Talk:Paul Robeson/Archive 2

Linking
I have cleaned up the horrendous linking of this page again, and will revert in the future if people keep adding in unnecessary links. Here are some things to keep in mind: Thank you. Ground Zero | t 02:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * don't link the same thing repeatedly - see WP:OVERLINK
 * don't link plain English words -- see WP:OVERLINK
 * don't link dates -- see WP:MOSNUM
 * spell out acronyms the first time they are used, and don't link acronyms -- see WP:MOS

Thank YOU. I know what it's like to clean up horrendous and improperly cited facts and bold faced lies about a subject's life so I can at least empathize somewhat.Catherine Huebscher | t 08:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable Whitewash
The biographical summary at the beginning is an unbelievable whitewash of Robeson's support for the Russian Stalinist government, rendered in highly non-neutral language. Every move, questionable or not, he made is rendered as some kind of heroic blow against the forces of "white world supremacy." There's a reason why mainstream black civil rights groups distanced themselves from Robeson and his Stalinism. It's also absurd the way the article suggests Robeson was not targeted by the CIA and MI5 for this, but actually because he supported integration of Major League Baseball and anti-lynching legislation! Algabal (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, its not. Not at all. Stalin and the USSR is actually a very small portion of Robeson's life you just are buying the generic, rote line. Also there is PLENTY of unflattering and "Robeson is responsible for everything Stalin ever did" rhetoric that you seek in the separate article ABOUT HIS BELIEFS IN SOCIALISM. The intro mentions the Stalin peace prize too. Btw, few black groups are now distanced from Robeson. you need to read more books-the baseball and anti-lynching legislation, anti-colonialism and pro-Africa is WELL DOCUMENTED in CIA and FBI files! Crack open a book or ten as I have. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.124.141 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to be so combative. I'm a very big Robeson fan, too—although I've only read three or four books about him, not ten—and the article seems overly protective of its subject to me. Robeson had many admirable qualities, but he had a huge blind spot when it came to Stalin and repression in the Soviet Union. I think it's inappropriate to defend Robeson against every criticism made against him. Let the facts speak for themselves. — Malik Shabazz 02:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Catherine Hubescher here, I obviously wrote the above unsigned comment, sorry for the brevity. I'm live from London, I can't sign in as I'm on an insecure server. Frankly the facts DO speak for themselves. After all the reading i've done, my committee has met PR jr, I've met with Tony Benn on this subject etc etc, saying that Robeson 'had a blind spot' is simply a matter of personal opinion and not relevant to the man's actual actions, words or perceived lack thereof. I agree this is an open process but so many have simply bought the David Horowitz/FOX news anti-Robeson line. I would expect those who dislike his affiliations with the USSR to have at least done more research.

Its obvious that ROBESON felt there was enough potentiality in the possibility of socialism as the destiny of mankind and later in its possible resurgence, to not become a negative influence. That's not a 'blind spot' that is a person standing by their beliefs just as many still live in and support the USA despite how much mass murder its been connected to domestically and abroad. One may not like it but that was who he was and its made very clear in the article and sub-articles. Remember there were many other artists who supported the USSR/Stalin in a similar way but they were white and therefore slip through the cracks of vilification. There is still a vast racist component central to Robeson's persecution in all forms of the media, US govt and intelligence community.

FBI and CIA files show Hoover and cronies were VERY concerned about his anti-colonialist work in Africa and Asia-it was also CLEARLY sighted by the State Department in his passport denial. Domestic civil rights and Union advocacy was a cause for their concern as much if not more so than his friendship with the USSR. Once again, in relation to Robeson's life, the USSR has been blown way out of proportion by centrist and right wing scholars for obvious reasons. If one wants to say that his good sense was eventually assailed on certain issues, as Duberman maintains, it is still a POV. I can only explain to fans of Robeson that, with all it's defects, he saw no other country willing to work for change for oppressed peoples apart from Communist countries. Like many he was shocked, according to Harry Francis, when the 20th party congress was revealed but he was by no means 'blind.' 'Blindness' is viewing his actions from a 21st century hindsight perspective with all we know now and without firstly looking at the foul actions of the governments we all live and pay taxes in. Catherine Huebscher 15:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It was the Communism that caused the trouble with the State dept. and so on. There was a Cold War on, remember? Union leaders and civil rights activists as such had little trouble moving about. And you must know of the troubles all the white supporters of the Party had; they have been complaining about it for years.

That Roebeson thought that 'change for oppressed peoples' meant putting them under Communist rule is the whole basis of the charge against him. Equating opposition to that solution with lack of desire to address the problem is an old trick.

This whole response should be put in the article as an example of the huge blind spot that many people (like Roebeson) had and have towards Lenin and his friends, while accusing liberal Western countries of 'mass murder'. If you wish, tell us: who is the bigger murderer, Hitler or Stalin? The Communist or the National Socialist? Whatever your answer, we will learn something about you. 84.69.173.228 (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Union leaders and civil rights activists as such had little trouble moving about" No, history proves you wrong. Many, including my grandfather, were still blacklsited into the 1970's, people who simply donated money to civil rights,planned parenthood and the VALB etc. Also HUAC AND the state department was perfectly happy to let lynchings, KKK and Neo Nazis do their thing unabated, so why would Robeson trust the Truman era and its cronies? Civil rights only passed BECAUSE of Communist countries shaming the US into looking like hypocrites over what they called the "Free world" Please reread what I wrote. I'm well aware of where his good sense was assailed but not sure how that is historical; he was who he was and POVs don't belong in wikipedia articles. Also who was worse Hitler or Stalin is another tired and frankly uneducated argumentative question that many use to rationalize Hitler, absolve Germany and the mass murder caused by the US. The latest is that "Hitler was Left wing" and the attempts by those who use the USSR, an entirely different system and history, to compare with Nazi Germany as 'the same' Both Stalin and Hitler were evil and reprehensible. A higher body count means nothing and does not make one 'less' evil; ONE murder, in and of itself, is wrong and barbaric. In dealing in historical simplicities as you maintain, Robeson could walk freely in the USSR yet was nearly killed in Hitler's Germany within the same week. The Socialist experiment was still very new, Colonialism in Africa was unchecked, disgustingly exploitative and frankly not too far off from Hitler in many colonialist possessions. In his mind he obviously preferred the system that was working to decolonize. To say that it was simply going to be a communist version of colonialism is an opinion many CAN logically have in hindsight SIXTY odd years later, so how does that apply to Paul Robeson's life during the Cold War? He along with many people had a mistrust of the US and Western European Colonialist powers in regards to socialism and rightly so. Had the US and Europe worked fairly to decolonize Africa/Asia without simply taking the money, jewels, resources and running after a two century free/welfare ride, then Communism may not have seemed so enticing to many including Robeson as he loved the US and Europe wholeheartedly.Catherine Huebscher 19:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And add the above rant to it. I don't know anyone who mentions the fact that Stalin was worse than Hitler as an attempt to *defend* Hitler - but maybe we know different people. In any case, one who supports either is no friend of humanity, whatever leads him to it. Also, the union movement was strong and flourishing after the war, 'history proves you wrong' - what cheek.

Civil rights(CR) activists were mostly troubled by illegal lynch, not govt. action; association with the loathsome Communist movement by some of them led to many people opposing the CR movement on those grounds (the mixture of racist and anti-red motives can be seen in the article on Peekskill) Fortunately, the correct view that the CR movement was a genuine indigenous movement against real grievances prevailed, and it won. No thanks to Robeson and his kind, sorry.

Getting back to the article, some record of his reaction to various Communist race-based initiatives in the 1920's would be welcome. Such as the plan to declare all blacks in the USA citizens of a 'United Negro Republic' to consist of several Southern States, and deport them all there. This 'ship 'em all back' proposal was based on Stalin's nationalities policy in the USSR, and it was thought that it would appeal to the white worker (Jay Lovestone's memoirs). They did not start promoting full equality (for their own reasons)till Lovestone's fall from the leadership and a new line by the Comintern in the early 1930's. Some good people were sincerely taken in by this, of course.

References to 'anti-colonialism' in the article are vauge. Is there any record of Robeson's reaction to Communist efforts in South Africa in the 1920's? As in the USA, they sought to appeal to the white worker. They joined the Afrikaner-based Nationalists(Nats) in promoting a joint strike on the Witwatersand in the early 1920's. Their slogan was 'Workers of the World, Unite and Fight, for a White South Africa!' BTW, the Nats learned from Stalins nationalities policy too; it was the basis for the later apartheid system adopted in 1948, as its (democratic) enemies pointed out. Since the Nats. later turned against their old Communist allies, they did not push the connection, tho.

You do not see the similarities between Bolshevism and National Socialism? There is one who did: "I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I have never hesitated to admit." -A. Hitler (unlike the apartheid promoters, who did hesitate). If you speak Russian, reading Soviet newspapers put out during the period of the Nazi-Soviet Pact can also be very educational. The NY Public Libray and the Hoover Institution in Stanford, CA have extensive files. So, what was Robeson saying during the Pact? Did he see any similarities? Inquiring minds want to know.

'Civil rights passed because of Communist countries'..'the US was perfectly happy to let the KKK be unchecked'...'mass murder'...oh dear. But this post is already too long...

Now, if you would like to sample the variety of thought outside the Marxist loony bin about how colonialism developed backward areas ( a process supported by Marx, not that I agree), get Arthur Conan Doyle's 'The Crime of the Congo' (attacks the Belgians, supports the British).'Burden of Empire', from the 1960's is good too, as it lays out the differnt attempts to modernize under colonialism, and the differnt results. It also flatly denies that modern Africa's problems are the result of Western 'cut and running' but rather Marxist-inspired poor central-planning policies and the one-party state.

An interesting perspective is given by a man who founded a movement praised by Robeson, the Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole. His ZANU fought to end minority rule in Rhodesia. He was later pushed out by Robert Mugabe in the 1970's, emigrated to America, and wrote a devastating critique of his own former views and comrades (while holding steadily to his anti-colonial views). Hunt for a copy of 'Hammer and Sickle - Africa's Greatest Problem' by Ndabaningi Sithole. Did Roebson have anything to say about him then?

You will never be free of your delusions, I fear, we can only stop too many of them from getting in the article. I will just say that anyone who really wanted to know the truth about the Soviet Union, did (cf. honest progressive historian Will Durant 'The Tragedy of Russia: Impressions from a Brief Visit'-1933).

For future contributions, paragraphs are good. 76.191.135.66 (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm on an outside computer and can't sign in proper. Read my response in the npov section. Robeson's tireless work for trade unionism, anti-lynching, voting rights, the civil rights congress and decent roles for blacks onstage and screen easily qualifies him for a civil rights forerunner and a huge reason the movement gained momentum. he did not jump on the band wagon he built it. That's like saying black jazz and blues artists did not pave the way for The Who or The Stones. None of my "delusions" or your delusions are in here or are going to be by the way. Read King Leopold's ghost and communism does not look half bad. Your ideas of what was backwards about Africa and how great "colonialism lite" was need to cited in context to Robeson's life not an anti-Communist palimpsest pro-empire view of history. I'm sure there are many books that deny how awful colonialism was and rationalize the brutality or simply deny it happened ala Holocaust revisionism just as there were people who felt Capitalism was the root of all evil and Stalin's atrocities are over blown. We can only interpret Robeson via his own words and not seek to color him with our own. As for the CPUSA, Robeson was never a member and his interest in Socialism did not start until well after the 1930's. Had he been as hard core commie as you maintain he would have been jailed under the Smith Act like Gus Hall and Ben Davis were. Your want responses to occurrences that would have effected actual CPUSA members, not Robeson, who despite his radical opinions, was not an elected politician, UN member or historian but an entertainer, scholar and activist. CatherineHubescher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.201.238.12 (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In 1988, Robeson's membership in the party was confirmed by CPUSA General Secretary Gus Hall in a pamphlet entitled, Paul Robeson : An American Communist. [1] Hall wrote, “ 	My own most precious moments with Paul were when I met with him to accept his dues and renew his yearly membership in the CPUSA. I and other Communist leaders like Henry Winston, the Party's late, beloved national chair, met with Paul to brief him on politics and Party policies and to discuss his work and struggles."[9]" Cognoscente18 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Trying to use Conservapedia as a WP:RS. That's a novel approach. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh Conservapedia, what a joke. Besides Gus Hall became part of the right wing eventually and was never a close friend of Robeson. If he had been a memeber he would have been imprisoned.Catherine Huebscher Talk/Stalk 0:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

outside looking in.
seems very well done. take a sec to pat yourselves on the back. and thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.90.64.210 (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It is true. Malik Shabazz has been a huge help as have all the people kind enough to correct grammar. I think its one of the bet resources on Robeson available and hope to put in more time improving and finding the article and related links.Even if I don't see eye to eye always with who has been co-editing, they have been invaluable in protecting and refining the article. Catherine Huebscher 21:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
This article does not have it. It is filled with laudatory language. Being sensitive to the fact that there has been non-neutral edits in the past to make him out to be a Stalinist, I will try my best to neutralize it properly. Killua (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just finished edits, tried my best. It was fun reading the article and reading about this guy, whom I hadn't known before this. Great article! Killua (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks but sadly it show that you know virtually nothing about him as you yourself maintain. And while your enthusiasm is appreciated, with a subject this world famous and then subsequently erased from mainstream history its important to really have read up on him extensively.

eg: "Some states failing to stand up for people of color.." Is that to say states without Jim Crow were all standing up for blacks? Well they were not. I think its clear that the majority of white America was allowing lynching, segregation and poll tax to continue. One could say the "US government" instead of white America but then who elected them?

I think you need to do some very heavy reading about who Paul Robeson actually was before you go deeming any reference to his persecution the "white press" (you left Black in btw) or any reference to white supremacy as POV. You also have no cites. Virtually, Robeson's entire life as an activist was about challenging the world wide white supremacist/pro-colonist/fascist power structure. From the baseball field to African independence to anti-Lynching etc that is all anti-white supremacy activism not mainstream. Edits undone.Catherine Huebscher 21:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say I need to do much research to tell what is POV and what is not. 'Standing up for' is odd language for an encyclopedia. I think 'protecting' would be better language. The black press self-identifies as such, while the mainstream press did not identify as being 'white'. Therefore I thought that was POV. Generally do not need cites when POV language is obvious. Talking about 'white America' failing to stand up for something is POV because it blames white people for certain things--when of course there were tons of white people advocating civil rights and equality, and certain states did 'stand up' for the rights of minorities. Generalizing like that is racist and POV. Just because Paul Robeson was a famous civil rights activist does not mean this article has to adopt the language of civil rights activism.


 * My edits had concerned not at all any amount of knowledge I have of Paul Robeson. It is not civil to say that I clearly know nothing and therefore should not edit.Killua (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Catherine: Your "I know everything about Robeson and you know nothing" routine is wearing thin. Please read WP:OWN. — Malik Shabazz 18:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Killua, which entire states stood up? can you tell us when and how? Who were these tons of people? Do you have cites? You should still do research and you should still have cites, seeing as ENCYCLOPEDIC seems to be your operative phrase. Clearly, you have no idea what or whom you are writing about and yes, that does not preclude you from editing in any capacity but don't you want to have at least some knowledge of the subject you're editing?

"The black press self-identifies as such, while the mainstream press did not identify as being 'white'. '

Not true in regards to Robeson, please read Martin Duberman's Paul Robeson. There were entire all white staffs on a few of the paper's during Robeson's era that were "the white man's daily" it was either stated clearly or subtly but it was obvious where bias and racial attitudes fell. Robeson was kept off of US television by the all white management of NBC as well, that is white on black racism. That's not POV, that is history. A lot white American history in juxtaposition with Robeson, IS very, very ugly, that is not racist to cite; unfathomable as it may be to read for some, it is history. Just like Farrakhan is an anti-Semite who has lauded Hitler, it can't be taken "out of context."

'Generalizing like that is racist and POV. Just because Paul Robeson was a famous civil rights activist does not mean this article has to adopt the language of civil rights activism"

There is zero language that is civil rights activist. You simply do not know the history nor the subject matter, as YOU yourself have maintained. I just can't see how that qualifies you to understand nuance and subtly in a person's biography, Robeson is a vastly complex individual much more so than most as his life was filled with so many different events and eras. He spans post slavery via his father to the late 1970's. I'm white btw so please don't try to stereotype me as being "Afrocentric" ala "reverse racism" which is what I feel you are implying. We don't agree and that's ok, I can compromise on this and that is all that matters.

Mailik, I've read it, thanks, that is not my attitude, I actually think you speak for yourself when you say that and I think the way you've approached me has worn thin as well. We don't agree and that's ok, I can compromise on this and that is all that matters.Catherine Huebscher 6:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's obvious you feel great attachment to this article, and I agree with Malik's sentiments. You also have a bad habit of painting with very big brush strokes, and to talk about me not understanding nuance and subtlety because I struck out terms such as "white America" is ironic to say the least. This article would be helped by including specific instances of racism on the parts of specific white persons in the media establishment and not by huge generalizations. For instance, I would like to read about any mainstream newspapers that did self-identify as being the 'white man's' newspaper. Still, we can mostly agree on the current edit, although I am going to make a minor edit. Also, just as a note, I never maintained I know nothing concerning the civil rights movement in the mid-20th century. Just hadn't heard about Robeson. Killua (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Killua, I'm attached to HISTORY being told honestly without protecting white supremacy. I've read your articles and I would say the same about you and we do not share anything in common! I think statements like "some States" and "tons of white people working for Civil rights" are examples of wishful and imagined history. So again, where are those states who 'stood up'? As for papers, start with the New York Times, in 1890, who's all white staff and editor championed the lynching of 11 Italian Americans over their alleged murder of David Hennessy (this was when Italians were not considered "white" in the US) and then work your way through most of the white owned papers during the next 60 or so odd years. Apologies for lynchings, rabid and overt racism towards blacks, native Americans and any immigrants who had not yet assimilated and been able to become "white" (eg:Irish) is the rule not the thinly veiled exception or some imagined POV. White supremacy and right wing domination of resources and the working classes is expressed and defended in editorial after editorial, article after article. Robeson was a HUGE target, even before he expressed sympathies for socialism. Rankin, Bilbo, Dies etc those were proud KKK, N word shouting ELECTED members of congress, it's not a POV to call them white supremacists, they'd have been the first to admit it proudly. You still are speaking, self admittedly, about a person's life that you have no back ground in and I don't see how that is pro-wikipedia. You said you have knowledge of the civil rights movement; Paul Robeson is one of the main reasons there was a civil rights movement in the first place, which is why he was known as the "great forerunner", look up WEB dubois as well if you'd like. To not know those two very well is to have missed most of the crucial origins of the civil rights and stateside anti-colonialists movements, inter-war and Post WW11. And in regards to Robeson, to know little about the historically crucial black actors and singers of stage and screen who first shattered racist stereotypes propagated like law by the white media and the eugenics movement. Catherine Huebscher 9:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm complete fine with the inclusion of that quote from Duberman. But do you not understand why it would be POV to include its content and language without the quotation marks? In a biography you expect to see such language. In an encyclopedia, not without quotes. Killua (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Killua: I understand many things.Catherine Huebscher 12:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The subjective wording of this article is not in keeping with the standards of this encyclopedia, so much so that's it's a candidate for deletion, which would be unfortunate given the factual content.--173.79.138.229 (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

???Really? And examples of subjective wording are? Are you a registered user so I can respond? Thanks. Catherine Huebscher 8:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, we wouldn't want people to think he was a Stalinist, just because he accepted a Stalin peace prize, wrote articles villifying Trotskyites, and composed a eulogy on Stalin's death called 'To You, Beloved Comrade!'(New World Review April, 1953. Reprinted in 'Paul Robeson Speaks' ed. Philip Foner) Just to read 'Beloved Comrade' should settle the question for anyone.84.69.173.228 (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Oh Beloved comrade" was written during the period when Stalin was on the cover of Life magazine, had helped the US win WW2 and like Robeson many artists had little to no idea what his level of tyranny was at the time; Robeson was not the UN. Plus the USSR was offering much more to blacks worldwide than the US or Europe was. Congratulations on a popular choice though, it's the number one generic piece trotted out when trying to defame Robeson completely out of context. That speech out of THOUSANDS concerning theater, labor rights, socialism, anti-colonialism etc etc does not signify anything significant. eg: "Hero" and media sacred cow, Lindbergh was far more a Nazi, as was Ford, than Robeson ever was a "Communist" much less a "Stalinist" In regards to beliefs, Robeson was risking his own neck while Nazi sympathizers like Lindbergh were more than happy to risk the lives of others yet because he was white as were many other supporters of Stalin in the arts, he escapes retrospective vilification. to many historical sophists its as if Robeson was the only artist interested in the USSR's experiment and the only one who is ever mentioned negatively in that regard.Catherine Huebscher 8:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so Catherine. Just because Civil rights activists like to go on about how they were discriminated against does not mean that we are siding with them when we record incidents of discrimination which are documented in Reliable Sources. Neutrality in Wikipedia is not the same as Balance on US Television. Here we don't just report both sides. Here we examine both sides to see where they are right, where they are exaggerating and where they are wrong. We don't call people Stalinists. We do report what they said about Stalin so our readers can decide for themselves what label they want to apply. If a readers is looking for someones else's pre-digested opinion then they will have to go elsewhere. filceolaire (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

More poor history - he had no idea? 1953 was a time of euphoric relations between the US and USSR? No artist but Roebson was ever critised for slavish devotion to Uncle Joe? OH...

Of course people always bring the piece Roebson wrote on his Beloved up - it is damning; and not out of context either.

We should report what was said certainly. I suggest a link to the Beloved Comrade piece. C. Huebscher should add it, as she states earlier she has no problem with reporting anything Roebson said. Just as I have no problem with her adding any thin and tortuous rationalsation she likes. His own words are there, and deserve as large an exposure as possible. 76.191.135.66 (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a separate article about Paul Robeson and Communism which you should read. We mention his beliefs, his actions, O beloved comrade, in both articles the difference seems to be that you want a damning page when the article has to be inclusive AND historical not just the popular right wing mainstream media opinion or liberal whitewash. What you perceive as a rationalization is not in the article I can assure you. In my opinion 'o Beloved comrade' is not that big of a deal certainly not one to negate such a ridiculously talented and gifted human being. If I was to point where his good sense WAS assailed it would be an opinion and not relevant to wikipedia.I've been trying to find as many eye witness opinions about Robeson's knowledge of Stalin's atrocities and what he ultimately felt.Because he never made a statement about that matter it's complex to decipher.My best guess is that he wanted to encourage socialism in the Third World, wanted to stay out of internal affairs of the USSR (which he did) and was ultimately shocked and VERY saddened by out of control the Stalin regime became. User:CatherineHuebescher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.201.238.12 (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW: 1953 was rather late to learn of Stalin's true nature, even given every benefit of the doubt. The ACLU purged its members of Soviet influence during Stalin's show trials.  They didn't wait for Stalin's death.  Decades later, in 1948, the Soviets' Berlin Blockade made their true nature clear to anyone who'd forgotten.  Whatever we may like to think of Robeson, he wasn't an idiot.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hindsight in the 21st century is irrelevant to those who were actually there. Stalin did not and still does not speak for Communism and it's achievements and possibilities in the minds of many artists especially interwar and PostWW2 when there was a great hope that Marxism would change the world. Robeson was an idealist optimistic ACTOR and an ACTIVIST not a calculating politician or an envoy. The 1950's was also rather late to be talking about human rights which the US and Western Europe were having none of for black Americans, Africans, Asians etc I know about Reagan/CIA atrocities and Bush's atrocities, Clinton's etc etc but I don't repeal my US citizenship. Robeson's 'silence' is also another myth, as he told HUAC what he felt about Stalin and the USSR. It is clear from his OWN words that Stalin did not negate the USSR nor its peoples, Robeson wanted peace with the USSR not another war.People who sneer at Robeson's advocacy with peace with the USSR usually have no problem ignoring colonialism or their own countries atrocities! Once again speculating about why and why not is all POV material until you have cites and eye witness quotes its all just conjecture...Catherine Huebscher 21:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand his wishing that communists weren't lying when they claimed to care about human rights. People see what they want to see.  That's human nature.
 * That said, I don't see bad feelings for Stalin expressed in Robeson's HUAC testimony. But even if it's there, it's late.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"I don't see bad feelings" ?? I guess I'm one of the few white people on here that seems to get, very clearly, that Robeson did not want to play into the anti-communist white supremacist power structure of the US govt and intelligence community which had blacklisted him, taken away his passport and merrily let lynching and Jim Crow continue. I've never met one black scholar or wikipedian who does not get this even if they are anti-Communist:

"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."

AND "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."

Are you seeing a trend here? He called it a problem. Why you are surprised he did not condemn it and thus do exactly what the white supremacists and anti Communists wanted is baffling; he stood by his beliefs in the hopes that despite of USSR's internal problems which ,guess what, he actually was not responsible for(!!) that there might be reform in the future, why is that so hard to see?Catherine Huebscher 22:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This reads like an abject, fawning Stalinist panegyric of the kind that would have been cranked out by the Moscow franchise "Communist" Party in the bad old days of the 1930's. As such it should be made less disgustingly fulsome.Miasnikov (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Miasnikov Miasnikov (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You have reiterated an argument that you can join in via the discussion headings above if you choose. It helps if you cite actual EXAMPLES in the article and don't just throw out tired insults. Also read the tags at the top of this page and read the sub articles if you are truly interested. Thanks Catherine Huebscher 9:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also your claims are fictional. Apart from the Far right warblings of David Horwoitz which have proven dubious veracity, there are no neutral or scholarly writings of Robeson as a Stalinist or as a CPUSA Member because he wasn't either. Any sources you'll find are right wing bloggers and their urban legends who have no citations.Catherine Huebscher 21:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For Robeson to call the horrors of communism "their problem" is rather unimpressive. I doubt he told the Russians that racism is America's problem, and then refused to discuss it with them any further.
 * Communism's horrors weren't just "their problem" anyway. It became serious trouble for the Chinese a decade later, when tens of millions more were to die.
 * Note, too, that progress was being made for civil rights in the U.S. Truman desegregated the military in '48.  Brown v. Board of Education was in '54.  And it's not as though prejudice is unknown in communist countries.
 * BTW: The U.S. and the Soviet Union were not entirely allies through the fight against fascism.  The U.S. stayed out of the Spanish Civil War while the communists were enthusiastic supporters.  Then the U.S. was ostensibly neutral for the first part of WWII, while the Soviets were allies with Hitler.  But FDR did send arms and other supplies to Britain, and he did have some very aggressive policies.  It was during this period that communists supported "peace" movements very similar to those you see today.  For everything they say now about Bush you can find a parallel against FDR.
 * Most of those "peace" movements disappeared after the Hitler-Stalin pact ended. The communists stopped calling FDR a "warmonger," and then they eagerly supported his wartime policies -- including Japanese-American internment.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"I doubt he told the Russians that racism is America's problem,"

Randy, you really need to read up on Robeson! The imagined concept of Robeson talking to 'the Russians' makes no sense. For starters and repeated YET again, he was NOT a CPUSA member nor was he a political figure in Russia, he was a celebrated and beloved artist and an entertainer pleased with the Soviet experiment and how it worked against racism worldwide in the way HE perceived it-not how you perceive it. He also loved Russian culture, their languages, history and the everyday people. Many white Americans can't see a black man in this way which is a huge factor in his vilification to this day, not just his beliefs in socialism. This article is about Paul Robeson not how people think he should have led his life or judgments on his decisions. Secondly talking to "the Russians" sounds like really bad generic cold war speak. His close Russian friends NONE of whom served in government, is not the same as playing right into the hands of racist, white supremacist HUAC and condemning Russia! Do you really not see the difference?

The paltry and long overdue slow steps at desegregation in the US was largely due to a climate of international shaming, as attested to in editorials by Life magazine and the wretched NY Times plus many other periodicals that 'now, the USSR can't point out hypocrisy in our expression of the 'Free World' and 'liberty and justice for all' Justice Warren said that 'world opinion' and a huge factor in the ruling so there you go.Robeson biographer, Martin Duberman has said many times that even when Robeson was sidelined he was huge bargaining tool by black activists/ with the US government because of how scary he was to the white power structure.

I've changed the incorrect time line about Soviet and American alliance. As for your bit about Commuinst and FDR, its irrelevant to this article; Robeson was not a CPUSA member. Why are ypou complaining about the article? Please cite specific examples.ThanksCatherine Huebscher 20:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * His Soviet friends not being of the government doesn't matter. This WP article states very clearly that Robeson was a "political artist" with influence here and abroad.  Yet he refused to use that considerable influence to speak out on the "problems" even as communism and its problems spread.
 * I'm not aware of Justice Warren ever admitting that his court's decision was influenced by world opinion rather than his reading of the law. If so, that should be in the articles on him and his rulings.
 * Yes, I suppose "the Russians" does sounds like cold war speak. But even so, for all that loud talk of purportedly being against racism, the Soviet Union was culturally Russian.  Soviet leaders were western and central European.  The eastern Soviet nationalities were conscripted for wars but usually of lesser status.  The early cosmonauts had to be Russians free of Jewish blood for at least three generations.  The Soviets were, of course, eager to oppose racism in other countries when the downtrodden could be exploited.
 * I will add more to the article as opportunity strikes. I'll add a request here that if anyone knows whether Robeson signed anti-war petitions during the Hitler-Stalin pact, it should be noted here and in an appropriate article on the petition's source.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

" his reading of the law." Gee, seeing as the laws were on the books since the civil War and then corrupted by white supremacist garbage like the One Drop Rule and Plessy vs Ferguson it was not exactly a healthy and speedy route to "civil rights" for the US either was it?

"he was a celebrated and beloved artist and an entertainer pleased with the Soviet experiment and how it worked against racism worldwide in the way HE perceived and experienced it-not how YOU perceive it." How many times does it need to be repeated? I'm not sure why you are making this an anti-Communist discussion thread because none of it is relevant to this article. Perhaps you'll want to cite your sources and contribute to threads about the USSR? Regarding the Hitler Stalin Anti-Aggression pact, he signed no petitions according to two biographers; Duberman and Seton.As for the Stalin Peace Prize, virtually every name on the list of recipients is listed as Lenin. We need to find out wikipedia rules about how an award is denoted retrospectively once the name is changed and leave it once and for all. It seems no real difference but simply another tool anti-Robeson people use to twist history.Catherine Huebscher 11:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The topic of anti-communism related to this article. That it attracted racists is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the facts.
 * Robeson himself called it the Stalin Peace Prize. That was the commonly used name at the time.  It would be a twist of history to sanitize it here.  I wouldn't want to dilute the historical significance of the One Drop Rule either.
 * I asked about the anti-WWII petitions because Robeson ran with the same crowd (like Richard Wright) who circulated such things. If he didn't sign one, it would also be interesting to know why.  If you have citations on this then perhaps you can add them at some point.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That it attracted racists is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the facts."

It IS the facts. The US and the western Euro powers were doing nothing for people of colour but exploit the hell out of them when compared with the Communist experiments in the minds of Robeson and many other civil rights activists/artists. This article does not benefit from the opinionated hindsights and snark of those looking at their choices over sixty years on. This is an article about a fierce Anti-colonialist not the Africa Addio style apologist page! Certainly not enough to go to war against them, for what? A welcome home lynching? How does LENIN sanitize anything? How is he any better than Stalin, Castro etc in the eyes of an Anti-Communist? whatever. The Peace Prize means nothing to me but Foetusized is incorrect, not all the Stalin Peace winners are listed with the old title eg: W.E.B. De Bois so we need to find out what the wikipedia rules are for awards when their titles change.Catherine Huebscher 3:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The U.S. and western Europe were doing plenty for minorities. You, yourself, had alluded to the influence of "world opinion."  That influence included western countries whose opinions were far more important than communist ones.  Perhaps I should remind you that Plessy v. Ferguson was in the 1890s.  I do wish racial progress could have been instantaneous, but it simply isn't so.
 * You're acting as though communists have no racism. What were they doing for Soviet minorities like the deportations of various non-Russian ethnic groups?
 * To say that communists oppose racism, you'll need to show that they oppose racism in the Soviet Union and Cuba, too. (Venezuela isn't looking too good for Jews now either.)  Anyone can claim to oppose their rival's policies.  Otherwise, it's really no different than an American chastising the USSR for those policies while remaining quiet about lynchings.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? What was the Union of South Africa and Malan doing for minorities? Or Italy? Belgium? The US? You seem to be missing is that this is not supposed to be a debate between US (I actually do NOT disagree with you vehemently in many ways), this is supposed to be a fair and impartial look at Robeson life and how HE perceived Marxism, the US and the world as the son of a slave and a black artist coming of age in the Jim Crow US and in Europe during the 20th century colonial era, not how you or I feel about its perceived fairness or how he should have felt. Robeson loved America, it was where he died, he was pro-active, extremely so. Many artists who are activists do what they can but always protect their interests (Bono, Sting, Jolie etc), Robeson sacrificed himself to try and find a swift end to world wide white supremacy; its clear to me HE felt his ideals were NOT misguided. His time in the USSR is really only a comparatively small part of his life. He saw a new movement that was moving swiftly and followed it as many others did eg:Tony Benn, Pete Seeger etc both of whom escape virtually all retrospective vilification because they are white.Just the passport fight alone is about our constitutional rights NOT support of the USSR. Plessy vs Ferguson just shows you how white supremacist the US was/is and that the time line for the states dealing honestly with racism was and is still very long, I don't see the USSR as any better or worse and neither did Robeson.Catherine Huebscher 6:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say the U.S. and Europe ended discrimination. I only said they worked at it better than the Soviets did.  You've got to admit that the Soviets would have claimed to be critical of racism in America no matter what the U.S. did.
 * Neither Tony Benn nor Pete Seeger were ever considered to be near the mainstream. Benn is a hypocrite beyond words.  His collaboration with Islamists who kill civilians today, while personally claiming to want peace, is no different than how the old "peace" movements behaved during the Hitler-Stalin pact.  Seeger's own flip from "anti-war" to pro-war was largely forgotten, but only because his fans were either not serious themselves or not to be taken seriously.  As critical of Robeson's politics as I am (I will say his "anti-war" credentials aren't that much less convoluted), he's still better than any of them.
 * I think you're factoring racism too much into this. Robeson is not the only one to have been tripped by the McCarran Act.  Furthermore, HUAC may have had racists on it but that doesn't mean it was driven by racism.  There were, in fact, a lot of communists trying to influence the U.S. at that time.  Nixon and JFK both had their faults but their anti-communism wasn't driven by racism.
 * Of course the time line for dealing with racism in the U.S. was long. It was always destined to be a generations-long process.  Racism had to be handled on many levels: personal, community, local, state, and national.  But they were being dealt with in a way that the Soviets never even attempted for their own minorities.
 * I do agree that Robeson's perceptions are what matter when we discuss his motivations. But it needs to be stated that these were his perceptions.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"only said they worked at it better than the Soviets did." I can't agree. One country (the USSR) had a constitutional amendment making racism a punishable,illegal offense (article 123) and one country did not (the USA)Robeson walked and lived freely in the USSR and not in the USA. The generic rote response is that it was for Communist propaganda, whether it was or not is not the point, Robeson was still treated better in the USSR than in his own native country and the US cared more about the Red scare than Civil rights for blacks. Tony Benn is a friend of mine so I'm obviously biased but from talking to him and listening to him, its clear he believes you can't continually, as the US, tell the middle eastern countries what to do if you want peace. The UK and the US ruined things with Operation Ajax and in many ways crated Islamic extremism! Tony like Paul is a peace maker and you have to give every country a voice if you want to create peace. Robeson's personal feelings about the Hitler Stalin pact have been added to the Stalin section of the article btwCatherine Huebscher 6:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you're comparing how the U.S. treated critics of the U.S. to how the USSR treated critics of the U.S. And we are to totally ignore how the USSR treated its ethnic minorities (or black Cubans under Castro).  Surely, you must see the preposterous hollowness in that.
 * Civil rights in the Soviet Union were meaningless. Of course they had lots of rights on paper.  They had a free press, too, according to that constitution.  Reality was different.  But in the U.S., African-Americans had something like samizdat only in the deep south during the 19th century.
 * Robeson's personal feelings about the Hitler-Stalin pact are incomplete. A deal with Hitler giving the USSR half of Poland might be rationalized as a buffer necessary for Soviet security.  But that rationalization withers after Hitler is defeated, and the buffer space is no longer needed.  Stalin never gave back the territory he bargained with Hitler for.  I don't know what Robeson thought about that.  He probably ignored it.
 * Tony Benn colludes with terrorist groups who use children as human shields. There is no excuse for that.  You can believe whatever you wish to believe about his phony "peace" movement, but you should understand that history will not likely remember him very kindly after all is said and done.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is he pronounced "robe" like "probe" or "robe" like "toby"? 78.53.43.12 (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Great question. Many in the African-American Community traditionally refer to Robeson as Robe-ah-son, most likely because Robersonville, North Carolina was where the Robeson slave name originated and it calls back to that era. It is also a term of collective endearment, like Skip instead of Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Dr. King instead of Dr. Martin Luther King or Malcolm in place of Malcolm X. Robe-son (silent e) is how his name is commonly pronounced and in my experience the most common usage. I've never heard of Roby-son, though his college nickname was "Roby" or "Robeson of Rutgers."

Catherine Huebscher 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

GAN
I guess this page should be at least a GA. Sugesting contributors to go for WP:GAN.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
Trying to shorten it. His life and his stature is extremely big!

Catherine Huebscher (talk) at 11:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't do that. It looks great to me.filceolaire (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Per our style guideline the lead section should ideally be four paragraphs. At the current length it's well over that. Steven Walling 03:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Intro has now been shortened to 4 paragraphs with breaks and looks good.

Catherine Huebscher 10:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

scholarship
What was Robeson a scholar of? What scholarly work did he produce?/ I see from a gushing bio on google books, that scholar now only means "going to college", I did not know that, I thought you had to achieve something scholarly.--Radh (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are the one who left the nasty, pathetic lame comment..wow, how original, a Stalin accusation! You need new material. Robeson was something called Phi Beta kappa and valedictory at Rutgers so I guess that's achieving scholarship... He also continued in his life to study and publish almost monthly, papers of language, arts, music (especially the pentatonic scale) history and politics both in periodicals and via self publishing. He was a scholar at the school of African and Oriental languages as well. I highly recommended googling via Google Books Paul Robeson Speaks and actually reading about him thoroughly. His options as black man in his era were hugely limited as a means to publish as scholar as it was as they were for Robeson's colleague dubois. It is profoundly so that he was a driven scholar given his voluminous amount of collected writings and research papers which number well into the thousands.

http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Robeson-Speaks-Interviews-Celebration/dp/0806508159Catherine Huebscher (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, okay, but, then, how come an intelligent man, Renaissance man incarnated, did not notice, that Soviet Russia was one of the most racist countries in the world? No answers needed.--Radh (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why no indignation over the US's lovefest with Nazi-like South Africa under apartheid then? Does it only work one way for you or was that régime not as hurtful as the USSR? Are you black? Have you been mistaken as black ever? I'm assuming you and your family and ancestors have experienced little to zero racism in your life if you had then you might have more complexity regarding why people who have dealt with white supremacy are drawn to Marxism and progressive movements. One can easily argue that the USSR was no more or less racist than the states was pre 1970's. Robeson was not a one man amnesty international as well (who is?) and as he saw no other system willing to work for the rights of people of colour (he supported China, Vietnam and to a lesser extent Yugoslavia not just the USSR but people are fixated on this) and as the US and Western Europe sure as hell weren't, he explored socialism. He was a scholarly singer and a political artist who was pro-active without a "wait and be cautious" attitude. An experiment was happening in the USSR and many were hoping that the world would change and the people's workers revolution would happen there spreading out to exploited colonialist peoples. Robeson especially wanted to see black people worldwide out of bondage. Whether or not you agree with his choices, his timing and how his idealism appears in hindsight is not what this is about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Firestone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_Liberian_controversy

Catherine Huebscher (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A little surprised at the bias
I came to this article to read about Paul Robeson and I don't think I've ever seen such a hagiography passed off as a Wikipedia entry in my life. This article is extremely biased in its language and tone and reads like propaganda. I'd suggest it be flagged for lack of neutrality and be completely rewritten. Train60 (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Train 60


 * I agree. What it demonstrates to me is the peril of having a single zealous editor committed to "defending" the subject of an article.Trinite (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen you both on various Robeson pages in varying incarnations and try this often and it won't work. Your pov or my pov does not decide what occurred in history. Why not name your areas in the article that you can't deal with emotionally and actually back up your concerns? There are other discussions of this kind that have been opened so you may want to read aboveCatherine Huebscher (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @recent edit-remark by User Catherine Huebscher: As a student of communism you know, that there were communists who were not member of the national comunist parties, but belonged to its secret organisations, in Germany there was among others, the self-defense and (up to 1924) revolutionary group, M later called AM(ilitary)-Apparat, which merged more and more with the Russia-based information-gathering groups (political (OPGU) and Soviet Army information service; also very important was industrial espionage).
 * I do not know, if Paul Robeson or Agnes Smedley or Jay Leyda were actually members of any similar party organisation. The party was quiet happy about non-membership for prominent sympathisers, who could be presented as independent minds. Of course many artists like Bert Brecht really did not want to disappear into the ranks of the party, but have their cake (demanding collectivism) and eat it too (demanding a Swiss bankaccount).
 * The "very important" distinction between membership and non-membership simply is not at all important in case of people like Smedley or Robeson. Brecht at least was not the Stalinist at heart that Robeson (and Leyda) seems to have been. --Radh (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Pointless because you have no proof and are using assumption to label Robeson a card carrying member which he never was. He'd have been executed or would have died in jail like Ben Davis nearly did. The only point is your point of view and how you are embellishing history. Robeson had no Swiss bank accounts. You perhaps need to read much, much more about him.

I'm not a student of Communism by the way. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Still, I did add, to the intro, Robeson's affiliations with Communism which ARE 100% verifiable. I do appreciate and thank you for your opinions. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Brecht was the one with the Swiss bankaccount.
 * To my mind it does not matter, if Robeson was a party member or not - and I did not wish to imply that he was. He was very useful to the party as an outsider.
 * I'm not against all Stalinist writers: Langston Hughes and Richard Wright have been communists and Wright was a member for a long time. Hughes wrote some pretty awful political nonsense, but he is an important writer. Brecht was an even better poet and no KPD member and a pretty disgusting person (not counting the bankaccount).
 * I just think that Robeson also is a case of warts and all. You seem to ignore the warts completely; while you probably think, that I see only the warts.--Radh (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Stalinist" simply does not apply to Robeson, he was interested in Russia years before Stalin came to power and long after he was gone. The USSR played a relatively minimal role in when one takes account his entire oeuvre as a writer, performer and a public figure. The right wing press has perennially glomed onto the USSR and Robeson to justify his erasure. The fact that even wretched Time magazine has called him a CP member when there is no proof whatsoever that he ever was shows how deep the falsehoods go.

There are plenty of "negative" aspects to Robeson's life included here and in the sub articles, perhaps you are not able to see them or are expecting other aspects which are not verifiable but are yet long considered "fact" by pundits regarding the USSR? I've included countless things that the Left has wanted to rationalize or ignore about Robeson. Many come to wikipedia with fictions and beliefs backed up by zero research about Robeson expecting snippets of what they heard to be included in this article. Others want to add lionization and vanity embellishment to his life. I've tried to weed all of it out. A big factor working against any editor is that much of what occurred in the USSR has come from conflicting sources or from a singular source, usually Paul Robeson, Jr. KGB and even basic government archives in Russia have yet to be open to scholars. When they are, the researcher will need to be fluent in Russian to really get any new information. Meanwhile huge portions of Robeson's FBI files were destroyed or are inked out.

His life was actually not very negative when one looks at what actually happened without a right wing Republican Milton Friedman Christian style bias attached. I think it is hard for many white students of history and journalists (of all ages and eras) to accept a black male celebrity being a proponent and globally renowned friend of socialist countries. The under lying lesson in US education is that Black male celebrities who become political either go Muslim or stay close to the DNP.

He lived life entirely on his own terms with zero apologies. Those lives tend to be more "positive" than "negative" once povs are removed.

Catherine Huebscher (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is not whether the article includes more "positive" or "negative" aspects (such judgements often do lie in the eye of the beholder) but how things are presented: currently anything opposed to Robeson is painted in the darkest colours - whereas everything he is lauded, often employing hyperbole. E.g. the constant use of the term "persecution" opposed to his not simply supporting the "International Brigades" (who in turn are then misportrayed as merely defensive) but he did so "unwaveringly". And some facts are repeated over and over again.
 * The point is also not whether Robeson was a Communist Party member - that he has not been demonstrated to be one should of course be recorded* - but what he did. For instance, he sided with the Soviet Union in the Cold War - party member or not. Stalin is not an issue either (though that man ruled the USSR for most of its existence until his own death - so how can we really make much of a distinction) as the USSR was no paradise before him. (*But you can't simply argue that he certainly wasn't one because he was not jailed or something. Even most known Communists were not jailed, leaving aside the possibility that one was not found out.)
 * You may have tried to include things the left rationalises but often the rationalisation or some kind of glorification is included. You may decrie bias in reports about Robeson but then when you call it "Milton Friedman Christian" it becomes absurd.
 * I don't want to take your admiration for the man and his being unapologetic (since when did that prove anything?) away from you, but it has no place in the article, which should be neither condemning nor canonising. To cut a long story short: the constant laudatory language has to go, the rationalisations be cut down to a minimum. Str1977 (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * More examples: what is "fascism" in the United States. Segration is mostly a U.S. problem so why link it with other nations? You recently changed the previous "civil rights" to "human rights" - that's pure hyperbole as blacks in the U.S. (and elsewhere) were impaired in their civil rights - NOT in their human rights.
 * "Ardent involvement in the liberation of colonialist Africa was considered a threat to the U.S. government." is simply nonsense, as the U.S. government as well was bent on de-colonisation (as the article also notes, albeit focusing on the negative), which didn't sit well with their British and especially French allies (consider Indochina). True, in the Cold War Anti-Communism eventually outweighed Anti-Colonialism (though to my knowledge the U.S. did not support open colonial rule by Western powers) but one cannot detach anti-colonialist activism from its context. If the Robeson spoke in favour of North Vietnam, he was not simply advocating decolonisation. (Just an example, don't know right now if he did or not.) Why do I even have to explain this? Str1977 (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the worst examples: "and showing him that, ultimately, the struggles of oppressed people are due to inequities in the class structure of capitalism rather than racial divisions" How can one justify wordings like this, given Wikipedia's NPOV policy? Str1977 (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @"interested in Russia long before Stalin came to power". Robeson first visited Russia in 1934, when he was c.36 years old, Stalin came to power, when Robeson was c.26 years old. User: C. H. loves to admonish us dumb niggas at wp (you should read way way more before even thinking about editing here), but might want to brush up her own 101 knowledge of history a bit or, God forbit, even become a student of communism, before glorifying the prime U.S. fellow-traveller in the era of Josef Stalin's red-faschist rule.--Radh (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"User: C. H. loves to admonish us dumb niggas at wp "

Please stop using slurs that are offensive to my friends who are African-American and Black. Robeson was interested in Russia long before he became a wholly political artist. That perhaps does not fit in with your racist stereotypes but I can't address that, only you can.

"You recently changed the previous "civil rights" to "human rights" - that's pure hyperbole as blacks in the U.S. (and elsewhere) were impaired in their civil rights - NOT in their human rights."

REALLY?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Woodard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium

The American Renaissance stance where the defacto laws were in place so they were "of course guaranteed" does not apply in reality. Blacks were denied the free world, human rights, voting rights, civil rights during Jim Crow. There was not even the semblance of the Free world for them.

Str1977: Please do more research as your knowledge of Robeson is severely lacking. Which books have you actually read? People, including teachers at CAL who were not even fellow travellers lost their jobs for LIFE for donating money to the Brigades. It was sometimes called being "prematurely anti-fascist" That was and is still considered a Communist cause and thousands were persecuted for it. Robeson is considered by historians the most persecuted Black man in the history of the US. Who even comes close?

He was a hugely and diversely talented Renaissance man, all those aspects should be included in the intro. In turn, he was also tirelessly active in many causes that he was not given any credit for. Trade Unionism was literally as important to him as singing. Read the sub article and that is actually only a PORTION of his focus on unions.

I added clear references to Communism in the intro as to not whitewash so what is your problem with it?

"For instance, he sided with the Soviet Union in the Cold War - party member or not"

Wrong. He stood by the US his ENITRE life and his on record NOWHERE disparaging the US. He disliked the right wing US government BIG difference. If you are US govt. love it or leave it" than this article is not for you-you will never be satisfied. May I suggest John Wayne's article. Robeson  wanted a PEACEFUL co-experience and existence between nations and he wanted his first amendment rights guaranteed

Please stop going in with uncited material and stop dumping my citations without replacing them with any of your own please. You look like a joke with a grudge. Radh: please don't use the N word, it is racist and nasty.

""Ardent involvement in the liberation of colonialist Africa was considered a threat to the U.S. government." is simply nonsense,"

WHAT? have you read even the most BASIC history of the cold war and Colonialism? the STATE department sent flyers denigrating Robeson all over Africa which were ghost written by Roy Wilkins of the NAACCP!! IT IS ALL OVER HIS FBI FILES. I will add more references to this today.

"(though to my knowledge the U.S. did not support open colonial rule by Western powers"

Yes they did!! South Africa under Apartheid was a longtime friend to the US. The US only sucked and leeched off of colonial spoils along with the UK and other European countries for generations, Read about Operation Ajax and Firestone tires and dozens of other examples. Read about the US exploiting resources in Latin America. Please just read, both of you. This is disturbing. Because you both have no cites and have in such obviousness done virtually no research.

"If the Robeson spoke in favour of North Vietnam, he was not simply advocating decolonisation. "

I have a citation from Paul Robeson speaks and there are more than one. He wanted the country decolonised and he supported their emerging communist pepoples republic. HOW IS THAT A POV? It is verifiable FACT not an opinion!

If some aspects of the article don't sound neutral then they can be changed but getting fancy dancy picky picky on CITED material with no POV attached, why? Most of what I see that is lacking is more in the narrative story vein like what you changed in the Welsh section whichw was too "made for TV movie", not pov. But because YOU think he was a "communist" going in and trying to tag Robeson as a "Stalinist" is a joke and won't work. Spending brief periods in the USSR when you are not a CP member and have no active part in the political system or the CP, ANYWHERE on record does not make you a "Stalinist" or even a "fellow traveller" it simply makes you someone who spent time in the USSR and who was politically radical. Once again, as his life stacks up, it is only a small part.

Catherine Huebscher (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * CH,
 * Whether Robeson was interested in Russia before the 1930s or not is beside the point. He wasn't criticized for an interest in Russia but for a friendly attitude to the totalitarian Soviet Union, especially after it no longer was an ally of the U.S.
 * Re: human rights (glossing over the fact that WP is not a reliable source) - crimes like lynching occured and the protection blacks had as any other inhabitant (not even talking about citizens) was not properly implemented. But lynching wasn't legal at the time, was it? There's no such thing as "de facto laws" - there's law and there's fact (that's where the distinguishing terms derive from). As for voting rights etc. I agree with you but that's exactly the point: these are civil rights - not human rights. If I moved to the U.S. I wouldn't have a vote there.
 * Whether I have read books on Robeson is beside the point as I am not disputing any fact you state about him but a) the way these are presented and b) factual statements about historical events (about which I do know about).
 * You can laud Robeson as a "Renaissance man" all day long and my only objection would be to the term, not to his many talents. I also never said that "trade unionism" was unimportant to him. (BTW, he was a member of which union?) It just doesn't belong in the first line as it is part of his activism.
 * "Wrong. He stood by the US his ENITRE life and his on record NOWHERE disparaging the US."
 * Okay, I overread the word "misquoted"
 * BTW, I am neither "right wing" nor the "US government" - I am not even American! So you can spare your insults and WP:AGF.
 * Still, didn't he condemn the U.S. involvement in the Korean War? At least one source used in the article (probably put there by you) says so!
 * (Re another editor'S use of a bad word. He was clearly speaking sarcastically. But we all should avoid things that could be considered attacks - "all" includes you!)
 * A statement "Ardent involvement ..." (uncited BTW) is not the same as "The STATE department sent flyers denigrating him". The article already includes that latter fact - the former is indeed nonsense. If they did consider Robeson's group that way, that's another matter but you made a general claim about all "ardent involvement in the liberation of colonialist Africa".
 * As deplorable as the South African regime was, it was not a colonialist power in the strictest sense. And one Namibia doesn't make a general U.S. policy.
 * My reference to Vietnam was merely a hypothetical example. But if he indeed supported the Ho Chi Minh or Vietcong against South Vietnam, he did not support de-colonisation but the conquest of one state by a communist and nationalist regime. Let me be clear that to say he "wanted the country decolonised and he supported their emerging communist pepoples republic" is not POV - but if that is clouded under him simply supporting decolonisation (already achieved after 1954) and not also said totalitrian regime's expansionism, that is indeed a form of POV pushing and worse.
 * "If some aspects of the article don't sound neutral then they can be changed"
 * Well, that's what I am doing.
 * "But because YOU think he was a "communist" going in and trying to tag Robeson as a "Stalinist" is a joke and won't work."
 * I am not decided whether Robeson was a closet communist or simply a non-communist deluded into supporting communism. I never called him a "Stalinist" (not only because the label is pointless. Lenin was a mass murderer too, so was Trotsky.) Speaking out pro-USSR (and allies), receiving a Stalin Peace Prize is support of that regime.
 * Str1977 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To Str1977:

From Issac Woodard's article:

"The behavior of the defense was no better. When the defense attorney began to shout racial epithets at Woodard, Waring had it stopped immediately. During the trial, the defense attorney also stated to the jury that "if you rule against Shull, then let this South Carolina secede again."[9] After Woodard gave his account of the events, Shull firmly denied it, claiming that Woodard had threatened him with a gun, and that Shull had used his nightclub to defend himself. During this testimony, Shull admitted that he repeatedly struck Woodard in the eyes.

On November 5, after thirty minutes of deliberation, Shull was found innocent on all charges despite his admission that he had blinded Woodard. The courtroom broke into applause upon hearing the verdict.[8] The failure to convict Shull was perceived as a political failure on the part of the Truman administration. Shull died in Batesburg, South Carolina on December 27, 1997 at the age of 95."

Let me repeat again what you wrote:

"You recently changed the previous "civil rights" to "human rights" - that's pure hyperbole as blacks in the U.S. (and elsewhere) were impaired in their civil rights - NOT in their human rights."

Do you really believe you should be writing and editing pages about Black Americans? You sound very racist and bias against them.

Catherine Huebscher (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagined that you would call those with opposing views on this article "racist" at one point but I didn't imagine it would happen so soon. I don't understand how pointing out that in the 20th century black Americans suffered injustices and were grossly hampered in their civil rights is racist. But "human rights" is something else. They were deprived of their human rights in the 19th century.
 * And I am neither biased nor do I have a bias against black people (American or otherwise) - I am biased against POV pushing, bad writing and against article OWNership.
 * And I also have something against totalitarian regimes like the USSR. I don't let that view however cloud my editing. I will not turn Robeson into a villain because he (for whatever reasons) supported said regime. I can even understand how he (and others in his time) got there. Still, facts must be truthfully reported and not buried under rhetoric. Str1977 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. I don't see how scandalous judicial procedures you quote have any bearing on the matter. Str1977 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you please kindly refrain from ordering me and others around like some racist retards? It is you who are a  sympathiser of one of the most evil societies seen on this planet, not us.--Radh (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Catherine, please read WP:OWN. Your possessiveness of this article is beginning to be a problem. Many of the points raised here (a) have been raised by other editors in the past (see the archives) and (b) are valid. (And I say that as someone who greatly admires Robeson and has read three books about him and one by him.)


 * With regard to "civil rights" and "human rights": Robeson believed that the problems of African Americans were human rights issues, and he intended to bring them before the United Nations. He hoped the newly independent nations of the Third World would support him. (The distinction here is that civil rights are a domestic issue and human rights an international one.) Malcolm X was planning to do the same thing before his assassination. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. In contrast to what Catherine immediately assumes, I do not hate Robeson. I am no expert on him but thus far I have heard good things and bad things. And even the bad things I can understand where he was coming from.
 * Robeson's views on himself and his activism is certainly important (but not to the detriment of everything else) but whether he campaigned for human or civil rights or which kind of rights were denied to blacks at the time is not a matter of subjective opinion. The movement is called "civil rights movement" for a reason. Str1977 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

malik, there is no "problem" with the article. Any stress is being kept on the discussion page, here. This is a volatile subject who's life has to be referenced with reliable sources not interpretations of how a human being is supposed to have acted in a preordained historical context conducive to one's personal beliefs. As you can see from my recent edits I'm putting in more references to the USSR which most fawning Lefties want removed AND I'm cleaning up my previous work and narrowing the focus with cites. Str1977 wants to "win" and it has become personal to him which is why he is going in with UNCITED material while admitting that he has read nothing about Robeson's life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson_and_the_labor_movement

Robeson held honorary membership in at least half a dozen unions at one time. His Union advocacy was central to nearly ENTIRE adult life. If it is too much to compute that all of this focus and determination came out of one human being for some to accept then I can't help those who feel this way, that's history. Str1977's on the intro look sloppy and make no sense chronology because he has no real knowledge or references of his subject.

Radah: using the N word is racist in my books so we agree to disagree and I hate Stalin. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Catherine, in this section five editors agree there is a POV problem with at least parts of the article. There has been similar discussion in the past. Your attitude of "I'm right and you need to read more about Robeson" is unacceptable, and if you don't stop I'll bring this article and your behavior to WP:AN/I. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does writing the N word have any repercussions in wiki etiquette? That is NOT my attitude and I feel as you have in the past that are pulling rank and that you are unfairly painting me with broad brush strokes. I have an intent of publishing cited material first and foremost and correcting any "magazine style writing" that myself and others may have inadvertently done. Writing a very large controversial article cannot be a flawless job and I have always maintained that i've made mistakes. But I DO cite my work. I thought content on wikipedia research and references were cornerstone not editors ganging up on users. When str1977 comes through he deletes research citations and replaces it with zero cites please tell me why is that acceptable? Because he is an editor? I cannot find these answers in the rules. Thanks. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And does telling untruths have any repercussions here?
 * Faced with criticism of her bold assumption that it made all the difference in the world if somebody had been a card-carrying member of the cpusa or if he was not, user: C. H. says she was no student of communinism.
 * She wrote the wikipedia entry Paul Robeson and communism.
 * Facing the common sense assumption, that Paul Robeson, like Hughes and Wright was a Stalinist; if he has been a communist in his time, she says: he was interested in Russia long before Stalin. Paul Robeson first went to visit the Soviet Union in 1934. Later, user: C. H. asserts, that Robeson was interested in culture only at first, not in politics. C. H. obviously has not thought through her strategy: if Robeson became interested in politics only at the height of Stalinism, this obviously makes him not less, but more of a Stalinist.
 * And all this from somebody who likes nothing betterm than to put "us dumb n...s" in our place here - which was my contibution to hate speech here.
 * She either does not know sarcasm, or even irony, or she tries to denounce me in the neostlinist political correct fashion. And operating with a now blatant untruth: I obviously have not used the N-word for anybody but myself (and the other user who here has been told off at least twice by user: C. H., sorry about implying him here.
 * But then, shouldn't it be his  turn to be insulted by me? User C. H. knows that perfectly well and out of nowhere brings on African-American friends (Wikipedia readers, the user tells us) to feel insulted by the N-word.
 * P.S.: If I insulted user: C. H., it would be the other way round, by implying that the user was assuming the behavior of a slavedriver. I apologize for that and like to say, that C. H. does not like to behave toward her critics like a school-principal or slave-driver.
 * @Paul Robeson and Stalinism. His vocal support of the Hitler-Stalin pact, his public lying about the murder campaign agains Jews (post 1945) and murder of a famous yiddish-language writer (a person Robeson knew), makes Robeson a Stalinist. Ezra Pound of course was a fascist perhaps without ever having dreamed of becoming a party member.
 * Robeson, wittingly or unwittingly was the foremost cp propagandist in the USA in the time of Stalin. To have lived in this time of course was not the fault of Robeson, George Oppen, Richard Wright or Langston Hughes, but strangely enough Wright and Hughes and Claude McKay had some political sense, while some people like criminal and writer Chester Himes and the genius Robeson, the great scholar, went to their grave true believers in revolution. Which wish for the Second Comming of World Communism in Robeson's case did not include the USA, or so user: C. H. tries to tell us.
 * I hate Stalin, C. H. volunteers out of the blue. i certainly had not asked her to declare herself one way or the other. I did not think, that C. H. truely loved Stalin. Only to be way too protective towards Robeson. I myself? Haven't got any feelings for Uncle Joe. --Radh (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to run so just a short response in this section. More will follow.
 * If several editors detect problems with the article, one should conclude that there at least might be problems. Problems are POV, especially in the unencyclopedic tone it talks about Robeson and his opponents (e.g. unwavering vs. persecution, facism), about its shirking the political context, in overgeneralisations (e.g. because the State Dep attacked Robeson for anticolonial acitivies, all anticolonial activies must have been deemed bad - especially if, as Radh states, Robeson's support of Stalin goes back to 1939. This link would make de-colonisation activism by him suspect in the first place.) Some issues are also one of factual accuracy, some merely of style, e.g. Various things are repeated again and again.
 * It is also unhelpful that one editor constantly comes up with false alternatives: the point is not that the article should declare him a Stalinist or a party member or when he was "interested in Russia". "Stalinist" is a pointless label, unless Robeson took part in debates with Trotskyists (since he supported the USSR in the 1930s this would however make him a Stalinist in this regard*) or after 1956 (in the context of destalinisation). I propose that we focus on facts rather than epithets. The political context of his activism and why those that opposed him (by whatever, even unacceptable means) did so.
 * (*Addition: oops, see Section 9.3 of the article - it seems that Robeson indeed was a Stalinist and not so in favour of civil rights for everyone.)
 * It is also a bit rich that CH penned a sub-article* on a subject she knows nothing about (Communism) and then tells others to get lost because they know nothing about Robeson. I do know little about him but I learn as I go. Because of that, any complaints about me removing information from the article is ridiculous. My editing is based on the previous (CH-penned) versions and regarding the facts I presume that the previous version is correct. That is unless I see something that is glaringly not accurate. However, in the vast majority of cases, my edit pertain not to facts but to wording and perspective.
 * (*Why do these sub-article even exist. Isn't that a case of undue weight. Robeson was a great man but he was not that huge that he warrants all these "P.R. and ..." articles.)
 * CH, to protect Robeson's legacy and talents need not be the same as keeping this article a hagiography where anything critical is verboten.
 * CH, please don't block Str1977 (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Radah:I know a great deal about Communism and Paul Robeson. I assumed by "student" that you were implying as you continually have that I was a CP member or support Stalin. Robeson was not A Stalinist according to every major biographer, including Duberman and just because he only VISITED the USSR in 1934 does not mean he was not interested in RUSSIAN and socialism long before that. Why do you assume with zero research that he was not? Another stereotype. Once he arrived in London in the early 20's he was at various times and to varying capacities talking to visiting Soviets, Africans and intellectuals about the USSR. And he had interests in and exposures to Russian and Jewish culture going as far back as childhood. It IS documented. But neither you nor str1977 have researched and have brought unanswerable "factoids" about him here. "Robeson was the number one Stalinist of the US" agenda is a long debunked joke as is is his non existent CPA membership.

Str1977:I have no problem with printing reality. The Trotsky followers, the sections on Stalin, anything that a lefty would dislike were all edited and added by me. I have no issue with many of your edits either but the intro looks and sounds wane and povish now. You have to provide references and can't simply dump or move those around that were there. Cites need to be specifically placed to make sense or they link to nothing relevant. I did put in cites, why not you?

Catherine Huebscher (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * CH,
 * Sorry, if Robeson called Trotskyists Fascists and advocated denying them the civil rights he demanded for others, if he insisted on peace with the USSR and China because they are "decent people", he does (whether wittingly or unwittingly) act as a Stalinist.
 * But you keep on harping about irrelevant things: whether he was a party member, whether he was "interest in Russia" early one.
 * You may have inserted these sections but the article still breathes a totally hagiographic air. That will not do. Also, you may have inserted these sections but you totally give no context for the reader to understand. If a reader totally ignorant of 20th century history would read this, he would conclude that Robeson indeed was for civil rights for everyone - and that those he wished to deny them were indeed evil, evil fascists. Now, I am no fan of Trotsky, himself a mass murderer when he was in power, but if one insists on civil rights for (pro-Stalin) Communists, one cannot logically deny them to Trotskyists. That reader would conclude that Robeson was for peace with all nations and that USSR and China must indeed have been "decent". Str1977 (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That has strange logic. That would make many US presidents "fascists" and even a few "Peronists" and would mean it should be inserted directly into their articles along with Pete Seeger and dozens of other white public figures who don't have you or Radh showing much concern for their support of the USSR-support that out weighs Robeson's in many cases. I'm taking as much pov and fanciful, (not all or even much of it may work) out daily, it will take time but as you can see I am committed to making what is here much better and to compromise-just not to the right wing agenda which has continually and incorrectly defined Robeson. Martin Duberman has stated Robeson, while BRANDED a Soviet apologist, was not a "Stalinist". I think the Distinguished Professor of History Emeritus at Lehman College and the Graduate School of the City University of New York and other historians (including those who disagree with Duberman) should be referenced not unresearched conjecture. I will of course change the sections so one can see that this is not Saint Robeson. I need a sub-article to explain this properly. its not done in sound bites. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 07:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Introduction issues
"But "human rights" is something else. They were deprived of their human rights in the 19th century." I guess you believe having your eyes gouged out and having the perp do zero time behind bars is on par with not having the ballot?

"some 41 lynchings occurrence in 1946 alone, Robeson and others spearheaded the campaign for anti-lynching legislation...blacks did not have the ballot, segregation went unchallenged, there was as all this talk of the 'free world' and there was not even the semblance of human rights or freedom for blacks around the world at that time."

-Sterling Stuckey Professor of History, UC Riverside


 * Lynchings and other crimes against blacks were not legal, even prior to the Civil Rights movement. Blacks were suffering from authorities' unwillingness to uphold the law.
 * Furthermore, you recently changed the long standing "civil rights" to "human rights" - with no justification whatsoever. Str1977 (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Narrowing the focus to the intro editing conflict
This is a mostly all new intro sans additional citations to be added soon:

Paul LeRoy Bustill Robeson (April 9, 1898 – January 23, 1976) was an American bass-baritone concert singer, recording artist and actor who became noted for his political radicalism and pioneering work in both the human rights and civil rights movements. Called the "greatest football player of his era", Robeson was an All-American athlete, Phi Beta Kappa Society laureate and valedictorian during his years at Rutgers University. Becoming an attorney after graduating from Columbia Law School in 1923, Robeson drifted into amateur theatre work. Within a decade he had become a world famous star of stage, screen and film. Robeson would go on to be a recipient of the NAACP's Spingarn Medal, the Stalin Peace Prize and of honorary memberships in over half a dozen trade unions for his prodigious labor activism. In 1972, Ebony Magazine named Robeson one of the "Ten greats of black history." Though one of the most internationally famous cultural figures of the 20th century, blacklisting by the media over his support of the Communist countries during the Cold War, has largely kept Paul Robeson out of mainstream interpretations of [[US history, including civil rights, sports and black history.

The first major concert star to popularize the performance of Negro spirituals and the first black actor of the 20th century to portray Shakespeare's Othello on Broadway, Robeson's run in the 1943–45 Othello production currently holds the record for the longest running Shakespeare play on Broadway. His roles in both the US and British film industries were some of the first parts ever created that displayed dignity and respect for black film actors, paving the way for Sidney Poitier and Harry Belafonte. At the height of his career, Paul Robeson chose to become a wholly political artist. After numerous inter-war period visits to the U.S.S.R, where Robeson proclaimed he experienced no segregation and "walked in full human dignity for the first time", he also became a staunch advocate of the Soviet Union.

Robeson eventually became a prime target of the Red Scare during the late 1940s through to the mid-1960s. Post World War II, Robeson publicly stated that the United States and many Western European powers, had failed both people of color and the working class of all races in the struggle for basic human rights. Robeson urged U.S. blacks not to serve in the United States armed forces until the U.S. government in his words, "fully abolished" Jim Crow and passed federal anti-lynching and civil rights laws. In 1950, Robeson's passport was revoked under the McCarran Act effectively blacklisting him when he refused to sign an anti-Communist loyalty oath with the United States Department of State. His work towards anti-imperialism in Africa was cited as a prime reason.To date, Paul Robeson's FBI file is one of the largest of any entertainer, requiring its own internal index and unique "status of health file." To date, there is no official evidence of Paul Robeson having ever been a member of any Communist organization.

Under very heavy surveillance by both the FBI and the CIA and publicly condemned for his beliefs by both the United States Congress and mainstream black organizations including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Robeson was denied the opportunity to work as an entertainer in both the US and abroad. Robeson's right to travel was eventually restored in 1958 when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to lift a citizens passport due to their politics. During the early 1960's, Robeson's already faltering health broke down severely while on tour in Europe under controversial circumstances. By 1965, he would be forced into permanent retirement. He would spend his final years in reclusion living with family in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remaining unapologetic about his political views and career. Present day advocates and historians of Paul Robeson's legacy have worked successfully to restore his name to numerous history books and sports records, while honoring his memory globally with posthumous awards and recognitions.

Catherine Huebscher (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I really worked hard to improve what was there and I have gone through countless FBI files to back up the above up 100% and plan to include many more citations IF people in this conflict feel this intro works. This is one of the most controversial people in modern history so people need to see the information. I move to suggest Radh should not be included in this dialogue, he's left foul comments with racial slurs and nasty expressions ("Stalinist piece of ****) on this page.

I like the changes str1977 made to the Welsh section etc. I do feel taht his intro edit reads quite cumbersome now. Expressions like "contrary to popular belief", "vocal friend" , "card-carrying member", "limited activity resulting from outside pressure ", "committed and unapologetic" have nothing to back them up.

"a supporter of socialism, domestically and internationally" This is 100%  unverifiable as well. Or it at least implies he wanted a socialist US which is not verifiable.

Catherine Huebscher (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The version above is an improvement but still not good enough. It includes too many details for the intro and still problematic regarding POV, using loaded words like "persecution".
 * It also contains unintentional absurdities like "the U.S. government abolished Jim Crow".
 * Maybe improvement will have to start with the sections, not the intro. Str1977 (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not care to work with fantical leftists or with people too economically with the truth [see above for details]. But I also don't like you to dictate the terms of debate here. --Radh (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * CH, Radh has every right to contribute to this article and talk page. I have not seen him use racial slurs except for one, obviously sarcastic occurence, in which he referred to himself. Whether he contributes is entirely up to him. Some things you said, CH, are offensive to others too. And yes, you actually personally attacked other editors as racists. But I want to leave that name calling behind and work productively towards improving the article. Str1977 (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well then, I guess you are still here. In regards to the new intro above do you agree that it looks and sounds much better then what has been up in the past? Robeson's entire life was largely NOT about communism despite the fact his issues with the US govt were.

People only believe what they are told by the mass media. eg: Jayne Mansifield had very small breasts compared to Sophia Loren yet many think Loren's askance look during the famous Romanoff photos mean she was jealous and angry. She may have been upstaged by Jayne but not due to size but due to vulgarity. Jayne Mansfield looks small and saggy in the photos, not a crime of course, but nearly universally she is associated with "huge boobs" and "a massive chest." Unless breastfeeding (which makes most women big)she was a smaller breasted woman: http://www.posters.ws/images/339540/jayne_mansfield_sophia_loren.jpg

I'm not saying you believe EVERYTHING you are told but I've found with Robeson that right wing people have put forth so much fantastic unverifiable information about him that it is mostly fiction. The mass media, which as a whole is on the right, even the BBC world service, has ritualistically and incorrectly called PR a "CP member" or an "apologist for Stalin." He apologised for NOTHING. EVER. nor did he ever push a Stalinist agenda to the Black community or even fans. His words about Stalin are quoted in the section about HUAC. He was a visitor in the USSR under Stalin never an active political resident nor a CPUSA member. The only source that has EVER come to light of PR being aware of purges has come from his son who has given varying accounts over 30 years after the supposed fact. I was able to find other sources which corroborate and deny, PR Jr's account. Even if he was aware, that still does not make him a Stalinist. Richard Burton stayed with Tito many times and passed him to journalists, that does not make him a Titoist. Tito killed many people too. Writing a tribute to one of our recent Presidents when he dies does not make one a killer of babies in Iraq. Bill Clinton, Obama and the Bushes have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people if not more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson_and_communism

The should ideally not be merged, that is why it was moved into a larger sub-article in the first place... The main article was tagged as too long. A giant of a life needs sub-articles. much of that sub-article is very neutral and parts of his actions sound very unflattering to its subject. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * CH,
 * "I'm not saying you believe EVERYTHING you are told but I've found with Robeson that right wing people have put forth so much fantastic unverifiable information about him that it is mostly fiction."
 * Could you please stop these insinuations. I am not an American and have heard about the politics of Robeson only recently. Whatever your spectre, the "right wing" has stated about Robeson - I have not heard it!
 * Our dispute is not about any factual statements about Robeson currently in the article (as far as I can see) but about how they are presented and put in context.
 * Your "A giant of life" statement shows that you lack perspective. Robeson was not such a "giant" any more than hundreds of other people. They cannot all have various "... and ...." articles on them.
 * The main content problem is with your failure to factually appraise Communism and Communist rulers, as your comparisons of Stalin, Tito and U.S. presidents seems to indicate. You try to paint them all with one brush. No U.S. president has organised a system of labour camps operated under the principle "death by labour", no U.S. president has wilfully starved a country, no show trials, no assassinations of exiled rivals by sending fake lovers. Tito was not in Stalin's league but still he did many things that no U.S. president even contemplated.

"Giant" of a man is talking off the cuff. it means a VERY wide and varied life with a voluminous history which what he is. I TOTALLY agree, the articles need to be clean up. No argument.

" No U.S. president has organised a system of labour camps operated under the principle "death by labour", no U.S. president has wilfully starved a country, no show trials, no assassinations of exiled rivals by sending fake lovers. Tito was not in Stalin's league but still he did many things that no U.S. president even contemplated."

What is this then?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-Q0PNxVSkio/Safa_HN0blI/AAAAAAAAAyA/BtEyLaGGr8M/s400/695477-Mai-Lai-Massacre-0.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973

Opening fire on BONUS marchers? Mai Lai? Vietnam? Chile? Nicaragua? Indonesia, Guatemala, mass murder by US soldiers in the Philippines with executive approval, Operation Ajax? Iraq? Pumping how many MILLIONS in Apartheid in South Africa which was a WHITE supremacist regime with one of the most grotesque human rights records of all time? A post-regime of systemic hatred between races that now has whites as well as blacks suffering and living in fear? Are you really telling me that an assumed higher body count absolves US Presidents of the brutal deaths they have caused MILLIONS of innocent people makes them "not as bad" as Stalin or Tito? The Nazis they hired after WW2 via Blowback does not show collusion with mass murderers? That Robeson is a "Stalinist" indirectly responsible for millions of people put into Stalin's Labour camps and "advocating it" (that is what a Stalinist is after all, not simply a friend of the USSR) but Nixon or LBJ-even Kennedy-is NOT responsible for baby killing and the rape of children and the brutal mass murder in Vietnam? Overthrowing nearly every Latin American government for generations, including those elected democratically, is NOT fascism and mass murder? What IS then? I'm serious. Please tell me. I'd like to know. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Subarticle about PR and Communism
Ideally this should not be merged. firstly because the main article will be far too long (it was tagged as such which is why it was created) and because the in depth subject matter is obviously very pivotal. I've been cleaning up all the POVs and TV movie language and of course welcome any and all help. It is looking less bias, less messed up and I feel it will be a great page when cleaned all the way up. I made huge errors on what I first put up but I AM trying to learn to be better at less povs and leading of the reader. The subarticle allows for more direct quotes from Robeson about the USSR which means less bias on both sides of the political spectrum. I'd like chance to continue to fix it up and add more cites in the next few days and then have an admin review it. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it is not that long because there is so much to say about the matter but because a failure to be concise. This article can include all the noteworthy information about PR and Communism and still not be too long. Even more so for the other "PR and ..." articles. Str1977 (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And in what way is there "little to say" about the matter? You seem to be new to Robeson's history so please explain how you've arrived at this "conclusion."

Wikipedia is information that is disseminated for educational purposes and I fail to see why a comparative no talent like Madonna who has more subarticles than PR does warrants three times as much information while PR does not, simply because the latter is a sacred cow of the modern media. His erasure from history does not make his magnitude or the scope of his life any less greater than it was.

I have not even added his interactions with the CPUSA and Ben Davis, Earl Browder etc etc etc etc yet. These matters cause have and still cause huge controversy and are subject to false claims by both the Left and right. Indepth is key NOT a simple survey.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bustill?
A book on Robeson's films, P. R.: Film Pioneer claims that Bustill was in fact only a late and fanciful addition (of his wife in her early biography).--Radh (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Duberman has it removed as well as do four other bios.--Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Persecution definition
Being hounded by the FBI to the point where they are taking the wheels off of your car, keeping a sinister and unusual "status of health" file, and even stealing your language notebooks for THIRTY YEARS, having your passport lifted until EIGHT years later when the SUPREME COURT rules that it is unconstitutional and being condemned in congress for political beliefs is NOT persecution? Then what is it then Srt1977? just being "bothered"? "Harassed"? For THIRTY YEARS? Until you can't work because the FBI is showing up and FILMING the audience and taking down license plate numbers and THREATENING FORECLOSURE of black churches? That is NOT persecution? Please, please tell me what IS then. I can quote historians who have called Robeson the most persecuted Black man in the history of the US. The historians should be quoted in the intro then. He was the most persecuted black man in US history via the gross violations of his civil liberties. It is well documented.talk 8:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is not the slightest proof that the FBI took the wheels off his car, even if the accident was caused by somebody tempering with the car. And 1 of the wheels came off (source: his son's biography). This whole ranting (the most persecuted Afroamerican man in U.S. history!) shows that C. H. is blinded by excessive admiration for her subject.--Radh (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I'm going by thousands upon thousands of pages of CIA files and FBI files, Peekskill Riots and being condemned by congress. Lifting a citizens passport while the KKK and others slides is persecution and prejudice targeted so disproportionately at one individual for no credible reason other than they were being black and "uppity" to the white supremacist power structure. The New York Times in a major editorial agrees with me so that's a cite and its going into the article. He was persecuted and it is a foul part of US history. Totally inexcusable when so many other white people had the same beliefs and were famous and yet did not have their passports lifted and were not hounded by the FBI and the CIA and even the state department!talk 7:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC


 * WP is about information, not inflammation. Better simply report what happened and who did what. Repeating a label over and over again is not helpful. Str1977 (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It makes more sense than DENYING it over and over again. Historians and many who's cites are going into the article have called him "the most persecuted black man in US history-then or now." its not a POV, its a fact. Lifting a passport when the KKK, lynch mobs and Lincoln Rockwell are free to roam unabated is targeting and persecuting one for their race and beliefs. All the sophistry in the world won't change that. His inexcusable treatment is shameful to white US history. There is even a four page memo from the state department instructing the NAACP with bullet points how to defame Robeson. how bribes were involved and how to word what they write so it could be distributed all over Africa. And how to manipulate the words to sound "sympathetic." That goes beyond persecution to some kind of perverted fascist stalking and that's not even close to the worst of what they are on record as doing to him. The white supremacist power structure persecuted blacks during the pre-Civil rights era. It's what they were bred to do as animals, be it as government officials or as lynch mobs. (talk) 8:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Despite all your grave talk and your indignation against one misguided use of the N-word, it is you who is disregarding the plight of all those black man who were treated much worse than PR when you call him "the most persecuted". Yes, he was treated harshly but then again, he also was in cahoots with a totalitarian, murderous regime. But all that doesn't matter - POV is POV but WP must adhere to NPOV. Str1977 (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Explain how Paul Robeson was in "partnership" with the USSR and colluding and conspiring together secretly. Advocating Communism is not the same as working for the USSR as a spy. You are using bogus fiction. If you apply "cahoots" to Robeson in that logic, then you also apply it to yourself assuming you are from the UK/Europe. The Europeans made mass murder and rape of African/Asian resources a celebrated art form and never really apologised for it. The regime was also not exposed publicly until the late 50's, they were going after Robeson MUCH earlier. I said he was the most persecuted black man by the US POWER STRUCTURE/GOVERNMENT.

He was. There is no other US born black leader or public figure who approaches how he was treated. His name was wiped, erased from ALL sports records despite being called "the greatest football player of his era", being TWICE named all-American at Rutgers by Walter Camp and despite the fact the hall was located ON the Rutgers campus! The records were not restored until about TEN years ago before that there was a TEN man team listed in hundreds of books and records. Major college textbooks and bestsellers about Negro spirituals, Broadway, Ol man River, Eugene O Neil, Othello and blacks in film/theater were specifically issued without a single reference to him up until a decade or so ago. All US newsreel footage has been either destroyed or the sound was wiped. The mass media and US govt. suppressed anything else and never allowed him on US television. The New York times not only lied about his being a CPUSA member but said he was living in "self exile in the USSR" during the 50's when his passport was revoked! What defines persecution to you if that does not? (talk) 8:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That might be your opinion but it is not fact. The claim that he was the "greatest football player" thus far has NOT been sourced at all (it is not in the source given).
 * Being erased from sports records hardly merits the description "most persecuted man" - such actions might be very silly but they don't really hurt the person. That the NYT lied is nothing new and has happened to hundreds of people of many persuasions! Haven't you heard that some people lost their lives - and that without collaborating with said regime.
 * Again, persecution is a loaded word. I don't mind including every minute action from which PR had to suffer. But what we don't need is this constant shouting of "persecution" and this constant portrayal of PR as superman. Str1977 (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. Could you please beging to sign your postings with four tildes (no more, no less) - otherwise your name doesn't show up. Str1977 (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Does not "hurt" the person? To be hounded by the FBI and CIA? To have your work erased is not hurtful? I've never portrayed him as Superman but he was persecuted. There is no doubt about that.

Walter Camp cite was not mine but I will put in the proper cite. Also calling him the greatest of his era were Lou Little, Columbia University (for his pro career) "I think there has never been a greater player in the history of football...", George Daley, NY World ( and the New York Times ( NYT, June 15th 1919 Rutgers Loses Robeson ("For the past two years he has been, perhaps the greatest player in collegiate football..."))Catherine Huebscher (talk)

Please educate me
Dear Catherine, since you talked about educating me, I am now asking you to help me out to understand the context of the following:

''Liberal supporters abandoned the CAA, and the federal government cracked down on its operations. In 1953 the CAA was charged with subversion under the McCarran Act. Its principal leaders, including Robeson, Du Bois, and Hunton, were subjected to harassment, indictments, and in the case of Hunton, imprisonment. Under the weight of internal disputes, government repression, and financial hardships, the Council on African Affairs disbanded in 1955. '''The vilification of Robeson's work for African liberation reached its zenith when J. Edgar Hoover, with the help of the NAACP (and Roy Wilkins, editor of The Crisis, the official magazine of the NAACP), arranged for a ghost-written leaflet to be printed and distributed in Africa; it  was called Paul Robeson: Lost Shepherd,[53] and was penned under the false name of "Robert  Alan", whom the NAACP claimed was a "well known New York journalist." Another article by Roy Wilkins, called "Stalin's Greatest Defeat", denounced Robeson as well as the Communist Party of the USA in terms consistent with the FBI's information.[54]'

My request is about the parts in bold - when did these things happen? Str1977 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Found the answer: it was in November 1951. Str1977 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That was in collusion with the US state department as well. He was targeted as much for anti-imperialism as for his associations with Communism. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 2:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Madonna Portal? But not Robeson?
To str1977: Please also spend time as an admin on Madonna's page and move to merge the nearly twenty sub-articles about madonna, if Robeson's are to be merged. Comparative to Robeson she is only a Pop singer yet warrants:

Madonna as gay icon · Madonna wannabe · Madonna Studies · Madonna on Late Show with David Letterman · Madonna: An Intimate Biography · "Dolls and Dolls" · "The Power of Madonna" (EP) · Raising Malawi · X-STaTIC Pro=CeSS · Breakfast Club · Sean Penn · Guy Ritchie · Christopher Ciccone · Ashcombe House, Wiltshire · 15 Films About Madonna

Those need to come down and be merged before robeson's. Those sub articles are jokes. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A) I am not an admin anywhere.
 * B) Other things exist! I am not interested right now in Madonna and I don't think Madonna articles have a POV problem right now.
 * C) While at a glance, some of the articles you mention seem unneeded, you are also manipulating your list by including records and books (which are certainly notable in their own right) and Sean Penn and Guy Ritchie are separate individuals - the former a famous actor in his own right, the latter famous by now too. Breakfast Club is a separate musical act. Madonna Studies might be a travesty but if they exist and are noted, WP may have such an article. In constrast to "your articles", the info would not fit anywhere in the Madonna article. Nothing you wrote, could not be covered in this article here - and only "and Communism" is notable enough to warrant an article, though only if it is NPOV!
 * D) What I don't see is Madonna and sex, Madonna and religion, Madonna and censorship, Madonna and Warren Beatty - these would actually be parallels to the articles created by you.
 * Your posting apparently shows that you are not intending a constructive discussion. Str1977 (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. It is a good example of how figures of far lesser stature and achievement have articles and sub articles which are not picked apart. Madonna is just an below average singer who makes bad films compared to the life he led. Content and pov is one thing but not having a very in-depth study of Robeson available on wikipedia is a great loss.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for confirming that you are either not interested in discussion or do not know how to go about it. Just because you says so doesn't make it so. And actually, Madonna is off-topic here. I challenged the validity of a very limited set of articles, which are clearly sub-articles since they merely deal with PR's take on this and that. Articles about persons and institutions and publications linked to PR are not sub-articles. It also seems that there is not one family member you have not created an article for but that is fine by me.
 * Furthermore, your irrelevant contrasting also betrays your POV: Robeson is not that larger-than-life hero, he was merely a singer with a view - the same could be said about Madonna, though in her case the view would have to be a changing one. Str1977 (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, Paul Robeson and communism may be retained - but it has to be rewritten to ensure NPOV, as a) this topic is the major controversy about PR, and b) it extends from 1934 to his final years and thus cannot be summed up nice and neatly - the PR main article should cover it when appropriate (split into parts) whereas the sub article can give a complete overlook, detached from narrating PR's life. However, the Spanish Civil War only lasted four years, and PR's Welsh labour activism is also only relevant to two separate instances in his life. They cannot stay as separate articles. Str1977 (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I created Paul Robeson, Jr. while Malik added Eslanda Robeson and a Richard Arthur Norton created a great page for PR's father. I'm not sure about the welsh mining page as I can't find what you refer to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson_and_the_labor_movement The above article should stay because he was active for close to THREE and a half decades. It has warranted at least one book, New York, (1974. Wright, Charles, Labor's Forgotten Champion) and many essays by historians and scholars. You are 100% wrong about the SCW and about the Welsh coal miners being only relative to two "separate instances in his life", I mean how wrong CAN one be? But I don't have time to educate you on that. I would rather add things to the articles with my spare time. The Jackie Robinson topic in and of itself was completely missing from wikipedia in ANY place before I added it, so either it gets absorbed back into the main article in its near entirety or it stays as a separate link. It is a pivotal part of black sports/pre-civil rights history. The Spanish Civil war history is the only viable one to dissolve that I can see thus far.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is that PR's activies regarding Welsh miners can be subsumed in chronologically ordered sections in this article - I am not talking about an article about "Welsh mining acitivism" in general but one solely focused on PR's relation to it. Since I am now working on an overhaul of this article, I can see that subsuming the entire Communism angle "in one piece" is difficult and, since it is the most controversial issue, a separate article is valid. However, if you insist on being absolutist about all these articles, that's your choice.
 * Jackie Robinson and PR is simply not a valid topic for an article. The issue should be covered in both persons' articles and maybe briefly in HUAC or so articles. Str1977 (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson stays for now as does Labor. Those were major historical events: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_1965_USA_Tour If that's in wikipedia then the sub articles stay. This is becoming stalking and removing viable articles on pivotal events in civil rights and black history. Regarding the SCW: next time you dump an article than please remove the hyper-link in the main article. Give me time to save the work and the references. It is slightly rude not to, especially when I mentioned I'd be editing it back in. ThanksCatherine Huebscher (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There was no content to save. You know we have an article on the Spanish Civil War, albeit one that is not written from a Communist partisan perspective? The article consisted of what Robeson did (also included here) and also commented on the war itself, however with glaringly onesided statements. Furthermore, you agreed that the article may go. Str1977 (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There was no "Communist partisan" just TV movie narrative language which is all over wikpedia in articles of lesser controversy. The other articles should no removed/merged without admin approval. If nearly every Beatles tour, Madonna wannabe and the Tube Top warrants an article so does the white power structures attempt to pit the two most well known Black men in the world circa 1950's against each other during Jim Crow/Cold War America/Red scare era.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For the final time, the article's title is already ample evidence that the event doesn't warrant its own article. Str1977 (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

systematic mistreatment of Robeson over Anti-Imperialism
There have been numerous complaints in past discussion topics regarding the Robeson articles to references about the white supremacist power structure during the US Cold War targeting him for his prodigious anti-colonization advocacy. Many have claimed it is simple "blown out of proportion." Apart from the CIA and FBI files there is also this to lay this to rest

1950 US state department brief:

"...Furthermore even if the complaint had alleged...that the passport was canceled solely because of the applicant's recognized status as spokesman for large sections of Negro Americans, we submit that this would not amount to an abuse of discretion in view of the appellant's frank admission that he has been for years extremely active politically on behalf of the colonial peoples of Africa." Catherine Huebscher (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't understand a word. Str1977 (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? Its very clear. What they are saying is that if it's alleged that they are canceling him for being solely a civil rights leader/forerunner, that they are NOT abusing their discretion because Robeson is clear about being an anti-imperialistic. Which was "not in the interests of the United States."

Business was very good for the US circa 1950, General Motors had opened its new 20 million dollar plant in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. The South African Apartheid government had received and EIGHTY million dollar loan ($713,000,000.00 2010 using the Consumer Price Index calculator which is the lowest rate) in return for US corporations to have "purchase rights to great qualities of Uranium." Meanwhile in Ellenton, South Carolina 7000 people mostly blacks sharecroppers were dispossessed of their homes to make way for the new H bomb project on the Savannah River.

The USSR was not even mentioned when his passport was lifted. They had no evidence he was a member of any CP, they were protecting the continued rape of Africa for white supremacist big business/government by silencing/ostracizing/persecuting a huge voice of protest. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 1:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, for the 127th time: whether PR was a party member is of little concern, not the passport question, not to his characterisation. We simply report that he once denied it, that he later refused to answer the question, that it has never been proved. IMHO, some of the causes PR supported were right but still he was a propagandist for one of the most murderous systems in history. Str1977 (talk)

"most murderous systems in history" He felt it was better than the one he came from and he felt he was treated better in the USSR. I can see how he felt that way. You serve more time in the states to this day for killing dogs (Michael Vick) and selling hash pipes (Tommy Chong) than you do for killing an unarmed black man who's on the ground, face down handcuffed. Robeson felt made the right choices. The USA and Europe are equally as murderous to this day. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/05/MN061G7HVS.DTL Catherine Huebscher (talk)


 * I am speechless if you really think that.
 * Please, please, educate yourself about Stalin and the Soviet Union. Do you really think a bad verdict (which happens all the time everywhere) outweighs the millions that fell victim to communism? Str1977 (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I really think enough should be enough now and that user C. H. should be thrown out of here. Why should every idiot be allowed to write here. On the other hand I am against censorship and talk pages are for debate, but still. Why should Wikipedia put up with this? --Radh (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Radh:: Please look at your own vulgar actions on here and in edit summaries. The most "unflattering" aspects of Robeson's life (Feffer, Trotsky followers, Stalin Peace prize) are in the article. Please include what you want in the article. Str1977: I understand what you are saying. I never said anything "out weighed" anything. As previously stated many times on this page, I don't feel a 21st century hindsight perspective really is sound way of approaching PR's view of the USSR, be you on the left or right. One has to be very familiar with the climate of the 1920's/1930's for blacks globally. So in turn please, please educate yourself about how the US judicial system has perennially treated black Americans. You may also want to read about South Africa, the Belgian Congo which was similar to Stalin's atrociousness yet approved by Europe and the US. The brutal, unnecessary death of ONE person is immoral, be they in the USSR under Stalin or the US under Ray-gun, Clinton, Bush etc. I find no super power nor regime absolved of mass murder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MutilatedChildrenFromCongo.jpg http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/06/international/europe/06REAG.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

With all due respect I will no longer respond to either of you if I have to. This has just become too emotionally personal for radh. We have all had our time to get off topic and debate, we don't agree and never will. Unless it DIRECTLY concerns the PR article we should not be posting on here per the rules of Wikipedia. Peace.Catherine Huebscher (talk)


 * Catherine, it seems strange that you accuse of other being too personally evolved when it is the kindest possible explanation for your behaviour that you are too emotionally attached to Mr Robeson and therfore defend his every action by the most absurd turns. (And note that I do not mutilate his name - why do you do that to others?)
 * You said you didn't say "outweigh" - yes, that was my wording and strictly speaking you merely reported Robeson's supposed view, namely that "He felt it was better than the one he came from and he felt he was treated better in the USSR." There can be no doubt about the latter (though a very egocentristic perspective - he was treated well while millions were murdered) but the former is simply outrageous. You reported his outrageous view in such a nonchalant way that it can only mean that you approve of it. Had said similar things about the Nazi regime, you would be outraged too.
 * You keep on downplaying Soviet totalitarianism when you claim "the Belgian Congo which was similar to Stalin's atrociousness" - it was not. Even the worst time of the Congo, when it was a private colony before Belgium took over with all its horrors didn't come close in scope to Stalin. These horrors were universally condemned by Western public opinion when they were revealed and King Leopold was eventually forced to yield the colony to Belgium.
 * Yes, the "brutal, unnecessary death of ONE person is immoral", no matter under what government. But there is a difference whether that death simply occurs under this or that government (like the man that was murdered just yesterday somewhere in Obama's US), whether that government gravely failed its duty to pursue justice (as was often done regarding lynchings) or whether that government actively installed a system of political terror and work-till-you-die camps as Stalin or other Communists rulers did. That is a different quality (quite aside from the fact that no system created more victims than Communism).
 * One doesn't need a "21st century hindsight perspective" (nobodoy is advocating this) in order to condemn the Soviet system. Many were open-eyed enough even in PR's day to do that (though others were just as duped like Robeson, Shaw comes to mind) - lest you forget, that is why Robeson's support of that system was considered outrageous even in his time. Robeson seems to have followed a very simplistic friend-and-foe pattern and since he was treated well in the USSR he opposed every opponent of the USSR. That makes him not so different from the less educated of his opponents (who did well in the US and attacked any opponent of the US).
 * You also keep on advising us, me and Radh, to educate ourselves about the plight of blacks. No need, we know that, we know what dreadful horrors blacks suffered. But that is no reason to sweep the problem with Robeson's views under the carpet.
 * You claim the most problematic bits are already mentioned. Well, the facts are mentioned - but in such a way that they are hardly noticed. One even can read the Trotsky sequence and get the impression that they actually were "fascists" and "enemies of the working class" (well, in a way they were but not more than any Communist).
 * Yes, it is best you do no longer speak about such things if you cannot see the horrors of Soviet communism. As for improving the article, this will happen soon. Str1977 (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel I should respond. I welcome all feedback on the artcles I've worked on and I am working on improving them.

Belgian Congo? Condemned en masse by the West? Really? Show me where please. After how many years? And even then on such a small scale and only under duress because white supremacist capitalists looked really bad. Were there reparations EVER made? Ivory returned? Patrice Lumumba's death by CIA ring a bell?

"all its horrors didn't come close in scope to Stalin."

It did and always will. It just does not fit the anti-USSR historical narrative for conservatives. Ethnic cleansing and mass murder come close -they are the same. The CIA is no better nor worse than Stalin and neither was Nixon. You need to look at this "higher body" count "Stalin worse than Hitler" line. People in the Russia are still suffering because of the USSR just as both whites and blacks in South Africa are. That is a white supremacist/anti-Communist rationalizing (albeit in your case unintentional) for justifying the continued exploitation and genocide by capitalism of people of colour. It goes on today with diamonds, chocolate and sweatshops. Pro-Life, Anti-Communists still pen their diatribes while wearing clothing made in China, a country where woman are forced into abortion at nine months. It also uses the deaths of millions of innocent people in the USSR as an armament NOT in sympathy.

In this article I have had to edit out those who want to gloss over the questionable aspects PR's unwavering friendship with the CPUSA and the USSR and those who want him condemned with no historical or racial perspective for believing in international socialism as a means to end white supremacy.

I would agree with your views honestly, if the US had ever gone after the KKK, George Lincoln Rockwell and those who lynched blacks unabated. CONTELPRO earmarked 85% towards black/Leftist groups and 15% towards white hate groups-this is historical record in the "Free world." NOT ONE LYNCHER ever served time in jail until the early 60's and even then sentences were a joke. Not one. Had THEY been sitting at HUAC with the KKK, if the Cold War US and Europe had made it their mission to rectify the foul and insufferable mass murder of people of color and had gone after crimes against humanity towards colonial peoples and the rape of resources (or even go after Anthony Blount) then I would agree with you 100% about the USSR.

But the US/Europe did the INVERSE, they took, stole, raped, murdered, covered it up, gloated over it and still are. To those who were idealistic and hopeful the USSR transformed the prospects of oppressed people everywhere. PR was visiting the USSR less than two decades into it existence. Given what he was faced with, not issuing a public statement regarding the purges (and therefore placating the white supremacists who had been after him since 1937 (Hoover advised lifting his passport as early as 1941) was the right thing to do if there was to be, as he hoped, a resurgence of popularity for socialism and reform in the USSR. To condemn him follows the line of calling Mandela "terrorist" under Apartheid. Whether you are I think it was not "moral" what Robeson did is still a POV. It suites white supremacist capitalism to make the USSR under Stalin's the "crime of crimes." It's all they have left now that world is so much smaller and Communism turned out to not be the "sole enemy of humanity" after all.

For most folks of color and black folks the fact that he was a communist sympathizer is irrelevant. The US dropped an atomic bomb, made friends with Nazi's that served this governments interests, helped and aided terror on the part of South American dictatarships, murdered thousands in Vietnam, constructively engaged apartheid, cooperated with some of the most brutal dictatorships the world has known and now the government kidnaps folks and holds people in concentration camp called Guantanamo Bay, has killed tens and thousands in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But you seek, via self-righteousness, to negate an American who fought for the rights of a group of Americans who were suffering from second class citizenship. During a time when the Communists at least acknowledged the evil of Jim Crow America when anti-Communists would not (they lived for Jim Crow). Robeson spoke up for a people so beaten down that they barely spoke up for themselves. Unless Paul Robeson embraced the system that rejected him, then it is only proper that he should be labeled an outcast in "collusion with Stalin". If he embraced the antithesis of this nation--dreaded Communism--then he's not one of "us", not a "red-blooded" American, and his name should be vilified, expunged lest another black come along and presume to follow in his footsteps. Catherine Huebscher (talk)


 * Catherine, are actually interested in cooperation? Well, such accusations won't get you far! :Where do I "negate an American who fought for the rights of a group of Americans who were suffering from second class citizenship"? What does that actually mean, "negating Robeson"?
 * I merely insist that the problematic bits are not swept under the carpet or eulogised. Others fought for civil rights of blacks without colluding with Stalin, e.g. the Wilkins you so abhorr or Martin Luther King.
 * But you seem to think just because I think a government tolerating murder and torture (horrible acts!) is not quite the same as a government carefully planning murder and torture and instigating a such system across the largest landmass on the globe, I must be approving of lynching! For the final time: I am not.
 * Stop your accusations or I will report you for personal attacks. Str1977 (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You accusations are frankly just as inflammatory. I'm simply responding to them. Roy Wilkins said "no matter how many they lynch we'll stand with you..." and joined up with Hoover-what a winner. And what DID Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were still called Commie by Hoover and what DID they get from the white power structure in the end?? I rest my case.Catherine Huebscher (talk)6:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "My accusations"? I have simply pointed out clearly the loop holes in your thinking. I have not called you "self-righteous", accused you of "negating" some person (still not sure what that is - do I say "Robeson didn't exist"?), painted entire peoples, continents and religions racist (including false statements about individuals).
 * Wilkin's approach seems to be quite an honourable one* - and his group probably achieved more for African Americans than Robeson ever did (which is exactly zero, despite all the eulogies). But that is not the point, neither what Hoover thought about MLK or MX. We report what Hoover did and thought (as long as realiably sourced) in the article, not what he thought about everyone else.
 * PS. Why so upset about what Wilkins said - I thought Robeson was merely "misquoted"? Str1977 (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Feffer
On another page, Catherine, you wrote:

"He also WAS a threat to the USSR in speaking out about Feffer in Tchaikovsky Hall."

Can you tell us more about it - the article contains no information about him, thought the bibliography mentions the book:

>>Robeson Jr., Paul. "How My Father Last Met Itzik Feffer." Jewish Currents, November 1981.<<

Thanks, Str1977 (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I found the info I needed at Paul_Robeson_and_communism. Str1977 (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War
The brigades are perhaps the most important part of his life as an activist it shaped his political view points and signified his transformation into the first ever artist activist. It was where he read the speech that became his most well known and his epitaph as well as when he changed the words to Old man River. It often warrants some of the biggest chapters in many of his bios. I removed as much drama writing as I found and improved the section, ThanksCatherine Huebscher (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is no reason to use propaganda speech outside of Robeson quotes (of which there are too many already). Fascism was a political movement in Italy and the application of other movements in other countries is problematic (in itself, but also because Communist propaganda chose to label any oppositon fascist, including the German Social Democrats until 1935). It would also be more helpful to really mention what events Robeson criticised in China and Africa instead of speaking of "fascist attacks" there. On the other hand, not all fighting on the republican side fought "for democracy" - Stalinist volunteers fought on that side too but were usually preoccupied with killing off dissident socialists. Things aren't that easy and if we do not discuss that issue regarding Robeson's thinking, we should at least not endorse such things.
 * And no, the Spanish Civil War does not warrant "one of the biggest chapters" unless we want to mention any concert he gave or trip he made or word he said on behalf that cause.
 * Str1977 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, and please do not simply copy line after line from another article, as is the case with Katz. Most of this has zero relevance for a Robeson article. We need not explain the this and thats of the Civil War or the achievements of the Lincoln brigade here. Str1977 (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Katz? Prpaganda speech? which page are you on. "Must take sides" is the most important speech of his life.

You are offering zero research or effort in coming up with references, just shadowing whatever I do so what is your point? There are other articles on wikipedia you can go after. Which side was fighting Franco and which side was not? Which side had an embargo against Spain's anti fascist side and which did not? Which countries sent automobiles and guns to Franco ? All semantics and your defense of Franco and picking apart individuals who fought against him won't change the facts of who supported fascism in Spain and who fought to end it.Franco was a foul, foul leader. What knowledge of Robeson do you have that backs up your claims that this was "not a pivotal event" in his life? Explain.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 3:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, "must take sides" is most important speech - it certainly became the most important phrase of his life, even when detached from its original context. That doesn't mean that the Spanish Civil War is the most important issue.

I have little edited on this article but that will soon change.

I should have said "propaganda language" - I meant that this constant use of "fascist" is not encyclopedic. And no, you cannot simply take the fact that the Nationalists (not simply Franco, he only became sole leader during the war) had help from Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany (not Fascist Germany!) The war is a very complex issue, with many issues and motivations playing a part. But if you simply want to look at outside supporters, look at the Soviet-Communist input into the war. As hard as this may sound, in the end "democracy" wasn't on the table in the war.

And no, I do not have to explain to prove that a claim you have made without any proof at all is wrong. Str1977 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, lets not get off topic though mainstream interpretations with no pov place fascism in the historical context where it is placed and Robeson's opinions are his own. This was his trans formative point from artist to political activist and towards his later persecution. http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/scw/knox.htm My real point was that you should allow people to go in and reedit without dumping the whole framework. Much of the katz's.com stuff is now gone so I do hear what you are saying. but the event and scope of the SCW and what it represents in his life more than justifies the amount of material in his article. Peekskill which was a another turning point, is the only other event that comes close. You have to have read about him extensively to see this, this is not a "sound bite" celebrity.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 5:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Catherine,
 * the text used to say that Robeson denounced Fascist attacks in Africa and China. I assumed that the former referred to the Second Italo-Abyssinian War (though that was finished a while in 1937) and the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, which started the Sino-Japanese War in 1937. Now, you have changed that text to
 * "he also denounced fascist attacks on Ethiopia by Italy and Western support of Chiang Kai-shek."
 * Regarding Africa, this confirms my earlier guess though I am still puzzled about the time line.
 * Regarding China, I am confused: what was it that Chiang did in 1937 so that Robeson opposed him?
 * Str1977 (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going by sources I have. Will look at it later. Working on much more important parts of the article like the Paris Peace Conference which is missing. He denounced attacks and intervention by the West in Africa and China during those appearances. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the West did not intervene in China at the time, the West did not intervene in Ethiopia (but merely laid sanctions on Italy) - or did the West include Italy or Germany or Chiang Kai-shek in the 1930s? Str1977 (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)