Brexit, Pandemic, Power

Much has been written about how the pandemic has exposed many aspects of our society that should have been addressed long ago: inequality, poverty, insecure employment conditions, lack of social housing, the inhumane treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, and so on. I commented some time ago that Brexit carried within it the possible seeds of the dissolution of the United Kingdom, as an anti-EU England dragged a reluctant Scotland and Northern Ireland into a future neither nation voted for. Covid-19 has further exposed differences and has also laid bare how Brexit is being used by a faction to accrete power in its hands.

At one level, Brexit was a power grab by a faction of the Conservative government. Prime Minister May attempted to implement Brexit while balancing the Brexit hardliners in her party with pro-Brexit or less doctrinaire MPs. Mr. Johnson dispensed with such niceties upon being chosen ad leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister. He expelled from the party the most significant MPs who opposed Brexit. Others who harboured doubts had to swear unswerving loyalty to the Brexit cause. And, of course, the hard-line Brexiters are now dominant in the party.

However, while Brexit was the convenient vehicle in which Mr. Johnson drove to 10 Downing Street, the real project is an accretion of power in the hands of. a small clique: Mr. Johnson and a group of devoted aides who served with him when he was Mayor of London, his partner in Brexit Michael Gove, and a self-described genius, Dominic Cummings, who is chief of staff in 10 Downing Street. Britain is now effectively ruled by this Gang of Three and their associates.

They have promptly set about seizing all the key levers of power. Abraham Lincoln is said by his biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin to have appointed a cabinet of rivals (and talents). Mr. Johnson did no such thing. Members of the cabinet had to meet the following qualifications: absolute loyalty to Brexit; mediocre talent; unable to mount any challenge to Mr. Johnson’s authority. The only member who might not have met these standards was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sajid Javid, who was manoeuvred into resigning or facing public humiliation within days of the December election triumph. Senior civil servants in key positions have been forced out and replaced with Johnson loyalists. All political advisers to cabinet ministers report to Mr. Cummings who controls the advice they give.

Messrs. Johnson and Cummings have a track record of contempt for the notion of public accountability. However, they have recently miscalculated in their attempt to ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament should be controlled by their lackeys. By law  (the Justice and Security Act 2013) this committee is independent of the government and the security agencies, which it is meant to scrutinize. By law the chair should be chosen independently by its members. However, the Prime minister’s office appointed to the committee five Conservative MPs, who, it assumed, would be obedient and elect one of their number, Chris Grayling, as Chairman. Mr. Grayling is an ultra-loyal Brexiter who was not given a cabinet appointment. He is affectionately known as Failing Grayling for his unblemished record of incompetence, leaving behind him in every ministerial post he has held failure and disaster. He is also lacking in any qualifications for the post of Chairman, unlike another committee member, the Conservative, Dr. Julian Lewis. Unfortunately, for Mr. Johnson and Mr. Grayling, the opposition MPs on the committee approached Dr. Lewis, who agreed to stand was to duly elected. Mr. Johnson promptly expelled Dr. Lewis from the Conservative Party. For the record, the Conservative MPs who lacked the backbone to uphold the Justice and Security Act 2013 were: Sir John Hayes, Mark Pritchard, Therese Villiers (like Mr. Grayling a close associate of the Gang of Three), and, of course, Chris Grayling.

The Attorney General, an ardent Brexiter, has spoken of the need to “reform the judiciary”. The motive for the reform seems to be the Supreme Court’s ruling that Mr. Johnson’s attempt to prorogue Parliament for an unprecedently long period in the summer of 2019 was unlawful. This again, speaks to the desire to avoid accountability. There has also been talk from the Culture and Media Secretary of a review of the funding of the BBC, which is held by the Brexit faction to have been insufficiently enthusiastic about Brexit.

You may by now be asking what has all this to do with Brexit? Unfortunately for Messrs. Johnson, Gove and Cummings, the pandemic has exposed the incompetence of the government that they control. It would be tedious here to record all their errors and poor management. Suffice to record the death rates per million in a selection of countries as of 17 July:

Belgium	855
UK	678
Spain	605
Italy	580
Sweden	547
France	450
USA	412
Brazil	366
Germany	109

Now, the UK consists of four nations: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each manages its own public health policy.  Wales, governed by a Labour Party administration has an equivalent death rate of 493 and Scotland, where the Scottish National Party forms the government, 457. The First Minister of Scotland has been exceptionally clear in her communications and in developing a strategy to reduce the rate of infection as close to zero as possible. After a change in policy has been introduced, Scotland waits to evaluate its impact before announcing any further change. The First Minister alone announces each change in policy, explains clearly and calmly the reasons for it. The UK government, which sets policy only for England, issues announcement after announcement without any clear evaluation of the impact of any single measure. The announcements are made by a variety of ministers and on several occasions have been contradicted by the words or actions of other ministers.

Moreover, Mr. Johnson’s government often contradicts itself. An example is the requirement to wear masks in shops and other enclosed public spaces. Scotland made its position crystal clear from the start: the wearing of masks (formally speaking face coverings) was unambiguously mandatory from the day it was announced. In England, the possibility of requiring the wearing of masks was first briefed anonymously to the media to test the reaction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then posed in a restaurant serving lunch as a waiter, without wearing a mask. Mr. Gove declared that wearing a mask in a shop should be voluntary, while the Health Secretary disagreed. Mr. Gove and another minister, Liz Truss, were seen buying a sandwich in a shop without wearing masks. When the requirement to wear a mask was formally announced to be mandatory, its introduction was delayed for ten days.

For the last two decades, the trend in British politics has been to devolve powers over certain areas of policy to the governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in each nation to varying degrees and over varying areas of policy. This has created the opportunity for the first ministers of those nations to become significant figures nationally. In the case of Scotland, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, whose dislike of Mr. Johnson is very mutual, has taken personal command of health policy. She has shown herself to be capable, a clear communicator, and has a well-articulated strategy.

It clearly displeases Johnson, Gove and Cummings that the devolved nations have powers that can expose their failings. They plan to reduce the powers that are reserved to the devolved nations by various means. For example, devolved administrations can set standards for products sold in their nation. For example, Scotland (or Wales or Northern Ireland) can prohibit the sale of meat raised using hormones, or chickens housed at stocking densities higher than the norm required in Scotland. This will technically be the case after Brexit. However, the UK government has announced that the United Kingdom will form a single market, free of any restrictions on trade between the constituent nations. Thus, the UK could negotiate a trade agreement with the USA that permits the import of hormone treated US beef into the English market, or chickens raised to standards deemed unacceptable in the UK, which could then be sold on into Scotland. Similar arrangements will apply to other matters over which devolved nations technically have authority: such as rules concerning state aid. It might strike you as ironic that the Gang of Three insist triumphantly that the UK leave entirely the much-hated EU free market because it impinges on UK sovereignty, but that they intend to restrict the sovereignty of the devolved nations in a very similar fashion.

There are now murmurings that the government intends to exercise greater control over the National Health Service. This is somewhat ironic, since only eight years ago the Conservative government reformed the NHS to reduce direct ministerial responsibility for the NHS. The reform was, by common agreement, at best a failure, at worst disastrous. Apparently, Simon Stevens, the Chief Executive of the NHS, is not sufficiently compliant. Matt Hancock, the Minster for Health, has discovered that he cannot simply tell Mr. Stevens what to do. The minister has to persuade him that a particular proposal is a good idea. The pandemic has exposed the government’s mis-management of the national health and care system. A chief executive who is independent-minded, and who speaks his mind, is not helpful to the government’s reputation management.

The pandemic also provides an opportunity for the government to exercise control over the curricula of universities. Gavin Williamson, the Education Secretary, who has no discernible qualifications for the post nor any understanding of education, has announced that universities that receive financial support from the government will have to meet standards of free speech stipulated by Mr .Williamson. Universities will also have to abolish courses that do not meet Mr. Williamson’s criteria for value for money. For example, they must provide access to well-paid graduate jobs, preferably in STEM-related industries, nursing or teaching. Presumably, therefore, the teaching of theology, Latin, ancient Greek, Sanskrit and innumerable other humanities subjects will disappear. Whether my beloved Mexican history would survive Mr. Williamson’s knife I doubt.

Covid-19: a view from western Mexico

We follow the statistics about the pandemic in Mexico with a special family interest, since our son Chris lives and works in San Vicente, Nayarit state. Nationwide, the news has not been good. As of 17 July 324, 041 cases and 37,574 deaths, but we know that the government statistics are a substantial underestimate. Fortunately, Chris’ area seems to have been less severely affected, from an epidemiological point of view. Alas, from a human point of view the virus has done enormous damage to the lives of the many Mexicans who work hard to eke out a meagre existence.

Chris sent us a link to a video he has just made a video that tells the story far better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjCn5i4jvbQ&feature=youtu.be

In happier times Chris' charity cares for many disabled children. Alas, the charity has had to close , leaving the children at home with parents who struggle to feed them.

Children and staff at Pasitos' building

Un-American, Un-Mexican, Un-British?

Note: apologies for the inconsistent typography . I cannot work out how to fix it. 
Additional note: Paul Liffman has pointed out that, by classifying Henry Clay as a Republican, I have oversimplified history. The modern Republican Party (The Grand Old Party) was not founded in Clay's lifetime.

A few days ago, I stumbled across a transcript and a recording of Paul Robeson’s testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1956. I have rarely heard someone speak with such eloquence, clarity and dignity. Robeson refused to be cowed by powerful, ignorant bullies. You can hear his testimony at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y-xfqP6FOE Alternatively, I have copied it at the end of this text.

Paul Robeson was born in Princeton, New Jersey, in 1898. His father, the Reverend William Robeson, was born into slavery in Robeson County, North Carolina, but escaped and eventually became minister of Witherspoon Presbyterian Church in Princeton, where Paul was born. Pauls’ mother, Maria Louis Bustill was a member of a prominent Quaker family. The family’s last name was that of the slave-owning Robesons, of Scottish descent, who gave their name to Robeson County.

Paul was an accomplished American football player, a graduate of Rutgers University and had a law degree from Columbia University. He was famed internationally for his concert performances and as an actor (from Showboat to Othello). In short he was a man of enormous talent and achievement. He also had radical political views. In 1950 his passport was revoked. He was later refused a passport because he would not sign an affidavit stating that he was not a Communist (the Supreme court later ruled such denials of passports unconstitutional).

Paul Robeson singing the Star Spangled Banner with Oakland shipyard workers, 1942

 Asked by one senator whether he was a member of the Communist Party, Paul replied: “What do you mean by the Communist Party? As far as I know it is a legal party like the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Do you mean a party of people who have sacrificed for my people, and for all Americans and workers, that they can live in dignity? Do you mean that party?”
In answer to a question about patriotism Robeson stated: “you gentlemen belong with the Alien and Sedition Acts, and you are the nonpatriots, and you are the un-Americans, and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.”

Mr Trump has chosen to interpret the recent protests of the Black Lives Matter movement in terms of who is a worthy American and who is not. His presidential proclamation proposing a National Garden of sculptures of great Americans names 31 individuals who should be considered for commemoration. A fairly conventional and safe six of these are founding fathers (George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton). All bar Hamilton were also presidents. To these six we can add Dolly Madison, who created the role of First Lady before that term was invented. Subsequent presidents are limited to two: Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, both Republicans. There is no room for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, creator of the New Deal, Lyndon B Johnson, whose role in passing Civil Rights legislation was critical, or John F Kennedy. All are guilty of original sin: they were democrats. The remaining political figure on Mr Trump’s list was Henry Clay, the ‘Great Compromiser’ who attempted to resolve the controversy between the states concerning slavery before the Civil War. He too was a Republican.

 

Henry Clay and his wife Lucretia (née Hart), probably 1849

Next come seven figures who can be classified as campaigners for the rights of African Americans, all safe choices. The abolitionists are represented by Susan B. Anthony (who also campaigned for women’s suffrage), Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass. Martin Luther King could hardly be omitted, although I suspect that Mr Trump chooses to overlook his support for workers’ rights and unions, and opposition to the Vietnam War. Lastly, Jackie Robinson ticks two boxes: he was a great baseball player, the first African American to break the colour bar in the sport. There is no room here for figures such as Paul Robeson whose achievements in the performing arts surely match the sporting record of Robinson, but whose politics would be far less comfortable for Mr Trump.

 

Harriet Tubman, c.1885

The list includes two women who symbolize patriotism: Betsy Ross, upholsterer and said to be the maker of the first American flag, and Betsy Ross, a nursing pioneer in the Civil War and founder of the American Red Cross. These are the safest of safe choices.

Four military men merit inclusion: Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, a Union general considered to be a hero at Gettysburg, Audie Murphy, a much decorated World War II soldier, and Douglas MacArthur and George S. Patton, Jr. I suspect that the latter two qualify as great winners in Mr Trump’s estimation.

 

Audie Murphy, 1948

A further six represent the American pioneer spirit. Two are the subject of many a movie:  Daniel Boone, a pioneer in Kentucky (Native Americans may regard him as a colonizer) and Davy Crockett, a pioneer in Tennessee and one of the settlers who promoted the secession of Texas from Mexico. Three are aviation pioneers: Amelia Earhart, Orville and Wilbur Wright. Christie McCauliffe represents the exploration of space.

Lastly, come two figures designed to appeal to Mr Trump’s conservative Republican supporters: Billy Graham, Jr., the evangelical preacher and Antonin Scalia, a conservative Supreme Court judge whose ruling in favour of Second Amendment rights would be considered by gun enthusiasts to be as important as the Bill of Rights or the Ten Commandments. These choices are very revealing of Mr Trump’s intent. There are several Supreme Court justices whose claims to greatness match or exceed those of Scalia: Earl Warren’s rulings, for example, ended segregation in schools and the prohibition of racial intermarriage, and the Miranda rights of defendants to remain silent. Graham is the only figure noted for his religious career. He represents the evangelicals who are an important part of Mr Trump’s supporters.

Mr Trump’s list represents a certain view of America and its history.  White faces predominate. There are only five people of colour, all safe choice African Americans and all, except for Robinson, noted for campaigning for civil rights. African Americans who achieved in other fields are not included. Not a single Native American makes the list, nor does any person whose name hints of Mexican heritage. César Chávez, for example, was a notable proponent of the rights of California farm workers, but is out of favour with conservatives, who have campaigned to have him removed from school history textbooks.

 

César Chávez on campaign buttons of the United Farmworkers union

South of the border, a feature of the presidency of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) is his picking of heroes and villains.  After 1521 and before 1810, when the War of Independence began, AMLO has no heroes, since this was the age of Spanish imperialism. The arch-villain is the conquistador Hernán Cortés (heartily loathed by all Mexicans). AMLO has craftily associated Cortés with his modern political rivals by associating him with the first ever corrupt election in Mexico’s history: the choice of the council of the newly founded city of Veracruz in 1519. AMLOs heroes include the great leaders of independence, notably Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, who first proclaimed Mexico independent in 1810, and José María Morelos, architect of the first constitution. Skip forward half a century and we come to AMLO’s next great man, Benito Juárez, the Liberal president who resisted and defeated the French invasion, and implementer of the Laws of Reform, which promoted a philosophy of development based on the abolition of corporate interests and power (notably the Catholic church, whose property was confiscated and activities regulated). It should be noted that AMLO displays a fondness for the Catholic faith, rather at odds with the legacy of Juárez. Another 50 years on, we come to perhaps AMLO’s greatest hero, Francisco Indalecio Madero, the ‘Apostle of Democracy’, who started the Mexican Revolution in 1910. Madero was assassinated in 1913, but his slogan ‘Free votes and no re-election’ still adorned government correspondence when I was a student in Mexico in the 1970s. There is a potential contradiction in AMLO’s adoration of Madero. AMLO is suspected of harbouring ambitions of an unconstitutional re-election.

AMLO identifies very clearly those Mexicans he disapproves of. First come his predecessors in the Presidential Palace, all dismissed as corrupt neoliberals (alas, a label most deserve). He shows a general distaste for capitalists, except for certain powerful business executives who ingratiate themselves, such as Carlos Helú Slim, Mexico’s richest man. Women who are victims of domestic abuse are dismissed: most accusations are untrue. Journalists are discounted as purveyors of untruths. Mr Trump is fond of insulting those he dislikes (‘loser’, fake news’ etc.) but he is no match for AMLO. It has been calculated that AMLO has a repertoire of eighty insults for his opponents. Favourites are fifí (snooty), mafiosillo (small-time hoodlum), alcahuete (pimp).

 

AMLO, left, and Carlos Slim

Here in the UK, our Prime Minister, Mr Johnson, has, over the years, perfected his creation of the jolly toff, whose exterior of upper class buffoonery enables him to say thoroughly reprehensible things without any consequences. Racism can be  dressed up a upper crust wit: African children are ‘picaninnies’ and have ‘watermelon smiles’. He has explicitly styled himself a modern-day Winston Churchill. For the majority of the population Churchill is roughly equivalent national mythology to George Washington in the USA. Washington founded a nation and freed it from monarchical tyranny, Churchill led a nation threatened by invasion and saved it from Nazi tyranny. We ignore his racist views: Indians were “a beastly people with a beastly religion”. But never mind, since “The Aryan stock is bound to triumph”. We forget his political and military disasters, such as Gallipoli. During the Black Lives Matter protests in the UK protesters painted statues of Churchill and Gandhi with ‘racist’. Mr Johnson stoutly and repeatedly defended Churchill, but was able to  express very limited concern about racial discrimination.

There is much less concern for those who suffer injustice. I was astounded to learn this week that the Domestic Abuse Bill 2020, which has just been passed in Parliament, denies assistance to victims of domestic abuse whose immigrant status denies them access to public funds. Thus, when an abused woman presents herself at a shelter she is asked to show her passport. If it bears the stamp NRPF (No Recourse to Public Funds) she will be turned away since the shelter cannot claim any funding to protect her. Similarly, the victims of the Windrush scandal (all of Caribbean heritage), legal residents, and indeed citizens, of the UK who were wrongly deported, denied medical treatment and employment, still wait for their status to be regularized and for compensation to be paid. Mr Johnson evinces little concern for them.

Beneath the exterior buffoonery lies a nasty,

A protest against the treatment of Windrush Britons

ruthless narcissist who cheerfully dismisses those not adoringly loyal to him. When he became leader of the Conservative Party, and thus Prime Minister, he purged the party of rivals and those with anti-Brexit views. A purge from the Civil Service of officials thought to harbour pro-European opinions is underway. (As an aside, my own Conservative MP responded to a letter I wrote lamenting our  leaving the EU in which he denounced ‘Remainers’ (and hence me) as “perfidious and antidemocratic”.) The qualities required of a cabinet minister are not, for example, competence or intelligence, but rather unswerving loyalty to Mr Johnson and the Brexit cause.

AMLO and Mr Trump are strikingly similar in many regards. Mr Johnson is, as far as the exterior goes, one-of-a-kind. But the success of all three relies on falsehoods, demonization and division.

Who today is the real patriot?

Testimony of Paul Robeson before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, June 12, 1956
THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee will be in order. This morning the Committee resumes its series of hearings on the vital issue of the use of American passports as travel documents in furtherance of the objectives of the Communist conspiracy. . . .
Mr. ARENS: Now, during the course of the process in which you were applying for this passport, in July of 1954, were you requested to submit a non-Communist affidavit?
Mr. ROBESON: We had a long discussion—with my counsel, who is in the room, Mr. [Leonard B.] Boudin—with the State Department, about just such an affidavit and I was very precise not only in the application but with the State Department, headed by Mr. Henderson and Mr. McLeod, that under no conditions would I think of signing any such affidavit, that it is a complete contradiction of the rights of American citizens.
Mr. ARENS: Did you comply with the requests?
Mr. ROBESON: I certainly did not and I will not.
Mr. ARENS: Are you now a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. ROBESON: Oh please, please, please.
Mr. SCHERER: Please answer, will you, Mr. Robeson?
Mr. ROBESON: What is the Communist Party? What do you mean by that?
Mr. SCHERER: I ask that you direct the witness to answer the question.
Mr. ROBESON: What do you mean by the Communist Party? As far as I know it is a legal party like the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Do you mean a party of people who have sacrificed for my people, and for all Americans and workers, that they can live in dignity? Do you mean that party?
Mr. ARENS: Are you now a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. ROBESON: Would you like to come to the ballot box when I vote and take out the ballot and see?
Mr. ARENS: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that the witness be ordered and directed to answer that question.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are directed to answer the question.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. ROBESON: I stand upon the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution.
Mr. ARENS: Do you mean you invoke the Fifth Amendment?
Mr. ROBESON: I invoke the Fifth Amendment.
Mr. ARENS: Do you honestly apprehend that if you told this Committee truthfully—
Mr. ROBESON: I have no desire to consider anything. I invoke the Fifth Amendment, and it is none of your business what I would like to do, and I invoke the Fifth Amendment. And forget it.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are directed to answer that question.
MR, ROBESON: I invoke the Fifth Amendment, and so I am answering it, am I not?
Mr. ARENS: I respectfully suggest the witness be ordered and directed to answer the question as to whether or not he honestly apprehends, that if he gave us a truthful answer to this last principal question, he would be supplying information which might be used against him in a criminal proceeding.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
THE CHAIRMAN: You are directed to answer that question, Mr. Robeson.
Mr. ROBESON: Gentlemen, in the first place, wherever I have been in the world, Scandinavia, England, and many places, the first to die in the struggle against Fascism were the Communists and I laid many wreaths upon graves of Communists. It is not criminal, and the Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with criminality. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren, has been very clear on that in many speeches, that the Fifth Amendment does not have anything to do with the inference of criminality. I invoke the Fifth Amendment.
Mr. ARENS: Have you ever been known under the name of “John Thomas”?
Mr. ROBESON: Oh, please, does somebody here want—are you suggesting—do you want me to be put up for perjury some place? “John Thomas”! My name is Paul Robeson, and anything I have to say, or stand for, I have said in public all over the world, and that is why I am here today.
Mr. SCHERER: I ask that you direct the witness to answer the question. He is making a speech.
Mr. FRIEDMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Arens, may we have the photographers take their pictures, and then desist, because it is rather nerve-racking for them to be there.
THE CHAIRMAN: They will take the pictures.
Mr. ROBESON: I am used to it and I have been in moving pictures. Do you want me to pose for it good? Do you want me to smile? I cannot smile when I am talking to him.
Mr. ARENS: I put it to you as a fact, and ask you to affirm or deny the fact, that your Communist Party name was “John Thomas.”
Mr. ROBESON: I invoke the Fifth Amendment. This is really ridiculous.
Mr. ARENS: Now, tell this Committee whether or not you know Nathan Gregory Silvermaster.
Mr. SCHERER: Mr. Chairman, this is not a laughing matter.
Mr. ROBESON: It is a laughing matter to me, this is really complete nonsense.
Mr. ARENS: Have you ever known Nathan Gregory Silvermaster?
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. ROBESON: I invoke the Fifth Amendment.
Mr. ARENS: Do you honestly apprehend that if you told whether you know Nathan Gregory Silvermaster you would be supplying information that could be used against you in a criminal proceeding?
Mr. ROBESON: I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. I invoke the Fifth—
Mr. ARENS: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the witness be directed to answer that question.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are directed to answer the question.
Mr. ROBESON: I invoke the Fifth.
Mr. SCHERER: The witness talks very loud when he makes a speech, but when he invokes the Fifth Amendment I cannot hear him.
Mr. ROBESON: I invoked the Fifth Amendment very loudly. You know I am an actor, and I have medals for diction.
. . . .
Mr. ROBESON: Oh, gentlemen, I thought I was here about some passports.
Mr. ARENS: We will get into that in just a few moments.
Mr. ROBESON: This is complete nonsense.
. . . .
THE CHAIRMAN: This is legal. This is not only legal but usual. By a unanimous vote, this Committee has been instructed to perform this very distasteful task.
Mr. ROBESON: To whom am I talking?
THE CHAIRMAN: You are speaking to the Chairman of this Committee.
Mr. ROBESON: Mr. Walter?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Mr. ROBESON: The Pennsylvania Walter?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is right.
Mr. ROBESON: Representative of the steelworkers?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is right.
Mr. ROBESON: Of the coal-mining workers and not United States Steel, by any chance? A great patriot.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is right.
Mr. ROBESON: You are the author of all of the bills that are going to keep all kinds of decent people out of the country.
THE CHAIRMAN: No, only your kind.
Mr. ROBESON: Colored people like myself, from the West Indies and all kinds. And just the Teutonic Anglo-Saxon stock that you would let come in.
THE CHAIRMAN: We are trying to make it easier to get rid of your kind, too.
Mr. ROBESON: You do not want any colored people to come in?
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed. . . .
Mr. ROBESON: Could I say that the reason that I am here today, you know, from the mouth of the State Department itself, is: I should not be allowed to travel because I have struggled for years for the independence of the colonial peoples of Africa. For many years I have so labored and I can say modestly that my name is very much honored all over Africa, in my struggles for their independence. That is the kind of independence like Sukarno got in Indonesia. Unless we are double-talking, then these efforts in the interest of Africa would be in the same context. The other reason that I am here today, again from the State Department and from the court record of the court of appeals, is that when I am abroad I speak out against the injustices against the Negro people of this land. I sent a message to the Bandung Conference and so forth. That is why I am here. This is the basis, and I am not being tried for whether I am a Communist, I am being tried for fighting for the rights of my people, who are still second-class citizens in this United States of America. My mother was born in your state, Mr. Walter, and my mother was a Quaker, and my ancestors in the time of Washington baked bread for George Washington’s troops when they crossed the Delaware, and my own father was a slave. I stand here struggling for the rights of my people to be full citizens in this country. And they are not. They are not in Mississippi. And they are not in Montgomery, Alabama. And they are not in Washington. They are nowhere, and that is why I am here today. You want to shut up every Negro who has the courage to stand up and fight for the rights of his people, for the rights of workers, and I have been on many a picket line for the steelworkers too. And that is why I am here today. . . .
Mr. ARENS: Did you make a trip to Europe in 1949 and to the Soviet Union?
Mr. ROBESON: Yes, I made a trip. To England. And I sang.
Mr. ARENS: Where did you go?
Mr. ROBESON: I went first to England, where I was with the Philadelphia Orchestra, one of two American groups which was invited to England. I did a long concert tour in England and Denmark and Sweden, and I also sang for the Soviet people, one of the finest musical audiences in the world. Will you read what the Porgy and Bess people said? They never heard such applause in their lives. One of the most musical peoples in the world, and the great composers and great musicians, very cultured people, and Tolstoy, and—
THE CHAIRMAN: We know all of that.
Mr. ROBESON: They have helped our culture and we can learn a lot.
Mr. ARENS: Did you go to Paris on that trip?
Mr. ROBESON: I went to Paris.
Mr. ARENS: And while you were in Paris, did you tell an audience there that the American Negro would never go to war against the Soviet government?
Mr. ROBESON: May I say that is slightly out of context? May I explain to you what I did say? I remember the speech very well, and the night before, in London, and do not take the newspaper, take me: I made the speech, gentlemen, Mr. So-and-So. It happened that the night before, in London, before I went to Paris . . . and will you please listen?
Mr. ARENS: We are listening.
Mr. ROBESON: Two thousand students from various parts of the colonial world, students who since then have become very important in their governments, in places like Indonesia and India, and in many parts of Africa, two thousand students asked me and Mr. [Dr. Y. M.] Dadoo, a leader of the Indian people in South Africa, when we addressed this conference, and remember I was speaking to a peace conference, they asked me and Mr. Dadoo to say there that they were struggling for peace, that they did not want war against anybody. Two thousand students who came from populations that would range to six or seven hundred million people.
Mr. KEARNEY: Do you know anybody who wants war?
Mr. ROBESON: They asked me to say in their name that they did not want war. That is what I said. No part of my speech made in Paris says fifteen million American Negroes would do anything. I said it was my feeling that the American people would struggle for peace, and that has since been underscored by the President of these United States. Now, in passing, I said—
Mr. KEARNEY: Do you know of any people who want war?
Mr. ROBESON: Listen to me. I said it was unthinkable to me that any people would take up arms, in the name of an Eastland, to go against anybody. Gentlemen, I still say that. This United States Government should go down to Mississippi and protect my people. That is what should happen.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did you say what was attributed to you?
Mr. ROBESON: I did not say it in that context.
Mr. ARENS: I lay before you a document containing an article, “I Am Looking for Full Freedom,” by Paul Robeson, in a publication called the Worker, dated July 3, 1949.
At the Paris Conference I said it was unthinkable that the Negro people of America or elsewhere in the world could be drawn into war with the Soviet Union.
Mr. ROBESON: Is that saying the Negro people would do anything? I said it is unthinkable. I did not say that there [in Paris]: I said that in the Worker.
Mr. ARENS:
I repeat it with hundredfold emphasis: they will not.
Did you say that?
Mr. ROBESON: I did not say that in Paris, I said that in America. And, gentlemen, they have not yet done so, and it is quite clear that no Americans, no people in the world probably, are going to war with the Soviet Union. So, I was rather prophetic, was I not?
Mr. ARENS: On that trip to Europe, did you go to Stockholm?
Mr. ROBESON: I certainly did, and I understand that some people in the American Embassy tried to break up my concert. They were not successful.
Mr. ARENS: While you were in Stockholm, did you make a little speech?
Mr. ROBESON: I made all kinds of speeches, yes.
Mr. ARENS: Let me read you a quotation.
Mr. ROBESON: Let me listen.
Mr. ARENS: Do so, please.
Mr. ROBESON: I am a lawyer.
Mr. KEARNEY: It would be a revelation if you would listen to counsel.
Mr. ROBESON: In good company, I usually listen, but you know people wander around in such fancy places. Would you please let me read my statement at some point?
THE CHAIRMAN: We will consider your statement.
Mr. ARENS:
I do not hesitate one second to state clearly and unmistakably: I belong to the American resistance movement which fights against American imperialism, just as the resistance movement fought against Hitler.
Mr. ROBESON: Just like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman were underground railroaders, and fighting for our freedom, you bet your life.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am going to have to insist that you listen to these questions.
MR, ROBESON: I am listening.
Mr. ARENS:
If the American warmongers fancy that they could win America’s millions of Negroes for a war against those countries (i.e., the Soviet Union and the peoples‘ democracies) then they ought to understand that this will never be the case. Why should the Negroes ever fight against the only nations of the world where racial discrimination is prohibited, and where the people can live freely? Never! I can assure you, they will never fight against either the Soviet Union or the peoples’ democracies.
Did you make that statement?
Mr. ROBESON: I do not remember that. But what is perfectly clear today is that nine hundred million other colored people have told you that they will not. Four hundred million in India, and millions everywhere, have told you, precisely, that the colored people are not going to die for anybody: they are going to die for their independence. We are dealing not with fifteen million colored people, we are dealing with hundreds of millions.
Mr. KEARNEY: The witness has answered the question and he does not have to make a speech. . . .
Mr. ROBESON: In Russia I felt for the first time like a full human being. No color prejudice like in Mississippi, no color prejudice like in Washington. It was the first time I felt like a human being. Where I did not feel the pressure of color as I feel [it] in this Committee today.
Mr. SCHERER: Why do you not stay in Russia?
Mr. ROBESON: Because my father was a slave, and my people died to build this country, and I am going to stay here, and have a part of it just like you. And no Fascist-minded people will drive me from it. Is that clear? I am for peace with the Soviet Union, and I am for peace with China, and I am not for peace or friendship with the Fascist Franco, and I am not for peace with Fascist Nazi Germans. I am for peace with decent people.
Mr. SCHERER: You are here because you are promoting the Communist cause.
Mr. ROBESON: I am here because I am opposing the neo-Fascist cause which I see arising in these committees. You are like the Alien [and] Sedition Act, and Jefferson could be sitting here, and Frederick Douglass could be sitting here, and Eugene Debs could be here.
. . . .
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, what prejudice are you talking about? You were graduated from Rutgers and you were graduated from the University of Pennsylvania. I remember seeing you play football at Lehigh.
Mr. ROBESON: We beat Lehigh.
THE CHAIRMAN: And we had a lot of trouble with you.
Mr. ROBESON: That is right. DeWysocki was playing in my team.
THE CHAIRMAN: There was no prejudice against you. Why did you not send your son to Rutgers?
Mr. ROBESON: Just a moment. This is something that I challenge very deeply, and very sincerely: that the success of a few Negroes, including myself or Jackie Robinson can make up—and here is a study from Columbia University—for seven hundred dollars a year for thousands of Negro families in the South. My father was a slave, and I have cousins who are sharecroppers, and I do not see my success in terms of myself. That is the reason my own success has not meant what it should mean: I have sacrificed literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars for what I believe in.
Mr. ARENS: While you were in Moscow, did you make a speech lauding Stalin?
Mr. ROBESON: I do not know.
Mr. ARENS: Did you say, in effect, that Stalin was a great man, and Stalin had done much for the Russian people, for all of the nations of the world, for all working people of the earth? Did you say something to that effect about Stalin when you were in Moscow?
Mr. ROBESON: I cannot remember.
Mr. ARENS: Do you have a recollection of praising Stalin?
Mr. ROBESON: I said a lot about Soviet people, fighting for the peoples of the earth.
Mr. ARENS: Did you praise Stalin?
Mr. ROBESON: I do not remember.
Mr. ARENS: Have you recently changed your mind about Stalin?
Mr. ROBESON: Whatever has happened to Stalin, gentlemen, is a question for the Soviet Union, and I would not argue with a representative of the people who, in building America, wasted sixty to a hundred million lives of my people, black people drawn from Africa on the plantations. You are responsible, and your forebears, for sixty million to one hundred million black people dying in the slave ships and on the plantations, and don’t ask me about anybody, please.
Mr. ARENS: I am glad you called our attention to that slave problem. While you were in Soviet Russia, did you ask them there to show you the slave labor camps?
THE CHAIRMAN: You have been so greatly interested in slaves, I should think that you would want to see that.
Mr. ROBESON: The slaves I see are still in a kind of semiserfdom. I am interested in the place I am, and in the country that can do something about it. As far as I know, about the slave camps, they were Fascist prisoners who had murdered millions of the Jewish people, and who would have wiped out millions of the Negro people, could they have gotten a hold of them. That is all I know about that.
Mr. ARENS: Tell us whether or not you have changed your opinion in the recent past about Stalin.
Mr. ROBESON: I have told you, mister, that I would not discuss anything with the people who have murdered sixty million of my people, and I will not discuss Stalin with you.
Mr. ARENS: You would not, of course, discuss with us the slave labor camps in Soviet Russia.
Mr. ROBESON: I will discuss Stalin when I may be among the Russian people some day, singing for them, I will discuss it there. It is their problem.
. . . .
Mr. ARENS: Now I would invite your attention, if you please, to the Daily Worker of June 29, 1949, with reference to a get-together with you and Ben Davis. Do you know Ben Davis?
Mr. ROBESON: One of my dearest friends, one of the finest Americans you can imagine, born of a fine family, who went to Amherst and was a great man.
THE CHAIRMAN: The answer is yes?
Mr. ROBESON: Nothing could make me prouder than to know him.
THE CHAIRMAN: That answers the question.
Mr. ARENS: Did I understand you to laud his patriotism?
Mr. ROBESON: I say that he is as patriotic an American as there can be, and you gentlemen belong with the Alien and Sedition Acts, and you are the nonpatriots, and you are the un-Americans, and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a minute, the hearing is now adjourned.
Mr. ROBESON: I should think it would be.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have endured all of this that I can.
Mr. ROBESON: Can I read my statement?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, you cannot read it. The meeting is adjourned.
Mr. ROBESON: I think it should be, and you should adjourn this forever, that is what I would say. . . .