It's fair game to talk about whether alcoholics involved in AA history
(including those who were not AA members, but with whom we were in
contact, like Ebby Thacher and Rowland Hazard, and the people involved
in the Jacoby Club, which heavily influenced early Boston AA) were
able to find a solution to their drinking problem, either IN or OUT of
AA.
It's fair game to ask how well early AA worked in fact, and also how
well some of the other systems worked in fact (like the Oxford Group,
the Emmanuel Movement and Jacoby Club, and Peabody's method) to see
why the early AA people decided to discard some of the principles
involved in those other groups.
Otherwise, we would NOT be honest historians, and would in fact be
running a shill for AA.
At that point, someone else wrote in and said, don't say things like
that about Peabody if you can't prove it, otherwise it's the worst
kind of malicious gossip mongering.
And the person who originally wrote that, who is an honest historian,
had to admit that he was stating something that he did not know for a
one hundred per cent guaranteed fact, although there was some
significant supporting evidence.
So our AA historians have been checking that question out, simply to
establish what the facts were here. And the answer at this point
seems to be that we cannot know all of the facts surrounding Peabody's
last days for sure, and that there may in fact have even been
ameliorating circumstances (medical doctors sometimes prescribed small
amounts of alcohol for heart patients in that period of history, as
they did for my grandfather, who was not an alcoholic, during his last
years, which was during the 1950's).
So it is unfortunate that we cannot necessarily come up with a one
hundred percent guaranteed answer to this particular question, but
that is the nature of all real historical research. Not all
historical questions can be answered with one hundred percent
certainty. A good professional historian has to know, not only what
we DO know for a fact, but what we do NOT know for an absolute fact.
Nevertheless, we CAN say that we do not have much (if any) reliable
data supporting the assertion that the Peabody method was a very
workable method of dealing with alcoholism. And we can say that, in
spite of the popularity of his book among the general public at that
time, it wasn't going to be a real winner when it came to effectively
dealing with the problem of alcoholism in the United States (where it
was then, and still is, the third leading cause of death). That's why
nobody tries to use the Peabody method any more.
My own very rough observations are that, out of all the alcoholics
whom I have known who obtained a five year survival rate (five years
of unbroken sobriety), around 1% did that by will power alone
(essentially the Peabody method), around 1% did that by going to a
conservative evangelical church and reading the Bible and praying to
Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and the other 98% get sober in AA.
More alcoholics by far get sober in AA than by any other way, but I
know of no sensible observer (including all of the people who
regularly contribute to this web group) who would deny that the other
two methods also sometimes work.
At the present stage of research, it seems clear that Peabody's book,
in spite of the fact that it was very widely read and very popular for
a while, stopped being read and used because it simply didn't work
very well, if at all. And the evidence surrounding Peabody's drinking
during his own last years gives us at least no unambiguous evidence
that the system worked for him either.
On the basic issue, the fact is that almost nothing in the AA program
was totally invented by the early AA people themselves. Almost
everything in the AA program originally came from somewhere else, and
had been said by somebody else before. So a decent history of early
AA will be forced to write about the earlier attempts to deal with
alcoholism in the United States from which the early AA people learned
either (a) good ideas which they could borrow or (b) bad ideas which
they needed to leave out of their new AA program if they wanted it to
be as successful as possible.
So we have no choice, when writing a full account of early AA history,
but to write at least a little about things like the Oxford Group;
the Emmanuel Movement and the Jacoby Club; Rowland Hazard and Carl
Jung; Peabody's book; neo-Freudian psychiatrists like Adler;
representatives of the New Thought movement like Emmet Fox and James
Allen ( http://hindsfoot.org/kML3rc1.html ); and other ideas and
movements of the early twentieth century.
These become of interest to AA historians when it is clear that they
had an effect on the way early AA people thought and believed.
But those members of the group who are not interested in these things,
and who want to focus solely on working out the dates and facts
surrounding the lives of early AA members and early AA publications,
should just delete these messages about the background to early AA.
That's the advantage of being in a web group, as opposed to having to
sit through a long conference, when one of the speakers spends a half
hour ranting about something you aren't the slightest bit interested
in (and anyway, you don't LIKE the jerk, he's obnoxious).
Hit the delete button!
But there is NO WAY that anyone could post messages for a group of
over 1400 people all around the world, and guarantee that each
individual member will NEVER see a message posted that he or she finds
uninteresting (grin).
Heck, I've seen strings of messages posted on this web site on certain
occasions on things that I personally thought were unbelievably
pedantic and boring, but some of the other members of the group found
that topic fascinating, and since they are members of the group in
good standing, they have their rights too.
In the list of topics at the beginning of my heavily used and well
worn copy of "As Bill Sees It: The A.A. Way of Life ... selected
writings of A.A.'s cofounder" (23rd printing,
1989) there is a long list of reading on the topic of "tolerance"
for
other members of the program, warts and all (grin).
Glenn C. (South Bend, Indiana)
Yahoo! Groups Links
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 3684. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: First World Conference
transcripts
From: Shakey1aa@aol.com . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/5/2006 10:01:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I believe part of what you are looking for is
Bill's address entitled "We Come of Age"
Cleveland July 28-30,1950
by Bill
His presentation is 13 pages long and if
anyone wants it I will mail it to you( free of
charge) if you will provide me with your address
or if you e-mail me and I'll scan it and e-mail
it to you. Freely given and freely received.
Shakey1aa@aol.com
(Shakey1aa at aol.com)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR: Please e-mail Mike
directely at the above e-mail address. We don't
have a "forward" button on the Yahoo group
system Pending Message board, which means that
otherwise, I have to copy out your message and
then paste it in Notepad, and then copy it out
a second time and put it in an e-mail from me
to that person, which makes things unnecessarily
complicated. Thanks! Back to Mike's message.]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Our archives are a much cherished commodity.
This puts a price on them. I am against making
money off our history. It makes for the legitimate
AA repositories being excluded because we ask
for donations and many are unwilling to turn
over our history to us when the almighty dollar
is concerned.
I'm also against legitimate AA archives
restricting information/or access to AA members.
Any donated AA history should be available
to any alcoholic. No one should have the right
to restrict its use(only exception is if the
person who donates it restricts its use).
Going soon to Baton Rouge,
Shakey Mike Gwirtz
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 3685. . . . . . . . . . . . 1st International Conference
From: Shakey1aa@aol.com . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/5/2006 10:27:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I have a tentative program and flyer from that
historic conference. It is interesting to note
that the flyer indicates that it was being
"sponsored by the pioneer groups ... Akron,
New York, and Cleveland" ( I didn't know those
three cities were referred to in that way.)
Registration was $1.50 and banquet tickets were
$5.00. For baseball tickets, reserved seats
were $1.50 and box seats $2.00.
The flyer also stated that "This event is rapidly
snowballing into what, from all present indications,
will prove to be the most important events in
all AA history."
(I guess that Bill meeting with Dr Bob was the
second most important date in AA history?)
Yours in Service,
(Still on the way to Baton Rouge and
then California, Oregon, and Washington)
Shakey Mike Gwirtz
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 3686. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Why no amends to family on page
76?
From: CBBB164@AOL.COM . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/6/2006 8:12:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Amends to the family are emphasized in the first
paragraph on page 83 as well as in other sections
of our Basic Text.
In God's love and service,
Cliff Bishop
Home - (214) 350-1190
Cell - (214) 532-5371
FAX - (214) 350-1190
CBBB164@aol.com
www.ppgaadallas.org
_______________________________________
In a message dated 9/5/2006,
cmpvandango@yahoo.co.uk writes:
Steps Eight and Nine, making amends:
Big Book 4th edition pg 76 chapter "Into Action."
"Probably there are still some misgivings. As we
look over the list of business acquaintances and
friends we have hurt, we feel diffident about
going to some of them on a spiritual basis....."
My home group has a question regarding the above
paragraph and have asked for the AA History lovers'
views and opinions. Why in this paragraph is there
no mention made of making amends to members of our
families whom we may have harmed?
Many thanks
Carl P
Barking Big Book Study (The Way Out)
_________________________________
From the moderator: for our members in other
parts of the world, the London Borough of Barking
and Dagenham is in England, located in the County
of Greater London on the eastern side.
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 3687. . . . . . . . . . . . Jimmy B. Grapevine Article (1968)
From: Bill Lash . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/6/2006 11:24:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Sober for Thirty Years
One of the earliest members of the first New York AA group, he was also its
first "self-proclaimed atheist"
As NOTED in my story, "The Vicious Cycle," in the Big Book, I came
into the
Fellowship in New York in January, 1938. At that time it was just leaving
the Oxford Group. There was one closed discussion meeting a week, at Bill's
home in Brooklyn - attendance six or eight men, with only three members who
had been sober more than one year: Bill, Hank, and Fritz. This is about all
that had been accomplished in the four years with the New York Oxford Group.
During those early meetings at Bill's, they were flying blind, with no creed
or procedure to guide them, though they did use quite a few of the Oxford
sayings and the Oxford Absolutes. Since both Bill and Dr. Bob had had
almost-overnight religious experiences, it was taken for granted that all
who followed their way would have the same sort of experience. So the early
meetings were quite religious, in both New York and Akron. There was always
a Bible on hand, and the concept of God was all biblical.
Into this fairly peaceful picture came I, their first self-proclaimed
atheist, completely against all religions and conventions. I was the captain
of my own ship. (The only trouble was, my ship was completely disabled and
rudderless.) So naturally I started fighting nearly all the things Bill and
the others stood for, especially religion, the "God bit." But I
did want to
stay sober, and I did love the understanding Fellowship. So I became quite a
problem to that early group, with my constant haranguing against all the
spiritual angles.
All of a sudden, the group became really worried. Here I had stayed sober
five whole months while fighting everything the others stood for. I was now
number four in "seniority." I found out later they had a prayer
meeting on
"what to do with Jim." The consensus seemed to have been that they
hoped I
would either leave town or get drunk.
That prayer must have been right on target, for I was suddenly taken drunk
on a sales trip. This became the shock and the bottom I needed. At this time
I was selling auto polish to jobbers for a company that Bill and Hank were
sponsoring, and I was doing pretty well, too. But despite this, I was tired
and completely isolated there in Boston. My fellow alcoholics really put the
pressure on as I sobered up after four days of no relief, and for the first
time I admitted I couldn't stay sober alone. My closed mind opened a bit.
Those folks back in New York, the folks who believed, had stayed sober. And
I hadn't. Since this episode I don't think I have ever argued with anyone
else's beliefs. Who am I to say?
I finally crawled back to New York and was soon back in the fold. About this
time, Bill and Hank were just beginning to write the AA Big Book. I do feel
sure my experience was not in vain, for "God" was broadened to
cover all
types and creeds: "God as we understood Him."
I feel my spiritual growth over these past thirty years has been very
gradual and steady. I have no desire to "graduate" from AA. I try
to keep my
memories green by staying active in AA - a couple of meetings weekly.
For the new agnostic or atheist just coming in, I will try to give very
briefly my milestones in recovery:
The first power I found greater than myself was John Barleycorn.
The AA Fellowship became my higher power for the first two years.
Gradually, I came to believe that God and Good were synonymous and were to
be found in all of us.
And I found that by meditating and trying to tune in on my better Self for
guidance and answers, I became more comfortable and steady.
J.B.
San Diego, California
AA Grapevine, May 1968
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 3688. . . . . . . . . . . . AA in Great Britain and Ireland:
significant dates
From: ArtSheehan . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/7/2006 9:45:00 AM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Sally Cousins in Bristol, England, suggested an important
date for our Significant September Dates in AA History.
One thing that I believe might be even more historically significant
occurred in 1957. The first overseas General Service Board of AA in
Great Britain and Ireland was established. It's a huge milestone in
the history of the "internationalization" of the General Service
Structure and national autonomy. See AA Comes of Age pg ix - it gives
the year but not the month.
Perhaps our Archives friends in the UK can find out the specific date
when the UK/Ireland board was chartered.
Cheers
Arthur
-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Bristol Fashion
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Subject: Significant September dates in A.A. History
Can you fit the following date in somewhere?
Sept 1971 First European Convention, Bristol, England
Yours
Sally Cousins
Archivist
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 3689. . . . . . . . . . . . APOAR and Robert Emmett Rack
From: Shakey1aa@aol.com . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/5/2006 10:14:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Is anyone familiar with APOAR(Applied Principles
of Alcoholic Recovery) by Robert Emmett Rack and
if it is still being used in Prisons and Institutions?
I'm not in "the field" but have looked at what he
has written and wonder about its success.
Shakey Mike Gwirtz
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 3690. . . . . . . . . . . . RE: 1st International Conference
From: ArtSheehan . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/9/2006 9:46:00 AM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Hi Mike
The program for the event (see one of the pages
attached) also describes Cleveland as "the birthplace
of our movement."
This was all part of Clarence Snyder's claim that
the Cleveland Group was the first to use the term
"Alcoholics Anonymous" to describe itself.
Based on my own research, this claim is false -
Bill W was using the term "Alcoholics Anonymous"
to describe the Fellowship nearly a year prior to
Clarence using it and well before the Cleveland Group
was started (it started shortly after the Big Book
was published). Clarence also liked to call himself
the "founder" of AA.
Cheers
Arthur
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:27 AM
From: Shakey1aa@aol.com (Shakey1aa at aol.com)
Subject: 1st International Conference
I have a tentative program and flyer from that
historic conference. It is interesting to note
that the flyer indicates that it was being
"sponsored by the pioneer groups ... Akron,
New York, and Cleveland" (I didn't know those
three cities were referred to in that way.)
Registration was $1.50 and banquet tickets
were $5.00. For baseball tickets, reserved
seats were $1.50 and box seats $2.00.
The flyer also stated that "This event is
rapidly snowballing into what, from all present
indications, will prove to be the most
important events in all AA history."
(I guess that Bill meeting with Dr Bob was the
second most important date in AA history?)
Yours in Service,
(Still on the way to Baton Rouge and
then California, Oregon, and Washington)
Shakey Mike Gwirtz
___________________________________
NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR:
Please guys! Let's not get into a bitter fight
over "who was right" and "who was wrong."
As AA historians, we need to observe that there
was a major struggle within AA at one point in
the late 1940's and early 1950's, with a small
but very determined group of AA leaders struggling
to remove Bill Wilson and his close associates in
New York City from their position of dominance over
the AA movement.
Clarence Snyder, Henrietta Seiberling, Bill VanHorn,
Royal F. Shepard, and others were involved in this
AA "Orthodox Movement" during that time period.
Some of Bill W.'s crucial decisions in turn, during
that period, were directed towards countering their
influence. From Bill W.'s perspective, the greatest
peril which AA was in at that point, was the danger
of being fragmented into a number of warring
regional centers, including not only Cleveland but
also Texas, each one claiming to be the proper place
to serve as the international headquarters and
center of the worldwide movement. Bill W. was afraid
that this was going to produce a number of different
warring AA "sects" instead of a single AA fellowship,
with a single coherent basic philosophy and set of
organizational principles, for the entire world.
From the viewpoint of the Orthodox Movement, they
(and people in many other parts of the U.S. and
Canada) were being allowed little or no input into
the discussions among the little circle of people
in New York City who were making most of the
decisions at that time.
From the viewpoint of the Orthodox Movement, it
also seemed necessary to make clear that New
York City was not Rome, Bill W. was not the Pope,
and the people at the New York AA office did not
get to wear red robes like the Cardinals in the
Vatican.
The system of dividing AA into Areas which would
send Delegates to New York City was one of the
ideas that were subsequently developed to deal with
some of the legitimate complaints of the Orthodox
Movement. The system of moving the Internationals
around to different parts of the U.S. and Canada
every time they were held was another response to
AA people in places like Ohio and Texas who were
getting ready to take matters into their own hands,
if no one took their objections to over-centralization
seriously.
Instead of getting over-diverted into disputes
over who first came up with the idea of calling the
movement "Alcoholics Anonymous," and why Bill W. was
the only major AA leader who did not work for a
living at an outside job, it is necessary to
remember the more important issues involved in that
set of historical disputes, which were very
important in the historical evolution of early AA.
The issues of local autonomy vs. central control
within the AA structure are still very much alive
today, and high feelings and angry words can still
explode quickly. The fundamental philosophical
issues involved in the dispute raised by the
Orthodox Movement in the 1940's and 50's were real
ones -- looking at what happened back then is not
just a study of the dead past.
For those who wish to know more about the Orthodox
Movement, Mitchell K. (author of "How It Worked: The
Story of Clarence H. Snyder and the Early Days of
Share with your friends: |