In the decade and a half from 1950 through 1965 Americah direct investments abroad in diverse industrial and financial enterprises increased from $11,800 million to $49,200 million.
was so because as agriculture became more efficient it could release workers from the land. Thanks t6 the early American commitment to universal public education and to the establishment of technical schools, this labour force was able to adapt itself quickly to mechanical innovation. Workers did not resist the introduction of labour-saving devices for they saw that in a developing economy there was always room for the skilled and well-trained; and at high wages. The United States, through education, was thus investing in human capital and this capital was contributing to the improved productivity of the nation'sfarms, railroads, and industrial plants. ~ Innovation was welcomed. Americans were receptive to the appearance of new products, new methods of organization, new ways of reaching markets. Without hostility, they were prepared to see such innovations reap the benefits of their enterprise in entrepreneurial profits. The competitive race was swift; doors were always open to newcomers, no matter how humble their origins; old firms and companies, to survive, were compelled to upgrade products and services, or strike out in new directions. It is interesting to note that despite the vast expansion of American capital abroad, in recent years, foreign capital investments in the United States continue to be welcomed. In the decade and one-half from 1950 through 1965, American direct investments abroad-in manufacturing and assembly plants, petroleum production and refining, mining, trade and financial organizations-have grown from a worth of $1 1,800 million in the earlier year to $49,200 million in the later one. But the other side of the shield is equally impressive. In 1950, the direct investments by foreign firms in the United States had a book value of $3,400 million; by the end of 1965, this capital investment had grown to $8,800 million. This huge stake of foreigners was to be found in manufacturing-chemicals, artificial fibres, speciality food products and beverages, textiles, paper products, book publishing, many types of machinery; in banking and insurance; in petroleum and mining; in the establishment of trade and distribution organizations; in the development of urban commercial property, the erection of hotels, and the laying out of suburban shopping centres. The interdependence of the modern world through the flow of private capital can be more fully exemplified by the figures of the whole story. In 1950, total American private investments abroad came to $19,100 million, of which $5,800 million were portfolio investments, $ I 1,800 million direct investments, and $ I ,500 million short-term assets and claims. By 1965, the total had grown to $80,900 million, broken down as follows:
portfolio, $21,600 million; direct, $49,200 million; shortterm assets and claims, $10,100 million. And as for foreign holdings in the United States, in 1950, the total came to $14,500 million, of which S4,600 million were portfolio,' $3,400 million direct, and $6,500 million short-term. By 1965, in addition to the $8,800 million in direct investments, portfolio investments came to $17,600 million, made up of deposits in American banks with maturities of over one year and holdings in corporate stocks and bonds and U.S. Government agency bonds. What attracts this fresh interest in the United States? These factors may be noted; some are old, some are new. 1. The continually expanding American market welcomes new products and new ideas. Entrepreneurial profits continue to reward innovation. 2. Despite high wages, costs of production are not excessive because of the high productivity per man-hour of the American worker. 3. Materials cost less on the average in the United States than in other countries. 4. American Government-Federal and State-places amazingly few restrictions on the conduct of business and the operation of companies. On the contrary, public and private development agencies all over the country offer all sorts of inducements to the foreign industrial firm-low interest loans, sites for buildings with public utilities installed, tax remissions in the early years. 5. Taxes paid by business in the United States are generally lower than those levied in other developed countries. Treaties to eliminate double taxation are in effect between the United States and more than twenty other countries, and more are being negotiated. 6. Foreign-owned firms are permitted to remit earnings fully to the parent country; the same is true of the repatriation of capital. There is an increasing tendency for earnings to be retained in the United States, being added to capital; thus foreign holdings expand both by fresh investments and the ploughing back of profits. The United States, now a great industrial and financial country, continues to demonstrate its confidence in the fact that the mobility, of capital-like that of men, ideas, and trade-is important to growth. America, in its formative . years, was helped significantly by this mobility. Today, a developed nation, it remains committed to the same broad conception. This is implemented by foreign aid, investments overseas with increasing emphasis on developing countries, the training of technicians, managers and the suppliers of auxiliary services in those joint enterprises abroad with which its citizens are associated, and in an open-door to the foreign investor and businessman at home.
The author answers some pertinent questions, discusses the importance of economic growth and describes role of U.S. Government aid and private capital investment in assisting the economies of developing countries.
Question: When the U.S. was a young nation, did foreigners investing in the country gain at the expense of the American workers and farmers?
Hacker: Quite the contrary. The real wages of American workers doubled in the period 1865-1900; so did the real farm income, while the capital worth of American farms increased much more than that. Question: Has growth become a fetish Granted? improvement in material well-being, aren't other and more enduring values lost? Hacker: No. Growth leads to the more efficient allocation of resources and the utilization of the labour force. One of the consequences of the latter is the shortening of the working day, with more leisure-time. This, with the higher wages, results in the cultivation of the mind and taste-human life becomes richer; also, private interests are developed. Growth also makes possible the end of child labour, the education of children, better health and homes for them. Question: You said the early investments in the U.S. were risky and spoke of the reorganizations of the railroads, which meant after bankruptcy, .of course. Didn't foreign investors lose as a result?
Hacker: No. When reorganizations took place, during the 1870s, 1883-84, the 1890s, only the owners of stock had to pay assessments or were wiped out. The bondholders, the Europeans largely, had got their stock for nothing, so they weren't much hurt. When reorganizations took place, junior bonds and floating debt were funded, and expenditures were put on a sound footing. With the 1900s, American railroad bonds became the safest investment in the world.
Question: If capital formation is so important to development, why don't richer nations help the poorer ones more?
Hacker: They should, and more interest is being shown by other richer nations as well as the United States, with increased emphasis being placed on multilateral forms of assistance. As more nations participate, the American Government and people will feel that this is not an exclusive responsibility thrust upon them, and their aid-public and private-may well grow some more. In the past twenty years, the U.S. Government has extended some 90,000 million dollars in economic assistance to other countries. Despite balance of payments difficulties, the total flow of U.S. Government economic aid during the 1960s-nearly all of it directed to developing parts of the world-has averaged close to 5,000 million dollars a year, well above the average for the 1950s. Net direct investment by private American capital in productive enterprises abroad also has been on the rise, and now comes to more than 3,000 million dollars a year-much of it going to the more economically advanced countries. There is no doubt that considerably more private American investment could and would go to less-developed countries, given appropriate incentives. Americans look for political stability and fiscal and monetary responsibility in developing countries as basic to a further appreciable speed-up in the whole business of aid. They don't ask for political commitment, and while they recognize the important role of private resources in development, they don't ask for private enterprise alone; they don't object to constructive use of public funds in enterprise. All American investors ask is that American capital and American technical and managerial skills be welcomed, with fair treatment for capital and men under impartial laws. END
Anew life for the old Met The Metropolitan Opera's new home in Lincoln Centre is one of the most modern and fully-equipped opera houses in the world, yet it retains all its traditional opulence and grandeur. two kilometres from New York's Broadway and 39th Street to the Lincoln Centre for the Performing Arts. But when the Metropolitan Opera moved this short distance to its dazzling new quarters, it was moving into a whole new era of its history. With a long and loving backward glance, it left behind at 39th Street the florid eightythree-year-old house which is so full of memories and legends. At Lincoln Centre it occupies the newest and one of the most modern and fully-equipped opera houses in the world. And along with this infinitely more efficient home, the Met acquires the chance to add to its cherished traditions a whole new dimension of excitement and achievement. The tradition is grandeur, the rendering stunningly modern in the Met's new house. The old baroque-romantic glitter has given way to a thoroughly contemporary interpretation of elegance and opulence. Working closely with the Met staff, architect Wallace K. Harrison incorporated in his design for the building every technical advance modern stagecraft has conceived. The Met's companions at Lincoln Centre are Philharmonic Hall, home of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra; the New York State Theatre, home of the New York City Ballet and the New York City Opera; the Vivian Beaumont Repertory Theatre; and the still-to-be-completed Julliard School of Music. The Met is the queen, the largest and most elaborate of the Centre's buildings. For a company used to fighting for every inch of rehearsal space, sharing cramped dressing rooms, carting back and forth from distant warehouses every stick, prop and set for every performance, the new building offers a feast after years of famine. For operagoers accustomed to craning their necks for a view from the old Met's many bad seats, welcome relief has been provided. Every seat in the new house is a good one. Approached across the Centre's main plaza, the opera house presents a monumental
IT IS ONLY
spectacle. Five soaring arches frame a brilliant glass and marble facade. Inside the plazalevel entrance, an enormous lobby-promenade area rises the full twenty-nine-metre height of the building. A strikingly curved, hanging double-stairway, of marble-faced concrete, ascends from the lobby to the grand tier and upper levels, which can also be reached by elevator. A few steps down, through an entrance embraced by the stairway, are the orchestra seats. Massive Marc Chagall murals, commissioned especially for the house, flank the lobby, which eventually will display tliree Maillol statues and works by young American artists. The arch theme of the building's exterior is carried into the auditorium itself and interpreted in rich colour motifs of white, gold and maroon. This feeling of richness, enhanced by the great gold proscenium, is m ultiplied many times by the use of a soft-grained, oily, brown African wood, by the jewel-like faceted lights and by the striking, modern, rayed chandeliers-a gift of the Gove~nment of Austria. The chandeliers actually rise with the curtain to provide an unblocked view from tioning system above it, broken up by a series every seat. of hanging light booths. Lighting and projecAn audience adjusted to the liveliness and tion equipment, on both sides of the proscerichness of this interior will become aware of nium, is the most modern available. The whole the foresight and expertise that have gone into lighting system is regulated from a master control board in its¡ own large booth at the the plan. The house looks small, almost intimate, yet it holds 200 more places than the old back of the hall, equipped with an incredibly one. The capacity of 3,800 includes standees, complex system of pr:>sets. as well as twenty-four score desks for students But the most important consideration of and an extra thirty-five seats that can be added all is acoustics. The old baroque design, with when a smaller orchestra is used. The orchesall its frills, actu1lly helped to guarantee good tra pit is almost twice as large as the one in the acoustics. Its heavy wood and plaster surfaces were warm, resona:lt materials well adapted old house, but a double elevator system can bring the front part up to audience-level or to good sound. Modern halls often fail, not the back part to stage-level to form an apron only because modern "functional" design in front of the proscenium. This can be used -based on straight lines-produces harsh acoustical effects, but also because modern for baroque or neo-c1assic operas which genconstruction materials are not :iJlways best for erally require a much smaller orchestra than full, rich sound. Extensive study and research the grander romantic repertoire. went into this problem at the new house. Mr. Over the auditorium soars the gilded pIasHarrison said that "acoustical perfection," ter ceiling, masking the heating and air-condicontinued
With its soaring arches and brilliant glass and marblefacade, the Met dominates Lincoln Centre Plaza, above, which has become a popular meeting placefor the hemmed-in city-dwellers of New York.
Opening-nig-ht prenliere TheMet opened with a premiere of Samuel Barber's newopera Antony and Cleopatra, written specially for Leontyne Price, above left. Lavish production usedenormous cast, extravagant costumes and sets.
Bejewelled snnbn.'sts Rayed crystal chandeliers, a gift of the Austrian Government, descend from the ceiling like so many bejewelled sunbursts. Within the auditorium, the chandeliersrise to provide clear view of the stage.
The spectacular auditorium, with its colour scheme of gold, white and maroon, is matched by the superb production facilities backstage.
not visual attractiveness, was his chief concern in preparing the design. Working with acoustical consultants from Europe and America, he decided on the traditional horseshoe shape as having proved itself to be the most successful in the past. The carefully designed plaster proscenium, the plaster ceiling and the extensive use of resonant wood all have the aim of producing an even, warm sound which will blend orchestra and voices in the manner of the great opera houses of the past. The public will benefit in many other ways. There are parking facilities directly under the house; underground pedestrian passageways connect with other buildings in Lincoln Centre and with the New York subways. There are three restaurants, two of which can be reached from outside without buying a ticket. One of these is located atop a huge gold shelf jutting out into the lobby area and, suspended thus in mid-air, offers a spectacular view of Lincoln Centre through the lobby's glass wall. The most spectacular part of the opera house, however, is the part the public will never see-back of the proscenium. The new house is structurally two separate buildings with a total length of approximately 135 metres: the auditorium itself built in reinforced concrete and the stage house behind it made of structural steel. It is in the latter part, of course, that the real business of putting
on operatic theatre takes place. There are altogether (although it is hard to believe from the outside) twelve levels in this theatre with ten full working floors. There is not just one stage but four. The main stage is made up of seven wagons, or sections, over seven elevators, so that the complete stage or any part of it can be used in any combination-in the flat, raked or on different levels, in a shallow depth or with the entire twenty-four metres to the back wall of the main stage. Behind this is a full-size revolving stage with a seventeenmetre turntable. This stage, along with two equal full-size stages on either side, can be rolled out onto the main stage in a matter of moments. Furthermore, because of the double elevator system under the main stage, full sets can be assembled and dismantled on two levels below and sent up in seconds. No more building up and knocking down sets on the main stage; the space, the time and the effort can be put to better use. The trip behind the scenes is a bewildering experience. Stage and backstage elevators connecting right up to huge scenery storage areas abound. There are five enormous light bridges and over 100 pipes for drops filling the spacious thirty-three-metre area between the stage and the rigging loft above. The entire operation of drops has been automated and can be pre-set in limitless combinations. A continued
Cbagall Illural Massive mural, Le Triomphe de la Musique, is one of two painted by Marc ChagaUfor the Met lobby. Ablaze with colour, it contrasts with subtler-hued works by Raoul Dufy on the top tier of the house.
The Golden Horseshoe lives once again at the new Met, as this fish-eye camera view of the auditorium demonstrates. Architect decided on the traditional horseshoe shape as best from acoustical standpoint.
done formerly, will be entirely eliminated. Most important, the new house provides an opportunity to revolutionize the production of opera. In a matter of moments, literally dozens of drops can fly in and out; complete sets can succeed one another in incredibly short intervals; whole new concepts of the use of light and projection can be introduced in terms of a stage and a stage concept which are almost infinitely flexible and open -as never before-to the imagination and inventiveness of designer and director. Such tremendous advances signal a new era of opera history in the United States, a history that antedates the Metropolitan by more than a century. In the eighteenth century, the lighter English "ballad opera" was the favourite, and it was this form that later developed into the American minstrel show and musical comedy. In the nineteenth century Italian opera became extremely popular. New York's operatic life was focused first at the Astor Place Opera House and then, around 1850, at the Academy of Music, until the construction of the Met in 1883. During its eighty-three-year span the old Met established itself as America's premier opera house and one of the great opera houses of the world...,.4ai1kingwith La Scala, Covent Garden, Paris, Vienna, Warsaw and the Bolshoi. Now, at Lincoln Centre, still farther uptown, it promises to continue its grand ways. But for years it struggled with the inadequacies of the old house. Several times, beginning in the '20s, plans for a new. house were discussed, but each time they had to be shelved. In the late '40s, however, interest was revived in conjunction with a grand plan for a centre for all the performing arts. The actual Lincoln Centre organization was formed in 1956, so planning for the new Met began over ten years ago. The building itself was under construction for four years. This is not so very long when one considers that almost every structural, architectural and design element is unique or custom-designed and thus had to be specially planned, adapted and constructed for its specific purpose. It was as if, using modern materials and techniques, the builders had returned to the day when every building was a unique achievement, created literally by the hands of artists and Glory of ancient Egypt craftsmen working together. Fittingly enough, Met's version of Antony and Cleopatra recreated the Met itself is an organization in which artists and craftsmen work together closely. all the glory of ancient Egypt. At left, Antony's The exciting new building with its fantastic army gathers in the shadow of the Sphinx, wailing to board ships for the decisive battle al Actiul11. theatrical potential is bound to have an enorsemi-circular rail high up indicates the cyclorama trap. Huge paint bridges way up provide the means for painting scenery already hung in place-ready, when the paint dries, to drop down into action. Below are enormous storageareas where items can be kept and brought out and into place at a moment's notice. There is room to store twenty-five productions-a whole season's worth. Rehearsal space-one of the greatest lacks of the old house-is essential for a repertory theatre that has its stage constantly in use. The new setup will not only free the main stage for considerable lengths of time (by permitting sets to be mounted elsewhere and moved into place easily when needed) but also-by means of elaborate, sliding soundproof walls-permit no less than four stage rehearsals to take place simultaneously. Beyond this-above and below-there are large rehearsal rooms for the stage run-throughs and for orchestra, choral and ballet rehearsals, all adjacent to modern and spacious dressingroom facilities. There are lounges and lockers for the performers; archives and a large music library; scenic, prop, carpenter, electric and paint shops; photographer's studio; officesin short, every manner of facility and convenience known and unknown to the traditional and modern opera house. "Space," said one of the Metropolitan's managers, "above all, we have now the thing we so desperately lacked-space." Th(} new theatre will accommodate the Metropolitan Opera Studio-training ground for young singers-and, probably, its ballet school. The building also includes a chamber hall ideal for rehearsals, lectures, vocal recitals and auditions. There is practically nothing that has not been thought of. All of the statistics of the new house are impressive-most of all the total cost figure: $45.7million. (The old Met cost $1.7 million in 1883.) Operating expenses will certainly rise substantially. The old building kept a small army of 1,000 people busy; at the new house that number is sure to rise. On the other hand, some expenses will be greatly reduced because of the new house's efficiency. For example, the cost of lugging sets and props back and forth across town, as was
mous effect on the tradition-minded Met. Though in earlier years it held some outstanding world premieres and encouraged native American works, the Met has emphasized a traditional repertoire with occasional revivals of romantic or classic works. However, in the first Lincoln Centre season last year there were two important American premieres: Samuel Barber's opening-night Antony and Cleopatra and a setting of Eugene O'Neill's epic play, Mourning Becomes Electra, by the young American Marvin David Levy. In addition, every single work in the repertoire must be reworked and adapted to the physical and aesthetic needs ofthe new house. There were no less than nine totally new productions during the inaugural season. Besides the two new works, there were three twentiethcentury "classics" in new versions: Peter Grimes by Benjamin Britten and Richard Strauss's Elektra and Die Frau ohne Schatten, plus a new production of Mozart's The Magic Flute designed by Marc Chagall. Lohengrin, La Traviata and La Giaconda received new stagings. Over one-third of the entire season's repertoire was new. All the other older productions had to be adapted. Fortunately, however, many of those put on in recent years were designed with the new house in mind and actually looked better in the new house than they were in the old. The Met's 1967-68 season, which opens this month, will include five new productions, among them Wagner's Die Walkure and Verdi's Luisa Miller, which has been absent from the Metropolitan repertoire for thirtysix seasons. In its n~w house~ the Met will have to do a lot of thinking about the place of opera, in modern life, and this is a good thing. The evolution of new theatrical and theatricalmusical ideas is a logical development in modern theatre. And opera, as a fo~m in which fantasy and the highest lyric flights of the human spirit must always predotpi~ate, should lead the way, as it has in the past. Opera has come to play an important> part in American life, and the Metropolitan Opera, as the major American company, must provide leadership. Preserving some of the best traditions of a company whose history ~eaches back into the life-times of Wagner and Verdi, but freer from some of the heavier and less meaningful traditions of the nostalgic past, the Met has an unprecedented opportunity to renew, reinforce and augment its great role in the cultural life of the country. END f.
The. right
to say:
you're wrong
IN A WORLD OF an' increasingly youthful population, the young are making their voices heard very clearly, while.their elders are learning to listen more attentively . Youth is not only speaking out, but has shown willingness, all over the world, to act on its words. " ... Every good citizen should protest sometimes. There is nothing easier than accepting things complacently." " ... Everywhere in the world, when you have an opinion and you believe in it, it is your right and your responsibility to defend it." " ... If you think your country is in the wrong, then it is not only your right but your responsibility to oppose it, to fight for what your conscience tells you is right." These are the voices of high school students who came together to talk about ideas generated by important events in which some of them were already involved. "Protest: A Right and a Responsibility" was the official theme of their conference and a hundred teen-agers discussed it in the colonial settlement of Williamsburg, Virginia. They represented every State of the United States and thirty-six foreign countries. Most of the Americans Were student leaders, holding elective offices in their State student government associations. The young people from abroad were exchange students spending a year with American families and attending American schools. It was a diverse, venturesome, active group of young people, who had something to say to each other, something worth listening to. The conference was the ninth annual gathering of its kind in Williamsburg. It heard three representatives of the older generation: Brazilian Ambassador to the U.S., Vasco Leitao da Cunha; Brooks Hays, adviser to President Johnson and the late President Kennedy; and Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink of Hawaii. To delegates who occasionally sounded as if they thought no previous generation had ever been moved to protest, Mrs. Mink pointed out that almost two centuries ago Williamsburg was the scene of much of that enormously successful protest movement known as the American Revolution. But that was a long time ago, the days of Washington, Jefferson, and Patrick Henry. If you are sixteen or seventeen, it seems ancient history; such giants of the nineteenth century as Tolstoy and Thoreau who expressed themselves so eloquently on the authority of the individual conscience seem remote and dim; and even Gandhi's monumental use of protest is likely to be less inspiring with the passing years. Every generation, apparently, has to create its own precedents for coping with issues of its own day. "The right of free speech," Mrs. Mink said, "and the concomitant right to dissent, are in my opinion the most sacred of all our personal liberties." But she went on to say: "No protest for any cause should have the licence to destroy or impede the rights of others; nor should a person expect to escape punishment if, in his protest~ he violates the law."
Just how far is one free to go? That was the heart of the matter. Kim Segebarth, a student from New York, asked Mrs. Mink: "Where do you draw the line between treason and protest?" Her answer: "An act of treason is a disavowal by an American citizen of the Government of the United States. Protest asks only for a change of government position." But what does that mean in practice? Granted, as the Williamsburg delegates avowed: A person has a right to disagree with his government's actions, a right to protest against them. Question: Does he have a right, therefore, to express his protest in violation of the law? Or, granted: Negroes'have the right to protest if they are denied their civil rights. Question: Do they have the right to ~ommit acts of civil disobedience, infringing, for example, the right of other persons to use streets blocked by demonstrators? Granting that protest is a right, what forms may it take? How far may one go? How far should one go? These are fascinating and complex questions, as the young people learned trying to answer them. Renato Cavalli (ITALY): "I feel that if, as a man, you think your country is in the wrong, then it is not only your right but your responsibility to oppose it, to fight for what your conscience tells you is right. You must suffer the consequences, but even treason may be a duty." Otis Lee (VIRGINIA): "It's the prerogative of every person to be what he has to beeven a traitor. But a traitor is breaking the law, and so he must expect to be prosecuted." Patrick Carney (MASSACHUSETTS): "I don't agree that we have a right to civil disobedience. Any country that permitted this would be in chaos. There are instances in history where civil disobedience was the only means to an end after all legal efforts were exhausted; but I still don't accept the theory thatwe have this 'right'." Martin Barron (RHODESIA): "If you really feel that your conscience demands that you break the law, I think you should go ahead and do it. At the same time, no one should condemn another person for not breaking a law that goes against his conscience. I don't know if I could do it." Otis Lee: "I feel that a law shouldn't be broken except in extreme circumstances. We should first do everything to work under the law, to work to change it, if necessary." Robbie Armstrong (COLORADO): "Protest is a right and a responsibility-yes. But it is also a responsibility to stay within the framework of our legal system. In the United States, this legal system was made by those who are governed, and it was made for a purposeand that purpose was not to break the laws. There are legal means to change laws, and civil disobedience goes against the whole principle of government and American democracy. I don't think it can be tolerated." Bernard Dubreuil (FRANCE): "I think this
"The right of free speech and the concomitant right to dissent are most sacred of all our personal liberties. "
THE RIGHT TO SAY: YOU'RE WRONG continued
"H you think your country is wrong, then it is not only your right but your responsibility to oppose it."
"H it hadn't been for the actions of Negroes in the south, we'd be right back where we were 100 years ago."
view is basically wrong. A country may once have been ruled by a minority. Then the minority was overthrown by a majority of the people and new laws were passed." Luiz Henriqoe (BRAZIL): "I think that, everywhere in the world, when you have an opinion and you believe in it, it is your right and your responsibility to defend your idea and to express it sincerely." Katherine Vaz (MALAYSIA): "I think every good citizen should protest sometimes. There is nothing easier than to accept things complacently. But if you think your government --or your school, or any organization to which you belong-is not serving your needs, then you should protest." Patrick Carney: "Abraham Lincoln once said, 'To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of men.' Some people argue that student protest is a sign of weakness in our government; and that in the end our -government wiII fall apart under it. But really, this kind of protest is a strength of our government. It has made America what it is." The American civil rights movement naturally came up most often when the discussion turned from theory to practice. Bob Drovdahl, a student from the State of Washington, asked, "Do you think demonstrations and sit-ins infringe the rights of other people?" and Wyneva Johnson of Mississippi answered: "In some cases, yes. But I still feel they're necessary." The debate continued: SteTe Maxwell (IDAHO): "It's true that there's been a great improvement in the Negro's situation recently, but, Wyneva, don't you feel this could have been accomplished without disrupting the stability of the whole southern community?" WyneTa Joboson: "No, I don't. I think demonstrations should be the last thing you resort to, but in many areas of the South the white people are just apathetic, and if you don't show that you're protesting, they'll let conditions stay as they are." Otis Lee: "Wyneva's right. If it hadn't been for the actions of the Negroes in the South, we'd be right back where we were a hundred years ago. We wanted to bring this situation out in the open, to let people understand what was happening and why, and what could be done to alleviate the situation. It couldn't have been accomplished any other way. You know as well as I do that they had some ridiculous rules down South. There had to be some kind of recognition of this." Mike Wascom from Louisiana declared that "the civil rights war is over. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was its 'cease-fire'; the Voting Rights Act in 1965 was the 'peace treaty'." Then he added a characteristically youthful qualification: "We teen-agers accept the change; it's not a problem any more. But it'll take our parents a while. When their generation IS gone, it wiII be hard to remember the struggle it was." The young people at Williamsburg looked at their parents' generation across that gulf
of time and experience that often seems so wide to both sides_ "But why is it?" asked one of the adults on hand, Dorothy Gordon, a news broadcaster from New York. "Why all this protest, this rebellion among young people?-Why this schism between them and their elders?" They tried to explain it to her, with some disagreement among themselves and even some self-criticism: EMn Alena (DOMINICAN REPUBLIC): "Sometimes young people are under pressure, and the only way they find to express themselves, to try to have a voice with their elders, is this weapon called protest." WyneTa Johnson: "It's more than just rebellion. Students have caused adults to question more closely the issues at hand. All these years the adults have been living with issues such as the cold war, disarmament, the bomb, civil rights. They've felt students were complacent. But actually, when the students got to be my age, seventeen, they felt they should protest against these things." Tina Wyrick (OREGON): "Students don't like the complacent pattern of life of their parents. We're revolting against conformity. We're trying to discover what we want, rather than what our parents want for us." Katherine Vaz: "We're living in a constantly changing world. Nothing is static. There is always movement-if it's not forward, it's backward. Young people can have deep and revolutionary ideas about changing things. We want to do away with things that are old and obsolete." Martin Barron: "People our age look around the world and see a great deal of evil. We want to start right from the beginning and build our own world. So we protest and protest. Sometimes we carry this too far and want to clear away what's good as well as what's bad. It should be more of a pruning process, not demolition." Pat Carney: "We feel-what have we inherited? Two world wars and a world torn apart by greed, hate and fear. We see reasons why the world shouldn't be the way it is; and we protest this." Otis Lee: "I think the teen-age rebellion has been played up way out of proportion. To examine the cause, we have to go to the parents. Parents need to adjust their-thinking to the times. They have to adjust their philosophy of life to the coming generation." Tina Wyrick: "Well, partly the teen-ager is testing the new powers he hasn't had before. It's new; it's different. He wants to try it out. We want to do things for ourselves and not have someone in our way saying, 'No, no, no!' or 'Do it my way.' " Don Murphy (VIRGINIA): "Do you think a loss of respect for parents has led to a rise in rebelliousness?" Pat Carney: "No, I don't think so. We mayor may not follow their way, but that's not from loss of respect." Aysenur Tamar (TURKEY): "But do you think the young generation is able to make
a decision on how far to go with peaceful true everywhere in the United States." protest and when to start with active proOthers: "Steve, there are scholarships and test? Do older people have some control grants available for good students everywhere on our decisions? Do we always know' what in this country." we're protesting?" Matt Schaffer (GEORGIA): ''I'd like to go Katherine Vaz: "Yes, often we do. You back to comment on something said earlier mustn't think that just because we are young when I couldn't get a word in edgewise because of this hot debate!" (Laughter)" people we are not capable of deep thought, of seeking out the truth. Of course, sometimes "We've been talking about the government people simply follow like sheep. To protest and the people as if they were two separate enjust for the sake of protesting does a lot of tities. But, in our country, the government is harm. Those who are sincerely protesting the people. The people are the government!" will not be heard." Ellen Madsen (DENMARK): "Well, how can Wyneva Johnson: "I think I can voice the foreigners help getting the impression-that feelings of most of the Negro kids in the they're different-if all we read about in our South. In my town, some students under the newspapers is you people protesting all voting age participated in the voter registra- the time?" tion marches. The adults said, 'These students Jim Mathews: "It's our fault, really, if aren't old enough to vote. Why are they news media don't play up the less-exciting marching?' Well, the answer is: To get the statements of people who are for something. attention of the parents and get them to For example, in our high school a bunch of realize what they aren't doing. Some of us us wear little flags on our lapels that say 'We went door to door to get people to vote. This support American foreign policy.' That never is getting down to the grass roots of democra- gets any publicity." cy. We're trying to get everybody involved." Matt Schaffer: "If the people who oppose" Since these were young people talking things were a large enough group, they'd freely about things they really cared about, elect their own representative to Congress, they sometimes got caught up in exchanges and then the protesters would be the governnot, strictly speaking, quite to the point. A ment. If they're a small minority, then they boy from North Dakota set one of them off, can't. That shows how few they really are." and a boy from Georgia got things back on Joe Gilchrist (OKLAHOMA): "But everyone has a representative in Congress, so the prothe track again: Don Gaetz (NORTH DAKOTA): "Our defini- testers are part of our government." tion of men being born equal is that they're Tom Dennis (CONNECTICUT): "When I was given equal opportunity-" in Washington recently for the Senate Youth Alciviadis Acritas (GREECE): "But without Programme, Vice President Humphrey said money, people don't have equal opportunity. " something to us that I really took to heart. Do you think people without it have an equal When he was reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag, he came to the part that says, opportunity to educate themselves?" 'One nation, under God, indivisible, with Chorus of answers from American deleliberty and justice .. .' and he added, 'not gates: "Yes!" Salem Mojaz (AFGHANISTAN): "But your just for me, not just for you, not for a.nyone system of government has businessmen who in particular, but for everyone, for all ... .' " "Let's say, 'One world, indivisible, with make a great deal of money and other people liberty and justice for all, , " Dorothy Gordon who live in poverty!" Don Gaetz: "I'm not going to apologize added. "I think you young people have exfor the fact that there are poor people in this pressed this idea in your conference," she country. The point is, we're always trying to told them, and another of the adults present, conference director Tom Schlesinger, also bring this group at the bottom up!" Steve Lesgold (WISCONSIN): "Sure, but we tried to sum up what had been happening. "If have the problem of Negroes in a poor eco- you've learned one thing this week," he said, nomic situation. They need education to get "it's that people are people. They all feel pain, out of it, but most Negroes don't go to college love, hunger, aspiration. It's your challenge to buy us the time for human understanding because they don't have the money." Don Gaetz: "But our War on Poverty pro- to take over in the world." That is certainly the kind of large challenge gramme is trying to do something about this. most attractive to the young. And when these Our Job Corps is working on it. We always young people left Williamsburg, they were a know there's a bottom but we keep working little better prepared for it. They had learned at raising it." something about differences as well as simiJim Mathews (KENTUCKY): "Can you honlarities. They knew something more about the estly cite to me, Steve, one student in your school with a really serious desire to go to complexity of questions of conscience and the college, who's willing to work for the grades wide area for honest disagreement. When and if they act in the future on their own firmly to get in, who can't go?" Steve Lesgold: "That's a hard question. In held convictions (and one feels certain most my school, you're right-eighty-five per cent of this group will) they will surely remember of our graduates enter college. But this is the varied voices they heard at Williamsburg an unusual situation, and I~m not sure it's -some of them saying, "You're wrong!" END
"You mustn't think that just because we are young .•. we are not capable of deep thought, of seeking out the truth. "
"We have the problem of Negroes in a poor economic situation. They need education to get out of it.""
Labour's Biblical Showman "LABOURLEADERSHIP," John Llewellyn Lewis, the former American labour leader, once declared, "is ninety-nine per cent showmanship." The burly Welshman whose glowering countenance, bushy eyebrows, and deep booming voice struck terror in his adversaries, has been described as labour's greatest actor. But the part he played for nearly fifty years was no theatrical fantasy. Lewis, almost single-handedly, improved the lot of every man who works in a mine. Lewis himself once described his life as being "but a stage." He began his role in 1880 in the mid-western coal mining town of Lucas, Iowa, one of eight children born to Welsh emigrants. As a child he read from two sources that were to remain his closest friends throughout his life: the Bible and the plays of Shakespeare. He was a frequent participant in local amateur theatricals until he went into the mines to help augment his family's meagre income. But coal dust did not reduce his oratorical powers and soon he was representing a local miners' union in the halls of the Illinois State Legislature. His objectives: to improve wages and working conditions for miners. In 1911 the style with which Lewis had harassed and cajoled the State legislators came to the attention of Samuel Gompers, leader of the American Federation of Labour (AFL). Gompers put Lewis to work as union organizer, statistician and personal assistant. By 1917 he was vice president of the United Mine Workers (UMW)and two years later organized the first of his famous
strikes. It was aborted, however, when Lewis responded to President Woodrow Wilson's plea for patriotism. It was the last time that Lewis responded to any plea of any President. In 1920 he became president of the UMW. The first dozen years of his pr~sidency were a trial for Lewis. While the nation rollicked with the boom of the "roaring 'twenties," Lewis was faced with a sick industry, hostile management and an ineffective union, Government was dominated by business interests and what little labour legislation existed tended to favour management. But it was the danger of the work that most distressed Lewis. He summed up the miners' plight in characteristic fashion: "The miner knows he digs death as well as coal-and the death tonnage is appalling." When depression struck in 1929, it not only forced the closing of many mines, but brought wage reductions for those miners still working. Lewis saw new hope for the miners, however, when he heard Franklin D. Roosevelt pledge a "new deal" for the "common man" in his 1932 campaign for the Presidency. Lewis formed the Labour Non-Partisan League and gave President Roosevelt the most enthusiastic support of any organization in the nation. The League's support for Roosevelt was not misplaced. Soon after his inauguration, Roosevelt began pushing liberal labour legislation through Congress with vigour and speed: management could no longer legally ignore labour unions or prevent union organization activities;
child labour was abolished, safety standards established and enforced -all measures Lewis had been advocating for years. And membership in the UMW soared to four lakhs. But Lewis could not rest on these triumphs. Labour progress to him also meant unions organized by industries: auto, steel, mining, etc. The craft unions-plumbers, electricians, carpenters-gave battle. During a noisy debate at a 1935 AFL convention in Atlanta, the president of the carpenters' union referred to Lewis in what he described as "foul" language. Lewis's fist, powered by 225 pounds of brawn, smashed into the carpenter's jaw. Lewis then resigned as vice president of the AFL, and, with nine other unions, formed the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIa), the unions established on industrial lines. His penchant for creating animosities brought Lewis into conflict with other labour leaders when he urged the mechanization of ¡mines. His colleagues saw in this progressive view a dangerous precedent because mechanization would surely cause a reduction in jobs. "We decided the question of displacement of workers years ago," Lewis told a reporter in 1959. "We decided that it is better to have one half million men working at good wages and a high standard of living than one million in poverty and degradation." Lewis continued to battle for better wages and better working conditions for the miners, finally taking on the President of the United States. The row started during a bitter and bloody strike against a
steel company in 1937. Annoyed with the stubbornness of both labour and management in the dispute, Roosevelt, in a rare moment of petulance, had said, "A plague on both your houses." Replying in Biblical language, John Llewellyn Lewis said: "It illbehooves one who has supped at labour's table and who has been sheltered in labour's house to curse with equal fervour and fine impartiality both labour and its adversaries when they become locked in deadly embrace." The courtship between Lewis and Roosevelt was ended and from 1937 Lewis missed few opportunities to attack the Roosevelt Administration's labour record. He attempted -unsuccessfully-to swing labour away from Roosevelt in 1940, and in 1941 he resigned the presidency of the CIa. During World War If, when the war effort had top priority, Lewis brought down on himself the wrath of the nation by declaring that a national emergency "was no excuse for callous exploitation of miners." He staged four walk-outs in 1943 alone. The postwar labour scene was dominated by Lewis. His walk-outs became so frequent that in April 1946 President Harry S. Truman ordered a government seizure of coal mines; they were not returned to their owners until June 1947. But one fruit of the strike was creation of the UMWWelfare Fund, one of Lewis's pet projects to provide medical services and unemployment benefits to miners. Lewis had demanded that coal operators contribute five cents (about forty paise)