well as in cafés.
Progress was slow at first but when Canadian Bob visited new members Alan
and wife Winnie in Bolton he informed them that they were the Bolton Group.
In November 1948 the Group held its first meeting in the Millgate Hotel,
Manchester.
When Canadian Bob introduced Bill H to sobriety in AA our service structure
expanded with Bill's office in the London Fruit Exchange providing the
fellowship with a postal address (BM/AAL London WC1) and a contact number
(Bishopgate 9657) available Monday to Friday 10–5.
By January 1949 meetings in London were being held on Tuesdays and Thursdays
at 11 Chandos Street and membership had passed the magic 100.
In 1952 AA began to lease 11 Redcliffe Gardens with the Central Committee
managing it as the Central Service Office. In 1970 it became the General
Service Office under the management of the General Service Board. When GSO
relocated to Stonebow House in York in 1986 the London Regional Telephone
office remained at Redcliffe Gardens until January 1999 when it moved into
the Regional Service Office (London) at Jacob House and Redcliffe Gardens
passed out of AA history.
Meanwhile in Scotland the Oxford Groups had an instrumental role in AA
beginnings as they had in America. The wife of Philip D, an active
alcoholic, attended an Oxford Group in Scotland and heard about the Groups'
role in the start of AA. Philip visited America in 1948 and attended
meetings before returning to Scotland and carrying the message. Forbes C got
involved and meetings began in Perth, Edinburgh and Glasgow in 1949.
Cathedral Road, Cardiff was the location of the first AA meeting in Wales.
The meeting took place on Friday 13th April 1951 with five attendees.
(Information collated from AA archives with particular reliance on Share:
Alcoholics Anonymous in Great Britain The first fifty years 1947 to 1997:
March 1997)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 5895. . . . . . . . . . . . First AA group in Europe: Dublin,
Ireland
From: Shakey1aa@aol.com . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/25/2009 6:36:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
The Dublin, Ireland Group was formed November
18, 1946.
On November 1, 1946 the Dublin Evening Mail
printed Father Tom Dunlea's (visiting from
Australia) outline of the AA method.
Conor F, visiting his homeland,from
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was set up with
Dr. Moore's patient, Richard P, at St.
Patrick's Hospital. The group's first meetings
were held at the Country Shop in Dublin.
It was the 1st group in Europe.
Anne Marie Shaw-Gwirtz from Philadelphia
and Captain Mike from Dublin, Ireland
submitted by Shakey Mike Gwirtz
Phila, Pa USA
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 5896. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Information about Bernard B.
Smith and Michael Alexander
From: J. Lobdell . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/27/2009 4:08:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I can't tell you much about Bernard Smith's thoughts, etc., but I can tell
you
from personal conversations with Michael Alexander that MA worked with Bill
in
developing the Concepts, though he seems to me to be (characteristically)
undervaluing his contributions. I think he may have been the one (or at
least
one) who suggested the relevance of Tocqueville's DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA,
though
(again) he played down his importance in my conversations with him. Unless
I've
missed something (I'm out of touch with GSO), he's still alive and active at
Trustees' Weekends and the Conference, and would be available and might be
willing to be asked a question or two.
- - - -
> From: wrdjock@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: Information about Bernard B. Smith
>
> Thanks for the info. I have the capsule
> version of his life. I'm looking for more
> in-depth information.
>
> How specifically did he advocate for the first
> General Service Conference?
>
> What were his thoughts?
>
> Did he have any writings which could be
> examined?
>
> He was also present and chairman during the
> period when Bill W was writing the concepts.
> Did he review the essays and provide advice
> to Bill?
>
> I also understand that Michael Alexander was
> a young lawyer in his law firm and that Mr.
> Smith had him help Bill with some of the legal
> aspects of the Concepts. Does anyone know if
> that is correct?
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 5897. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: First AA meeting in Los Angeles
From: Charles Knapp . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/27/2009 12:30:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Hello,
There has always been some cloud of controversy about the founding of AA in
Los
Angeles. Kaye Miller, non-alcoholic, claimed that 1st meeting that was held
in
her home on December 19, 1939 not only did not die out before Mort J.
started
the Cecil Hotel meeting, but there were 2 meetings going at that same time.
That
first meeting only met in her home for about 2 weeks and she went to
Honolulu.
The meeting moved to Barney H.'s home in Glendale. Then back to her house on
Gower in Hollywood in February 1940 when she returned.
In a letter she wrote to Bill W dated February 8, 1947 she is recapping the
early history as she remembered. In that letter she writes :"The very first
meeting that Mort attend in LA he attend at my house on Gower street in
Hollywood. I had gone to Honolulu and returned in the mean time. I know it
was
in April 1940 because it was a sort of double barrel affair, because it was
a
celebration of Johnny Howe birthday so it was about the 14th of April. Mort
called me and I was so very happy to hear the voice of another sober alkie
and
so now we has someone else to tell their story at our meetings." In this
same
letter she claimed that in February 1940 Lee[T.] started the group that
became
the Pasadena Home Group.
Kaye was writing this letter to Bill because it was about this time period
when
the history of AA in LA was beginning to get a little cloudy. The letter not
only went to Bill but to several of the pioneers of AA in LA. A carbon copy
of
this letter is in the Area 9 Archives repository in Riverside CA.
Again in February 1951 this letter resurfaced because facts were becoming
even
more distorted. Bill W. came to LA to help with the election of the 1st
delegate
to the general Service Conference. At one of the meetings that weekend, Mort
was
given the credit for starting AA in Los Angeles. It seems the group of early
members that saw the LA's history the same way Kaye did, were upset and it
caused a great deal of controversy. Clyde D (future Area 5 Delegate) was
circulating her original letter asking Secretaries to read it at their
meetings
There is another letter that was circulated by a member names Bud that also
debunked some of the facts that came out at that meeting. But I guess it all
died down without any changes in their history.
The little booklet of How AA Came To LA that was written by the Southern
California Archives Committee in 1986 was nicely done. I am sure the LA
Central archives had some of these same letters that I have seen from Kaye
and
the others members concerning the early history. So I am not sure why their
version also differs. Their version even names the author of the "Lone
Endeavor"
as Peter C. Kaye's letter in 1946 named him as Pat C. I truely believe
this history was done mostly by information found on tapes and not hard
documentation. Oh by the way in that 1946 letter she stated Pat C had been
going
to meetings again and was doing well.
A couple years ago I was privilege to go to the GSO Archives in New York and
do
some research on the history of Area 9. While there I did find some
interesting
information on this subject. I saw at least 2 letters from Kaye to Bill just
before the book, AA Comes Of Age, was published pleading with him to correct
the
book's version of the history of how AA got started in LA. She pleaded with
him
to give some of the earlier members some of the credit as well as Mort. But
it
seemed Bill only corrected Street names and a couple smaller facts but left
out
some of the facts Kaye wanted added..
One last version that I found was in the February 1952 Grapevine. This
entire
issue is dedicated to AA in Los Angeles and San Francisco. If you read AA
Comes
of Age version of how AA started in LA and this article, it is two different
versions of the same story. This version is also more along what Kaye was
saying.
I served as the Area 9 Archivist from 1996 to beginning of 2009. For almost
12
years I tried to get into the archives at the LA Central Office and was told
it
was a closed archives. Just before I left California restrictions were lifed
and
members are now able to go into that archives. Members can only go in during
regular business hours Monday through Friday. Due to my work schedule I was
never able to get by to do any research.. Maybe some archives committee or
concerned members can go do some research and maybe rewrite the history of
how
AA really came to LA. I am sure somewhere within all of the different
versions
is how it really happened. Personally I would like to think it will be
closer to
Kaye's version.
Hope this helps
Charles from Wisconsin
--- On Tue, 7/14/09, Charles Grotts wrote:
From: Charles Grotts
Subject: [AAHistoryLovers] First AA meeting in Los Angeles
To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 7:18 PM
In Los Angeles our AA meeting directory says
that the first meeting in L.A. took place on
December 19, 1939 but that meeting died out.
The first meeting that lasted was started on
either the last Friday in March or the 1st
Friday in April, 1940, according to Mort
Joseph, who organized it. In a talk given
in 1975, he said he never could remember
which Friday it was. That was at the Cecil
Hotel in downtown Los Angeles, which still
exists. It was called "The Old Mother Group."
After moving to several locations, it
eventually died out too.
History pamphlet:
http://www.lacoaa. org/HOW%20AA. pdf
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 5898. . . . . . . . . . . . First AA meeting in Quebec: the one
in Montreal January 1945?
From: anonymousseau . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/26/2009 12:38:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Could the first meeting in Quebec be Montreal?
These May 1951 Grapevine articles ...
"Sunday Morning, Dec. '44 Began the Montreal
Miracle" and "The Montreal Story."
Jack was in Chicago at the time he got the
message from Dick during Christmas time 1944.
When Jack went back to Montreal he was put in
contact with Dave (B?) who had been in
correspondence with New York AA and struggling
to start a meeting in this city for nearly
a year.
Their first meeting together was sometime in
January 1945.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 5899. . . . . . . . . . . . RE: Group start date: how it is
defined
From: Arthur S . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/27/2009 11:04:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
From Arthur S., Tim T., and Jon Markle
- - - -
From: "Arthur S"
(ArtSheehan at msn.com)
Jared on this one I guess we'll have to do the old friendly "agree to
disagree." There are two things though I find interesting:
1. By the definition of "a group vs a meeting" you advocate, none of the
early groups would qualify as a group
2. In a July 1946 Grapevine article titled "The Individual In Relation to
A.A. as a Group" Bill W wrote:
"... Yet Point Three in our A.A. Tradition looks like a wide-open invitation
to anarchy. Seemingly, it contradicts Point One. It reads, 'Our membership
ought to include all who suffer alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who
wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend on money or
conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may
call themselves an A.A. Group'. This clearly implies that an alcoholic is a
member if he says so; that we can't deny him his membership; that we can't
demand from him a cent; that we can't force our beliefs or practices upon
him; that he may flout everything we stand for and still be a member ..."
[Here's the part I find most interesting]
"... In fact, our Tradition carries the principle of independence for the
individual to such an apparently fantastic length that, so long as there is
the slightest interest in sobriety, the most unmoral, the most anti-social,
the most critical alcoholic may gather about him a few kindred spirits and
announce to us that a new Alcoholics Anonymous Group has been formed.
Anti-God, anti-medicine, anti-our Recovery Program, even anti-each
other-these rampant individuals are still an A.A. Group if they think so!
..."
I rest my case.
Cheers
Arthur
- - - -
From: Tim T.
(pvttimt at aol.com)
I've always thought that a simple explanation is
that a group is registered with GSO and has a
group number. ???? A meeting is not registered.
Occam's razor anyone?
Tim T., an alky.
- - - -
From: Jon Markle
(serenitylodge at mac.com)
All that means absolutely nothing to most people, ya know.
The only explanation that makes any sense, or has any practical
reality is that the difference between a meeting and a group is
simple: A meeting is not registered. A group is registered. That's
it. Simple.
They both function in the same way. The rest is simply an exercise in
semantics, as far as I can see. And AA's will argue 'till pigs fly
over semantics!
Most groups I'm familiar with, haven't got a clue what this much
detail means. Nor do they care, in reality. Too much organization at
this level and AA looses it's meaning for most people . . . except
those who get off, get their jollies on "control issues" and obsess
over the nitty gritty details of running things.
Such is NOT the AA that the average alcoholic is familiar with.
Neither do they (I) wish to have much to do with such emphatically
declared guidelines.
All groups remain autonomous. Many groups simple ignore, or do not
care to subscribe to 12 concepts. And there are many who do not even
subscribe to the suggested 12 traditions. They still remain AA
groups, because they say they are and have no affiliation with any
other process. They exist to carry the message of AA to the next
alcoholic. They do not care about all this other bother.
So . . . I don't understand your post in that context. But, I also do
not particularly care to understand it either. Too much organization
simply makes "us" sick, in my experience.
Hugs for the trudge.
Jon (Raleigh)
9/9/82
- - - -
Original Message from: J. Lobdell
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Hi! Arthur
As you point out, the Conference-approved pamphlet "The Group" says that
"The main difference between meetings and groups is that A.A. groups
generally continue to exist outside the prescribed meeting hours, ready to
provide Twelfth Step help when needed. A.A. groups are encouraged to
register with G.S.O., as well as with their local offices: area, district,
intergroup or central office." As I understand it, the means for existing
outside of "meeting hours" -- that is, to be more than simply a meeting --
is to have the service structure suggested in that pamphlet, and to link
with Intergroup (by means of an Intergroup Representative) and with the
General Service Structure (by means of a GSR). Hence my statement that the
creation of the service structure leads to a quick test of what's a group
and what's a meeting. I did not say that was AA's view -- as you well know,
neither I (having studied AA) nor you (having studied AA and being an active
member of the General Service Structure, as you say) can speak for AA. The
"Twelve Concepts" may not be ambiguous, but the "Twelve Concepts" plus "The
Group" pamphlet seem to present a certain degree of ambiguity (see also Jack
Norris's attempt to distinguish between special-purpose groups, which may
suffer from the "other affiliations" problem, and special-purpose meetings).
I remained convinced that, if there is to be a distinction between a group
and a meeting, it must lie in participation in the service structure, and
the quickest test is whether there is a GSR or could be if requirements
("suggestions") for selection as GSR can be met. Of course, if a group
which has two meetings says each one is a separate group, and claims the
right therefore to two GSRs, presumably General Service must go along with
it (I know an example in Area 59, District 36). Yes, a group is a group if
it says it's a group, if you like -- that's the historical precedent, with
which we as historians are concerned -- but the proof (another historical
precedent for much of AA) is in the action. If it acts like a group, it's a
group. If it doesn't, what's the point of saying it is one? And btw, if
there are no home-group members, what is it that's a group? [P.S. -- I think
NA refers to a GR, tho' here I speak under correction.]--
Jared
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 5900. . . . . . . . . . . . Houston S., Sterling S., and Jim M.
From: ckbudnick . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/30/2009 12:54:00 AM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I'm curious if anyone has any information on some members of Alcoholics
Anonymous from Frankfurt and Lexington, Kentucky who were instrumental in
forming and/or supporting a 12-step group for addicts at the US Public
Health
Hospital in Lexington, KY. In Feb. 1947 Houston Sewell helped start what was
known then as Addicts Anonymous. The group eventually began publishing a
newsletter called The Key. I've seen three copies of the Key (Feb. 1959,
Fall
1963 and Fall 1964). The 1959 and 1963 copie show Houston S. as a sponsor.
Starting in 1963 you begin to see Sterling S. and Jim M.
Two copies of the Key had a mailing address for a Jim Music in Lexington,
KY.
I'm curious about any information folks have about these individuals and the
very significant service work they did.
Thanks,
Chris B.
Raleigh, NC
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 5901. . . . . . . . . . . . The A.A. Group
From: Bill Lash . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/30/2009 8:20:00 AM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Can someone please verify what it says below (if anyone have a version of
this pamphlet prior to 1991). Thanks.
Just Love,
Barefoot Bill
The 6-Point Definition of an AA Group from the 2/1990 version of the
pamphlet "The A.A. Group":
1. All members of a group are alcoholics and all alcoholics are eligible for
membership.
2. As a group they are fully self-supporting.
3. A group's primary purpose is to help alcoholics recover through the
Twelve Steps.
4. As a group they have no outside affiliation.
5. As a group they have no opinion on outside issues.
6. As a group, their public relations policy is based on attraction rather
than promotion, and they maintain personal anonymity at the level of press,
radio, TV, and film.
These were taken out of the pamphlet in 1991.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 5902. . . . . . . . . . . . No groups before GSO ??
From: Shakey1aa@aol.com . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/29/2009 11:49:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
A question arises; Were none of the original groups actually groups? All
the discussion about a group only being a group if it registered with
General Services in New York is preposterous .There was no registration of
groups
(with group service number) when these original groups were formed. When
did this fallacy that a group is only a group if it registers with GSO and
is assigned a group number. There is AA outside of GSO. Most of the
original groups formed in larger metropolitan centers and became
Intergroups.
The
Intergroup /Central Office Service Structure came before General Service
and is not included in the GSO Service Structure. That's the way they wanted
it. A group can be formed and not register with GSO if it chooses to do so.
All groups are autonomous.
Look at the early Service Bulletins that Bill sent out. There were
reports of AA in ABC and XYZ cities and no group registration numbers. The
early Grapevines mentioned the additional groups being formed. Ruth Hock
would get a letter from the group secretary in the "early days"saying that
the
group had started, how many members were in the group and where to send a
book or two(prepaid) to the group secretary's address. In Phila the
secretary position was rotated I think every 3 months. Phila also was the
first
mother group to support NY financially.
Wasn't it the Alcoholic Foundation then?
Maybe someone can tell us when the first group service number was
assigned and how long after it was proposed did it come to be?
I'm trying to maintain the same enthusiasm for AA that I had when I
first came in, and as always willing to learn and be taught by those that
Dostları ilə paylaş: |