text:
Home Page » Forum index » The Archives » Archived Book Discussion Forums » Archived Book Discussions 2008-2009 » Ten Theories of Human Nature - by Leslie Stevenson & David Haberman
Ch. 1 - Rival Theories -- and Critical Assessment of Them Tweet This Topic
[ 47 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Ch. 1 - Rival Theories -- and Critical Assessment of Them
Please use this thread for discussing Chapter 1.
WildCityWoman
Thanked: 13 times in 12 posts
I'm about to start . . .
Have glanced over the first few pages - my daughter was present when I did so, and tried her best to confiscate it - she wants to read it, but she can take it out on her library card.
Ven vee get older, vee get viser . . . heh! heh!
Location: Luray, Virginia
Just acknowledging the existence of so many rival theories, just that alone...perhaps that tells us something important? In the field of psychotherapy, the existence of so many theories has caused some to realize that none of them can be true (in the sense of exclusively true), so there is talk of theory "convergence." I wonder if that could be possible on the much larger scale we're talking about here? It does seem strike me as obvious that none of these can be true, either, in the sense of exclusively true. Well, I hope to be able to say something more specific about this chapter eventually!
In other woids?
Different strokes for different folks . . . heh! heh!
Everybody's got their own way of thinking about things. I guess culture, where you live, what religion, if any, you lean toward. And the workplace - where you work, what kind of work you do - that all affects the way people think.
I am going to put the book in front of my nose, right now (right this psychological moment, as my father used to say) and read the first chapter.
. . . is there no such 'essential' human nature, only a capacity to be molded by the social environment - by economic, political and cultural forces?
I have to admit that I've not been to college or university, and have had no formal training in philosophy. So my answers to these questions will come from nothing more than my own views of life, those views having been 'molded' over the course of the 64 years I have been alive on this planet.
That said, let me give my understanding of the word 'essential' . . . I'm taking it to mean 'what's needed', 'what's instinctively there'.
Here is something I often tend to think about . . . a baby is born somewhere - let's say it is in an undeveloped area, a woodland, a natural beach by a seashore or the edge of a lake.
The mother pushes the baby out, cuts (bites?) the cord away from her body and leaves the child right there. There would have to be a reason for this, I realize, as a woman I know a mother's true instinct is to hold onto the baby.
But let's just say circumstances prevent the mother from staying with the child - maybe she died right there on the spot and the baby lived.
The baby has nothing more than its instincts - those instincts would be:
1) eat;
2) keep warm and comfortable;
3) avoid danger.
Inside the womb, the baby ate by way of the mother's body - when the baby matured the full nine months, it instinctively pushed its way out of the womb.
(Is it the mother's body or the baby's need? Dunno')
But once out of the womb, the baby instinctively strives to:
1) eat . . .
a) the baby has a need to put something in its mouth - the thumb? The whole hand? Ahhhhhhh! Good! Suck!
b) until the breast is introduced, the baby doesn't know that's what it needs, so it instinctively goes for whatever is available;
2) keep warm and comfortable . . .
a) I don't like this! I'm no longer surrounded by the womb's fluids - shiver! I want to be warm!
b) I want to be held! Pick me up! Hold me! Whaaaaaaaaaa! That's the only noise I know right now, so that's what I'll do;
3) Avoid danger . . .
Of course a baby senses danger - loud noises, tension in its environment. We know this. A baby would sense danger by experience - a loud noise is immediately followed by getting dunked in a cold basin of water, or feeling the pain that ensues as something falls on it - the next loud noise would warn of danger - the baby wants to avoid that danger.
This didn't happen when I was enfolded in the womb - someone hold me! Keep me safe!
Although the baby hasn't yet been given words to express same, it knows it needs these things - food, comfort and security.
It doesn't matter if the baby is male or female - whether the baby's mother and her family were black, white, democrats, republicans, meat eaters, vegetarians, rich or poor - that's what the baby's immediate needs would be.
Individual 'essential' nature would be just that until other individuals came along to show the baby what was to be so.
As unlikely as it would be, IF and only IF, it so happened the baby survived on its own, grew on its own with no human (or animal) assistance, that basic essential nature would stay the same.
That's not to say the child wouldn't form opinions, likes and dislikes - the child would see the sun come up in the morning and its environment graced with light - the child would see the sun go down in the evening and experience darkness.
The child would favour the light over darkness, or the other way around.
The Bible:
P. 3 (near the bottom)
"What is man that Thou art mindful of him . . . Thou has made him a little lower than the angels, and has crowned him with glory and honour," wrote the author of Psalm 8 in the Old Testament.
I personally believe in the Higher Power, being God and have respect for religious scripture, even though I question what was actually written by 'man' and what is completely true.
But what I believe in is immaterial for the moment. Maybe I'll get a chance to spout my opinions on the existence of God further on in the text, but for now, I'll get off my soapbox.
What I'm wondering about is what relation this quotation has to do with the question at hand - essential nature of man.
I dunno' - anybody else know why this is here?
Again . . . The Bible
(right under that last part)
The Bible sees human beings as created by a transcendent God with a definite purpose for our life.
Well, I tend to think so myself - my belief is gained not only from religious teachings I was given as a child, gained by reading and other teachings - my belief is instinctive and experiential. I do not declare my belief in God because a priest, minister, rabbi or mullah or any spiritual leader told me I have to believe - I just do.
And having that belief, I'd even go so far as to say that before we enter our physical lives as beings on this planet, God (or somebody in charge up there) actually tells the individual soul/spirit to decide - what do you want to do this time around? Meaning, what do you want to do with your time on earth.
(Forgive me for being playful here, but I think this is a good way to think of it)
You might have said 'well, I'd like to find out how they get that stuff into the Cadbury bars' and God might say 'OK, but a coupla' other things too - you gotta' do something else with this life you're about to begin'.
So you said 'I'd like to get a university education, maybe have a couple of sons, a daughter and have one of them become the President of the United States.' Maybe you said you'd like to become a doctor and find a cure for aids . . . aids being something you knew would occur in your lifetime. Maybe even cancer - I'd like to take a large part in the eventual cure for cancer.
Maybe one of your fellow souls/spirits - in the same lineup as you - said he wanted to experience how it would be to die by way of violence - to die by being done in by a serial killer. You might have said, yeah ok - maybe I'll be that serial killer. Then we'll meet back here and discuss the experience.
OK - so I'm just rambling on, but you know what I mean. This is just to say, yes - I agree with this - we are created by a transcendent God with a definite purpose for life. When that purpose has been reached, it's time to move on - next life.
Karl Marx - The real nature of man is the totality of social relations.
He might be right . . . to an extent - we are inclined to be who we are because of our environment - we are, to an extent, products of our environment . . . true, but that isn't the 'real nature'.
I think the things we need and come to have feelings about is right there when we're born - the words to form our thoughts on it, come later.
Our ways of being is moulded by our environment - our family, fellow citizens, culture, etc., but not in 'totality' as Marx says.
I also believe a person can pick up personality traits through the biological parent. I know someone who has a mean streak; that person can be downright nasty toward his fellow man at times. His father was like that - jealous, obsessively posessive, and hateful of others. Yet he wasn't brought up with his father. He saw very little of him. The couple who raised him were kind, intelligent people who respected their fellow human beings. It is because of this that he is kind and compassionate at times and other times he's mean spirited and acts out in a nasty way.
So, Marx is right in that our nature comes from 'social relations', but NOT in 'totality'.
Now, just having read through these few paragraphs, I'm wondering how this is going to be . . . the thing is, all of it makes me think - eeeeek! All this thinking might change my opinions on this topic, so don't be surprised if I start contradicting myself - ha ha!
Jean-Paul Satre - Man is 'condemned' to be free' . . . he holds that we are free to do or think whatever we want to do.
I wonder what he means by 'condemned'? Would it be better if we were not free, if everything we did was pre-directed and there was no getting away from it?
In contrast, recent sociobiological theorists have treated human beings as a product of evolution, with our own biologically determined, species-specific patterns of behaviour.
Well, maybe it's a bit both, eh? Like I said, an unpleasant trait could be picked up biologically, but the social environment a person lives in could cause the person to be kind.
Our social environment, culture, etc., has a lot to do with it, of course. But if a person's inclined to be one way or the other - i. e., sexual preference, I don't think the environment would make his/her general way of being any different.
If a child is raised with homosexual parents, does that necessarily mean the child will be a homosexual? Sexual preference is inherent/inate . . . the 'environment' wouldn't make a difference.
Sexual preference is one thing that has to stem from the individual's make-up.
How about alcoholism? Whether a person grows up to be someone who is dependent on alcohol/drugs would have to do with his/her own nature. I would think so, anyway.
In a family or community where everybody drinks to excess, a child could be raised and grow up to do one of the following two things:
1) avoid alcohol due to the distaste he/she feels from seeing others mess up their lives because of it;
2) drink a lot just because everybody else is doing it - just to 'fit in' maybe?
Still, it has been scientifically proven that alcoholism is caused by a chemical condition (somewhere in the brain?)
Who proved it, and what institution he/she was connected with, I don't know.
ARF - Addiction Research Foundation - right here in Toronto - the doctors and staff there claim this to be so.
It will not escape the notice of contemporary readers that these three quotations from The Bible, Marx and Sartre, all use the masculine word 'man' in English translation, where presumably the intention was to refer to all human beings . . .
Of course - when these quotations were written, society wasn't conscious of this term - most of society, that is. And if women were offended by this, they didn't say so - it wasn't considered to be important.
There were a few women, of course, who would have been conscious of this, but not a lot. And it has only been in recent times that it was socially acceptable to publicly contradict The Bible. If such contradictions or opinions were written about, women dared not take on such a task. We had enough of a job trying to be accepted as 'equal' and 'entitled' to our opinions - it wouldn't have done at all, for a WOMAN! to come out and question what had been written by MAN! in The Bible - ha ha!
But this, in itself, is a good example of 'essential nature'.
I, as a girl, teen and grown woman, have always been inclined to insert the words
HE/SHE
into my writing, or speech. I realize the word 'man' would do it for most people, but I am conscious of a woman's place in this world and always have been. Women's Lib? Hell! I was conscious of a woman's right to freedom from the thumb of 'some man' long before it was fashionable to be considered 'liberated'.
And in my thoughts on same, I often blamed 'women' as much as 'men'. Women, in my personal opinion, will be as liberated as they want to be.
I could go on forever with examples of this, but will try to keep it down to a dull roar . . .
1) You've probably read this story from me a few times on this set of book forums, or others on the web, but at the risk of boring my audience to tears (of which there are none yet) I'll tell it again:
The year was 1970 - pant suits were the rage - everybody was wearing them - the women, I mean - the men wore 'suits'. But once pant suits for women came into fashion, the terms 'suits' and 'pant suits' meant two different things.
This year heralded the end of a long period of time where women were not allowed to wear pants to the office or to school . . . I don't know how it was anywhere else, but it was the general rule in Canada. Maybe France, or some other place in Europe was ahead of us in that way - I dunno'.
I was once sent home from High School for wearing pants into the classroom to write an exam. Why in the hell a teacher would think it necessary to send a student to the office, ensuing a strict lecture and be sent home, because she wore pants, beats me.
It was, however, considered as being very important. I had to schedule another time to write my exam because of it.
It was early spring, but still cold enough that I didn't want to wear a skirt with my silly garter belt and stockings - any woman around my age would know that it was darn cold.
Why I didn't just wear a skirt and put my pants on under it, I don't know. I could have just taken them off before I went into the classroom.
OK - I admit it - I did it out of sheer spite! I was in a strong rebellious frame of mind around that time - ticked off with a lot of things about school and wanted to challenge the system.
Around that time, I favoured wearing an old pullover sweater that came down to just below the hips - I wore it with my skirts, of course. And with my pants when I was off school.
I viewed the practice of wearing this sweater (and my boyfriend's black shirt) in emulation of 'beatniks'. I was just fascinated with that movement when I was around 14.
My father would have been furious had he known about this incident and my mother, being who 'she was', would have wrung her hands and agreed with everything he said.
She might have said 'well, I don't see why she can't wear pants - women wear pants to the factories, don't they?' But she would have said it very quietly, then changed the subject to avoid having to enlarge upon it.
My father wasn't the kind that demanded subservience from 'the wife' or that she agreed with everything he said. But he was the kind that considered the opinions of other people as being 'hogwash' and would wave his hand in such a way to say 'Aw, g'wan with ya' - that's plain foolish!'
Heh! Heh! My parents were loving people and always provided my brother and I with the basic needs, but they weren't exactly what I considered to be 'with it', if ya' know what I mean.
Anyway, on with this thing about the pant suits . . . in 1970, the year before I gave birth to my first daughter, pant suits had come into style.
I got one - the pants were black (synthetic, one of the worst things 'man' or 'woman' invented) and the top was long, to the top of the legs, and striped. As I remember it was black, brown and yellow and it was a 'shirt style' that buttoned at the cuffs and had three or four buttons at the neckline.
You remember pant suits - shortly after I got that one, the 'wet-look' came in. I got a red one! Ha!
I've got a picture of myself somewhere, where I'm wearing the long wet look shirt as a mini-dress and I'm wearing a blond curly wig! Sensational!
I was working for National Trust - typing forms from stocks, bonds, etc. It was through a temp agency and my title was 'statistical/financial typist'.
Peter was the boss of the department - he sat in the corner office, looking out from his glass windows onto his underlings, all women, who sat, their asses tied to typists' chairs, conscientiously typing.
He was a nice guy, Peter was - I liked him. A Brit, with baby twins at home - he understood women and wasn't too hard on us.
Myself and some of the girls (young and old) had asked if we could wear our pant suits to work. Peter didn't see why not - he wore bell bottom pants and hoped the higher-ups weren't going to object to same.
Anyway, they called a board meeting, the agenda of such meeting to be 'pants suits or no pant suits'. That was the question.
And a ridiculous question it was - like I pointed out to all the women in our office, we were free to do what we liked. If we all walked into the office the next day, each and every one of us wearing a pant suit, what would they do - fire us all right there and then?
It was something, in my opinion, that shouldn't have become a 'question' or a 'request'. As women, we should have just worn the pant suits.
But there was one woman in our office - an old maid who was around 50 or so . . . she very intelligently batted her false eyelashes, that she used get done at Merle Norman's and said 'I think women should be wearing skirts - it isn't proper for women to wear pants.'
I just about screamed! Because of people like 'eyelashes' there, who wouldn't stand up for the basic rights of women to wear what they liked, a meeting was necessary.
If she didn't want to wear a pant suit, she didn't have to, for heaven's sake! But why stand in the way of other women who wanted to wear them?
It was like my Dad, who was stubborn son-of-a-gun. He was one of the car owners on our street that had his own garage at the back of the property. When the neighbours came around and asked him to sign a petition requesting 'residential parking rights' for those who didn't have garages, he refused.
"Why?" I asked, in my usual exasperated fashion.
"Because" he replied, pounding his fist on the dinner table, in his usual fashion, "people who don't have garages shouldn't own cars!"
My mother could have signed it herself but wouldn't. Dad wouldn't have thumped her or cut off her household money over it; he would have laughed at her and made derisive comments, but she was free to do as she wished. He could get awful noisy and bark a lot, but he never bit a soul, to my knowledge.
Still, my mother just shook her head, looking everywhere for something to use to change the subject and said "Oh, that's up to your father - he's the one who drives."
Of course, I was right in there ripping and roaring and said I'd sign it myself. Which I didn't, 'cause nobody asked me - when people came to the door and asked to speak to one of my parents, they didn't take the issue up with a 12 year old. Especially a female . . . ha ha!
But that was back in the days where nobody (except me) thought there was anything wrong with using terms like 'the wife'.
Now, here's another example of 'essential nature' or 'nature by way of environment' . . .
My mother's family were mostly women - and OMG, you shoulda' heard 'em - they were yackers from way back. Even to this day, when there's a funeral, a reunion, or whatever, it's all the women talkin' a mile a minute.
The men are usually sitting off to the side, quietly having a beer, playing cards, checkers or whatever.
There aren't many of them left now, of course, but that's how it was.
I don't really know how it was with my grandmothers - maternal or paternal - I never felt all that close to them anyway. They were both judgmental and only spoke to me when they felt it was necessary to express some criticism, but I'm sure they meant no harm.
Both grandfathers were quiet men who kept to themselves. Both had good sense of humours though . . . I still think of Popper after a few beers on Sunday afternoon, breaking into some old love song, crooning away to Nana, just to embarass her, get her blushing away and saying 'Oh, nonsense!'
I never noticed, however, that either of the grandmothers were dominated in any way by their husbands. It didn't seem that way - they seemed to be equal partners in their marriages.
My mother's two older sisters were scanadalizing in their ways - both frivolous, money spender, (men)izers - a warped way of emulating the word 'womenizers'. The eldest one was kinda' wild - she unfortunately developed alcoholism and became the black sheep (ewe) of the family. In her older years, you didn't see much of her - not that she wasn't invited to family functions - not at all - she just didn't show up.
She was my favourite aunt - she drove a little sports car and had a little dog named Tippy. She did exactly what she wanted to do. Even when she was with her second husband, who drowned in a river up north while fishing, she didn't allow herself to be dominated in any way.
A cute story about Aunt Bessie - Uncle Jim once asked her why she hadn't pressed his pants. She said 'why should I press your pants?' He replied, 'Cause you're the one who wears them!'
There's a few cute stories about old Bessie, but I'll contain myself from telling them, seeing as how this thread isn't about my Aunt Bessie.
Now you would think that two things being in place;
1) my father being a bit loud and imposing in stating his opinions, but certainly not a 'dominating' man who would harm a woman or child;
2) my mother's sisters being willful and anything but 'subservient' wives;
with those two things being in place, you'd think my mother would be the same. You'd think she'd make her own decisions and wouldn't always be looking to her husband for permission, or to be told what she oughta' think.
Just the same, she always did just that. On voting day, she'd go out the door to put her ballot in - she'd ask my father who she should vote for. He'd say 'what are ya' askin' me for? Vote for whoever you want?' But she'd insist - she knew nothing about politics, didn't even watch the news and couldn't care less about current events.
Finally he'd say 'ok, vote for the NDP'. And that's who she'd vote for.
That was something that used to get me going - why the hell vote if you have to ask somebody to tell you who to vote for? If you don't want to learn something about who's running for office, that's fine - I've got nothing against that - but why should a man have two votes, by way of having his wife vote?
So I'd get my own fist pounding on the table about it all, and there'd be another round of yelling from my father - another round of 'You just mind your own business, Miss!'
Then I'd flounce off to my room and rant about it behind closed doors for an hour.
But this thing about my mother - you'd think she would have been more inclined to be 'of her own mind', like her older sisters, but she wasn't. She was an old fashioned woman who believed in a 'man' being a man, and a 'woman' being a woman, and anything in between wasn't spoken of aloud.
That was the way it was. And it has always confounded me.
Hey! If you guys read all this, thanks for doing so - I just love ranting about 'women's rights'.
So, now I've done all this blathering - I see there's over a hundred views, with no replies other than one from Will and several from me - and I'm not even finished chapter 1!
I feel a bit embarassed - ha ha!
After all this reading/thinking, do I still feel the same way? Does the 'essential' nature of an individual depend on environment?
I'm pondering that now . . . and I must say, I'm enjoying this book so far - it's made me think out of the proverbial box.
But, I'm still stumped on what's meant by 'essential'. Does it mean the same thing as 'mainly'?
I know the definition of the word is usually 'what's needed', 'what's necessary', what's 'most important'. But I think it's an entirely different word in this context.
I'm hoping somebody is reading the book and might add to my comments.
So, here I am, all alone in this thread - bored with myself already - but I'm forging on through this first chapter.
I don't feel I've explained my views on the 'he/she' thing well . . .
Where I said . . .
Or, did I? Did you get what I mean by everything I said? About 'environment', the family, how they were, how women thought about things.
My having always 'felt it', needing to ask 'why' and 'why not'.
Was it because that's just the way I am, and always have been since birth? Or did my family environment influence this, one way or the other?
I won't go on about that, for fear I'll be off and running again.
I like the way the paragraphs in this book flow, one into the other - the feminism thing for about half a page, then back into 'God', with no warning whatsoever - yet it works.
If it is not 'God' that's in charge, being the one who decides how things are going to be for us . . .
If, on the other hand, we are products of society, and if we find that our lives are unsatisfactory, then there can be no real solution until society is transformed. If we are radically free and can never escape the necessity for individual choice, then we have to accept this and make our choices with full awareness of what we are doing. If our biological nature predisposes or determines us to think, feel and act in certain ways, then we must take realistic account of that.
So we think about the following:
1) God? In charge, controls all;
2) We are products of society - society must change if we want to be satisfied with our individual lives;
3) If we live mainly through 'choice', then it's up to each individual how to live;
4) If what we are depends on how we're born then we must be realistic and work with what we're given to work with.
Through reading and thinking about all this, I think it's a bit of everything - might even go so far as to say it's either:
1) Everything I am is due to who I was when I was born;
2) Everything I am is due to environment - I am a product of my environment.
Both? Maybe . . . I am inclined to think that God gave us this privilege - we're here to make our own choices, draw our own conclusions.
God, being the supreme power of us all, I mean.
We are part of that God. Every once in a while, through meditation, or through just sitting silently a while and allowing spirit to touch us, we experience that power higher than ourselves. It's there - we can pray to it, commune with it - but still, we must deal with each and every thing that falls into our path through our own perception - God isn't going to put any big signs up on the road, telling us which way to turn, or what to think.
DWill wrote:
Will, sorry I haven't directly responded to your post here till now. Guess I expected you'd be in and out and we'd exchange views.
I too, having been reading and thinking about this, wonder about that - no one of those theories could be true - exclusively true, as you put it.
Not having read any of the 'Sage' stuff yet, I guess it's not the right time to speak of 'Karma'. But I can't help having the thought - if 'Karma', which I tend to believe in, is true, then our lives couldn't be led by 'environment' alone, could it.
Then again, if someone wanted to consider 'past lives' as being part of an individual's 'environment', then it would be true.
It's mind boggling. Since I started reading this, I am obsessed with commenting on each paragraph - and this is making me think more deeply on what's being said.
I'm not generally the 'intellectual' type, but when I meet an 'intellectual' kind of person, I tend toward being the one who throws her hand up to ask questions.
Hell bent on making an ass of myself, I guess, 'cause I usually get shot down. Heh! Heh!
The idea that occured to people back in the 18th Century is that religious truth was not absloute but relative. What the Muslim believed was just as true, for him/her, as what the Christian believed. Enlightenment thinking on religion was based in relativism, and I think relativism has a general acceptance today, even among adherents of a particular religion. Of course, fundamentalists of whatever persuasion are still in the business of convincing us that they are the only ones who hold the Truth.
One result of relativism is the idea that we can't criticize what other people believe, because those beliefs are valid to them, and our own beliefs might appear just as strange. Mormonism seems really weird to me, for example. I accept the principle of not criticizing those beliefs, but only as beliefs. When it comes to what people do in the name of a religion, that is different. Actions can be criticized and condemned. It might appear, then, that the beliefs that people profess as compelling them to act should be condemned, too. That may be, but for myself, I still focus on the action. A belief has no inherent power to compel anyone to action. People still must decide to act, and if they do they are responsible for the consequences of their actions; they can't hide from responsibility behind their beliefs.
The authors tell us that despite cultural relativism, we can use a rational process to deconstruct any system of belief. We can then say whether the system has validity in the scientific sense we have come to value. Maybe we can indeed do this, but as the authors also say, such an analysis may not mean anything to the believers, because their investment in the system is not dependent on reason.
I've always maintained that nothing - meaning not-one-thing in religion (s) can be absolute.
We have only religious scriptures to go by and they were written by people.
The prophets received their messages, burning bush, etc., but there's nothing to prove it was true, or just partially true, with a little imagination thrown in.
Religion is 'theology', not 'knowledge'.
Christianity occupied a similarly dominant position in Western society: heretics and unbelievers were discriminated against, persecuted, even burnt at the stake.
That's something Christians to this day forget when putting their thumbs down on the cruel ways of other cultures. Christians were once guilty of fundamentalist injustice themselves.


Wholesale coffee roaster dedicated to Sustainable practices. we focus on roasting Fair Trade organic coffee that differentiates our product. We live our values, giving back to grower communities, composting our waste with partners like the Saul School and partnering with area coops on product promotions and local initiatives.
When you taste the coffee, you are tasting the flavors of Nicaragua or Honduras. With outlets throughout the Delaware Valley, Farmers Markets locations, and online ordering, Philly Fair Trade coffee is never far away. Philly Fair Trade Roasters is focused on sustainable practices, composting its waste at the Weavers Farm, and using low-impact compostable coffee bags. We strive to support our communities from the farmers to the end users.


text:
The Kee Bird was a United States Army Air Forces Boeing B-29 Superfortress, serial 45-21768, of the 46th Reconnaissance Squadron, that became marooned after making an emergency landing in northwest Greenland during a secret Cold War spying mission on 21 February 1947. While the entire crew was safely evacuated after spending three days in the isolated Arctic tundra, the aircraft itself was left at the landing site. It lay there undisturbed until 1994, when a privately funded mission was launched to repair and return it. During the attempted recovery, a fire broke out, resulting in the destruction and loss of the airframe on the ground.

Mission background
In the early years of the Cold War, some of the most important strategic reconnaissance was carried out by Strategic Air Command units deployed to Ladd Army Airfield, near Fairbanks, Alaska Territory. One of the SAC's initial missions was to plan strategic aerial reconnaissance on a global scale. The first efforts were in photo-reconnaissance and mapping. Along with the photo-reconnaissance mission, a small electronic intelligence (ELINT) cadre was operating. Weather reconnaissance was part of the effort, as was long-range detection, the search for Soviet atomic explosions.

In the late 1940s, strategic intelligence on Soviet capabilities and intentions was scarce. Before the development of the Lockheed U-2 high-altitude spy plane and orbital reconnaissance satellites, technology and politics limited American reconnaissance efforts to the borders, and not the heartland, of the Soviet Union. Ladd Field was one of the important staging areas for gathering what strategic intelligence could be obtained along Soviet borders.

Assigned to the 46th Reconnaissance Squadron, the Kee Bird was originally a standard Block 95 B-29 Superfortress bomber manufactured at Boeing's Wichita, Kansas, plant in 1945, c/n 13662, one of the last B-29s manufactured at the plant. It was delivered to the United States Army Air Forces as serial 45-21768, on August 9, 1945. Once delivered, though, it was placed in storage at Davis-Monthan Army Airfield in Tucson, Arizona, until mid-1946, when the 46th RS was formed.  Nineteen B-29s were assigned to the 46th RS, and at that time, 768 was one of six squadron aircraft that was fitted with special camera installations for photo-reconnaissance work. It carried three K-17B, two K-22, and one K-18 cameras with provisions for others.  With the reconnaissance equipment, it was redesignated an F-13 (in the F- for photo reconnaissance series). The standard B-29 bombing equipment and defensive armament were retained.

With growing tensions in US-Soviet relations, SAC explored the possibility of attacking Soviet targets via great circle routes over the North Pole as part of "Project Nanook".  The 46th was engaged in mapping the northern section of Greenland and also to search for any Soviet military activity in this uninhabited area.   The squadron was assigned to Ladd Field, near Fairbanks, Alaska, in June 1946, and began operational missions later that month.  Its flights were used to develop accurate polar navigation, survey and map the Arctic, perform comprehensive weather studies, test its men and equipment in Arctic conditions, train in polar navigation and operations, and fly long-range photographic intelligence flights with B-29/F-13A Superfortresses.

Last flight

On 20 February 1947, Lt. Vern H. Arnett took Kee Bird off on a routine mission with a crew of 11 men. This was its seventh mission. All of its missions were classified "top secret". The mission on this occasion was to fly to the geographic North Pole, then fly a return route back to Ladd Field.  The aircraft was carrying enough fuel to stay airborne for about 26 hours under normal conditions, having been configured for very long range missions with extra fuel tanks in the unused bomb bays. The mission was expected to last from 12 to 20 hours, making estimated arrival time at Ladd Field around 10:00 am Alaska Standard Time (AT) on 21 February 1947.

"All missions were flown with radio silence to avoid detection. No further report was received on this flight until 0756 AT, 21 February 1947, when Point Barrow CAA Radio Station picked up a radio message from Kee Bird stating that they had no means of steering as the sun was too low." Two minutes later, Arnett reported he had hit a bad storm at  and was "over land but do not know where". "From this information, it was obvious that an emergency existed and plans were immediately made for starting a search-and-rescue mission if the need developed."

"Other reports were received between 0950 and 0958 AT from 768 stating that 4 minutes of fuel remained, and a crash landing would be made on land or ice. Since no position was given, it was believed that they were lost, and search areas were drawn to aid in locating the crew. From all the information available, it was reasonable to assume that the airplane had landed somewhere along the northern coast of Alaska on their return flight from the Pole".

Lt. Arnett and crew had survived the crash landing without sustaining any injuries. They had landed on a small frozen lake in northern Greenland, which was covered with  of hard-packed snow.  A later debriefing of the crew indicated that the aircraft had reached the Pole, then made a 70° turn to the southeast, then a 120° turn to the southwest.  The pilot became disoriented over the polar icepack just north of 85°N, then began to fly to the south, then east until turning west over northern Greenland, where an emergency landing was successful.  The crew had sufficient food and clothing to last them about two weeks.

Rescue
Search aircraft were dispatched from Ladd Field on 21 February.  Two B-29's (45-21871 and 45-21761), one B-17 Flying Fortress, and one long-range OA-10A Catalina reconnaissance aircraft were launched.  Also available was an Air Transport Command C-74 Globemaster, which was at Ladd in temporary status from Morrison Field, Florida, performing cold-weather testing. All other long-range aircraft in Alaska were alerted for the search, and nine B-29s of the 28th Bomb Group at Elmendorf Field responded to the call to aid in the search, and arrived at Ladd Field on 22 February 1947. Since these aircraft were not equipped with bomb-bay fuel tanks, though, they did not have sufficient range to fly to Greenland.  The aircraft returned to their proper station on 23 February 1947.   The first plane to take off on the search was the B-17, flown by personnel of the 5th Emergency Rescue Squadron. This plane went directly to Point Barrow and originally was to have participated in the coastline search, but due to later developments, returned to Ladd Field and was not active in the search mission.

The first B-29 to take off was 45-21871.  This crew was to search an area from MacKenzie Bay westward for about  inland. When the flight arrived in its search area, a report was received from Barrow Airways stating that they were in contact with a crashed airplane, and a position report would follow shortly.  This position report was received about 10 minutes later, and when plotted, indicated that the missing airplane was down on Daugaard-Jensen's Land, Greenland, at position 80°N, 61°W, roughly  north of Thule, Greenland (Bluie West Six).

Course was set for the last position received, after consulting the flight engineer about the fuel situation. The coast of Greenland was reached about 2345 AT and a systematic search was started.  The twilight period was just beginning when the aircraft reached the search area, which added to the difficulty of sighting activity from the aircraft to the ground. At the completion of the last flight line, at 0130 AT, 22 February 1947, a message was received from the Barrow Airways with instructions for the aircraft to discontinue its search and start its return flight to Ladd Field, at 0130 AT.

The second search flight took off at 2310 AT, 21 February 1947, in B-29 45-21761 (Boeing's Boner).  As the Kee Birds navigators were constantly making celestial observations  to aid the search planes in locating them, the mission was much easier, since more information was received as to the lost airplane's approximate position.   In addition, more time was available in which to plan the mission, and a direct course was set to Greenland.  On reaching the area where Kee Bird had landed at 0745 AT, a search was started, with information from the lost crew.  The first actual sighting was made at 0830 AT.  Eight runs were made over the downed plane, dropping the supplies carried for that purpose.  Kee Birds crew requested that some coal be dropped to them so they could build a fire for warmth and cooking.  The crew was instructed to destroy the radar, Loran, and the IFF sets, and to bring back, when they were evacuated, all exposed film, airplane files, and maps. The 21761 then returned to Ladd and landed safely.

Around 1900Z, 22 February 1947, Headquarters, Air Transport Command received notification that a SAC B-29 very long range reconnaissance aircraft had made a crash landing in Greenland, at position 80°N, 61°W, about  north of Thule (Bluie West Six). This was the first information received by the Atlantic Division, and plans were made to give every possible assistance.

Two C-54D Skymaster aircraft (42-72640, 42-72643) were alerted for immediate departure from Westover Field, Massachusetts, to Thule (Bluie West Six).  The first aircraft, 2640, carried JATO rockets and was ordered to  proceed directly to Thule via Goose Bay Airfield, Labrador, with whatever survival equipment and Arctic kits were available at Westover and pick up any additional equipment at Goose Bay flown there from Stephenville by Newfoundland Base Command aircraft. The aircraft was then to proceed direct to Thule and from there to the scene of the crash and search until contact was established. Radio frequencies of the B-29 aircraft were to be furnished as soon as they became available. When contact with the downed B-29 was established, the crew of the C-54 was to airdrop such survival equipment as was available. The aircraft was then to return to Thule for additional supplies as required to be air dropped.

The second C-54 aircraft (2643) was to load Arctic kits at Westover, proceed to Goose Bay, and then proceed to Thule and assist the first aircraft in shuttling between Westover. Goose Bay, Bluie West-1, Bluie West-8, and Bluie West-6 (Thule) for the purpose of laying down Arctic kits, survival equipment, and supplies that may be needed to aid in the rescue of the B-29 crew.  The plan of operation was confirmed by teletype to Newfoundland Base Command and all base units in Newfoundland and Greenland Base Command areas.

Lt Bobbie J Cavnar, the pilot of 2640, landed at Thule at 0131Z on 24 February. A ski-equipped C-47 from Ladd Field had arrived at Crystal II, and was requested to stand by if needed. According to the narrative report, "En route from BW-8, the B-29 was contacted and it was discovered that the B-29 was actually on the lake where it was planned to land the C-54. "A mistake of one (1) degree longitude had been made in reporting the plane's position. The mistake was discovered when the pilot of the B-29 reported that the plane was on the lake. Further information from the B-29 indicated the lake was covered with smooth-rolling snow drifts varying from two (2) to ten (10) inches [] in depth with a hard wind crust top".  As the underlying ice supported the weight of the B-29, the thickness should be sufficient to support the C-54. A C-54 had the capability to land in up to  of snow, so the really only unknown factor would be the approaches for landing and take-off from the lake, and this was to be determined by making low passes over the lake.

Discussions were held with "Mr. Edward Goodale, an Arctic specialist, who was the officer in charge of the U.S. Weather Bureau Station at BW-6". He agreed to accompany the C-54 to the scene to assist if anything went wrong. "He also supplied shovels in the event they were needed to clear a runway for take-off after landing.  The take-off was planned for the following morning about 09:30 local time to arrive at the scene at high noon when the light would be best."  At Thule, the sun appeared above the horizon for the first time on February 24.

JATO bottles were fitted to 2640 at Thule and take-off was made at 1410Z. The 2643 accompanied the rescue aircraft.  "The B-29 was easily located due to the fact that the B-29 crew had built a fire of engine oil and rubber rafts which threw off a column of black smoke. Lt Cavnar made two (2) passes over the scene and then landed with very little difficulty at 1543Z. He then taxied up and down to break out a take-off runway. Upon completion of this, all non-essential equipment not required for the flight was removed from the C-54"

"The pilot of the B-29 had already destroyed all classified material and equipment by burning and smashing with an axe."  Capt. Setterich in the second C-54 (2643) circled the two planes, taking pictures and making general observations.  The crew of the Kee Bird boarded the C-54 and took off at 1625 from the frozen lake assisted by the JATO rockets with all survivors aboard.  "After take-off, Lt Pope, Medical Officer from BW-8, examined the survivors but found no frozen parts, but did find mild cases of shock and exposure."  After that, all survivors stretched out on sleeping bags and kapok mattresses, and slept as much as possible during the return flight.  At 1840, the C-54 landed at Thule, and the survivors and the rescue aircraft crew were given a steak dinner.  At 2200, the C-54s departed Thule for nonstop flight to Westover Field, Massachusetts, with all survivors and crew members aboard, arriving at 1243 24 February. The B-29 aircraft was written off and abandoned, and dropped from Air Force inventory records.

1947 crew
The flight crew for the Kee Bird'''s final Cold War mission were:
 Vern Arnett, pilot
 Russell S. Jordan, copilot
 Talbert Gates, copilot
 John G. Lesman, astral navigator
 Burl Cowan, D.R. navigator
 Robert "Lucky" Luedke, flight engineer
 Howard Adams, radar observer
 Lawrence Yarborough, gunner
 Ernie Stewart, gunner
 Paul McNamara, gunner
 Robert "Bucky" Leader, radio operator

 Recovery and restoration attempt and fate

In July 1994, a team of aircraft restorers operating as Kee Bird, LLC, was led by Darryl Greenamyer to the emergency landing site.  The aircraft had made a successful landing on the frozen lake and had remained relatively intact at the site ever since. The USAF had also surrendered any claim to the B-29. The plane was thought to be able to be put into flying condition, flown out of the site, and ferried to Thule AB, Greenland, where further repairs could be made before flying back to the United States.

Using a 1962 De Havilland Caribou as a shuttle plane, the team departed the U.S. Armed Services base at Thule and flew in tools and equipment to the Kee Bird. Over the summer, the team transported four remanufactured engines, four new propellers, an engine hoist, and new tires, as well as a small bulldozer, to the remote site. The team successfully replaced the engines and propellers, mounted the new tires, and resurfaced the aircraft's control surfaces. As the winter snows began to fall, the chief engineer, Rick Kriege, fell ill and was transported to a hospital in Iqaluit, Canada, where he died from a blood clot two weeks later. Although the plane was nearly ready to fly, Greenamyer's team was compelled by weather to leave the site.

In May 1995, Greenamyer returned with additional personnel. The repairs were completed and the aircraft prepared to take off from the frozen lake on 21 May 1995.  A crude runway was carved out of the snow on the ice using the small bulldozer that had been ferried into the site.  The new engines were successfully started for the take-off attempt.  As Darryl Greenamyer was taxiing the aircraft onto the frozen lake, the jury-rigged fuel tank of the B-29's "putt-putt" auxiliary power unit began to leak gasoline into the rear fuselage. Fire broke out and quickly spread to the rest of the aircraft.  The cockpit crew escaped unharmed, but cook/mechanic Bob Vanderveen, who was visually monitoring the engines from the rear of the aircraft, suffered smoke inhalation and flash burns.

Despite attempts to extinguish it from outside the plane, the fire raged and spread through the fuselage.  The aircraft was largely destroyed on the ground, with the Kee Birds fuselage being almost completely destroyed.  When the lake thawed in the spring, it was feared that the wreckage (with nearly intact wing panels and engines) would sink to the bottom.

As of 2014, the aircraft sat, broken, crumpled, and burnt in shreds on an ice shelf on the surface.

In the media
The attempted repair and return of the Kee Bird was documented in the British Channel 4 Encounters episode "Treasure of the Humboldt Glacier" first shown on April 23, 1995; it was later show in the US as "B-29 Frozen in Time" in the NOVA on January 30, 1996. The effort to recover the aircraft was also documented in the book Hunting Warbirds: The Obsessive Quest for the Lost Aircraft of World War II by Carl Hoffman, published in 2001.

Restoration team
The restoration team were:
 Darryl Greenamyer, expedition leader and pilot
 Rick Kriege, chief engineer, fell ill at site, died in hospital
 Cecilio Grande, engineer's assistant
 Vernon Rich, toolmaker and machinist
 Roger Von Grote, supply shuttle pilot
Bob Vanderveen, cook/mechanic

See also
 Glacier Girl, a P-38 Lightning that was rescued from the Greenland ice cap
 My Gal Sal, a B-17E-BO Flying Fortress whose pilot was forced to land it on the Greenland icecap

References

External links

 "B-29 Frozen in Time", NOVA'', July 29, 1997.
 Photos and description of the salvage attempt
 B-29 Frozen for 50 years
 Video of "B-29 Frozen in Time" (Region locked to USA)

Individual aircraft of World War II
Accidents and incidents involving United States Air Force aircraft
Aviation accidents and incidents in Greenland
Aviation accidents and incidents in 1947
1947 in Greenland
Boeing B-29 Superfortress

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Robert Goode Southall (* 26. Dezember 1852 in Amelia Court House, Amelia County, Virginia; † 25. Mai 1924 in Baltimore, Maryland) war ein US-amerikanischer Politiker. Zwischen 1903 und 1907 vertrat er den Bundesstaat Virginia im US-Repräsentantenhaus.

Werdegang
Robert Southall besuchte die Washington Academy und die High School of Amelia County. In den Jahren 1873 und 1874 war er als Deputy Clerk bei der Verwaltung im Nottoway County beschäftigt. Nach einem anschließenden Jurastudium an der University of Virginia in Charlottesville und seiner 1877 erfolgten Zulassung als Rechtsanwalt begann er in Amelia Court House in diesem Beruf zu arbeiten. Zwischen 1884 und 1902 war er Bezirksstaatsanwalt im Amelia County. Gleichzeitig schlug er als Mitglied der Demokratischen Partei eine politische Laufbahn ein. In den Jahren 1888 und 1896 war er Delegierter zu den jeweiligen Democratic National Conventions. Zwischen 1899 und 1903 saß er im Abgeordnetenhaus von Virginia.

Bei den Kongresswahlen des Jahres 1902 wurde Southall im vierten Wahlbezirk von Virginia in das US-Repräsentantenhaus in Washington, D.C. gewählt, wo er am 4. März 1903 die Nachfolge von Francis R. Lassiter antrat. Nach einer Wiederwahl konnte er bis zum 3. März 1907 zwei Legislaturperioden im Kongress absolvieren. Nach dem Ende seiner Zeit im US-Repräsentantenhaus praktizierte er wieder als Anwalt. Von 1912 bis zu seinem Tod am 25. Mai 1924 war Robert Southall Richter im vierten Gerichtsbezirk von Virginia.

Weblinks

Mitglied des Repräsentantenhauses der Vereinigten Staaten für Virginia
Mitglied des Abgeordnetenhauses von Virginia
Mitglied der Demokratischen Partei (Vereinigte Staaten)
Richter (Virginia)
Staatsanwalt (Vereinigte Staaten)
Rechtsanwalt (Vereinigte Staaten)
US-Amerikaner
Geboren 1852
Gestorben 1924
Mann


Are Private Home Care Services Tax Deductible?
When are Private Home Care Services Tax Deductible?
If the elderly adult is considered chronically ill. According to the U.S tax laws, a chronically ill elderly adult is defined as someone who is not able to perform at least two activities of daily living (eating, toileting, bathing, dressing and incontinence) without help from another individual, or if the senior requires substantial supervision or 24 hour care in El Dorado Hills to protect them from physical injury as the result of cognitive impairment or mental illness.
The state of the senior is confirmed by a medical professional. Tax deductions for long-term, non-medical care are only applicable when a licensed nurse, doctor, or other medical practitioner has determined that the senior meets one of the above conditions, deeming him or her chronically ill. The medical professional will need to write a letter that states how the senior meets these requirements, while also providing a specific plan of care. Deductible costs for long-term care will be determined by the plan of care from the prescribing health care practitioner.
When the dependent covers 50% or more of private home care expenses. Private home care expenses are often covered by the care recipient's immediate dependants. If you pay at least 50% of your parent's cost for private home care services, you are liable to receive deductions during tax filing. You will be required to provide documentation to the IRS to verify all payments made during the year in which deductions are being filed. Aside from cash and check payments made to a private caregiver, records of non-cash payments must be provided before deductions are approved.
To ensure that you or an aging loved one qualify for tax deductions this tax season, meet with a tax professional who will be able to provide you with information specific to your individual family situation.
If your aging parent and your family qualify for any of the above tax deductions and you are interested in learning more about your options for non-medical, in-home care, reach out to Home Care Assistance of El Dorado Hills today. In addition to flexible hourly and live-in care, we also provide dementia and Alzheimer's care in El Dorado Hills. Call us at 916-358-3801 for more information or to request a complimentary, in-home consultation.


text:
DWTS17 Who Is Derek Hough's And Cheryl Burke's Publicist Following? Come See!!!
Awwww, I'm glad I didn't go to bed early! It appears Derek Hough And Cheryl Burke's publicist is following Amber Riley and Jack Osbourne at twitter. We'll let you do the math…well, because it's just more fun that way. 😀
Thanks to @LinzeyReed for the heads up!!!
August 30, 2013 I Written By Voguerista
Tags:Amber Riley Cheryl Burke Dancing with the Stars Dancing with the Stars 2013 Dancing With The Stars Season 17 Derek Hough DWTS DWTS 2013 DWTS News DWTS Season 17 Jack Osbourne
More Teasers From Cheryl Burke And Karina Smirnoff On Their New DWTS Partners And More (ET Video)
Oh, this is fun! Entertainment Tonight interviewed Karina Smirnoff and Cheryl Burke in Las Vegas at the POM Juice Blends Event! They give even more hints on their new Dancing With The Stars partners…including their names (but, I can't tell if they are serious on their names or not? Hilarious). They both rave how great the cast is and how they never had to "google" anyone this time. Interesting. More below. Also, if you haven't seen our previous posting with Karina and Cheryl from this event, you can do so at this link.
UPDATE: Take a look below at who Karina is now following….and it's not a person named "Ryan". Thanks to reader Jen for the heads up.
Tags:Cheryl Burke Dancing with the Stars Dancing with the Stars 2013 Dancing With The Stars Season 17 DWTS DWTS 2013 DWTS News DWTS Season 17 Karina Smirnoff
Indy Champ Tony Kanaan Hasn't Received A Call From DWTS, But, Still Might?
Awww, this will make Court sad. According to USA Today, Indy champ Tony Kanaan still hasn't received a call to dance on Dancing With The Stars Season 17, and yet, it's still possible he could get a call. Below is more….
"I might be getting a call, but I won't know until right before they announce it," Kanaan told USA TODAY Sports on Friday during a break in preparation for Sunday's Grand Prix of Baltimore. "It's so confidential. They want to keep the announcement a secret. They don't like leaks, so I really don't know."
Kanaan said he won't be disappointed if he doesn't make the cut.
"To be honest, I won't be unhappy if it doesn't happen," Kanaan said. "With all the things we have going on, I cannot afford to take off for however many weeks it would take. If they call me, I'll do it, but right now it's a busy time of my life."
Sad, as I hoping he would dance too. Then again, maybe he might? All eyes on Wednesday, All, and be sure to read the full article at USA Today.
Filed Under: ABC Dancing with the Stars Dancing with the Stars Cast Rumors And Watchout Dancing With The Stars Season 17 DWTS Entertainment Reality TV TV TV News
Tags:Dancing with the Stars Dancing with the Stars 2013 Dancing with the Stars Cast Rumors And Watchout Dancing With The Stars Season 17 DWTS DWTS 2013 DWTS News DWTS Season 17 DWTS17 Tony Kanaan
ABC Press Release On Good Morning America DWTS 17 Cast Announcement, Video Instragram Teasers
ABC Media Net has released a press statement for who will be guests on next week's Good Morning America. As you know, the cast announcement for Dancing With The Stars Season 17 takes place on September 4th. There was some talk that maybe only Tom Bergeron would be there this time and then he would just announce the new cast. Not true! The new cast will all be there in attendance and, what's more, they will be taking questions from the audience. Below is more…
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4 – The exciting new cast of "Dancing with the Stars" will be revealed live on "GMA," with the celebrity couples and their pro dance partners taking questions from viewers.
Get Ready All! We're knocking on the eve of the cast announcement now. So exciting!! 😉
ADDING and in the meantime, be watching the Dancing With The Stars Official instagram closely. They just released a video teaser for who Cheryl Burke's partner might be and they may be posting more? Be watching!
ADDING2: check out the picture in this tweet too for more on Cheryl's partner!
Tags:Brooke Burke Charvet Dancing with the Stars Dancing with the Stars 2013 Dancing With The Stars Season 17 DWTS DWTS 2013 DWTS News DWTS Season 17 Good Morning America Tom Bergeron
Dancing With The Stars Cheryl Burke And Karina Smirnoff Help To Launch 'POM Juice Blends'
Dancing With The Stars pros Cheryl Burke and Karina Smirnoff helped to celebrate and launch 'POM Juice Blends' at the Encore Beach Club at The Wynn in Las Vegas, Nevada yesterday. According to Herald Online, "The dancers led the record-breaking stunt as revelers kept a beach ball in the air for 125 consecutive passes without letting the ball touch the ground." Awesome awesome! And they both looked incredible too!! Check out a slew of pictures at Getty Images.
What do you think about Cheryl's new haircut. I like it! But wow, Karina!!
ADDING: Here's some video coverage. Cheryl and Karina both talk of Dancing With The Stars a little and tease us about it at the end. Cheryl says it's the best cast. Karina says she got her "dream partner" this season, hmmm?? Thanks to @isabelladelrinh and @dwtsgossip for the find!
Filed Under: ABC Dancing with the Stars DWTS Entertainment Reality TV TV TV News
Tags:Cheryl Burke Dancing with the Stars Dancing with the Stars 2013 DWTS DWTS 2013 DWTS News Karina Smirnoff Las Vegas POM Juice Blends The Wynn

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


We don't want to bore you with policies, codes, and jargon. If that interests you, we encourage you to check out our "The Policies" below. For those interested in a brief overview, check out "The Basics".
1. We want to make you happy. This is why we keep our prices low, and this is why we don't up-charge for things like monograms, different buttons, or shirt highlights.
2. Your garments are made to measure, which means they will fit you better than off the rack clothing. If you require fit adjustments on delivery, we will do our best to alter your clothes to your desire. However, our prices only include one-time alterations. We are happy to alter your clothing more, but you will be charged standard alteration rates.
3. We don't offer refunds. Your clothing is cut and sewn specifically for you. If there are production errors and you do not want the item remade due to time constraints, we will issue a store credit. This does not apply to garments already altered.
4. Every client's need are handled on a case by case basis.
Adjustments and alterations are included with each garment purchased at Revolution Tailors..
Revolution Tailors requires full payment before processing your order.
After these periods, alterations can be done through your Revolution Tailors Outfitter at the regular rates. Delivery times may vary.
Please don't forget to send us the new measurements taken by your tailor so we can update your Revolution Tailors measurement profile.
Revolution Tailors is not responsible for alterations when measurements change due to weight fluctuation.
The measurements taken at Revolution Tailors cannot be shared nor divulged and remain the property of the company.
An order may be cancelled on the day of purchase. Please contact your Outfitter.
A change of fit, option or fabric can be requested by communicating promptly, on the day of purchase, with an Outfitter at Revolution Tailors.
Revolution Tailors is a true Made to Measure experience. Your suit, is made just for you based on your measurements, choice of fabrics and customizations. Every Revolution Tailors purchase is backed by our Satisfaction Guarantee. If your order does not meet expectations, let us know and we will make it right. We're here to help.
Returns will be reimbursed in the form of an Revolution Tailors Gift Card.
Revolution Tailors will only accept returned items that are in good and unworn condition.
Revolution Tailors has the right to deny reimbursement for an item that is believed to be previously worn or damaged.
Revolution Tailors will not accept items that have been altered or adjusted in any way.
Any items returned to Revolution Tailors that do not meet the aforementioned requirements will be sent back to the client without reimbursement.
Each complaint is treated on a case-by-case basis by the Outfitter.
If an order is placed using measurements that were not taken by Revolution Tailors personnel, the order is not refundable. In this situation, Revolution Tailors does not offer alterations and cannot reorder the garments.
Revolution Tailors ships orders to Canada and the United States. Shipping fees included.
Delivery takes 3 to 6 weeks from the date of the order. Delivery dates cannot be guaranteed for reasons such as natural disaster or any other factor beyond our control. We will do everything within our power to keep you informed so that you can receive your garments as quickly as possible.
You can check the status of the items you have purchased by contacting your Outfitter.
Revolution Tailors is not responsible for packages lost or damaged during shipping.
Gift cards can be used in all Revolution Tailors stores; however, they are valid only in the country in which they were purchased.
Any remaining balance can be used for future purchases. The gift card cannot be recharged and has no cash value. The remaining balance is written on the sales receipt and can be verified at any cash register in any Revolution Tailors store.
Revolution Tailors cannot be held responsible for the loss, theft or non-authorized use of the gift card. The gift card has no monetary value until it has been paid for and activated by Revolution Tailors. Protect your gift card as you would any form of currency.
Each complaint is treated on a case-by-case basis by our online customer service department. Address all inquiries to orders@RevolutionTailors.com.


Any resident of the Town of South Bristol shall be entitled to be heard upon said proposed Local Law at such public hearing. Copies of said proposed Local Law are available for public review at the Town of South Bristol Town Hall, 6500 Gannett Hill Road – West, South Bristol, New York.
This by Resolution of the Town Board of the Town of South Bristol.


The American system of government was meant to run without political parties. There was no provision for them in the Constitution, the first two Presidents sternly warned against their formation, and many colonists blamed the political parties in Great Britain for the need for the Revolution! In spite of overwhelming opinion by the American colonists that political parties were evil, today they control all phases of American government. How can this be? This book tells the amazing story, and prescribes how to reform the system to align the modern government with the ideals of the Constitution of 1787.


The Olympia Garden Residence has located on the area of 4200 m² in Mahmutlar, and consists of two residential blocks. There are different types of 1+1 and 2+1 apartments and luxurious 2+1 and 4+1 penthouses with Jacuzzi and specious sunny terrace on the roof that provides you magnificent sea and mountain views.
Apartments have equipped with the latest design mode and they will make your life maximum comfortable. You will fully enjoy your life with complex's developed social area and helpful stuff.