Suchergebnisse

This reports focus is making global value chains (GVCs) more inclusive. This is achieved by overcoming participation constraints for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and facilitation access for Low Income Developing Countries (LIDCs).The two major points of this report are 1) participation in GVCs is heterogeneous and uneven, across and within countries and 2) available data and survey-based evidence suggest that SME participation in GVCs is mostly taking place through indirect contribution to exports, rather than through exporting directly.

Pakistan's trade indicators reflect low outward orientation, concentration on low value added activities and an undiversified product mix which out of line with the fastest growing areas of world demand. The export share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has remained low and falling—fro

The climate crisis and loss of biodiversity, two closely related threats to human and planetary health, meet the criteria for the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare an international public health emergency, as occurred with COVID-19 (1), and urged by numerous scientific journals (2).
Attaining decent work, understood as "opportunities for women and men to work in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity" (3), in the context of the climate emergency, creates a paradox for worker health. Outdoor workers (notably those in agriculture and construction), many of them informal workers, are among the populations most vulnerable to climate-related hazards. Simultaneously, they are inevitably at risk of exposure due to their role in maintaining the economy and functioning of society. A similar situation happened during the pandemic with essential workers (4). The WHO declaration of a public health emergency helped manage that global crisis.
A consequence of the industrial revolution The current climate crisis is a direct consequence of the Industrial Revolution where key processes emerged to explain the current situation: the appearance of wage labor and the working class, with consumerism as a basic economic driver, and the exploitation of natural resources – especially fossil fuels – in their own territories and in the colonies.
The extension of this capitalist model of society to virtually the entire planet is a reality. Now, we see how this economic system has brought both great harm and significant benefits.
Since its beginning, capitalism has wrought great suffering for people, masterfully described, among others, by Fredrich Engels in the Manchester of 1845 (5) or the London of 1838 in Charles Dickens` Oliver Twist (6). Although working conditions have since improved in many countries, there are still unbearable examples worldwide of worker exploitation and suffering. Among them, child labor, where 70% are working in agriculture (7) or some underregulated platform work (8), in a context of ever-increasing social inequalities (9).
On the other hand, due to improved working and life conditions, there has also been an extraordinary increase in the world population, from one billion at the beginning of the 19th century to approximately eight billion today, leading to a linear increase in life expectancy at birth, which doubled globally between the beginning of the 20th century and the present. In 2015, the Lancet Commission on Planetary Health (10) pointed out that never before has humanity faced such an unintended paradox. While human well-being has been improving, the planet has been degrading. A contradiction that can no longer be sustained.
We have lived as if our planet`s resources are unlimited. Based on comparisons to average temperature readings of the planet between 1850 and 1900, the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change estimated in its latest report that temperatures increased by 1.1° C between 2011 and 2020. This increase is very close to the 1.5° C established by the 2015 Paris Agreement as the limit beyond which climate impacts may become irreversible. Beyond any reasonable doubt, this is mostly attributable to the greenhouse effect produced by CO2 emissions, a consequence mainly of human activity and our way of living initiated by the Industrial Revolution.
This global increase in temperature, with heat waves, floods and other extreme temperature events as its most obvious manifestations, is already having effects on worker health (12, 13). Climate change is also having effects on the economy and the labor market, both in the primary (agriculture and fishing) and services (tourism) sectors, with reductions in productivity and employment. Estimates from the European Commission reveal an average loss of 3% of GDP among EU countries between 1980 and 2020 (14). Simultaneously, we should not forget that the capitalist society that emerged from the Industrial Revolution is based, among other pillars, on full or near full employment. As such, wages represent the main economic resource for the majority of people, in addition to being the primary source of wealth generation for society, on whose income and taxes the welfare state was built. Of course, employment means much more than wage earning, as it plays a fundamental role in the social processes that sustain human dignity and social cohesion (15). However, only approximately 50% of the employed population, mainly in high-income countries, enjoy decent employment with a living wage and social rights (16).
The resulting Gordian knot before us is enormous, with humanity facing the climate emergency and trying to move from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, while simultaneously seeking to maintain and increase decent employment for all Earth`s inhabitants, boosting the welfare states at the same time (17).
Controlling climate-related hazards and just green transition The alternatives proposed to escape this crossroads vary between those that propose a new paradigm, which radically changes the current economic model, betting on measures that break drastically from the capitalist economy (18), versus a gradual process, supported by mitigation, adaptation, and compensation policies (19).
Favoring this second alternative, but without ruling out the need to profoundly change human consumption patterns with important repercussions on the productive system (energy, transportation, food, etc.), gradualist policies will also directly or indirectly impact employment and working conditions during the transition from carbon emission energy to green energy.
To cope with this urgent situation, specific control measures have been proposed over the last few decades. Schulte and colleagues have systematically reviewed the literature (20, 21, 22), identifying new and exacerbated old climate-related hazards such as extreme temperatures, air pollution, ultraviolet radiation, natural disasters, biological hazards, indoor air quality, etc., and they also assessed the impact of employment transition and economic burden on occupational health equity and mental health. On this basis, the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has elaborated recommendations to mitigate and control the impact of several climate-related hazards on worker health and well-being (23). Similarly, the EU Agency for Safety and Health at Work has published guidelines for heat at work (24). Going further, some governments, such as Spain, have begun regulating and enforcing specific measures (25).
Implementation of these workplace preventive measures to mitigate the impact of climate change is the responsibility of employers, with full participation of workers. Devoting resources to hazard recognition; performing risk assessments to identify which workers are most vulnerable to climate change-related hazards; and implementing a control strategy with policies, procedures, equipment, and work organization changes aiming to eliminate or minimize the impact of these hazards can improve employer preparedness (26).
Adaptation policies to reduce emissions of CO2 and other gases that are driving the greenhouse effect, still with limited results, could mean a loss of six million jobs worldwide, according to estimates of the International Labor Organization (ILO) (27). This same estimation predicts a promising creation of 24 million jobs, mainly in economies emphasizing recycling and reutilization of manufactured products (the so-called "circular economy"), infrastructure construction, development of renewables and energy efficiency. Also, during this transition, new forms of work will emerge (e.g., human-robot interfaces and artificial intelligence), and with them the need to train workers, both new and existing, to adapt to those new forms of work.
While waiting for positive results from mitigation and adaptation policies, a just transition to a green economy must simultaneously incorporate compensation policies. To achieve this, it is essential to strengthen social protection systems, a cornerstone of decent employment. For example, there were measures adopted during the pandemic, such as temporary employment regulation for employees or benefits covering the cessation of activity of the self-employed. Similar compensation measures may help workers affected by mitigation and adaptation policies during a transition phase, possibly to a lesser degree than in the pandemic, but lasting longer.
In summary, as was the case in the most recent public health emergency, the COVID-19 pandemic, declaring the climate emergency as an international public health emergency by the WHO could play a critical role in managing this new global health crisis. Research programs, supported by global occupational health surveillance systems, to monitor the effectiveness of mitigation, adaptation and compensation measures are urgent.
Conflict of interest statement The authors report no conflicts of interest.
References 1. WHO. International Health Regulations, 3rd edition. Geneva: WHO; 2016. Available on: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241580496. Accessed 4 February 2024. 2. Zielinski C. Time to treat the climate and nature crisis as one indivisible global health emergency. BMJ Open. 2023;13(10):e080907. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080907 3. International Labour Organization. Report of the Director-General: decent work. Paper presented at the 87th Annual International Labour Conference, Geneva, 1999. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc87/rep-i.htm [Accessed March 9 2024]. 4. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020; 46(3):229-230. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3893 5. Engels, F. The condition of the working class in England (D. McLellan, Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. https://doi.org/10.1093/owc/9780199554652.003.0151 6. Dickens C. Oliver Twist. London: Lacy; 1938. https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00121337 7. Piketty, T. Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). London: Belknap Press; 2017. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjnrvx9 8. International Labour Organization, Issue paper on child labour and climate change, Geneva: ILO; 2023. Available on: https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_905673/lang--en/index.htm. 9. Eurofound. Back to the future: Policy pointers from platform work scenarios, New forms of employment series. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2020. 10. Whitmee S, Haines A, Beyrer C et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet. 2015;386(10007):1973-2028. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60901-1 11. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Synthesis report (SYR) of the IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6). Available on: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle. Accessed 4 February 2024. 12. Martínez-Solanas È, López-Ruiz M, Wellenius GA, Gasparrini A et. Evaluation of the impact of ambient temperatures on occupational injuries in Spain. Environ Health Perspect. 2018;126(6):067002. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP2590 13. Johnson RJ, Wesseling C, Newman LS. Chronic kidney disease of unknown cause in agricultural communities. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(19):1843-1852. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1813869 14. European Environment Agency. Economic losses and fatalities from weather and climate-related events in Europe. Available on: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/economic-losses-and-fatalities-from#:~:text=Between%201980%20%20and%202020%2C%20total,of%20these%20losses%20were%20insured. Accessed 4 February 2024. 15. Budd JW. The thought of work. J Ind Rel. 2012;54(4):542-545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185612456331 16. Frank J, Mustard C, Smith P, Siddiqi A, Cheng Y, Burdorf A et al. Work as a social determinant of health in high-income countries: past, present, and future. Lancet. 2023 Oct 14;402(10410):1357-1367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00871-1 17. Benavides FG, Serra C, Delclos GL. What can public health do for the welfare state? Occupational health could be an answer. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019;73(12):1141-1144. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-211561 18. Saito K. El capital en la era del Antropoceno. Barcelona: Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial, 2022. 19. Eurofound. Impact of climate change and climate policies on living conditions, working conditions, employment and social dialogue: A conceptual framework. Luxembourg: Eurofound research paper, Publications Office of the European Union; 2023. 20. Schulte PA, Chun H. Climate change and occupational safety andhealth: establishing a preliminary framework. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2009; 6:9, 542-554. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620903066008 21. Schulte PA, Bhattacharya A, Butler CR et al. Advancing the framework for considering the effects of climate change on worker safety and health. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2016;13(11):847-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2016.1179388 22. Schulte PA, Jacklitsch LB, Bhattacharya A et al. Updated assessment of occupational safety and health hazards of climate change. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2023;20(5-6):183-206, https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2023.2205468 23. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Occupational safety and health and climate. Available on: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/climate/default.html. Accessed 6 February 2024. 24. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Heat at work - Guidance for workplaces. Available on: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/heat-work-guidance-workplaces. Accessed 7 February 2024. 25. Real Decreto-ley 4/2023, de 11 de mayo, por el que se adoptan medidas urgentes en materia de […] prevención de riesgos laborales en episodios de elevadas temperaturas. Available on: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rdl/2023/05/11/4. Accessed at 7 February 2024. 26. Levy, Barry S, Cora Roelofs. Impacts of climate change on workers' health and safety. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Global Public Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190632366.013.39 27. International Labor Organization (ILO). World employment and social outlook 2018: Greening with jobs. Geneva: ILO; 2018. Available on: https://www.ilo.org/weso-greening/documents/WESO_Greening_EN_web2.pdf. Accessed at 7 February 2024.

The Great Depression in Weber County, Utah, is an Oral History Project by Mack S. Taft for completion of his Master's Thesis at Utah State University during the summer of 1969. The interviews address the Great Depression through the eyes of individuals in several different occupations including: Bankers, Laborers, Railroad Workers, Attorneys, Farmers, Educators, Businessmen, Community and Church Leaders, Housewives, Children and Physicians. All of these individuals lived in Weber County from 1929 to 1941. The interviews were based on what they remembered about the depression, how they felt about those events and how it affected their life then and now. ; This is an oral history interview with Raymond S. Wright. Mr. Wright discusses his experiences as an employee of the Southern Pacific Railroad during the Depression. He describes his time as an LDS bishop, helping needy people, and ward programs to provide employment, food, and clothing. ; 13p.; 29cm.; 2 bound transcripts; 4 file folders. 1 sound disc: digital; 4 3/4 in. ; Oral History Program Raymond S. Wright Interviewed by Mack S. Taft circa 1960s Oral History Program Weber State University Stewart Library Ogden, Utah Raymond S. Wright Interviewed by Mack S. Taft circa 1960s Copyright © 2016 by Weber State University, Stewart Library iii Mission Statement The Oral History Program of the Stewart Library was created to preserve the institutional history of Weber State University and the Davis, Ogden and Weber County communities. By conducting carefully researched, recorded, and transcribed interviews, the Oral History Program creates archival oral histories intended for the widest possible use. Interviews are conducted with the goal of eliciting from each participant a full and accurate account of events. The interviews are transcribed, edited for accuracy and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewees (as available), who are encouraged to augment or correct their spoken words. The reviewed and corrected transcripts are indexed, printed, and bound with photographs and illustrative materials as available. The working files, original recording, and archival copies are housed in the University Archives. Project Description The Great Depression in Weber County, Utah, is an Oral History Project by Mack S. Taft for completion of his Master's Thesis at Utah State University during the summer of 1969. The forty-five interviews address the Great Depression through the eyes of individuals in several different occupations including: Bankers, Laborers, Railroad Workers, Attorneys, Farmers, Educators, Businessmen, Community and Church Leaders, Housewives, Children and Physicians. All of these individuals lived in Weber County from 1929 to 1941. The interviews were based on what they remembered about the depression, how they felt about those events and how it affected their life then and now. ____________________________________ Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account. It reflects personal opinion offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ____________________________________ Rights Management This work is the property of the Weber State University, Stewart Library Oral History Program. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Wright, Raymond S., an oral history by Mack S. Taft, circa 1960s, WSU Stewart Library Oral History Program, University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, UT. 1 Abstract: This is an oral history interview with Raymond S. Wright. Mr. Wright discusses his experiences as an employee of the Southern Pacific Railroad during the Depression. He describes his time as an LDS bishop, helping needy people, and ward programs to provide employment, food, and clothing. The interviewer is Mack Taft. MT: Where did you live from the year 1929-39? RW: I lived at 362 34th Street in Ogden. MT: As I understand, you were serving as an [LDS] bishop through at least part of that time, is that right? RW: Yes, I served as bishop from 1936 to 1945. MT: As a bishop through those years, what were some of the problems that confronted you? RW: Well, mostly due to unemployment, there were many people out of work, and of course quite a number of them had to be assisted. Then one of the problems that I had, and I don't know maybe it wasn't peculiar to me, but quite often when I would come home from work there would be people sitting on my doorstep– people from out of town who claimed membership in the church and who were seeking assistance. Some of them [needed] a night's lodging, some of them food. On one occasion, we had an entire family that had left their home in Pennsylvania and gone to the Northwest for employment, and they hitchhiked on the way back. They drove their car to the Northwest, and on their way back their car gave out and they didn't have money to pay for transportation. They hitchhiked from the Northwest to Ogden, and I suppose all the way back to 2 Pennsylvania. When they got to Ogden, they were in need of lodging, they were in need of food. There was a father and mother and two children, a boy and a girl. The boy was about 14, I would say, and the girl about 12. Of course some of the neighbors sent them to me. Well, they weren't members of the church, but we did, at our own expense, feed them that night and the next morning. Then we sent them on their way and we never heard from them anymore. Whether they got there or not, we don't know. But that was one of the things that was quite a problem. See, we lived on the south end of town, and many of the people, men particularly, that possibly were riding the freight trains, and some of them hitchhiking, and when they got into the city, why they were usually dumped off, or they got off the train. If they were members of the church, they would inquire where the bishop lived. And so they were sent to me, and of course we took care of them, those that were worthy cases, church cases, and that I determined through my interviews. It didn't take me very long to find out whether they were entitled to church assistance, but at any rate they were most of them hungry. So whether they were entitled to it or not. we usually put out our own food for them. If they were church assistance, then I assisted them from church funds. Some of them were not entitled to it, but they were hungry. MT: What ward were you bishop of? RW: The Ogden First Ward. MT: Would that have been in the Weber Stake? And did that include a large area at that time? 3 RW: It included, at that time, everything in Ogden from 24th Street south to the city limits, from Adams Avenue to the river on the west, and, in addition, it included Riverdale, Roy, Hooper, Kanesville, and Clinton. That was the stake, of course. MT: Who was the stake president at that time? RW: George E. Browning. MT: What type of work did you do yourself at that time? RW: I was employed by the Southern Pacific Railroad in the engineering department. MT: When did you start working with them? RW: 1913. I worked there 43 years, and retired in 1959. MT: What was your experience with the people who were employed at the railroad? Did they get along better or not so well as others? RW: Well, I could say they got along a little better. There was a great deal of unemployment. Construction work was cut off completely. Railroad transportation was reduced tremendously because people had no money to buy goods and there was no merchandise being transported. And there weren't very many people traveling either because they didn't have the means. And the railroad, of course, like everyone else, retrenched. I think that some of the other industries, possibly more-so than the railroad. They made some drastic reductions. MT: Did they cut back on the hours that people worked or did they lay off? RW: They laid off mostly. I would estimate that the layoffs were quite close to 50 percent. Some departments possibly not quite that much. Possibly all crafts were not that much, but I think 40 percent would be a fair estimate of all crafts. 4 MT: Was there any reduction in pay at that time that you recall? RW: No, I don't recall a pay reduction. It was a force reduction mostly. MT: What would the average employee of the railroad have been earning at that time? RW: Oh, I would say that an average would be $300 - $350 per month during that period. And it was worth $300 then. MT: Do you remember any other incidents that happened to you as a bishop that indicate the economic conditions of the time? RW: Well, I found that in our own ward there weren't too many people entirely unemployed, yet we were a ward of working people mostly. There were no well-to- do people in our ward. MT: You mentioned that there were some projects with the WPA that you were associated with. Could you elaborate a little on that? RW: One of the projects was a historical record that was made of some of the earlier wards of the church. Inasmuch as I was the bishop of the Ogden First Ward, [we had] many of the records, the early records of the church, even the records of the organization of the Weber Stake were there with the ward records. Of course these WPA people that were doing the researching found them and included them in their historical records and story of the organization of the ward. MT: Are there any other projects that you can recall during that time? RW: I don't recall any other governmental projects, but we did have a project in the ward that was very productive and that was what we called gleaning. You know, the farmers, many of them couldn't sell their produce because people didn't have 5 the money to buy it. So we had people, some of them employed and many of them not employed, and they went out to these farms at the invitation of the farmer and gleaned the fields. That way we obtained produce – onions and potatoes and carrots and other produce that we could distribute to needy families of the ward. We also established at our ward a wood yard and some of our unemployed people rigged up a large saw and went up into the mountains and obtained wood and hauled it down. Some of our unemployed came over and spent the day sawing wood into stove lengths. Many people in our area burned coal and wood, and by reason of having this extra supply of wood, they cut down on the cost of their fuel bill. It proved to be very beneficial to us – the gleaning of the produce and the wood yard was a big help to us. MT: What about clothing at that time? Was there anything in the church program to help with clothing? RW: Yes, they made clothing and they remade clothing. Some of the wards had projects and remade clothing and many items of new clothing – shirts, pajamas, and dresses were made in the sewing rooms of the Relief Society and turned into the church welfare program. MT: Can you think of some ward projects that might show the spirit of that time? RW: Well, one thing that we did, we saw the necessity of providing employment for some of our people. So we undertook to refurbish the interior of our chapel as well as the woodwork on the inside. And we had people in the ward who were unemployed. Some were painters and some were helpers, but we undertook to repaint the interiors of our chapel and all of our classrooms, as well as the 6 woodwork on the exterior. And the church supplied us with paint and the unemployed people, many of them putting in a full day's work for their receiving food, clothing, and fuel for their families, proved to be a big help to the ward and to the people because they were able to work for what they received. Most of them were glad to do it if they were able to work. Of course some of them were widows with little children, and of course we didn't expect them to work. The men, many of them we sent out to the welfare center where they worked. We had a welfare project. We raised, one year, sorghum. And it was made into molasses. We went for several years. One year we raised carrots. We raised sugar beets, potatoes, corn. We had a farm project all the time that I was bishop. We used some acreage in our ward for our sorghum and our carrots. It belonged to one of our members, and he had become quite old. He had about an acre and a half close to our meeting house. Then, later on, we used land that belonged to Bishop John Stimpson out in Riverdale. We farmed that. MT: What do you think you learned during the Depression that's been a guide to you in your life since that time? RW: Well, I always had the habit of saving a little bit of what I earn. I was telling my grandson this morning that my father taught me when I was young and first went to work that regardless of your wages or amount of income, cut it, make it a habit of saving part of it. I've had that habit pretty much all my life. And I think that during the Depression it helped a great deal for us. It helped us to help other people because we were fortunate. I was fortunate enough to stay in work during the Depression. I don't know how that came about, but I did, and there were men 7 younger than me that were laid off, but I stayed to work. I did voluntarily take a day off a week. The group in my department decided when they had instructions to cut the force a certain percent, we all got together and said, "Why don't we work five days a week, and each of us take off a day, and that way we can keep the man on. We won't have to lay the man off." When the men in charge found out what we were doing, they told us to work the full six days, and they didn't make any force reduction either. But I was fortunate enough to work all during the Depression. MT: How many children did you have? RW: We had four, and five part of the Depression. MT: Do you think of anything else that might be interesting to people looking at this 10-year period? RW: Well, I think that it's basic for people to put aside supplies and money, clothing, in a reasonable amount so that if a Depression comes, or unemployment, they'll be able to get along for a time, at least, without any difficulty. Of course that includes some money because people are buying homes, and if they have some money laid away, they can keep up their payments on their homes. And I think that's basic, something that everybody needs to do. That applies to retired people as well because you never know what's going to happen. We've tried to follow that practice. We haven't accumulated a lot, but we've had a lot of experiences, and they're valuable. MT: Who of your associates on the railroad are still around? RW: Well, I have a brother who worked for the same company that I did, and he 8 retired a year before I did. Arthur D. Kingsford, he retired a few years before we did. A good many of the people that worked with me have passed on. MT: Are there other bishops who were serving at that time that are still around? RW: Yes, Roy Simmons. He was the bishop of the Second Ward, and Arthur Bingham, I believe, was a bishop during part of that time. He lives in the Roy area.

The Great Depression in Weber County, Utah, is an Oral History Project by Mack S. Taft for completion of his Master's Thesis at Utah State University during the summer of 1969. The interviews address the Great Depression through the eyes of individuals in several different occupations including: Bankers, Laborers, Railroad Workers, Attorneys, Farmers, Educators, Businessmen, Community and Church Leaders, Housewives, Children and Physicians. All of these individuals lived in Weber County from 1929 to 1941. The interviews were based on what they remembered about the depression, how they felt about those events and how it affected their life then and now. ; This is an oral history interview with Roy C. Phipps. Mr. and Mrs. Phipps discuss employment during the Depression; the scarcity of cash, cost of living, medical expenses, and providing food and clothing for their family. Some discussion of WPA government programs as well. ; 11p.; 29cm.; 2 bound transcripts; 4 file folders. 1 sound disc: digital; 4 3/4 in. ; Oral History Program Roy C. Phipps Interviewed by Mack S. Taft circa 1960s Oral History Program Weber State University Stewart Library Ogden, Utah Roy C. Phipps Interviewed by Mack S. Taft circa 1960s Copyright © 2016 by Weber State University, Stewart Library iii Mission Statement The Oral History Program of the Stewart Library was created to preserve the institutional history of Weber State University and the Davis, Ogden and Weber County communities. By conducting carefully researched, recorded, and transcribed interviews, the Oral History Program creates archival oral histories intended for the widest possible use. Interviews are conducted with the goal of eliciting from each participant a full and accurate account of events. The interviews are transcribed, edited for accuracy and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewees (as available), who are encouraged to augment or correct their spoken words. The reviewed and corrected transcripts are indexed, printed, and bound with photographs and illustrative materials as available. The working files, original recording, and archival copies are housed in the University Archives. Project Description The Great Depression in Weber County, Utah, is an Oral History Project by Mack S. Taft for completion of his Master's Thesis at Utah State University during the summer of 1969. The forty-five interviews address the Great Depression through the eyes of individuals in several different occupations including: Bankers, Laborers, Railroad Workers, Attorneys, Farmers, Educators, Businessmen, Community and Church Leaders, Housewives, Children and Physicians. All of these individuals lived in Weber County from 1929 to 1941. The interviews were based on what they remembered about the depression, how they felt about those events and how it affected their life then and now. ____________________________________ Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account. It reflects personal opinion offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ____________________________________ Rights Management This work is the property of the Weber State University, Stewart Library Oral History Program. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Phipps, Roy C., an oral history by Mack S. Taft, circa 1960s, WSU Stewart Library Oral History Program, University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, UT. 1 Abstract: This is an oral history interview with Roy C. Phipps. Mr. and Mrs. Phipps discuss employment during the Depression; the scarcity of cash, cost of living, medical expenses, and providing food and clothing for their family. Some discussion of WPA government programs as well. The interviewer is Mack Taft. MT: Where were you living during the Depression? RP: Right here in Ogden. MT: What was your occupation during that time? RP: Well, I worked in the baggage department at the railroad. MT: What duties did you perform there? RP: Well, we transferred baggage, and that type of thing, but the biggest part of our work was handling the US mail. MT: If you would, just give me an idea of what you remember about those years. RP: Well, I didn't actually get a steady job until about 1936, and the Depression was more or less over by then. Prior to that, I worked a few months on the Rio Grande - that was out in Roy - for two different parts of two years. And of course there were WPA projects and that sort of thing prior to that. MT: Where did you work on the WPA? RP: Well, there were several places. There was one place out in North Ogden where we dug up an orchard and cut up the wood by hand into fireplace logs. Another project I was on was helping to fill the Pineview Dam when they started that - our present Pineview Dam. And before that, we were building a road up at North Fork. Of course this wasn't all steady. This was just when our turn came during the money. Maybe we'd work two or three days and that would be it, but in a 2 couple of winters, we shoveled the snow in the gutters, and we did just whatever they had for us to do. There wasn't much pay involved. It was all right. That's the way they paid us then - script and foodstuffs. And we had to kind of scratch and one thing and another to pay our rent. It was pretty tough going, especially for a man with a family, and I had a couple of kids. MT: When were you married? RP: I was married in 1929. Of course sometimes we'd have to let the landlord go without his rent, but he was in as bad of shape as we were, and so it didn't matter too much. MT: What did your rent cost you at that time? RP: Well, I don't think any place I ever lived was over $12 a month. The rent was cheap in those days, but it was hard to get a hold of that. MT: In those part-time days at the railroad, approximately how many days a week did you work? RP: Well, after 1931, I got a job where I worked about three hours a day, three or four hours a day. It was a contract job at the baggage room, the same place that I am now. And that paid us $45 a month. But then the railroad, they evidently got into pretty bad straits, so they asked everybody to take a 5 percent cut, so the employees agreed to that. After that, we were only getting $40 a month. After I got on at the railroad, I couldn't work at the WPA anymore. MT: You are still working at the baggage department. Would you mind telling me what you earn there now? 3 RP: Well, I think that we can buy more now for the wages that we earn than we could then. I haven't actually compared it, but I believe that we can. I know we're a lot better off now than I was then. MT: What about food during that time? Did you have some method of getting it from the rural area, or did you buy from the grocery store? RP: Sometimes two or three of us got together and went out to the farms and picked up the potatoes that they had left. That helped us out that way, and different foods that would be given to us. We'd go out and get in a box. Then at that time they had where you'd go down there, and they'd allow each person or family so much food weekly or monthly, and I forget. They had a program that supplied us with the staples, nothing fancy, but we got by. Whatever was in season, they doled out to us. MT: Would you compare for me the availability of food with clothes and shoes and this type of thing? RP: I never had to go after any clothing, as I recall. We seemed to get enough clothing, but I don't know if they had a clothing dole or not. I guess they did. I guess they had clothing donated, and we picked up enough to get by with. I'm not sure, but it seemed that Utah pretty well took care of their own. I never heard of anyone starving to death, but it was pretty tough for a lot of us. Of course in 1932, we got some federal help, but there were two or three years in there when it was pretty tough starting, I know. My brother and I lived at Wall at about 30th Street, and we used to walk to work. We didn't have bus fare or street car fare. In fact, there was no cash anywhere. 4 MT: Looking back now, how do you evaluate the government programs that were available at that time - say the WPA and other programs? RP: Well, from my experience, I think that they were helping the people out more then than they are now. But of course I'm not too familiar with how the other class of people get by. How some of the welfare people get by, I don't know. But I know if it hadn't been for the government then, we might have starved to death. Well, I guess too that there was so much surplus in livestock and things like that, that rangers couldn't afford to feed them. So they fed them to the people that needed it. But anyway, we were provided for pretty well here, pretty well. That is, like I said before, nothing elaborate, nothing more than the staples we needed, but we got by. MT: When were your children born? RP: One about 1930 or 1931, and the other one a couple of years after. MT: What about the doctor charges and this type of thing? RP: Well, they were very cheap. I remember one hospital bill, one of the births, and then they kept them a lot longer. I think one only cost us $10, $25. So they weren't making too much money either. The doctors were very cheap. They used to come for almost nothing. Especially one old doctor we had, a family doctor. He used to take chicken eggs, livestock, or anything for payment. That was Dr. Draper. But I guess the generation that I'm in, they all went through it. Of course if a man had a job, he was well off. If he was making $4 a day, it was good money, if he could make it every day. MT: What about other occupations as compared to the railroad during those years? 5 RP: Well, at that time, there was very little civil service. There was the police force and the firemen and things like that. There were no defense people or anything like that. The store clerks were about the only ones on a salary basis. Construction work was seasonal. Maybe a guy would work three or four months in the summer, if he was lucky, and if he didn't, he had to last. MT: Other than the projects of the WPA, that you were on, were there other projects at that time that we might be aware of now? RP: A little later than that, they came along with this one. That was a little later. And some of the fellows that weren't married - that was preferably single fellows - the married fellows didn't participate in that too much. I know they had a camp of them up in Huntsville, and several of the fellows I knew went down to Southern Utah. They were scattered around. MT: Who are you acquainted with that was in the CCC that is still around? RP: Well, there's Harold Shaw. He lives out in Roy. That's about all I can recall right now. MT: What did you do for entertainment during those years? RP: Well, mostly I ran back and forth from home to the library. I could get free literature there. I did quite a bit of reading then, that is fiction. I didn't do anything worthwhile; I guess I was too young then. And there was a 10 or 15 cent movie, and if you could get a whole of a dime you could go there or to a dance every Wednesday night. The dance was free at the White City up until 9, and then you had to pay. I don't know. People let down a little bit and had a little fun. 6 MT: Did you have some community activities and church activities that you participated in? RP: We probably did, but I wasn't much of a church member at that time. Most of the wards had a dance at that time. And there was the roller skating rink. There were a couple of those around. And there was the Berthana Ball Room and Rainbow Gardens. Mrs. Phipps: You know, my dad, during the Depression days, worked for $2.72 a day in the railroad shops.

Part 1: The Age of Lloyd George 1. Introduction: The Old Liberalism and the New 2. The Liberals in Power, 1905-15 3. The Crisis of War, 1915-18 4. The Lloyd George Coalition, 1918-22 5. The Liberal Decline, 1923-29 Part 2: Selected Documents A: The Old Liberalism and the New (1890-1905) a) The Old Liberalism 1. The Newcastle Programme, October 1891 2. Gladstone on the Newcastle Programme, October 1891 3. W. Jenkyn Thomas on Welsh Nationalism, 1895 4. Beatrice Webb on John Morley's Liberalism, October 1897 5. Campbell-Bannerman on 'methods of barbarism' in South Africa, June 1901 6. Lord Rosebery's Chesterfield speech on the 'clean slate' and Campbell-Bannerman's reactions, December 1901 7. J. A. Hobson on the Liberal Party and Imperialism, 1902 8. Lloyd George on the Education Bill, May 1902 9. Joseph Chamberlain's speech on tariff reform, Birmingham, May 1903 b) The New Liberalism 10. Sidney Webb on 'Lord Rosebery's escape from Houndsditch', September 1901 11. Herbert Samuel on the New Liberalism, 1902 12. Leo Chiozza Money on 'Riches and Poverty', 1905 13. R. J. Campbell on the 'New Technology' 1907 14. The Gladstone-MacDonald 'entente', March 1903 15. F. A. Channing on Relations between Liberals and Labour, September 1905 16. Haldane on the 'Relugas Compact', September 1905 17. Rosebery's speech at Bodmin, November 1905 18. Asquith and the new Liberal government, December 1905 B: The Liberals in Power (1905-15) a) Welfare State and Political Crisis 19. Lloyd George at Caernarvon, January 1906 20. Churchill on the 'untrodden field of politics' March 1908 21. Beatrice Webb and Ramsay MacDonald on the Liberal Government, 1910, and on the National Insurance Bill, 1911 22. Asquith's Albert Hall speech on the House of Lords, December 1909 23. Lloyd George's memorandum on a National Government, August 1910 24. The National Review on national 'anarchy', January 1912 25. The Cabinet and Labour Unrest, 1912 b) The Coming of War 26. J. Allen Baker on the Naval Estimates, 1910 27. Lloyd George's Mansion House Speech 29. Lloyd George on the Government's conduct of foreign policy before 1914 30. Bonar Law and the downfall of the Liberal administration, May 1915 C: The Crisis of War (1915-18) a) The Liberal Party and the War, 1915-16 31. Liberal 'ginger group' and the need for conscription, July 1915 32. Lloyd George and his Liberal colleagues, November 1915 33. Simon and Conscription, January 1916 34. Lloyd George's Dissatisfaction with the Asquith Government, April 1916 35. Lloyd George's backbench Liberal Support, May 1916 36. Spender and the Political Situation, September 1916 37. Sir William Robertson, Bonar Law and the maladministration of the war, November 1916 b) The Downfall of Asquith 38. Memorandum presented to Asquith by Lloyd George, Bonar Law, Carson and Beaverbrook, 1 December 1916 39. Asquith's reply to the memorandum and Lloyd George's response, 1 December 1916 40. Edwin Montagu writes to Asquith, 2 December 1916 41. Bonar Law and the Resolution of the Unionist ministers, 3 December 1916 42. Asquith and Lloyd George Exchange Letters on The Times leading article, 4 December 1916 43. Edwin Montagu and the Liberal Ministers, 5 December 1916 44. Bonar Law and Asquith, 5 December 1916 45. Addison on Lloyd George's Liberal backbench supporters 46. Asquith on his own downfall, 7 December 1916 c) Lloyd George as Prime Minister 47. Lloyd George and his relationship to the Liberal Party, January 1917 48. The Remodelling of Lloyd George's government, July 1917 49. The Soldiers and the politicians, November 1917 50. Lloyd George on the future of the Liberal Party 1918 51. Captain Guest on the government and the press lords, February 1918 52. Arthur Henderson on Lloyd George premiership, April 1918 53. Lloyd George on his political creed, April 1918 54. General Maurice's letter in The Times May 1918 55. The Origin of the 'coupon' July 1918 56. Lloyd George secures Liberal support for a post-war Coalition November 1918 57. The Coalition's election manifesto, November 1918 58. J. M. Keynes's verdict on the 'coupon election' 59. Edwin Montagu's verdict on the 'coupon election' D: The Lloyd George Coalition (1918-22) a) The Coalition and Party Politics 60. Edwin Montagu on the new parliament, 1919 61. H. A. L. Fisher on the moves towards a 'centre party' January -- February 1920 62. Lord Birkenhead on the need for a 'National Party' February 1920 63. Bonar Law on the failure of 'fusion' March 1920 64. Lloyd George's swing to the right, March 1920 65. Walter Long on the Lloyd George government, May 1920 66. Sir William Sutherland on the need for a 'New Liberalism' January 1922 67. Fisher on the need for the Liberal Ministers to Resign, March 1922 68. Hilton Young on the need for Lloyd George to Resign March 1922 b) The Decline and Fall of Lloyd George 69. The Appointment of the Geddes Committee, August 1921 70. The Report of the Geddes Committee, February 1922 71. Lloyd George and the 'honours scandal', 1922 72. Montagu on the political situation, November 1921 73. Austen Chamberlain opposes a dissolution, January 1922 74. Lord Salisbury 'on Lloyd George's unfitness for his task' March 1922 75. Grigg on Lloyd George's political decline, March 1922 76. Bonar Law's letter to The Times on the Chanak crisis, October 1922 77. Baldwin's speech at the Carlton Club, 19 October 1922 78. Masterman on Lloyd George's 'betrayal' of Liberalism 79. Lloyd George's defence of his government's Liberal record, December 1922 E: The Liberal Decline (1923-29) a) Liberal Reunion 80. Baldwin's Plymouth speech advocating protection of the home market, October 1923 81. The reunion of Asquith and Lloyd George, November 1923 82. The Liberal Election Manifesto, November 1923 b) The Failure of the Last Crusade 83. Herbert Gladstone and the Liberal finances, August 1924 84. The Nation on the Liberals' plight, December 1924 85. Lloyd George's 'green book' on agriculture, 1925 86. Keynes on the 'new Liberalism' 1927 87. 'We Can Conquer Unemployment' 1929 88. Donald Maclean on the parliamentary Liberal party, July and December 1929 89. Lloyd George's retrospect on the inter-war years March 1940

Infrastructures and utility services are fundamental to economic and human development. Therefore, investment in these areas is critical to economic growth, quality of life, poverty reduction, access to education and health care and achieving many of the objectives of a robust economy. Yet, whereas the public sector provides the vast majority of financing for infrastructure services, investments have not matched demand, public funds or borrowings are insufficient and governments are seeking methods to improve the efficient procurement of infrastructure services. Private sector participation in public projects is increasingly becoming a reliable source of investment and, as far as public policies are concerned, an unavoidable feature of our contemporary society even in "core public policies" (for example, greater responsibility for financial planning and welfare provision is being increasingly shifted by the states to the private sector and individuals). In the area of infrastructures and utility services, Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), despite some of their challenging features, are one of the tools in a policy maker's arsenal which help to increase investment in infrastructure services and improve its efficiency. One of the main advantages of PPP is that, unlike privatization, the government retains strategic control over the project and the ownership of its assets. PPP offers multiple options or structures. As shown in this study, Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) Projects are one of the numerous options offered by PPP. In a BOT project, a private entity is given the right to design, finance, build and operate for a defined period ("concession period") a facility that would normally be built by the government. The operation of the project generates revenues and the private entity uses these revenues to service debt and provide the investors with a return. At the end of the defined period, the private entity turns over the facility to the government. In practice, a number of parties - each with sometimes different interests, levels of sophistication and available resources - will be involved in a BOT project: the grantor/host government, the sponsors (generally throughout the project company), the lenders and the contractors (construction contractor, operator, offtake purchaser, input supplier) and the BOT approach can be used for different and various projects (power generation, water treatment, airports, roads, tunnels, bridges…) and, hence, has many variants such as BOO (Build, Own and Operate), BOOT (Build, Own, Operate and Transfer), BTO (Build, Transfer and Operate) etc. The BOT approach is not, however, a panacea for the host government and may involve some disadvantages. In effect, BOT projects are highly complex (from both financial and legal points of view), commercially driven projects, requiring extensive documentation and negotiation and a suitable political, legal, regulatory and economic environment. Nevertheless, it has many potential advantages and still is a viable alternative in most countries to the more traditional approach to public projects. For policy makers, practitioners, investors and, above all, the targeted populations to fully benefit from these advantages, the BOT concept must however be clarified and lifted from the fuzziness in which it has been plunged by commentators. There has actually been a dual view of the BOT concept: On one hand, some commentators consider the BOT concept as a simple public procurement modality, comparable to the concession model, and hence to be subjected to classical public law concepts, practices and requirements such as the public services, public ownership and standards and rules of public budget and accountancy. On the other hand, some other commentators view the BOT concept as a modality of project financing which should therefore be subjected to the requirements of profitability and risks sharing. However, if this dual view presents the BOT concept under two specialized lenses and tends to protect certain interests - i.e. public interests and private interests - it is in fact non satisfactory conceptually as well as practically. In fact, this dual view describes a unique reality which an economic cooperation characterized by harmony and conflict, change and equilibrium. The ambition and objective of this study is therefore to give a full understanding of the BOT concept and to shed light on its originality and its unity. The BOT concept is therefore considered as an economic cooperation device, demonstration made in this study principally under the light of law and economics approach. In effect, structuring a BOT project requires the use of (free) market tools (especially economic and financial tools), which render the law and economic approach perfectly suitable to analyze the BOT concept and reveal its rationality and coherence. Hence, the use of the (strategic) game theory to underline the mutual gains resulting from the cooperation between partners involved in a BOT project; the use of the incomplete contract theory to explain the special care needed to design the BOT contract and its possible adjustments; the use of the theory of the firm and financial contracting to explain the functions of coordination and integration of the project company; or also the use of the public choice theory to analyze the notion of general interest which has led to the conclusion that BOT projects are a combination of public and private interests in order to achieve optimality and mutual gains. More generally however, this study has adopted a pragmatic view, using various and different methods, because analyzing the relationships between State and market requires taking into account a great range of fields, considerations and expertise. This pragmatic approach suggested the study be carried out as a genealogic enterprise, such a process allowing a criticizing stance and a formulation of a new and global theoretical frame presenting the relics and the transformations of the current (dual) views of the BOT concept from which its originality and its unity derive. This study has therefore shown that the contractual, structural, economic and financial interdependence of the BOT project makes it an undeniable economic cooperation device. The BOT concept therefore acquires a conceptual unity which reinforces its functional and practical nature and adds a guarantee of legal security to its use. Besides, it has also been demonstrated that BOT is a signaling and an accountability tool for the partners involved in those operations. Ultimately, as regard to public projects, the BOT concept introduces a bit of rationality in equity and humanity to efficiency.

Transformational engagements are a critical pillar of the World Bank Group's strategy for achieving its twin goals of extreme poverty elimination and shared prosperity. This learning product uses evaluative evidence from the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) to understand the mechanisms and conditions for transformational engagements and the implications for the World Bank Group if it seeks to rely on such engagements to more effectively pursue its goals.

This discussion paper is the first output under the umbrella of the programmatic work on social protection in fragile and conflict-affected states. This work aims to develop operational guidance to teams on the likely determinants of effective social protection programming and policy making in fragile and conflict-affected settings. This paper elaborates on the role of social protection programming, and programming design and implementation features, that are prominent in fragile and conflict-affected states. In particular, the paper objectives in these countries, reflects on their revealed objectives, and discusses programming options chosen to achieve those objectives as well as how several countries have overcome particular operational and capacity constraints. This paper presents a methodology that has been devised to group countries based on income, capacity, and extent of enabling environment. Use of this methodology will aid in understanding trends, patterns, and key factors in policy making and programming choices, good and bad.

This report commences the review and documentation of the New Ireland Old Age and Disability Social Pension. The review has focused on the design and operation of the scheme, including the payment modality, and the effectiveness of coverage of both the old age pension and disability components. The economic and social impact of the pension on recipients' wellbeing, the wellbeing of their households and their communities has not been reviewed in detail, although limited qualitative research through focus group discussions has been undertaken as part of the review. The second objective of the report has been to draw key lessons from the New Ireland experience with the implementation of the social pension, which may inform the implementation of the national social pension.

Transcript of an oral history interview with R. William Pemberton, conducted by Sarah Yahm on 24 April 2015, as part of the Norwich Voices oral history project of the Sullivan Museum and History Center. Richard William Pemberton attended Norwich University as a member of the Norwich University Class of 1949, although he did not graduate with his class; much of his interview focuses on Pemberton's childhood and family history as well as his experiences in the Civil Air Patrol during World War II. His later career as a telephone engineer is also discussed. Particular attention is paid to his memories of the Grenadiers student band at a time when its membership consisted mainly of World War II veterans attending Norwich University in the 1940s. ; 1 R. William Pemberton, NU 1949, Oral History Interview April 24, 2015 Interviewed by Sarah Yahm R. WILLIAM PEMBERTON: (inaudible) [00:00:01] SARAH YAHM: I think our levels are perfect, actually. RWP: Did I forget something? Good voice? SY: Good voice. So, could you introduce yourself for the tape? RWP: OK, I am R. William Pemberton, and a, was a student at Norwich in class of 1949. Now I'm being interviewed by a young lady named Sarah, and we're going to talk about my life, I guess, we're going to talk about it. SY: We are, we're going to talk about your life. So, where were you born? RWP: I was born in Greenport, Long Island, New York, 20th day of June, 1926. SY: And what'd your parents do? RWP: Well, my parents? That's a very interesting story. My mother, Gladys Kruger, came to Greenport as a schoolteacher, she was born up in – a pure German parentage -- up near [Lockport?], New York, on Lake Ontario. And she came to Greenport as a schoolteacher, for art, teaching art. And then met my Dad. My Dad was the oldest of 13 children, and he had hardly any education at all because he had to go to work right away to help support the family. So, this was right during the Depression era. And because, back in those days -- when women, teachers weren't married, and they didn't have babies and so on, so -- they both went to work for my uncle, on a truck farm in Orient, Long Island, which was seven miles east of where we lived, and then -- we were there until I was five years old. And -- SY: What's your first memory? The first thing that you remember, what is it? 2 RWP: First thing I remember. I don't remember being any, a child, naturally. In Greenport, I remember being on the farm down there, I can remember that, when they rebuilt the road, and realigned the road and made it concrete to Orient Point, to the Point. And that would have been, probably in 1928, '29. SY: Nineteen twenty-eight. RWP: Nineteen twenty-eight, yes. SY: Twenty-nine, OK. RWP: Yeah, and, like I said, we were there until 1931, when I was old enough to go to Kindergarten, so then we moved back to the village of Greenport. But I have one, one story I'd like to tell, I don't know whether (laughter) -- because that was during Prohibition times. And the farmhouse that we had was right near the Long Island Sound. And, this one night, my dad got my mother and I up, and there was a lot of shooting going on and so on, and had -- rum boat pulling out of the village, and. But they caught this one, the Artemis, right up in back of our farm. They shot the boat up quite a bit, then the, the crews had thrown off part of their load, and couple of men got wounded and so on and so forth. And after it had all quieted down, I -- never heard the conversation, but -- my father said to my mother, "You know," he says, "Glad, I'm going to go up and" -- he was quite a swimmer -- and he says, "I'm going to go up and we're going to find some of that booze." And by God. He went up in that rowboat, and that whole farmhouse attic was full of [Haig & Haig's Pinch?] bottle scotch, and Goiden Wedding whiskey (laughter). I can remember that we had a lot of parties then. And, he carried that into the village, and -- I'll continue with this, OK? -- and of course, back in those days we had no radio, we had no TV and things like that, we didn't even have a vehicle, a car. And lo 3 and behold, I got into music quite a bit, and there was a place in the village that sold records. So this one Christmas, Dad shows up with a Philco, that's a radio that's pull the front open and it had the place for the records and that, he bartered whiskey for that. SY: And what music did he play -- RWP: -- but that, at that -- SY: -- on that record player? RWP: But prior to that, that was another thing, too. Prior to that, we always, we sat and talked a lot after dinner. And that was, that was one of -- as far as parents, I couldn't have asked for better parents in my life. SY: What'd you talk about? RWP: We talked -- everything. I mean, you know, we'd discuss everything, you know what I'm saying. And I can only remember one time that my mother was crying because we didn't have any money. We had a dollar left in the whole house, you've got to know my dad. "Well," he said -- it was a Sunday, and it was a rainy day -- he said, "We've got a dollar," he says. "Why don't we go to the movies this afternoon?" So here we go, we put on our raingear and we head down to the village, we're walking down through. And wouldn't you know, I'm walking ahead of him. And here's a dollar bill, floating down in the gutter. So I picked it up and handed it to my father, and there we had two dollars. So we had a dollar, we to the movies, and we had another dollar left over. But that was the only time that I ever remember that there was ever anything said or done about the fact we had nothing. SY: So you don't remember growing up with anxiety about it, even though your parents must have been frightened? 4 RWP: No. No. Well, they never showed it to me, and they never argued, never. There was never any coarse words ever, and that was the wonderful thing. And I learned an awful lot. And my mother was, like I said, a very learned person. And my dad, of course, had no education. And she taught us to read a lot, and we read an awful lot. And my father, for what education he had, was the most knowledgeable person I've ever talked to. He was, he was really great. And oh, it was, it was a wonderful upbringing, you know. SY: Did you play outside a lot, on this farm? RWP: Oh, yes. I was outside all the time. I was in the water all the time. I swam like, you know, an eel, good lord's sakes. And, and -- from the Depression, I will never eat another rabbit, we ate too many rabbits, you know. And at that time I was allergic to seafood, and I couldn't eat seafood, which was very prevalent at the place there, but I'm out of that now. SY: Did you catch the rabbits? Did your dad catch the rabbits? RWP: Dad shot them. They worked on the farm, we always had fresh vegetables, and so on, from there. SY: So you always had food to eat? RWP: Just regular food. Well, it was regular food, it was, you know, nothing special. Just potatoes, the meat of the rabbit or whatever, chicken. Of course vegetables, they have all kinds of vegetables. You had the cauliflower, you had the onions, you had the beans, you had the cucumbers, and all that sort of stuff. And with the meal, desserts (inaudible) [00:06:43]. The folks smoked an awful lot. Everybody smoked back in those days. I mean, I never did, but whatever. So. But it was good. And of course, I went through the school system there, in the village, and I played a lot of sports. And that gets to the point, 5 working towards how I came to come here. I played a lot of sports then, when I turned 17 in June of 1943, my dad gave me permission to enlist in the Air Force. And so with his permission, I got on the train, rode 100 miles into New York City, enlisted in the Air Corps, Army Air Corps Aviation Cadet Program, and was accepted, physically and mentally, and they recommended that I join the Civil Air Patrol unit, which, when I got back home, I did, it was out of [Patchogue?], Long Island, which is in the middle of the island, we call it McArthur Field, and I flew quite a few missions as an observer, looking for German submarines, from Patchogue, or McArthur Field, up into, up to the Cape, and then back down again, it was about a two-hour flight. SY: Let's back up a second, let's rewind a little bit. So do you remember Pearl Harbor? RWP: Yes, I do, very much so. SY: Where were you, what were you thinking? RWP: I was, -- we had a daybed in the living room of the house that we rented, and I remember, we had the radio on at that time. And that's when I heard about Pearl Harbor. And actually, the very interesting part about the war, too, was the fact that my dad was too old to go, he was, just too young for World War I, just a little bit too old for World War II. But he had six brothers. His youngest brother was a year older than I am. So there were seven of us that were in service, plus three brothers-in-law. So there was a total of ten out of one family, and only one got shot up pretty bad he was in the Marines. And he got shot up pretty bad in [Guadalcanal?], out in the Pacific. But he, he made it. SY: But only one? RWP: Only 1 out of 10. 6 SY: So do you remember, you were a young boy, you might have been a bit of a hothead, were you like eager to get into the fight? Or -- RWP: Yeah, well definitely. I always wanted to fly. You know, I was always, always, you know, I built model airplanes and all that. As a matter of fact, I got a whole bunch of them out here I'm trying to get rid of, -- SY: Had you seen an airplane before, at that point? RWP: Yeah. Well, that's another thing. I don't know where the money came from, I -- when we moved back to the village, I was over five. Probably seven or eight years old. A barnstormer came in, an old biplane, open cockpit, and landed in the field up there, and somehow Dad -- I don't know where Dad got the money, but -- we, he and I, went up in that plane, and I was hooked right from that day on. I mean, you know, . And I flew a few other times, in private aircraft, before I went in the Civil Air Patrol. SY: So you knew, you knew that's what you wanted to do? RWP: Oh yes, definitely. SY: From when you were a little boy? RWP: No. No, I always wanted to fly and I wanted, and all that. I, you know, a lot of guys went with the Naval Air arm, I wanted to go with the Army air, you know -- SY: Why did you want to go with the Army and not the Navy -- RWP: I don't really know, you know? I, I think about it and I laugh because I had to land on a carrier. I thought, you know, I might have trouble land-- but no, I never had trouble with that. There was, you know, short field landings and takeoff, I always was good at that, but. I don't know, most of the guys went in the, in the Army. Matter of fact, whole backfield of me, I've got a football picture, the whole backfield went, the whole team 7 went and was in service. It was great; we only lost one guy out of the team. He was killed in Normandy. SY: So it was expected that you would go in? RWP: Yeah. I mean, it was expected -- SY: And that you would volunteer -- RWP: Yeah. SY: -- not wait to be drafted? RWP: Yeah, oh, I volunteered, no, I wouldn't be drafted. SY: So OK, so tell me about these flights from the island up to the Cape and back, what were you thinking about on those flights, what were they like? RWP: Well, it was -- in a way, it was stupid. We were looking for German submarines. You don't see a German submarine during the day. There were German submarines all over the place up there, at night, and they came up to charge their batteries, they'd come up at night, or they'd come up on a foggy day and you couldn't see them. But we flew and we looked, and I saw a lot of whales and so on and so forth, but never saw any submarines. SY: Was it still cool, though? Did you still enjoy it? RWP: Oh sure, I enjoyed it, it was good, lord. Saying, here I am, about 17 years old, (laughter) it was all -- SY: Seventeen years old? RWP: -- private aircraft. SY: You're in your own plane, you're looking at whales? RWP: Looking for whal-- well, we'd see whales, yeah, you'd see whales and stuff. (laughter) No German submarines. 8 SY: Did you each, at a certain point, were you like, "We're not going to see the submarines," or did you still hope to see one, or think you'd see one? RWP: Always hoped, you always hoped. It was, there was a chance. You know, there was always chance. Of course you had, we had -- in the village, we had shipyards, and they were making wooden minesweepers, and they had another section that they made the metal landing craft that they men, the LSTs. So that was a, a spot that could have gotten shot up a little bit. And then right across the way, in the Sound, we had New London, Connecticut, which -- you had the submarine base over there. So there was, it was very possible that you could have seen. But not during the day, oh yes. SY: Do you remember what it was like? Because you were, because you were still in the US during the war, do you remember -- were you living on base, or were you living -- RWP: No, I commuted. I had, and I had special gas privileges so I could go with the car, Dad's car. We had the car by that time. He went to work in the shipyards. He did the bright work on the, well, the varnish work and stuff, on the wooden boats. And he, we had to get gas rationed, of course. So I would drive the 50 miles to -- no, I wasn't on base, no. SY: You commuted to the war. (laughter) Did your mother go to work in the factories then, was she one of the Rosie the Riveters? RWP: Well -- my mother? No, (inaudible) [00:12:50]. But by that time she had, they, both parents worked all the time anyway. We never had anything. By that time, she had gone into the library. And she was, she was to become the librarian. And she had to go, she went back to Syracuse in the summer, the early summers, before I went in service, to get certification, and I used to go up and stay with my grandmother up in Occott, New York, 9 which is right on Lake Ontario. Oh no, we had, you know, it was the usual thing there, they had the war bond drives, and they had the victory gardens, and so on. SY: Do you remember rationing, did you have a ration card? Rationing? RWP: Oh, rationing. Yes, we were rationed for everything, yeah. Good lord, yes. Even the cigarettes-- of course I used to make the cigarettes for the folks, they had a little machine. You put the stuff in there, and you roll it, and so on and so forth. And you had to correct it, you know, so it wasn't too tight and all that sort of stuff, for them. But they all smoked pretty hard, Dad smoked a pipe a lot. SY: But you never smoked, why not? RWP: Oh no no, I never did while I was in service, and I never did until I got out, and I never started smoking until I went to work for [New York Tel?]. Then I started with cigars, and then I smoked pipe, I quit about 20 years ago. SY: Well, it certainly didn't -- RWP: My wife, and my wife -- SY: -- cut your life short. RWP: -- and I quit about the same time. You know, no problem, we just said, "We're going to stop," so we stopped. (inaudible) [00:14:15] a lot of people have problems and all that, is what I'm saying. SY: Yeah. But you didn't. Any other, do you remember -- I don't know. Blackout curtains, and things like that? RWP: Oh, yeah. We had blackout curtains. And of course we had the, the lights on the cars, to dim the (inaudible) [00:14:31] all that sort of stuff. We had a -- antiaircraft battery, stationed right there in Greenport, they had, up on the Sound, they had guns in 10 placements places, and of course there was [Fort Terry?] off the end of Long Island, which is now, was a hoof-and-mouth-disease lab, but at that time it was a fort and had heavy guns there, and quite a few people, who were in the artillery, that came from Northfield. And there were guys stationed there that I knew. SY: Interesting. RWP: But no, it was, it was an interesting time. I, I don't know what else I can talk about, about it, we've -- SY: What music were you listening to, and what were you doing for fun? RWP: Well, it was big band stuff, mostly. Of course, when I was a kid before the war, at that time, I'd jump on the dawn train and go down to New York City and listen, you know, you could go to a movie down there, and before the movie -- or, after the movie -- they'd have a big band, one of the big bands would come up out there, and they'd play, and then I'd go on the train, got on the train, come on home again at night. SY: When your dad traded whiskey for the record player, what records did you buy? RWP: I, well, the record -- probably got, still, a lot of them -- well, most of it was [Artie Shaw?], Benny Goodman. Tommy Dorsey and Jimmy Dorsey, and on the big, all the big bands and stuff. SY: And is that still your favorite music? RWP: And then it was on the radio, too, they had the -- and Martin Block were on. Make Believe Ballroom. And he played for an hour at night, he played, all the big band stuff. And then they had, at that time, there were two magazines out, the Metronome and the Down Beat, came out every month and told who was in the bands and all that stuff. It was interesting. 11 SY: And did you mention before that you played music? RWP: Yes. SY: What did you play? RWP: Well, I played saxophone. I had a big band in high school. And, and after the war, of course, came back here and, and then from here, when I went down home, one of the guys from town had, was a saxophone player, and he had gotten wounded pretty badly in the Pacific, and so as a rehab situation, we put together a six- or seven-piece band for him, and we played up until '64, I guess, played real steady. SY: Really? What steady gigs? RWP: It was good stuff. SY: All over the island? RWP: Yes, all over the island, all over the end of the island, worked mostly nights. Played country clubs, dinners, and weddings. We played American and Polish, had a lot of Polish people down there. That was another thing about my village, it was very diversified. And I have to laugh to tell you -- to talk about diversification in Burlington and so, it's not diversification. When I grew up down there, we had every nationality in that village you could think of, I was -- SY: So who was there, in the village? RWP: -- I was at their house, they were at my house, you know, we, you know, I ate all the different foods. SY: So your mom was German, there were a lot of Polish folks in the village. Who else was there? What food were you eating when you were at their houses? What do you remember? 12 RWP: Well, that, people we had, we had Swedish, we had a lot of Irish, German. We had every national-- no Chinese, we didn't have any Chinese. They had the two brick yards in the area. SY: Any Jews? RWP: Hmm? SY: Any Jews? RWP: Yes, we had a very good Jewish community. Very good community. And then -- mostly merchants, of course. No, it was, it was a very, a great place to grow up, really. SY: And who had the best food? RWP: It's a good question. There was a restaurant in town called Mitchell's, and we used to end up there quite a bit. And -- always had good hamburgers, and all that, and beer. And during the war, it was great. When I went home a couple of times the (inaudible) [00:18:21] back with people and guys, and, guys and gals, and. A lot, and the summers were very interesting, you had a lot of, you know, city people would come out and so on. The boats and things. SY: What were they like? RWP: Nice. A lot of fun. SY: What were the city people like? And did you guys, was it, did you interact with them? RWP: Yeah, somewhat. I wasn't, I didn't chase women, I could have chased the girls, but there were quite a few girls around there with me. They had a Jersey colony, they were in what they called Sandy Beach, they had all the cottages there. They, they were all nice people, you know, they had nice people. I had the Hamptons of the district, I don't know if you knew the Hamptons and all that, Montauk and so on. 13 SY: Oh boy. RWP: Yeah. And. (laughter) But no, they were nice people. And the whole village were nice people. SY: Do you remember -- RWP: I could tell one story about, about the colored people. I don't know what you're going to do with this, but. SY: Well, we're going to -- RWP: We had a gal named Josephine. She was colored. She was ahead of me in high school, a couple years. She married a fellow named -- we called him Beano. And he ended up, after the war, as our mailman. And Josephine was in the organizations, and everything (inaudible) [00:19:47]. In '66 we moved back here, in that summer, Beano and Josephine show up with their little RV and the kids, they stayed around here, and that following morning, we were sitting here at the kitchen table, having breakfast and everything, I said, "Josephine, how's the village doing these days?" She says, "Bill," she says, "you know, if it wasn't for those damn niggers, it would be fine." And I don't -- SY: But she herself was black -- RWP: -- know what you might call it, black. The reasoning was this. Coloreds that I knew and grew up with were real old colored people, they were very proud. They knew enough. We had an, an area, a time there when they couldn't get people to work on the farms. They'd bring the, the coloreds came up from the South, and they had their colored, you know, they had their camps that they stayed in. And every year, a certain number of them would stay on welfare. And the poor people -- I mean, I saw it when I went into the service -- 14 SY: Do you want to get some water? RWP: No, maybe in a minute. They, they got freedom and they couldn't handle it. And consequently, they, you know, it was, they got to be bad, it's bad right now, they tell me, down there. But that's what she meant. She was one of the proud, you know, the proud type that was there before. SY: Interesting. So let's go back to the end of the war. Do you remember the day the war ended? RWP: Which one? SY: World War II. RWP: Of course I wasn't in service, and I went to Camp Dix first, and. Before I went down to -- Biloxi on the troop train, my work, for a couple of weeks, with a German prisoner. That German prisoner was there -- SY: Wait, wait. So you're, you're flying up and down, that's for the Army -- RWP: That was before, Army, yeah. SY: OK. And then -- RWP: Right, I reported to the Air Force, but I reported to Fort Dix. And then from Fort Dix I went, troop train, to Biloxi, Mississippi, for basic, basic training. Went through basic, did more testing and all that stuff, qualified for fighter pilot, and you asked me about the end of the war. Well, OK. So we went into training, [first line?], so on and so forth, that came to an end and about the time it ended, the war in Germany was over. So that relieved all of these pilots, bombardiers and navigators, to be used wherever they needed. And we never did go to -- we got wings and stuff, but we never went to, through into transition as to what we're going to fly, end up flying. So I never flew a fighter. 15 SY: So did you think, for a while, you were going to go to the Pacific? RWP: No, well. The guys came back from Europe, what they needed they took to the Pacific and so on, they had, you know, they had a lot of guys that had the experience, and they took them. So another guy and I, Teddy Sutherland, ran a, they send us to Scott Field, Illinois, we ran a mess hall there. And then the war in Japan was over. So there wasn't any, you know, they ask if you want to stay in, no. I'd had enough. I didn't, you know, I could see that it wasn't going to be what I really wanted to do -- SY: Why not? RWP: I don't know. Because it's, I really wasn't the (inaudible) [00:23:25], I was a maverick anyway. So. SY: You didn't want to be told what to do? RWP: I went by the rules but I wasn't, I was, you know, anyway. I had a lot of, I was quite a guy. But I liked to fly, loved to fly. Anyway. So I got out, and. SY: What about those, you said there were German prisoners of war? RWP: Yeah. SY: Where, where? RWP: Down -- oh, yeah. Oh, they were all over the place. They had them in Maine, they had them over in New York, they had them down at the camp, Fort Dix, working on the warehouses. SY: Did you have any interactions with them? Did you speak German? Your mother did. RWP: I spoke to them, they couldn't, no. They, very little, you know, English, they couldn't. Very little German I knew. They weren't very friendly, I mean. They were, but that was just for a couple of weeks, and then we, I was gone. So I got out of service, I didn't know 16 what, we are getting to the point now. We've still got to go back to high school, you know. I played quite a bit of sports, OK? So it got down to the last, last baseball game of the season, and I'm going to graduate from high school, and I'm going to go in the Air Force. And at the last baseball game, and I was supposed, I knew I was supposed to be in school, I didn't go to school in the morning. I (inaudible) [00:24:42] at noon, and I went in to get dressed in the afternoon, right before the game, and the coach called me over, he, "Billy," he goes, "you can't dress." I said, "What do you mean, I can't dress." He says, "You didn't go to school this morning." I said, "So? But you need me." He says, "Yeah, we need you, but the rules say you can't play." And this is not me at all. I got mad. I went in, got my uniform, and I threw it on his desk. I says, "I quit." OK, that's Friday. Monday morning came over the -- thing in the room, to the teacher, that Bill Pemberton report to the coach's office. I went down, it was my father, who worked at the school. It was the coach. The coach says, "Bill," he says, "I hate to tell you this, but that little thing you pulled Friday afternoon cost you a full four-year scholarship at Ithaca." SY: No. RWP: Yeah. SY: How did it? Really? RWP: Yeah. SY: You didn't know you had the scholarship? RWP: No, I didn't have any ideas. I mean, I didn't care. I was, I was, wanted to go off, go flying anyway. So anyway, after the war, I came home, I didn't know what I was going to do, Mom wanted me to go to New York City, to school. I didn't want to go to college in the city; I'm not a city guy. And I, one of the instructors I'd had in the Army, he went 17 to North Carolina, work of the Scotland Flying Service, and he wanted me to come down there and go crop-dusting with him, I said, I might go do that. Then I got a letter from Norwich. Would you want to come up there and play football for us? I said to my mother, "Where the hell's Vermont, and what is Norwich?" (laughter) So anyway, I did show, and I did, I said, I saw your flyer, then they. I went back to school down there for a month, and then brushed up on some of my math, which was not that great. And then next I reported up here, and I started school here and -- SY: As a cadet, or as a civilian? RWP: No, no. I was civilian. We, anybody that, we had World War II, had experience. And so that's how I came here, I came here in January of '46. And at that time, the feeling was very negative between the village and Norwich. Very negative. SY: Why? RWP: And I have to think. And I have to say that the group, the people that I came in with -- nobody talked about the war anyway. I mean, they never did. Three guys were in my room, two, three of us, and all three pilots, nobody ever talked about who was where, and wherever. SY: Why were things hostile between the town and the college? RWP: Because -- I hate to say this, but I, I think that, you know, they, they always figured that the people, this was a -- Vermont is Vermont. And back in those days, we were, you know, you were, it was really rugged people that lived there. Not very much education. And the people that came here, and got educated, and went on, they felt, well, they didn't like it because they were, they thought they were better. And I guess they had that 18 attitude, that they were, they felt they were better than them and they really weren't. I mean, I -- SY: It wasn't because the cadets were rabble-rousing? RWP: No no, not that much. No, they weren't downtown that much anyway. So as, like I said, I worked all over the place. There, I was, there used to be a Firestone store down, down across the way, [Nobby Knees?] is down there now, I worked as a lowly saw mill or wherever, Cumberland Farms is out, further outside of town there. I worked up at the airport, worked there. I was a, matter of fact, I've got a picture over there someplace, a lifeguard. The first lifeguard that they had at the pool, in '46. Myself, and another guy named Frank, from Norwich. That's, I've got a picture of that over there somewhere. SY: What were you saying about the guys in your room? You said you didn't talk about the war, and then I think you were about to -- RWP: Didn't talk about the war at all. SY: -- to go somewhere with that. RWP: Matter of fact, one of the guys, the other guy, my bud, Buschor, was in my class. Bud Baschor and Bob Cole. Bob was a Navy pilot, and Bud was Army, big. Four-engine guy. SY: That's the picture of you as a lifeguard? RWP: That was me when I was at Norwich, anyway, that one, there. (inaudible) [00:29:32] SY: Look at you, that dapper young man. RWP: That was. SY: And you're lifeguarding. In those little short-shorts. 19 RWP: Oh, yeah. I still do. (laughter) I still do. I still do, by golly. And of course that was high school there, too, but anyway. This was my uncle. He was in the Marines and got shot up during, in Okinawa, Guadalcanal. SY: Did he survive? RWP: He, he survived, yeah. He just, matter of fact, he just, he just died, just a few months ago. SY: Just a few months ago. RWP: Yeah, he was 92. SY: Wow. There's a lot of longevity in your family. RWP: Yeah, very much so. Not to have made it, of course, I was home on one leave. SY: OK. So you're at Norwich, you're working in town, you're playing football -- RWP: Yeah, I'm going to school. Going to school. SY: -- You're going to school, and what was it like for you? How, did you like it? RWP: Oh, I loved it, I loved it. But it didn't love me. And the fact was that I had trouble with the higher math. And I had, and I did my two years, and by that time I was married and we had a daughter, Jo-Anne, who was born in Montpelier. SY: How did you meet your wife? RWP: I'll tell you a story. (laughter) I was working at the airport up here, Barre/Montpelier Airport. And one of the guys that came in there was a fellow from town, I'm not going to mention names on it, and he was taking flying lessons, and so on. And he says, "Well, what are you doing for excitement?" And I said, "Nothing," I says, "I'm working, and I'm going to college." He says, "Do you, would you like to go out with me sometime on a double date?" I said, "I guess so." So I said, "You set it up," so he did. And we went out on a double date, he set me up with a girl named Doris Gokie, from up on Main Street, I 20 didn't really care for Doris too well. And he, at that time, was going with my wife, Winona. So at night -- of course, at that time, the corner store, down there, was open at night. So I'd walk down, get a cup of coffee, and she'd walk down to get a cup of coffee. And i started walking her home. So it got to be a thing after a while. Roger's a nice guy. Anyway, but. That's another story too. We were both at Scott Field. I didn't -- of course, he says, he said, "Well, I was going to radio school at Scott Field." I said, "Well, I was at Scott Field, anyway." He said, "I was going with this girl in [O'Fallon?], Illinois. I said, oh, is that right? He says, "Yeah, I got her picture." "Oh, I says, yeah, her name was" -- I forget what it was now -- I was going with the same girl. (laughter) Didn't know it. SY: You guys. RWP: She was also high school. It was, it was platonic. It wasn't any big deal, no, no. But I didn't -- that little redhead. Isn't that so. Anyways, so. So it came to pass that Winona and I did get married. I was still working at the airport. And at that time, what I would do, I, they'd drop me off down at the, in Montpelier, and I'd hitchhike home from there. It's, you know, hitchhike. So this older couple picked me up one night, and we're driving through, I'm in the backseat of the car. The guy says, "You know Roger Sears?" And I, I'd mentioned that name, OK. I says, "Yeah, I know him well." "God," he says, "terrible what happened to him." I says, "Well, what happened to him?" He says, "some guy stole his girlfriend." I said, "Oh, is that right." (laughter) I wasn't about to say, "Me." SY: Yeah. They'd throw you out of that car. RWP: Dump me right on the road somewhere. SY: Exactly. That's hilarious. 21 RWP: But no, it was -- I loved Northfield, I loved the people; it just did remind me so much of home. But the, the main thing is, I think, and I had two brother-in-laws that never, never went to school. And they -- I wonder what word to use, but I can't think of it now -- they always felt that they were inferior, but they were not, you know. My dad's the same way. He never felt that way, though, because he, like I said, you could talk to him about anything in Eden, and these guys were the same way. They were really workers. They just, an inferiority complex, is what they had. SY: OK. So you were, were you an engineering major? RWP: I was mechanical, supposedly. SY: So though the math was hard. RWP: Yeah. And of course, like I said, I (inaudible) [00:33:58] not going home, then when I went home, and I worked, you know, I started work or what. SY: So how did you end up leaving Norwich? RWP: I didn't, I couldn't pass. I -- calculus and stuff, I could not see. And then -- SY: You didn't want to switch majors? RWP: No, I couldn't, back in those days, if I remember, I'm trying to remember. There wasn't items to switch to. That's when I went back down there, and I -- because I figured it'd be more employment down there -- and a friend of my father's worked for New York Tel, and he said that they were hiring. So I went into New York City, and I interviewed, the man says very quietly, he says, "You know, Mr. Pemberton, I can't hire you." I says, "What do you mean, you can't hire me." He says, "You're overqualified." I says, "Oh, my." He says, "You had two years of college," I says, "Look. I just got out of the service, I'm married, I got a daughter. All I know about the telephone company is, they 22 drive green trucks." I says, "I want a job." He says, "All right, if you're so smart, I'll start you out at a dollar an hour." I said, "Fine." And I went seven years, I learned the business, and then I was, of course I was in management. I didn't know it, but I was in the management pool. And one in engineering. And I, they, and -- this is what I like about this compared to Norwich -- Norwich is a hell of a good school, don't get me wrong, but what I had to do, I worked at what I did and earned my education as an engineer. And I did what I did, you know. And I did, and I proved it. And I never, I always loved every bit of it. It was, and it was recognized by the honor society, you know, the National Honor Society, because of being an engineer. But I did better by going there, and doing that, than I had if I'd finished here. SY: You learned, you're a person -- RWP: You see what I'm saying? I worked right at it, I learned, you know, I learned the whole job. I worked the seven years, knew the business, then I, and applied myself to it. SY: So did you ever end up getting a degree? Getting the college degree? RWP: No, no. SY: No? But you didn't need it because you knew how to do it? RWP: Didn't need it. I know, I did, I did it, and I had my titles and everything else. And then in '66, the, I did, I mean, it's surprising, what I did. I even surprised myself. I never brought it home, that was one of those things, I never discussed it with my wife, with the family, or anyone else. Pressure never bothered me, I just went at it, but I always took care of it. In '66, I was very disenchanted, became disenchanted with Bell. SY: Why? 23 RWP: Because the fact was, number one. Our growth, on the island, was dropping down. They had, what they had done, had centralized the engineering, put us in Patchogue, which is the middle of the island -- in my district, I had the Hamptons, and so on, which we will, we can discuss if you want to discuss -- and it meant, and I had to commute 100 miles a day, 50 miles to work. Then to get a company car and go all the way to Montauk Point, or Southampton, or something like that. And then they started to, they started with their college hiring program. Where they hired these new guys right out of college, put them in second- or third-line jobs, and. They didn't know the business, and all they worried about was the bottom line, which is fine, but you're there to provide service. You're there, and that's what I did for 50 years, provide service. And -- intimidation came in, and stuff like that, which we'd never had before, Bell was a, a fun place to work. SY: Intimidation? Who was intimidating who? RWP: The, the management people, you know, were intimidating the working people. You know, you make my name bad if you don't do a good job, and I get a bad name out of it, you're not going to get your raise, you're not going to get anything. What the heck is this, I've never heard of this before. So anyway. So that's what happened. So in '66, I contacted -- one of the guys in the band was, [Walt Henry?], he played guitar. And he, he lived up the street here, I of course, I had an apartment over in my, you know, up there. We went to school together. He became [Dufresne and Henry Engineering?], out of Springfield, Vermont, hell of a nice guy. Very good friends with General Todd, I know General Todd real well, too. And he, I told him, I was looking for work up here. And of course, he said, "I don't have any use for telephone engineer on my -- but," he says, "Gardener Hopwood does, do you remember him?" I says, "Yes." Gardener started here. 24 I knew him, and I knew his wife, and then quit here and went, and he finished at UVM. He and his dad bought up a lot of small telephone companies. They put them all together, and they sold it all to Continental Telephone. And that's when I happened to call Gardener. He had just made the sale, and he was looking for a plant engineer. He says, "Can you come up," I says, "Yes, I can." So I came up, and we rode all over, all the properties and everything else, and he hired me. I was the first management person to ever quit the Bell System. SY: Really? RWP: Yes. SY: And was your wife, your wife wanted to come back home? RWP: Not really. SY: Really, she didn't want to? RWP: No. She didn't -- well, she didn't care. I mean, you know? But it was the best thing that ever happened, to have take her down there. I mean, she met a lot of really nice people and stuff like that, she's -- not that, you know, she was a country girl, but she still -- and we were country people, even down there, but it was, it was a different life. 18 years' difference, you know, and she did well here. Did well. SY: And were your parents still alive? RWP: They were still alive, yes. That was the sad part of it, was I had to leave the folks down there, and we had adjacent properties. And, but, you know, and stuff like that. But they saw the kids and all the grandkids. So I came up with Continental Telephone, and I built an empire. And it got to the point where I still worked right out of the house here, and this, I still had to thank Norwich for all of this, you know? But you know, you've seen 25 how I happened to get here. I mean, if I'd gone to Ithaca, who knows what would have happened, I have no idea. No idea. Because Rick, he -- my son, Rick, was in Vietnam, and he said, "Dad, why didn't you stay in the Air Force?" I says, "Yeah, if I'd stayed in the Air Force maybe I didn't make it, and you wouldn't be here either. So it came to pass that we had quite an operation, I had three engineering groups reporting to me, blah blah blah, and so on, big time. And they bought a bunch of properties on the West Coast. And they called me out to Liverpool, which is our headquarters, and the boss sat me down, he says, "Bill," he says, "I want you to move down to Dulles Air Force, air base, down in Washington. Take over all the engineering for the country." I said, "No." He says, "What do you mean, are you afraid?" I said, "No." I said, "I can do it, I know I can, but," I said, "I'm not going to move into a city. I'm not going to move my kids and my wife again." So of course they made it, you know how it happened. They made it bad enough for me so that -- not, they didn't, you know, give me a hard time or anything, but -- so I left them and went to work for here. Telephone, you know, telephone, [TDS?], down here. And I, and I worked their stuff for quite a while. And then they got to be kind of weird, too, so I didn't like what they were doing. SY: What were they doing? RWP: The fact was, I was with TES, not TDS. And I was billed out very heavily to all these telephone compan-- which I did not like. I thought, you know, the cost for engineering was too much. You know, I'm here to provide a service, yes, but it was, the cost of the other companies was too much. And I got a lot of pressure from, from Wisconsin, to try and get extra work on the outside, and I had more work than I could take care of, it would, I only had two men. And they were trainees, at that time, so. Consequently, I 26 never said I'd never go back to Bell, but I went back with Bell. I went back with Bell up here. And my son-in-law, at that time, was alive, he was working for Bell. I went and interviewed, and they said, "We didn't realize there were people like you with that much experience." I said, "Well, it just so happens that I am." So I went back with them, and had a good time. And then, in '94, I retired, spent five years bridged the Long Island time, 18 years. In '94, I retired, and I went, and I knew [Bob Hayden?] from -- he headed up the building and grounds at Norwich. And at that time, Norwich was affiliated with Vermont College. And they were looking for a plant superintendent, over there. So they hired me to go over there, and I signed a contract for a year, as superintendent for the grounds over there. That's what I enjoyed; I did the time, got along good with the teachers and everything else. And then Bell went back and started hiring contract engineers, so I decided, I went back, I worked for an outfit called, [Mountain Ltd?], out of Maine -- Sacco, Maine -- as a contract engineer. And I went on for a few years, got my office, had an office right out here. And that's the story of my life, then I finally retired, and. And here I am. SY: And what do you do with yourself, now that you're retired? RWP: You won't believe this, but I have a camp. In Roxbury, which is only five miles from here, and I love that. And I'm there. Not only that, I do my plants here in the summertime, I have a big garden with plants, a flower garden, out back. I don't do carpenter work like I used to, I built the porch out here and so on and so forth, but. I've stayed busy. And I'm not lonely, I have a lot of good memories, a lot of good pictures. Oh, then the Grenadiers, too, that was another thing we were going to discuss, weren't we? 27 SY: Yes. I think so. What -- the Grenadiers? What's that? RWP: Oh, that was another, another thing, too, yeah. This, I got other Grenadier pictures. It's a Grenadier dance that we had, after the war. They had had -- they had the Grenadiers here before the war. But it was affiliated with Norwich. Some of the guys came back -- Tommy Boggs, Joe Bergen, Al Bucci, Brad Cook, Donald R. Martin, they were all -- and that's 99% veterans there -- and we just, they just started talking about starting to have another dance band. So we did, and we rehearsed where the clinic is now. SY: And were you good? RWP: Of course I've got other pictures that show that, but. What they did, they said, you can have, and we won't use the Grenadiers. We weren't affiliated with the college at all, we were separate. Warren Mell came back as the manager. SY: And where'd you play? RWP: We played here, we played in the armory downtown, we played a dance in the -- we substituted for -- oh, what's it, what was his name. One of the dance bands, couldn't make it from snow, we played that, we played Middlebury, we played UVM. SY: Did you ever want to be a musician? Did you ever think that -- RWP: Oh I was, I was a musician though. SY: I know you're a musician, but did you ever decide that you wanted to, to do that to make a living? RWP: Only, no. SY: Why not? RWP: No. Because I mean, I wanted, I loved that, I mean, I liked, I wanted to fly, I flew. I wanted to play the horn, which I did, and I played dances and everything else, which I did 28 enjoy that, I enjoyed that. But I was, I love, the telephone business was fabulous. I was, you know, providing -- SY: What did you love about the telephone business? RWP: What I loved about it was the fact that I could -- the, the, being in the rural areas, you know, I had the northern part of the state of Vermont for a long time. And the country, the people, and, like my mother had always said to me, she said, "You know, Bill, the best education you're going to have, is with people." And it's true. And I just enjoyed, you know, giving, providing service for people, it was in order, they're paying the bill, you provide service for them. SY: So you met a lot of people. RWP: Yes. And I just love people. SY: That makes sense to me. RWP: I just love people. SY: So when did you stop playing the saxophone? RWP: A couple of years ago. It's out there on the rack, it's out. I have, I have CDs that I can play right along, like I'm in a band. SY: Do you miss it? RWP: Yeah, it's, it's one of those things. I just, it's just I dropped it, I don't do it any more. SY: Is it harder to do because, as you age? RWP: You have to blow, yeah. SY: It's harder to get the breath? RWP: Yeah, yeah. But when we started out -- I don't know what I've got here to show you but -- what have I got here. Oh, that's the plant, the band we had down on Long Island. But. 29 What, we had to, in the beginning, we had to wear un-- they said, the only thing. "You can use the engineers, use the, the what-you-call-it name, the Grenadiers, but you've got to wear the old uniform, so." And we did. And that's, there, see the old uniforms? And they were hot. They were really too hot to play in. SY: Yeah, you guys all look kind of red-faced, even though it's black and white, I can tell that you're a little bit red-faced. RWP: And the guy next to me's Hazen Maxwell; he was a fighter pilot. This is down in the -- where did we play. We played a dance, and my wife's in one of these things, I don't know which one it is. And I think, I'm not sure, but I think some of these pictures are in, are in the history up on -- SY: In the museum? RWP: [Jim Bennett?] was the music teacher here for years, and he and I got on real well. And he knew about, he found out about this, and I took some stuff up there. SY: Let me go check. I might, I don't remember them being there, but I -- there are parts of the museum that I've, that I've missed. RWP: (overlapping dialogue; inaudible) [00:48:37] stuff. SY: So wait, I had a question. RWP: There's me playing a solo, believe it or not. SY: Ah, what were you playing? RWP: Probably "Eager Beaver," it's a jump tone. SY: Look at that. RWP: Yeah, that's a good one right there. That's down in the Armory, down below here. 30 SY: Yeah. This is, these are great pictures. So do you remember? Somebody was telling me that, after the war, there were a lot of vets who were living off-campus -- RWP: Yup, oh yeah. SY: -- in this, like -- RWP: Oh, yeah. There was a, a lot of us. Well, I had an apartment, a two-room in an apartment with other folks. They were all over the place. A lot of my class married girls from town, here. And a lot of them, and they had, oh, let's see. Where was that. You know where the Norwich Apartments are now, on 12, they're just used for storage there? That area in there, all, that was all, like, what do they call them. Pre-fabs, little pre-fabs. SY: And they, and it was like a little -- RWP: I had pictures over here at one time, I don't know where they are now, it is now. SY: And people were scrambling to make a little money, too, right? There were like sandwich operations, and do you remember that? RWP: What's that? SY: I remember, other people have told me that a lot of those vets, they had families, and they were in school, and they were really scrambling to make money -- RWP: Oh, yeah. Well, we all worked, we all worked on the side, had to. I mean, I forget what we, have a GI bill, but it wasn't a heck of a lot, even if they got married, it wasn't a whole heck of a lot. I mean, you know, a lot of them went to school, not, not like today's world, but. But it was, it was a good experience. Hell, I was only, what. 21, 20. About that old. SY: You were a kid. You were a kid. So when you look back on your life, what have been the parts that have given you the greatest joys and sense of accomplishment? 31 RWP: The whole life. SY: The whole thing? RWP: I mean, my beginning, my parents, the way I was treated, my schooling. I could have been, I should have done better academically, no doubt about that. The sports that I played, the music that I played, learning to fly, being married, having a family. And now it's, and I saw this happen with the folks, too. My whole life, I feel, is great. A tremendous life, and you know, there must be other people like me, too, but, you know, I'm not different that way, but. I don't see my grandchildren as much as I'd like to right now. I don't travel any more, I won't be traveling. I don't like to travel, let's put it that way. And they're all over the country. So. But that's, that's, right now, it's a little slow. But I'm not lonely, I'm happy. I'm still affiliated with Norwich, I know Tony Mariano, I know Gail real well, I know Richard and Jamie Schneider, they're good friends of mine, General Todd. The whole bunch, so. SY: How was North-- you've lived in Northfield a long time. How has Northfield changed since you first showed up here? RWP: A lot. It's changed a lot. It is, it really has. And it's, it's not -- SY: Are there parts for the better, and parts for the worse? RWP: I'd say it's all, it's all for the better. It's, it's the way that life is, today's world. There's not much you can, I can say about it, I think -- you know, you've got this, you've got that, you know, you've got. Like my mother, in the beginning, she says, "Oh, my goodness," she says, when we said we're going to move to Vermont, "Good Lord," she said, "what do you have up there?" And I said, "Mother, all you have to do is, it's got everything." I mean, if you want anything. Drama, you got -- Burlington's only 50 miles away. You've 32 got everything there, you've got everything in Montpelier, you know, it's available to you. As far as, you know, oh, whatever. But I, I -- Vermont has changed, no doubt about it. Like, the way my camp is, I have a camp that I love, and I've had it for 50 years, and houses being built around it, you know, it's, it's one of those things. I can't see them, they can't see me, but still, in all, they're there. SY: Yeah, and you know they're there. RWP: Know they're there. And I, I don't go to Norwich as much as I used to, I just, you know, I don't. When I was with the Bell System and everything, I used to make, you know, decent donations, and because Bell would make their matching funds, too. But I had a good life, I've had a wonderful life. SY: Any regrets? RWP: No. No, I don't, I have none whatsoever. I think I would have regretted -- I don't know. You know, you did, that, you often wondered, what would have happened if I had gone to Ithaca instead of coming here, you know? Would have, would I have met a woman as nice as I met here? See, that's the main thing. I met a good lady, nice lady. And we had some good kids, we got some good kids, very nice kids. None of them are graduating college, but the grandchildren are. So. SY: That's interesting, I wonder why not. RWP: Well, Rick started. He tried, what's the, what's the small college up in Burlington. Ah. SY: Burlington College? RWP: No, not Burlington College. It's just -- SY: Champlain. 33 RWP: Champlain College. He went, he quit that, then he went through with one in Vietnam. Mike never cared for it, and Pat? My son, Pat, went to Vermont College for one year. Jo-Anne went to a teacher's school over in New York State for one, one semester. But they never, they didn't. I thought that, seeing my mother, my mother went through high school in three years and went through Syracuse University in three years. But she was, she was a very nice person. Nothing, you'd never know it, that she was that educated, and everything else. But she was, she was rightly down-to-earth, with it. SY: Sounds like you all, your whole family, all more practically-oriented. You're -- RWP: I think so. SY: -- do-ers. RWP: It was a practical, you know. SY: You're do-ers. RWP: Yeah, but -- no. I, I, thank God I came here. And the way I got my education, the way I got my engineering title, I still think I did it better than if I'd gone through here. SY: Yes, that makes sense. I feel like I'm running out of questions, here. I'm wondering if you have any last things you want to, you want to add. RWP: No, I don't, I can't think of anything, questions I want to ask. I wonder how you're going to use this. SY: Well, the way it works is that, I have an assistant who transcribes this, so types it out, and then I'm going to send you a CD, and a written version of this transcript, and then you're going to look at it, and if there's something that you want to take out of the record, we'll take it out of the record, and then we're going to make it public, so that if somebody's 34 researching World War II, they might read the story of you flying up and down the coast, looking for submarines, and that they weren't there. RWP: Yeah, submarines, there weren't any submarines out there. SY: So the idea is for students to search through these oral histories, right? Maybe to use them in the museum for some reason. I have a feeling that we might be really interested in some of these music stories. It might be great to have some of those photos and have some audio of the music itself. RWP: Yeah. There were, there were two records. I think one of them, Jim might have had up there, "Eager Beaver," and "Stardust," I, that we made. That was, we made that in the old armory. SY: Really, you made two records. RWP: Yes, there were two records we made, then of course, as you, the Grenadiers, after that, they really got back into school again, and I think I've got the records. Yeah, I never played them, I don't have my regular. But we had the, a fellow named [Ralph Armor?], who would, was a vet, and he had been with special services during the war. He set us up in the, in the armory, we had the saxes, and stuff, right around the, the one, I had one mike. And trumpet and trombones off over here, and had the rhythm over here, what, you know. And we played, it sounded just like we were miked together, you know? SY: How does "Eager Beaver" go? RWP: Oh, it's a Stan Kenton tune. And - (laughter) SY: You want to sing it for me? RWP: I can't, I can't really. It was a jump tune. It was really, it was really fast. I can't sing it, I can't sing it. 35 SY: You can't sing, yeah. Do you still listen to those old records? RWP: I don't, what I do is that, D-E-V. On D-E-V, the radio station, they have dinner jazz on, from 6:30 until 9:00. And, when they don't have baseball, and so on and so forth, basketball. And I listen to that. SY: When you listen to it, what do you think about? RWP: Well, I think about the old days. When I used to, you know, play and everything. SY: What did it feel like, to be in a band? RWP: It was great. It was great, and, and you take a good outfit, like this, this -- that's another thing, I forgot to tell you. I never thought that I would get back to do something at Norwich. And the Norwich Project. I, in '70, '74, is it? I engineered, and we put in, student (inaudible) [00:58:22] up there, all over the (inaudible) [00:58:25]. And then all the buildings had a, connection point, run in back of the chime tower. SY: Yeah. Do any of your kids ever want to go to Norwich? RWP: No. SY: They weren't interested? RWP: No. SY: Why not? RWP: I don't know. I don't know, I have no idea. SY: Your son went into the service? RWP: Yeah. SY: He was in Vietnam? RWP: He was, well, he was in Thailand. He was in the B-52s over in the Air Force. SY: Do you remember what that period was like, were you frightened for him? 36 RWP: No, I wasn't frightened for him. He said that they got attacked a few times, you know, and stuff, but. He, yeah, he sees some of his buddies every once in a while, when he comes up (inaudible) [00:59:13]. He's got one guy in Connecticut, Tom, he stops and sees him. Dom, down in Connecticut. But, no. No, I wasn't too worried about him, he was, you know, a little harassment that they had at the air bases, wasn't, you know, nothing that really serious. But, no. I can't think of anything. I, like I said, maybe it's -- I just enjoyed life, I just enjoyed people. I like to talk to people, you know? SY: You lived in these small towns where you knew everybody. RWP: Yeah. That's, that's the whole thing of it. SY: That sounds like it gave you a lot of pleasure. RWP: Oh, yeah. SY: You were like, I'm not going into a city, you liked the intimacy of a small town. RWP: Yeah. SY: I don't have any more questions. This was great. I feel like I should have some more, but I think you talked about everything so efficiently, that I don't have any more questions. Now, what are these. RWP: What is, what does it say. SY: It says, "TD's Pictures, '50s and '70s." RWP: Oh, now that's me, I -- SY: Oh, tell me about Montauk. RWP: Of course, that was another thing, that, to get the engineering title. Back in those days, we had a bunch of small New York Tel officers down there, with operators, you know? And they were concentrating them, and moving, making one office out of -- I did that, I 37 worked for the off-- i worked for, oh, I bought the properties, and, that they were going to put the land on, and that was a real quiet thing, and so on and so forth, and. And in Montauk, and they drove me all the way out from Patchogue, to take that stupid picture. SY: And what were the people like in Montauk? That's fancy -- RWP: Nothing, there was nothing in Montauk -- SY: -- fancy territory. RWP: Montauk was a nothing place. It was a, fishing there, little fishing shacks up on the north, on the bay. SY: Have you been down there and seen how it's changed? RWP: No, no, I don't want to go out there. SY: You don't want, it would be too painful? RWP: No, not really. I just don't care for all the people, it's just, you know, it's just packed. SY: Yeah, it is packed. RWP: I don't know, some of that stuff is redundant, whatever, some of these same pictures. SY: So I didn't realize that Bell had their own engineering certifica-- school, and that was how you got the, your engineering certification, was through Bell. RWP: That's right. Well, though some of those pictures that you saw, there, too, I went to school, and we had a management school, up above where you're from. Not in Rockland, but. That's right, I had to try this track there, at the school. SY: Like, Bear Mountain or something? RWP: No, no, no -- SY: Monroe? RWP: No. Oh, God. Why can't I think of that name? 38 SY: West Point? RWP: No, it was further inland. It was inland, in the southern tier. SY: Like, Poughkeepsie? RWP: It was above Poughkeepsie. It was Goshen, New York. Oh, it didn't make a difference. We went to school up there. And I can remember, my boss at that time was Lloyd Crisfield, I had my title, at the time. And he says, "Rip," they called me Rip. We call, well, my father's name was Rip, Richard I. Pemberton, Richard Isaiah, Rip, they called him, Rip, oh, always, it. But my boss, Crisfield, said, "Well, you, you're going to go to two weeks up there," he says, "[Frank Maloney?]'s going to be there from New York City, a little short guy with glasses, he's an older man." He says, "He'll have two suitcases, one will be full of clothes, the other will be full of booze. But," he says, "all I'm going to tell you is this," he says. "You listen to what they have to say, but you're going to find out more, in the bar and the evenings afterwards, by talking to the guys, which we did. We had engineers from all over the state of New York. And I never realized the amount of independent telephone companies that there were, or are. And that a lot of New York was, I had independent companies over in northern New York that I had, I took care of, over there. And that was interesting, too. I didn't, I didn't mention that before. But when we would buy property, I would go in ahead of time, and meet the people, critique what they had for equipment -- people, buildings, outside plant -- and report back as to what, you know, what it was worth, and so on and so forth, which was very interesting. I never, I didn't believe in firing anybody. I knew that could be a very bad situation, you know, when you walk into a place, and you're an unknown person, and start firing people, you know you've got problems. But that did get worked out anyway. 39 But it was a lot, it was very interesting. I still think that the, there's a lot of times, well. And then, of course, I could not go back today. I mean, I still could do structure. But everything is computer. And they'd even do the jobs on the computer, they don't even look at them in the field any more, they just punch them in and do them, you know? And it's just done. I couldn't, you know, I wasn't going to fit in today, but. SY: Yeah, it's a whole different world. RWP: Different world. It's too bad that, like I, like I had, that they don't have something like that at Norwich, where you're hands-on. Germany does it, I think, with a lot of their students, over there. You work as a person, and then you get you, whatever you're going to get out of it. But. But then, I agree with that. I, I really do. Because, like I said, you learn. Boy. And I, I learned a lot. the first job I ever did, when I went into management. They had a, a whole stack of pole records. And then engineer I worked for was one heck of a man, and I can never say enough of this guy, Floyd Bolles, and he taught me, and he was great. But he told me, the first, he says, "First job for me," he says, "you take all of these records, these are done by people in the field, pole inspectors, you put out jobs for what they say. You know, replace the poles, do this, do that, and then another, my first to start. I threw out all these jobs. About half of them came back. And I learned a lesson. I will not put a job out unless I see it. My name's going on it; I'm going to see it. And that's the way it was. SY: Yes, you were very hands-on. RWP: Yeah, hands-on. I get calls every once in a while, and go back to work. SY: Really? 40 RWP: I help them go in the road. Good lord. They know, I know structure. Buried cable. I, you know, I did, I buried cable over the United States, I mean, all over New England. It was a lot of fun. SY: Have you ever gone back to the house you grew up in, in Long Island? RWP: I haven't, but my daughter has been down for class reunions, my class is pretty well-decimated, my high school class. And she said, she told me, you know, the last time she was down there, she says, you don't really want to see the house that the folks lived in, because it's been bought by people from New York City, and it's, they don't live in it, it's, it's going to wreck and ruin. Now, they were on one corner, over here. The properties both joined, we were over on this street, over here, we had a story and three-quarters, we bought it over here. When we sold, bought that house, we paid 6,500 bucks for it. SY: Wow. RWP: Wow. When I moved in, moved up here in '66, we received $12,500 for it. SY: What do you think it's now, what do you think it costs now? RWP: The last time it was sold, this is well over a hundred years old, it's, so that, in the village, it's not near the water, $765,000. That's what my village is going to. SY: Do you miss the ocean? RWP: I never missed the ocean, I never liked the ocean. SY: You didn't like the ocean? RWP: No, I liked the bays and -- SY: You said you swam all the time. RWP: -- the bay and the sound. SY: Ah. Well, do you miss the bay and the sound? 41 RWP: The bay and the sound, oh yeah. SY: Do you miss the bay? RWP: I miss the bay more than I miss the sound. Matter of fact, just before you came, I was watching the, that reality show on, about buying houses, and they were in [Southold?], Long Island. Are you, are you familiar with Southold at all? SY: A little bit. RWP: I mean, you've heard of it. SY: Yeah. RWP: Yeah, they were buying houses there for $500, $600,000. (laughter) SY: It's a different world. RWP: A different world. No, I, I miss the trip down, I don't. But right now I have no relatives there, no place to stay. It would cost me, just a weekend, or three or four days, just to go down, take the ferry, and stay, and then, about $1,000. You know? I mean, it's -- and there's no, about to, I mean, I, we have too many good memories of the place down there. SY: Yeah. All right. RWP: Anything else? SY: No, I think this is good. But luckily you're right in town, so if it occur -- (whispering) hold on, reloading. So, what were you saying. RWP: No, I was saying, I had no war experience, you might say. But, coming up here, and I've found that, over the years, the people who have seen and done the most don't talk about it. I don't know what you're going to get, I mean, there's, there are some people that will carry on at great length. SY: Your generation, people don't talk about it. Later generations, people do. 42 RWP: Yeah. SY: It's, that stoic -- RWP: Because we, even when we came back here. Even though, would, we used to go to Montpelier to drink, you know, Northfield was dry. Used to ride the, go over, get on, and ride the train back, and they'd drop us off down here. But I can remember the first couple times. Oh, we did, we just had a lot of laughs, had a good time. Nobody talked about the war. Like I said, there was three of us in that room, and alumni. Nobody ever talked about the war. Even though we saw -- the only time you saw, it was when we, we had to take group showers, of course, and you could see the guys were wounded and stuff. And there were a lot of guys that were wounded, that came in here. SY: And nobody mentioned it? RWP: Nobody ever said. Nobody, never talked about it. You knew they were all in service, that was, we all (laughter) wore the old uniforms. I mean, what was left of them. We had no, had no clothes, we had no money. SY: Do you think that, did you ever see signs of, you know, we talk about PTSD a lot now; did you see signs -- RWP: No, I never did. I never did, and it was never talked about. And it was never, I never saw it. This uncle that was shot up pretty bad in the Marines, he had an attitude, a little bit, a problem. I figured it was due to something, he got shot up, but. But no, it's, it's, I never saw that, what they call it now. SY: Were you relieved that you didn't have to go into combat, or did you feel guilty about it -- RWP: No. No, I would have gone, I would have gone. No, hell, no, I, that's what I wanted to do. 43 SY: Were you upset that you didn't get to go into combat? RWP: Yes. Yes. Definitely so -- SY: Why? RWP: -- but I was glad the war was over, because, you know, a lot of my friends had gotten hurt, and some killed, and so on and so forth. And then we'd had enough. I would have, you know, I missed it by a year. If I'd been born a year earlier, I would have, you know, I would have, I would have gone overseas, probably. No doubt about it. SY: I'm still confused about this, though. Because your first assignment was, was flying up and down the coast. RWP: That was just with the Civil Air Patrol. SY: That was the Civil Air Patrol. RWP: Civil Air Patrol. Oh, yeah. SY: And then, later, you went to basic. So how old were you when you were doing that, was that after high school? RWP: 17, I was 17. SY: OK, so you could join the Civil Air Patrol at 17 -- RWP: Yeah, that's right. SY: -- but you didn't actually join the service until you were 18. RWP: Right. No, no, they let me finish my senior year in high school. SY: I see. And so you were flying while you were in your senior year in high school. So it's just, like, on weekends, kind of. RWP: Yeah, yeah. SY: Got it. And then you went to basic -- 44 RWP: Right. SY: -- and so you missed it, you missed it by a year. Yeah. That makes sense, that makes sense. Do you remember hearing about the Holocaust? RWP: Oh, yeah. Everybody heard about the Holocaust. SY: But you didn't know -- during the war, you didn't know anything like that was happening, right? It was only after? RWP: Oh, no, not until the war was over. We had people hearing from (inaudible) [01:12:06], then other places that were, that freed these people. And yeah, it was in the, I guess, you know, it wasn't, it wasn't fun, I mean, it was something else. SY: Did anybody ever mention that to you? Did anybody ever talk about that? RWP: No. Never, not that much, we never talked about it. It, it, oh, you have to, I have to feel bad for, about the people that say it never happened, because it did happen. SY: I interviewed a guy named [Jack Pimm?], who was at Norwich when you were. John Pimm, Jack Pimm. And he was in the first group to go into Buchenwald. RWP: There was a guy here in, oh, God, I forget where he was from, too, up your way, he's Montpelier or over. And he was, and he was one of the first, they had big write-ups on that, too. When he went in. He was -- Pimm? SY: Pimm. RWP: P-I-M-M? SY: M-M. P-I-M-M. RWP: P-I-M-M. Oh, I'm trying to remember names. SY: He started out, before the war, at Norwich, and then they all mustered out, and then he came back -- 45 RWP: Oh, no, I didn't -- SY: -- and finished, just two years, two years afterwards, though. So it might have been the same time that you were here. Yeah. RWP: I left in '48. SY: Now, what about your son, does he ever talk about the war? So, he was in Vietnam, or no? RWP: He was in Thailand. And then the B-52, they flew, they dropped the bomb (inaudible, talking on top) [01:13:25] SY: But during the Vietnam War. RWP: Yeah. SY: Yeah. Now, does he ever talk about it. RWP: No. SY: No. RWP: He talks about it more now, well. Not -- getting together with his buddies, that's all, he doesn't talk about what happened over there. No. He's, what. Sixty-five, something like that. SY: Hm. That's interesting, though, what you're saying, about the people who saw the most not talking it, and being in the showers, and seeing it. Yeah. And what, I mean, you would just look away? RWP: No, I mean, what the hell. SY: Yeah, it was what it was. RWP: That's what it was. Norwich was, as far as I'm concerned, I think Norwich has done real well, I know that, during the Vietnam era, it was, hard time keeping it going. I, I firmly 46 agree with bringing the girls in there. I think that's a great thing. I agree with what they're doing about off-campus, on-campus, and so on and so forth. I think that they're, I like it, it's a good school. It's really a good school. SY: And you think it's going in the right direction? RWP: Oh, yes. Definitely. And I've told Schneider that a few times myself. I think that, that new clinic is going to be a big plus for everybody. SY: I think so, too. RWP: Yeah, because I was just up to the old place the other day. But no, I just, I like the small town, I like it here. I can't see myself going into senior housing down there. SY: To Mayo? RWP: Yeah. No, not Mayo. I mean the, the senior housing, I mean there's nothing involved with the (inaudible) [01:15:00]. SY: You're doing OK here, by yourself. RWP: Oh, yeah. I, I get some meal, I'm very selective on meals, and I don't eat as much as I used to. And I'll do my own, I have my own breakfasts and I have, if I have lunch down there, like tonight, I'll have yogurt and crackers and cheese, or something like that. SY: And you can still drive. RWP: Yeah, I'm fine. SY: Yeah, you're fine. RWP: I, I had a, I've got a pacemaker, put in here in 19, 2013. But other than that, it's good. SY: Other than that you're doing OK. Knock wood. RWP: Yeah. SY: All right. You know -- 47 END OF AUDIO FILE

The virulent strain of nativist, anti-establishment, anti-corporatist and anti-immigrant sentiment is rocking the foundations of traditional party systems in all industrialized democracies. Its causes are many, but in broad terms it is safe to say they surfaced right after the 2008-09 economic collapse, an era that was characterized by intense polarization and confrontational approaches against governments, corporations and financial institutions which crossed party lines and traditional political cleavages. The sweeping changes brought about by globalized capital and corporate interests, and the blurring of national borders that accompanied them, have alienated big swathes of the population and given rise to new forms of strident populism everywhere.In the United States the main manifestation of this phenomenon is taking the form of a populist revolt, a singular form of class warfare inside the Republican Party, between the established party hierarchy and the Tea Party movement.As the next legislative election approaches, the internecine feud within the Republican Party continues to create challenges for its top candidates who must veer more right-wing to secure the nomination and then turn back to the center of American politics to win the general election. Before 2012, the GOP tried to co-opt the extreme right and used their rhetoric, but after the 2012 election losses, the party took uncertain steps to distance itself from the movement. Today, the movement rather than the establishment seems to be dictating the party line, so there is paralysis in Washington once again. The leadership will still have to govern and legislate on some central issues-increase the debt limit, fund the government, and renew the authorization charter of the Export-Import Bank, among other things, and in so doing, further alienate Tea Party voters. The Republican-dominated House will no doubt stay away from the avoidable taboos, such as considering immigration reform (for which the Senate already passed its own bill one year ago!) and in consequence, one more time unintentionally secure the Latino vote for the Democratic Party. They will continue blocking the minimum wage raise and the Fair Paycheck Act, thereby losing the minorities and women's vote. In this context, the 2016 presidential horizon looks brilliantly promising for Democrats and their two presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren.The defeat of Virginia Representative and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the June 10th Republican primary for the seventh Congressional district is symptomatic of deep divisions not only within the Republican Partybut in the electorate at large. Eric Cantor, a Republican with impeccable conservative credentials who had been re-elected seven times and who was first in line for House Speaker,lost by ten solid points to a little known college professor who ran against him by portraying him as the pro-Wall Street, pro-K Street typical Washington insider, indifferent from Main Street needs and demands. This race is very significant for several reasons. For starters, the anti-Washington, anti "corporate welfare" and anti-Wall Street sentiment is widespread among independent voters and those GOP legislators that have been "pro-bailout, pro-Obama stimulus spending and pro-immigration," as articulated by Tea Party leaders, live in fear of being chastened by voters.That is why this week Republicans in Congress who were holding their breath, are exhaling with a sense of relief as Senator Thad Cochran wins the primary runoff against Tea Party challenger ChrisMcDaniels who ran on a promise to voters that he would add his voice to the fight against Obamacare and big government spending. It appears then that the anti-incumbent sentiment has not been strong enoughto become a sustained trend: so far, only two sitting representatives have not won re-nomination in the House and all 18 Senate races have been won by those holding the seats, including Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, who was a leader in favor of Immigration Reform in the Senate, but has been vocal in confronting Obama with his dismal record in foreign policy, from Benghazi to Syria to Ukraine, and now all the way back to Iraq. But even pollsters have been taken by surprise in most cases, whether as to the narrowness of results (such as the one is Mississippi, which required a runoff election) or to the unfathomable upsets (Cantor's represents a historical defeat: no Majority leader had been voted out in a primary election since the nineteenth century). There are many reasons why nobody saw this coming, first among them the constant problem of voter turnout, especially in primaries, followed by new strategies by candidates (David Bratt, the college professor that beat Cantor, did door -to -door canvassing, taking time to speak to prospective voters, and he beat a competitor who had outspent him 40 to 1) and by the strong commitment of a small group of activists that mobilized the grassroots against Cantor's pro-business stance. The outcome of these races is further complicated by the fact that many Democrats are taking part in open primaries, which makes them even more unpredictable. Democrats participated in both races, voting against the incumbent, Cantor, in Virginia (he was perceived as the main obstacle for bringing to the floor a vote on immigration bills that apparently would have had the votes to pass) and in favor of incumbent, veteranSenator Thad Cochran in Mississippi (he courted the African American vote, pointing out the amount of federal funds he had brought to the state in his 36 years as Senator, and they acquiesced, fearing Mc Daniels would be a worse choice for their interests in such a red state as Mississippi).These idiosyncratic variations and distortions should not distract us from the fact that the defeat of ultra-conservative House Majority leader from a white, affluent Richmond suburb is extremely significant and will have many ramifications in the near future. First and foremost, it has led to an immediate reshuffle of the party internal House leadership, as Cantorresigned his post as Majority leader. The first in line to fill his post, House whip Kevin McCarthy from California, used his insider skills to mobilize his contacts and call in his favors fast enough to pre-empt a challenge by a Tea Party congressman from Idaho, Raul Labrador, in a secret, internal party ballot. He has thus become Majority leader only eight years after he was first elected to Congress for California 23rd district. If re-elected in November, he will be first in line for House Speaker when Rep. Boehner gives up his post. This coveted position would have been Cantor's crowning achievement after a solid career of 14 years in Congress: he had hoped to become the first Jewish Speaker of the House.In spite of McCarthy's success in pre-empting challenges from outside the party leadership, the next one in line to move into McCarthy's whip position, deputy whip Peter Roskam from Illinois, lost the ballot to Tea Party challenger Steve Scalise from Louisiana, who mobilized the vote of Southern legislators and won, thereby establishing a presence for the movement inside the GOP hierarchy. Scalise, who was elected to Congress in 2008, has also risen rapidly through the ranks, as chairman of the ultra-conservative Republican Study Group and as a vocal advocate against big government.Party Whips in Congress are in charge of counting votes for and against legislation. They are enforcers, offering incentives and doling out punishments for votes among their caucus members. Their role becomes particularly important in close votes. The whip is also the main liaison between the party leadership and the rank and file.Primaries are proving to be much more dangerous for establishment Republicans than a prospective national election at the end of this year, in which they are poised to win both some Senate and House seats, mainly due to slow economic growth and low support for Obama, but more pointedly due to the opportunity created by the retirement of a significant number of long-serving senior legislators. Rather than the November election challenge against Democrats, primaries have become the main obstacle to surmount and the main focus of funding for incumbents and party establishment candidates. Memories of seats lost due to Tea party primary winners in the national 2010 and 2012 election still loom heavily in GOP minds. Karl Rove's words of advice to both the Tea Party activists and the GOP leadershipin February of 2010 still resonate in the halls of Congress:"If Tea party groups are to maximize their influence on policy, they must now begin the difficult task of disassociating themselves from cranks and conspiracy nuts. This includes 9/11 deniers, "birthers" who insist Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., and militia supporters espousing something vaguely close to armed rebellion.""The GOP is also better off if it foregoes any attempt to merge with the tea party movement. The GOP cannot possibly hope to control the dynamics of the highly decentralized galaxy of groups that make up the tea party movement. There will be troubling excesses and these will hurt Republicans if the party is formally associated with tea party groups" (Wall Street Journal, Feb. 18 2010).Because they are extremely vocal as well as media favorites (whether to disparage or to endorse them) and have made some undeniable inroads into the halls of power, the Tea Partiers have indeed made a splash in US politics, and they have re-shaped the agenda on issues of taxes and spending (with mixed success). But so far this term, 273 of 275 House incumbents and 18 out of 18 Senators have won re-nomination, even if in most House cases these contests were won by small margins. This is evidence that there is still somediscipline in party ranks, and newcomers are forced to follow the party leadership. For example in Kentucky, Sen. Rand Paul, largely recognized as the presidential candidate for Tea-Partiers and libertarians alike, did not campaign in favor of the Tea Party candidate who was running against Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, and gave the former only lukewarm support. Senator McConnell, a tough, seasoned veteran, was reported to have had a private, one-on-one, closed-doors conversation with Rand Paul before the primary campaign started…It then becomes clear that membership still has its privileges, and the Tea Partiers' disdain for insider politicking and the compromises required by politics in general won't take them very far. That is the stuff of politics, so now these political neophytes are getting into the fray, they will have to learn a few organizational lessons from the savvy insiders they are trying to replace. Nonetheless, one of the first comments made by Kevin McCarthy Fox News as he moved into Cantor's position was that "Yes, he would let the Export-Import Bank (reauthorization) to expire because it is something the private sector can do better". This represents a reversal from his 2012 position, and one that distances him from the business community and the party establishment, who want the Bank to remain. (Tea Partiers want to do away with the Ex-Im, the IRS and the Department of Education, among other institutions they find superfluous). In another interview, McCarthy asserted that the GOP had more to gain (politically) if it moved closer to libertarian ideas. So it has become apparent then, that the Tea Party as a movement and as a faction of the Republican Party is here to stay, at least for the near future. Its strength will depend on how they can accommodate their desires to the realities of governing the United States of America in the XXI century.María Fornella-Oehninger - Comparative Politics Professor, Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia.

Ympäristökysymys ja aseveliakseli on tutkimus suomalaisen kaupunkiympäristön politisoitumisesta. Väitöskirja vastaa kysymykseen miten ympäristöstä tuli politiikkaa? piirtämällä tarkan kuvan neljästä ympäristön politisoitumisen vuosikymmenestä 1960-luvulta lähtien, kasvukonsensuksesta ympäristökiistoihin. Tamperelaisia ympäristökiistoja ja paikallista politiikkaa käytetään teoksessa laboratoriona, jossa tiivistyy laajempia suomalaisen lähihistorian muutostrendejä. Paikallisten ympäristöongelmien synty kietoutuu muuttuvan yhteiskunnan arvostuksiin ja puhetapoihin sekä sukupolvien välisiin jännitteisiin. Erityisesti teos analysoi jännitteitä, joita voimistuva ympäristöliikehdintä synnytti haastaessaan Tampereella pitkään vaikuttaneen valtakoalition, ns. aseveliakselin, paikallisen hallintatavan. Ympäristökysymys ja aseveliakseli sukeltaa ympäristön politisoitumiseen viiden tamperelaisen tapauksen kautta: 1. Pyynikin moottoritiehanke (1959 - 1974) 2. Näsijärven saastuminen ja vedenoton siirtäminen Roineeseen (1960 - 1972) 3. Kauppahallin virastotalon purkamiseen liittynyt kiista (1972 - 1983) 4. Epilän kivihiilivoimalahankkeeseen liittynyt kiista (1981 - 1984) 5. Tampellan alueen kaavoituskiista (1989 - 1995) Tapaukset kertovat ympäristöongelmien yhteiskunnallisesta muotoutumisesta ja oman aikansa toiveista, tavoitteista ja ristiriidoista. Ympäristön pilaantumisen ja -suojelun nousu yhteiskunnalliseksi kysymykseksi liittyy kiinteästi Suomen ja Tampereen sodanjälkeiseen kehitykseen ja vaurastumiseen, jonka kääntöpuolena ympäristöhaittoja voidaan pitää. Useamman paikallisen tapaustutkimuksen yhdistäminen paikallisen hallintatavan analyysiin tuo uuden näkökulman ympäristöongelmien ja paikallisen poliittisen kulttuurin historiallisen rakentumiseen. Ympäristöongelmia käsitellään yhteiskunnallisina ongelmina, joille toimijoiden väliset jännitteet ja määrittelykamppailut sekä erilaisten vaatimusten esittäminen ovat ominaisia. Politisoitumisen analyysissä tukeudutaan sosiologi Pierre Bourdieun ja politiikantutkija Kari Palosen käsitteisiin. Politisoitumisen käsitteellä ei viitata puoluepolitiikkaan, vaan pikemminkin vakiintuneiden ajatus- ja toimintamallien kyseenalaistumiseen. Tutkimus etenee teoreettisten ja metodologisten lähtökohtien kautta tapaustutkimuksiin, joiden lomassa taustoitetaan ympäristöliikehdinnän historiaa paikallisella tasolla. Tapausten jälkeen käsitellään paikallisen hallintatavan teoreettista näkökulmaa ja paikallisen hallinnan historiallisia muotoja Tampereella. Ympäristön politisoituminen tapahtui Tampereella vaiheittain. Ensimmäiset ympäristöliikehdinnän merkit näkyivät Tampereella ns. ympäristöherätyksen myötä 1960- ja 70-luvun taitteessa. Ympäristöliikkeen jakautuminen oikeisto-vasemmisto -ulottuvuudella kuitenkin jarrutti ympäristöjärjestöjen kasvua 1970-luvun puolivälissä. Vuosikymmenen lopulta lähtien alkoi uusi ympäristöprotestien vaihe. Jännite suoraviivaisen johtajakeskeisen hallintavan ja uusien, rauhan aikana kasvaneiden sukupolvien edustajien ­ kuten vihreän liikkeen ­ välillä kävi ilmeiseksi paikallisissa ympäristökiistoissa 1980-luvun alusta alkaen. Tämä jännite huipentui tutkimuksen viimeisessä tapauksessa, Tampellan kiistassa 1980- ja 90-lukujen taitteessa. Sosiaalidemokraattien ja Kokoomuksen muodostaman kunnallispolitiikan valtakoalition, aseveliakselin, näkökulmasta ympäristöprotestit näyttäytyivät vastustuksena, ei uutena yhteiskunnallisena kysymyksenä. Väitämme, että tämä johtui sekä aseveliakselin historiallisesti muodostuneista arvostuksista ja suhtautumistavoista että tamperelaisen politiikan kentän jakautumisesta aseveliakselikoalition ja sen vastustajien välillä. Nämä tekijät vaikeuttivat ympäristökysymysten nostamista paikallisen päätöksenteon piiriin ja supistivat ympäristöliikehdinnän toimintatilaa. Ympäristön politisoituminen ilmeni Tampereella useammalla ulottuvuudella, joista ensimmäisenä voi pitää ympäristöherätyksen synnyttämää uutta tulkintakehystä. Se antoi kaikupohjaa paikallisille ympäristön muuttamista politisoiville vaatimuksille. Luonto politisoitui ympäristöksi ja ympäristö politisoitui yhteiskunnalliseksi protestiksi ja kritiikiksi, joka ilmeni vaatimuksina paikallisissa ympäristökiistoissa. Toiseksi politisoiminen liittyi yksittäisten ympäristön muutoksia koskevien suunnitelmien kyseenalaistamiseen. Tätä tapahtui Tampereella 1970-luvulta alkaen ja selvemmin 1980-luvun ympäristökiistoissa. Määrittelykamppailut koskivat esim. Kauppahallin virastotalon tapauksessa paitsi talon purkusuunnitelmia, myös talon esteettistä arvoa kaupunkimaisemassa. Tampereen kasvoja voimakkaasti muuttanut modernisaatiokehitys ei enää näyttänytkään väistämättömältä. Samalla voidaan puhua myös laajemmasta kaupunkimaiseman muutosten kyseenalaistumisesta. Ympäristöherätys ja yksittäiset tapahtumat kuten Verkatehtaan purkaminen 1970-luvun lopulla muuttivat tamperelaisten tapaa katsoa kaupunkiaan. Kolmanneksi kiistoissa nousi esiin tiedon ja asiantuntemuksen politiikka. Tiedon politiikka ilmeni selvästi 1980-luvun kiistoissa, joissa (tieteellisen) tiedon ja asiantuntijuuden rooli kyseenalaistui. Kauppahallin virastotalon kiistassa kyseenalaistettiin rakennusten huonokuntoisuuden kriteerit. Epilän voimalakiistassa politisoitui asiantuntijoiden tuottama tieto voimalavaihtoehtojen edullisuudesta. Tampellan kiistassa kriisiytyi kaupunkisuunnittelijoiden asiantuntemus ja rooli yleisen edun vaalijoina. Neljäs politisoitumisen ulottuvuus koskee yksittäisten kysymysten toimintavaihtoehtojen kyseenalaistamisen laajenemista koskemaan koko paikallista hallintatapaa ja paikallista poliittista kulttuuria. Selvimmin yksittäiseksi hallintatavan kyseenalaistumisen tapaukseksi muodostui tutkimuksessamme Tampellan tapaus, jossa suuret rakentamissuunnitelmat ja paikallisten poliittisten eliittien toimintamallit joutuivat ennen näkemättömän kritiikin kohteeksi. Paikallinen hallintatapa ei kyseenalaistunut vain ympäristökysymysten vaikutuksesta, mutta ympäristökonfliktit näyttäytyvät kiinnostavina teollisuuskaupungin perinteiden rapautumista ilmentävinä tapahtumina. Viidenneksi ympäristön politisoituminen kosketti laajemmin kaupungin habitusta ­ kaupunkimaiseman, paikallisen perinteen ja itseymmärryksen tasoilla. Kyse ei ole vain ympäristökohteista vaan laajemmin paikallisesta kulttuurista ja identiteetistä. Paikalliset ympäristöliikkeet toimivat kuten yhteiskunnallisilta kaupunkiliikkeiltä voidaan odottaa: ne synnyttivät konflikteja ja muuttivat osaltaan kaupungin merkityksiä. Kaupungin habituksen muutokseen liittyy selvästi perinteisen tamperelaisen ns. savupiipputeollisuuden hiipuminen. Jälkiteollistuvan kaupungin ympäristökonfliktit olivat sekä tämän yhteiskunnallisen murroksen indikaattoreita että sen katalysaattoreita. Teollisuuskaupungin traditioiden kyseenalaistuminen voidaan nähdä osana laajempaa yksinkertaisen modernin projektin kritiikkiä. Tutkimus perustuu laajaan asiakirja- ja lehtiaineistoon sekä ympäristökiistojen ytimessä vaikuttaneiden kansalaisaktivistien ja paikallisten päättäjien haastatteluihin. Paikallisen historian kuvauksessa on käytetty sekundaarilähteitä ja haastatteluja, tapaustutkimukset perustuvat pääasiassa lehti -ja asiakirja-aineistoihin ja haastatteluihin. Tapausten käännekohtia on lisäksi analysoitu määrällisellä sisällönerittelyllä sekä diskurssi -ja argumentaatioanalyysin keinoin. ; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND THE "BROTHERS IN ARMS AXIS" POLITICISATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN TAMPERE FROM 1959 TO 1995 This study examines the politicisation of the environment in the context of one Finnish locality, Tampere. It is a study on the politics of the environment, i.e. the historical developments and contestations that preceded the institutionalisation of environmental policy. The politics of the environment is examined at the local level in the context of the tension between the rise of environmentalism and the traditions of local politics and governance. The locality of Tampere, thus provides a laboratory for understanding how environmentalism took place and what kind of tensions it caused. Theoretically the study draws on both sociology and political science. The theoretical frame is set by combining Kari Palonen s terminology of politics and Pierre Bourdieu s theory of action. Politicisation is a central notion in the study. It is understood as a process of questioning the rules of the game, i.e. claiming something to be playable and contingent. In Bourdieu s terms this implies a process of questioning the givenness of the doxa and provoking orthodox arguments from the political elite. Politicisation may take place at different scales, from the local disputes to broader patterns of governance and political culture. The central research question was the following: ·How has the environment become politicised at the local level? This question was divided into the following questions: ·What events have contributed to the politicisation of the environment? ·What kinds of disputes and actor coalitions emerged in these events? ·How did the patterns of local governance influence the definition of environmental problems? And, vice versa, how did the environmental problems effect local governance? ·What was the role of environmental movements in the politicisation of the environment? The research was carried out in the form of five case studies, all in the same locality, touching on different aspects of environmental issues, and covering the temporal scope of the study, from the 1960s to the 1990s. The cases studied were the following: 1. The Pyynikki highway construction plan (1959-1974) 2. The pollution of lake Näsijärvi by a local pulp plant and the moving the municipal water intake to lake Roine (1960-1972) 3. The dispute over the planned demolition of the old Jugendstil Office block in the city center (1972-1983) 4. The dispute over the plan to build a coal power plant in Epilä (1981-1984) 5. The conflict over the planning of the Tampella industrial area in the city center (1989-1995) The cases cover the time from the pre-history of environmentalism, i.e. when the environment was still a non-issue, through the rise of environmentalism (the so called environmental awakening ) to the institutionalisation of environmental issues in the 1990s. The research data comprised sources on local history including archives and official documents, newspaper materials and 35 interviews of local actors. Methodologically, the study was structured in relation to different levels: 1) in the context of local history (secondary sources on local history and interviews), 2) the case studies ­ using thick description ­ out of which, 3) detailed instances of discourse analysis, especially argumentation (or claims-making ) were extracted. Environmental problems were studied in a contextual constructivist frame as social problems constructed in processes of claims-making, involving argumentation and discursive struggle. Local environmental movements were studied as urban social movements whose activities affect the collective production of the city while being aimed at contesting and challenging the prevailing social order. The local movements in Tampere were key actors in politicising the environment, contributing to a change whereby previously undisputed environmental change and related social practices were no longer seen as inevitable or normal. Movements created new meanings not only for their participants, but for the larger community, also extending beyond the time frame of their most active presence. Since the late 1960s, the rise of environmentalism became manifest through locally based movements and organizations. The purely scientific orientations of local conservationist associations were challenged by more socially and politically oriented civic activities and associations. An important milestone was the founding of Pirkanmaa nature conservation association in 1969. Since 1970, environmentalism gathered momentum with rapidly growing membership figures and local initiatives. It soon suffered, however, from ideological divisions in the mid-1970s, as the radical left-wing students took over the nature conservation association. The divisions started to recede when the Koijärvi bird lake conflict (in Forssa) marked the rise of the Finnish green movement. This had its effect in Tampere as well: the ideological divisions between right- and leftwing environmentalists were reconciled in the early 1980s, which marked the beginning of an active period of environmental contestation. The emergence of the Finnish Green movement in the 1980s made such contestation increasingly visible at the local level. In Tampere, the first greens were elected in the local council in 1984. During the different disputes beginning from the 1970s, but especially in the 1980s, environmental protest challenged local political traditions and political culture, especially the traditions of the local governance. In Tampere, the scene of local politics in Tampere had virtually ever since the Second World War been dominated by a particular, unofficial institutional arrangement, which was commonly known as the brothers-in-arms axis. Adopted in the mid-1950s, the notion referred to the co-operation between the conservative National Coalition party and the Social Democrats in local politics and municipal government. This coalition was held together through a shared habitus based on wartime experiences and held a promise of welfare. The brothers-in-arms axis became an important player in local politics in the 1960s when the central figures of the coalition gained important position in city government. The study examines both the processes that enabled the stabilization of this co-operation into a local growth regime and those that have, especially since the 1980s, contributed to its weakening. The politicisation of the environment was a novelty in the modernist political landscape of Tampere. In the eyes of the governing coalition, however, environmental protest was perceived as mere opposition, not as a new issue on the agenda. We argue that this was due to the local traditions of an industrial city, divided between left and right ­ and a political sphere divided between the brothers-in-arms coalition and the communists, which allowed little space for new social movements. Environmental protest, however, was not the only factor to challenge the regime. The regime was also weakened through the loosening of ideological division s between the left and the right, as the communists had gradually lost political ground. The politicisation of the environment gathered momentum in the late 1970s when the growth of Tampere had slowed down and when there was a growing discrepancy between the mode of governance and its increasingly postindustrial social environment. This tension, and the inertia of the closed style of governance, became visible in the Tampella dispute in 1989, the biggest local environmental conflict to date. The politicization of the environment took place at different levels. It happened both at the level of individual disputes as alternatives were demanded to the straightforward mode of local planning, but it also expanded into a broader critique of local governance. Furthermore, we argue that the politicisation of the environment was not only an agent-driven phenomenon, since it depended on the cultural resonance of claims presented in local disputes. The study allows us to indicate critical events in the politicization of the environment. These were events sine qua non, i.e. events that set the stage and sensitized local actors for future contestations. The demolition of the old broadcloth factory (Verkatehdas) in 1976 and the dispute over Tampella were critical events in this sense. The former was retained in the memory of then activists-to-be and the latter both signaled the crisis of the closed-style decision-making and served to stabilize the local greens as a credible political alternative. Finally, the contestations, together with the restructuration of the locality, resulted in altering the modern industrial habitus of the city.

This report presents to the Government of Georgia (GoG) an analysis of the implications of potential policy changes to internally displaced person (IDP) assistance. A pressing question for policy makers in Georgia is the sustainability of status-based IDP assistance and what efforts can be made to tailor this assistance to favor the poor and vulnerable. Elimination of the IDP benefit has been subject to debate among policymakers. The World Bank has worked with the government to support improvements to the socioeconomic situation of IDPs in Georgia since 2008. The IDP Community Development Project, implemented between 2009-2012 improved service delivery, infrastructure, and livelihoods in over 40 IDP communities. Evidence on the socio-economic needs of IDPs has been collected by both government and donors; yet no comprehensive research has been conducted to critically compare their situation to that of the overall population. The objective of this research is to generate more evidence on the significance of the IDP benefit, and consequences that may be expected if this benefit is removed, in order to inform future policy decisions of the GoG in this regard. The report examines: (i) the policy and institutional framework and considerations that may support or obstruct a shift in IDP assistance; (ii) quantitative evidence on the socio-economic situation of IDPs as compared to non-IDPs in Georgia; and (iii) qualitative evidence on the significance of the IDP benefit, attitudes towards the benefit program, and vulnerabilities that may arise from its potential elimination. The paper concludes with policy recommendations for mitigating negative poverty and social impacts, should the government pursue a decision to remove the IDP benefit program.