POLAROlD WQRKERS REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT

November 2 , 1970

Brothers and Sisters:

The Polaroid Revolutionary Workers Movement is a group of black workersin Cambridge, Massachusetts, who have come together to act and protestagainst the sale of Polaroid products in South Africa.

We see the South African apartheid system as the symbol of the many'inhumanities' in the United States. We cannot begin to deal with racismin Polaroid or in the U.S. until Polaroid and the U.S. cease to upholdand support apartheid. Black people in South Africa are enslaved anddehumanized in order to insure the security of apartheid and the capitalists'margin of profit. The United States and its corporate society have madeexplicit its intentions of profits at any human expense.

We demand that we no longer be used as tools to enslave our brothersand to insure corporate profits.

On October 8, the Movement presented Polaroid Corp. with the followingdemands:

1. that Polaroid announce a policy of completedisengagement from South Africa. We believethat all American companies doing businessthere reinforce that racist system.

2. that Polaroid announce its position an apartheidpublically, in the US and South Africa.

3. that Polaroid contribute profits earned in SouthAfrica to the recognized African liberationmovements.

Polaroid has refused to meet with the PRWM or recognize the demands.

On October 27th, the PRWM called for a world-wide boycott of Polaroidproducts by all right-on thinking people until Polaroid discontinuesall sales in South Africa. We are building a coalition of right-onthinking people t~ press the demands that Polaroid and all Americanbusiness discontinue support of the South African racist government.

IMMEDIATE ACTION AND YOUR SUPPORT IS NECESSARY. POWER TO THE PEOPLE.

Please send a copy of any correspondence or action you take to:Polaroid Revolutionary Workers Movementc/o Caroline Hunter46 Longwood Ave.Brookline, Mass. 02146telephone: 232-4611 area code 617

-SOOTH

Anyone disobeyingthese laws will beimprisoned, fined,and/or whipped:

No white per50n may have ~::xual

rc)anon5 With an AfrIcan, CO)Jurcd orIndian person. And vIet: v~r~ao

N'o Afrl(~n may attend a hlrthdayrarty If the num~er attlndlng couldm~kt: the gatht:rlog uDdt.~lrahle.

:\n Alrl~n In an urhan alta Urrho 1\ cutof ~:ork mu't tak~ wor~ offl?Ttd to hIMby the Bantu t\ffau" (~omml"h.lnt:r ur ~e

r~movcd from the area.

So African mtly buy Jand. or o"onrrorerty. an~·\\·ht:'rt In the R<.Tuhh('o

l"nder no Clrcum'tance~ rna)" a n()n­whltl.' rtr,on U~t: f3Clllt}C<, \(. t a\IJe fprthe use of ~;hlt~ r~r~ ()n~ °

So whIte man ma~· tf3Ch an :\fncan!crvant to read.

By order of the SouthAfrican Ministry of Justice.

The Polaroid Revolutionary Worker'sMovement has called an internationalboycott on Polaroid products untilall of the company's sales to SouthAfrica have been terminated. Bydemanding complete disengagement,the workers at Polaroid are actingin solidarity with calls by-Africanliberation movements and the conclu­sions reach~d by countless UnitedNations committees who have studiedSouth African racism. They haveconcluded that only economic with­drawal can begin to erode, divide,and weaken South Africa's white frontof oppression .. During World War IItrading with the enemy--the Nazisand Fascists--was considered a crime.Apartheid is an enemy for decentpeople allover the world. Collus­ion with South African fascists isno more justifiable than collusionwith the Nazis was.

LIFE UNDER APARTHEID

In South Africa 15 million blackpeople are completely ruled by3 million whites. White dominationis assured through a series of lawswhich strictly separate the races,force blacks into inferior positions,and make sure that no change willoccur. This system is calledapartheid, a white-supremist ideol­ogy which means fascist oppressionand misery for blacks.

Under apartheid blacks live theseconditions:

---Only 13% of the land is reservedfor blacks while the other 87% isset aside for whites. The land"given" to the blacks is the poorestand least valuable in all of SouthAfrica.---In a white ar~a an African islegally a "temporary sojourner",even if he has lived there all hislife. At any time he can be ordered

Not following any of the complicatedrules of apartheid results in long,hard punishment. More people arehanged every year in South Africathan in any other ~ountry in theworld. Every day more than 1,500blacks are arrested for pass viol­ations alone. Thousands of blacksare in jail for political "crimes".An unknown number of others havebeen hunted down by South Africa'sgestapo secret police and torturedwith water, electricity and sexualabuse.

to leave if whites consider "thathis presence is detrimental to peaceand order".---every black person must carrya passbook on his person at alltimes, day or night. This is a 20'page book which must be signed byhis employer every month, and keptup to date with tax payments, resid­ence permits, and other information.For pas? violations, he can be arr­ested, or k~cked out of urban areas.---By law blacks can never earnmore than whites nor can blacksever be in a position of authorityover whites.---Quality education exists onlyfor whites. While $180 per yearis spent for white students, lessthan $15 per year is made availablefor black education. What educat~

ion for blacks that does exist act­ually only trains blacks for serviceto whites.---Blacks are not allowed to gatherin any numbers. No political meet­ings can be held. Unions for blacksare completely outlawed. Politicalliterature is absolutely forbidden.---whites and blacks cannot mix inany way. Schools, hospitals, rail­way stations, toilets--every publicand private institution is strictlysegregated. A black person cannoteven look at a white person withoutrisking severe punishment.

u.s. CORPORATIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA

This whole system of repressionfunctions to provide a readily avail­able pool of cheap black labor forSouth Africa's mines and factories.African workers earn $65 per monthwhile white workers earn $350 permonth. Per capita income for Afric­ans is less than $120 a year butfor whites it is $1600 a year.Apartheid means cheap labor.

For blacks cheap labor means opp­ression. For white businessmen itmeans high profits. Foreign corp­orations see only the profits, notthe oppression, and invest vitallyneeded capital in the South Africaneconomy. Of these foreign companiesU.S. corporations playa strategicrole.

More than 450 American companieshave invested nearly three quartersof a billion dollars in South Africa.This sizeable investment makes theU.S. the second largest foreign in­vestor in South Africa. Earningsfrom these investments have averagednear.20% for the past ten years.Average returns for other parts ofthe world are onJy about 10%. Soinvestments in South Africa returntwice as much as investments inother countries!

The full significance of Americaninvestments to the South Africaneconomy goes beyond these grossfigures. In every growing sectorof the economy American capital,organization, and technology providethe crucial cutting edge spurringeconomic expansion. In mining, theoriginal base of the economy, theAmerican companies of Charles Engle-

'hard, American Metal Climax andUnion Carbide maintain the leadingpositions. In automobiles, the morerecent manufacturing foundation,General Motors, Ford, and Chryslerlead the way. And now in advancedelectronics and computers, the new­est growth industry, IBM and GeneralElectric dominate. U.S. investmentin South Africa supplies Americanmoney and know-how needed to stim­ulate expansion in the strategicareas of the economy.

For its part, Polaroid suppliesSouth Africa with sophisticatedtechnological gadgets and receives

"Bantus don't seem to think logically; theyjust don't think in the same way as whitewesterners. I wouldn't say that these peopledon't have any reasoning power--but whatthey have is very limited. We are dependenton the skilled white man to keep us inbusiness, and on the colored man to keepus running."----Plant Manager of the largest GeneralMotors factory in South Africa

"Over the years the master-servant relation­ship has been a good one."In response to a question about contactacross race lines: "I didn't do it when Iwas in the U.S., I don't want to do it here,and I wouldn't do it if I went back ... It'sa matter of personal preference not a matterof law. I get incensed at the unwarrantedcriticism of South Africa."----Ford's Managing Director in South Africa

in return handsome profits. By usingcheap black labor, Polaroid gainsfrom apartheid. Polaroid thus joinsthe hundreds of other u.s. companiesbenefiting from the racist oppress-ion of blacks in South Africa. I

PO~OID IN SOUTtl-AFRICA..

Six years ago the question of Pol­aroid doing business in South Africawas raised for the first time. Theissue was studied by a committee ofwhite corporate managers. They eval­uated the pro's and con's of main­taining business in South Africa and

. decided that the profits reaped fromthe exploitation of cheap labor weretoo good to pass up. So, there theinvestigation ended until two yearsago when the same motions were actedout once again. Today the issue hasbeen pulled out from behind Polarizedglass doors into the glare of publicattention.

In the Fall of 1970 Polaroid admit­ted that about 20% of all picturestaken for the passbooks which allAfricans are forced to carry in SouthAfrica were taken on Polaroid equip­ment. These passbooks are aparth­eid's number one tool to enforce itsrepressive laws against blacks.First Polaroid denied that it wasactiv~ly supporting apartheid becauseit sold its instant ID-2 systemthrough a South African agent,Frank and Hirsch, L~d. Later, thecompany saw that this lie was notsufficient, so it announced that itwould stop all sales to officialagencies of the Pretoria government.Sales to the South African industr­ial users, army, and airforce, how­ever, continue.

The sales' of cameras, film and sun­glasses have not been terminated,nor has the production of sunglassesin South Africa stopped. Polaroidships its U.S. made lenses to beassembled in South Africa plantsowned by American Optical. Cheap

APAItTt\elt> ?

Just as Polaroid claims that it isnot the worst offender in SouthAfrica, so too in the U.S. Polaroidtries to escape 'the responsibilityfor its racist wages by blaming thelow wages blacks receive elsewherein the u.s. economy. But that ex­planation won't do. A company whichreaps profits from the dehumanizat­ion and exploitation of blacks inSouth Africa cannot deal honestlywith blacks in the u.S. Racism isnot divisible.

To keep up its liberal, image Polar­oid has spent hundreds of thousandsof dollars on slick advertising.As will be indicated later in thispamphlet, these advertisements area deceit and an insult. But Polar­oid's purpose is not to respond hon­estly to the Polaroid RevolutionaryWorkers' Movement's (PRWM) demands.Instead, it intends to evade thedemands, mystify the nature of itsinvolvement in South Africa andpacify public protest and outrage.

Polaroid's response to the PRWM'sdemands has been to sell itself likeit sells its cameras. It has pushedits "progressiveness" and the notionof "corporate responsibility to soc­iety". It has claimed "rationality"for itself and "irresponsibility"for the PRWM. It has done all sortsof tricks but has not yet truthfullysaid why it rejected the three PRWMdemands. In short, to continuesales in South Africa, Polaroidmust sell the Americah people onthe possibility of social changein South Africa through Americaninvestment plus charity.

So why is Polaroid so determinedto stay in South Africa?

If you understand the direct ~nd

indirect links between Polaroldand u.s. business in South Africain general, then Polaroid's d7ter­mination to stay in South Afrlcais not really surprising. Not onlyis Polaroid as an individual companybeing challenged but also. the w~ole

community of American buslness lnSouth Africa is under attack. Pol­aroid is only one member of thatcommunity but it has direct linkswith other members more deeply inv­olved in South Africa.

~Polaroid's largest single ownerafter Land is Morgan Guaranty Trustof New York. Morgan Guaranty wasone of the primary fina~cial supp­orters of South Africa following theSharpeville Massacre of 1960 whenwhite South African police firedinto a peaceful demonstration ofblack South Africans, killing over80 people. Morgan Guaranty granted

large loans to South Africa whichenable it to survive the economicand political crisis which followedthe Massacre. Morgan Guaranty iscertainly not willing for Polaroidto withdraw from the country whichit helped to save.

black labor is exploited for theproduction of these "Cool Ray" sun­glasses. Rich white South Africansprovide the market for them. Profitsfrom the South African sung lass bus­iness rose 23% in 1969.

After months of boycotts and demon­strations demanding that Polaroidcut off these sales to South Africa,the company sent a four man team ona ten"day tour of South Africa to"study the problem". A full monthlater, the company announced itsdecision to stay put in South Africa.Playing on the lack of popular know­ledge about actual conditions inthat country, Polaroid announced an"experiment" in black education.This program would cost the companyan estimated $100,000 a year. Pol­aroid's advertising offensive onthe issue cost just about as much.Instead of supporting thos forcestrying to smash apartheid, Polaroidhas offered an "experiment" in char­ity. As this pamphlet will describe,this program is completely unaccept­able and an insult to black peopleeverywhere.

Polaroid is particularlyvulnerable to attack on its SouthAfrican involvement because it triesto project a public image of beingone of the "youngest" and most "lib­eral" corporations in America. Asits president and founder, EdwinLand, describes it: "This is no ord-

inary company that we have built to­gether. It is the proud pioneerthat set out to teach the world howpeople could work together ... Polar­oid is on its way to lead the world-­perhaps even to save it--by thisinterplay between science, technol­ogy, and real people."

Land writes personalized memorandato all employees, maintains closerelations with nearby universitiesand continues to receive awards forscientific acheivements. Polaroidclaims to be a "pace setter in thefield of human relations" yet ithas been "reinforcing a system ofinhumanity in South Africa for morethan thirty years.

The racial situation in Polaroidfurther exposes the hollowness ofits liberal image. Polaroid "dis­covered" blacks only after the ass­assination of Martin Luther King in1968. Frightened by the black'sviolent response to King's death,Polaroid instituted a quota systemwhich insured jobs for black workersbut also kept blacks in their place.The majority of black workers nowat Polaroid were hired as part ofthis quota.

Of the 92 bl~ck white collar work­ers hired since 1968, 16 have resi­gned. Why? Polaroid's own studiesshow that blacks are paid 22% lessthan whites doing precisely thesame jobs. This discrimination isdue mainly to Polaroid's convenientrule that no new employee can receiveover 15% more in salary at Polaroidthan she or he received in theirformer job. The effect of Polaroid'srule is to reinforce the generallylower wages received by black work­ers in the u.S. as a whole. A con­crete example of this discriminationis a black chemical engineer whorecently left Polaroid because hereceived $350 a month less than awhite fellow-worker in a less skilledposition.

.---on Polaroid's board of directorssits James Killian. Killian is alsodirector of General Motors. GM con­trols over 18% of all auto sales inSouth Africa and has large invest­ments in automobile production plantsthere. ~ receives a large profitfrom its South African operationsand Killian is unlikely to want toee any American investment leave

the country.

·..-Most of Polaroid's financing hascome from Kuhn, Loeb and Company,the second largest investment com­pany in the U.S. It put up one half

. of Polaroid's original capital in1937 and since then has underwrittenevery single share 'of Polaroid'smore than 35 million outstandingstock. Kuhn, Loeb and Co. has helpedmany U.S. companies which are inSouth Africa. Just two of the mostinteresting are American Opticaland Chemical Bank of New York. Am~

. erican Optical was that "other" com­pany which produces Polaroid sun.­glasses in South Africa. The Chem­ical Bank has such extensive invest­ments in South Africa that it wasthe target of a special U.N. res­olution because of its pro-apartheidadvertising.

Polaroid's indirect links are perhapseven more significant. Americanbusiness in general is worried aboutanti-apartheid protests, especiallyfro black workers. In this busin-

ess community Polaroid was consid­ered a,test-case and was carefUllywatched as a model for other busin­esses to follow. For these corp­orations, as Business Week warns,"there could well be repercussionsif such anti-apartheid protestspreads".. The "Polaroid solution"will probably be applied by otherAm.erican c9mpanies as anti-SouthAfrica insurgencies increase.

Thus, when Edwin Land, says thathe does not want to be pushedaround by a group like the PRWM,he speaks for a whole communityof corporate and financial inter­ests. "I know one thing," saysLand, "if we at this moment cut offall our business in South Africa,then the newspapers will be fullof the vast Polaroid RevolutionaryMovement ...We would have a seriesof ne~ demands, and there is nodoubt that the management would notmeet them...The World is watchingus right now. Other ,companies aresaying that 'If polaroid can't makethe grade, nODe of us can.'"

The Polaroid workers are not makinga moralistic request for corporateresponsibility. 'They are not askingthat Polaroid be a little more hum­ane in its exploitation of SouthAfrican blacks. They have demandedthat Polaroid withdraw from SouthAfrica. And it seems that Polaroidjust can't make the grade.

55

ER

DIRECTORas well as:

2. Dir: Studebaker Corp.3. Dir: Flumen Corp

DIRECTORas well as':

2. fonner President: Schroder andRockefeller Company Inc.

DIRECTORas we,l as:

2. Dir: Institute for AdvancedStudy at Princeton University

3. Consultant: Rand Corp.4. Dep"ty Special Assistant to

Kennedy for National SecurityAffairs, 1961-1963

CARLKI\~SE

H.. NECARDIRECTOR

as well as:2. Kuhn Loeb and Co.: General Partner3. Dir: General American Transport Co.

£RDIRECTOR

as well as:2. Dir: General Electric 1924-19423. Dir: SKF Industries: 1942-19444. Trustee: Andover Newton Theol. Sem.

\

DIRECTORas well as:

2. V.P. and Partner: Silver, Saperstein,Barnett and Solonarn

3. Dir: Jewish Theological Seminary4. Trustee: N.Y.U.

DIRECTORas well as:

2. Pres. and Dir: First NationalBank of Boston

3. Dir: First Bank Financial Corp.4. Dir: Greater Boston Chamber of

CommerceS. Dir: Ryder System inc.6. Dir: Metropolitan Area

Planning Council7. Dir: Mass. Transportation Comm.

EDWIN LAND f

PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMANOF THE BOARD: POLAROID

as well as:2. Trustee: Ford Foundation3. Dir: International Services

Corp.4. Fellow: School for Advanced

Studies: MITS. Member: President's Foreign

Intelligence Advisory Board

3.

4.S.6.7.

8.9.

I,10.

11.

12.

DIRECTORas well as:

Chairman of the Board of theM.I.T. CorporationChairmen of the Boar.d of theMitre CorpDir: A.T.& T.Dir: Cabot Corp.Dir: General Motors Corp.Chairman: President's ForeignIntelligence Advisory Bd.,196l-63Trustee: Mt Holyoke CollegeTrust~e: Alfred Sloan FoundationTrustee: U.S. Churchill FoundationTrustee: Institute for DefenseAnalysisPres: Atoms for Peace Inc.

Identification is a basic tool inpopulation control. Every total­itarian government has devised somemeans of sUbjugating its poeplethrough identity cards. In thepast, these systems has been weak:they have been difficult to admin­ister; cards could be tampered withand altered.

Now Poiaroid has put an end to allthat. It has used its sophisticatedtechnological know-how to create analmost foul-proof system of citizenidentification. Known as the 10 2,Polaroid's system takes your picture,develops it in two minutes, seals itin unbreakable plastic, and registersyour name and other information incomputers. Zap, you're identified!Once you have the 10 card, there isno way of'destroying the record.Remember, the 10 2 takes twopictures. You get one. Who getsthe other one?

Recently, Quebec has negotiatedwith Polaroid about the use of the10 2 system to control the Frenchpopulation in that Canadian province.The Quebec Justice Minister says,"Quebec needs compulsory 10 cardsto help police keep a closer watchon the population." The Quebecplan is called "the citizenshipcertificate plan," and aims atsupplying every person with an 10card which must be carried at alltimes and presented on demand.Sound like South Africa? While theplan is not yet operational,Polaroid has expressed its willing­ness to sell the system to Quebec.

If your identity is in question,keep it that way. Polaroid IO'smay be hazardous to your health.

11\[ 5TRUGGLE. BEGl 5I

••••

Ken Williams

On Oct. 8, 1970 the PRWM intiatedits struggle against Polaroid witha large rally before the plate glasswindows of Polaroid's corporate head­quarters in Cambridge. Attended bymany Polaroid workers, the rally drewattention to Polaroid's sale of itsID-2 identification system in SouthAfrica. Ken Williams, a memberof the PRWM and a Polaroid employee,accused Polaroid of supporting fascismin South Africa and demanded Polaroid'simmediate withdrawal from South Africa.

Chris Nteta

Prior to the rally Polaroid tried totake away some of the demonstration'sheat by releasing a slick statementabout its position in South Africa.Polaroid's trick back-fired whenChris Nteta, a black South Africanexposed the lies in Polaroid's state­ment. With the enthusiastic supportof the crowd, Nteta called on Polaroidto meet three demands: l)get out ofSouth Africa completely and immediately,2)denounce apartheid, and 3)donatepast profits from sales in SouthAfrica to liberation movements.The struggle had started.

POLAROID CORPORATI·ONCAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139

To: All Polaroid Members

From: G.R. Dicker, Assistant Secretary

Date: October 6, 1970

Subj: Polaroid 1.0. Sales Practices in South Africa

Polaroid has not sold its 1.0. equipment to the government of South Africafor use in the, apartheid program.

In view of accusations to the contrary, Or. Land has asked me to report thefacts to the Volunteer Committee and to all comp~ny members. They are as follows:

As a matter of corporate policy, Polaroid has consistently refused to sell thePolaroid 1.0.-2 System directly or indirectly to the government of South Africaor any agency thereof for use in implementing the apartheid program. Polaroidhas rejected such orders from the Bantu Administration and has instructed thelocal distributor to follow the same policy. Examination of company recordsindicates that this policy has been fully implemented in practice. All salesof the 1.0.-2 System to the South African distributor have been carefullytraced to verify the use to which our equipment has been put. There is abso~utely

no indication whatsoever of the Polaroid 1.0.-2 System being utilized by thegovernment of South Afruca in implementing its apartheid program.

All sales of the 1.0.-2 System have been made to the independently owned andoperated local distributor (Fank and Hirsch (Pty.) Ltd.) for resale to industrialusers. Approximately 65 1.0.-2 Systems have been sold to Frank and Hirschsince 1967 for resale to industrial users in South Africa for employee identi­fication purposes (exactly as in Polaroid) and to the South African army andair force solely for identifying military personnel.

The local distributor has adhered to our policy and has not resold Polaroididentification systems for use in South Africa's apartheid program. As a matter ofof information, the distributor is one of the few business concerns activelyengaged in opposing the apartheid program. All of the principals of the companyare members of the opposition Progressive party and the company is uniquein South Africa in its adoption of full equal employment practices for blacks.The same distributor serves the black independent states of Zambia and Lesotho.

South Africa does presently require all of its citizens to carry photographicidentification cards. No specification is made as to the source of the photo­graph. Applicants are able to go to photo studios for photos (charge $1.00)or to government offices (charge 50¢). All types of photographic film aretherefore used in taking such photographs, including Polaroid Types 42 and 47film obtained from commercial sources. None of such film is supplied byPolaroid. The photgraphic equipment presently being used by the BantuAdministration is manufactured and supplied by other companies who are in noway affiliated with Polaroid. These systems utilize standard Polaroid packand roll film which can, of course, be purchased anywhere· in the world.

Although Polaroid has been able to deny the South African government access tothe Polaroid 1.0.-2 System for use in the apartheid program, Polaroid's point ofview has apparently not been shared by competing suppliers of identifiactionequipment. Nonetheless, our policy will continue to be vigorously enforcedwith the' full cooperation and assistance of our distributor.

••

·First 1 wish to state that I feel honored to have been invited by the PWRMto participate in this rally. As a South African Black, and therefore avictim of the policy of apartheid I have, through experience, gained certaininsights to the vicious and diabolical nature of this.regime.

May 1 also point out that I think history is being created here. This rallyis an unprecedented event in that for the first time in the history of thiscountry workers have taken the initiative to raise questions about theircompany's involvement and complicity in the affairs of an African country, insupporting and aiding in the exploitation of people in Africa. The importanceof this fact cannot be overstressed. I hope this marks the beginning of amovement that will grow stronger and that will spread wider.

The statement written by A.R. Dicker setting forth Polaroid's role in SouthAfrica is a tissue of lies aimed at deceiving and misleading a public that is'not well'informed about conditions in South Africa. It is a gimmick to allay thefears and concerns of the people about the role of this company in SouthAfrica. 1 propose to expose the false half-truths that hide the ugly natureof this collaboration with a racist and oppressive government.

The statement is couched in vague and general terms about Polaroid not supportingthe "implementing of the apartheid program" directly or indirectly. Yet it doessay that the 1.0.-2 System is being used by industries, army and airforce.These are the forces that exploit people by paying starvation wages, by providingthe power necessary to intimidate people and keep them fearful of opposing theregime. And yet Polaroid wants us to believe that it is not supportingthe government in its oppression of the black people of South Africa.

Furthermore, Polaroid says that it is not directly involved in South Africa, butworks through a local distributor Frank and Hirsch. You people here fromRoxbury know very well the role of the absentee landlord who lives in LexingtonArlongton and Belmont and owns rat and roach infested, delapidated apartmentsin the ghetto and charges exorbitant rents for them. This is what Polaroid issaying: We are not in South Africa yet we receive handsome profits throughFrank and Hirsch. He is their representative, doing their dirty work while theyretain a respectable image here and use their profits to extend their empire.

It is not true that Frank and Hirsch is an equal opportunity employer. No Blackin South Africa can receive a wage equal to a white in the same ·companyor firm. This is prohibited by law. The Progressive Party to which Frank andHirsch belong is not as' "progressive" as Polaroid wants you to believe"It does not have Blacks as . members. This is the gimmick I talked about-­throwing words and names which sound good yet mean little.

Not "all" citizens .carry photographed ID cards in South Africa. Only Blacks carrya pass book, a twenty page document that they have to have on their persontwenty-four hours a day, the failure of which constitutes a crime. Whites,Coloreds and Asiatics carry cards which they are not required to produce ondemand by a policeman at all times. This I say is a blatant lie that Polaroidwants you to believe.

I therefore wish to present Polaroid with the following demands:1. I call upon Polaroid to disengage completely from South Africa---to

stop doing business there, directly or indirectly.2. To make a public statement condemning apartheid to be published in the u.S. and

in South Africa.3. To turn over some of its ill-gotten profits to the liberation movements in

South Africa who are fighting for a better life for Blacks in South Africa.

•lS

•••

olaroid /lainl,dell ~ed

ES

such a policy? It is· notpossible."

Within the framework of thelaw it would advance all em­ployees on merit and ability.

Mr. Berman would not com­ment on the number of Africansemployed by the cornpany. ortheir wages.

Two Polaroid officials are atpresent visiting South Africato investigate how the . cor­poration's products are in­volved with the policy of apart­heid.

Black workers at the cor­poration's Massachusetts. plantclaimed Polaroid cameras werebeing used for pass bookphotographs.

}--

A DIREcrrOR' of- J..'rank and Hirsch LitniLed~ the soleilnporl~rs of Polaroid' equipment into SO'ulh Afriea,denied today. that a policy of equal advallcenlellt he­t\veen Blaek and White staff ulcJubers exjsted with the

-----,c(nupany.The Polaroid Corporation in

the United States clailned thisrecently during confrontationswith its Black employees, whoa re demanding that the corpo­ration withdraw all its businessfrom South Africa.

Frank & Hirsch were unique.in South Africa, a Polaroidspokesnlan was reported as say­ing, in that they had adopteda . full equal employmentpractice for Mricans.

"I do not know where theycould have obtained $uch astaternent," Frank & Hirschdirector Mr. O. J. Berman said.

"'Ne are governed by t.helaws of the country. Would.ther allow the existence of

~.v

\cn_o_

Politi(·.al CorrcspOlldcnt

]~/\srr LONDON. - Mr. l\larais vl'il joell, tllc Miui"itcr of Lahol1r, told CapeNaliollalisls at tllcir 1970 congr~~~ llere recently he would act "\vithinllours" if a White worker (ul)~\\'hcre ill SOllt}. Africa \-vas placed under the ~authority of a non~Wllite. ~

}t~olh)\dng a con,gress discus- Ision on laLh)ur which reflected I of his job and no \Vhite II non-\Vhites have more jobsa v(,l'll~:i.e attitude-" the. show worker should cOlne under the than ever before and in theIHtt:)t go on, eveo Without authority oi a non~\Vhite.Whlh' lahour" - Mr. Viljoell I' years to come' thpy will getsaid the Governlnent was de- .A<.:TION I even more work." But theh:rnlin('d to protect the post- If a situation was hrought to ,. basis had to be an orderly one'.tion of the country's \Vhite hi:.; notice in which a White, When the South Africanwork .... rs. worker was pushed out by a

At tilt~ ScHue tinu', however, (;O\'l'rnment allowed non-Whites'- non-White, he would take thellon'-Whites woulcl be alloweu necessary action within a into Whitt» jobs this would belo Illove into jobs for which week. If he was told about a done on a controlled basisno \Vhites were availahle. Rut Wh'ite plaeed under a non- " with due re!~ard to the avail-this would he allowed on an \Vhite's authority, he would ability of White labour, Whiteorderly basis and the' Go\,('rn- act" the very next morning." feelings and the opinions ofl}lent would not IH'r111i l S')uth the White-orie'lltatt.'d tradeAfrica to b(' tun1pd into a D V., mixed market~place." E ,.;LOPMENT unions."

l\lr. Vi Ij<H'n heavily strpssed Mr. Viljo('n· said the Govern- U On this hasis, I believe wethe two bClsic condit ions for Jnent wanted developnH'nt in will cope with our economicfurther non-\Vhit(' in\'olvPfllent South Africa. It also wanted situation."ill thr l~('()nOnlV: no \\'hit(~ the non-Whites to have jobs.worker should ,.it:' pll 'hed out " Under the·Nationalist party --_._-.. -

Once Polaroid realized that attempt­ing to deal with the facts of itsinvolvement in South Africa couldonly be damaging, it launched asuper-slick public Telations campaign.This campaign included two full pageadvertisements in major newspapersthroughout the u.S. and a ten daytrip for four Polaroid officials toSouth Africa. It easily cost morethan Polaroid's total annual profitsfrom sales in South Africa.

The purpose of this public relationsbarrage was to obscure the reasonswhy Polaroid was in South Africaand would remain there. Polaroidwanted to avoid the real· issueswhile giving the appearance of act­ually confronting them. It did thisthrough the deceitful use of lang­uage.

The ads speak of Polaroid's "abhor­rence" of apartheid, of the "com­plexity of the situation", of the"conscience of the corporation",of the "soul searching" agonies whichPolaroid was going through. Butapartheid is no new revelation toPolaroid. They ha-,,'e been profitingfrom it for over 30 years. Aboveall the public relations campaigndemonstrates Polaroid's completelycynical attitude toward public opin­ion. For Polaroid, public opinionis a commodity to be manipulated,packaged and sold. The only "soulsearching" which Polaroid did wasthe search for how to best manipu­late, how to best maintain its ownimage, while changing nothing.

arOlAfrica?

a•

Polaroid Corporation has n · g its products inSouth Africa since 1938. e 11 cameras and film andsunglass lenses to a local distributor there. Our businessisn't large compared to what we sell in other countries.As a matter of fact it is about equ to our businesswith a single big American departmeDt store.

We have no company in South Africa. No plant.o investments.

Recently a group who call themselves revolutionarieshave demanded that we stop doing business with our ,customers in South Africa. There are several hundredAmerican firms who have their own companies or fac- .toties in South Africa and many more who sell prod­ucts there as we do. It is claimed that Am ricanbusiness, by its presence, is supporting the governmentof South Africa and its policies of racial separation lJ.Ddsubjugation of the Blacks.

Why was Polaroid chosen to be the first company toface pressure (handbills, pickets, a boycott) about busi­ness in South Africa? Perhaps because the revolution­aries thought we would take the subject riously.

They were right. We do. "

We have built a company on the princ·pIe that peopleshould be recognized as i div·duals.

We abhor apartheid, the national policy of SouthAfrica, that divides the races and denies even th mostfundamental individual rights to Blacks.

So what is Polaroid doing about South Africa? Is itgo·ng to stop doing business there?

We don't know.

That may seem an unusual answer for an Americancorporat·on to make. But we feel the question of SouthAfrica is too important and too complex for a hastydecision. We want to understand what is the best

. solution for the black people of South Africa.And we feel that solution will be th~ best one for us too.

We have formed a committee of people from aU O¥ rthe company. Black and white, women and men,hourly and salaried employees. They want to try.tounderstand the complexities of Sou~Africa. A bigundertaking? Indeed it is.

Should we stop doing business there? Ou~ financialstake is certainly small. (Less than half of one percentof our worldwide business.) What effect would cuttingoff business have? Would it put black people out ofwork there? Would it influence the government's poli­cies? Should we perhaps try to increase our businessthere to have a stronger say in the employment ofBlacks? Should we try to establish businesses in thenations of free black Africa?

How do you answer tough questions like these? Thecommittee is talking to South Africans, both black andwhite, to economists, to political scientists, to ed ca- I

tors. It is reading, studying films, asking questions thatrequire research to answer.

And it is sending four of the group to South Africa.They are going to see and question and r port forthemselves. South Africa is 1O~OOO miles away fromCambridge, Massachusetts. They don't want antheir information secondhand.

Why is Polaroid concerned about South Africa?Because, if a corporation has a conscience it must beconsidered to be the collective conscience of the peawho manage the company and those who work there.Injustice to Blacks in South Africa concerns m yblack people and many white people no matter whe~they live.

We feel South Africa is a question that other conies will try to answer in the future. We seem to be thefirst. Our answer may not be right for other companiesBut we intend to take the time and effort and outo be sure it is right for us.

. When we know what it is, we want to tell you a~ut it.

1NIS -rR\P ££~ ;lTD•••

AfR\ lO"~ u~ 1t'£.- ~"

••

Ca1lD\,. 1\t\i._.~ 'iCU t• •••POST, December 13, 1970 Johannesburg

POLAROID, the company that pro­duces instant cameras used for

photugraphin~ millions of Africansapplying for reference books, sent twoBlack Ameriran executives out here

."on a fact-finding mission. Their re·ports· might stop sales of the "passeamera" to Sooth Africa.

The fact·finding mission wassparked off by threats from Ameri­f'an freedom movelnents that they'J. I,U let tHly('(,tt Polariod if theyctJntlnu(~d to sell the cameras to anapartheid Government.

The four-man nlission flew backto America on Thursday. Beforethey l(\ft they said they would notreveal their findings until theyhad reported to the firm's workers'committet'o

The two outspoken Black repre­srntatives, Mr. Chuck .Jones andMr: Ken Andt'rson, told POST this'II\' e~k: "Wl' are totally against theprinciples of apartheid. We areaw~re ,that th~ pass system is en­slaving the Black man in this coun­~ry. This is the message we're go­:ng to take back to America:'

Also, th~y~ve told the local bran­ches of their company to pay theirworkers R120 instead of R60. "Thiswould be a livln~ wage for a familyman with three chiidren," said Mr..J.,nes.

Their first port-or-cal! III Soweto 'was the uFish Ponli," the well­kno·.~'n gaytime joint In Dub~ Vii­l~g~.

C4l'U t~l! my hurld!e'i h!!{'k nonJewhat a ball we had in this country.Imagine how excited they'll bewhen I h j ll thCIU about our visit toa Soweto (pronounced Sew-ee-too)speakeasy," said th~ jovial Mr.Jon('s.

5-star hotel

The two executives booked in ata Johannesburg five star hotel,along with two White Americanswho are on the same mission.

Mr. Jones said they were mainlyinterested in the ordinary man Inthe street. "And he's told us thathis pass, and his photo taken on aPolarlod, stand for Injustice."

"For this reason we can recom­mend to the company that theyimmediately stop the supply oftheir products to South Africa be­cause they are promoting the causeof apartheid," he said.

On the other hand some Afri­cans had told him. the sales ofPolariod cameras should be en­couraged_

said IIr. Jones: "One intellec­tual in Dube Village told me the'pus camera' was good because itonly took a few minutes of humili­ation to get the picture done.

·'U Polarlod stepped selllDleaaeru "ere f.r pellUaI reaaoathe Geve..... t. Id let a rea"

ealer te pNvlde • slower ea8lerLThea the proeea W08 take a letloDler."

He said they had already recom­mended that Polariod make an an·nual grant for the education of thechildren of their Afriean em­ployees out here.

He conceded that their was anair of cloak-and-dagger secrecyover their visit.

"We are treading on dangerousground. Our company is threaten­ed by a boycott by a lot of people,especially by the radical freedommovements. They say we're assist­ing apartheid," he said.

"Black South Africansfelt that if nothing could bedone to stop the system,Polaroid film could be anasset. They wouldn't haveto stand in the sun solong," said Chuck Jones, aIncmber of the cornmittee..

••

•r-..-....... ot in SouthMricaPolaroid sells its products in SouthAfrica as do several hundred otherAmerican companies. Our sales thereare small, less than one half of onepercent of our worldwide business.

Recently a group has begun to demandthat American busines top selling inSouth Africa. They say that by its pres­ence it is supporting the govcrnnlent ofth ~ country and its policies of racial sep­aration and subjugation of the Blacks.Polaroid, in spite of its sll1all stake inthe country, ha received the first atten­tion of this group.

We did not re pond to their denlands.But we did react to the question. Weasked ourselves. hIs it right or wrong todo business in South Africa?" We havebeen tudying the que 'tion for aboutten weeks.

The COl1lnlittee of Polaroid el1lployeeswho underto k this tudy included four­teen nlenlbers - both black and white ­fronl all over the cOlnpany. The firstconclusion was arri 'ed at quickly andunanitl1ously. We abhor apartheid, thenational policy of South fric~l.

The apartheid laws separate the racesand restrict the rights. the opportunitiesand the l1l0Ve111ent of 11 n-white Afri­cans. This policy is contrary to theprinciples on which Polaroid was built ,.and \UIl. \Ve b~.::lie"l- in illJiviJuals. i'~ot

in ·'labor units" as Blacks are sOlnetilnesreferred to in South Africa. We decidedwhatever our course should be it shouldoppose the course of apartheid.

• • •Can you learn about a country in tendays? No. Nor in ten \veeks. But ourgroup learned one thing. What we hadrearl and heard about apartheid was notexaggerated. It is every bit as repugnantas we had been led to believe.

The group returned with a unanilnousrecomp.lendation.

In response to this recommendation andto the reports of the larger study com­mittee, Polaroid will undertake anexperimental program in relation to itsbusiness activities in South Africa.

For the time being we will continue ourbusiness relationships there (except forsales to the South African government,which our distributor is discontinuing),but on a new basis which Blacks therewith wholn we talked see as supportiveto their hopes and plans for the future.In a year we will look closely to see ifour experiment has had any effects.

First, we will take a number of stepswith our distributor, as well as hissuppliers, to improve dramatically thesalaries and other benefits of their non­white employees. We have had indica­tions that these companies will bewilling to cooperate in this plan.

Our business associates in South Africawill also be obliged (as a condition ofnlaintaining their relationship withPolaroid) to initiate a well-defined pro­gran1 to train non-white employees forinlportant jobs within their companies.

We believe education for the Blacks. inconlbination with the opportunities nowbeing afforded by the expanding econ­onlY. is a key to change in South Africa.We will conlnlit a portion of our profitsearned there to encourage black educa­tion. One avenue will be to providefunds for the pennanent staff and officeof the black-run Association for Educa­tion and Cultural Advancenlent(ASECA). A second nlethod will be tonlake a gift to a foundation to under­write educational expenses for about500 black students at various levels ofstudy fronl elenlentary school throughuniversity. Grants to assist teachers willalso be nlade fronl this gift. In additionwe will support two exchange fello\\'­ships for Blacks under the U.S.-SouthAfrican Leader Exchange Progranl.

Polaroid has no investments in SouthAfrica and we do not intend to changethis policy at present. We are, however,investigating the possibilities of creatinga black-managed company in one ormore of the free black African nations.

Why have we undertaken this program?To satisfy a revolutionary group?No. They will find it far from satisfac­tory. They feel we should close the dooron South Africa, not try to push itfurther open.

What can we hope to accomplish there\vitho~t a factory, \vith0l:lt a company ofour own, without the economic leverageof large sales? Aren't we wasting timeand money trying to have an effect on amassive problem 10,000 miles fromhome? The answer, our answer, is thatsince we are d~ing business in SouthAfrica and since we have looked closelyat that troubled country, we feel we cancontinue only by opposing the apartheidsystem. Black people there have advisedus to do this by providing an opportu­nity for increased use of black talent,increased recognition of black dignity.Polaroid is a small economic force inSouth Africa. but we are well knownand. because of our committee's visitthere. highly visible. We hope otherAmerican companies will join us in thisprogram. Even a small beginning ofco-operative effort among Americanbusinesses can have' a large effect inSouth Africa.

How can we presume to concernourselves with the problems of anothercountry? Whatever the practiceselse\vhere. South Africa alone articulatesa policy exactly contrary to everythingwe feel our company stands for. We can­not participate passively in such apolitical system. or can we ignore it.That is why we have undertaken thisexperitnental program.

Polaroid Cor oration

THE "RE~ 0 SE. .. •_..----....__-.._----------------~-------------

The Polaroid Company, since our protest began, Octo­ber 5, used all techniques, such as advertisement briberyintimidation, and financial harrassment, treachery and

lies to cover the magnitude of its deeds in South Africa.Edwin H. Land founded Polaroid in 1937. In 1938 hebegan to build his $600 million empire off the back ofblack South Africans. His personal goals of controllingthe world through photography-the instant 10-2 sys­tem-have been perfected in Sou~h Africa ~nd is beingsold throughout the world as a repressive tool of tech­nology.

Polaroid Revolutionary Workers' Movement will en­force an international boycott against Polaroid untilthey completely disengage from South Africa or until

. South Africa is liberated in the name of her peoples.PRWM calls upon all right-thinking people to boycott

all Polaroid products until Polaroid 45 forced out ofSouth Africa.

We see the South African apartheid system as thesymbol of the many inhumanities in the United States.We cannot begin to deal with racism in Polaroid or theUS. until Polaroid and the U.S. cease to uphold andsupport apartheid. Black people in South Africa ·are en­slaved and dehumanized in order to ensure the securityof.. apartheid and the capitalists' margin of profit. TheUnited States and its corporate society has made explicitits intention of profits at any human expense.

We demand that -we no longer be used as tools toenslave our brothers and ensure corporate profits. ThePolaroid Revolutionary Workers' Movement and ourblack brothers in South Africa have dedicated their livesto the struggle of oppressed peoples.

Issued 1/12/71 in response to Polaroid ad

r 11\£Polaroid-'Tragic' decision

In a full pa,ge advertisement inThe Boston Globe (Jan. 13), PolaroidCorp. announced (1) that it will notterminate its business activities inSouth Africa, '(2) that it will trainnon-whites for "importanf' jobs and(;'q that it. \.vill financially supporteducation for blacks as the "key tochange. H

The Polaroid Corp., in support ofits decision to continue a business re­lationship wit.h the Republic of SouthAfrica, cites the fact that they"talked to and listened to more than100 black people of South Africa"and to "a broad spectrulu of \vhites."What. Polaroid and so many Anleri­cans fail to realize is that it is a trea­sor..lable offense for any South Afri­can inside 01' outside the republic toadvocate a policy of econonlic with­dra\\!a1. In ternlS of both the GeneralLa\\' Anlcndnlent Act. No. 76 of 1962,Section 21 (2) and the Terrorisln ActNo. 83 of 1967. support for econotnicsanctions is illegal and carries a pos­sible dea.th sentence (Ininilnu111 pen­alty fjve years). In both acts the ac­cused is guilty until proven ir.ll1ocent.No one inside South Africa would

be foolish enough to openly advo­cate a policy of economic withdrawal- not even to PolaJroid's visitingteam.

PolaToid's "experiment" in SouthAfrica is to train non-whites for"ilnportanl" jobs in Polaroid-con­nected cOlupanies. No matter what.,.Polaroid cannot bypass the nlass ofdiscrinlinatory labor legislation thatl11akes it iJlegal for any black DIan tooccupy a position senior to any \vhitelnan in a conlpany. IndustriaJ LaborAc1.~ ~pecificalJy confine blacks tocertain job~, while v.rhite govern­nlent spokeslnen from the Prinlp.,Minister and cabinet Inembers downthe hne have constantly reiteratedthat they \vill never allow blacks intoresponsible position over whites.What a farce the "inlportant" jobsbecoine \lIhen every vlhite in theconlpany has to occupy jobs seniorto every black.

Polaroid states that Ueduration" isthe "key to change in South Africa.~'

All education for black South Afri­cans is under government controlthrough the Bantu Education Depart­nlent. Private education for blacks .isillegal. Bantu (black) education isbased on the prenlise that "the Bantumust be guided to serve his own com-

nlunity. There is no place for lJiln inthe EU:l'opean (white) communityabove the level of certain forms oflabot"." This prenlise is rigidly en';'forced litrU all black schools. This iseducation for servitude. Polaroid, bystating that education is the "key tocha.nge," ealmly ignores the years ofst.ruggle against apartheid - includ­ing Bantu Education.

It is tragic that Polaroid, a liberalcorporation in the United Sta.tes, hasdone precisely what the South Afri­can government would want ­agreed to continue to ope;rate inSouth Africa. For the South Africangovernment is secure in the knowl­edge that inside the country no com­pany, corporation or individual caneffectively combat apartheid in busi­ness except by acting illegally. Polar­oid's agents, Frank and Hirsh, havealready stated that they cannot im­plement "equal opportunities" inth~jr operations, nor will they act il­legally. Any program that they ini­tiate will be tokentsm at best, for thelaw is apartheid.

MARGAR~T'MARSHALLFormer President, National Union,

South African Student~ ,Crtl11bridgf'

.. ,

Financial Mail Jdnuary 22 1971 1:." "~\ 1 231

CURREN .AFFAIRS

The decision by the US photographicfirm, Polaroid, to resist mountingpressure for a boycott, and to contin­ue selling to South Africa ("but on anew basis") has been hailed by thecompany's friends as a ,return tosanity, and condemned by its enemiesas an insult to all Black people.

SA's Ambassador in the US, Mr HL T Taswell, has criticised the deci­sion for displaying a "holier-than­thou" attitude. Economics MinisterLouwrens Muller has said he'has noobjections.

What are the facts? First, Polaroidproducts, which include identity cardsystems, industrial products, camerasand films, will be available on the SAmarket as before.

Next, Polaroid has annoUnced that.its SA distributor, as well as thatcompany's suppliers of locally madePolaroid parts, are to improve non­White wages "drastically."

The distributor is Frank & Hirsch(F&H). It employs a few Colouredsand Indians and 155 Africans. Of.these, 37 are classed as unskilled a!ldreceive a minimum wage oJ ~amonth. This is RIO to R15 a montnmore than the minimum laid down inthe wage determination for the distri­butive trade, but is R3 a month Jessthan the subsistence minimum theJohannesburg municipality calculatedwas necessary in 1969 for a family of· in Soweto.

It is IDS a' morith less than theInstitute of Race Relations regards asthe effective minimum monthly in­come needed to pay, not only forsubsistence needs like food, clothingand shelter, but also for the bareminimum of furniture, personal careand so an.

Polaroid has said that F&H will beobliged to initiate a well-defined pro­gramme to' train non-Whites for im­portant jobs.

'Presently the compa·ny employsv~r~~ African ~rv4~rs and one

African mailiU&-c er. ese are con­sidered to be W~·, most importantAfrican jobs in the organisation.. One or two of the supervisors were

appointed this week and were awarded

rogr s r propaga da?salary increases of RIO to R20 amonth. Most of them DQ.W receivebetmen Rl5.0..and R200 a Inontlh

This is similar to the range ofsalaries F&H, like other Johannesbu~g

firms, pays its junior White typists. .Could African employees rise to

higher positions than supervisor? Pre.sently Black supervisors at F&H haveno control over the work of Whitesand government has made it quiteclear that as a general principle it willnot allow Whites to work underBlacks.

.So it would appear that Africansat F & H could not aspire to manageri­al status, except in all-Black depart­ments.

For the same reason it would seemthat Blacks are blocked from theboard.

Polaroid sunglasses are made inthis country by SA Sunglasses. Itemploys 14 Africans and two Whites.The most senior African is the fact­ory supervisor who gets ~23 a week:The most senior job is mal1a~.u~b

director, a position filled by theowner of the firm. Just how SASunglasses could "initiate a well-de­fined programme to train non-Whitesfor important jobs within the com­pany" is therefore hard to imagine.

On the education front, however,Polaroid's experiment looks morepromising. For a start it is giving asubstantial amount (said to be aboutRIO 000) to the African controlledAssociation for Education and Cultur­al Advancement. According to Ase·ca's President, Manasseh Moerane,this is the amount the Associationneeds to establish and staff an officefor a year.

One of Aseca's main aims is toraise money for African school build­ings and teachers' salaries. It alsogives bursaries to trainee teachers.

Also on the education front, Pola­roid intends making a gift to afoundation to "underwrite educationalexpenses for about 500 Black stu·dents".

If "underwrite" means "pay for"and if the 500 were divided equally

between elementary schools (half

boarders), high schools (also halfboarders), universities and teachertraining colleges, the cost would be~58 000 a y.ear.

The Institute of Race Relations,which runs 11 bursary funds, includ­ing the Isaacson Foundation Bursary

Identity card system ••• stillavailable

Fund and the Robert Shapiro Trust,would be the ideal body to administeran amount like this.

Polaroid has not disclosed its SAprofits, but its sales are RIm to Rl.5ma year. Its net profit margin on totalsales is 13.8 per cent and assumingthis ratio applies to sales to SA aswell, the comllan~ SA. prDfi.ts-.co..uldbe ill .the regi.on of RlS0 000 toR200 000 a year.

The more it' proughs -back intoAfrican education, the more friends itshould win - at least in this country.

r---------------+

One South African Rand (R)equals $1.40 in u.S. currency.Thus, R60 equals $84.00.

STATEMENT BY HAROLD L.T. TASWELLSOUTH AFRICAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.January 15th, 1971

POLAROID AND SOUTH AFRICA

Faced by trouble within its own organization and bydemands that it cease trading with South Africa, thePolaroid Corporation has inserted advertisements incertain American papers regarding the sale of itsproducts in South Africa.

Polaroid castigates South Africa, abhors its racialpolicy and proposes certain courses of action.

It says that "whatever the practices elsewhere SouthAfrica articulates a p~licy exactly contrary toeverything we feel our company stands for."

We in South Africa are used to the "holier than thou"approach. We know there are those who like to confesSouth Africa's °sins" in public and who hope therebyto save their own souls.

I will reform it (the educationalsystem for Africans) so that Nativeswill be taught from childhood to real­ize that equality with Europeans isnot for them ... racial relations cdn­not improve if the wrong type of educ­ation is given to the Natives. Theycannot improve if the result of Nativeeducation is the creation of a frus­trated people who have expectationsin life which circumstances in SouthAfrica do not allow to be fulfilled.

---Henrik Verwoerd,former Prime Ministerof South Africa

([)

POLAROID CORPORATIONCAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139

February 10, 1971

Miss Caroline HunterResearch LaboratoriesPolaroid CorporationCambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Dear Caroline:

In the recent past you have been, and you are currently,involved in the public advocacy of a boycott of Polaroid Corporationand its products. Such conduct is inconsistent with your responsi­bility as an employee of the Company.

Your persistent activities in fomenting public disapprovalof the enterprise which employs you violates elementary principlesof propriety and good faith. You have be~n involved in a deliberatecampaign calculated to damage the well-being of a Company whichrepresents the interests and commitments of thousands of employeesand stockholders.

We will no longer tolF'ra.te a situation in which youaccept the benefits of employment by Polaroid Corporation whileyou strive to hinder or counteract the effectiveness of itsoperations.

Your activities constitute misconduct detrimental to thebest interests of the Company, and for this reason you are suspendedfrom your employment at Polaroid Corporation, without pay. Thissuspension is to ~ake effect immediately and may be followed bydischarge upon further investigation.

Yours truly,

'IWM:cbl

CC: Employees· CommitteePayroll Department

POlAROID CORPORATION

/'" A.,...-2. dfi~:--./L~~' ~7---Ter~w. MilliganLaboratory ManagerColor Photography Research Laboratory

10 a ·o·d Corp. Suspends Anti-Apartheid Leader

Behind Polaroid's sweet-talk lurks the ever-ready instrument of repression:get rid of the trouble-makers. Like other companies Polaroid is willingto use it when the political going gets too tough for them. As the boycottspread, political pressure against Polaroid increased. Its response was .to frighten its workers from supporting the boycott by threatening suspens10nand then to make the threat real by suspending Caroline Hunter, a member ofthe PWRM A few days later her suspension was revoked--she was fired.

POLAROID CORPORATIONCAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139

To:From:Date:Subject:

All Members of the CompanyPersonnel Policy CommitteeFebruary 9, 1971BOYCOTIS

Recently certain employees of the Company have publicly initiated orsupported a boycott of the Company and its products. A boycott is adeliberate attack on the well-being of a corporate enterprise. A boycottis calculated to damage the Company, to reduce its volume of business,and adversely to affect its public image and the interests of its employeesand its stockholders.

Any public support of, or any public advocacy of, a boycott of Polaroidproducts by Polaroid .employees has been, is, and will continue to be"misconduct detrimental to the best interests of the Company" (as definedin PP-06.4) and any Polaroid employee so engaged has been, and is, subjectto severe disciplinary action, including discharge.

The PWRM is not alone in its fight against Polaroid's involvement in South Africa.Since the beginning of the struggle, the PWRM has received a growing amount ofsupport from a wide range of people and groups. The boycott of Polaroid productshas spread around the world through demonstrations and leaflets. Liberationfighters in South Africa, American workers, students and just ordinary communitypeople have all raised their voices to protest Polaroid's continued presence inSouth Africa. what follows are reports from just a few of the groups whicn supportthe PRWM.

• ••

921A EST NOV 06 70 BAOSS KB106MISS CAROLIt£ ItJNTER

CAMBRIDGEMASS'2~O

B tt\LF' TIONAL EXECUTIVE ANC SA SUPPORT STANO (F

REVOLUTIO RY POLAROID WORKERS l10vEMENT lrITH REGARD TO POLAROIDI (LVEME T IN SOUTH AFRICA E ORSE YOUR DEMANDS FCI' TOTAL

01 SNQAQEr£NT P LI C STATEMENTS DENOUNCING APABTEIO STOPRE AFF ORM ANC PRO(f\AMME DEMANDS THAT Tt£ NATIONAL WEALTH

a: SA MUST BE "RETURNED TO TJ£ PEOPLE CF SOUTH AFRI,CAREG SEPTEMBER EUROPEAN AN) UK CHIEF REPRESENTATIVES

The African National Congress CANC) is a liberation movement currentlyerigaged in armed struggle in South Africa.

~ HOME. .•. ROXBUR1)Early in December 1970, Polaroid donated $20,000 to Boston's Black United Front.The Front already supported the boycott of all Polaroid products. Now it hadto decide what to do with Polaroid's gift.At a special meeting in Roxbury, more than 200 members of the black communitydecided to accept the money, but to give one half of it to the African NationalCongress, a liberation movement in South Africa, and the other half to the BlackUnited Front in Cairo, Illinois.This decision followed a dramatic confrontation between Ken Williams of the PWRM,and John Carrington, a blac~ administrator from Polaroid. Williams accusedPolaroid of bribing black people. Carrington claimed that the money was given withno strings attached. As the argument became heated, Williams told Carrington:"I have tried to encourage the brothers in Polaroid to put aside their perso~al

gains for the common interest. If you want to be a big man, be a black man." .After the decision, Polaroid privately spread the word that corporate contributionsto the Front's activities would be hurt by the action. Polaroid was particularlybitter because its trick backfired: the black community refused to be divided orbought off. The decision indicated that black people demand liberation, notliberalism, from white corporate America. This fact, more than the loss of amere $20,000, was what frightened and annoyed Polaroid.

DAVID DEITCH

and Blacl{ FlaroiSomething that the corporate state is

great at doing :is diverting people's atten­tion from fundamental issues to trivia,disguising what is basic under a barrageof advertising and plastic gimmickry thatpromises material salvation in exchangefor public power. This typical perversionof values is contained within the Pol­aroid-in-South Africa situation.

The issue of Polaroid in South Africahas been complicated recently by, thecorporation's donation of $20,000 to theUnited Black Appeal, the fund-raisingarm of the Black United Front, which hadbased its solicitations for use of the giftson local black developm,ent projects. Inthis case, however, the Front decided tosplit the $20,000 gift between black lib­eration organizations in South Africa andthe Black United Front of Cairo, Ill.,where sporadic civil war has been under­way.

Polaroid said that it was "shocked" bythe Front's decision, and the Bay StateBanner, a black weekly that dutifullycarries the corporate message into Rox­bury, predicted that the corporate moneytap would be shut off in :'etribution. Bycalling the Front's credibility into ques-

Boston Globe, Jan. 11, 1971

. ""'..nt

tion and emphasizing this point throughthe nledia, Polaroid has succeeded in di­verting public attention from the funda­mental issues of its involvement and tacitsupport of racist South Afric.a, and thefact that its identification equipment isbeing used in many other places as aninstrument of human oppression.

Since last fall, the Polaroid Revolu­tionary Workers Movement has beenpressuring the company to disengagefrom South Africa and support blackliberation there with money and br serv­ing as a model for other corporations witha "liberal image." For Polaroid, theRWM was the black plague because ofits uncompromising morral stand. It wasthe enemy that couldn't be negotiatedwith.

The question was whether the BlackUnited Front would also consider RWMthe enelny and the anslwer was no. To itscredit, the Front took the Same moralstand designed not only to unite a verylarge chunk of the black community inthis area, but also to express solidaritywith oppressed blacks everywhere in theworld.

Polaroid has sent a delegation of fourworkers (since returned) to South Africato "help it decide" whether-to leave orstay. One wonders what sort of funda­111entally in1 portant information the dele­gation expected to find out that the com­pany didn't already ~now.

If Polaroid pulls out of South Africa,,as it should, then one important RWMdemand wi~l' have been validated by th~

company itself. Under the circumstanceiit would be inconsistent to complain that$10,000 of its money is being used forblack South African liberation, and itshould make another big contribution.If Polaroid does not pull out, the Frontcan hardly be faulted for contnasting itaown moral consistency with Polaroid'.contradictions.

The basic issue is not what the Frontdid with Polaroid's money but whetherPolaroid gets out of South Africa~ The:public relations aspect of this story must.not be allowed to obscure the overridingn10ral issue which is Polaroid's role in·the system which oppresses human be,;.ings. This applies to any white liberalinterested in fighting repression and pro­tecting his own eroding liberties.

Attempts, legal and otherwise, mightbe made to block the Front~ fund-raising!capability because of its Polaroid stand.This would be .unfortunate and simplyexpose the conditional nature of thedonations from people who believe them­selves to be well-meaning. It would,'once again, expose the reality of corpor­ate liberalism.

Polaroid denies that its $20,000 con­tribution was an attempt to rebuild itscrumbling image. There is some con­troversy over how direct this effort was.The subsequent pressure on the Frontby Polaroid and others, however, indi­cates that the donations are made lessbecause it's the right thing to do andnluch nl0re for political purposes.

....

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED

by the Student Cabinet, the Faculty, and the Board of Trustees of Andover­Newton Theological School

AND COMMUNICATED

directly to Edwin H. Land, President of Polaroid Corporation, through theoffice of the President Roy Pearson

That,

That,

That,

That,

AndThat,

we, the community of Andover-Newton Theological School, do support andendorse the boyc0tt of all Polaroid products until the aforementioned demandsdisengaging Polaroid from all relationships with the white ruled regime ofSouth Africa are met in full,

we trust that Polaroid will react immediately to its economic, political,and moral imperatives to meet these demands, even as Polaroid has been noteqas being a humanitarian and deeply concerned institution,

Polaroid realize the significance of its disengagement from South Africa asa political incentive for other corporations of the business world and forthe government of the United States to follow the example of disengagementand as a consciousness raising action to educate the people of the UnitedStates to the real events of the racism of South Africa,

such noted action on the part of Polaroid should be conceived as exempliarytoward the examination of the institutional racism built into and p~rmeating ,often in covert ways; social systems within our country, including even ourown theological school,

this resolution be made public through the office of the President of theschool, copies being nlade accessible to the news media, and copies beingsent directly to the heads of religious bodies and to the presidents oftheological insitutions in the United States, and copies being sent directlyto the heads of religious bodies within South Africa.

This Resolution has not yet been adopted by either the Faculty or Trusteesdespite strong student support for it. Significantly, David Skinner, thePresident of this divinity school, is also a Director' of Polaroid.

&I>o,t Laboratories International Business Machinesddressograph - Mul'igraph Internationa' Harvester

The following maior U.S. manufacturingcompanies had opera~ing plants or ubsi i ri inSouth Africa in 1960.

This list was issued by the N w York StockExchange and omits all co"mpanies not traded on-that Exchange. It also omit comp ni s with onlysales or service oHices in South frica, and IIbanks and financial companies. It also omits, ofcourse, all the companies which ve moved intoSouth Africa since 1960.

•

International PackersInternational Telephone and T leg.Johnson and JohnsonJoy ManufacturingKelloggKendallKimberly ClarkLink - BeltMasoniteMerckMetro - Goldwyn - MayerMinnesota Mining & ManufacturingNafional Cash RegisterNational - StandardNewmont MiningOl;n Mathieson ChemicalOtis ElevatorParlee - OavisPepsi - ColaPhilliPs PetroleumProc'er & Gamblelev'on.lexall Drug & ChemicalI"ichardson - MerrellScheringSmith (A.O.)Smith Kline & FrenchSperry RandStandard BrandsStandard Oil Co. of Calif.Sferling DrugSymington WayneTimken Roller BearingTwentieth Century - Fox FilmUnderwoodUnited ArtistsUnited Shoe MachineryUnited States RubberUp;ohnWarner - Lambert Pharmaceutical

•

(Africa Research Group)

co

llied Chemicalmerican Bank Notemerican Chicle

American CyanamidAmerican Home ProductsAmerican Metal ClimaxAmerican Steel foundriesArmstrong CorlcBaxter LaboratoriesBeech - Nut Life SaversBlaclc and DeckerBorden8ristol - MeyersCarborundumChicago Pneumatic ToolCluyslerCoca -ColaCalgale - PalmoliveCombust.n EngineeringCOIn ProduclsClOwn Corlc & SealDow CltemicalEaslman lCodalcEIec'ric Slorage Balferyferrofireslone Tire & Rubb«fMCFord MotorGardner - DenverGeneral E'ectricGeneral foodsGeneral MotorsGeneral Tire & Rubber,GilletteGoodrich (B.E.)Goodyear Tire and RubberHarscoHewitt - Robins'ngersoll - Rand,nterchemical

---Students in Wisconsin have singledout 20 large Wisconsin businesses fortheir support of South Africa andhave protested against these companies.

Polaroid is only the beginning. u.s.companies continue their dealings withSouth Africa. Anti-fascist forceswill continue to expand the struggle.American corporations are scared bysuch protest, as indicated in a reveal­ing interview last year in the WallStreet Journal: "We don't want to callattention to our activities in SouthAfrica and cause a whole mob of blackmilitants and radical students topicket our offices in the U.S."

---Gulf Oil's support for Portugalin Angola was strongly protested bythe United Church of Christ and theUnited Presbyterian Church. Manyother groups joined in anti-Gulfdemonstrations and di.sruptions.

---Workers at IBM have spoken outagainst IBM's sales to South Africa.

Following is a list of some of themany U.S. companies in Souuth Africawhich should be called attention to.

---Students at the University of Mich­igan have closed their job placementcenter to recruiters from any u.s.company which deals with South Africa.

One of the best forms of support forthe struggle at Polaroid is to extentthe fight to other u.s. companies whichdo business with South Africa. Overthe past year a number of anti-SouthAfrican protests have been launchedin the u.s. Here are the highlights:

---The Episcopal Church has demandedthat General Motors completely dis­engage from South Africa.

If you want to help build the struggle, contact any organization around thecountry which is supporting the boycott. Here are the names and addressesof just a few.

American Committee on Africa, 164 Madison Ave., New York, New Yorkor 711 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.or 1514 S. Albany, Chicago, Illinois

Community Change, 7 Eaton Street, Wakefield, Mass.Pride, Inc., 1536 U Street, Washington, D.C.Research Group for the Liberation of Portuguese Africa, c/o Ron Chilcote,

University of California, Riverside, Riverside, Calif.Southern Africa Committee, 637 W. 125th Street, New York, New YorkLeague of Revolutionary Black Workers, 179 Cortland, Highland Park, Mich.Black Jaguars, 2323 Hartford Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.Madison Area Committee on Southern Africa, 306 N. Brooks Street, Madison, Wis.Scientists and Engineers for Social and Political Action, J. Shapiro, Dep~. of

Physics, Fordham University, New York, New YorkStudent Mobilization Committee, 165 Brookline Street, Cambridge, Mass.

Atlanta, Ga., 3720 Brown Mill Rd., S.E.Burlingame, ·Calif., 875 Stanton Rd.Cleveland, Ohio, 4640 Manufacturing Rd.Dallas, Texas, 9029 Governors RowEl Segundo, Calif., 2040 Maple Ave.Needham, Mass., 140 Kendrick St.Oak Brook, Ill., 2020 Swift DriveParamus, N.J., W-95 Century Rd.

The Africa Research Group is a radical research/action collective concerned withexposing and fighting American imperialist penetration of Africa. In additionto this pamphlet, ARG publishes a number of original articles about u.s. imperialismand reprints articles written by African radicals. For a complete list of ARGpublications, simply write to ARG, P.O. Box 213, Cambridge, Mass., 02138.

WHAT YOU CAN0010HElP

Do Not Buy Any Polaroid Products

Insist that the Stores You Patronize Do The StlmeUrge Organizatiolll You Belong to to Take A Stllnd

HYou Are A Student:

Find Out if Your Schhool Owns Polllroid StocleStop Your Ozmpw Store From Selling Polllroid ProductsFind Out of Your School OwnsP01llro1d locPresmre them to eO orNotify the PWRMStop Polaroid Recruiters from rI: Campus FacilitiesDo Not allow yourself to be Photo-Identified by Polllmid ID 2 Equiptment

If You Are A Stockholder:

Allow us to use your shares in a stock chtlUenge

to reverse Polaroid~s South.A/ricll" in olpement

If You Are A Worker:

Is Your company involved in South A/rlaz?Find Out. Get your union workin 011 itand form a group to act yourself

For more information on liberation movements 1n ·South and southern Africa,contact any of the following groups.

African National Congress (ANC), 49 Rathbone Street, London iA--4NL.ANC publishes Sechaba, a monthly magazine of the South Africanrevolution. ($6.00 per year, airmail)

Africa Research Group, P.O. Box 213, Cambridge, Mass. 02138

American Committee on Africa, 164 Madison Ave., e or •Y. 10016

Liberation Support Movement, Box 338, ~ichmond, British Columbia, Canada

Committee of Returned Volunteers, 840 Oakdale A e.; Chicago, Illinois

Southern Africa Committee, 637 W. 12Sth St~, Ne York, N.Y.Publishes Southern Africa, a summary of events in southern Africa.

• '", if • ~

,a, '. .'.. ...." ~

-· 0

... ~

~I ~o

~~

I .

, II.'.. . .. ,

. .

f