In 1950, the U.S. State Department revoked Paul Robeson’s passport when he refused to sign an affidavit saying he was not a member of the Communist Party. The renowned singer, actor, athlete and activist filed a federal lawsuit in response, beginning a long legal battle to regain the right to travel abroad. On June 12, 1956, he testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee — established in 1938 to enforce rigid conformity and police against “subversion” in show business and other fields — to discuss the “unauthorized use of United States passports.”
In his responses to congressional questioning, Robeson framed the matter as one of basic civil liberties, civil rights and freedom of speech. “Whether I am or not a communist is irrelevant,” he said that day. “The question is whether American citizens, regardless of their political beliefs or sympathies, may enjoy their constitutional rights.”
Robeson regained his passport after a Supreme Court decision in 1958, but his career never recovered from the years he spent as a government target. National Public Radio reporter Howard Bryant’s new book, “ Kings and Pawns: Jackie Robinson and Paul Robeson in America ” (Mariner Books), helps to restore Robeson’s full personhood as an artist, athlete and radical, tracking his life and career against that of his contemporary, Jackie Robinson. It suggests that the persecution of Robeson and exploitation of Robinson remain relevant as a cautionary tale amid the current war on dissent. With the anniversary of Robeson’s testimony and Juneteenth approaching, Bryant spoke with Truthdig about these two legendary figures and what their 20th century struggles can teach us now. Truthdig: Paul Robeson was one of the world’s most famous performing artists, as well as a talented athlete. But today he’s not as well known as many groundbreaking Black Americans. Who was Paul Robeson? Howard Bryant: Robeson is one of the most accomplished Americans this country has ever produced. He was one of the greatest college football players in the history of the sport. He was an All-American at Rutgers in 1917 and 1918, and he played in the National Football League in 1921 and 1922. It’s a testament to his talent that Robeson could be considered one of the great concert singers and great orators of all time, and also one of the great athletes of all time. “He presents the courage that’s required of all of us to stand by our principles.” He symbolizes not just excellence in so many fields, but also a true commitment to the supposed principles of this country. More than ever today, he presents the courage that’s required of all of us to stand by our principles. Because those principles are under assault. Your book is also about another Black trendsetter, Jackie Robinson. Jackie was as talented athletically as Robeson. He was a great football player, a great basketball player, a great baseball player, a very good tennis player and a great track athlete. He could do everything. The wonderful thing about Robinson and why he still resonates today is, just like Robeson, when it comes to having courage and principles, Jackie was very much somebody who did not believe that his talent existed just to serve him, but could be an example to be used to further the progress of his people. “Kings and Pawns: Jackie Robinson and Paul Robeson in America” is about both men, but they aren’t normally thought of together. Why draw connections between them? The primary thought of the book was this: During the Cold War, [there was] a continuum of what it means for African Americans to be considered Americans. The battle of defending the country while also critiquing it. So often when we talk about Black history, it’s all about Black people on Black subjects, such as civil rights. Nobody would associate the Cold War as simply a Black story. What I wanted to do was to talk about how the Cold War affected everybody — a Cold War story centered on two legendary Black Americans. Both of these guys did everything this nation asked of them. But by the end of their lives, they still found themselves completely disillusioned with the American experience. Robeson and Robinson were both Black pioneers, and they seemed to have been held up in opposition to one another. What placed them in each other’s orbit were outside forces, the forces of the Cold War, of integration coming out of World War II. These two people were never in conflict with one another — until they were asked to be symbols of larger movements. Jackie Robinson was asked to be a symbol of anticommunism. Paul Robeson was considered to be a symbol of left-wing progressivism. Then, of course, a symbol of a lack of patriotism, a symbol of being considered a traitor. So much of the story of both of these men was being avatars. Jackie also testified before HUAC, on July 18, 1949. What was his appearance before the House Un-American Activities Committee like? Robinson was asked to testify on behalf of the committee to prove the loyalty of Black Americans in the heat of the Cold War. There were many, many people that did not feel Jackie should do this, that he was being used, that he was a pawn of the segregationists and emerging hard right wing in this country. And that these people wouldn’t even want to shake his hand, they didn’t believe in equality. “Robeson was accused of being a pawn for the Soviet Union. Robinson has been considered a pawn of HUAC.” But Jackie felt like he had a responsibility to do his part in the fight against the Soviet Union. And he felt it was important for him to send a message that African Americans were loyal to this country, even though thousands and thousands of Black soldiers had fought in World War I and World War II. But Robinson felt like it was important for him to make a statement against Paul Robeson’s statement in Paris in April 1949. [According to “Kings and Pawns,” the Associated Press reported that at the Paris Peace Conference, Robeson contended: “‘It is unthinkable,’ that American Negroes ‘would go to war on behalf of those who have oppressed us for generations’ against a country ‘which in one generation has raised our people to the full dignity of mankind.’” Robeson claimed he was “misquoted” and that his statement was “distorted.”] Robinson felt it was his responsibility to testify, and that’s why people began to think that he was a pawn. They were like, “Why on earth would you testify on behalf of people who don’t support equal rights for Black people?” So, the title of the book alternates between both of these incredibly legendary men, these kings. And yet both of them — Robeson was accused of being a pawn for the Soviet Union; Robinson has been considered a pawn of HUAC. Then of course, if you added the great withering critique of Malcolm X, he believed the pawns were the Black establishment, that kept pleading with America to view us as equals, when that day would never come either. Other famous artists, such as Elia Kazan, named names for HUAC, but Robeson did not, correct? No, he did not.
Robeson’s HUAC testimony was actually the second or third time that he’d testified before HUAC. But this time, Robeson was petitioning to have his passport restored. The U.S. government had refused to renew his passport in 1950. So, for six years he had not been allowed to leave the country [and sing overseas, where he was in big demand]. His testimony on June 12, 1956 — the subject was not about whether or not he was a communist.
But the actual testimony was all about — it was incredibly contentious. It was all about whether or not he’d admit to being a communist, whether or not he’d admit that he had been a pawn to Joseph Stalin. And Robeson refused to give the committee what it wanted. He refused to give them the satisfaction of trying to break him. It was very important testimony in terms of what was happening, and restoring the dignity of dissent during that time. We don’t know if Robeson was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA, but he was obviously sympathetic to the USSR, which awarded him the Stalin Peace Prize. Whether he was a member or not, it was his legal and constitutional right to have political beliefs that aligned with the Soviet Union. And that was what this was all about. The U.S., if it is adhering to what its supposed principles are, you can’t deny someone their citizenship because of political beliefs. That is the very basis of the First Amendment, the very basis of who we are as a society. That was the dissent Robeson chose. “So much of what we see happening in 2026 is following a 1950s playbook.” That was also one of the real areas of interest for me in the book was this idea that these principles are simply ideas that are not usually adhered to. That these principles, when threatened, when there is fear — just like we see today — they don’t seem to mean a whole lot. We violate these principles every day. One of the things about this book that made it feel so timely to what’s happening right now [is that] so much of what we see happening in 2026 is following a 1950s playbook. It’s the same playbook, whether you’re looking at the assault on higher education or liberal politics or on immigration. Who gets to come here, who doesn’t. The paper trail is very clear, it’s the same pathway with some of the same characters. Donald Trump learned a lot from Roy Cohn, who was [Sen.] Joseph McCarthy’s attorney. As you mentioned, Robeson’s 1956 HUAC testimony had to do with his passport. Do you see any historic parallels between that and the way the Trump regime today is using immigration status to silence pro-Palestinian noncitizen residents? It’s 100% connected. It’s not only that, but you also see the Trump administration now threatening to revoke citizenship of American citizens. Once again, it’s the same playbook. It’s not unique. We’ve been here before; it’s the same tactics, the same techniques. The biggest difference is today, unlike then, these assaults on civil liberties are not in opposition to a foreign nation. They are in opposition to our own citizens. Everything the Trump administration is doing right now, when it was happening in the 1940s and 1950s, was supposedly to protect the country against this nuclear threat from the Soviet Union. Today, there is no threat. Today it’s to crush fellow citizens, to crush dissent, to crush people who have a different viewpoint. Your book points out that Paul Robeson was for years “the most famous Negro in America.” But then the powers that be tried to erase Robeson and turn him into a “non-person.” Singer Paul Robeson speaks at a “Hands Off Korea” rally in the Harlem section of New York on July 3, 1950. (AP Photo/Marty Lederhandler) That’s the interesting thing about Robeson. To have somebody be as accomplished, famous and influential as he was, because he was seen to be in service of what was possible for Black people, even in a segregated society, to have that same nation turn on him to the degree that it did when his politics evolved and became more adversarial, is a cautionary tale for so many dissidents and prominent people who speak to their politics. Colin Kaepernick comes to mind, as well.
It’s very clear that Robeson’s greatest “crime” was having the temerity to criticize the U.S. on behalf of its racial dynamics. They can talk about him and the Soviet Union, but really, the Robeson threat was his influence in Africa, in a lot of those developing nations that were seeking independence from Great Britain, Belgium and the colonial powers, at the same time as the American Civil Rights Movement. Robeson was enormously influential in those emerging African nations. And the American response was to reduce that influence by not allowing him to travel, and the response from the Black establishment was to allow it to happen. They did not feel a need to protect him, even though he had been one of the great American citizens. Do you think Robinson eventually regretted testifying before HUAC against Robeson? I do think so, and he said something close to it in his last autobiography, where he said that he’s never regretted what he said, but he does feel more wisdom later in his life. I don’t think Jackie was ever going to admit that he was wrong — he’s a proud athlete and that is not really what a lot of proud athletes do. But he said he was wiser now to what he referred to as “America’s destructiveness” and, given the chance, he would not have made the same decision that he’d made in 1949.
That’s a pretty comprehensive admission that he’d made a mistake. And of course, his wife Rachel, years after Jackie’s death, gave an interview to Newsday and said something similar. She felt like she and Jackie received bad advice in two areas. One was testifying against Robeson, and the other was supporting Richard Nixon in the 1960 election.
The post When Mr. Robeson Went to Washington appeared first on Truthdig .