POLAROID and. SOUTH AFRICAkora.matrix.msu.edu/files/50/304/32-130-1F7-84-african...POLAROID and. SOUTH AFRICA Boycott Support the black revolutionary workers at Polaroid. Polaroid

POLAROID and.SOUTH AFRICA

BoycottSupport the blackrevolutionary workersat Polaroid.

PolaroidUntil all salesto South Africaare discontinued .

ThE STRUGGLE BEGINS . . ..

Ken Williams Chris Nteta

On Oct . 8, 1970 the PRWM intiatedits struggle against Polaroid witha large rally before the plate glasswindows of Polaroid's corporate head-quarters in Cambridge . Attended bymany Polaroid workers, the rally drewattention to Polaroid's sale of itsID-2 identification system in SouthAfrica . Ken Williams, a member

of the PRWM and a Polaroid employee,accused Polaroid of supporting fascismin South Africa and demanded Polaroid'simmediate withdrawal from South Africa .

Prior . to the rally Polaroid tried totake away some of the demonstration'sheat by releasing & slick statementabout its position in South Africa.Polaroid's_ trick back-fired whenChris Nteta, a black South Africanexposed the lies in Polaroid's state-ment . With the enthusiastic supportof the crowd, Nteta called on Polaroidto meet three demands : 1)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 REVOLUTIONARY WORKERS MOVEMENT-

JANUARY 12, /971

ON BEHALF OF BLACK SOUTH AFRICANS AND ALL OPPRESSED PEOPLES,THE,POLAROID REVOLUTIONARY WORKERS DEMAND:

.

1) .' THAT POLARIOD ANNOUNCE A POLICY OF COMPLETE DISENGAGEMENTFROM SOUTH AFRICA . WE BELIEVE . THAT ALL AMERICAN COMPANIESDOING BUSINESS THERE REINFORCE THAT RACIST SYSTEM.

2.) THAT POLAROID ANNOUNCE ITS POSITION ON APARTHEID PUBL I CALLY

IN THE US AND SOUTH AFRICA, SIMULTANEOUSLY.3.) THAT POLAROID CONTRIBUTE PROFITS EARNED IN SOUTH AFRICA

TO THE RECOGNI ZED AFR I CAN LIBERATION MOVEMENTS.

- POL ARIOD CORPORATION SINCE OUR PROTEST BEGAN OCTOBER 5, 1969,USED ALL TECHNIQUES, SUCH AS ADVERTISEMENT, BRIBERY, IMTIMIDATIONAND FINANCIAL HARASSMENT, TREACHERY AND LIES - TO COVER THEMAGNITUDE OF ITS DEEDS IN SOUTH AFRICA . E .H . LAND FOUNDED POLARIOD

CORPORATION IN 1937 - IN 1938 HE BEGAN TO BUILD HIS $600 MILLIONDOLLAR EMPIRE OFF THE BACKS OF BLACK SOUTH AFRICANS . HIS PERSONALGOALS OF CONTROLLING THE WORLD THRU PHOTOGRAPHY - T H ~ F INSTANT I. D. 2

SYSTEM - HAVE BEEN PERFECTED I N SOUTH AFRICA, AND „I NO.W BEING SOLD-

THRU OUT THE WORLD AS A REPRESSIVE TOOL OF TECHNOLOGY.PRWM WILL ENFORCE AN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC BOYCOTT AGAINST

POLAROID UNTIL THEY - COMPLETELY DISENGAGE FROM SOUTH AFRICA OR-UNTILSOUTH AFRICA I S LIBERATED I N THE NAME OF HER PEOPLES.

PRWM CALLS UPON ALL RIGHT-ON THINKING PEOPLE TO BOYCOTT ALLPOLAROID PRODUCTS UNTIL POLAROID I S FORCED OUT OF SOUTH AFRICA.

WE SEE THE SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID SYSTEM AS THE SYMBOL OF THEMANY 'INHUMANITIES' I N THE UNITED STATES . WE CANNOT BEGIN TO DEALWITH RACISM IN POLAROID OR THE US UNTIL POLAROID AND THE US CEASE TO

UPHOLD AND SUPPORT APARTHEID . BLACK PEOPLE I N SOUTH AFRICA ARE .ENSLAVED AND DEHUMANIZED IN ORDER TO INSURE THE SECURITY OF APARTHEID

AND THE CAPITALISTS' MARGIN OF PROFIT . THE UNITED STATES AND ITSCORPORATE SOCIETY HAVE MADE EXPLICIT ITS INTENTIONS OF PROFITSAT ANY HUMAN EXPENSE.

WE DEMAND THAT WE NO LONGER BE USED AS TOOLS TO ENSLAVE OUR

BROTHERS AND INSURE CORPORATE PROFITS . -

THE PRWM AND OUR BLACK BROTHERS IN-SOUTH AFRICA HAVE DEDICATEDTHEIR 'LIVES TO THE STRUGGLE OF THOSE OPPRESSED PEOPLES.

.KEN WI LLIAMS

.POLARIOD REVOLUTIONARY WORKERS

I'

W at is Polaroid doingin South Africa?

Polaroid Corporation has been selling its products inSouth Africa since 1938. We sell 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 equal to our businesswith a single big American department store.

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

Recently a group who call themselves revolutionarieshave demanded that we stop doing business with ourcustomers in South Africa . There are several hundredAmerican firms who have their own companies or fac-tories in South Africa and many more who sell prod-ucts there as we do . It is claimed that Americanbusiness, by its presence, is supporting the governmentof South Africa and its policies of racial separation andsubjugation of the Blacks.

Why was Polaroid chosen to be the first company toface pressure (handbills, pickets, a boycott) about busi-ness in South Africa? Perhaps because the revolution-aries thought we would take the subject seriously.

They were right . We do.

We have built a company on the principle that peopleshould be recognized as individuals.

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

So what is Polaroid doing about South Africa? Is itgoing to stop doing business there?

We don't know.

That may seem an unusual answer for an Americancorporation 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 bestsolution for the black people of South Africa.And we feel that solution will be the best one for us too .

We have formed a committee of people from all overthe company. Black and white, women and men,hourly and salaried employees . They want to try tounderstand the complexities of South Africa. A bigundertaking? Indeed it is.

Should we stop doing business there? Our 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 poli-cies? 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 educa-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 report forthemselves . South Africa is 10,000 miles away fromCambridge, Massachusetts . They don't want alltheir 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 peoplewho manage the company and those who work there.Injustice to Blacks in South Africa concerns manyblack people and many white people no matter wherethey live.

We feel South Africa is a question that other compa-nies will try to answer in the future . We seem to be the

first. Our answer may not be right for other companies.

But we intend to take the time and effort and thoughtto be sure it is right for us.

When we know what it is, we want to tell you about it.

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 responsi-bility 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 been 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 tolerate 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 take effect immediately and may be followed bydischarge upon further investigation.

Yours truly,

POLAROID CORPORATION

TWM: cbl

CC : Employees' CommitteePayroll Department

Ter' W . MilliganLaboratory ManagerColor Photography Research Laboratory

xs

SUPPORTtm

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 which supportthe PRWM.

ABROPb.

The African National Congress (ANC) is a liberation movement currentlyengaged in armed struggle in South Africa.

n.LO Yw.estErn uRian . Telegram927A EST NOV 05 74 B!#D88 !ES 'Job

MISS CAROLINE HUNTER

CAMBRIDGEMASS 12140

ON BEHALF NATIONAL EXECUTIVE ANC SA SUPPORT . STAND CF

RY POi .AROID WORKERS MOVEMENT 11ITH REGARD TO POLAROID

H AFRICA ENDORSE YOUR DEMANDS FOR TOTAL

NTS DENOUNCINQ APARTEID STOP

HE NATIONAL WEALTH

CF SA MUST BE-RETURNED TO THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH AFRICA

REG SEPTEMBER EUROPEAN AND UK CHIEF REPRESENTATIVES

REV OLUTI ONA

INVOLVEMENT IN SOUT

DINSNGAGEMENT PUBLIC STATEME

RE AFF ORM ANC PROGRAMME DEMANDS THAT T

E 'ROM TAWS tk I'R%P . . .

TEAR TRIP :

"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, amember of the committee.

1tic

Ginn we-- W1% Ibo WfSZE HERE ~ . . .

The fact-finding mission wassparked off by threats from Ameri-e an freedom movements that they

)( y((,tt Polariod if theycontinued) to sell the cameras to anapartheid Government.

The four-man mission flew backto America on Thursday . Beforethey left they said they would notreveal their findings until theyhad reported to the firm's workers'committee.

The two outspoken Black repre-sentatives, Mr . Chuck .Jones andMr. Ken Anderson, told POST thisweek . - We are totally against theprinciples of apartheid . We areaware that the pass system is en-slaving the Black man in this coun-try . This is the message we're go-ng to take back to America ."

Also, they've told the local bran-ches of their company to pay theirworkers 8120 instead of R60 . "Thiswould he a living wage for a familyman with three chiidren," said Mr..tones .

Their first port-of-cal! in Sowetowas the "Fish Pond," the well-knov'n gaytime joint in Dube Vil-lage..

' 1')) tell my fiuddles back homewhat a ball we had in this country.Imagine how excited they'll bewhen 1 tall them about our visit toa Soweto (pronounced Sew-ee-too)speakeasy," said the jovial Mr.Jong .

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 aPolariod, stand for injustice."

"For this reason we can recom-mend to the company that theyimmediately stop the supply oftheir products to South Africa be-cause they are promoting the causeof apartheid," he said.

On the other hand some Afri-cans had told him the sales ofPolariod cameras should be en-couraged.

Said Mr . Jones: "One intellec-tual in Dube Village told me the'pass camera' was good because itonly took a few minutes of humili-ation to get the picture done.

"If Polariod stepped sellingcameras here for po l itical reasonsthe Government would get a readydealer to provide a slower camera.Then the process would take a lotlonger. "

He said they had already recom-mended that Polariod make an an .nual grant for the education of thechildren of their African em-ployees out here.

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

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

LAROID, the company that pro-duces instant cameras used for

photographing millions of Africansapplying for reference books, sent twoBlack American executives out hereon a fact-finding mission . Their re-ports might stop sales of the "passcamera" to South Africa .

JL1EL tElsa-T0 SoUnihFRcA TO uicaVEiZ THE" FOaG.I'S "

"fHE1R coNiCLUSION:len .

AT DOME RO)('B

,1'+SS.

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 had

to 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 black administrator from Polaroid . "Williams accused

Polaroid 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 personalgains 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 particularly

bitter because its trick backfired : the black community refused to be divided or

bought 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

Polaroid and Black FrontSomething that the corporate state is

great at doing is diverting people's atten-tion 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 Pol-aroid-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 gifts

on local black development projects . Inthis case, however, the Front decided tosplit the $20,000 gift between black lib-eration organizations in South Africa andthe Black United Front of Cairo, Ill .,where sporadic civil war has been under-way.

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

Boston Globe, Jan . II, 1971

tion and emphasizing this point throughthe media, Polaroid has succeeded in di-verting public attention from the funda-mental issues of its involvement and tacitsupport of racist South Africa, and thefact that its identification equipment isbeing used in many other places as aninstrument of human oppression.

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

The question was whether the BlackUnited Front would also consider RWMthe enemy and the answer 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 funda-mentally important information the dele-gation expected to find out that the corn-panso didn't already know .

If Polaroid pulls out of South Africa,as it should, then one important RWMdemand will have been validated by thecompany itself. Under the circumstancesit 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 contrasting itsown moral consistency with Polaroid'scontradictions.

The basic issue is not what the Frontdid with Polaroid's money but whetherPolaroid gets out of South Africa . Thepublic relations aspect of this story mustnot be allowed to obscure the overridingmoral issue which is Polaroid's role inthe system which oppresses human be-ings . This applies to any white liberalinterested in fighting repression and pro-tecting his own eroding liberties.

Attempts, legal and otherwise, mightbe made to block the Front's fund-raisingcapability because of its Polaroid stand.This would be .unfortunate and simplyexpose the conditional nature of thedonations from people who believe them-selves to be well-meaning. It would,once again, expose the reality of corpor-ate liberalism.

Polaroid denies that its $20,000 con-tribution was an attempt to rebuild itscrumbling image. There is some con-troversy over how direct this effort was.The subsequent pressure on the Frontby Polaroid and others, however, indi-cates that the donations are made lessbecause it's the right thing to do andmuch more for political purposes .

a