text:
The Family of Man

The Family of Man was an ambitious exhibition of 503 photographs from 68 countries curated by Edward Steichen, the director of the New York City Museum of Modern Art's (MoMA) department of photography. According to Steichen, the exhibition represented the "culmination of his career". The title was taken from a line in a Carl Sandburg poem. The Family of Man was exhibited in 1955 from January 24 to May 8 at the New York MoMA, then toured the world for eight years to record-breaking audience numbers. Commenting on its appeal, Steichen said, "The people in the audience looked at the pictures, and the people in the pictures looked back at them. They recognized each other." The physical collection is archived and displayed at Clervaux Castle in Edward Steichen's home country of Luxembourg, where he was born in 1879 in Bivange. It was first exhibited there in 1994 after restoration of the prints.

In 2003, the Family of Man photographic collection was added to UNESCO's Memory of the World Register in recognition of its historical value.

United States

 * 1955, 24 January – 8 May: Museum of Modern Art
 * 1955, 22 June – 4 September: Minneapolis Institute of Art
 * 1955, 7 October – 4 December: Dallas Museum of Art
 * 1956, 24 January – 4 March: Cleveland Museum of Art
 * 1956, 29 April – 20 May: Munson-Williams-Proctor Arts Institute
 * 1956, 25 May – 15 July: Baltimore Museum of Art
 * 1956, 4–25 June: Saint Louis Art Museum
 * 1956, July: Corning Museum of Glass
 * 1956, 9–30 July: GEH Dryden Gallery
 * 1956, 3–30 October: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

World tour
As part of the Museum of Modern Art's International Program, the exhibition The Family of Man toured the world, making stops in thirty-seven countries on six continents. More than 10 million people viewed the exhibit, which is in excess of the largest audience for any other photographic exhibition. The photographs in the exhibition focused on the commonalities that bind people and cultures around the world, the exhibition serving as an expression of humanism in the decade following World War II. The recently-formed United States Information Agency was instrumental in touring the photographs throughout the world in five different versions for seven years, under the auspices of the Museum of Modern Art International Program. Notably, it was not shown in Franco's Spain, in Vietnam, nor in China.

First European tour
Copy 1 (503 photo panels, 50 text panels) was organized by Edward Steichen. Duplication, with minor changes, of the exhibition presented at MoMA, Jan 24-May 8, 1955 and subsequently circulated in the United States (1956–57). Commissioned by the USIA for circulation in Europe (circulated 1955-1962. Dispersed 1962). It was shown in:

Central America, India, Africa, Middle East
Copy 2, a duplicate of Copy 1 was commissioned by the USIA, circulated 1955–1963 and dispersed in 1963. It was shown in:

Second European tour
Copy 3, a duplicate of Copy 1 commissioned by the USIA. Circulated 1957–1965 and at Steichen's request, this version of the exhibition was presented to the Government of Luxembourg for permanent display at Common Market Headquarters, Luxembourg, 1965. Previously, it was shown in:

South America, Australia and South-East Asia
Copy 4, a duplicate of Copy 1. Commissioned by the U.S.I.A. Circulated 1957–62. Dispersed 1962. It was shown in:

Middle East
A revised version of the original shown at MoMA 1955. Circulated in the United States, 1957–59, then acquired by the USIA for circulation abroad (1957–58; dispersed 1958), and shown in Tel Aviv, Israel and Beirut, Lebanon

Soviet Union
Copy 5: Following a bilateral agreement between the USA and USSR, in 1959 the American National Exhibition was to be held in Moscow and the Soviets were to have had the use of New York City's Coliseum. This Moscow trade fair at Sokolniki Park was the scene of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and United States Vice President Richard Nixon's 'Kitchen Debate' over the relative merits of communism and capitalism.

The Family of Man was a late inclusion that had not been originally envisaged in MoMA's itinerary. With a grant to the Museum of $15,000 (less than half of what it requested) and funding from the plastics industry for the radical pre-fabricated translucent pavilion design to house it, a fifth copy of the show was salvaged from what was left of the Beirut and Scandinavia showings, augmented with new prints.

In Moscow, in the context of a trade show 'supermarket' meant to demonstrate lavish consumerism, and a multimedia display assembled by Charles Eames, the collection's overtones of peace and human brotherhood symbolized a lifting of the imminent threat of an atomic war for Soviet citizens in the midst of the Cold War. This meaning seemed to be grasped especially by Soviet students and intellectuals. Recognising the importance of the Moscow exhibition as "the high spot of the project," Steichen attended its opening and made copious photographs of the event.

Clervaux Castle, Luxembourg
The original prints from Copy 3 exhibited in the permanent collection at Clervaux Castle in Luxembourg have been restored twice, once in the 1990s and more comprehensively during a closure of the museum in the years 2010-2013.

An innovative exhibit
The physical installation and layout of the Family of Man exhibition were designed to enable the visitor to view it as if it were a photo-essay about human development and cycles of life, that affirmed a common human identity and destiny against the contemporary Cold War threats of nuclear war. Architect Paul Rudolph designed a series of temporary walls set amongst the existing structural columns, which guided visitors past the images, which he described as "telling a story", encouraging them to pause at those that attracted their attention. His layout and display features were adapted as much as possible to the international venues, which varied considerably from the original space at MoMA. Open spaces within the layout encouraged viewers' interaction; to choose their own path through the exhibition, and to gather to discuss it. The layout and placement of prints and their variation in size encouraged the bodily participation of the audience, who would have to bend down to examine a small print displayed below eye level and then to step back to view a mural image, and to negotiate both narrow and expansive spaces. The prints range in size from 24x36 cm to 300x400 cm and were made, in the case of the contemporary images, by assistant Jack Jackson, from the negative supplied to Steichen by each photographer. Also included were copies of historical images, for example a Mathew Brady civil war documentation, and a Lewis Carroll portrait. Blown-up, often mural scale images, angled, floated or curved, some inset into other floor-to-ceiling prints, even displayed on the ceiling (a canted view of a silhouetted axeman and tree), on posts like finger-boards (in the final room), and the floor (for a Ring o' Roses series), were grouped together according to diverse themes. Repeated prints of Eugene Harris' portrait of a Peruvian flute-player formed a coda, or acted as 'Pied Piper' to the audience, in the opinion of some reviewers, and according to Steichen himself, expressed "a little bit of mischief, but much sweetness—that's the song of life." Lighting intensities varied throughout the series of ten rooms in order to set the mood. The exhibition opened with an entrance archway papered with a blow-up of a crowd in London by Pat English framing Wyn Bullock's Chinese landscape of sunlight on water into which was inset an image of a truncated nude of a pregnant woman in an evocation of creation myths. Subjects then ranged in sequence from lovers, to childbirth, to household, and careers, then to death and, on a topical and portentous note, the hydrogen bomb (an image from LIFE magazine of the test detonation Mike, Operation Ivy, Enewetak Atoll, October 31, 1952) which was the only full-colour image; a room-filling backlit 1.8x2.43 m Eastman transparency, replaced for the travelling version of the show with a different view of the same explosion in black and white. Finally, full cycle, visitors returned once more to children in a room in which the last picture was W. Eugene Smith's iconic 1946 A Walk to Paradise Garden. As the centrepiece of the exhibition a hanging sculptural installation of photographs including Vito Fiorenza's Sicilian family group and Carl Mydans' of a Japanese family (both from nations which were recent enemies of the Allies in WW2), another from Bechuanaland by Nat Farbman and a rural family of the United States by Nina Leen, encouraged circulation to view double-sided prints and invited reflection on the universal nature of the family beyond cultural differences. Photos were chosen according to their capacity to communicate a story, or a feeling, that contributed to the overarching narrative. Each grouping of images builds upon the next, creating an intricate story of human life. The design of the exhibition built on trade displays and Steichen's 1945 Power In The Pacific exhibition which was designed by George Kidder Smith for MoMA, Steichen's commissioning of Herbert Bayer for the presentation of his curatorship of other exhibitions and his own long history of initiation of innovative exhibits dating back to his association with Gallery 291 early in the century. In 1963 Steichen elaborated on the special opportunities offered by the exhibition format; "In the cinema and television, the image is revealed at a pace set by the director. In the exhibition gallery, the visitor sets his own pace. He can go forward and then retreat or hurry along according to his own impulse and mood as these are stimulated by the exhibition. In the creation of such an exhibition, resources are brought into play that are not available elsewhere. The contrast in scale of images, the shifting of focal points, the intriguing perspective of long- and short- range visibility with the images to come being glimpsed beyond the images at hand —all these permit the spectator an active participation that no other form of visual communication can give."

Texts used in the exhibition and book
The enlarged prints by the multiple photographers were displayed without explanatory captions, and instead were intermingled with quotations by, among others, James Joyce, Thomas Paine, Lillian Smith, and William Shakespeare, chosen by photographer and social activist Dorothy Norman. Carl Sandburg, Steichen's brother-in-law, 1951 recipient of the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry and known for his biography of Abraham Lincoln, inspired the title of the exhibition with a line from his poem The Long Shadow of Lincoln: A Litany (1944); There is dust alive With dreams of the Republic, With dreams of the family of man Flung wide on a shrinking globe; It was Sandburg who added an accompanying poetic commentary also displayed as text panels throughout the exhibition and included in the publication, of which the following are samples; "There is only one man in the world and his name is All Men. There is only one woman in the world and her name is All Women. There is only one child in the world and the child's name is All Children. People! flung wide and far, born into toil, struggle, blood and dreams, among lovers, eaters, drinkers, workers, loafers, fighters, players, gamblers. Here are ironworkers, bridge men, musicians, sandhogs, miners, builders of huts and skyscrapers, jungle hunters, landlords, and the landless, the loved and the unloved, the lonely and abandoned, the brutal and the compassionate — one big family hugging close to the ball of Earth for its life and being. Everywhere is love and love-making, weddings and babies from generation to generation keeping the Family of Man alive and continuing. If the human face is 'the masterpiece of God' it is here then in a thousand fateful registrations. Often the faces speak that words can never say. Some tell of eternity and others only the latest tattings. Child faces of blossom smiles or mouths of hunger are followed by homely faces of majesty carved and worn by love, prayer and hope, along with others light and carefree as thistledown in a late summer wing. Faces have land and sea on them, faces honest as the morning sun flooding a clean kitchen with light, faces crooked and lost and wondering where to go this afternoon or tomorrow morning. Faces in crowds, laughing and windblown leaf faces, profiles in an instant of agony, mouths in a dumbshow mockery lacking speech, faces of music in gay song or a twist of pain, a hate ready to kill, or calm and ready-for-death faces. Some of them are worth a long look now and deep contemplation later."

Book
Jerry Mason (1913–1991) contemporaneously edited and published a complementary book of the exhibition through Maco Magazine Corporation, formed for the purpose in 1955 in partnership with Fred Sammis.It was the first time hard-cover and soft-cover editions were published simultaneously. The book, which has never been out of print, was designed by Leo Lionni (May 5, 1910 – October 11, 1999). Many of Lionni’s book covers, like that of The Family of Man, incorporate playful modernist collages of apparently cut or torn coloured paper, which he repeats, for example in his 1962 design for The American Character and for children’s books, an aesthetic also used in exhibitions from his parallel career as a fine artist. The publication was reproduced in a variety of formats (most popularly a soft-cover volume) in the 1950s, and reprinted in large format for its 40th anniversary, and in its various editions has sold more than four million copies. Most images from the exhibition were reproduced with an introduction by Carl Sandburg, whose prologue reads, in part: "The first cry of a baby in Chicago, or Zamboango, in Amsterdam or Rangoon, has the same pitch and key, each saying, 'I am! I have come through! I belong! I am a member of the Family. Many the babies and grownup here from photographs made in sixty-eight nations round our planet Earth. You travel and see what the camera saw. The wonder of human mind, heart wit and instinct is here. You might catch yourself saying, 'I'm not a stranger here.'" However, an omission from the book, highly significant and contrary to Steichen's stated pacifist aim, was the image of a hydrogen bomb test explosion; audiences of the time were highly sensitive to the threat of universal nuclear annihilation. In place of the huge colour transparency to which a space was devoted in the MoMA exhibition, and the black-and-white mural print that toured countries other than Japan, only this quotation of Bertrand Russell's anti-nuclear warning, in white type on a black page, appears in the book; "[...] The best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with hydrogen bombs is quite likely to put an end to the human race [...] There will be universal death — sudden for only a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration." Absent also from the book, and removed by week eleven of the initial MoMA exhibition, was the distressing photograph of the aftermath of a lynching, of a dead young African American man, tied to a tree with his bound arms tautly tethered with a rope that stretches out of frame. For most purchasers, this was their first encounter with a book that gave priority to the photographic image over text. In 2015, to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the inaugural exhibition, MoMA reissued the book as a hardcover edition, with the original jacket design from 1955 (albeit without the signature of designer Leo Lionni) and duotone printing from new copies of all of the photographs.

Photographers
Steichen's stated objective was to draw attention, visually, to the universality of human experience and the role of photography in its documentation. The exhibition brought together 503 photos from 68 countries, the work of 273 photographers (163, or 59.3% of whom were Americans) which, with 70 European photographers, means that the ensemble represents a primarily Western viewpoint. That forty were women photographers can in some part be attributed to Joan Miller's contribution to the selection, and to Dorothea Lange who assisted her friend Edward Steichen in recruiting photographers. She contacted her FSA and Life connections who in turn promoted the project to their colleagues. In 1953 she circulated a letter; "A Summons to Photographers All Over the World," calling on them to; show Man to Man across the world. Here we hope to reveal by visual images Man's dreams and aspirations, his strength, his despair under evil. If photography can bring these things to life, this exhibition will be created in a spirit of passionate and devoted faith in Man. Nothing short of that will do. The letter then listed topics that photographs might cover and these categories are reflected in the show's final arrangement. Lange's work features in the exhibition. Steichen and his team drew heavily on Life archives for the photographs used in the final exhibition, seventy-five by Abigail Solomon-Godeau's count, more than 20% of the total (111 out of 503), while some were obtained from other magazines; Vogue was represented by nine, Fortune (7), Argosy (seven, all by Homer Page), Ladies Home Journal (4); Popular Photography (3), and others Seventeen, Glamour, Harper's Bazaar, Time, the British Picture Post and the French Du, by one. From picture agencies American, Soviet, European and international, which also supplied the above magazines, came about 13% of the content, with Magnum represented by 43 of the pictures, Rapho with thirteen, Black Star with ten, Pix with seven, Sovfoto, which had three and Brackman with four, with around half a dozen other agencies represented by one photo. Steichen travelled internationally to collect images, through 11 European countries including France, Switzerland, Austria and Germany. In total, Steichen procured 300 images from European photographers, many from the humanist group, which were first shown in the Post-War European Photography exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in 1953. Due to the incorporation of this body of work into the 1955 The Family of Man exhibition, Post-War European Photography is thought of as a preview to The Family of Man. The international tour of the definitive 1955 exhibition was sponsored by the now defunct United States Information Agency, whose aim was to counter Cold War propaganda by creating a better world image of American policies and values. Though most photographers were represented by a single picture, some had several included; Robert Doisneau, Homer Page, Helen Levitt, Manuel Álvarez Bravo, Bill Brandt, Édouard Boubat, Harry Callahan (with two), Nat Farbman (five of Bechuanaland, and more from Life), Robert Frank (four), Bert Hardy and Robert Harrington (three). Steichen himself supplied five photos, while his assistant Wayne Miller had thirteen chosen; by far the greatest number. The following lists notable participating photographers, excluding those with no professional or exhibiting history (see original 1955 MoMA checklist):

 * Ansel Adams (USA)
 * Erich Andres (Germany)
 * Emmy Andriesse (Netherlands)
 * Diane and Allan Arbus (U.S.A., Vogue)
 * Eve Arnold (USA)
 * Richard Avedon (USA)
 * Ruth-Marion Baruch (USA)
 * Hugh Bell (U.S.A.)
 * Wermund Bendtsen (Denmark)
 * Paul Berg (USA)
 * Lou Bernstein (USA)
 * John Bertolino(Italy/USA)
 * Eva Besnyö (Netherlands)
 * Werner Bischof (Switzerland)
 * Maria Bordy (Russia, UN)
 * Édouard Boubat (France)
 * Margaret Bourke-White (USA)
 * Mathew Brady (USA)
 * Bill Brandt (UK)
 * Brassai (France)
 * Lola Álvarez Bravo (Mexico)
 * Manuel Álvarez Bravo (Mexico)
 * Josef Breitenbach (Brackman Associates) (Germany, USA)
 * David Brooks (Canada)
 * Reva Brooks (Canada)
 * Ernst Brunner (Switzerland)
 * Esther Bubley (USA)
 * Wynn Bullock (USA)
 * Shirley Burden (USA)
 * Rudolf Busler (Germany)
 * Harry Callahan (USA)
 * Cornell Capa (USA)
 * Robert Capa
 * Robert Carrington
 * Lewis Carroll (UK)
 * Henri Cartier-Bresson (France)
 * Ted Castle (USA)
 * Marcos Chamúdez (Chile)
 * Ed Clark (USA)
 * Hermann Claasen (Germany)
 * Jerry Cooke (USA)
 * Roy DeCarava (USA)
 * Loomis Dean (USA)
 * Jack Delano (USA)
 * Nick De Morgoli
 * J. De Pietro
 * Robert Diament (USSR)
 * Robert Doisneau (France)
 * Nell Dorr (USA)
 * Nora Dumas (French)
 * David Douglas Duncan (USA)
 * Alfred Eisenstaedt (USA)
 * Elliott Erwitt (USA)
 * J. R. Eyerman (USA)
 * Sam Falk (USA)
 * Nat Farbman (USA)
 * Eleanor Fast
 * Louis Faurer (USA)
 * Ed Feingersh (USA)
 * Andreas Feininger (USA)
 * Vito Fiorenza (Italy)
 * Leopold Fischer (Austria)
 * John Florea (USA)
 * Robert Frank (USA)
 * Toni Frissell (USA)
 * Unosuke Gamou (Japan)
 * William Garnett (USA)
 * Herbert Gehr (Edmund Bert Gerard) (USA)
 * Guy Gillette (USA)
 * Burt Glinn (USA)
 * Fritz Goro (USA)
 * Allan Grant (USA)
 * Farrell Grehan (USA)
 * René Groebli (Switzerland)
 * Mildred Grossman (USA)
 * Karl W. Gullers (Sweden)
 * Ernst Haas (USA)
 * Peter W. Haberlin (Switzerland)
 * Hideo Haga (Japan)
 * Otto Hagel (USA)
 * Robert Halmi (Hungary)
 * Hiroshi Hamaya(Japan)
 * Hans Hammarskiöld (Sweden)
 * Hella Hammid (USA)
 * Bert Hardy (UK)
 * Eugene Harris (USA)
 * Caroline Hebbe-Hammarskiöld (Sweden)
 * Paul Himmel (USA)
 * Frank Horvat (Italy)
 * Willi Huttig (Germany)
 * Yasuhiro Ishimoto (Japan)
 * Izis (France)
 * Fenno Jacobs (USA)
 * Raymond Jacobs (USA)
 * Ronny Jaques (Canada)
 * Bob Jakobsen (USA)
 * Nico Jesse (Netherlands)
 * Constantin Joffé
 * Carter Jones (USA)
 * Henk Jonker (Netherlands)
 * Victor Jorgensen (USA)
 * Clemens Kalischer (USA)
 * Simpson Kalisher (USA)
 * Consuelo Kanaga (USA)
 * Dmitri Kessel (USA)
 * Keystone Press (Agency, USA)
 * Ihei Kimura (Japan)
 * Martha Kitchen (USA)
 * N. Kolli (USSR)
 * Torkel Korling (USA)
 * Nikolai Kozlovsky (USSR)
 * Ewing Krainin (USA)
 * Herman Kreider (USA)
 * Walter B. Lane
 * Dorothea Lange (USA)
 * Harry Lapow (USA
 * Lisa Larsen (USA)
 * Alma Lavenson (USA)
 * Arthur Lavine (USA)
 * Russell Lee (USA)
 * Nina Leen (Russia/USA)
 * Laurence Le Guay (Australia)
 * Henri Leighton (USA)
 * Arthur Leipzig (USA)
 * Charles Leirens (Belgium)
 * Gita Lenz (USA)
 * Leon Levinstein (USA)
 * Helen Levitt (USA)
 * Margery Lewis (USA)
 * Sol Libsohn (USA)
 * David Linton
 * Herbert List (Germany)
 * Jacob Lofman (Poland/USA)
 * Hans Malmberg (Sweden)
 * G.H. Metcalf
 * Gjon Mili (Albania/USA)
 * Frank Miller (USA)
 * Joan Miller (USA)
 * Lee Miller (USA)
 * Wayne Miller (USA)
 * May Mirin (USA)
 * Lisette Model (Austria/USA)
 * Peter Moeschlin (Switzerland)
 * David Moore (Australia)
 * Barbara Morgan (USA)
 * Hedda Morrison (Germany)
 * Ralph Morse (USA)
 * Robert Mottar (USA)
 * Carl Mydans (USA)
 * David Myers (USA)
 * Fritz Neugass (Germany/USA)
 * Lennart Nilsson (Sweden)
 * Pål Nils Nilsson (Sweden)
 * Emil Obrovsky (Austria)
 * Yoichi Okamoto (USA)
 * Cas Oorthuys (Netherlands)
 * Ruth Orkin (USA)
 * Don Ornitz (USA)
 * Eiju Otaki
 * Homer Page (USA)
 * Marion Palfi (USA)
 * Gordon Parks (USA)
 * Rondal Partridge (USA)
 * Irving Penn (USA)
 * Carl Perutz (USA)
 * John Phillips (Algeria/USA)
 * Leonti Planskoy (Russia/UK)
 * Ray Platnick (USA)
 * Fred Plaut (Germany)
 * Rudolf Pollak (Germany)
 * Rapho Guilumette (Agency, France)
 * Gottfried Rainer (Austria)
 * Daniel J. Ransohoff (USA)
 * Bill Rauhauser (USA)
 * Satyajit Ray (India)
 * Anna Riwkin-Brick (Russia/Sweden)
 * George Rodger (Great Britain)
 * Willy Ronis (France)
 * Annelise Rosenberg
 * Hannes Rosenberg
 * August Sander (Germany)
 * Walter Sanders (USA)
 * Sanford H. Roth (USA)
 * Gotthard Schuh
 * Éric Schwab (France)
 * Bob Schwalberg (USA)
 * Kurt Severin (Germany/USA)
 * David Seymour (Poland)
 * Ben Shahn (Lithuania/USA)
 * Musya S. Sheeler (USA)
 * Li Shu (China)
 * George Silk (New Zealand/USA)
 * Bradley Smith (USA)
 * Ian Smith (UK)
 * W. Eugene Smith (USA)
 * Howard Sochurek (USA)
 * Peter Stackpole (USA)
 * Alfred Statler (USA)
 * Gitel Steed (USA)
 * Edward Steichen (Luxembourg/USA)
 * Richard Steinheimer (USA)
 * Ezra Stoller (USA)
 * Lou Stoumen (USA)
 * George Strock (USA)
 * Constance Stuart (South Africa)
 * Étienne Sved (Hungary)
 * Suzanne Szasz (USA)
 * Yoshisuke Terao
 * Gustavo Thorlichen (Argentina)
 * Charles Trieschmann (USA)
 * François Tuefferd (France)
 * Jakob Tuggener (Switzerland)
 * Allan Turoff
 * Doris Ulmann (USA)
 * Alexander Uzylan (U.S.S.R.)
 * Ed van der Elsken (Netherlands)
 * William Vandivert
 * Pierre Verger (France/Brazil)
 * Ike Vern (USA)
 * 'Véro' (Werner Rosenberg) (France)
 * Roman Vishniac (Russia/USA)
 * Carmel Vitullo (USA)
 * Edward Wallowitch (USA)
 * Todd Webb (USA)
 * Sabine Weiss (Switzerland)
 * Edward Weston (USA)
 * Bob Willoughby (USA)
 * Garry Winogrand (USA)
 * Arthur Witman (USA)
 * Jasper Wood (USA)
 * Yosuke Yamahata (Japan)
 * Shizuo Yamamoto

Reception and criticism
Photography, said Steichen, "communicates equally to everybody throughout the world. It is the only universal language we have, the only one requiring no translation." When the exhibition opened most reviewers—and Eleanor Roosevelt who wrote in her column My Day, "I could not have enjoyed anything more .... "—loved the show. Some embraced the idea of this 'universal language', as with Don Langer's response in the New York Herald Tribune:" It can truly be said that with this show, photography has come of age as a medium of expression and as an art form," and even The New York Times art critic Aline B. Saarinen, in an article titled "The Camera versus the Artist" asked "Has photography replaced painting as the great visual art of our time?” Others lauded Steichen as a sort of author and the exhibition as a text or essay. Photographer Barbara Morgan, in Aperture, connected this concept with the show's universalising theme; "In comprehending the show the individual himself is also enlarged, for these photographs are not photographs only — they are also phantom images of our co-citizens; this woman into whose photographic eyes I now look is perhaps today weeding her family rice paddy, or boiling a fish in coconut milk. Can you look at the polygamist family group and imagine the different norms that make them live happily in their society which is so unlike — yet like — our own? Empathy with these hundreds of human beings truly expands our sense of values." Expressing the contrary view, Cora Alsberg and George Wright, partners and freelance writers, co-wrote a response ‘One Family’s Opinion’ in the same Aperture issue devoted to the show, that; "Any really great photographer, like a great painter, creates his own visual universe...You can distinguish a Gene Smith from a Cartier Bresson without a signature. You can instantly recognize an Adams, a Weston, a Laughlin print, or that of any mature worker whose previous work you've seen...But mixed with others in a show, he surrenders this individuality-just as a writer might if he gave permission for single paragraphs to be quoted by an editor in any sequence and in any context." Hilton Kramer, then managing editor of the magazine Arts, asserted a negative view, one taken up by more recent critics, that The Family of Man was a; "self-congratulatory means for obscuring the urgency of real problems under a blanket of ideology which takes for granted the essential goodness, innocence, and moral superiority of the international 'little man; 'the man in the street: the active, disembodied hero of a world-view which regards itself as superior to mere politics." Roland Barthes too was quick to criticise the exhibition as being an example of his concept of myth - the dramatization of an ideological message. In his book Mythologies, published in France a year after the exhibition in Paris in 1956, Barthes declared it to be a product of "conventional humanism," a collection of photographs in which everyone lives and "dies in the same way everywhere." "Just showing pictures of people being born and dying tells us, literally, nothing." Many other noteworthy reactions, both positive and negative, have been proffered in social/cultural studies and as part of artistic and historical texts. The earliest critics of the show were, ironically, photographers, who felt that Steichen had downplayed individual talent and discouraged the public from accepting photography as art. The show was the subject of an entire issue of Aperture; "The Controversial 'Family of Man.'" Walker Evans disdained its "human familyhood [and] bogus heartfeeling" Phoebe Lou Adams complained that "If Mr. Steichen's well-intentioned spell doesn't work, it can only be because he has been so intent on [Mankind's] physical similarities that...he has utterly forgotten that a family quarrel can be as fierce as any other kind." Some critics complained that Steichen merely transposed the magazine photo-essay from page to museum wall; in 1955 Rollie McKenna likened the experience to a ride through a funhouse, while Russell Lynes in 1973 wrote that Family of Man "was a vast photo-essay, a literary formula basically, with much of the emotional and visual quality provided by sheer bigness of the blow-ups and its rather sententious message sharpened by juxtaposition of opposites — wheat fields and landscapes of boulders, peasants and patricians, a sort of 'look at all these nice folks in all these strange places who belong to this family.'" Jacob Deschin, photography critic for The New York Times, wrote, "the show is essentially a picture story to support a concept and an editorial achievement rather than an exhibition of photography." From an optic of struggle, echoing Barthes, Susan Sontag in On Photography accused Steichen of sentimentalism and oversimplification: "... they wished, in the 1950s, to be consoled and distracted by a sentimental humanism. ... Steichen's choice of photographs assumes a human condition or a human nature shared by everybody." Directly quoting Barthes, without acknowledgement, she continues; "By purporting to show that individuals are born, work, laugh, and die everywhere in the same way, The Family of Man denies the determining weight of history - of genuine and historically embedded differences, injustices, and conflicts." Allan Sekula in "The Traffic in Photographs" (1981) posits The Family of Man as a capitalist cultural tool levering world domination at the height of the Cold War; "My main point here is that The Family of Man, more than any other single photographic project, was a massive and ostentatious bureaucratic attempt to universalize photographic discourse," an exercise in hegemony which, "In the foreign showings of the exhibition, arranged by the United States Information Agency and co-sponsoring corporations like Coca-Cola, the discourse was explicitly that of American multinational capital and government–the new global management team–cloaked in the familiar and musty garb of patriarchy." Sekula revises and expands this notion in relation to his ideas about economic globalisation in an article in October entitled "Between the Net and the Deep Blue Sea: Rethinking the Traffic in Photographs". Others attacked the show as an attempt to paper over problems of race and class, including Christopher Phillips, John Berger, and Abigail Solomon-Godeau, who in her 2004 essay, while describing herself as among "those who intellectually came of age as postmodernists, poststructuralists, feminists, Marxists, antihumanists, or, for that matter, atheists, this little essay of Barthes's efficiently demonstrated the problem — indeed the bad faith — of sentimental humanism", concedes that "as photography exhibitions go, it is perhaps the ultimate "bad object" for progressives or critical theorists", but "good to think with". Many of these critics, including Solomon-Godeau who openly admits it, had not viewed the exhibition but were working from the published catalogue which notably excludes the initially shown but soon removed picture of the lynched Robert McDaniels and the image of the atomic explosion as the apex at the end of the exhibition. While The Family of Man was being exhibited there at its last venue in 1959 several pictures were torn down in Moscow by the Nigerian student Theophilus Neokonkwo. An Associated Press report of the time suggests that his actions were in a protest at colonialist attitudes to black races. Conversely, other critics defended the exhibition, referring to the political and cultural environment in which it was staged. Among these were Fred Turner, Eric J. Sandeen, Blake Stimson and Walter L. Hixson. Most recently, a compilation of essays by contemporary critics supported by newly translated writings contemporary to the exhibition's appearances collected and edited by Gerd Hurm, Anke Reitz and Shamoon Zamir presents a revised reading of Steichen's motivations and audience reactions, and a reassessment of the validity of Roland Barthes' influential criticism in "La grande famille des hommes" in his Mythologies. A number of photographers and artists refer to their experience of The Family of Man exhibition or publication as formative or influential on them and some, including Australian Graham McCarter, being motivated by it to take up photography. These include; Ans Westra, Marti Friedlander, Larry Seigel, John Cato, Paul Cox, Jan Yoors, Pentti Sammallahti, Robert McFarlane (photographer), John Blakemore, Robert Weingarten, and painter Francisco Toledo.

Tributes, sequels and critical revisions
In the years since The Family of Man, several exhibitions stemmed from projects directly inspired by Steichen's work and others were presented in opposition to it. Still others were alternative projects offering new thoughts on the themes and motifs presented in 1955. These serve to represent artists', photographers' and curators' responses to the exhibition beside those of the cultural critics, and to track the evolution of reactions as societies and their self-images change.

World Exhibition of Photography
Following The Family of Man by 10 years, the 1965 Weltausstellung der Fotografie (World Exhibition of Photography) was based on an idea by Karl Pawek and, supported by the German magazine he edited, Stern, toured the world. It presented 555 photographs by 264 authors from 30 countries, outweighing the numbers in Steichen's exhibition. In the preface to the catalogue entitled "Die humane Kamera" ('The human Camera'), Heinrich Boll wrote: "'There are moments in which the meaning of a landscape and its breath become felt in a photograph. The portrayed person becomes familiar or a historical moment happens in front of the lens; a child in uniform, women who search the battlefield for their dead. They are moments in which crying is more than private as it becomes the crying of mankind. Secrets are not revealed, the secret about human existence becomes visible.'" The exhibition, wrote Pawek, "would like to keep alive the spirit of Edward Steichen's wonderful ideas and of his memorable collection, The Family of Man". His exhibition posed the question 'Who is Man?' in 42 topics. It focused on issues that were sublimated in The Family of Man by the idea of universal brotherhood between men and women of different races and cultures. Racism, which in Steichen's show was represented by a lynching scene (replaced in the European showings by an enlargement of the famous picture of the Nuremberg trials), is confronted in the Weltausstellung der Fotografie section VIII "Das Missverständnis mit der Rasse" ('The Misunderstanding about Race') by the black man in the photograph by Gordon Parks who seems to view from his window two scenes of attacks on black people (photographed by Charles Moore). Another photograph by Henri Leighton shows two children walking together in public holding hands, one black, one white.

Though reference to the content of the older exhibition in the new is evident, the unifying idealism of The Family of Man is here replaced with a much more fragmented and sociological one. Sarah E. James points to its use of harsh juxtaposition to create a "stereoscopic vision" to entrain viewers reactions. The exhibition met with rejection by the press and functionaries in the photographic profession in Germany and Switzerland, and was described by Fritz Kempe, photographer, photo historian and board member of a prominent photo company, as "tasty fodder to stimulate the aggressive instincts of semi—intellectual young men.". Nevertheless, it went on to tour 261 art museums in 36 countries and was visited by 3,500,000 people.

2nd World Exhibition of Photography
In 1968, a second Weltausstellung der Photographie (2nd World Exhibition of Photography) was devoted to images of women with 522 photographs from 85 countries by 236 photographers, of whom barely 10% were female (compared to 21% for The Family of Man), though there is evidence of the effect of feminist consciousness in images of men in domestic environments cleaning, cooking and tending babies. In his introduction, Karl Pawek writes: "I had approached the first exhibition with my entire theological, philosophical and sociological equipment. 'What is Man?'; the question had to awaken ideological ideas. [...] I also operated from a philosophical point of view when presenting the[se] photos. As far as woman was concerned, the theme of the second exhibition, I knew nothing. There I was, without any philosophy about woman. Perhaps woman is not a philosophical theme. Perhaps there is only mankind, and woman is something unique and special? Thus I could only hold on to what was concrete in the pictures." The exhibition tour included the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA), which at the time rarely showed photography, and her experience of installing it was in part the inspiration for Sue Davies to start The Photographers Gallery, London.

The Family of Children
UNESCO named 1977 The Year of Children and in response the book The Family of Children was dedicated to Steichen by editor Jerry Mason, and imitated the original catalogue in its layout, in the use of quotations and in the colours used on the cover. As for Steichen's show there was a call-out for imagery but 300,000 entries were received compared to the 4 million at the MoMA show, resulting in a selection of 377 photos by 218 participants from 70 countries.

The Family of Man 1955-1984
Independent curator Marvin Heiferman's The Family of Man 1955·1984 was a floor to ceiling collage of over 850 images and texts from magazines, newspapers and the art world shown in 1984 at PSI, The Institute for Art and Urban Resources Inc. (now MoMA PS1) Long Island City N.Y. Abigail Solomon-Godeau described it as a reexamination of the themes of the 1955 show and critique of Steichen's arrangement of them into a "spectacle"; "...a grab bag of imagery and publicity ranging from baby food and sanitary napkin boxes to hard-core pornography, from detergent boxes to fashion photography, a cornucopia of consumer culture much of which, in one way or another, could be seen to engage the same themes purveyed in The Family of Man. In a certain sense, Heifferman's [sic] riposte to Steichen's show made the useful connection between the spectacle of the exhibition and the spectacle of the commodity, suggesting that both must be understood within the framing context of late capitalism."

Oppositions: We are the world, you are the third world
In 1990 the second Rotterdam Biennale lead exhibition was Oppositions: We are the world, you are the third world - Commitment and cultural identity in contemporary photography from Japan, Canada, Brazil, the Soviet Union and the Netherlands. The cover of the catalogue imitates the layout and colour of the original but replaces the famous image of the little flute player by Eugene Harris with six images, four photographs of young women from different cultural backgrounds and two excerpts from paintings. In the exhibit scenes of an endangered ecology and the threat to cultural identity in the global village predominate, but there are intimations that nature and love may prevail, despite everything artificial that surrounds it, notably so in family life.

New Relations. The Family of Man Revisited
In 1992 the American photographer and critic Larry Fink published a collection of photographs under the heading of ''New Relations. The Family of Man Revisited'' in the Photography Center Quarterly. His approach updated Steichen's vision by integrating aspects of human existence which Steichen had omitted both because of his wish for coherence and of his innermost convictions. Fink provides only the following commentary: "Rather than a fawn pretence to anthropological/sociologic analysis of the events depicted; rather than categorise and choose democratically for social relevance. I took the path of least resistance and most reward. I simply selected quality images with the belief that the path of strong visual energies would visit equal strong social presences". He concludes: "The show is a compendium of visual hints. It is not an answer or even a full question, but cognitive clues...."

family, nation, tribe, community: SHIFT
In September/October 1996 the NGBK (Neue Gesellschaft fur Bildende kunst Berlin - New Society for the Visual Arts Berlin) in the context of Haus der Kulturen der Welt (House of World Cultures Berlin) conceived and organised the project family, nation, tribe, community: SHIFT with direct reference to the historical MoMA exhibition. In the catalogue, five authors; Ezra Stoller, Max Kozloff, Torsten Neuendorff, Bettina Allamoda and Jean Back analyse and comment on the historical model and twenty-two artists offer individual approaches around the following themes: Universalism/Separatism, Family/Anti-family, Individualisation, Common Strategies, Differences. The works are predominantly from artist photographers rather than photojournalists; Bettina Allamoda, Aziz + Cucher, Los Carpinteros, Alfredo Jaar, Mike Kelley, Edward and Nancy Reddin Kienholz, Lovett/Codagnone, Loring McAlpin, Christian Philipp Müller, Anna Petrie, Martha Rosler, Lisa Schmitz, Elaine Sturtevant, Mitra Tabizian and Andy Golding, Wolfgang Tillmans, Danny Tisdale, Lincoln Tobler, and David Wojnarowicz reflect major contemporary issues: identity, the information crisis, the illusion of leisure, and ethics. In his introduction to the exhibition, Frank Wagner writes that Steichen had offered a vision of an harmonious, neat and highly structured world which, in reality, was complex, often unintelligible and even contradictory, but by contrast, this Berlin exhibition highlights 'first' and 'third' world tensions and is eager to concentrate on a variety of attitudes.

The 90s: A Family of Man?
The following year Enrico Lunghi directed the exhibition The 90s: A Family of Man?: images of mankind in contemporary art, held 2 October–30 November 1997 in Luxembourg, Steichen's birthplace and by then the repository of the archive of a full version of his The Family of Man. Aside from their understanding of Steichen's efforts to present commonalities amongst the human race, curators Paul di Felice and Pierre Stiwer interpret Steichen's show as an effort to make content of Museum of Modern Art accessible to the public in an era when it was regarded as the elitist supporter of 'incomprehensible' abstract art. They point to their predecessor's success in having his show embraced by a record audience and emphasise that dissenting voices of criticism were heard only amongst 'intellectuals'. However, Steichen's success, they caution, was to manipulate the message of his selected imagery; "After all," they write, "wasn't he the artistic director of Vogue and Vanity Fair ... ?". They proclaim their desire to retain the exhibiting artists' 'autonomy' while not posing their work as the antithesis of Steichen's concept, but to respect, and echo, its arrangement while "raising questions" as indicated by the question mark in their quotation of the original title. The exhibition and catalogue 'quote' from Steichen, setting pages of the book of his exhibition with their quotations around groupings of images (in monochrome) beside the works of contemporary artists (predominantly in colour) collected in themes used in the original, though the correlation fails for some contemporary ideas, which digital imaging, installation and montage works effectively convey. The thirty-five artists include Christian Boltanski, Nan Goldin, Inez van Lamsweerde, Orlan and Wolfgang Tillmans.

The Family of Man 2
From 1999 to 2005, Leica Users Group members: Alastair Firkin, Satoshi Oka, Tim Spragens, Tom Smart and Stanislaw Stawowy organized The Family of Man 2 project to celebrate new millennium, 50 years of the Leica M system, and the Edward Steichen project anniversary. As with Steichen's project, the thousands of photos received were edited to 500, 100 annually during the project. It was exhibited online and an album with winning photos was privately published.

Reconsidering The Family of Man
The Photographic Society of America (PSA) drew on their archives to stage Reconsidering The Family of Man during April and May 2012. Not hung and mounted as an installation, Artspace at Untitled executive director<--Artspace at Burris' display? unintelligible. + Untitled (publication)--> Jon Burris' linear display was based on the concept of Steichen's original exhibit but concentrated on his sub-theme of the passage from birth to death. From the close to 5,000 photographs in the PSA collection, a selection of 50 original prints was made for their show. One work in common with the original exhibition was Ansel Adams' Mount Williamson from Manzanar which in The Family of Man was presented at mural scale, while the PSA used a vintage, 11" x 14" Adams print from their collection, displaying it while a first edition copy of The Family of Man publication opened to a double-page spread of Adams photograph.

The Family of the Invisibles
As part of the 2015-2016 France-Korea year, curators of the Centre national des arts plastiques (Cnap) and the Fonds Régional d’Art Contemporain of Aquitaine (Frac Aquitaine), Pascal Beausse (Cnap), Claire Jacquet (Frac Aquitaine), and Magali Nachtergael, Assistant Professor at the Sorbonne, collaborated to produce the exhibition The Family of the Invisibles at the Seoul Museum of Art (SeMA) and the Ilwoo Space in Seoul, from 5 April to 29 May 2016. The show was devoted to invisible and minority figures, their demands for identity, and the possibility of reconfiguring a politics of representation to the ideal of giving a place to each member of the human community as represented in more than 200 emblematic photographs. The works from the 1930s to 2016, drawn from the Cnap and Frac Aquitaine collections were selected on the principle of Roland Barthes' deconstruction identified by the curators in his Mythologies and in Camera Lucida, the latter being treated as a visual manifesto for minorities. The exhibition was presented in the Seoul Museum of Art in four sections, culminating in provocative contemporary photography including the 2009 series of deceased migrants wrapped in cloth in Les Proscrits ('The Outcasts') by Mathieu Pernot, and Sophie Calle’s 1986 Les Aveugles in which she photographed those things that her blind subjects described as the most beautiful. The "Prologue" of the exhibition at the Ilwoo Space, provided a critical and historical counterpoint. Texts by Pascal Beausse, Jacqueline Guittard, Claire Jacquet and Magali Nachtergael, Suejin Shin (Ilwoo Foundation) and Kyung-hwan Yeo (SeMA) were presented in a catalogue.

The Family Of No Man: Re-visioning the world through non-male eyes
The Family Of No Man: Re-visioning the world through non-male eyes, held July 2–8, 2018 in Arles brought together responses to an open call by Cosmos Arles Books, a satellite space of the Rencontres d'Arles, by 494 female and inter-gender artists from all around the world, in a revisitation of Edward Steichen’s original. Works were displayed in interactive installations outdoors and indoors, and uploaded to an online platform as they were received.

Permanent installation, Chateau Clervaux, Luxembourg
The permanent installation of the exhibition today at Chateau Clervaux in Luxembourg follows the layout of the inaugural exhibition at MoMA in order to recreate the original viewing experience, though of necessity, it is adapted to the unique space of two floors of the restored Castle. Since the 2013 restoration it has incorporated a library (that includes some of the catalogues of the sequel exhibitions above) and contextualises The Family of Man with historical material and interpretation.

Cultural references to The Family of Man

 * Karl Dallas' song, The Family of Man, also recorded by the English band The Spinners and others, was written in 1955, after Dallas saw the exhibition.
 * In 1962, Instytut Mikołowski published Komentarze do fotografii. The Family of Man by Polish poet Witold Wirpsza (1918–1985), a commentary on individual photographs and selected displays from the exhibition.

title: The Family of Man


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proboards

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 12:23, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Proboards
Delete Seems to be advertising. Ganymead 01:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It does indeed look like advertising. Delete unless rewritten and some degree of notability established. Kappa 02:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I will change my vote if somebody can make a satisfactory stub. Keep. Seems to be notable enough, despite not exactly being Wikipedia material. --Sn0wflake 03:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hard to tell with Internet companies, but their name gets about a million Google hits, and they claim to be "the home of over 3 million users". How many of those are active they don't mention, but seems to be a pretty sizeable company. Keep and cleanup, but I'll take advice if anybody knows the field better. In the meantime, am NPOVing. Meelar (talk) 03:14, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Now slightly more factual content, and neutral, but still could use expansion. Meelar (talk) 03:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't think Proboards would need to advertise on Wikipedia, but would probably be more at home in an article on free forum hosts such as EZboard. Hedley 22:33 Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Proboards isn't as major as ezboard (which needs expansion even more than this one), but it's one of a handful of top runners-up. This is well above the level of what normally passes as notability for a website. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 03:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep:Proboards is a company just like microsoft. Why do they have a page here and Proboards does not? --Javascriptdude 21:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * User's third edit. —Korath (Talk) 12:22, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Tell me, wheres the petition to delete EZBoard? So EZBoard can stay but not ProBoards?  It's unfair. - Adam  69.76.98.26 21:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Anonymous user's twelfth edit. —Korath (Talk) 12:22, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP PROBOARDS: ezboards are an old virsin or proboards that Pat Gave to his friends we need to get rid off ezboards and all the others too if u get rid of proboards
 * Unsigned by User:69.170.192.163. It was his second edit; his first (and only other) was to the article. —Korath (Talk) 12:22, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
SS-Totenkopfverbände

SS-Totenkopfverbände (SS-TV; lit. 'Death's Head Units') was the Schutzstaffel (SS) organization responsible for administering the Nazi concentration camps and extermination camps for Nazi Germany, among similar duties. While the Totenkopf was the universal cap badge of the SS, the SS-TV also wore this insignia on the right collar tab to distinguish itself from other SS formations.

The SS-TV originally created in 1933 was an independent unit within the SS, with its own command structure. It ran the camps throughout Germany and later in occupied Europe. Camps in Germany included Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, and Buchenwald; camps elsewhere in Europe included Auschwitz-Birkenau in German occupied Poland and Mauthausen in Austria among the numerous other concentration camps, and death camps handled with the utmost of secrecy. The extermination camps' function was genocide; they included Treblinka, Bełżec, and Sobibór built specifically for Aktion Reinhard, as well as the original Chełmno extermination camp, and Majdanek which was fitted with mass killing facilities, along with Auschwitz. They were responsible for facilitating what the Nazis called the Final Solution, known since the war as the Holocaust; perpetrated by the SS within the command structure of the Reich Security Main Office, subordinate to Heinrich Himmler, and the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office or WVHA.

At the outbreak of World War II in Europe, the SS Division Totenkopf was formed from SS-TV personnel. It soon developed a reputation for brutality, participating in war crimes such as the Le Paradis massacre in 1940 during the Fall of France. On the Eastern Front, the mass shootings of Polish and Soviet civilians in Operation Barbarossa were the work of Einsatzgruppen mobile death squads and their subgroups called Einsatzkommando. These units were organized by Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich.

Formation
After taking national power in 1933, the Nazi Party launched a new programme of mass incarceration of the so-called enemies of the state. Originally there were only wild camps in operation. Springing up in every town across Germany "like mushrooms after the rain" (Himmler's quote), the early camps utilized lockable spaces usually without infrastructure for permanent detention (i.e. engine rooms, brewery floors, storage facilities, cellars). Following the fall from power of the paramilitary Brownshirts of the SA during the NSDAP purge known as the Night of the Long Knives (30 June to 2 July 1934), the SS took control of the fledgling camp system. The SS founded state-run concentration camps at Dachau, Oranienburg, and Esterwegen, which held the total of 107,000 'undesirables' already by 1935.

On 26 June 1933, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler appointed SS-Oberführer Theodor Eicke the Kommandant of the Dachau concentration camp. Eicke requested a permanent unit that would be subordinate only to him, and hence the SS-Wachverbände (guard units) were formed. Eicke began his infamous tenure by issuing new orders about the killing of inmates trying to escape (Postenpflicht). He developed the first Lagerordnung, a Nazi disciplinary and penal code regulating the system of extreme disciplinary sanctions for detainees. His rules were adopted by all concentration camps of Nazi Germany as of 1 January 1934. Eicke was promoted to SS-Brigadeführer (equivalent to a major-general in the army) on 30 January 1934. Following the Night of the Long Knives, Eicke – who played a role in the affair by shooting SA chief Ernst Röhm – was again promoted to the rank of SS-Gruppenführer and officially appointed Inspector of Concentration Camps and Commander of the SS-Wachverbände. Thereafter, all remaining SA-run camps were taken over by the SS. In his role as the Concentration Camps Inspector, Eicke began a large reorganisation of the camps in 1935. The smaller camps were dismantled. Dachau concentration camp remained, then personnel from Dachau went on to work at Sachsenhausen and Oranienburg, where Eicke established his central office.

In 1935, Dachau became the training center for the concentration camps service. Many of the early recruits came from the ranks of the SA and Allgemeine SS. Senior roles were filled by personnel from the Ordnungspolizei, the police who maintained order. On 29 March 1936, concentration camp guards and administration units were officially designated as the SS-Totenkopfverbände (SS-TV). In the summer of 1937, Buchenwald became operational, followed by Ravensbrück (near Lichtenburg) in May 1939. There were other new camps in Austria, such as Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp, which opened in 1938. All SS camps' regulations, both for guards and prisoners, followed the Dachau camp model.

Further development

In 1935, as the concentration camp system within Germany expanded, groups of camps were organized into Wachsturmbanne (battalions) under the office of the Inspector of Concentration Camps who answered directly to the SS headquarters office and Heinrich Himmler. When the SS-Totenkopfverbände were formally established in March 1936, the group was organized into six Wachtruppen situated at each of Germany's major concentration camps. In April 1936, Eicke was named commander of the SS-Totenkopfverbände and the number of men under his command increased from 2,876 to 3,222; the Concentration Camps Inspectorate (CCI) was also provided official funding through the Reich's budget office, and Eicke was allowed to recruit future troops from the Hitler Youth based on regional needs. In 1937, the Wachsturmbanne were in turn organized into three main SS-Totenkopfstandarten (regiments).

By 1936, Eicke had also begun to establish military formations of concentration camp personnel which eventually became the Totenkopf Division and other units of the Waffen-SS. In the early days of the military camp service formation, the group's exact chain of command was contested since Eicke as Führer der Totenkopfverbände exercised personal control of the group but also, as it was considered an armed SS formation, authority over the armed units was claimed by the SS-Verfügungstruppe (SS-VT), which had been first formed in 1934 as combat troops for the Nazi Party. But at this time, Himmler and Eicke envisioned the armed SS-VT as a force for internal "police and security operations". Later by 1938, it became clear that the SS-VT troops were to be used for front-line "purposes", as well.

Eicke in his role as the commander of the SS-TV, continued to reorganize the camp system by dismantling smaller camps. By August 1937 only Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald and Ravensbrück remained in Germany. In 1938 Eicke oversaw the building of new camps in Austria following the Anschluss, such as Mauthausen. Eicke's reorganization and the introduction of forced labor made the camps one of the SS's most powerful tools, but it earned him the enmity of Gestapo and Sicherheitsdienst (SD) chief, Reinhard Heydrich, who wanted to take over control of the concentration camp system. Himmler wanted to keep a separation of power, so Eicke remained in command of the SS-TV and camp operations. This kept control of the camps out of the hands of the Gestapo or the SD.

By April 1938, the SS-TV had four regiments of three storm battalions with three infantry companies, one machine gun company and medical, communication and transportation units. On 17 August 1938 Hitler decreed, at Himmler's request, the SS-TV to be the official reserve for the SS-VT; this would over the course of the war lead to a constant flux of men between the Waffen-SS and the concentration camps. Himmler's intention was simply to expand his private army by using the SS-TV (as well as the police, which he also controlled) as a manpower pool. Himmler sought and obtained a further decree, issued on 18 May 1939, which authorized the expansion of the SS-TV to 50,000 men, and directed the army to provide it with military equipment, something the army had resisted.

Invasion of Poland
During the German invasion of Poland in September 1939, Eicke's SS-TV field forces numbered four infantry regiments and a cavalry regiment, plus two battalions placed in Free City of Danzig. The SS-TV role in the attack on Poland was not military in spite of close proximity to combat. "Their military capabilities were employed instead in terrorizing the civilian population through acts that included hunting down straggling Polish soldiers, confiscating agricultural produce and livestock, and torturing and murdering large numbers of Polish political leaders, aristocrats, businessmen, priests, intellectuals, and Jews." Eicke's three regiments, Oberbayern, Brandenburg and Thuringen, were reformed as the first Einsatzgruppen; the Oberbayern and the Thuringen (EG II and EG z. B.V) followed the Tenth Army in Upper Silesia; the Brandenburg (EG III) followed the Eight Army across Warthegau. The behavior of these Standarten in Poland elicited some protests from officers of the army, including 8th Army commander Johannes Blaskowitz who wrote a memorandum to Walther von Brauchitsch detailing the SS-TV atrocities, unaware that they were planned years in advance by the Central Unit II P-Poland under Heydrich who himself coordinated secret extermination actions including Operation Tannenberg and the Intelligenzaktion both targeting more than 61,000 members of Polish elites during the opening stages of World War II.

At the beginning of war in Europe, the SS forces consisted of roughly 250,000 servicemen spread out across multiple branches, with transferable ranks and service records from police regiments and the army. Himmler's military formations at this time comprised several subgroups, including the SS-Verfügungstruppe, which would become the basis of the Waffen-SS. Hitler approved further expansion of the armed SS formations. By October 1939, a new SS military division the SS-Totenkopf was formed. The Totenkopf was initially formed from concentration camp guards of the Standarten (regiments) of the SS-TV and soldiers from the SS-Heimwehr "Danzig. Members of other SS militias were also transferred into the division in early 1940; these units had been involved in multiple massacres of Polish civilians, political leaders and prisoners of war.

From fall 1939 to spring 1940 a massive recruitment effort in Germany raised no fewer than twelve new TK-Standarten (four times the size of the SS-Verfügungstruppe) in anticipation of the coming attack on France. Both Eicke personally and his Totenkopf Division performed poorly during Fall Gelb therefore Himmler resolved to curb his decisions which had spurred a conflict with Hausser and Dietrich; especially his designation of TK-Standarten as reserves for his Totenkopf Division alone, and the fact that the SS-Verfügungstruppe military supplies were stored at Eicke's concentration camps. On 15 August 1940 Himmler dissolved Eicke's Inspectorate of SS-Totenkopfstandarten using as justification several well-publicized atrocities committed by the Division in France, and transferred the Totenkopf Division, the independent TK-Standarten, and their reserve and replacement system to the newly formed Waffen-SS high command. In February 1941 the Totenkopf designation was removed from the names of all units other than the Totenkopf Division and the camp Totenkopfwachsturmbanne, and their personnel exchanged the Death's-Head collar insignia for the Waffen-SS Sig-runes. The camp system expanded greatly after the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, when large numbers of Soviet soldiers were captured. Some were transferred to the camps, where their inhumane treatment became normal.

The Totenkopf Division still had close ties to the camp service and its members continued to wear the Death's-Head as their unit insignia. They were known for brutal tactics, a result of the original doctrine of "no pity" which Eicke had instilled in his camp personnel as far back as 1934, together with the fact that the original Totenkopfstandarte had "trained" themselves. The Division's ineffectiveness in France, as well as its war crimes, can in part be explained by its personnel who were more thugs than soldiers. When first formed a total of 6,500 men from the SS-TV were transferred into the Totenkopf Division. Over the course of the savage fighting in the East, the Division was twice effectively destroyed and recreated. Very few of the men who were part of the 1939 Standarten in Poland were still in the Division by 1945.

After the close of the Battle of France, the SS-Verfügungstruppe was officially renamed the Waffen-SS in a speech made by Hitler in July 1940. Himmler also gained approval for the Waffen-SS to form its own high command, the Kommandoamt der Waffen-SS within the SS-Führungshauptamt, which was created in August 1940. It received command of the SS-Verfügungstruppe (the Leibstandarte and the SS-Verfügungs-Division, renamed Reich) and the armed SS-TV regiments (the Totenkopf-Division together with the independent Totenkopf-Standarten). The Waffen-SS was greatly expanded and allowed to recruit volunteers from conquered territories from the ethnic German and Germanic populations.

System of concentration camps
After Eicke was reassigned to combat duty, his Chief of Staff SS-Gruppenführer Richard Glücks was appointed the new Concentration Camps Inspectorate (CCI) or IKL (Inspektion der Konzentrationslager) chief by Himmler. By 1940, the CCI came under the control of the Verwaltung und Wirtschaftshauptamt Hauptamt (VuWHA; Administration and Business office) which was set up under Oswald Pohl. Then in 1942, the CCI became Amt D (Office D) of the consolidated main office known as the SS-Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamt (SS Economic and Administrative Department; WVHA) under Pohl. Glücks continued to manage the camp administration until the end of the war. Therefore, the entire concentration camp system was placed under the authority of the WVHA with the Inspector of Concentration Camps a subordinate to the Chief of the WVHA.

By 1941, prior to the "Final Solution", the concentration camps run by SS-TV, both in Germany and across occupied territories, grew into a massive system of institutionalized forced labour for the SS. The concentration camp personnel began to arrive from the front-line SS formations upon medical discharge. Attack dogs were introduced to compensate for the personnel shortage. Special death camps of Aktion Reinhard had also come into existence. Under the WVHA, the camps were separated into divisions of forced labor, concentration, and extermination camps, all linked by record-high profit margins propped up by the theft of cash and assets from the Holocaust victims. Gigantic camps at Auschwitz and Majdanek were built with the expectation of Soviet prisoners of war entering the camp labour after 1941.

During the war, almost half of the concentration camp officers served with the Waffen-SS combat divisions, including the Leibstandarte, Das Reich, Wiking, the Nord Division, and Totenkopf. Some concentration camp officers served as division commanders in the Waffen-SS. By October 1944 the Waffen-SS membership reached 800,000 and up to 910,000 men.

Within the camps themselves, there existed a hierarchy of camp titles and positions which were unique only to the camp service. Each camp was commanded by a Kommandant, sometimes referred to as Lagerkommandant, who was assisted by a camp adjutant and command staff. The prison barracks within the camp were supervised by a Rapportführer who was responsible for daily roll call and the camp daily schedule. The individual prisoner barracks were overseen by junior SS-NCOs called Blockführer who, in turn had one to two squads of SS soldiers responsible for overseeing the prisoners. Within the extermination camps, the Blockführer was in charge of the prisoner Sonderkommando and was also the person who would physically gas victims in the camp's gas chambers. The Jewish Sonderkommando workers in turn, were terrorised by up to around 100 mostly collaborator Trawniki men per camp, called Wachmannschaften (security guards or watchmen).

The camp perimeter and watch towers were overseen by a separate formation called the Wachbattalion (guard battalion). The guard battalion commander was responsible for providing watch bills to man guard towers and oversaw security patrols outside the camp. The battalion was organized on typical military lines with companies, platoons, and squads. The battalion commander was subordinate directly to the camp commander.

Concentration camps also had supply and medical personnel, attached to the headquarters office under the camp commander, as well as a security office with Gestapo and Kripo personnel attached to the camp. Heydrich had been successful in getting control over the "political departments" of the camps. These security personnel were under direct command of Sicherheitspolizei (SiPo) commanders until September 1939 and thereafter, the Reich Security Main Office (Reichssicherheitshauptamt, RSHA) commanders independent of the camps.

In addition to the regular SS personnel assigned to a concentration camp, there also existed a prisoner system of trustees known as Kapos who performed a wide variety of duties from administration to overseeing other groups of prisoners. The Sonderkommandos were special groups of Jewish prisoners who assisted in the extermination camps with the disposal of bodies and other tasks. The duty of actually gassing prisoners was, however, always carried out by the SS.

The Holocaust

In 1942 Glücks was increasingly involved in the administration of the Endlösung, supplying personnel to assist in Aktion Reinhardt (although the death camps of Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor were administered by SS-und Polizei-führer Odilo Globocnik of the General Government). In July 1942, Glücks met Himmler to discuss medical experiments on concentration camp inmates. All extermination orders were issued from Glücks' office to SS-TV commands throughout Nazi Germany and occupied Europe. He specifically authorized the purchase of Zyklon B for use at Auschwitz.

Already in 1943 the SS-TV units began to receive orders to conceal as much of the evidence of the Holocaust as possible. Himmler was most concerned about covering up Nazi crimes ever since the Polish 22,000 victims of the Soviet Katyn massacre were discovered well preserved underground near Smolensk. The cremations began shortly thereafter and continued until the camps' official closure. Camps were meticulously destroyed, sick prisoners were shot and others were marched on death marches away from the advancing Allies. The SS-TV were also instrumental in the execution of hundreds of political prisoners to prevent their liberation.

By April 1945 many SS-TV had left their posts. Due to their notoriety, some removed their death head insignia to hide their identities. Camp duties were increasingly turned over to so-called "Auxiliary-SS", soldiers and civilians conscripted as camp guards so that the Totenkopf men could escape. However, many were arrested by the Allies and stood trial for war crimes at Nuremberg between 1946 and 1949. "Immediately after their seizure by the Russians on May 9–10, 1945 – wrote Sydnor – the officers and men in the Totenkopf Division were transported to several detention camps inside the Soviet Union. Within six months of the end of the war, many prominent SSTK officers, including Becker, disappeared, most likely the victims of secret executions."

Concentration camp personnel

From the SS-TV inception, Eicke fostered an attitude of "inflexible harshness" exercised by the masters. This core belief continued to influence SS guards in all concentration camps even after Eicke had taken over command of the SS Totenkopf Division. Recruits were taught to hate their enemies through tough training regimes and Nazi indoctrination.

Within camps, guards subjugated the inmates in an atmosphere of controlled, disciplined cruelty. This environment of formalized brutality influenced some of the SS-TV's most infamous commandants including Rudolf Höß, Franz Ziereis, Karl Otto Koch, Max Kögel, and Amon Göth.

In the last days of World War II, a special group called the "Auxiliary-SS" (SS-Mannschaft) was formed as a last-ditch effort to keep concentration camps running and allow regular SS personnel to escape. Auxiliary-SS members were not considered regular SS personnel, but were conscripted members from other branches of the German military, the Nazi Party, and the Volkssturm. Such personnel wore a distinctive twin swastika collar patch and served as camp guard and administrative personnel until the surrender of Germany.

Profit
The SS, individually and collectively, benefited financially from the Holocaust. Slave labour at the camps was sold to private companies, or used to run lucrative SS-run industries, while the cost of prisoner upkeep was minimal. Himmler intended to make concentration camps into a profitable industry for the financial benefit of the SS. Wartime labour shortages meant that the concentration camps ended up as a significant labour source for all sectors of the German economy. The property of murdered Jews was stolen and auctioned off to the German public. Individual personnel at the camps often embezzled some of the stolen property for themselves, and some were charged for theft.

Combat formations

 * 1st TK-Standarte 'Oberbayern'. Formed 1937 at Dachau. During the Polish invasion conducted so-called "security operations" behind the lines. Which, in reality were operations of terrorizing and murdering the Polish civilian population. Redesignated 1. SS-Totenkopf-Infanterie-Regiment, and assigned to the Totenkopf Division 10/39.
 * 2nd TK-Standarte 'Brandenburg'. Formed 1937 at Oranienburg. During the Polish invasion conducted so-called "security operations" behind the lines, which were operations of terrorizing and murdering the Polish civilian population. Redesignated 2. SS-Totenkopf-Infanterie-Regiment, and assigned to the Totenkopf Division 10/39.
 * 3rd TK-Standarte 'Thüringen'. Formed 1937 at Buchenwald. During the Polish invasion conducted so-called "security operations" behind the lines, which were operations of terrorizing and murdering the Polish civilian population. Redesignated 3. SS-Totenkopf-Infanterie-Regiment and assigned to the Totenkopf Division, with some men forming the cadre of the 10. TK-Standarte, 11/39.
 * 4th TK-Standarte 'Ostmark'. Formed 1938 at Vienna and Berlin. III Sturmbann Götze detached to form the core of SS Heimwehr Danzig 7/39. Garrison duty at Prague 10/39 and in the Netherlands 6/40. Designated 4. SS-Infanterie-Regiment 2/41, assigned to 2. SS-Infanterie-Brigade 5/41.
 * SS-Wachsturmbann 'Eimann'. Formed 1939 at Danzig. During the Polish invasion conducted so-called "security operations" behind the lines, which were operations of terrorizing and murdering the Polish civilian population. Dissolved 1940.
 * TK-Reiter-Standarte. Formed 9/39 in Poland to conduct so-called "security operations" behind the lines, which were operations of terrorizing and murdering the Polish civilian population. Expanded and divided into 1. and 2. TK-Reiter-Standarten 5/40. Redesignated 1. and 2. SS-Kavallerie-Regimenter 2/41, combined into SS-Kavallerie-Brigade (later SS-Kavallerie-Division 'Florian Geyer') 9/41.
 * 5th TK-Standarte 'Dietrich Eckart'. Formed 1939 at Berlin and Oranienburg. Designated 5. SS-Infanterie-Regiment 2/41, assigned to 2. SS-Infanterie-Brigade 5/41.
 * 6th TK-Standarte. Formed 1939 at Prague. Garrison duty in Norway 5/40. Designated 6. SS-Infanterie-Regiment 2/41, assigned to Kampfgruppe Nord (later 6. SS-Gebirgs-Division Nord) spring 41.
 * 7th TK-Standarte. Formed 1939 at Brno. Garrison duty in Norway 5/40. Designated 7. SS-Infanterie-Regiment 2/41, assigned to Kampfgruppe Nord (later 6. SS-Gebirgs-Division Nord) spring 41.
 * 8th TK-Standarte. Formed 1939 at Crakow. Designated 8. SS-Infanterie-Regiment 2/41, assigned to 1. SS-Infanterie-Brigade 4/41.
 * 9th TK-Standarte. Formed 1939 at Danzig. Reorganized (with elements of St. 12) into Standarte "K" (Kirkenes, Norway) 8-11/40, redesignated 9. SS-Infanterie-Regiment 2/41, assigned to Kampfgruppe Nord spring 41. Incorporated into SS-Regiment Thule 8/42.
 * 10th TK-Standarte. Formed 1939 at Buchenwald. Garrison duties in Poland 1940. Designated 10. SS-Infanterie-Regiment 2/41, assigned to 1. SS-Infanterie-Brigade 4/41.
 * 11th TK-Standarte. Formed 1939 at Radom. Garrison duty in the Netherlands 5/40. Assigned to SS-Infanterie-Division (mot) Das Reich to replace the 2. SS-Infanterie-Regiment Germania 12/40 and redesignated 11. SS-Infanterie-Regiment.
 * TK-Standarten 12-16 were raised in the winter of 1939–40, but disbanded the following summer, their personnel used to fill out other units.

title: SS-Totenkopfverbände


text: User talk:67.173.46.24

title: User talk:67.173.46.24


text:
Arthur Birch (organic chemist)

Arthur John Birch, AC CMG FRS FAA (3 August 1915 – 8 December 1995) was an Australian organic chemist.

Birch developed the Birch reduction of aromatic rings (by treatment with lithium metal and ammonia) which is widely used in synthetic organic chemistry. The Birch Reduction enables the modification of steroids. In 1948 Birch published the first total synthesis of a male sex hormone (19-nortestosterone), as the first member of a new structural series. This series later comprised the first oral contraceptive pill, which was made by others. The Birch reduction also allows for the development of other steroid drugs and antibiotics – he also made the first simple synthesis of the ring A-B structure of cholesterol. Birch published over 440 scientific papers and reports.

Early life and education
Birch won a scholarship to attend the University of Sydney graduating with a BSc in 1937 and a MSc in 1938. He travelled to the University of Oxford to undertake his D.Phil., graduating in 1940.

Career
The hormone research he became involved with in 1940 was initiated by the RAF who then believed German fighter pilots were given cortical hormones He remained a research Fellow at Oxford until 1948 working under Sir Robert Robinson, when he became the Smithson Fellow at the University of Cambridge where he remained until 1952. At Cambridge he worked with Lord Todd.

He returned to Australia in 1952 to take up a Professorship in organic chemistry at the University of Sydney, he was made a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science in 1954. He held his position at the University of Sydney until 1955 when he took a similar position at Manchester University. He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1958.

Birch returned to Australia again in 1967 to establish the Research School of Chemistry at the Australian National University in Canberra, becoming its founding dean. He remained involved with the school until 1980. He served as President of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute from 1977 to 1978, and also chaired the 1977 Independent Inquiry into CSIRO.

He served as President of the Australian Academy of Science from 1982 to 1986. Birch was made a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) in 1987 for his contributions to science in Australia. He was awarded Honorary Fellowship of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, in 1994. He was also a founding member of the Australian Science and Technology Council.

Before his death in 1995, the Research School of Chemistry building at ANU was named the "Birch Building" in his honour.

title: Arthur Birch (organic chemist)


text:
User talk:Mario9012

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

PLEASE, don't paste Babelfish translations into Wikipedia, unless you plan to do cleanup immediately yourself. It doesn't look too bad for us to have foreign-language material. It looks really bad to have subliterate gibberish. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mario9012


text:
Talk:Elmer Robinson

Untitled
Thanks for that photo, Raul! Where did you find it?? Great addition. Moncrief 01:24, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Elmer Robinson.jpg
File:Elmer Robinson.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We need sources
This man was mayor of San Francisco for 8 years. I really am 100% sure we can find lots of sources on him, yet no one has. I am about to try and see what I can find.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I found a few sources. There is also this which looks to say something quite substantial about him. I do not have the sign in rights to access it though, but someone else might be able to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

 * The following was placed on my talk page about a potential source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) * A brief search on Newspapers.com brought up this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Elmer Robinson


text:
Talk:Pico Duarte

Untitled
A more encyclopedic picture would be nice! TheGrappler 22:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

---Question- is there ever any snow at Duarte Peak ? Somebody says there is, others say in modern time there isn't any snow ever. antbody knows ? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.173.103 (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

highest in the Americas?
The lead statement Andes, etc. However, Greenland is considered part of North America and has higher peaks (ex. Gunnbjørn). Anyone from the Mountains WikiProject care to comment/clean up?

I would correct to highest in the Caribbeans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.81.39 (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How were these mountains formed?
Could someone add the geologic formation process/orogeny (volcanic, fold, etc.) of these mountains and/or of the Hispaniola island? It seems difficult to find how the island and/or mountains were created.

I've looked on the pages for Hispaniola, the Dominican Republic, Greater Antilles, and Cordillera Central, Dominican Republic and can't seem to find much information on the topic. This website seems to have some information: http://specialpapers.gsapubs.org/content/262/1.abstract

Bush6984 (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

animals
they are good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.241.104 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pico Duarte


text:
Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002

The Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA,, et seq.) is a United States federal law enacted in 2002 as Title III of the E-Government Act of 2002. The act recognized the importance of information security to the economic and national security interests of the United States. The act requires each federal agency to develop, document, and implement an agency-wide program to provide information security for the information and information systems that support the operations and assets of the agency, including those provided or managed by another agency, contractor, or other source.

FISMA has brought attention within the federal government to cybersecurity and explicitly emphasized a "risk-based policy for cost-effective security." FISMA requires agency program officials, chief information officers, and inspectors general (IGs) to conduct annual reviews of the agency's information security program and report the results to Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB uses this data to assist in its oversight responsibilities and to prepare this annual report to Congress on agency compliance with the act. In FY 2008, federal agencies spent $6.2 billion securing the government's total information technology investment of approximately $68 billion or about 9.2 percent of the total information technology portfolio. This law has been amended by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, sometimes known as FISMA2014 or FISMA Reform. FISMA2014 struck subchapters II and III of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, amending it with the text of the new law in a new subchapter II.

Purpose of the act
FISMA assigns specific responsibilities to federal agencies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in order to strengthen information security systems. In particular, FISMA requires the head of each agency to implement policies and procedures to cost-effectively reduce information technology security risks to an acceptable level.

According to FISMA, the term information security means protecting information and information systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in order to provide integrity, confidentiality and availability.

Implementation of FISMA
In accordance with FISMA, NIST is responsible for developing standards, guidelines, and associated methods and techniques for providing adequate information security for all agency operations and assets, excluding national security systems. NIST works closely with federal agencies to improve their understanding and implementation of FISMA to protect their information and information systems and publishes standards and guidelines which provide the foundation for strong information security programs at agencies. NIST performs its statutory responsibilities through the Computer Security Division of the Information Technology Laboratory. NIST develops standards, metrics, tests, and validation programs to promote, measure, and validate the security in information systems and services. NIST hosts the following:
 * FISMA implementation project
 * Information Security Automation Program (ISAP)
 * National Vulnerability Database (NVD) – the U.S. government content repository for ISAP and Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP). NVD is the U.S. government repository of standards based vulnerability management data. This data enables automation of vulnerability management, security measurement, and compliance (e.g., FISMA)

Compliance framework defined by FISMA and supporting standards
FISMA defines a framework for managing information security that must be followed for all information systems used or operated by a U.S. federal government agency in the executive or legislative branches, or by a contractor or other organization on behalf of a federal agency in those branches. This framework is further defined by the standards and guidelines developed by NIST.

Inventory of information systems
FISMA requires that agencies have an information systems inventory in place. According to FISMA, the head of each agency shall develop and maintain an inventory of major information systems (including major national security systems) operated by or under the control of such agency The identification of information systems in an inventory under this subsection shall include an identification of the interfaces between each such system and all other systems or networks, including those not operated by or under the control of the agency. The first step is to determine what constitutes the "information system" in question. There is not a direct mapping of computers to an information system; rather, an information system may be a collection of individual computers put to a common purpose and managed by the same system owner. NIST SP 800-18, Revision 1, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems provides guidance on determining system boundaries.

Categorize information and information systems according to risk level
All information and information systems should be categorized based on the objectives of providing appropriate levels of information security according to a range of risk levels The first mandatory security standard required by the FISMA legislation, FIPS 199 "Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems" provides the definitions of security categories. The guidelines are provided by NIST SP 800-60 "Guide for Mapping Types of Information and Information Systems to Security Categories."

The overall FIPS 199 system categorization is the "high water mark" for the impact rating of any of the criteria for information types resident in a system. For example, if one information type in the system has a rating of "Low" for "confidentiality," "integrity," and "availability," and another type has a rating of "Low" for "confidentiality" and "availability" but a rating of "Moderate" for "integrity," then the impact level for "integrity" also becomes "Moderate".

Security controls
Federal information systems must meet the minimum security requirements. These requirements are defined in the second mandatory security standard required by the FISMA legislation, FIPS 200 "Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems". Organizations must meet the minimum security requirements by selecting the appropriate security controls and assurance requirements as described in NIST Special Publication 800-53, "Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems". The process of selecting the appropriate security controls and assurance requirements for organizational information systems to achieve adequate security is a multifaceted, risk-based activity involving management and operational personnel within the organization. Agencies have flexibility in applying the baseline security controls in accordance with the tailoring guidance provided in Special Publication 800-53. This allows agencies to adjust the security controls to more closely fit their mission requirements and operational environments. The controls selected or planned must be documented in the System Security Plan.

Risk assessment
The combination of FIPS 200 and NIST Special Publication 800-53 requires a foundational level of security for all federal information and information systems. The agency's risk assessment validates the security control set and determines if any additional controls are needed to protect agency operations (including mission, functions, image, or reputation), agency assets, individuals, other organizations, or the Nation. The resulting set of security controls establishes a level of "security due diligence" for the federal agency and its contractors. A risk assessment starts by identifying potential threats and vulnerabilities and mapping implemented controls to individual vulnerabilities. One then determines risk by calculating the likelihood and impact that any given vulnerability could be exploited, taking into account existing controls. The culmination of the risk assessment shows the calculated risk for all vulnerabilities and describes whether the risk should be accepted or mitigated. If mitigated by the implementation of a control, one needs to describe what additional Security Controls will be added to the system.

NIST also initiated the Information Security Automation Program (ISAP) and Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP) that support and complement the approach for achieving consistent, cost-effective security control assessments.

System security plan
Agencies should develop policy on the system security planning process. NIST SP-800-18 introduces the concept of a System Security Plan. System security plans are living documents that require periodic review, modification, and plans of action and milestones for implementing security controls. Procedures should be in place outlining who reviews the plans, keeps the plan current, and follows up on planned security controls.

The System security plan is the major input to the security certification and accreditation process for the system. During the security certification and accreditation process, the system security plan is analyzed, updated, and accepted. The certification agent confirms that the security controls described in the system security plan are consistent with the FIPS 199 security category determined for the information system, and that the threat and vulnerability identification and initial risk determination are identified and documented in the system security plan, risk assessment, or equivalent document.

Certification and accreditation
Once the system documentation and risk assessment has been completed, the system's controls must be reviewed and certified to be functioning appropriately. Based on the results of the review, the information system is accredited. The certification and accreditation process is defined in NIST SP 800-37 "Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information Systems". Security accreditation is the official management decision given by a senior agency official to authorize operation of an information system and to explicitly accept the risk to agency operations, agency assets, or individuals based on the implementation of an agreed-upon set of security controls. Required by OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III, security accreditation provides a form of quality control and challenges managers and technical staffs at all levels to implement the most effective security controls possible in an information system, given mission requirements, technical constraints, operational constraints, and cost/schedule constraints. By accrediting an information system, an agency official accepts responsibility for the security of the system and is fully accountable for any adverse impacts to the agency if a breach of security occurs. Thus, responsibility and accountability are core principles that characterize security accreditation. It is essential that agency officials have the most complete, accurate, and trustworthy information possible on the security status of their information systems in order to make timely, credible, risk-based decisions on whether to authorize operation of those systems.

The information and supporting evidence needed for security accreditation is developed during a detailed security review of an information system, typically referred to as security certification. Security certification is a comprehensive assessment of the management, operational, and technical security controls in an information system, made in support of security accreditation, to determine the extent to which the controls are implemented correctly, operating as intended, and producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting the security requirements for the system. The results of a security certification are used to reassess the risks and update the system security plan, thus providing the factual basis for an authorizing official to render a security accreditation decision.

Continuous monitoring
All accredited systems are required to monitor a selected set of security controls and the system documentation is updated to reflect changes and modifications to the system. Large changes to the security profile of the system should trigger an updated risk assessment, and controls that are significantly modified may need to be re-certified.

Continuous monitoring activities include configuration management and control of information system components, security impact analyses of changes to the system, ongoing assessment of security controls, and status reporting. The organization establishes the selection criteria and subsequently selects a subset of the security controls employed within the information system for assessment. The organization also establishes the schedule for control monitoring to ensure adequate coverage is achieved.

Critique
Security experts Bruce Brody, a former federal chief information security officer, and Alan Paller, director of research for the SANS Institute, have described FISMA as "a well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed tool", arguing that the compliance and reporting methodology mandated by FISMA measures security planning rather than measuring information security. Past GAO chief technology officer Keith Rhodes said that FISMA can and has helped government system security but that implementation is everything, and if security people view FISMA as just a checklist, nothing is going to get done.


text: Talk:Price system

title: Talk:Price system