History Podcasts

Albert David - History

Albert David - History

Albert David

(DE-1050: dp. 3,426 (f.); 1. 414'6"; b. 44'1"; dr. 24'6"; s. 27+ k.
cpl. Z20; a. 2 5", ASROC, 6 15.5" tt.; cl. Garcia)

Albert David (DE-1050) was laid down on 2X Apri1 1964 at Seattle, Wash. by the Lockheed Shipbuilding and Construction Co.; launched on 19 December 1964 sponsored by Mrs. Lvnda Mae David, and commissioned at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard on 19 October 1968, Comdr. Roy S. Reynolds in command.

For the remainder of 1968, Albert David completed outfitting at Bremerton, Wash., and conducted post-commissioning trials and tests. Those examinations continued into 1969. A voyage to Hawaii followed in March. Early in April, the ocean escort began five weeks of refresher training out of San Diego. On 1 May 1969, she was assigned to Long Beach, Calif., as her home port. She concluded refresher training eight days later and arrived in Long Beach on the 10th. On the 12th, however, Albert David headed back to Bremerton for an eight-week, post-shakedown availability at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. The warship returned to sea on 7 July, bound for the coast of southern California and several days of operations out of San Diego. She returned to Long Beach on the 18th.

Albert David carried out normal operations from the base at Long Beach until the beginning of the second week in October. On 8 October, she stood out of Long Beach on her first deployment to the western Pacific. After steaming via Pearl Harbor and Midway Island, the warship arrived in Yokosuka, Japan, on 31 October. Albert David then served two weeks on the Taiwan Strait patrol and visited Subic Bay in the Philippines before reporting at Danang, South Vietnam, on 24 November to begin gunfire support duty. That assignment lasted until 10 December when, after a brief stop at Danang, the ocean escort headed for the Gulf of Tonkin. From the 11th to the 18th, she operated on the south SAR (sea-air rescue) station in the gulf. On 16 December, Albert David joined company with Hancock (CVA-19) for two days of plane guard duty. The warship left station in the Gulf of Tonkin on 18 December and headed for Bangkok, Thailand where her crew enjoyed a five-day port visit. On 30 December,

she rendezvoused with Coral Sea (CVA - 3) and began five weeks of plane guard duty with the carriers of Task Force (TF) 77.

Early in February 1970, she left the Gulf of Tonkin to make port visits at Subic Bay and Hong Kong. On her way back to Vietnamese waters, Albert David visited Okinawa and, during that visit, put to sea to investigate a Soviet trawler loitering in the area. She returned to Vietnam at Danang on 27 February to resume gunfire support missions for the troops fighting ashore. At the beginning of the second week in March, the ocean escort left the gunline to rejoin the carriers of TF 77 in the Gulf of Tonkin. Eight days later, she pulled into Subic Bay to make preparations for the voyage back to the United States. On 21 March, Albert David stood out of Subic Bay on her way home.

The warship made stops at Guam, Midway, and Pearl Harbor before arriving in Long Beach, Calif., on 9 April. Following post-deployment standdown, Albert David settled into the normal schedule of training operations carried out by warships between overseas deployments. Those evolutions occupied her time until the beginning of November when she entered the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Albert David's first regular overhaul lasted more than eight months. On 1 July 1971, she put to sea for post-overhaul trials and drills, and she remained so occupied for the remainder of the month. August brought refresher training out of San Diego, and September saw her resume normal 1st Fleet operations out of Long Beach.

On 12 November 1971, Albert David departed Long Beach on her second deployment to the Far East. En route, she spent more than a week in the Hawaiian Islands before continuing on to the Philippines. The ocean escort arrived in Subic Bay on 9 December and remained there almost a week. On the 15th, she put to sea bound for the Gulf of Tonkin, arriving on station two days later. Albert David spent the following six weeks on gunfire support station offthe coast of Vietnam. At the end of January 1972, she headed back to Subic Bay to rest, rearm, and reprovision. The warship returned to the combat zone—this time in the Gulf of Siam off the shores of South Vietnam's Military Re gion IV—on 6 February and resumed duty as a seaborne heavy artillery battery supporting ground forces ashore.

Albert David left the Gulf of Siam on 24 February bound for the Gulf of Tonkin. She rendezvoused with Constellatior (CVA-64) on 29 February and served as the carrier's escort for two days of operations in the Gulf of Tonkin as well as during the voyage to Subic Bay. After 10 days of upkeep and repairs at Subie Bay, the ocean escort departed the Philippines for Hong Kong on 14 March. The port visit at Hong Kong lasted from 16 to 22 March. On the latter day, the warship laid in a course that took her via Okinawa to the Sea of Japan. She conducted antisubmarine warfare (ASW) exercises between 26 and 29 March and made a port call at Yokosuka, Japan, from 30 March to 5 April.

After a false start for home on the 5th and a return to Japan to reload necessary equipment, Albert David headed back to Vietnamese waters that same day. Reporting for gunfire support duty off the DMZ between North Vietnam and South Vietnam on 10 April she performed a variety of other tasks as well. After four days of gunfire support missions the warship joined Long Beach (CGN-9) for 10 days of escort duty on picket station. From 28 April to 12 May, she again provided gunfire support. Albert David concluded that tour of duty in the combat zone with four days of service with Denver (LPD-9) on the notification line established to warn merchant ships about mines in North Vietnamese harbors.

On 17 May, the ocean escort set out for Subic Bay in company with Constellation. The two warships visited Subic Bay from 19 to 22 May and then got underway for Singapore. After a fourday port call at Singapore, they returned to sea on 30 May on their way back to the waters surrounding Vietnam. Albert David parted company with Constellation on 2 June to render gunfire support to troops in Military Regions I and II in South Vietnam. At the end of 10 days on the gunline, she formed up with Constellation again on the 12th. The two warships stopped at Subic Bay on the 15th and returned to sea almost immediately. On 20 June, they arrived in Yokosuka for a two-day port call before beginning the voyage across the Pacific. Albert David and Constellation cleared Yokosuka on 22 June bound for the United States. Albert David escorted the carrier until 30 June when she received orders to proceed independently. The ocean escort entered Long Beach the following morning.

Following a month-long post-deployment leave and upkeep period, the ocean escort began normal 1st Fleet operations on 3 August with plane guard services for Ranger (CVA41) in the southern California operating area. On 26 August, she put to sea from Long Beach to participate in Operation "RimPac-72," conducted in the Hawaiian Islands with units of the navies of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Albert David returned to Long Beach from that exercise on 19 September and remained in port for three weeks. At that time, she resumed normal operations along the California coast.

The warship performed training duties out of Long Beach until near the end of the first week in Januarv 1973. On the 5th she stood out to sea on her way back to the tar East. Steaming in company with Constellation Albert David completed the transit of the Pacific at Subic Bay on 22 January. tour days later, she embarked upon the voyage to the Gulf of Tonkin, again escorting Constellation. For the next three weeks, she provided plane guard services and antisubmarine protection for the carriers of TF 77 during what proved to be her last tour of duty in the guIf before the IJnited States pulled out of the conflict in Vietnam. Albert David returned to Subic Bay on 14 February and spent the next three weeks undergoing minor repairs and conducting training in the Philippines.

On 6 March, Albert David departed Iloilo on the island of Panay to return to Vietnamese waters. This time, however, her mission was a peaceful one. She was part of Operation "Endsweep," the removal of minefields from the waters adjacent to North Vietnam. Her participation in that effort—punctuated by port visits to Sasebo in Japan, Subic Bay in the Philippines, and Hvng Kong—lasted until the second week in June. The warship cleared Vietnamese waters on 9 June, visited Keelung on Taiwan on the 12th and 13th, and arrived in Yokosuka on the 17th. Two days later, the ocean escort returned to sea for the voyage back to the United States. She made brief stops for fuel at Midway Island and Pearl Harbor before reaching Long Beach on 3 July.

Post-deployment standdown followed by a lengthy restricted availability at the Todd Shipyard in San Pedro occupied her time until late November. She returned to Long Beach on 21 November but remained there only long enough to make preparations to move to San Diego, the new home port to which she had been assigned on 20 August. Albert David made the home port shift on 1 December and commenced local operations out of San Diego six days later. The warship continued that employment through

the end of 1973 and during the first four months of 1974. On 23 April 1974, she left San Diego in company with Leonard F. Mason (DD-852) and Waddell (DDG-24) bound for the western Pacific. Albert David and her travelling companions made fuel stops at Pearl Harbor and Midway Island before arriving in Yokosuka on 14 May. On 25 May, the ocean escort put to sea in a task group built around Midway (CVA - 1) to conduct operations off the island of Honshu. Thus she began her first period of service with the 7th Fleet in which combat duty off the Vietnamese coast played no role. The warship alternated between periods of training at sea and port calls at such places as Yokosuka Hong Kong, Guam, and Subic Bay.

When she returned to San Diego on 22 October 1974, Albert David embarked upon a period of almost 42 months without a deployment to the Far East. She spent most of the remainder of 1974 in port, initially engaged in post-deployment standdown and later in holiday routine. The ocean escort conducted a number of exercises in 1975. Late March and early April brought a voyage to Hawaii for Operation "RIMPAC" 1-75, a multinational exercise conducted in cooperation with the navies of Australia New Zealand, and Canada. In mid-April, she returned to the west coast and resumed local operations. On 30 June 1975 Albert David was reclassified a frigate and redesignated FF-;050. In September, she made another cruise to the Hawaiian Islands where she spent four weeks engaged in exercises before returning to San F[)iego early in November. Local operations again occupied her time until the spring of 1976. Late in April 1976 the frigate sailed to Long Beach where she began an 11-month regular overhaul on the 22d. Albert David concluded her repairs at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard on St. Patrick's Day 1977 and returned to San Diego nine days later. She operated on a normal training schedule out of her home port until the beginning of August when she voyaged to Hawaii again for training purposes. Returning to San Diego on 29 August, the frigate settled into a normal west coast traming schedule once more.

The hiatus in Far Eastern deployments came to an end in the spring of 1978. Albert David stood out of San Diego on 4 April and set a course for Hawaii. En route there, she participated in "RIMPAC" 1-78. After a stop at Pearl Harbor on the 23d and the 24th, the frigate continued her voyage west on the 25th. She arrived in Subic Bay on 16 May. During the ensuing five months Albert David conducted exercises with units of the 7th Fleet an] participated in the binational Exercise "Sharkhunt XXVII" with elements of the Taiwanese Navy. She also visited ports in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. The frigate concluded that tour of duty in the Far East with a readiness exercise and a series of special operations. After a visit to Guam between 11 and 14 October Albert David embarked upon the voyage back to the united States. She reentered San Diego on 29 October and, except for a two-day period underway locally, spent the remainder of 1978 in port.

Twelve days into 1979, the warship began the usual schedule of training operations, trials and inspections. That employment occupied her time through the first 10 months of the vear. On 13 November 1979, she left San Diego to return to the western Pacific. Albert David made a very brief stop at Pearl Harbor on 21 November resuming her voyage west that same day. She arrived at Subic Bay on 9 December and spent the remainder of the year in port. The frigate operated locally out of Luzon ports until the second week in February 1980 when she embarked upon a voyage to Singapore in company with Long Beach (CGN-9) Worden (CG-18), and Bromstein (FF-1037). A maun engine casualty however, forced her return to Subic Bay under tow of Long Beach and, later, of USNS Ute (T-ATF-76). She remained in Subic Bay from 12 February through the end of the month. The warship returned to sea on 1 March for two weeks of exercises followed by a port visit at Buckner Bay, Okinawa.

After an antisubmarine warfare exercise and another stop at Buckner Bay, Albert David set a course for Pusan, Korea, on 23 March. The warship spent the last week of the month indulging in liberty at Pusan. From there, she moved on to Sasebo, Japan for a repair and upkeep period preparatory to her return to the United States. On 9 April 1980, the frigate departed Sasebo and embarked upon the voyage home by way of Guam, Kwajalein, and Pearl Harbor. She reentered San Diego on 2 May. Post deployment standdown occupied the remainder of May while June and July brought a resumption of local uperations. Early in August, she visited Alaskan waters before beginning regular overhaul at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at mid-month.

Those repairs occupied the frigate for the rest of 1980 and for the first nine months of 1981. Early in October 1981, Albert David resumed local operations out of San Diego. That duty kept her busy until near the end of May 1982. On the 29th she got underway for the western Pacific via Pearl Harbor. The frigate arrived in Subic Bay on 2 July. After almost three weeks at that base in the Philippines, Albert David moved north to Sasebo, Japan, where she stayed from 26 July until 12 August. The warship arrived back in Subie Bay on 17 August but set sail again four days later on the 21st in company with John Young (DD-973) and San Jose (AFS-7) bound for the Arabian Sea and a tour of duty with the Middle East force. She performed surveillanee chores in the Arabian Sea from 7 September to 18 October. On 19 October, Albert David started out on the long voyage baek to the United States. She entered San Diego on 30 November and spent the remainder of 1982 engaged in post-deployment leave and upkeep.

Standdown carried over well into the third week of 1983. On 20 January, Albert David took up local operations out of San Diego with a three-day readiness exercise. A variety of training evolutions conducted in the waters off the coast of southern California occupied her time during the nine months between January and October 1983. On 4 October, however, the frigate stood out to sea on her way to the Far East onee more. She made a five-day stop at Pearl Harbor and eondueted a battle problem in the Mariana Islands before steaming into Subie Bay at the beginning of the second week in November. At mid-month, Albert David put to sea again to participate in a series of bilateral exercises with units of the Royal Malaysian Navy, the Royal Smgapore Navy, and the Navy of the Republic of Korea. Interspersed among those exercises were goodwill and liberty calls at Lumut in Malaysia, Singapore, Chinhae in Korea, and at Hong Kong. On 28 December, she returned to the Philippines at Manila where she ushered in the new year.

Albert David's western Pacific deployment continued until early April 1984. January brought a visit to Cebu City in the Philippines, a brief return to Subie Bay, and another bilateral exercise, this time with the Royal Thai Navy. Exereises with other units of the 7th Fleet followed. At the end of January, the frigate sailed north to Japan for upkeep and repairs at Yokosuka. At the beginning of the last week m February, the warship completed repairs and put to sea to eonduet antisubmarine warfare exercises with elements of the Japanese Maritime SelfDefense force. The end of February and beginning of March brought visits to Sasebo and Fukuoka in Japan. During midMarch, she operated with South Korean Navy units again and then made port visits at Chinhae and Pusan, Korea, and at Sasebo, Japan. Albert David departed Sasebo on 3 April on her way back to the United States. En route, she lingered in the Marianas to participate in another battle problem and stopped at Pearl Harbor on 21 and 22 April. The warship pulled into San Diego on 30 April. Post-deployment standdown took up the month of May, and operations along the California coast occupied the summer and early fall of 1984. At the beginning of November Albert David began restricted availability at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard.

That repair period carried her into 1985. Back in San Diego by 5 January, she resumed local operations by the end of the month. The frigate settled into a schedule of training exercises along the west coast, highlighted by port visits to Canadian and United States cities, that kept her busy throughout 1985 and nearly through 1986. On 29 September 1986 Albert David entered the yard of the National Steel & Shipbuilding Co. at San Diego to begin regular overhaul.

Albert David earned three battle stars for service in the Vietnam conflict.

Baumhart was born in Vermilion, Ohio. [1] He attended Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, receiving his A.B. and M.A. in 1931. [1]

He was a publishing house representative at Vermilion, Ohio, from 1932 to 1939. [1] He was a member of the Ohio State Senate from 1937 to 1940. [1]

Baumhart was elected as a Republican to the Seventy-seventh Congress. [1] Throughout all of 1940 and most of 1941 he was known as an "interventionist Republican" who advocated that America go to war in Europe against Nazi Germany in order to help the United Kingdom. He resigned to accept a commission in the United States Navy on September 2, 1942. [1] He was discharged as a lieutenant commander on January 17, 1946. He was a member of the public relations staff of Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., in Toledo, Ohio, from 1946 to 1953. [1] He served as director of the Republican National Committee in 1953 and 1954. [1]

Baumhart was again elected as a Republican to the Eighty-fourth, Eighty-fifth, and Eighty-sixth Congresses. [1] He was not a candidate for renomination in 1960. Baumhart voted in favor of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960. [2] [3] He was a delegate to 1968 Republican National Convention. [1]

He later worked as public relations consultant. [1]

He died on January 23, 2001, in Lorain, Ohio. [1] He is interred at Maple Grove Cemetery in Vermilion, Ohio. [1]

  1. ^ abcdefghijklm"A. David Baumhart Jr., former congressman". The Morning Journal . Retrieved 2020-06-08 .
  2. ^
  3. "HR 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957". GovTrack.us.
  4. ^
  5. "HR 8601. PASSAGE".

This article about a member of the United States House of Representatives from Ohio is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Albert David Ltd.

Albert David was incorporated in the year 1938. The company is a part of Kothari group.

Albert David, which has decades of illustrious presence in the health care industry, manufactures pharmaceutical formulations and bulk drugs, infusion solutions and oral solids, disposable syringes and needles and herbal formulations. The company exports these products to Vietnam, Russia, Belarus, Egypt, Bangladesh, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Zaire, Haiti, Brazil, Canada, USA, UK, Netherlands and Germany as the company is a WHO–approved supplier.

It also has DMF for the bulk drugs, Tolbutamide and Chlorpropamide with the US Food and Drugs Administration (USFDA). The manufacturing facility for these products has been inspected and validated by the US drug regulator.

The manufacturing plants of the company are located at Ghaziabad near New Delhi, Kolkata and Mandideep near Bhopal.

The company`s amino acid range under the brand name of Alamin contains pure crystalline amino acid of high international standards manufactured under a unique technology, which conforms to WHO and FAO recommendations. In the herbal segment, the company sells its products under brand names like Adliv, which is a hepato protective and Siotone capsule, which is the only adaptogen indicated for stress.

ADL has tie–ups with Ajinomoto Co and Roussel Morishita Co of Japan for manufacturing and marketing a wide range of crystalline amino acid infusion solutions, oral solids and liquids in India.

Albert David Ltd. Company History and Annual Growth Details

- Albert David Limited has entered into an agreement with Japanese chemicals company Ajinomoto Co Inc. Ajinomoto, a leading global manufacturer of amino acids, will provide technical knowhow for developing amino acid based products and will also give Albert David the rights to sell Ajinomoto's products in India.

- The company has recommended a dividend at the rate of 20% per ordinary shares of Rs 10/- each for the financial year ended.

- The company has recommended dividend at the rate of 25% per ordinary shares of Rs 10/- each for the financial year ended.

- The company has recommends for payment of dividend @ 30% on Equity Shares of Rs 10/- each.

- The company appointed Mr. Arun Kumar Kohari, Chairman, as also Managing Director.

- The company has recommended for payment of dividend of Rs 3.50 per equity share of Rs 10/- each on 5707162 Equity Shares.

- The company has recommended for payment of dividend of Rs. 4.50 per equity share of Rs. 10/- each on 5707162 Equity Shares.

- The company has recommended dividend of Rs. 4.50 per equity shares of Rs. 10/- each for the financial year ended.

- The company has recommended dividend of Rs. 4.50 per equity shares of Rs. 10/- each for the financial year ended.

-Albert David Ltd has recommended for payment of dividend of Rs. 4.50 per equity share of Rs. 10/- each.

How did Albert Lin lose his foot? Lost Cities presenter had an insane accident!

A new exploration series kicked off on the National Geographic channel on Sunday, October 20th.

Lost Cities with Albert Lin takes viewers on a journey from the Lost Kingdom of the Pacific to the Knights Templar in Israel. The aim of the series is to see how scientists can use modern technologies explore ancient cultures and history.

The presenter on the show may not be familiar to most viewers, but he’s quickly earning himself a name in the world of exploration – he’s even been dubbed the bionic Indiana Jones!

So, who is Albert Lin, the show’s presenter? And how did he lose his foot? Here’s everything you need to know!

Screenshot: Ancient City of Nan Madol | Lost Cities With Albert Lin – National Geographic YouTube

Who is Albert Lin?

Albert Lin is a 38-year-old TV presenter, University of California San Diego technologist and National Geographic Explorer.

A National Geographic Explorer is a scholar funded by the organisation to conduct research or an exploration project. Albert’s first project with National Geographic was Valley of the Khans, an exploration into Mongolia’s past. You can read more about this project here.

MasterChef 2021 | Trailer - BBC Trailers

Albert was a student at UCSD. He studied his bachelor’s and Masters degrees there, and then obtained a Ph.D. in material science.

Despite his burgeoning career as a TV explorer, Albert has not completely abandoned his love for studying and science, as he co-founded a company that uses video games to teach science to students.

More recently, Albert and some other lecturers at UCSD launched the Centre for Human Frontiers. This is a think tank which focusses on technology’s role in shaping modern society and the modern man. Pretty impressive stuff!

How did Albert lose his foot?

On September 26th, 2016, Albert Lin had a major accident that meant he required his right leg to be amputated.

Albert was in an off-road vehicle accident which resulted in his leg bones shattering. Next his leg – beneath the kneecap – was removed and he was fitted with a prosthetic limb. This was after three weeks of deliberation of whether or not to “go bionic” in hospital.

But he has not let the accident take away his love for exploration and you can often spot Albert – and his new foot – surfing, skating and hiking!

And Albert has been very candid about his accident and much of the story is relayed on his Instagram.

Follow Albert on social media

If you want to know more about Albert Lin, then the best place to keep up to date with his latest works is on Instagram and Twitter.

He shares snaps of all of his epic adventures to the likes of Jordan, Peru, Israel and Death Valley in California. Albert will take on any terrain!

Check out Albert on Instagram @exploreralbert or on Twitter under the same handle.



A History of Solitude by David Vincent A Biography of Loneliness by Fay Bound Alberti – Review

Solitude is not the same as loneliness. Lonely people feel the need for company, while solitary types seek to escape it. The neatest definition of loneliness, David Vincent writes in his superb new study, is “failed solitude”. Another difference between the two groups is that hermits, anglers, Trappist monks and Romantic poets choose to be alone, whereas nobody chooses to feel abandoned and bereft. Calling yourself “self-partnering”, meaning that you sit in the cinema (should they be open) holding your own hand, may be either a genuine desire for solitude or a way of rationalizing the stigma of isolation. The greatest difference of all, however, is that solitude has rarely killed anyone, whereas loneliness can drive you to the grave. As the coronavirus rampages, some of us might now face a choice between physical infection and mental breakdown.

For the 18th-century Enlightenment, being on your own was a deviation from the true nature of humanity, which was sociable to its core. It was with the Romantics that this began to change. Isolation was now what we shared in common. Frankenstein’s monster is one of the first great loners of English literature, spurned and vilified by humanity. Yet though loneliness was a symptom of the modern era, solitude could be a critique of it. It was one of the few ways in which you could get in touch with the transcendent, thus revealing what was lacking in an increasingly materialistic society. When Wordsworth writes that he wandered lonely as a cloud, he may mean simply that he was by himself, or that he lacked companionship, or that being alone allowed him space for self-knowledge and spiritual meditation.

That the self is revealed only in retreat from the world is a belief which runs back at least to the early Christian desert fathers, but this book shows how the need for self-communion intensifies as modern societies become more crowded. Such withdrawal could come at a cost: Virginia Woolf insisted on the need for a room of one’s own, but only the upper middle classes could have afforded one at the time. In the 19th century, only 1% of the British population lived on their own in 2011 it was 31%, or some 8 million people. Yet as urbanization and large families pitched people together, the anonymous world of industrial capitalism also split them apart. Rural life may have been rough, but at least you knew who lived next door. So if a longing to be alone became more acute, so did a sense of being forsaken.

A History of Solitude calls for a “quiet history of British society”, or “a history of doing nothing at all”. It is a remarkably versatile study, ranging from the poetry of John Clare to the “networked solitude” of the internet and the cult of mindfulness. There is a fascinating section on solitary walking, which the 19th-century middle classes indulged in for spiritual recreation (Wordsworth is reckoned to have walked some 180,000 miles during his lifetime), and the laboring classes undertook in order to find work. Constant perambulation was what united peasant and patrician.

One can, of course, be solitary in company. In fact, the psychologist Donald Winnicott claims that a child can learn to be alone only in the presence of a trusted adult. The second half of the 19th century witnessed a rash of new convents, where women could be alone together, while a less high-minded form of solitary confinement was provided by the prison system. (The yachtsman Robin Knox-Johnson thought the crime rate might fall if people were sentenced to sail around the world alone instead of going to gaol.) A cameo on smoking shows how in the postwar era the habit was seen less as a route to the churchyard than as a pathway to inner calm, even as a variety of prayer.

Vincent has his doubts about the so-called epidemic of loneliness in modern life. He points out that more and more men and women after the second world war decided to live alone because it was feasible to do so. In any case, widespread loneliness isn’t new, and some sociologists see little evidence that it is on the increase. By contrast, Fay Bound Alberti’s A Biography of Loneliness approaches the issue with a deeper sense of urgency. If Vincent is a social historian, she is an emotional one, convinced that human feelings, far from being timeless and universal, are as historically conditioned as thought and action, and every bit as mutable. The case can be challenged: the way we express emotion is certainly shaped by our culture, but grieving over the loss of a loved one, or panicking when embraced by a grizzly bear, don’t seem to depend on whether you come from Kansas or Cambodia. It is equally doubtful that all emotional states are gendered, as this book maintains. Do women really react differently to men when falling off a mountain? “All emotions are political,” Alberti asserts, but “everything is political” statements risk emptying the term “political” of any useful meaning. It represents an overreaction to those who think that the post of lord chancellor isn’t political but natural.

There’s a gripping account here of Queen Victoria’s pathological grief over Prince Albert’s death, which compares the stricken monarch with the surreal Miss Havisham of Dickens’s Great Expectations. The book is impressively balanced: it sees that loneliness, in the sense of Vincent’s “solitude”, can be the price one pays for creativity. Loneliness can be restorative as well as destructive, but only when it is a choice. Historically speaking, it springs from the separation of self and society but this long pre-dates 1800, as Hamlet or Othello might testify. Overlooking this fact, the book idealizes the 18th century as a “relatively collective world”, which would have come as something of a surprise to the vagrants and workless who wandered its highways.

All the same, Alberti is right to politicize loneliness, unlike the neuroscientists who are racing to develop a pill to cure it. One can’t dissociate feeling useless and disconnected from the history of possessive individualism, even if that history stretches further back than the author imagines. If, as she points out, “there are very few physical spaces where people can meet in the 21st century without paying for the privilege of being there”, it is largely because the gospel of neoliberalism can see no point in them. There is, then, a villain in this book, as there isn’t in the more cautious reflections of Vincent. But there is also a good deal more: a brief history of old age, speculations on homelessness, refugees, soul mates, hunger artists, and Fomo, the connections between loneliness and obesity, a digression on Wuthering Heights which fails to drive home what an utter bastard Heathcliff is, and an array of other topics.

What distinguishes both these studies is their mixture of empirical research and general commentary. Both recount a grand narrative about solitude or loneliness, unfolding across the centuries, but they do so on the basis of detailed documentation. In their combination of scholarship and sympathy, poetry and clinical psychology, they appeal as much to the common reader as to the expert. One answer to loneliness is solitude. Enjoying being on one’s own, or at least being able to tolerate it, is part of being grown up. But Vincent and Alberti both highlight the privilege this involves – how positive aloneness is possible for the middle-class poet, but not for the impoverished housewife with children to care for, not least in a society which has hacked social provision to the bone.

Even so, this is a compassionate, wide-ranging study, which makes the bold claim that loneliness was invented around 1800. This may help to explain why Robinson Crusoe doesn’t once complain of lacking company. It also chimes with Vincent’s case: in his view, “lonely” becomes a negative emotion only around this time. It is now less a fact (“on one’s own”) than an existential condition, as with Byron’s gloomy heroes. Today, Alberti argues, lonely people are 30% more likely to die early than less lonely ones, the poor are lonelier than the well-off and the young are the loneliest of all. To be lonely is to cease “to exist in a meaningful way with other people”.

Is Albert Bandura a Behaviorist?

While most psychology textbooks place Bandura’s theory with those of the behaviorists, Bandura himself has noted that he ". never really fit the behavioral orthodoxy."

Even in his earliest work, Bandura argued that reducing behavior to a stimulus-response cycle was too simplistic. While his work used behavioral terminology such as 'conditioning' and 'reinforcement,' Bandura explained, ". I conceptualized these phenomena as operating through cognitive processes."

"Authors of psychological texts continue to mischaracterize my approach as rooted in behaviorism," Bandura has explained, describing his own perspective as 'social cognitivism.'


The mission of the Barnes is to promote the advancement of education and the appreciation of the fine arts and horticulture.

Our founder, Dr. Albert C. Barnes, believed that art had the power to improve minds and transform lives. Our diverse educational programs are based on his teachings and one-of-a-kind collections.

Philadelphia art collector Albert C. Barnes (1872–1951) chartered the Barnes Foundation in 1922 to teach people from all walks of life how to look at art. Over three decades, he collected some of the world’s most important impressionist, post-impressionist, and modern paintings, including works by Renoir, Cézanne, Matisse, and Picasso. He displayed them alongside African masks, native American jewelry, Greek antiquities, and decorative metalwork.

Dr. Barnes was a strong supporter of progressive education and social justice, and he worked closely with black communities in the belief that people—like art—should not be segregated.

The main gallery upon entering the Barnes collection.

Dr. Albert C. Barnes, c. 1946. Photograph by Angelo Pinto. Photograph Collection, Barnes Foundation Archives

Raised in a working-class household, Albert Barnes excelled in school and earned a medical degree by age 20. Instead of practicing medicine, he turned to pharmacology, where he made a fortune by co-inventing an antiseptic. In 1912, at the age of 40, he began purchasing modern paintings with the help of his childhood friend William Glackens. Following the philosophy of John Dewey—who believed that education was fundamental to democracy—Dr. Barnes held art appreciation lessons at his factories. Each day, for two hours, production stopped as his workers discussed painting and philosophy. Many were women or African Americans to whom, in defiance of the era’s prejudices, Dr. Barnes had extended employment.

Galvanized by the success of the factory teachings, and with a rapidly growing art collection at his disposal, Dr. Barnes decided to undertake a full-blown experiment in education. In 1922, he purchased a 12-acre arboretum in Merion, Pennsylvania, and hired architect Paul Phillippe Cret to design a residence and gallery. This would become the first home of the Barnes Foundation, an educational institution that offered free art appreciation classes. The unique approach to teaching—now known as the Barnes Method—emphasized close looking, critical thinking, and prolonged engagement with original works of art. Dr. Barnes worked closely with his colleague Violette de Mazia to shape the program.

To better serve Dr. Barnes’s educational mission, the Foundation moved to Center City Philadelphia in 2012, where its vastly expanded program reaches 12,000 Philadelphia schoolchildren every year. In its award-winning Parkway home, designed by Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects | Partners, Dr. Barnes’s final 1951 arrangement of the collection is still on view, enhanced by a wide variety of special exhibitions, public programs, and classes for adult learners. Community and family programs are offered on-site and in neighborhoods throughout the city, honoring Dr. Barnes’s commitment to diversity and inclusivity.

Richard Albert Turner

Click on one of the headings below to go to a specific part in the article.

Rick Turner was a charismatic political philosopher and theorist who was also an activist and educationist. He was highly influential in the re-emergence of the Black labour movement and one of the first in the White-left to appreciate the significance of the Black Consciousness Movement. He influenced many future activists, historians and theorists before he was killed at the age of 36 by an apartheid assassin.

A biography of Rick Turner

Richard “Rick” Albert Turner was born in Cape Town on 25 September 1941, the only child of Jane and Owen “Paddy” Turner, working class English parents who had settled in South Africa. Paddy had earlier been to South Africa when he fought in the Second Anglo-Boer War.

Rick grew up in Stellenbosch on a fruit farm, Welcarmas. After his father died in 1953, when he was 12, he was raised by his mother Jane, and became a boarder St George’s Grammar School, a private school in Cape Town run by the Anglican Church.

In 1959 he registered for a course in Engineering at the University of Cape Town, but he switched to Philosophy in his second year. He joined the National Union of South African Students (NUSAS), and taught adult literacy classes in a Black township with his childhood friend, John Clare. He completed an Honours degree in Philosophy in 1963.

At UCT he was friendly with Alan Brooks and others who joined the African Resistance Movement, a White liberal organisation that initiated acts of sabotage before it was crushed by the apartheid regime. According to Turner’s daughter Jann, writing in 2008: “Brooks was arrested and badly tortured and on his release left for England. In 1974 Dad commented that ‘the ARM episode, in which disillusioned students tried sabotage, shattered their own and others lives and did great damage to the cause they were fighting for, made me acutely aware of the dangers of students turning to violence’.”

In 1964 Turner married his sweetheart Barbara Hubbard just before they left for France, where their daughter Jann was born.

Turner secured a place at the prestigious Sorbonne in Paris, where he completed a doctorate in 1966 after producing a thesis on the political philosophy of Jean Paul Sartre, titled Quelques implications de la Phenomenologie Existentielle (Implications of existential phenomenology). He met with Sartre on one occasion.

Turner was transformed by his stay in Paris. Observing the nascent French student movement convinced him that students could wield genuine power. He returned to South Africa in 1967 and took up a series of teaching posts in Cape Town. He became involved in protests against the government’s decision to refuse permission for anthropologist Archie Mafeje to teach at UCT.

Turner moved to the University of Natal in 1970, when he got a job there teaching political philosophy. Soon after he arrived in Durban, he met Steve Biko, who was then studying medicine at Natal University’s Black Section, and Omar Badsha, an activist and photographer who introduced Turner to Mewa Ramgobin and other activists about the same time as they were reviving the Natal Indian Congress.

Biko had by then broken away from NUSAS to form the South African Student Organisation (SASO), the first organization to initiate the programme of what would become the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM). Turner was receptive to Black Consciousness and acted as a mediator between SASO’s black students and white students from NUSAS, advising white students on the way forward after the exodus of Black students.

Turner was invited by Mewa to join the board of the Phoenix Settlement Trust and with Schlemmer, Badsha, Eli Gandhi organized the first of two work camps at Phoenix settlement which had a profound influence on the students that attended them.

Turner also developed strong relationships with academics at the university, people such as Fatima Meer, Lawrence Schlemmer and Eddie Webster.

The year 1970 also saw the end of his first marriage and the beginning of his second, to Foszia Fisher, who he met through Biko. Their marriage was a daring act of resistance against apartheid’s Mixed Marriages Act, the Immorality Act and the Group Areas Act. Turner converted to Islam so that he could be married by an imam and to appease Fisher’s Muslim parents and was conducted at the home of Fatima and Ismail Meer. the imam being the only cleric prepare to join the couple. The marriage was conducted according to Muslim rites, and was not legally recognised in South Africa.

He bought a house in Bellair, Durban, where he gathered together a community of activists, academics and unionists, including Lawrence Schlemmer, Gerry Maré, and Turner’s student Peter Hudson and others. The house became a centre of left activity.

Turner threw himself into political activity in Durban, conducting workshops and forming, with Badsha and others , the Education Reform Association, a body that sought to popularize alternative education methods, a school of thought influenced by radical educationist Paulo Friere.

According to Badsha, Turner always bought at least three copies of books he was interested in and passed on copies to Biko, Badsha and others.

Turner also established Using a forum called Platform, which met fortnightly at the University of Natal Warwark Avenue campus. Where he and guest speakers gave lectures on Marxism and other topics reflecting the thinking of the New Left, which he had imbibed during his stay in Paris. Turner’s Marxism was decidedly non-Stalinist, Sartrean and aligned to the New Left., which appealed to activists and students.

Turner was loved by his students – especially because of his teaching style, which transformed the teaching situation into a more democratic encounter than that found at traditional schools and universities. This was a movement that the BCM was also propagating, with many activists at the time influenced by the works of Ivan Illich and Paulo Friere.

A passionate lecturer pioneering the teaching of radical political philosophy and an advisor to NUSAS, Turner encouraged activism by whites in the aftermath of the 1969 departure of blacks from NUSAS. Among the students he taught were lawyer Halton Cheadle, Dan O’Meara (Marxist historian, author of Volkskapitalisme), and political philosopher Peter Hudson.

Turner who was an advisor to NUSAS provided support to students such as David Hempson, Halton Cheadle, David Davis who had started the Nusas Wages Commission With the help of trade unionist Harriet Bolton, Cheadle and others, Turner and the Student Wages Commission found a base at the Garment Union head office in Durban to help with the formation of the General Factory Workers Benefit Fundencouraged white students to get involved in the unionisation of black workers, spurring the formation of the NUSAS Wages Commissions in 1971. Turner, Fisher became the A moving force behind the Institute for Industrial Education and the South African Labour Bulletin during and after the Durban strikes of 1973, he worked with Gerry Maré, Alec Erwin, Eddie Webster and John Copelyn, and helped to recruit and train many future labour organisers.

Jann, Kim, Foszia Turner (Richard Turner's second wife) and Barbara Follet (Richard Turner's first wife (née Hubbard)

Turner like Fatima Meer, Schlemmer and other white and black academics and theologians became a member of As a contributor to the publications of the Study Project on Christianity in Apartheid Society (SPROCAS), he compelled his colleagues to consider more radical recommendations than those prescribed by traditional liberalism. In an influential response to the final report of the SPROCAS Political Commission, in 1972 he wrote the utopian The Eye of the Needle: A Guide to Participatory Democracy in South Africa, in which he envisioned a decentralized socialist society.

The "Durban Moment" of intellectual excitement centering on Turner ended when he was banned along with seven national NUSAS leaders in March 1973, when several BCM leaders, including Biko, were also banned.

Turner banning made it illegal for him to teach, publish. The University of Natal showed its support for Turner by keeping him on the academic but he continued informally to advise unions and remained in contact with student leaders and secretly supervised the work of some student activists like bobby Marie., but it became illegal for him to teach, publish or be quoted. A brief respite from his non-person status occurred when he testified as a defencedefense witness during the 1975-76 trial of "the SASO Nine", officially known as The State vs Cooper and eight others.

The University of Natal showed its support of Turner by keeping him on the academic staff, although he could not teach because of his banning order.

In 1976 the government denied him permission to take up a prestigious Humboldt fellowship in Germany.

Shortly after midnight on 8 January, 1978, two months before his ban was due to expire, Turner was shot through a window of his suburban Durban home and died in the arms of his 13-year old daughter, Jann. Following four months after Biko's death in detention, Turner's murder created a public outcry.

Rick Turner’s funeral was attended by about a thousand people – many of them former students, colleagues and activists, as well as banned people who were allowed to attend, among others. Although the funeral was conducted according to Islamic rites, it was an inter-faith affair, with Muslim, Hindu, Catholic and Jewish priests delivering speeches.

He was buried in the Muslim cemetery at Brook Street in Durban.

Turner and the Security police

Even before he was banned, Turner was an object of scrutiny by the apartheid security police unit, the Bureau of State Security (BOSS). His phone was tapped, he was followed and they attempted to kill him on at least one occasion, when he was with Omar Badsha at workcam at Phoenix Settlement when they were nearly run over by security police agents. and the cops tried to run them down with a motor car.

His Bellair home was firebombed in March 1972, and in December his car’s tyres were slashed and his engine damaged.

In his book on Turner, Choosing to be Free, Billy Keniston reproduces a slew of security police reports about Turner, many of them painting a picture of his political activities, trying to present these as “communistic” activities.

Eventually he was killed by an assassin, in all likelihood a security cop.

Predictably, after his death, police investigations turned up no clues, and his killers were not identified.

The original investigating officer, murder and robbery captain Chris Earle, testified at a section 29 hearing of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in post-apartheid South Africa. He said he suspected from the beginning that Turner had been killed by apartheid state agents. Earle said Turner had been killed by “people who were part of the security forces and that they wanted to protect this and not have it known”. He added that BOSS operative Martin Dolinchek “and possibly other members of BOSS were involved. I also had information available that the firearm used to shoot the deceased was of Angolan origin.”

Earle requested that Dolinchek’s firearms be forensically tested but this request did not lead to any conclusion.

The TRC said: “Former Vlakplaas Commander Eugene de Kock reported that one of his informants, former BOSS member Piet Botha, told him that Dolinchek had killed Turner and that Dolinchek’s brother-in-law, Mr Von Scheer, drove the getaway vehicle.”

Dolincheck also testified, but denied he had killed Turner.

Both Earle and his immediate superior, Major Christoffel Groenewald, told the TRC that they believed the investigation had been obstructed when Groenewald and his superior, Brigadier Hansen (now deceased), were called to Pretoria and instructed not to waste time investigating Dolinchek, because there was no proof of his involvement in the killing. Both expressed the view that Dolinchek had been responsible for the killing.

The TRC found that national police commissioner General GL Prinsloo ordered the investigation to be shut down.

Turner, Biko and Black Consciousness

Turner was a close friend of Biko, and one of the first white left leaders to comprehend the significance of the Black Consciousness Movement – to recognize that the move to separate themselves from whites was not a racist tendency, as some considered, but an authentic attempt to spur blacks on to regain the will to fight apartheid and to lead the struggle.

He displayed a genuine understanding of the BC point of view and affirmed its insights with great clarity. Above all, he understood the power dynamics at play between whites and blacks, and the need for blacks to break free of the psychological strangleholds within which they had been locked by a long history of oppression.

But the BC intervention was clouded by confusing threads. Some whites saw the BC position as black racism, while apartheid apologists cheered the BCM stance, thinking it was in line with “separate development”. Confusion also arose from the BC position that whites had to leave blacks to themselves to operate on their own to overthrow apartheid, and that they should instead “conscientise” other white people, to transform white society into an anti-racist community. This left whites perplexed as to their role in the struggle against apartheid.

Turner wrote an article, “Black consciousness and white liberals”, published in Reality in July 1972, which “untangled” some of the confusions surrounding the relationship between white liberals and BC activists. He spelt out the reasons BC activists rejected earlier modes of resistance, in which liberal whites were cultivated by black progressive forces.

“As a group, white opponents of apartheid are not a significant political force, and are certainly not going to be the chief agent in the overthrow of apartheid. It would therefore be wrong for blacks to orient their political activity towards an appeal to whites to help them. There has always been a tendency for black political organisations to make appeals to the moral sensibility of the whites. It is this strategy that is being attacked by proponents of ‘black consciousness’. And of course they are quite right to attack it. Blacks cannot leave their case to be argued by whites in the context of white political institutions.”

He also “tried to show in this article where the attacks by ‘black consciousness’ on ‘white liberalism’ are justified, and where they are too sweeping”. He argued that there had to be a role for both whites and blacks, and that sweeping rejections of any group were unproductive and based on dubious and simplistic assumptions. He argued that apartheid was dehumanizing for both blacks and whites, and that its destruction would be a liberation for both groups – for humanity.

He wrote: “Black consciousness is a rejection of the idea that the ideal for humankind is ‘to be like the whites’. This should lead to the recognition that it is also bad for whites ‘to be like the whites’. That is, in an important sense both whites and blacks are oppressed, though in different ways, by a social system which perpetuates itself by creating white lords and black slaves, and no full human beings.”

Turner’s interventions allowed for a certain amount of cooperation between the white NUSAS students and SASO’s black students, and a certain division of labour when he encouraged the white left to get involved in union building.

Turner and the Labour movement

Turner was involved in several initiatives to resuscitate the labour movement among black workers, which had been suppressed after the banning of the South African Council of Trade Unions (SACTU) in the early 1960s.

After Black students left NUSAS, white activists tried to “conscientise” their own communities but were unsuccessful and instead got involved in organizing black worker unions. Turner was involved with the Wages Commission as an advisor before the “Durban Moment” in 1973, when spontaneous strikes crippled industries in the city.

The Wages Commission was initiated by mainly white students, many of them taught by Turner, at the University of Natal in 1971. It sought to investigate the wages of Black workers and stressed the fact that black workers’ wages were generally well below that of a living wage, sometimes less than half of a living wage.

Turner acted as an advisor, but there was also something of a break with his orientation in the commission, whose main drivers – among them Halton Cheadle, Charles Nupen, Karel Tip and David Hemson, all except Hemson heavily influenced by Turner – were turning to a more traditional Marxist class analysis to help them mobilise black workers. They experienced class analysis and the necessity of connecting with the working class as a way out of the immobility imposed on them by the Black Consciousness Movement. But they remained in a dialogue with Turner.

On the other hand, Dan O’Meara asserts that it was Turner who suggested that white students work with black workers as a way out of their immobility. “Rick’s analysis started to give the white left a sense that there was something that we could do, something that we could do that SASO couldn’t,” he says in Keniston’s biography, Choosing to be Free.

Soon after he was banned in March 1973, Turner started the South African Labour Bulletin (SALB), together with Badsha, Bolton, Cheadle, Fisher, Webster and Dave Hemson. Turner had written up virtually all the articles for the first issue, but he appointed John Copelyn to act as editor as well as author, since he was not allowed to publish his works. The Bulletin survives to this day as a major source of analysis and information about the labour movement in South Africa.

In the wake of the Durban strikes in 1973, the GFWBF became transformed to accommodate the need of the growing move to form Industrial Unions. white radicals formed and the Trade Union Advisory and Coordinating Council (TUACC) was formed to coordinate the various unions that were in the process of emerging. Turner was not directly involved in TUACC but acted as an advisor, playing a key background role with to the organisers, who included David Hemson, Paula Ensor, Halton Cheadle, Omar Badsha, Jonny Copelan Alec Erwin and Gerry Maré.

Alonside the formation of the trade unions Turner and Fisher with Schlemmer and the TUACC leadership also formed the Institute for Industrial Education (IIE) soon after he was banned. The IIE, essentially a correspondence school, straddled the worlds of education as well as labour, with many of its members also members of TUACC. This initiative would prove to be a point of conflict (see next section).

Turner and democratic pedagogy

Throughout his career as an academic, Turner was interested in transforming education into a more democratic process. His lectures resembled discussions more than prepared texts delivered from a podium in a lecture hall.

This interest in drawing the best out of students and in tailoring the education process to the specific experience and needs of oppressed people was very much in the air, and was also taken up by the BCM.

Much of this project was based on the works of Ivan Illich, Paulo Friere and liberation theology. Friere, a Brazilian theorist of education and author of Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), developed a “critical pedagogy” to teach colonised people in a manner that would uplift them. The main tenet of this school was that teaching and learning were political acts, and that education was a process of remaking oneself. He declared in his book: “No pedagogy which is truly liberating can remain distant from the oppressed by treating them as unfortunates and by presenting for their emulation models from among the oppressors.”

Illich, an Austro Croatian Catholic who worked in Latin America, was critical of the manner in which institutions approached social problems, especially the school system, although he extended his analysis to medicine, labour and economic development, among others. He lamented that the education system was obsessed with certificates and failed to develop critical thinking. His book Deschooling Society (1971) was immensely influential in South Africa and throughout the world.

Turner used these theorists to inform his approach to education, and in 1973, together with Fisher, Cheadle, Badsha, Schlemmer and Eddie Webster, Bolton he formed the Institute for Industrial Education (IIE). The educational programme, aimed at workers, sought to stimulate the study of capitalism, the role of workers and the working class organization. Turner developed much of the curriculum for the courses, while Fisher served as director.

According to Schlemmer: “What Rick was saying, through the IIE, was, ‘Listen, these workers are oppressed people. We’ve got to take their consciousness seriously and see where they’re at. We need to give them the intellectual tools and the awareness to occupy whatever power bases they’re going to create, meaningfully’… He asked us not to decide for them, but to let themsee for themselves what they must do to change their situation.”

The project produced a study, The Durban strikes, subtitled “Human Beings with Souls”, in 1973, which was published in 1974.

As mentioned in the previous section, the IIE worked closely with TUACC, with many members belonging to both organisations. Despite promising beginnings, the IIE lasted about two years before it was shut down by TUACC after hostile camps developed regarding the direction of the institute. Conflicts revolved around allegations that each camp was imposing itself on workers rather than taking direction from them, a.nd Turner and Schlemmer insistence that the IIE should also serve the needs of other groupings. Things came to a head when they wanted to serve the needs of the newly established Inkatha established by Gatcha Buthelezi the Zulu Homeland leader.

TUACC’s John Copelyn was particularly impatient with Turner’s emphasis on education, as he was convinced that organizing workers was a greater priority. He accused Turner of using the IIE to influence the ideas of workers and of being “anti-organisation”. Turner’s decision to admit anyone, not only workers, was also criticized for attracting the “wrong kind” of workers.

TUACC wanted to bring the IIE into the council as a subcommittee, but the project fell apart in 1975.