Talk:Political views of Paul Robeson

Response
This piece is hagiographic, glosses over serious issues, usually by accusing any critic of Robeson of nefarious intent. It glosses over Robeson's culpability for the support for what is considered by most sources to be a corrupt, tyrannical regime, among the very worst in human history. The author goes to great lengths to attack any critic of Robeson, but merely posits that Robeson was simply "duped", when his own statements often contradict this. This is almost purely a POV puff-piece, unworthy of an encyclopedia entry. DesScorp (talk)

No it is not, the article is VERY balanced. It does not tow the anti-Robeson line which is obviously what you were hoping for. It DOES show many unflattering aspects to his involvement in being Marxist affiliated though despite the fact that much of his "knowledge of Soviet injustices" has not been verified properly, it IS there, so how biased can I actually be?? I did NOT posit that he was "duped", please reread. I said many liberal or centrist scholars believe that. He is roundly criticized and fairly judged without drama which is what most want from him-drama of a "black man who was duped"

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 ("wrong" or "just") 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 as they were or are WHITE they 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 Martin Duberman maintains, it is still a POV. I can only explain to fans or detractors 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 and HE made that clear countless times.

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 reprehensible actions of the governments we all live and pay taxes in. Stacking up numbers of "who killed more than Hitler" does not change reality or make US or European citizens any less culpable than anyone else who stood by their beliefs. Catherine Huebscher 15:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can not imagine how somebody obviously pretty intelligent can believe the things you do, but I guess that is not my problem. WP on the other hand is no communist propaganda sheet, I thought, but if nobody else minds...--Radh (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My beliefs are not demonstrated here. My interpretation of the scholarly works on Robeson's life which I've studied for nearly fifteen years is what this is about. The fact that you may not agree with his life or choices does not make his history open to povs. He believed in many aspects of Marxism theory, numerous Communist countries and the concept of Socialism as the destiny of mankind. That's who he was. This article is about that not how you disagree with him and how, in your pov, he was "deluded".Catherine Huebscher 12:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Descorp. It's hagiography and not remotely balanced. Should be flagged for lack of neutrality. Train60 (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, agreed, there are flaws and imbalances so it is being cleaned up. Please read the alterations as I redit and make edits or suggestions. Thanks Catherine Huebscher 12:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Helpful
To those who want the article to be worked on and improved, it would be helpful to add material and cites to the article as opposed to simply tagging it and/or discussing what you feel is no neutral it. There are many very, neutral and readable books about Robeson available on Amazon and for free at libraries. When I see non-Robeson discussion pages I see people comparing references and material. Ideally it would be better for the article if people brought references and verifiable material here to discuss in reagrds to the most controversial aspects.Catherine Huebscher 5:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In time. Currenty I am busy elsewhere. Str1977 (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Overview of opinions
I think after a survey of Robeson's history with visiting the USSR, his love of socialism and Russia and friendships with CP members it would be a good idea to provide a section with a few dozen bullet quotes/references from scholars/historians of all political backgrounds regarding Robeson's CP affiliations and views presented concisely with minimal background static. Similar to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories Catherine Huebscher 5:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Concert, radio
A not always perfectly clear independent.co.uk article on the then re-issued tapes from the Moscow concert says nothing at all about a tribute for or statement about Feffer at the Moscov concert, but of a Robeson tribute after the last song to late Mikhoels, which makes perfect sense: Feffer was not yet dead, so no tribute. It is not clear from the independent article, if the then published tapes were of the live concert or of the radio broadcast. Or if there was a direct live broadcast with the tribute and later censored re-broadcasts? If the tape was abridged, like the guardian says, how do we know what Robeson actually said or did at the Moscov theatre in 1949? --Radh (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because of eye witness accounts or what Robeson's son said he said. We should attribute this of course but I see no reason to doubt this.
 * BTW, do you have a link for that independent article? Str1977 (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sry, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/robesons-message-from-the-grave-1290185.html.
 * Thanks. But we must remember that such articles are not always 100% reliable. For instance, this one here talks about "Senator McCarthy's Un-American Activities Committee" - a common but nonetheless annoying conflation. Str1977 (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous eye witness/listener/USSR citizen accounts; Robinson's, Paul Robeson Jr. etc The Polish periodical, Kurjer Codzinney ,June 10, 1949 confirms via dated documentation the reception and the intro the song received as well. Robinson also has given a lengthy interview account of Robeson voicing his protest of anti-Semitic actions by the USSR that corroborates PR singing/speaking out in his book around the concert's time frame. Robinson was far from enamored with the USSR and wanting to leave so he's very far away from having a leftist bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Robinson_%28engineer%29 Catherine Huebscher 4:12, 8 Novemeber 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have the sources, why not give what Kurjer Codzinney actually wrote?
 * The reception of the concert-goers is not really in doubt(?), but what he actually said and sang: did he mention Feffer by name? Did he translate the Yiddish song into Russian.
 * And it would be interesting to know, if the radio broadcast on the same day was censored or not. --Radh (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as the inclusion of Feffer is not established, we cannot mention him in the tribute. I also think it more credible that he just mentioned Mikhoels, who was not only dead but - any murder claims notwithstanding - officially did in a traffic accident. Str1977 (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I put the words in the cite link. It has been established by eye witnesses that he mentioned Feffer as well Mikhoels. Just singing the song was a middle finger huge statement. I'll hunt down other sources. I can quote Duberman, PR Jr. and others. In including it is not an attempt to absolve him anything negative in his history, only his obvious attempt to make a statement about his friend while on USSR soil that has been referenced for deacdes. We SHOULD include that no verbal record "exists" currently. (Though why would it have been erased in the first place if he never said anything controversial and why has it been referenced ad infinitum since the concert?) His actions to the US media via the purge denials were done as an attempt to save face for the USSR/world Communism AND for both self preservation and the preservation of anti-imperialism. Thus the reader can draw their own moral/historical conclusions. The Guardian interview with PR Jr. fleshes at least a few of those questions.

As an aside, some theorize (and I concur) that PR's insistence on being vocal ON Soviet soil about Soviet policy, eventually led to problems with officials post Stalin during his health breakdown in 1961. Antisemitism, as you know continued after Stalin. If the CIA were (most likely) involved with drugging both PR and his son then it is clear that lower tier USSR officials (double agents?) at the time were involved as well. None were too helpful, nor concerned about the outcome re: Robeson's suicide attempt, who he had been with him that night etc. PR Jr. when looking for answers was told VERY pointedly "not to meddle" and that "the Stalin era is over..." The KGB alone could have been behind it as well. Once you get very outspoken you become a target in any country. I would not be surprised if that came to light. For me I lean towards the CIA/Army intelligence because of the CIA documents and James Thornwell who was drugged under MKULTRA in almost an identical fashion to how I feel Robeson was two months prior. He too was Black, a very gifted student from a poor background and had a flawless army record. He may have been a test subject to see had what transpired with PR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geoSP2GiGVg

In any case, PR had a connection with Russia that went far beyond Communism and that tends to get lost in the shuffle of all this.The ultimate purveyor of sussing out all that occurred will be someone who speaks both Russian and German (or who can afford a really great interpreter) going into the archives of both countries and doing some seriously extensive research and interviews.Catherine Huebscher 4:12, 8 Novemeber 2009 (UTC)

Gus Hall, fink
There seems to be a Gus Hall pamphlet: Paul Robeson: An American Communist. Published by the CPUSA, 1988. Said to contain stuff like: "My own most recious moments with Paul were when I met him to accept his dues and renew his yearly membership in the CPUSA". So the Manning Johnson HUAC testimony from 1949 that Robeson indeed had been a member perhaps was true after all? But, as I have said before: membership in the party was never that big a deal for artists and celebrities. Brecht or Grosz were no members even in their most orthodox communist phase.--Radh (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Gus Hall was an FBI informant. re: Conservapaedia, I helped them create an article that would reflect their bias but still contain fact and look credible despite bias and they turned it into a cartoon which is their right but it makes no real coherent historical sense even from a stance of trying to defend anti-Communism. For artistic whites it was all fun and games as they enjoyed white privilege. Which is why so many other whites with as much of an advocacy towrads the USSR/CPUSA Robeson recovered and had long careers. But for blacks it meant becoming even more of a non-person during the red scare, be you artist or union member or just a CP member; you could get lynched too. Robeson would have been jailed under the Smith act and died behind bars as he was so virulently hated by the white power supremacist structure (Rankin, Hoover, Dies, Bilbo, Truman, Dulles and too many others on Capitol Hill to name.) The surveillance on him was daily through much of the 50's and was stepped up as early as 1937. A status of health file is a rare addition to an FBI's file and he had one as early as the 40's. Doubt they could have missed 40 years of CP membership if they were able to get his notebooks and install a CIA contractor (Ari Kiev) as his "physician" He has never been re,aostely identified as a CP member. It an urban legend along with the Paris peace conference speech which in actuality does NOT mention the USSR in any context regarding "Negros fighting against Russia". Feel free to include it though if you feel you need and then I'll add what I just wrote for balance. --Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC


 * If Gus Hall lied, say so. I'm perfectly able to belive such a thing. @your other points: how many of the party members were Afro-Americans? I recently read that the percentage was well below their part of the population in general.--Radh (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I will try to find this out as it should go in the article. The party lost many black members during the cold war.--Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC

Did Feffer beg him to make their fate public?
Conservapedia writes: Pfeffer begged Robeson to tell the world the truth, pleading They're going to kill us. When you return to Amrica, you must speak out and save us''. Their source is not Horowitz, but Tim Tzouliadis: The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia. Penguin Group, 2008, p. 268. --Radh (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If Tzouliadis gives a source for this, this might also be Horowitz's. Since Horowitz wrote in 1988, 20 years before Tzouliadis, he could not have got it from him. Str1977 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I wrote much of the Conservapedia page. Tzouliadis' sections on Robeson are mostly libel fiction and weasel words and he did zero research on Robeson within the USSR. The account you quote is Horowitz's but they are the same. I think there is enough sections regarding the CPUSA, Dies, HUAC, his last visit to the USSR and Ben Davis still unaccounted for that warrant more attention. What is available on Feffer is there. Horowitz has no veracity regarding his statements on Robeson. He was never close to the family nor even a casual acquaintance.Catherine Huebscher 15:12, 8 Novemeber 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Robeson
A left-wing person who credited Robeson with insisting on meeting Feffer is Arno Lustiger, who is known to everybody with any interest in the persecution of the Jews in the 20th century.--Radh (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of correcting a typo (the name) in Radh's comment. Str1977 (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

according to Paul Robeson Jr., he, himself is the only one who Paul Robeson ever talked about Feffer with. No one is contesting that they met or even the varying interpretations-they are what they are. Lustiger's came from one of the four sources already referenced.--Catherine Huebscher 15:12, 8 Novemeber 2009 (UTC)


 * I only wanted to have a pro-Robeson note, but if we only use real sources, let's concentrate on Robeson Jr.. Give both of his accounts and Aus, Schluss, Ende. If nobody else really is a source, why give their opinions here at all?--Radh (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Lustiger IS a real (secondary) source and can and should be used in WP. What he's not is an eyewitness. Of course, he doesn't add any new piece of facts to that of the witnesses.
 * WP emphasizes the use of secondary sources, scholarly writing like Lustiger or Duberman. The same goes in theory for Horowitz, but if the doesn't give the sources for what he reports, he is scholarly without value (which doesn't mean that he must go unmentioned, but with a caveat). Str1977 (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I had never heard of him and thank you for the name. I just raed a few of his pieces. He seems to be widely credibility and should be referenced.--Catherine Huebscher 9:02, 9 Novemeber 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record: I mistakenly thought Arno Lustiger had died a few years ago. Now I found out that he is still alive, still living in Frankfurt. It was his cousin, the Cardinal of Paris, who had died. Str1977 (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Robinson's
I added in some of the Jackie article to see how it works Please do not delete the main article yet. In the later part of Robeson's relationship with the Soviet Union I added an important source who was Black American immigrant, Robert Robinson who knew Robeson and who is incidentally anti-Soviet. If it seem kind of "cloak and dagger" please consider that the little there is on Robeson's most likely falling out of favor and the possible reasons why it happened, followed by a controversial health break down is not available in one place- anywhere. It most likely contributed to the destruction of his health so its important. Tomorrow I plan to add the CPUSA and Ben Davis, purges and more HUAC and more cites. Agreed, I can't cover all the details but at least there is what could be an even handed survey all in one place. --Catherine Huebscher 11:13, 8 Novemeber 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting stuff from Robinson. What is the "factory concert" he speaks of?
 * Catherine, don't worry. Regardless of any merging, the material will always remain in the history, the pages merely be redirect. (At least, I see no reason why they should be deleted entirely.) Str1977 (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the issue which I'll edit in, in the context with which Duberman mentions it. He says due to the time line RR has the wrong date (1961) and that it was a year earlier in 1960. Though RR was 100% it was that date. I'm trying to find a source who can confirm with PR's twice weekly radio broadcasts were removed at that time.--Catherine Huebscher 8:06, 8 Novemeber 2009 (UTC)


 * When was it that according to Robinson, Robeson was no longer mentioned/played in the USSR? After the 1949 concert or the 1960/61 concert. And on which pages does Robinson say that - on pages 86-87 or on pages 320-321? Str1977 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The 60/61 and 320-321. I had it transposed once as 1949 which it definitely was not. I'm inclined to believe him because Brezhnev came to power fairly soon after that and nationalism was back in. Also there is a glaring lack of any honors or even well wishes post 1961 for Robeson from USSR officials in any of the tributes etc that I've seen. Robeson may have been considered part of the old era. Another example is the mountain they named after him is no longer able to be located and has not long before the USSR ended. --Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC


 * And what did Robinson write on pages 86/87?
 * I don't think that "nationalism" was on the upsurge under Brezhnev. The differences to Krushchev were different. But thanks for the info anyway!
 * Is then still true, that "Robeson continued to be a popular artist in the Soviet Union and his records were continually played on radio", i.e. that Robinson was in error about this one? But then again, this claim was never sourced. Str1977 (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not an "upsurge" like Stalin but not the reforms of NK. Robinson is a rare eye witness account with histories not often written by those who actually lived through it and by an anti-Soviet black person who immigrated to the USSR AND who knew PR and his brother in laws who had also immigrated with varying difficulties-another rarity. Duberman may be wrong on the date as well. Before the breakdown he had weeks of activity and singing. RR swore it was 1961 not 1960. Robeson had bi-weekly REGULAR shows broadcast nationwide and that's what RR said ended abruptly. There was a 70th birthday event held in his name afterwords in the USSR but that's it I'm not seeing the same lauding and lionizing after the events of 60-61. I'm trying to source it but clearly the GDR took up all the slack as their events/honours post 60/61 number well into the dozens while the USSR's do not.--Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC


 * Catherine, the word I disagree with was "nationalism". Krushchev was still a man who had participated in the revolution as a young man and tried with various campaigns to push forward the Soviet Union. In the end he was toppled by a new generation (epitomised by Brezhnev) of apparatchiks, who merely wanted to administer their country and retain their privileges as they had always done. This distinguished them from Krushchev but also from Stalin.
 * Thanks for your clarifying comments about Robinson. Str1977 (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

please don't remove speaking about Feffer at the concert
It's too well documented via eye witness accounts and needs to stay in. He spoke mostly about Feffer according the sources Duberman found. The Guardian article, as all British paper articles is not that well researched despite PR's participation, there are a few errors. I have included every single collegiate documentation that I can find and I'm awaiting the arrival of more books on PR. If that section goes then the ENTIRE meeting with Feffer should go as the latter is the subject of virtually nothing but undocumented conflicting hearsay-far more than the concert is which was attended by over 500 people and which has a censored audio and the song. Horowitz is responsible for most of what you read in all the "Forsaken" style books and right wing blogs about PR/Feffer and he has zero sources to cite, he was ten years old when it happened, he never knew the family and he's lied about other Leftist events in Radical Son, like camp Wo-Chi-Ca. He made it up.--Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC


 * If you have real sources, statements from people who were at the concert or heard it on the radio, simply cite them and provide references and "we" certainly will not object. If these sources are so good could anybody please tell us, if the first live radio broadcast was censored or not?
 * The reports of Robeson's meeting with Feffer here were to a large extent based of his son's descriptions (who strangely seem to differ radically), not on Horowitz. --Radh (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And what are Horowitz's sources? Zero. Nothing. He has been proven wrong an half a dozen Robeson facts and that is just the start of his lies about places like Camp Wo Chi ca. The entire meeting with Feffer can deleted with your logic. The live concert was not censored, the tapes were. PR Jr is the SOLE source of the meeting details and then right wingers embellished and lied about it adding their own outsourced elements. The concert has dozens of different references and eye witnesses. I will cite video testimony from USSR officials and historians from Paul Robeson documentaries. Horowitz has made things up about Robeson and then "Forsaken" scholars unwisely quoted him to their own folly. He's lied about the peace prize claiming Robeson accepted in the USSR from Stalin "himself" in Moscow, PR was a "CP member", camp wo chi ca was "burning comic books."--Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC


 * Paul Robeson Jr. gave two non-identical reports of the Feffer meeting. To put it bluntly: He either lied about it in his first or in the second or in both of these versions.
 * How do you know, that the radio broadcast was not censored, if the censored tapes are all we have?
 * I am not against, but all for tons of statements from valid sources. But: from "USSR officials" and "historians"? What about concert-goers and radio-listeners? [Historians use sources, only in the Brave New Wikiworld are they sources].
 * PS: The literature on Robeson must be among the most awful uncritical stuff produced this side of North Corea. Just take a look at the very good books on Claude MacCay (Wayne F. Cooper and others) to see the difference.--Radh (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Duberman biography is disliked by PR, Jr. and contains elements many of his friends disliked immensely so I'm not sure about this North Korea thing. Historians are sourced here though. PR, Jr gave only ONE account, his OWN, in interviews only until he published his own bio of his father in 2007. He gave an account to DUBERMAN and then Duberman used what HE thought was viable. Duberman's bio is about PR not an interview with PR, Jr. As for Feffer, it is the Right that latched on to PR Jr's accounts as if its some massive, big deal that shattered the world. They had a meeting. That is it. It can be removed entirely as far as I'm concerned or mentioned in passing with the concert which IS 100% verifiable. There are two videos with eye witness and historian's verifying the concert and his comments about the two friends so that's going in to the article. I have to watch the videos, transcribe etc.--Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC


 * I am a bit sceptical about the real value of video. The stuff produced in Germany, by public tv, is often interesting, but cut to sound-bites. For a list of early Russian press reactions to the 1949 visit and concert: Kate A. Baldwin, Katherine Anne Baldwin: Beyond the Color Line and The Iron Curtain Duke U P 2002, p. 311.
 * What do we have so far? A meeting between Feffer and Robeson took place, against the wishes of the authorites. This has to be a point in favor of Robeson. Robeson said things not well liked by the authorities at his big concert, which was broadcast (either live without any interference, which would be a bit hard to believe, or censored). This is surely another point in favor of Robeson. R. mentioned Feffer [but had to tell lies about him] and sang a Yiddish partisan song. He gave a Russian translation before singing the song (Paul Robeson, Jr., memoir of his father), or sang a Russian version also. Robeson talked about Feffer - this was later censored from the tape (Robeson Jr., memoir) that Feffer was well and hard at work on his memoirs.
 * Sources on Mikhoels and Feffer's fate (sources in the Wikipedia sense):
 * a) The daughter of Mikhoels wrote something about all this in Russian. A short passage was published in translation by Herbert Marshall (his Aftermath, see below). Her original article had the title The Murder of Mikhoels. In: Vremya I My [Time and Us], 1976, p. 190, Tel Aviv.
 * b) Benjamin Zuskin told film director Eisenstein's widow Pera Attasheva about the meeting, who in turn told Herbert Marshall, when he visited Russia.
 * Paul Robeson, Jr., in a 1976 [!] letter to Marshall denied Marshall's history in very strong words. In his books and articles he later presented a version of the 1949 events identical to Attasheva's story.
 * c) Herbert Marshall said something about this - probably not in: Gerbert Marshall: Moi vstrechi s Robsonom [My Meetings with R.]. In: Taetr, No. 8, 1960, P. 182-184. Later in his two articles: Obituary: Paul Robeson (1898-1976). In: Bulletin of the Center for Soviet and East European Studies, No. 17, Spring 1976, p. 4 [?]. And in: Paul Robeson's Obituary - The Aftermath. In: Bulletin of the Center for Soviet and East European Studies, No. 18, Fall 1976.
 * Robeson himself only spoke about this to his son. And the first statement Robeson Jr. gave about the meeting with Feffer was not published: Letter from Paul Robson, Jr. to Herbert Marshall (April 29, 1976). Reproduced in: Herbert Marshall: Paul Robeson's Obituary - The Aftermath. In: Bulletin of the Center for Soviet and East European Studies, No. 18, Fall 1976.
 * Robeson's published accounts: a) "with some help from Lloyd L. Brown" - against Herbert Marshall. In: Bulletin of the Center for Soviet and East European Studies, No. 18, Fall 1976; b) to Martin Diberman; c) in a speech. R. P. Jr.: How My Father Last Met Itzik Feffer. In: Jewish Currents, Nov 1, 1981, pp. 4-8; d) In one of his memoirs of his father: P. R. Jr.: The Undiscovered Paul Robeson. e) Perhaps also in: Liner notes to The Legendary Moscow Concert. Fenix Entertainment, New York 1995.
 * Back in the USA, Robeson openly lied about Feffer's situation. He did not say or do anything in public o save F., who was shot in 1952. Robeson also kept quiet about all this (it seems) to Howard Fast and leading US-communist Johnny Gates. This is said to be in Howard Fast's memoir Being Red, says: The Jewish Daily Forward-online; Comments, statement by Alan, September 8, 2009
 * R. perhaps only did not want to endanger Feffer. And, says his son, he secretly wrote Stalin a letter pleading for Feffer. With signatures by Frederic Joliot-Curie and Howard Fast - as requested by Feffer. But: if Fast signed such a letter, how can he later complain, that Robeson kept him/them in the dark about Feffer's plight in 1949? --Radh (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just not seeing why all of that is relevant. What you wrote above is not different then what is in the article. This is not about Fast and what they all "felt" and why and "what could have been", its is a survey of PR's interactions with the CP with the most collegiate references. His son is the only his father confided to and there are no eye witnesses who ever went on record. I had conflicting accounts up before but most needed disclaimers or are Horowitz style fiction. Included now are the ones sourced by a reputable historian not those with political agendas which came out magically post Duberman's bio Duberman is not a PR defender, he's a historian.

The sources about the concert I'm referencing are eye witness accounts given in the past ten years from BBC documentaries/PBS etc which have creditably whether you don't feel they do or not. Other historians who have verified the concert like David Levering Lewis, Dr. Charles Wright are going in as well. The concert has no one historian of any repute claiming it never happened. while the Feffer meeting has bunches of different stories and scenarios attached.

I honestly feel the meeting/Concert is becoming a waste of discussion time. I have references for my material so what is the issue? Please explain what you are trying to achieve by going over this daily? Thanks.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC


 * Hello you two,
 * I can't quite follow all the detailed back and forth but still want to chime in on the issue:
 * That PR met Feffer seems undisputed, though there are differing versions about the place, manner and content of their meeting. It is not true that PR Jr. is the only source - he is the only source in his version of events (where PR Sr. and Feffer confered under four eyes), excepting however the concurring account of the Mikhoels daughter, however she came to know about this. Other versions (e.g. Pseudo-Shostakovitch) do not make the meeting so private, so others could have known.
 * Still, the PR Jr. version (as quoted by Duberman) seems to be what most historians and biographers agree upon and hence I am in favour of giving it precedence. On this, I agree with Catherine.
 * I don't agree with her on how she handels the Horowitz issue. Sure, he gives no quotes and thus is scholarly as valuable as if I wrote a book about it. I could do without Horowitz but since he is a well known author - like him or not - it is best to cover his treatment in such a way as to inform the reader. Also, I don't think it accurate or fair to say "He has been proven wrong an half a dozen Robeson facts and that is just the start of his lies" - he is guilty of the hyperbolic extenstion of limited information all too common in many books. When he (inaccurately) said, Robeson received the Stalin Peace Prize from the dictator himself, he simply elaborated on the things he knew, not realising that what he added could never have happened at the time. I am not excusing this but want to explain it. As I said, this happens dozens of time a day, even to you, Catherine, or to Robeson. One of you (just as inaccurately stated) Pope Pius XI had condoned the invasion of Ethiopa, falsely expanding on the stance of several bishops who did.
 * PS on that: I believe that Pseudo-Shostakovitch is the basis for Horowitz's unsourced claims.
 * Now, another matter distinct from their meeting is whether PR Sr. did anything to help Feffer. His son apparently gave conflicting versions of that and we must cover them all, according to the sources. We need not necessarily cover all the ins and outs, e.g. self-contradictions (though discussing them might be useful).
 * Still another matter is whether Feffer was mentioned during the concert. We have a few sources that speak only of Mikhoels, other mention Feffer as well. Is there any source that explicitely excludes Feffer? If not, I must agree with Catherine on this.
 * I also agree with Catherine on the live broadcast and the missing recordings. But please let's not call it "censored" as censorship would have been the prevention of publication. Since the broadcast was live (as nobody expected anything of the sort), there was no possibility of censorship.
 * That's all I got to say for the moment. Str1977 (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What is up there in the article that is missing from the meeting that you find incorrect or truncated?

Hyperbole? With all due respect that is called LYING. Robeson's lie about the USSR to the media are in there why not DH's? The fact that DH says that PR was a card carrying CPUSA member is enough to eliminate him. He claimed, he accepted a "prize from the dictator himself", camp wo chi ca camp "burnt comic books" and "preached hatred of the US" and they did not, he claimed the camp paper advocated it and then a former member, June Levine, who wrote a bio of the camp, produced every camp newsletter and he waffled and was proven a liar.He also misquotes the Paris Peace Conference speech which everyone knows was a purposeful and complete sham rewrite by AP from the original text both of which are available for scholars. Horowitz dislikes Robeson enough to LIE many times over like a teenage blooger with a grudge. Horowitz is like Ann Coulter, or David Duke someone who hates the Left and vilifies it. He should not going in without a big disclaimer if this is about quoting him. Admins already removed him from the main article. He's a joke frankly and was TEN when the event went down. I may make mistakes but I'm not someone who is considered and author historian/scholar who was even quoted in a very well known book about Stalin's crimes, so there is a big difference.His lies about Robeson are like gossip that gets bigger as it goes from version to version.

"Pope Pius XI had condoned the invasion of Ethiopa, falsely expanding on the stance of several bishops who did."

Robeson said that. Who controls the bishops I wonder? Did the Pap ever protest or try to save Jews in the USSR? Did Truman? Any US president? No. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CId289lYIdc/TJIDBWWpPAI/AAAAAAAAL-E/Z0jfFHs0trQ/s1600/ratjugend.jpg http://tksanders.com/nazi_catholics_04.jpg --Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC


 * Catherine,
 * Re Horowitz: Is it a black lie that Robeson received the award from Stalin himself or is it merely an error, given that Robeson could not go to Moscow at the time? That Robeson "preached hatred of the US" is IMO a possible interpretation of what he did. I have no idea what "camp wo chi ca camp" means! Horowitz's age has no bearing on the matter - how old was Duberman? It doesn't matter, as Horowitz never claims to be an eye-witness. Horowitz (or even as acidic a person as Ann Coulter) doesn't equal David Duke in the least bit. I have said enough about him - quite critically - if you want to throw a fit everytime you see his name mentioned, so be it. I will not participate.
 * Re the Pope: The Church is not like the Communist Party, where everything is controlled by the leadership. bishops are heads of their particular churches and are free to speak out. Sure, the Pope could reprimand them (in extreme cases) but even if he doesn't, this doesn't mean that he agrees with them. And Pius XI is noted, especially during the 1930s, to have an increasingly hard time with Mussolini (who, let's not forget, was no friend of the Church).
 * (And if you want to play dirty by using those photos - if you will blame Ratzinger for wearing his country's uniform and for Orsenigo the diplomat for shaking hands with a head of government, how much would you have to attack your hero Robeson for associating with that mass murderer Stalin and his cronies OUT OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, not of necessity or duty. Your double standards are showing!
 * We should not engage in a context who tried to save Jews in the USSR - most the the people you mention had no influence in the USSR. And then, did Robeson try to save Jews? As far as I can see, he didn't. Str1977 (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If the video is so great, please give us citations fron it or/and name the people and paraphrase their assertions. And please give basic bibliographic data for those books by the historians you mentioned.
 * a) What did Robeson actually say about Feffer in the concert. b) What was heard on the radio? c) Did Robeson sent this half-private letter to Stalin or not? d) Did Western communists/fellow-travellers give their signature or not? e) Why did Robeson, Jr. write this strange 1976 letter?
 * And camp wo chi ca starts to get on my nerves. It really has no relevance whatsoever here. To think DH is like David Duke is really silly. And the longtime leader of the CPUSA, Gus Hall, has stated, that Robeson had been a member of the Party. This may have been a lie, but WE cannot know this from the fact that he was a leading communist and also a traitor alone.--Radh (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand what video you both are talking about. However, I consider "Robeson spoke about Feffer and Mikhoels at the concert and sang a Jewish song" to be sufficently sourced.
 * We need to sort out the contradictions about Robeson's attempts to help out.
 * If Gus Hall called Robeson Sr. a party member and we have a source for that, we need to include this as well. Not to the effect, that PR was a member but that Hall said that. When did he say that? Str1977 (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If we don't get more details, we have to be wischiwaschi about the concert; it still would be nice to know what Robeson actually said. I for one don't consider a statement that Feiffer is well and hard at work with his memoirs (source: Robeson's son) that much of an heroic act - coming from a Soviet citizen, yes, but from Paul Robeson?. The Gus Hall thing is in a pamphlet mentioned somewhere above in this debate, probably faster to googel it again :-) --Radh (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"how old was Duberman?"

?? Duberman cites his work, other's cite their sources and never claim to be a party insider. Horwowitz acts as if he had a direct connection to the Robesons. Horowitz is just a lying sleaze.

who is "we"? The concert is perfectly cited as it is NOW and when i have time to watch the video i will put yet more references- out of courtesy to those who are very fixated on this. There is nothing in there currently that is not sourced properly. You may want the Feffer comments removed but it's verified by dozens of historians so I'm not sure what your point is. Until you come up with a conflicting account that says it never happened or he never mentioned Feffer et al and have it verified by a reputable historian who did research and has footnotes as Duberman, David Levering Lewis etc did then I'm not seeing where any disgruntlement is. We should ask Malik his opinion as an admin perhaps as this is becoming fruitless.--Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Duberman cites his sources and works scholarly. Horowitz should have done the same. Criticize him for that and I am with you. But let's drop the pointless question about his age. It is irrelevant!
 * Re the concert: Radh, it would be nice to know more details but I don't think it is necessary for the article. In fact, I think both articles suffer from a tendency to include too much detail. I have said this to Catherine and I have to say this to you, too. It would be nice to know what PR said but it would be wrong to quote it in the article. And I don't think it much of an heroic act either - but the article should not judge one way or the other.
 * PS: I think "we" refers to us, the editors working on this article. Str1977 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * @Str1977: There surely is no need to agree on everything. --Radh (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson
If everybody is fed up with the Feffer stuff: the whole Jackie Robinson saga occupies to much space/all of three WP articles. A fraction of its boring space here would be more than enough.--Radh (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all do I agree. That should not happen. It is a key part of pre-black civil rights, sports history, Robeson and the HUAC and how the white supremacist power structure manipulated, coerced and hounded. No Klan members ever at Joe's table but that's who he was-a low life Klansman himself--Catherine Huebscher 11:13, 8 Novemeber 2009 (UTC)


 * Paul Robeson will soon have a concise and comprehensive treatment of that event. The same should be done at the Robinson article. For the PR and JR article there is no justification, not even a proper title.
 * And Catherine, all your arguments (true or not) do not make the point. One can cover these in the two articles as well.
 * And who's Joe? If you talk about McCarthy - he had - despite his faults nothing at all to do with HUAC, Robeson or the KKK. He was from Wisconsin for goodness' sake! Str1977 (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ask admins to break the main article up once they are all improved and cleaned up. Lives of no real notoriety have many sub articles for their concert tours and perfume lines and this is getting to be ludicrous with so much fruitless discussion. At some point I will need to opt out unless there is a serious editing conflict. those seem to be best solved politely and with both editors providing reference materials.Catherine Huebscher 11:43, 17 Novemeber 2009 (UTC)
 * As often as you claim it, it is simply not true. I have not encountered anyone who had as many purely individual-related sub articles. Your examples (Madonna and Jessica Simpson) have certainly not made your case, as I have pointed out. Whether you like or dislike other celebrities is irrelevant. "Notoriety" however might be no misnomer.
 * Also, you are mistaken about an admin's role if you think their job is to break up articles. Str1977 (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Admins CAN and DO approve of the articles being split into to smaller more specific articles or not. Catherine Huebscher 8:13, 18 Novemeber 2010 (UTC)
 * They may, but they need not. Str1977 (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Camp Wo-Chi-Ca (Workers Children's Camp)
Paul Robeson features prominently on the websites about Camp WO-CHI-CA; so David Horowitz's criticism must have hurt. But in fact these sites just confirm that Robeson simply was at the center of every American Communist idea you can care to think about. Declaring dead, untrained and unlucky, communist soldier Oliver Law a hero in Spain - probably killed by his own people, after he led them into two ambushes? Paul Robeson was there. Fooling around with jewish communist kids at Summer Camp: Paul Robeson is there.

By the way: Ron Radosh, who spent his summers at another summer camp, Camp Woodland, in his memoirs also mentions a communist anti-comics campaign in the 1950s. And Fredric Wertham was rather left-wing himself, as was another anti-comics author, Gershon Legman.--Radh (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Fooling around with jewish communist kids"

There were all different races and religions that went to Wo-Ch-Ca and many CP events PR was not part of. Horowitz admitted he was wrong anyway. Kind of hard when there is documentation. Something he does little of. But what is your point? I'm never going to agree with you and your off topic stuff as this article is not about povs. Stay on topic please.Thanks--Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC

What actually is supposed in relation to Paul Robeson and the Dubdidoo camp? Has it any bearing on Communism? If so, it is on topic. It certainly is on topic at the PR article. Str1977 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And who brought up Wo-Chi-Ca again and again in the first place? For photos of Robeson see the first weblink: User:Radh/Camp Wo-chi-ca. And the cpusa had nearly 50% Jewish members at the end of the 1940s.--Radh (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't care who brought it up. The camp seems relevant to Robeson. But what is actually alleged that you are so up in arms about it? Str1977 (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Political views of Paul Robeson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516225923/http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue25/finger25.htm to http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue25/finger25.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)