16
13. American Pie - Don McLean (United Artists) 31
14. The Desiderata - Les Crane (Warner Brothers) 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rock Steady - Aretha Franklin (Atlantic) 8
16. Hey Girl - Donny Osmond (MGM) 49
17. Two Divided By Love - The Grass Roots (Dunhill) 12
18. Superstar (Remember How You Got Where You Are) -
The Temptations (Gordy) 13
19. Peace Train - Cat Stevens (A&M) 9
20. Stones - Neil Diamond (Uni) 23
21. Respect Yourself - The Staple Singers (Stax) 21
22. Let's Stay Together - Al Green (Hi) --
25. (I Know) I'm Losing You - Rod Stewart with Faces (Mercury) --
26. You Are Everything - The Stylistics (Avco) 26
29. One Monkey Don't Stop No Show - The Honey Cone (Hot Wax) --
30. Anticipation - Carly Simon (Elektra) 60
37. Drowning In the Sea of Love - Joe Simon (Spring) --
48. Sugar Daddy - The Jackson 5 (Motown) --
64. Theme from "Summer of '42" - Peter Nero (Columbia) --
Jingle Bells - The Singing Dogs (RCA) --
Album Cuts:
Everybody's Everything - Santana (Columbia)
Bitterblue - Cat Stevens (A&M)
Oh Yoko! - John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band (Apple)
So Far Away - Carole King (Ode)
Para los Rumberos - Santana (Columbia)
(I Know) I'm Losing You - Rod Stewart (Mercury)
Action Albums:
Santana - Santana (Columbia)
Imagine - John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band (Apple)
Every Picture Tells a Story - Rod Stewart (Mercury)
Teaser and the Firecat - Cat Stevens (A&M)
Tapestry - Carole King (Ode)
All American of the Week:
Dan Ingram - 2:00-6:00 PM, Monday - Saturday
SPECIAL NOTE: "Jingle Bells" by the Singing Dogs appears on this
week's printed survey (as "The Barking Dogs"), but does not
actually receive any airplay until the following week.On December 7, 1971, publisher McGraw-Hill released a news item announcing the publication of Howard Hughes's autobiography. Helping Hughes in developing his memoir was an American author named Clifford Irving. The memoir was to be published in hardcover on March 27, 1972. This was exciting news. Howard Hughes had not been interviewed or photographed by any pressman since 1958. But this had not prevented people from writing about him. When the Hughes public-relations firm was contacted about Hughes's autobiography they dismissed that such a thing existed. For McGraw-Hill and Life magazine executives this denial buttressed the book's credibility. McGraw-Hill had handwritten letters which Hughes had allegedly written and Irving's testimony of his meetings with the eccentric billionaire. McGraw-Hill executives were confident that they had the real thing. In the winter of 1970 on a small offshore Spanish island Ibiza is where the story began. Clifford Irving, a novelist with an eye for drama, had arrived at Ibiza in 1969 to write the biography of the art forger Elmyr de Hory. By 1970, with the de Hory affair behind him, Irving was toying with the plot structure for his fifth novel. Clifford Michael Irving was born on November 5, 1930 in New York City. After graduating from high school in 1947 he enrolled in Cornell University where the seeds of his literary ambition were sown. After leaving Cornell in his senior year the wanderlust took over Irving and he traveled through America and Europe. In 1956 his first novel was published and he soon produced his second. Neither of his two novels were successful. His third novel, a Western, got Irving to Hollywood. By 1962 he was done with Hollywood and left for Ibiza. Clifford Irving got to know Elmyr de Hory and in 1969 Fake! was published. By 1958 Howard Hughes had gone into hiding becoming a hermit. This brought more attention to Hughes and a whole new journalistic specialty grew up, devoted to Hughesians. In the late 1960s a few "unauthorized" biographies of Howard Hughes were published . Howard R. Hughes was born on December 24, 1905 in Houston, Texas. His father "Big" Howard was a buccaneering Texas oilman who made his fortune by developing rock-drilling bits that became vital to the oil drilling industry. "Big" Howard founded the Hughes Tool Company and became a millionaire. At eighteen Howard's parents were dead and he took over the company. Hughes used the profits from the Hughes Tool Company to become a movie mogul, the ladies' man, and an aviation legend. He became a living legend and as a billionaire he answered to no one. But by the 1950s he became afflicted by health problems and his personality began to change. Irving had always been interested in Howard Hughes and the idea to fake a Hughes autobiography came to him at the time when the Hughes empire was undergoing violent internal convulsions. The infighting was being chronicled by the media and in a mid-December Newsweek was a reproduction of a handwritten note from Howard Hughes. Using the note Irving would create his Hughes' forgeries. Aiding Irving with his con was fellow writer and Ibiza neighbor Richard Suskind. Suskind did the research into Hughes's life on the basis of a 25-75 split of all the potential proceeds. In January 1971, Life magazine made the forgery task easier by reproducing a in full color a handwritten Hughes letter. Clifford Irving had been a McGraw-Hill author for twelve years. So on January 3, 1971 Irving informed Beverly Jane Loo, McGraw-Hill executive editor, and let her know that he had been in contact with Hughes. Loo was excited. On January 30 Irving let Loo know that Hughes liked Fake! and was thinking of writing his memoir. On February 10 Irving met with McGraw-Hill executives and brought with him letters from Hughes. The executives were convinced that this was real and prepared the contracts. Irving would take the contracts and checks to Hughes to sign. McGraw-Hill made it clear to Irving that he was responsible for Hughes to fulfill the contracts. Then in April 1971 Life magazine signed on to serialize the memoir. Although journalist Jim Phelan didn't know it, he was the one man in America capable of exposing Clifford Irving's hoax. He started in journalism in 1930 and became a freelance investigative reporter in 1953. Phelan was soon recognized as one of the most expert Hughes-watcher. In 1969 he collaborated with Noah Dietrich on a book about his memories of Howard Hughes. Although a manuscript was created a publisher couldn't be found. In 1971 Phelan heard about the forthcoming Hughes autobiography and based on his investigation he believed the memoir to be the real thing. but a few months after his initial investigation he discovered that Irving had a copy of the Dietrich manuscript and stole from it. Then on January 7, 1972 Howard Hughes broke his silence through a telephone interview with seven journalists who knew him. Hughes denounced the work of Clifford IRving. Then Phelan came forward with his evidence. By March 1972 Irving's con and his partners had been fully exposed. Clifford Irving decided that honesty would be the best policy and proceeded to write his own memoir. As for Howard Hughes he remained in seclusion until his death. Hoax is the fascinating account of how Clifford Irving perpetrated the literary hoax of the century. Although it seems unbelievable the story is all true!Everyone knows the song "Smoke On The Water". Every kid who ever picked up a guitar for the first time plunked out that four chord blues riff. For many kids, it's the only thing they were ever able to play. And many of these kids think they know the story of how that song was recorded. Yes, there was a fire, a bad one. But what most, if not all of them, don't realize is that the fire that broke out that day was during a Frank Zappa and the Mothers Of Invention concert.
The date was December 7, 1971. It was thirty years after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Maybe that should have been an omen. Certainly this was not an insignificant date in history.
Anyway, Deep Purple, the band who recorded "Smoke On The Water" was setting up their camp in Montreux, Switzerland to record their next album. They were going to use a mobile recording studio to do this which they rented from The Rolling Stones, known as their Rolling Stones Mobile Studio. They set up at the Montreux Entertainment Complex which was part of their casino. This is referred to as the "gambling house" in the lyrics of the song.
Well, on the eve of their recording session Frank Zappa and The Mothers Of Invention were performing live in concert at the casino's theater. They were to perform a number of their popular songs including the epic "The Nancy & Mary Music”, "Sharleena”, "Duke Of Prunes”, and "Hungry Freaks Daddy". Frank Zappa was strange to say the least. However, before they could really get into the meat of their performance a fire broke out during the concert. It was said to have been caused by a Swiss fan shooting a flare gun at the ceiling, as was stated in the "some stupid with a flare gun" line that ultimately destroyed the entire casino complex, along with all of Frank Zappa and The Mother's equipment.
The smoke on the water that was talked about in the song was the smoke from the fire that spread over all of Lake Geneva. From their hotel across the way from the casino, the members of Deep Purple watched the fire burn and the smoke cover the lake. In the lyrics they mention a "funky Claude" running in and out. This was actually the director of the Montreux Jazz Festival running in and out of the casino trying to get people to safety.
The aftermath of all this was that Deep Purple had no place to record and Frank Zappa and the Mothers were part of the most famous concert in history to get cancelled mid way through.
Deep Purple eventually found another place to record, using a near empty Montreux Grand Hotel. They converted its hallways into a makeshift recording studio.
As for Frank Zappa, the concert was cancelled and never rescheduled. But he had become a part of history that little kids with electric guitars will be thankful for, for a very long time.
=============The People's Republic of China established diplomatic relations with the Republic of Senegal on December 7, 1971.
======================
NAC: RESPONSE TO BIGOTRY
by Kenneth Jernigan
December 7, 1941, said Franklin Roosevelt, is a day that will live in infamy. To the blind of this country December 7, 1971, is also a day that will live in infamy. It was then that the Board of the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC) met at the Prince George Hotel in New York City and finally and irrevocably showed, for all the world to see, what kind of organization NAC really is.
Members of the organized blind movement will remember the appearance of the NAC representatives at our convention in Houston last July. Mr. Arthur Brandon, president of NAC, and Mr. Alexander Handel, executive director of the organization, spoke to us about NAC's purpose and objectives. Although we were in profound disagreement with the way NAC is structured, its methods of operation, and its basic premises, we treated its representatives with courtesy and respect. There were no personal attacks and no aspersions.
Prior to our Houston convention Mr. Brandon had first accepted the invitation to come and then, when he realized questions would be asked and a discussion would occur, changed his mind on the grounds that he did not wish to engage in debate. After it was pointed out to him that NAC had received hundreds of thousands of tax dollars and thus had some responsibility to appear and give an accounting to the largest group of consumers of its services in the nation, Mr. Brandon again changed his mind and once more agreed to come but only subsequent to considerable publicity. Obviously, he felt embarrassed and ill at ease at having to appear at our convention.
At this stage (apparently judging me by himself and, therefore feeling that I, too, would find a confrontation embarrassing) Mr. Brandon asked me as NFB President to present the views of the organized blind at the December, 1971, NAC Board meeting. He assured me that I would be given courteous treatment and heard with respect. Of course, NAC's exaggerated view of its power to inspire awe is not shared by the Federation, and the prospect was not at all embarrassing. Rather, the invitation should have come when NAC was first established. As Federationists know, I accepted the invitation.
Under date of July 13, 1971, Mr. Brandon wrote to me in a tone and manner that showed he had learned nothing from our convention. He seemed to be saying, We have all had an opportunity to vent our feelings. Now let's settle back into the old rut of `NAC-as-usual.'
Under date of July 20, 1971, I replied to Mr. Brandon, attempting once again to penetrate his bubble of complacency. I said to him in part:
The tone of your letter (especially that part which says as we look ahead we must search for ways of working together effectively ) indicates a conception of what occurred at Houston and of the attitudes and intentions of the blind not, in my opinion, in accord with the facts. At Houston we did not simply have a friendly little debate which allowed people to blow off steam. We did not meet before that audience of a thousand people simply to exchange ideas and go back home to business as usual.
What that audience was telling you, and what I have been trying to tell NAC for several years, is simply this: The blind of this nation are not going to allow all of their service programs to come under one uniform system of control with the tune called by the American Foundation for the Blind and the accompaniment played by HEW. The blind are not opposed to reasonable and proper accreditation far from it. The blind do not oppose good agencies, government or private, which are doing good work. However, the Federation does not believe that NAC is properly constituted, that its standards are reasonable, that it is responsive to the aspirations and desires of consumers, or that it is a positive factor (as now structured) in the field of work with the blind.
Mr. Brandon made no response to my letter, and I prepared to go to New York in December. Under date of November 29, 1971, Dr. Patrick Peppe and Adrienne Asch, members of one of the local New York City affiliates of the Federation, wrote to Mr. Alexander Handel, executive director of NAC, to ask that they and other interested blind persons be permitted to attend the December 7 NAC meeting as observers. Their letter was courteous and respectful. It made no demands or threats; it only requested. The full text of the letter reads:
Dear Mr. Handel:
As consumers of services of agencies serving the blind, we would like to be present at the December 7 meeting of NAC. Since NAC was established to be the accrediting authority for agency service, our lives are vitally affected by its deliberations and actions. Therefore, we ask that we and others both the organized blind and the unaffiliated but concerned consumers of services be permitted to observe this meeting to learn more about the current policies and plans of your organization.
We would appreciate hearing from you by letter as soon as possible. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Yours truly, Adrienne Asch, Secretary Patrick V. Peppe, Member, Executive Committee, The Metropolitan Federation of the Blind/Affiliate: The National Federation of the Blind.
Mr. Handel wasted no time in replying. His letter dated December 1, 1971, could serve as a model for insult and condescension. It should be read and re-read by every self-respecting blind person in the land. Its lesson should be learned well and never forgotten. It should be remembered whenever and wherever blind people meet in private homes or in public gatherings, for business or for recreation.
Mr. Handel wrote to Dr. Peppe and Miss Asch as if they had been small children or mental cripples. He suggested that since the December 7 meeting was to be a working business session rather than a meeting at which provision could be made for observers, perhaps Dr. Peppe and Miss Asch might like to meet with him privately at some mutually convenient time so that they could make comments and ask questions. He said that he was pleased to know of their interest in NAC, that he would be glad to add their names to the mailing list. He said that he would look forward to hearing from them and hoped they would telephone him at their convenience. Finally, in a P.S., he explained that the annual meeting of NAC was open to members and invited them to join up.
Lest you think I exaggerate, here is the entire text of Mr. Handel's letter:
Dear Miss Asch and Mr. Peppe:
We are pleased to know of your interest in the work of the National Accreditation Council and we shall be happy to provide you with information about our current policies and plans. If you would like to have your names added to the list of persons who regularly receive our newsletter and other materials, we should be glad to do so.
Meanwhile, since the meeting to which you refer is a working business session of our board rather than a session at which provision can be made for observers, I should like to suggest if you wish to know more about our program that you meet with me at some other mutually agreeable time.
As you know, our standards are available in Braille and recorded. We welcome your comments and suggestions on all or any of these standards. By meeting where a mutual exchange is possible you would be in a position to raise questions and express your views regarding the matters which, as you indicate, are of vital concern to blind persons.
Please telephone for an appointment at your convenience. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours, Alexander F. Handel
P. S. The Annual Meeting of NAC is open to its affiliated members. Such affiliation is available to the National Federation of the Blind and is also open to local and state organizations of the blind. (See leaflet.)
Dr. Peppe, Miss Asch, and other blind people in New York City then went to the press. When a reporter called NAC headquarters, Miss Anne New (NAC staff member) revealed more than she realized. She was quoted in the press as follows: You don't necessarily put a majority of TB patients on the board of a tuberculosis hospital. We know what the patient wants to be treated as a human being and not some sort of cripple. We stress this in our standards again and again.
If Miss New does not understand why we as blind people object to her statement (and she probably doesn't), she makes our point for us. If Mr. Handel does not understand why we find his letter insulting, condescending, and unresponsive (and, again, he probably doesn't), then he only underscores what we have been saying for years. How could anything better illustrate NAC's total isolation from reality, its complete irrelevance!
It was in this atmosphere and with this background that I went to the Prince George Hotel in New York City late in the afternoon of December 6, 1971. The first event was a cocktail party held in Mr. Brandon's suite. I was met at the door with an air of hostility and resentment.
I think it is pertinent here to call attention once again to the structure of NAC, as well as to the usual format and tenor of its meetings. The American Foundation for the Blind and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are, of course, firmly in control. Officials of both have membership on the NAC board; and the executive director, Mr. Handel, is a former Foundation employee. In addition, several other selected agency leaders have membership. To add respectability, people of prestige from outside of the field of work with the blind have been placed on the board public officials, business executives, university deans, labor leaders, etc. These are people of goodwill and integrity, but they are not knowledgeable concerning the problems of blindness. Obviously they take their tone and orientation from the American Foundation for the Blind and its hard core inner circle.
The atmosphere of the NAC board meetings is invariably snobbish and pretentious almost pathetically so. The civic and business leaders on the board are made to feel that they have been asked to join an exclusive private club, a body of national prestige. There is a good deal of socializing and no sense at all of involvement with the gut issues facing the blind. There is much gracious, high-toned exchange of compliment and some very businesslike talk about finances. There is considerable discussion about professionalism and the maintenance of high standards in work with the blind; but if these people were asked to sit down for serious conversation with a blind welfare recipient or sheltered shop employee or college student or secretary or working man or housewife, they would react with outrage and indignation if they did not die first of shock, which seems more likely. Here are a group of people who hold themselves out to the public as the setters of standards and the givers or withholders of accreditation but who will not deign to mix with or listen to consumers. In fact, as you will shortly see, they even deny (unbelievable though that is) that the blind are consumers.
Under the circumstances it is not surprising that I was greeted with hostility and resentment when I entered Mr. Brandon's suite. Very shortly I was engaged in conversation with Mr. Joseph Jaworski, a lawyer from Houston, Texas. Mr. Jaworski, whose father is a top official of the American Bar Association, was recently added to the NAC board. The reason is fairly obvious. He is a person who evidences no background in or understanding of the problems of blindness but who seems to have many opinions on the subject. He spoke somewhat as follows:
I have read all of this material about NAC which you sent to the board members, but tell me: What's the real complaint?
I replied that the real complaint was just what we had said namely, that NAC had been conceived and structured undemocratically. I told him that since the primary function of NAC was to make decisions concerning the lives of blind people, the blind themselves should have a major voice in determining what those decisions would be and not just individual blind persons, but elected representatives of constituencies. I told him that the blind representation on NAC was only tokenism (six out of thirty-four) and that even the tokenism was largely window dressing since four of the six represented only their agencies or themselves and, by no stretch of the imagination, constituencies of blind people.
He responded in this manner: There are black people in the city of Houston, and they do not have a majority or equal representation on the city council. Yet, the city council governs them and makes decisions about their lives.
Yes, I told him, but the primary purpose of the Houston City Council is not to make decisions concerning blacks, or even the blacks of Houston. Its primary purpose is to make decisions about the people of Houston (of whatever color); and, in the proper democratic tradition, the people of Houston control it entirely. This is all we are asking of NAC that the people who are primarily concerned with and affected by its decisions have a major voice in its operation.
Mr. Jaworski did not seem to understand the distinction, nor did two or three others who were listening in. The rest of the cocktail party passed without event, as did the dinner which followed.
After dinner the board began its first business session. The question arose as to what should occur if an agency applied to NAC for accreditation and if the accreditation should be denied. Should the agency have a right to appeal to the entire NAC board, or should the decision of the subcommittee called the Commission on Accreditation be final? I suggested that the NAC board holds itself out to the public as the accrediting body and, therefore, that it cannot properly delegate final accrediting authority to a subcommittee.
At this stage Mr. Fred Storey, a sighted theater owner from Atlanta, took the floor and said: I think we ought to follow the example of other accrediting bodies in this matter. Since Mr. Jernigan seems to know so much about it, why doesn't he tell us what other groups do?
I responded that I didn't know what policy other accrediting groups followed. To which Mr. Storey replied: Then, why don't you be quiet and keep your mouth shut!
I did not answer in kind but simply told him that as long as I continued to be a member of the board, I would decide when and on what questions I would speak. In fairness let it be said here that not all of the board members approved of Mr. Storey's boorish behavior. Two or three of them came to me privately afterward and expressed apology and regret. However, not one of them stood up in the meeting to call him to task or say a single word of protest; and the Chairman, Mr. Brandon, expressed no disapproval.
After the meeting I went to the front of the room and reminded Mr. Brandon of his promise of courteous treatment and of how he had received no personal abuse but only respect at our Houston convention. His tone was one of petulant fury. He said: Some of the board members feel that you have been abusive to them. He went on to say: I was never treated so discourteously in my life as at your Houston convention.
Mr. Brandon, I said, can you really say that the Federation or I personally did not treat you and Mr. Handel with personal courtesy and respect?
Well, no, he said, but you inflamed the audience with your speech. Besides, I don't have to listen to you, and I can't control how NAC board members treat you when they disapprove of your conduct.
At this, I told Mr. Brandon that I now released him from all of his promises of courtesy and fair treatment and that I would publicize his behavior and that of the board for all to see, which I am now doing. As I walked back through the room, I was accosted by Mr. Storey. He was furiously and childishly belligerent. I'm Fred Storey, he said, and I just want to be sure that you know that I'm the one who told you to shut up.
Look, my friend, I replied
I'm not your friend, he said. (To which I could only answer: I believe that's the truth. ) He went on: You hide behind words like courtesy and fair play. Your real purpose is to create dissension and trouble. You have no business on this board. You are not one of us. This is what he said. I leave it to all who attended the Houston convention or who care to listen to the recordings to determine whether we treated the NAC representatives with respect. I also leave Mr. Storey's loutish behavior to stand as its own commentary, on himself and on NAC.
The next morning the NAC board assembled as usual, behind closed doors. About a dozen local blind persons (representing the organized blind of the area) appeared and sought admission as observers. The request was denied. Apparently fearing to leave these blind people unwatched, NAC stationed a staff member outside of the door to remain with them throughout the day. A delegation of four board members left the meeting to talk with them. It brought back the news that the group would be content if only two of their number could be admitted as observers, pledging to cause no disturbance or say a single word.
I offered a motion to admit the observers. Although the discussion that followed was somewhat characterized by the petty hostility and ill temper of the night before, the substantive question at issue received attention. Dr. Melvin Glasser, director of the Social Security Department of the United Auto Workers Union, said that NAC was only exercising the usual prerogative of any corporation to hold its board meetings behind closed doors. What about your own organization, the Federation! he said. Its board meetings are not open. I couldn't come and attend.
Ah, but you could! I told him. Come on. We would be glad to have you. Our board meetings are open to all, members and non-members alike.
My motion was defeated with only six yes votes and twenty no votes. It may be interesting to note that four of the six yes votes were by blind people, and one of the remaining two was by a black man. In other words two-thirds of the blind members of the board (even the agency representatives) could not bring themselves to vote no, and the black representative of the Urban League also stood to be counted, though he said not a word in defense of the motion and must, therefore, share in the shame of NAC's sorry behavior. In any case the blind were excluded, and the NAC staff member stood guard over them throughout the day. As the NAC minutes admitted, It should be noted that the demonstrators were peaceful and courteous.
With respect to the matter of closed meetings and secret conduct of affairs, NAC is almost paranoid in its behavior. As a NAC board member, I had great difficulty in even getting a list of the names and addresses of the other members. Finally, under date of May 1, 1971, I received the list; but its form was interesting. On the top line of the first page (printed in capitals, presumably for emphasis) was the word confidential. Admittedly one might not be proud to have people know he was associated with NAC; but why, in the name of all that is reasonable, should the very names of the NAC board members be kept secret?
Late in the morning I was asked to present the statement which Mr. Brandon had earlier invited me to give. Federationists are too familiar with my views to need them repeated here. They were presented in detail at the Houston convention and in the September, 1971, Braille Monitor.
Company unions serve many purposes. In this connection, the arrangement of the NAC agenda is interesting. Immediately following my presentation, Judge Reese Robrahn, president of the American Council of the Blind, delivered a statement. In general he defended NAC and said that while it had some weaknesses and imperfections, ACB supports it since ACB is a constructive organization. In an apparent attack upon the NFB for its criticism of NAC and its criticism of some of the so-called professional literature about blindness issued by the federal government and the American Foundation for the Blind, Judge Robrahn said: Anyone with normal intelligence can dissect and distort any standard, sentence or paragraph. This, however, cannot be considered a validation of the attack on a standard, sentence or paragraph.
Judge Robrahn, by implication, defended NAC for not denying accreditation to sheltered shops paying less than the minimum wage to blind workers. Under the circumstances this is not surprising. It dovetails with the fact, which the ACB has failed to publicize, that Mr. Durward McDaniel (ACB Washington representative) now serves as a member of the board of National Industries for the Blind, the infamous organization that controls merchandise orders from the federal government to the sheltered shops. Of course, Judge Robrahn also failed to mention the appearance of Mr. McDaniel in Minnesota last year (with the support of agency officials) to organize an ACB affiliate when the Federation in that state was fighting for the rights of collective bargaining for the workers in the sheltered shop of the Minneapolis Society for the Blind. Many of the blind of the state felt that the ACB affiliate was being organized as a company union, fostered by the shop management to divide the workers, break their resistance, and confuse the public.
In this same vein Mississippi agency officials told Federation organizing teams early in 1972 that they would not give lists of names of blind persons to the NFB but that they would give them to the ACB. Later, when the small Mississippi affiliate of the ACB was established, the reports of pressure for membership by agency officials were graphic and widespread.
Judge Robrahn attempted to leave the impression that the ACB is large, growing fast, and about to approach the size of the NFB. The facts, of course, are something else again. Affiliated organizations on paper are not necessarily organizations of actuality or substance.
After Judge Robrahn's presentation there was considerable reaction by the members of the board, particularly to my remarks. Of special interest were the comments of Dr. Melvin Glasser, the United Auto Workers representative. He said that NAC was not properly a social action group but a standard-setting body. I tried to point out to him that NAC could not avoid engaging in social action. By accrediting and giving its stamp of approval to a sheltered shop which pays fifty cents or less per hour to blind workers, NAC helps perpetuate the system. If its standards for determining which shops should be accredited do not take into account the wages of the workers, then those standards are irrelevant; and they constitute a form of social action, keeping the blind down and keeping them out.
What an irony that one should have to explain such matters to a representative of organized labor! Have the unions really become so management-oriented and so out of touch with ordinary people! Obviously Dr. Glasser did not stand at the gates of Ford and General Motors in the 1930s and see the hired thugs beat the workers who tried to organize and improve their condition. Neither did I, but I sat in the NAC meetings of the l970s and watched the performance of Melvin Glasser. It is a long way from the factory gates of the thirties to the suave manner and condescending behavior of Dr. Glasser in New York, but his shame is none the less for the distance. Those early working men and women who fought and bled to establish his union, who sometimes risked their very lives for the concept of minimum wages and the right to organize, must stir in their troubled graves at the prospect of such behavior by a representative of the UAW.
Dr. Glasser also advanced a novel theory about what a consumer really is. He said that, as with hospitals, so with the blind. Consumers of the services of hospitals are not just the patients but all of the potential patients therefore, everybody. Thus, the consumers in the field of work with the blind are not merely those who are now blind but also those who may become blind in other words, everybody. Therefore, he (Dr. Glasser) is as much a consumer and has as much right to representation as you or I. Not only would it appear that the representatives of organized labor support sweatshops and management, but they've also become sophists it would seem.
I wonder how Dr. Glasser would like a dose of his own sophistry. Let us consider his union, for instance. Most people in the country are potential workers in the auto industry. Therefore, they should be eligible for membership in the UAW. They should be able to vote and hold office. After all, it is not only the actual workers but the potential workers as well who must be considered. Even the children will be potential workers someday, and certainly the senior citizens were potential workers once. So the entire American population has equal rights in the UAW. False reasoning? You bet!
Next Mr. Robert Goodpasture, former head of National Industries for the Blind, took the floor. He made a very strongly-worded attack upon me and said that he would move to censure me if a mechanism were available but that, since it was not, he would content himself with his statement. He was particularly incensed that I had made public the vote concerning the link-up between NAC and National Industries for the Blind. Well he might wish to keep that agreement secret in view of its disgraceful implications. I told him that I had never pledged to keep NAC's actions secret and that I had no intention of doing so, now or in the future. I told him that I felt the blind had a right to know what NAC was doing and to have a voice in it.
Then, I moved to have his remarks printed verbatim in the NAC minutes. He and several other board members seemed surprised at this motion and said, What! Do you want what he said printed!
Yes, I replied. His comments make my point better than anything I could say. Let them be printed for all to read.
As you will see, the entire text of the NAC minutes is being reproduced in the Monitor .
Most of the rest of the day was taken up with the usual trivia which characterizes NAC. It might be worth noting that Mr. Robert Barnett, director of the American Foundation for the Blind, came back to the meeting after lunch with this comment: The people outside say that one reason they don't like us is because we have accredited a local New York agency which is anathema to them. Well I guess we'll just have to change our standards. He said this with a snicker and a smirk as if to dismiss the demonstrators as kooks and nonentities. He might have done better to listen to them.
Their feelings of disgust for him and what he stands for were at least as great as his for them. As one of them later remarked: The blacks may have their Uncle Toms, but we have our Uncle Bobs. In mid-afternoon I left, feeling that NAC was a total loss that if anything were to be accomplished, it must be by confrontation, and not in the conference room. We are now left with two questions. What do we do next, and where do we go from here? It is to these questions that we must address ourselves.
In the first place Mr. Storey and Mr. Goodpasture are right. I have no business on the NAC Board. Mr. Storey told me: You are not one of us! No, thank God, I am not; and I hope I never will be. I do not see how any blind person or any true friend of the blind can keep his sense of honor and self-respect and serve on the NAC board. Therefore, I am no longer a member of NAC. I do not ask them to accept a resignation or to recognize the fact that I have quit. I simply take this occasion and this means of letting the world know that I am not part of NAC and that I do not want my name associated with it. We will now see if they add to their other faults the bad taste and boorish behavior of trying to expel me after the fact. Let them. We can give their petty action (if they choose to take it) suitable publicity.
Next we must consider NAC's presumptuous behavior in thinking it can hold closed meetings. First we tried reason and persuasion. These were spurned. The blind were not even allowed to have two silent observers in the room. NAC will regret the day. We will now adopt different tactics. NAC will probably try to conceal the time and place of future meetings, (just as it writes confidential on the list of the names of its board members), but we will track them down. Wherever they go and whenever they meet, we the blind will go to the doors and demand admission not only the local blind but as many of us as possible from throughout the country. We will recruit our sighted friends and supporters to swell the numbers, and we will not take no for an answer. Whatever is required to make NAC responsive to the needs and problems of the blind, we will do. I have never participated in a demonstration in my life, but enough is enough. This is the time to stand and be counted.
We will send material concerning NAC to federal officials and to every member of the Congress of the United States. Our local and state affiliates and members must follow up with personal contacts and letters. Further, the blind of each state must demand that their state and local agencies not seek accreditation from NAC. If such accreditation is sought, delegations of the blind must call on the governor and go to the press. If an agency has already achieved accreditation, we must demand that the accreditation be repudiated. The blind of each locality must assume responsibility for informing their legislators, governors, public officials, and news media of the threat which NAC poses. When NAC representatives are asked to appear on programs, we must protest and demand equal time.
In short, we must treat NAC like the evil which it is. We must make it behave decently or strangle the life out of it. We must reform it or destroy it. We must have at least equal representation on its board and make it truly serve the blind, or we must kill it. It is that simple. NAC absolutely must not be allowed to take control of the lives of the blind of this country, regardless of the costs or the consequences. If we permit it, we deserve what we get. If we submit meekly while we still have the power to fight, then we are slaves, and justly so.
But, of course, we will not submit, and we will not fail. The right is on our side, and the urge to be free sustains us. December 7, 1971, is a day that will live in infamy, but the stain of that infamy will be cleansed. The shame of that day will be erased. I ask you to think carefully about what I have said. Then, if you will, come and join me on the barricades.
By the seventies the gulf between the blindness agencies supporting NAC and the organized blind themselves led to a breakdown of communication and a systematic effort by the agency coalition to freeze out blind organizations or their representatives from NAC meetings. There resulted a series of dramatic confrontations, organized by the National Federation of the Blind, which soon became a regular annual event held at the time and place of scheduled NAC conferences. In one year the landmark year 1973 there were actually two such confrontations with NAC, the first one in Chicago attended by 300 blind people, and the second in New York attended by no less than 1,500 blind Americans from all parts of the country. Each of these massive encounters contained a story replete with drama, inspiration, and human interest as may be seen from the successive reports on the two events published in the Braille Monitor. And each of the two NAC confrontations drew broad public attention symbolized on both occasions by the interview of National Federation of the Blind President Jernigan on nationwide television, first in Chicago and then on NBC's Today Show in New York. Following is a collection of brief first-hand reports by participating Federationists as they appeared in the Monitor:
===================QUIROGA Y PALACIOS, Fernando (1900-1971)
Birth. January 21, 1900, San Pedro de Maceda, diocese of Orense, Spain.
Education. Conciliar Seminary of Orense, Orense; Pontifical University of Santiago de Compostela, Compostela; Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome.
Priesthood. Ordained, June 10, 1922, Compostela. Further studies, 1922-1925. Pastoral work in the diocese of Orense; faculty member and spiritual advisor of its seminary, 1925-1942. Lectoral canon the cathedral chapter of Valladolid, 1942; pastoral work in the archdiocese of Valladolid, 1942-1945; faculty member and spiritual advisor of the Serninary of Valladolid, 1942-1945.
Episcopate. Elected bishop of Mondoñedo, November 24, 1945. Consecrated, March 24, 1946, shrine of the Gran Promesa del Sagrado Corazón, Valladolid, by Antonio García y García, archbishop of Valladolid, assisted by Francisco Blanco Nájera, titular bishop of Orense, and by José Soutop Vizoso, titular bishop of Elusa, auxiliary of Santiago de Compostela. Promoted to the metropolitan see of Santiago de Compostela, June 4, 1949.
Cardinalate. Created cardinal priest in the consistory of January 12, 1953; received the red hat and the title of S. Agostino, October 29, 1953. Papal legate to the Marian Congress, Manila, Philippines, December 1 to 5, 1954. Presided over the Compostelan Holy Years of 1954, 1965, and 1971. Participated in the conclave of 1958. Attended the Second Vatican Council, 1962-1965. Participated in the conclave of 1963. First president of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, 1966-1969. Attended the I Ordinary Assembly of the World Synod of Bishops, Vatican City, September 29 to October 29, 1967. Attended the First Extraordinary Assembly of the World Synod of Bishops, Vatican City, October 11 to 28, 1969.
Death. December 7, 1971, Madrid, Buried in the metropolitan cathedral of Santiago de Compostela.
Bibliography. Echeverría, Lamberto de. Episcopologio español contemporáneo, 1868-1985 : datos biográficos y genealogía espiritual de los 585 obispos nacidos o consagrados en España entre el 1 de enero de 1868 y el 31 de diciembre de 1985 . Salamanca : Universidad de Salamanca, 1986. (Acta Salmanticensia; Derecho; 45), p. 106; Gil, Cesáreo. Don Fernando Quiroga : el Cardenal de Galicia : primer presidente de la C.E.E. Madrid : Sociedad de Educación Atenas,1993.
No comments:
Post a Comment