Placing Paul Robeson in History

Introduction

Paul Robeson has been described as one of the Unites States’ greatest musicians, scholars, athletes, actors, and activists of the 20th century. Certainly, Paul Robeson’s fame on the football field, on the concert and theater stage, in film, and through his own scholarship and activism reached around the world. The blacklisting and illegal seizure of Robeson’s passport for his adamant beliefs in anti-colonialism, socialism, and human rights ended nearly half a century ago. However, despite a worldwide generation of commemorations, publications, albums, films, plays, poems, and documentaries, there is still little recognition or memory of him. Despite being little known today, Paul Robeson expressed his philosophical beliefs throughout his life in his research, singing, acting, athleticism, and activism. Of the many quotes which describe Robeson’s life, struggle, and philosophy, the following statement applies most to the development of a Robeson philosophical framework: “[o]ne day, . . . , the example and struggle of Paul Robeson will be fully recognized by all for what it was and is: a blueprint for human existence” (Blockson, 1998, p. 250).

How does this “blueprint for human existence” relate to Paul Robeson’s philosophical beliefs? How was he influenced by leading scholars, activists, and artists, and how did his beliefs fit into larger philosophical movements? And what evidence exemplifies Robeson’s actions as they relate to his philosophical framework? Blockson uses the term “blueprint,” but a synonym that better illustrates the complexities that are intertwined with the plurality of Robeson’s beliefs is framework. In this article, I argue that anti-colonialism, socialism, and human rights were the three tracts of Robeson’s framework, though they are broad generalizations and still do not include every aspect of Robeson. Using primary and secondary sources from P. Robeson’s time and P. Robeson’s own writing (1958), speeches (1978), and performances, I simplify these dense, interconnected, ever-expansive philosophical stances into a form of communication that can be easily understood, evaluated, taught, and compared. Understanding the philosophies, actions, and examples of his ideological framework will provide the appropriate contextual background for understanding where Robeson stood.

Robeson was born in 1898 in Princeton, New Jersey, to Maria and Reverend William Robeson, an escaped slave and Union veteran. Excelling in academics, athletics, and the arts in high school, Robeson earned a scholarship to Rutgers University, where being valedictorian and selected for the College Football All-American team in 1917 and 1918 were among his many accomplishments. In 1923, he graduated from Columbia University with a law degree, and while financing his education he played football professionally and joined a theater company that traveled to Britain. Encountering the intense racial divides that limited his ability to practice law at the level which he desired, Robeson took his life in a more professionally artistic direction by acting in theater, later on screen, and eventually as a musician. After moving to London for almost a decade, he began to further his interest in ethnomusicology, African culture, and politics, and by the mid-1930s, Robeson had fully integrated these interests into his art. Not long after that, Paul Robeson began to very actively participate politically in issues of labor rights, anti-colonialism, and human rights, specifically in such political debates as Welsh unionization, British de-colonization, the Spanish Civil War, and ultimately the griping violation of human rights occurring against African Americans in the United States (P. Robeson, 1958).

Paul Robeson holds the record for the longest running Shakespeare play on Broadway. He was a member of a championship professional football team as well as the 1917 and 1918 All-American college football teams (Harris, 1998). He held a key to the city of Boston, three honorary doctorates, and a law degree from Columbia (Ramdin, 1987). In the early 1940s, Robeson was considered one of the greatest African Americans alive, yet not 10 years later, he was classified as one of the greatest “un-Americans.” After regaining this respect after the McCarthy era (despite never having lost it in other parts of the world) it would be expected that today his name would be no less commonplace than Martin Luther King Jr. (Naison, 1998/2002). Instead, in the United States, commemoration of him has been severely limited.

Despite Paul Robeson being a force in intellectual circles within and outside of academia, the current research on Paul Robeson is relatively small. Most common are traditional biographical sketches (e.g., Boyle & Bunie, 2001; Davis, 1998; Duberman, 1988; Goodman, 2013; Hayes, 2001; Swindall, 2013) often originating from his friends and family (e.g., Brown, 1976; Robeson, 1930; Robeson, 1989, 1993, 2001, 2010; Seton, 1958). Recently, critical academic analyses of Robeson (Criterion Collection, 2007; Dorinson & Pencak, 2002; Stewart, 1998), each using a different cultural framework (i.e., critical theater studies or critical ethnomusicology perspectives), have begun to rival and question the grounds of his near mythical standing and deepen the more traditional biographical works. The lack of memory and limited research on Robeson has particularly led to an absence of him within geography, my own field, with the only exceptions being slight mentions in Jim Tyner (2006), David Featherstone (2013), and Tyner, Kimsroy, and Sirik (2015) and Rhodes’s (2015) thesis on Robeson’s memorialization in Wales.

Particularly within colonial discourses, debates on class, and discussions of human rights, Paul Robeson can address many of the issues, which accompany structural legacies and contemporary concerns. Khonsura Wilson’s (2013) Robesonian framework revealed the power of creativity in social activism and identity, and was truly the first attempt outside of education (Blum, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2008; Calvin & Rogovin, 1999; Fernekes, 2004) at developing a framework built around Paul Robeson. Wilson provides an invaluable resource through the establishment of a framework for understanding the creative ideal, the creative agent, and creative thought in general through Robeson’s perspective. Studies and works of performance, art, education, and others are able to implement this framework for further integration of agency, identity, and social justice. He even posits that a “Robesonian framework of creative themes, insights, and categories might be on the horizon” (Wilson, 2013, p. 727). While this is certainly a necessary contribution and a great leap within the scholarly work on Paul Robeson, it is slightly putting the cart before the horse. Wilson mentions many of Robeson’s influences and theoretical perspectives, but does not lay them out as a “principle framework” in such a way as would set up his own development of a framework (Wilson, 2013, p. 726). This article sets up such an underpinning philosophical framework, which not only further bolsters the themes of Wilson’s manuscript, but adds an additional layer to the Robesonian framework.

Religious Foundations

Robeson’s philosophical developments neither occurred in a vacuum nor did they have a specific starting point. In order to understand the influences and actions of his later life, P. Robeson Jr. (2001) argued that Paul Robeson’s early years, specifically the influences of his father, set the stage and influenced Robeson’s philosophical development.

Paul Robeson’s father preached as a Presbyterian minister for the Witherspoon Presbyterian Church for 20 years before 1898, when Paul Robeson was born (Duberman, 1988, p. 6). The Presbyterian Church of the United States of America (PCUSA) is not commonly associated with the African American community, but by the turn of the century the Church, due partly to its large missionary presence and the association of slave owners, their slaves, and the Church, had a rapidly growing African American presence. Just as the PCUSA today is arguably the most liberal of the major denominations, there was a strong movement within the Church at the end of the 19th century to move away from its perception of being selfish and mercenary. Rev. Matthew Anderson (1897) wrote that the Church must move beyond pity and toward love and respect in order to ensure every race and nationality their God-given rights and privileges. The Church also clarified that financial prospects had nothing to do with their motives (though this very clarification calls into question their motives).

Tolerance, just as today, did not thoroughly permeate the Presbyterian Church, nor was it insusceptible to outside forces of White supremacy. Rev. Robeson found this out in 1900 when the intolerance of Princeton, New Jersey’s, leaders toward his sermons of social injustice forced him out of the Presbytery. In 1907, Rev. Robeson found a new denominational home in the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Zion Church and founded his new parish, St. Thomas, in 1910 in Somerville, New Jersey. Less is known about the impact of the AME Zion Church on Rev. William Robeson’s last decade of life, though most of his convictions were said to be uncompromising. Most importantly, the AME Zion Church would, ultimately, have a more profound impact on Paul Robeson’s life (Duberman, 1988, p. 8). His eventual blacklisting limited his concerts to Black Churches across the country in the 1950s, and one of his greatest supporters was his brother Rev. Benjamin Robeson, minister of an AME Zion Church in Harlem. Paul Robeson Jr. (2001) insisted that the interactions his father had with religion (generally speaking) shaped everything he did in life and laid the foundation for his philosophical ideas.

Anti-Colonialism

Anti-Colonialist is the first of the three philosophical components which makes up Paul Robeson’s “blueprint of human existence,” though featured heavily within this category is also the role of Pan-Africanism and nationalism. The ideas of the anti-colonialist movement itself cannot be separated from the ideas coming out of the broader human rights movements, but what makes anti-colonialism and Pan-Africanism unique are their philosophical worldviews and perspectives. Anti-colonialism can be seen as comprised of first, the non-violent resistance teachings of activist Mahatma Gandhi (1965), and, second, around those who held a more militant perspective such as revolutionary scholars Frantz Fanon (1963) and Amílcar Cabral (1980). Also included in the anti-colonial movement was the structure of Marxism. Robeson built on and reinterpreted many of the anti-colonial discourses of Soviet leaders Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin. As Williams (2012, p. 167) states, it was his Black nationalist philosophies in conjunction with ethnic and cultural factors, such as folk songs, that led Robeson to believe that Marxism and a cosmopolitan understanding of the world were the means to end imperial control.

Robeson’s foundation for these socialist anti-colonial beliefs came first from the Soviet constitution and later the famous African-Asian Bandung Conference. “Article 123,” issued by the Soviet Union in the 1936 Constitution, influenced Paul Robeson greatly through the following:

Equality of rights of citizens of the U.S.S.R., irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law. (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1936)

While controversial, because of the issues occurring in the Soviet Union at the time, Robeson developed his understanding of the Soviet Union from the perspective of their political propaganda. This combined with Robeson’s first-hand experiences of racial freedom and tolerance in the Soviet Union and led Robeson, until he became aware of the discrimination that was covertly occurring, to be one of the Soviet Union’s most vocal supporters (P. Robeson, 1958).

These ideas manifested at the 1955 Bandung Conference, to which Robeson remotely contributed, and in the Ten Principals of Bandung. He forever cited the Principals in reference to his opinion on international affairs and an example of countries with colonial legacies coming together in an effort to form an economic and political block to imperial exploitation.

Robeson also played a major role within British politics promoting the British Labour and Communist Parties’ agenda of de-colonization, especially concerning India. Joining forces with the British politician Sir. Stafford Cripps, British MP Shapurji Saklatvala, and other leaders, he was brought into the House of Commons on more than one occasion to be asked his opinion on his ideas of race, colonialism, and “third world” cultures (Duberman, 1988, p. 213).

One of the few debates concerning Robeson relates to his relationship to colonialism. Unfortunately, his role in many British films indubitably served as propaganda for British colonialism. The three sides to the debate are first, that he was making a living while opening up the possibility for Blacks to obtain major roles in future films (Ellrod, 1997). The second is that he was coerced into creating each movie and then later manipulated through the editing process (P. Robeson, 2001). The third admits that he was used and or agreed to the British colonial propaganda; however, in each part he played he progressively exerted his own agency, representing African people and culture in a way that, while still being manipulated, was still radically different from mainstream film (Musser, 1998, 2007).

Within the anti-colonialist movement, many other leaders also happened to be friends of and influences to Paul Robeson. Saklatvala, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru (1964), Cripps, and journalist George Padmore were all involved in the very political debate of British de-colonization; keeping in mind the continued influence of Marxism on Robeson, and his belief that a similar system to “Article 123” of the Soviet Union 1936 Constitution, which on paper granted, under penalty of law, complete equality to all citizens, was seen as a possible solution to colonialism.

Saklatvala, an Indian, was the third Asian MP in the United Kingdom, and was a prominent figure in both the Communist Party and in the Indian Home Rule League. One of his most prominent identifiers was the public polarity expressed between himself and Gandhi. Both supporting humanitarian and independent goals for India, Saklatvala’s industrialized communism challenged Gandhi’s ideas of communal cottage capitalism (or vice versa). Despite geographical irony that Gandhi was a political power in India while Saklatvala was an Indian political power in Britain, Gandhi refused a national rebellion while Saklatvala called for India to act in 1927 after he was influenced by colonial Ireland (Saklatvala & Gandhi, 1927).

One of the most influential figures in British politics which also influenced Robeson was Cripps (1946). Cripps did not necessarily wish to change colonialism (as he defined it); what he desired was a strong and powerful commonwealth of equally free, understood, and respected nations, with Britain sitting no higher politically, economically, or socially than any other member. This idea of nationalism without inequality is clearly expressed in Robeson’s music. Not only does Robeson sing the national and nationalist anthems of many countries (e.g., China, the Soviet Union, the United States, Russia, Poland, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), but specifically within his rendition of composer Ludwig van Beethoven and poet Friedrich Schiller’s “All Men are Brothers.” The lyrics of the song, “[b]rothers, sing your county’s anthem; Shout your land’s undying fame; . . . Raise on high your country’s sign; . . . Brothers, lift your flag with mine,” reflect this nationalist aspect of Robeson’s anti-colonialist philosophy (P. Robeson & Booth, 2013).

Last, anti-colonialism includes many of the leaders of the Pan-African movement. Pan-Africanism also focused on fighting for national and ethnic sovereignty and against imperialism, but specifically, African freedom was fought for because of its overall diasporic effect and the interconnectedness of all Africans (P. Robeson, 1978, p. 88).

Paul Robeson’s role in Pan-Africanism and his identity as African began in the 1930s as he expanded his work as an ethnomusicologist. In 1933, he enrolled in the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at London University where he began research into African languages and folk music. It was through his involvements with the school that he became involved with, and an honorary member of, the West African Students Union (WASU; P. Robeson, 1958, p. 32). During this time, his political ideas evolved from “I’m an artist. I don’t understand politics” in 1931 (Ramdin, 1987, p. 75) to his famous 1937 speech “[t]he artist must take sides. He must elect to fight for freedom or for slavery. I have made my choice. I had no alternative” (P. Robeson, 1978, p. 119).

This swift shift in philosophy can in no small part be contributed to his ongoing contact and friendship of the members of the WASU: Jomo Kenyatta, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Cyril Lionel Robert James and one of their mentors Du Bois (Swindall, 2013, p. 67). The WASU was mostly comprised of male students from wealthy West African families in British colonies who were concerned about continued colonial rule (Given, 1989). Kenyatta is a great example. While he fought for freedom from colonial oppression for Kenya (which he eventually helped achieve and became the independent state’s first president) and other African nations, he also had prolonged interactions with Padmore (1937) and Gandhi, who were both involved in the broader concept of Anti-colonialism (Jomo Kenyatta, 2014). This overlapping of influences and philosophies, from Robeson, Kenyatta, Du Bois, Gandhi, and Padmore, is just one example to the intricacy of the layering of Robeson’s ideology.

Azikiwe was another major influence on Paul Robeson’s African thoughts. Just as he mentored Kwame Nkrumah, who later became the first president of Ghana, the first “post”-colonial African country, Azikiwe influenced Robeson during their interactions in London. Azikiwe used his expertise in political science and journalism to decolonize Nigeria and become its first president in 1963. Interestingly, he attended and taught at Lincoln University (where Robeson coached football) and attended Columbia University (where Robeson earned his law degree). It would be hard to argue that Azikiwe’s time at Lincoln and Columbia did not involve philosophical transfer of civil rights ideologies which would then add to his overall stance in Pan-Africanism and reciprocation between Robeson and himself (French, 1996).

To best understand where Paul Robeson fits into the movement of the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, analyzing the writings of the leaders of the movement, which Robeson would have read and influenced, sets the stage. Cabral, Fanon, and Julius Nyerere are all considered leaders of Pan-African thought during the time of Paul Robeson. Nyerere (1968) was a teacher-turned-politician who fought for the independence of Tanzania and became its first president. Despite controversial practices of his government, Nyerere was a leading example of African socialism and independence who hosted and supported the South African-based African National Congress and the continental Pan-African Congress. Fanon fought for Algerian independence, while exposing the ontology of the colonized through his writing and psychiatric work (Emory University, 2014). Fanon, much like Du Bois, revealed that the colonized have ontologies imposed on them through means such as language, religion, and other cultural and racial values (Peterson, 2007, p. 24). It is in Fanon’s (1963) The Wretched of the Earth that he argues that the only cure for this is the violent destruction of race as a social construct, a true and encompassing revolution (P. Robeson, 2008). Cabral (1980) was born in Guinea Bissau but grew up in and is recognized for his work in Cabo Verde as an agronomist and struggle for the de-colonization of Portuguese colonies. Like Fanon, he did not shy away from a militant response to colonialism; however, he did not believe militancy was inevitable. He instead championed the idea of cultural resistance and the role it ultimately plays in breaking down colonial rule. The work and philosophies of these individuals parallels that of Paul Robeson throughout his struggle for African freedom.

Robeson fully believed African Americans in the United States could not be free until all African people around the world were free. In Here I Stand P. Robeson (1958, p. 64) wrote, “[c]an we oppose White Supremacy in South Carolina and not oppose the same vicious system in South Africa?” As you will see in all of Paul Robeson’s philosophies, humanitarianism and the oneness of humankind are constantly present.

While Robeson did act and perform art from African cultures, his most affecting contributions toward the Pan-African movement were through his speeches and his work with the Council on African Affairs (CAA). ¹ Even before he founded the CAA, P. Robeson (1978, pp. 88-104) was vocal about the importance of an African nationality, the ceasing of European intervention in Africa, and the concept that colonialism was rooted in race. He argued, long before biology had proven so, that race was not a physical thing. Rather, it is a social construct for the means of economic exploitation.

Once the CAA was founded, Robeson found a national and international platform beyond his own stages and personal speeches, which he used to combat colonialism and racism in Africa. There was certainly a trend from the early 1940s, when P. Robeson (1978, pp. 158, 193) decided that the world must act, to the realization that the world was not acting in the late 1940s and the necessity of African countries to achieve freedom for themselves. Through the CAA, he appealed to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President Harry Truman, and the United Nations on numerous occasions, both raising awareness of and concerning the Fascist-like states of South Africa and Kenya and calling the United States and the World into action. “ACTION NOW,” is what P. Robeson (1978, p. 164) wrote in a joint U.S.-United Nations address in 1946: “WILL AMERICA HELP FREE AFRICA? . . . AMERICA MUST ANSWER!” When no answer came, or at least no answer that Robeson agreed with, there was a definite shift in his philosophy, as evidenced in his speeches. Paul Robeson (1978, pp. 193-194 & 307-317) was becoming more militant and supportive of militant protest in places such as Kenya and South Africa. In 1949, he stated that there will be no tolerance and no compromise, “racism must be destroyed” (P. Robeson, 1978, p. 194). Just as Du Bois, Robeson saw the connections between slavery and racism. In referring to the Union of South Africa, he said, “[o] my brothers and sisters of the two USA’s – we are going to be free!” (P. Robeson, 1978, p. 325). Not only did he see freedom in Africa as freedom for African Americans, he was willing to lead the African American charge to “pry loose” the chokehold colonialism and Fascism held on the continent (P. Robeson, 1978, p. 351).

So, it is clear that Robeson was influenced by some of the greatest anti-colonial and Pan-African leaders and activists of the twentieth century. His honors themselves speak to his involvement in the movements, from being invited by Nkrumah to teach for the Institute of African Studies at the University of Ghana, to an award from the United Nations in 1978 for his contributions toward the international fight against apartheid, and his 1950 Nigerian “Champion of Freedom” award (Hunton, 1958, p. 117; O’Malley, 1978; Ramdin, 1987, p. 196).

Socialism

This Anglo-directed anti-colonial philosophy transitions nicely into Paul Robeson’s Anglo-originating socialist ideology. Robeson’s philosophies on the global labor movement are quite possibly the most difficult to contextualize of his three philosophies. For the benefit of relative simplicity, emphasis will be on socialism in the United States and the United Kingdom including the Soviet influences to each of these areas. Philip Foner (1967, 1991), a leading labor historian, provided a good consensus of the dominance in the United States’ labor movement of trade unions, as opposed to government organizations. The exception to this concept would be President F. D. Roosevelt’s (1947) New Deal. Quite differently, in the United Kingdom the labor movement was propelled by party organization. It was then, through the many socialist parties, especially the leading Communist and Labour Parties, that unions were able to gain traction (CP, 2015; Labour, 2015).

Most of Robeson’s influences came from leading labor activists in Britain. While in London, he had many discussions on Marx, socialism, and labor with such individuals as writer Herbert George Wells, poet Langston Hughes, Cripps, and Nyerere. Cripps and Nyerere highlight the intersection of anti-colonial and Pan-Africanism, respectfully, with socialism. Cripps (1946), a leading figure in the history of the Labour Party was an advocate for a curtailing of private industry and property and increasing jobs, pay, conditions, and benefits. Many of Nyerere’s (1968) beliefs on labor were later published in his government’s programs. The Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) Creed and the broader Arusha Declaration state that all citizens deserve equal pay, there must be an absence of exploitation, workers should own the means of production, a democratic government is necessary, and socialism must be a belief system. This last point clearly connects with Robeson. They both believed people cannot simply put in place a socialist political or economic system. It must be accompanied by a fundamental revolution of principal, where people live the ideals of socialism and are not simply dictated by them (Nyerere, 1968; P. Robeson, 1958).

Robeson’s labor ideas, to a greater extent than his other ideologies, evolved throughout his life with his experiences. As he traveled to the Soviet Union, other nations of the British Isles, and eventually back to the United States, his writing reflected a changing opinion of the role labor rights and socialism should have on the world (Horne, 1998).

Museum curator Charles Wright (1975) provided the best synopsis of Robeson’s worldwide contribution to the international labor movement. From advocacy in and of the Welsh mines, to his support of the India League, to his presence on the front lines of the Spanish Civil War, to his singing of “Joe Hill” all across the United States in union halls and public and state venues (P. Robeson, 2013a), Robeson championed the ideas of scientific socialism. Wright, of course, is not the only writer of Robeson’s labor involvement. Singer Pete Seeger (2007) and historian Joseph Walwik (2002) also discussed Robeson through the Peekskill Riots, historian Ron Verzuh (2012) spoke of his Peace Arch Concerts, and Robeson’s own work through music (P. Robeson, 2013b) and film (Hurwitz & Strand, 1942; Tennyson, 1940) represents his role in the worldwide struggle for labor rights and ideas of socialism. ²

Wright’s (1975) book, Robeson, Labor’s Forgotten Champion, speaks not only to Robeson’s contribution to labor, but also the lack of memory of him in 1975 which continues today. He identifies the different unions Robeson supported and sometimes helped organize: The International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, the Tobacco Workers of North Carolina, the National Maritime Union, the United Public Workers’ Union, the United Automobile Workers, the National Negro Labor Council, the South Wales Miners’ Union, and many more to lesser extents. In addition to his union activity, he then linked this activity to his geography. Wales, Scotland, Manchester, England, and Hawaii all receive special attention by Wright, as they all received special attention by Robeson as pivotal centers of international commerce and thus centers of labor movements.

Peekskill, New York, is also discussed by Wright, but other scholars have also paid special attention to the riots at Peekskill which served as the turning point in Paul Robeson’s national reception (e.g., Fast, 2002). Recently passed, legendary folk singer, Pete Seeger sang at the concert at Peekskill, and it was his organization, Peoples Artists Inc., that helped sponsor the 1949 concerts. With an audience composed mostly of union supporters, some men surrounded Robeson on his concert platform, while others created a periphery to protect the concert-goers from the ever raucous protesters. The violence occurred after the concert when, as the cars and people were leaving, thousands of rocks were thrown while the police who had been containing the protestors either did nothing, or contributed to the violence (Wright, 1975, p. 123). Robeson’s response to the violence is also just as important. He asked where the next Peekskill would be and how much further will the racists and those who wish to exploit the common worker go in their violence? Again, Robeson’s philosophies blur, as the riots at Peekskill were as much racially charged as they were politically, and Robeson used the event in further discussion of both socialism and human rights. Wright (1975, pp. 127-128) ended by quoting Robeson, “[l]et them continue . . . It [Robeson’s voice] will be heard above the screams of the intolerant.”

The Secretary of State under President Truman, Dean Acheson, revoked Paul Robeson’s passport that year. The blacklisting period had begun, and for the next decade Robeson had to rely, with the exception of the Black Church, on trade unions and universities for his support. That, however, did not diminish his returned support of labor rights. Together, Robeson and unions across the globe waged “war” (as Harvey Murphy of the Mine Mill and Smelters Union of British Columbia put it) against the U.S. government. Murphy’s union invited Robeson to Canada in 1951 and despite not needing a passport to cross the border, the U.S. Border Patrol was under executive order to deny Robeson passage. In 1952, and for the next 2 years, Robeson went back to the Canadian border and held a concert at the Peace Arch in Blain, Washington, first of all in protest of his own denied freedoms, but also in support of the international labor movement and the freedom for all people (Verzuh, 2012).

Paul Robeson’s other expression of his pro-labor ideas became manifest in his art. Unity Theater, which he founded in London, is one such example. Unity Theater provided a stage for actors to perform works which they had written and were accepted by the common people of Britain, somewhat like a working actors union. Robeson also made sure that many of his concerts were accessible to all. Especially as he toured the British Isles outside of London and areas of the Caribbean and Central America, he charged as little as one dollar or pound for entry. Of course, his art itself acts as a testament to the struggles of labor (Duberman, 1988). The song “Joe Hill” describes the martyrdom of a union leader in Utah (P. Robeson, 2013a). The film The Proud Valley is now a Welsh national symbol for its depiction of miners in Wales and their fight for labor rights (Musser, 2007; Tennyson, 1949). The documentary Native Land highlights the many injustices which occurred in the United States against unions in the 1940s (Hurwitz & Strand, 1942). Paul Robeson (1978, p. 119) stated the artist must elect to fight for freedom or for slavery. He made his choice. He had no alternative.

Human Rights

The third philosophy of Paul Robeson was his involvement and influence in the civil rights movement and more broadly his constant struggle towards the universal equality of human rights. More so than his other philosophies, there is little separation between his influences and the leaders of the human rights movement than those of the anti-colonialist and socialist movements, at least in the early twentieth century when his conceptualization of human rights developed. With statesman Frederick Douglass (1945) as the backdrop, political activists Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey, and Du Bois (1970, 1993, 2007; Balaji, 2007) were the most influential individuals to Robeson and, within the human and civil rights movements, are often viewed in polarities.

Paul Robeson’s acting actually led to a public vilification of him by Garvey. Garvey’s separatist (Pan-African Nationalist) beliefs found their way into Robeson’s theories on civil rights, but they did not stop Robeson from accepting a handful of roles, which Garvey saw as a disgrace to Robeson and all Black people. Robeson, however, did not agree with Garvey’s ideas on race or repatriation. P. Robeson (1978, p. 104) firmly believed that race was a social construct and laughed at the idea of Black Nationalism destroying the White civilization. He also was firmly against leaving the United States. When asked by Pennsylvania Democrat Chairman Francis Walter of the House Un-American Activities Committee why he did not stay in Russia, P. Robeson (1978, p. 427) replied,

[b]ecause my father was a slave, and my people died to build this country, and I am going to stay here and have a part of it just like you. And no Fascist-minded people will drive me from it. Is that clear?

Washington’s ideas of cultural assimilation, a strong education and, for those who were able, a responsibility to utilize their skills in whatever way was acceptable to mainstream culture are evident in Paul Robeson’s early life. Robeson even mentions Washington as he writes about his early educational experience and how much he respected Washington (Hayes, 2001). Robeson’s early acting career reflected this. While these two figures were in stark ideological contestation between separatist and assimilationist ideals, Robeson mainly from his father’s teaching of subtlety, balanced the two (Duberman, 1988, p. 15). Chambers (2006) however, argues that P. Robeson’s (1958) autobiography served as a breaking point with his father’s more Washington-influenced philosophies. Overall, while these two ideologies conflicted as far as Robeson’s human rights philosophies are concerned, the stress on integrated education and a Pan-African Nationalist approach to cultural and political distinction were balanced through an air of respect and tolerance.

Douglas and Du Bois were the most influential to Robeson and Robeson, in turn, was most similar to them. Both were scholars, statesmen, and activists, and both discussed race as a social construct. Douglas said “[w]e are then a persecuted people; not because we are colored, but simply because that color has for a series of years been coupled in the public mind with the degradation of slavery and servitude” (Goldfield, 1997, p. 92). Beyond simply being influenced by Du Bois, Robeson and Du Bois became great friends as they grew older. Both were highly educated, part of the WASU in London (Carew, 2004), and friends with Nkrumah and fought for an independent Ghana and African de-colonization in general. Du Bois earned the Lenin Peace Prize, while Robeson earned the Stalin Peace Prize. Du Bois served on Robeson’s CAA, and both were ultimately vilified and condemned by the U.S. government; Robeson was forbidden to leave and Du Bois was forbidden to enter (P. Robeson, 1958).

Robeson’s role in the human rights movement is often cited as paving the way for his predecessors such as singer Harry Belefonte, boxer Muhammad Ali, and activists Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. (Nazel, 1980). Robeson set the example for African Americans in sports and campaigned for their continued integration (Dorinson, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). He broke the stereotype of the Black actor on stage (Baraka, 1998; Duberman, 1998). He was the first to program Negro music as concert music (McGinty & Shirley, 1998; Pencak, 2002). After a long struggle with stereotypes in film, he walked out on Hollywood (Als, 2007). On the political stage Robeson, again using the CAA and his own influence, fought for outlawing lynching and Jim Crow throughout the United States, all the while attempting to unite, arouse, and lift off the inferiority complex he perceived of many African Americans (Bell, 1998; Perucci, 2004, 2009).

During Paul Robeson’s time in high school and at Rutgers, he broke through every racial barrier in athletics which was presented to him. He became the first African American to play for Rutgers, coached football for 1 year at Lincoln University, and then played professionally for 3 years with the Hammond Pros, the Akron Pros (who were the championship team the year prior), and the Milwaukee Badgers (Harris, 1998). P. Robeson (1978, p. 151) carried this support of desegregated sports throughout his life and was part of the committee who met with Major League Baseball to put an end to prohibiting Black players (Dorinson, 2002b).

On the stage and screen, Robeson fought another battle against the use of his body in a way which played into the established “norms” of a Black actor or a Black man in general. The 1937 film Jericho is an example where he only signed on to act in the film after he was guaranteed editing control. His roles in Othello and All God’s Chillun Got Wings, where he co-starred with a White woman as his partner, also broke down color barriers in the United Kingdom, but especially in the United States. This exertion of power, first, created movies that for the first time did not have racist overtones, and second, paved the way for other Black actors to hold dignified positions (Criterion Collection, 2007).

In the same manner as his acting, Robeson lifted African American music above its perceived level to the concert stage. He was the first concert singer to hold an event where only African American music was programmed. This represents Robeson’s idea of the validity of the African American culture and his agreement with Garvey that assimilation should not be the only solution to the many problems facing African Americans in the United States (Pencak, 2002).

Within politics and the legal issues facing the human rights movement, Paul Robeson played a major, and often underappreciated or contested, role. Paul Robeson founded the CAA, was on the Civil Rights Congress, led a march on Washington against lynching, and spoke in almost every state on the horrible discrimination of Jim Crow Laws (Duberman, 1988).

To this day, debate continues as to why Robeson was blacklisted and his passport revoked. Officially, it was caused by his support of African independence movements. Another perspective cites his ties with the Soviet Union and communism. The final opinion offered is that Robeson was detained because, as he traveled around the world, he spoke out against the humanitarian violations and racism in the United States. He chose to fight for freedom and so they revoked his passport, but his voice and body shattered that barrier (Beeching, 2002; P. Robeson, 1978). Today Robeson’s body and voice continue to represent values of the civil rights movement, represented here by the words of the late former Poet Laureate of New Jersey, Amiri Baraka:

That’s why these revolutionaries still give us strength every day,

That’s why the fools and racists can’t make them fade away,

Two great beings of fire and light,

Two great figures who can make day out of night,

And the huge constellation called Paul Robeson has returned once again,

His century of revolutionary struggle will guide without end,

Paul the artist,

Paul the actor,

Paul the scholar,

Paul the fighter,

All combined so that he was the tallest of men. (Baraka, 2006)

Conclusion

In the end, whether he was fighting against colonialism, racism, or capitalism, Paul Robeson was fighting Fascism. Just as he often replied to the question of his political stance, he was a staunch Ant-Fascist. He was on the front lines during the Spanish Civil War. He shook his finger in President Truman’s face and threatened possible violent action after being told lynching was not a national concern. Robeson marched with thousands of Welsh miners, leading them in song, through the streets of London in protest of labor exploitation. His life went from that of vocal expression to that of physical protest despite the strongest attempts by the U.S. government to silence him. They never did, but 25 years of blacklisting have left a scar on the memorial landscape of Paul Robeson.

However, his involvement internationally was not expunged from all landscapes and there are isolated pockets throughout the United States and greater pockets of popular memory throughout the world, such as Wales (Dobbs & Cope, 2001a, 2001b, 2002a, 2002b, 2003a, 2003b; Rhodes, 2015; Williams, 2012), Canada (MacDowell, 2003; Verzuh, 2012), and Germany (Carmody, 2014). It is through these locations where connections can be drawn to understand how well the aforementioned philosophies have been represented. Furthermore, there may be intricate political, cultural, and historical implications which may arise and can be identified from an incomplete representation. It is vital that humanity remembers Paul Robeson, and not that he was just a singer or an actor. He was an anti-colonialist, a socialist, and a human rights leader, and this memory of Paul Robeson holds the potential to contribute a philosophical blueprint of human existence to the world.