+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 54
Latest: abrogard
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 16291
Total Topics: 267
Most Online Today: 7
Most Online Ever: 1155
(April 20, 2021, 12:50:06 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 4
Total: 4

Author Topic: Profiles in Courage  (Read 19915 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33095
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Profiles in Courage
« on: November 03, 2013, 10:00:12 pm »
Harry Schwartz: A Great Man who founded the Torch Commando Part 2

After rich people die you ALWAYS learn of the "Foundation" (a tradition of tax dodging shenanigans founded by Rockefeller) and the goody two shoes things it is doing in the old reptile's name.

But this bit of philanthropy had a racist bent to it worthy of the old reptile himself.

The path to Engelhard's "sainthood" (naming a library in HAHVAHD for him) while simultaneously accompanied mysteriously by the demotion of the Department of Afro-American Studies to committee status.

"...the library in the new building will be named the Charles Engelhart Public Affairs Library, in recognition of a gift of one million dollars from the Charles Engelhard Foundation." --JFK School of Government Spring 1978 Bulletin.


No, I can't prove the two were connected but the timing and the MONEY to HAHVAHD tells the story. At any rate, the money "donated" to Harvard by the Engelhard foundation SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN A TRUST FOR SOUTH AFRICAN MINERS or at least sent to Harry Shwartz to help in his and Nelson Mandela's anti-apartheid struggle, not used for some God Damned library.

Here's a little background on the war at Harvard and how the bad guys won it.

Why do I say this? Didn't south Africa get a Representative Republic and didn't it end Apartheid?

Yes, but about 10 years LATER than it should have BECAUSE of Engelhard's money.

Harvard was KEY to telling the world that South Africa was out of line and had to end Apartheid. Several members of congress were prevailing on Harvard to divest of its investments in South Africa and ALONG comes the Engelhard Foundation and drops a million bucks in their lap!

Sure, Sophie Engelhard wanted her dadddy to look good but there was MORE TO IT THAN THAT. Read on. Sophie must have been quite friendly with Bok but maybe I am just imagining all these amazing coincidences that clipped Harvard's wings and allowed Apartheid to continue OVER TEN MORE YEARS.

Sure, Reagan was a big fan of Apartheid too but IF Harvard hadn't received that "donation" in 1977 and HAD DIVESTED THEN of all South African investments publicly on the world stage, SA Apartheid could have ended BEFORE Bush stole the presidency for Reagan in 1980.

If Carter had been able to broker an anti-Apartheid new government in 1979, the subsequent boost in his popularity might have well been enough to prevent Bush's skullduggery with Iran from getting Reagan elected.  :o

THAT's what blood money from a racist predatory capitalist can do to a country and to a university that started out as a college based on MORAL behavior. The bad guys won. Sorry. 
Throughout the 1970s, the University was engulfed in an intense debate over the moral implications of its financial investments in apartheid South Africa.

In 1979, protests also erupted over the dedication of a library at the Kennedy School of Governmen to an apartheid supporter and the rumored demotion of the Department of Afro-American Studies to committee status.

The unrest prompted the University to weigh the symbolic impact of pulling Harvard capital out of South Africa with possible financial losses. Some argued that Harvard ought to use its international stature to take an ethical position against apartheid and questioned the moral validity of the Harvard Corporation’s investment policy at the time.


By the end of 1978, though, the University evaluated corporations for investments based on the benefits they provided nonwhite employees. This policy was proposed by the Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (ACSR)—a committee formed in 1973 to advise the Corporation on ethical issues.

Amid this turmoil over Harvard’s South African investments, the Kennedy School announced it would name its library after Charles W. Engelhard, an industrialist whose political and financial participation in South Africa reputedly supported the apartheid regime. In their protests for divestment, some students denounced the naming of the library after Engelhard.

The controversy reached a national scale when seven members of Congress wrote a letter to Bok on Dec. 15, made public on Jan. 3, expressing their concern over the library’s name.

“We fear that the recognition of Engelhard at this particular time may be interpreted by the South African government and its supporters as an indication of official acceptance—or at least tolerance—of apartheid by major American institutions,” 
the legislators wrote.

University officials eventually compromised with protesters by putting a plaque saying that the funds were given in Engelhard’s memory rather than naming the library after Engelhard.  ;)

The fight over the dedication of the Engelhard library was not the only development in the protests of the 1978-1979 school year.  >:(

In 1979, some students coupled rumors circulating of a possible demotion of the Af-Am department to an interdisciplinary committee with calls for divestment as grounds for protest. 


The credentialed assholes at Harvard fought the students AND the credentialed principled faculty on the issue of divestment. You have heard these arguments before and have even heard them here from people that believe morality and money aren't related. Of course that is a pretense. It's just greed in action with some erudite cover speech.

Watch Bok in Harvard dance:

The debate over Harvard’s investment even reached members of Congress. Rep.-elect William R. Ratchford, D-Conn., told The Crimson that Harvard’s divestment from South Africa-related stock could influence national and international governments against apartheid.    

In late spring, the Faculty circulated a letter that endorsed a gradual, five-step policy to force corporations to pull out of South Africa. The letter, signed by over 100 professors, urged Harvard to stop investing in corporations operating in South Africa, and to support or initiate shareholder resolutions calling for corporate withdrawal. According to this letter, if these efforts fail, Harvard should adopt a policy of selective divestment. 


Bok was reluctant to yield to student and Faculty pressure. He wrote two letters addressing divestment from South Africa in which he explained his support for University policy.

In an open letter in March,
Bok wrote that the purpose of a university is not “to reform society in specific ways,” but to transmit knowledge and protect its financial stability. In his second letter in April, Bok doubted the effectiveness of divestment in promoting the end of apartheid, and supported the Corporation’s position that the best way for Harvard to influence corporate behavior was “to vote as a shareholder.”

Bok’s open letters played an important role in the debate on Harvard’s South Africa-related investments.

According to Morton Keller, co-author of Making Harvard Modern, Bok was well aware of the moral implications of Harvard’s investments, but he also felt it his duty to protect the financial stability of the University.

“Derek Bok was very much double-minded about it,” Keller says. “Part of him responded favorably to the idea that there should be a moral dimension [to Harvard’s investment policy.”
“Part of him opposed it in the sense that his primary responsibility was to see that the University was affluent and solvent,” Keller continues.

“And to get into the business of deciding what was moral and what was immoral in the way of investments was going down a dangerous road.”

The Corporation never launched full and immediate divestment, though it sold stocks in companies that did not contribute to anti-apartheid efforts, which included protesting to the government and training or promoting black employees.

“I don’t think it is correct to say that the Corporation changed its mind,” 
Bok, who led the Corporation in the late 1970s, writes in an e-mail. “We were asked to sell all of the stock of all the scores of companies which did any business in South Africa. We never agreed to that demand.
We did decide to sell a few stocks, amounting, I would guess, to only half a dozen companies or so.”

Mansfield says that the University did realize its moral responsibility in its financial investments. 

“They ended up accepting the premise of divestment advocates, namely that the University had a moral responsibility not to invest in companies that were complicit in apartheid,” Mansfield says.

“It certainly made our investment managers aware that they could be confronted with moral objections. I imagine that has remained,” Mansfield adds.

June 9, 2004


So it goes. A lot of noise and the credentialed assholes just pretended they were going along until the noise died down. I disagree with Mansfield or at least whatever morality Harvard supposedly espoused didn't last.

The fact that Dershowitz teaches there is testament to that!  >:(

Of course it hasn't ended. As we speak there is a huge and ongoing scandal of many top universities, including Harvard, participating in the African corporate land grab. But that's a subject for another day.

So it goes.

Thank God this world has men like Harry Heinz Schwarz to counter the greed and calloused predatory capitalism of people like Engelhard and the corporate predators he left behind.

Do your part, tell somebody that "GREED IS BAD" whenever you get a chance. 

And remember Harry Schwartz, an example of honorable, prejudice free behavior for all of us to follow.

If you missed Part 1 of this article on a courageous man, click below:  8)
Harry Schwarts: Founder of the Torch Commando Part 1
« Last Edit: November 11, 2013, 09:26:50 pm by AGelbert »
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


+-Recent Topics

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
June 14, 2021, 11:59:50 am

Pollution by AGelbert
June 13, 2021, 12:41:19 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
June 12, 2021, 11:20:57 pm

🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 🐍 Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus modus operandi by AGelbert
June 11, 2021, 07:22:34 pm

Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery by AGelbert
June 10, 2021, 12:46:13 pm

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
June 10, 2021, 12:23:12 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
June 10, 2021, 12:06:50 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
June 09, 2021, 04:57:10 pm

Defending Wildlife by AGelbert
June 09, 2021, 04:34:34 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
June 08, 2021, 01:38:47 pm