A Question About One Magazine

David Williams of the Williams-Nichols Collection at the University of Louisville asks:

From May to at least August 1965 there were two different versions of One Magazine.  One was edited by Don Slater and the other by Richard Conger. We have both versions of the magazine during that time. My question is, how long were the two different versions published? Did it end in August 1965, or were there different editions in  September, October, and perhaps November 1965?

Our reply:

Hello David!

Thank you so much for contacting us on this question.

When ONE, Inc. divided in the spring of 1965, Don Slater and company moved the entire operation to a new location. Even though Slater had emptied ONE’s office completely, Dorr Legg (as “Richard Conger”) was still able to continue to produce and distribute ONE Magazine (much, of course, to Slater’s dismay). Legg said that he had committed ONE’s mailing list to memory, but that's just silly. My best guess is that Legg anticipated some sort of brash act by Slater (Legg, it seems, was moving to kill ONE magazine entirely in order to grow his Institute) and had managed to have a copy of the list secured off site. (ONE’s mailing list was a highly coveted and much protected, so this is actually a very big deal, a confession Legg could never publicly make).

Soon after the division, a judge determined that Legg would keep the office and rights to the name ONE, Inc. Slater retained his materials but had to stop doing business as or representing himself as ONE. This was to be a tentative arrangement, but even after Legg continued his fruitless and expensive lawsuit against Slater for two more years, this is how things remained. 

You will find that the content of the two first dual issues is similar to identical. Some of the work was by Joe Hansen, who was devoted to Slater and would never have consented to have his work printed in Legg’s magazine, yet there it was. How Legg obtained that content remains a total mystery to me.

You can see the four covers of Slater’s magazine (clearly subtitled “The Homosexual Viewpoint” here.

I have started to post content, but work is proceeding slowly since I can only do this on a voluntary basis at the moment. As you can see, the magazine changed its name to Tangents in October, 1965. This, in a way, makes Tangents the “true” continuation of ONE magazine, with a great majority of ONE’s editorial and writing staff continuing on in this new venue. The July issue of ONE features a play on the male/female symbols that was designed by Joe Hansen's wife, Jane, and remains HIC’s logo to this day.

I have been talking to several people about bringing Tangents back as a biannual newsletter, I hope becoming quarterly in time. I will keep you posted on the progress there as this could be happening very soon.

I hope this helps to clarify. The details of this can be found in my book, Pre-Gay L.A.: A Social History of the Movement for Homosexual Rights, published by the University of Illinois Press, if you are interested in learning more about this history. 

Best wishes,

Todd

C. Todd White, Ph.D.

Chair

Homosexual Information Center

http://www.tangentgroup.org

<todd@tangentgroup.org>

What others may see in the book: RE: Todd’s book and the generic issue of getting books read.

As I would understand it, Todd marshalled all the facts on what happened at ONE, and gave readers a background, starting with early Mattachine. It could be that he gave too much for average readers, but I assume serious researchers will want to see all the notes and minutes, etc. I didn’t then, nor now.

The irony as I said to everyone then is that I am one person who has always been in a position to do what I wanted to. I have made some mistakes, as I confessed to Prof. Rodney Grunes Political Science students Friday, as I think, now, that the issue of me and the Army was more my fault than theirs, although it is probably that sooner or later I would have been kicked out for homosexuality. But I was, from a logical Army view, not a very good soldier if I fell a part when they had to change the goal of sending me to Germany—unless I reenlisted and had more time. I liked the Army and was not mistreated, even when living the last few weeks on a cot in the Headquarters Company of the First Infantry Division. But I would never have stopped having sex. I also once did not showup for KP duty when I had been ordered to do so as I thought they were wrong. I went, naturally, to the library and read magazines. Nothing ever came of it.

But few people had income from a family so that they could choose what they wanted to do, as I could take a the job at ONE, which paid nothing, really, and paid really nothing at HIC. In fact, more than once I had to put money into HIC, one time $2,000 my folks gave me to help get an issue of the magazine out.

This is being said to make it clear that Dorr should have understood, and Don, that it made no difference to me personally if I were a voting member.

I said then, and poor Todd understands that now as even Don did a few times, that I would not do anything I did not want to do. So it would give me no more “power” to be a voting member. If the board instructed me to do something I didn't want to do, I simply would refuse and if necessary, leave.

Which is what I think some editor said when she had to quite ONE as she had to do work at a job that paid her salary. It is hard to tell volunteers what to do if they don't want to. that of course was Dorr's fear. Most of ours were not too smart about the workings of ONE and didn’t care, and I didn't until Dorr stupidly started fearing what I might or might not do. It was one thing for me to not show up for work a day after I had found a good Marine, but when I actually started understanding the workings, that was threating to Dorr.

Some negative thoughts on George Chauncey's book: Gay New York

In a sense I am asking what others thought about the book Chauncey did on Gay New York, and with only a small thought on Gay L.A. and anticipating criticism of Todd White's coming book, Pre-Gay L.A.

It seems strange to be reading it and thinking about it in this season, but I came across it and glanced at it and wanted to share my thoughts and wonderwhat others thought.

In the first place, like too many critics, I am upset that he didn't write the book I expected. After rereadng the phrase on the cover, sayhing that it is in part about urban culture I guess that excuses him for writing a book on historical New York and using gay men as a catalyst, rather than vice versa.

So what I got is a history of New york mainly on prohibition, black cultureand Harlem, and how drag queens were mixed in all of this, such as at gay ballas, but also in straight nigh clubs, etc.

And it sure seems to me that what he says in the intro is the opposite of what we get in the text. Which is good since I disagree with his ascertion that ays werfe out in those days. His text proves otherwise, except for drag queens of course.

It is a good guide to the businesses of New York, the cafes, cafeterias, night clubs, housing, and drag queens hung around these places, with and without acceptance.

What he says and shows is what we have said all of our existence as a resource on homosexual issues at ONE/HIC. It was nonsense for some closet types to come into our offices and say, oh life was (usually only on a holiday or living unlike the locals) wonderful in Mexico, Holland, or some other place. What we got from visitors who LIVED in those places was, of course, oh, life is so good here in America.

And as to the terms, such as closet, he is not very accurate. The list of who he talked to includes Dorr Legg and Harry Hay—I always question the "professionalism" of a researcher who comes to the main source of early gay history—Southern California, and only talks to a few people who MADE that history andignores what might have been a diffeent view from others, such as obviously Don Slater. But we sure did use the term closet in the early ’60s.

And it is strange that he uses up the first 25 or so pages talking about the terms gay, etc, and yet ignores the history from the founders of early Mattachine and ONE Inc. Of course these were not in New York. And what he has to say about drag queens in New York is probably exactly the same "history" as in Los Angeles.

And after reading all these pages about bar raids, organizations urging the law to attack places homosexuals-meaning drag queens hang out at- how can he say that there was a gay world in New York in these years?

Why are we then, or now, to accept drag queens as THE gay world? What per cent of homosexuals in New York, or L.A., were "out" in those years? Where are their institutions? Drag Balls, which seem to have been well known and attended by non-gays?

It is interesting that he does in a sense point out that the reason why it was the lower class whites who "accepted" queers—which term was first used, then opposed and today is back in use—was because they were not worried about their "standing" or masculinity when the ones they were dealing with were pseudo women.

What is more troubling, then and now, is what I see as the black community NOT liking homosexuals, who were the only whites who would interact with blacks. Blacks wanted "normal" whites to interact, that would have made them feel equal. They had no need to feel equal to drag queens who were certainly not liked by 'average" white.

It confirms what a Jew said in the civil rights era. I think it was in a small publication called a Minority of One (Mississippi) when the editor said Jews did not feel very helped by having having such minorities as Unitarians come to a meeting. They would have actual progress only when good ole Southern Baptists showed up, That would indicate that real society was accepting them and wanted to work with them. Drag queens were not an are not "real" society, even real gay society.

The book I wanted could have been doen well in about a thired he length of this book. There are too many "examples" given to make a point, over and over. How many names of bars do I need to get the point? I do find speculation that prohibition caused gay bars to come interesting—but I had that from many books talking about how prohibition was a total failure and caused more harm than good-again, unintended consequences of the rightwing religious people-no matter how good their intentions. But that is not a gay world.

And I don't accept the "research" on how different ethnic groups(?)— how many Italians or Irish dealt with drag queens— accepted or didn't accept drag queens—again they did not deal with the normal homosexuals then.

I have no dog in this fight. I just have been in an office (and publication) open daily for anyone seeking information on homosexuality, from the ’60s to the ’90s, and find any book or claim that goes against our 30 or 40 years of experience must meet a high standard to be believed. This book does not come close. Did he have an agenda to start with?