Note: Thank you to NetGalley, Mariner Books, and author Howard Bryant for the advanced reader copy of this book. This review will also be posted on NetGalley. What follows is my unbiased review of the book.
Howard Bryant explores the racism involved in the hearings held in the 1950s by the House Un-American Activities Committee in Kings and Pawns. This was fascinating to listen to. As much as I’ve loved baseball and revere Jackie Robinson, he ended up being used by Branch Rickey in this regard, whom he himself had revered. It was probably the hardest lesson he had to learn in his life, and his faith in the man who stood up to integrate baseball and was a catalyst for social change was largely misplaced.
Kings and Pawns focuses on the contradiction of the two men, Jackie Robinson and Paul Robeson, as well as the common goals they shared. Robeson was a highly-regarded actor, singer, and football player who found fame throughout the world, but it was his activism on behalf of the working class that was his downfall. At a time when the country was obsessed with the idea that we were being infiltrated by agents of the Soviet Union, Robeson’s activism on behalf of labor drew a target on him.
I’m someone who is fascinated with history and has read many books on the subject, as well as race relations. I have heard the name Paul Robeson before now, but never realized just how popular he was until HUAC and the government went about vilifying him. In many ways, his activism and history have been erased.
Jackie Robinson was probably the most famous black man at the time, which was why having him testify before HUAC and denounce Roneson was seen as such a coup. Robinson was asked to by Rickey. Both men fancied themselves patriots, and Robinson was more than willing to testify to that fact. The speech he made to HUAC likely didn’t go as far as many of them wished.
It all began when Robeson spoke at the Paris Peace Conference in 1948. He was misquoted as having said: “It is unthinkable that American Negros would go to war on behalf of those who have oppressed us for generations against the Soviet Union which in one generation has lifted our people to full human dignity.” What he actually said was: We shall not make war upon the Soviet Union. We oppose those who wish to support imperialism…” This was not specifically saying that Black Americans would not fight in a war. However, the damage was done, and HUAC had an excuse to drag Robeson through the mud.
Howard Bryant does a great job presenting the history of both men as well as the time this is set in. He shows how influential Robeson had become and how accepted by the mainstream he was despite segregation still being a thing. Robeson was the first black man to portray Othello on stage, despite him being a Moor in the original play. With him and Robinson leading the way, it looked like race relations were on a path to improving. This could be what was really behind the vilification of Robeson, as well as his activism for the working class.
Having seen some of Dr. Fauci’s testimony to Congress yesterday, not much has really changed.
Having read biographies of Jackie Robinson, there wasn’t much here that was new to me. However, his widow, Rachel, did give some insight into how Jackie felt in later years. It was hard to accept that he had been used by HUAC and those who wished to quell unrest both racially and socially by labor.
The book is very easy to understand. Bruant uses plain language and the words of the people themselves to illustrate what happened. The audiobook is read by JD Jackson, who has a great voice and gets the right amount of emotion at the right points. His voice in particular suits Robeson.
I did not know much about Paul Robeson before listening to Kings and Pawns, which is a shame. He was a tremendous talent and a good man who was erased from history for no good reason. All of McCarthyism was a disaster, but it was particularly bad for Robeson, and he did not deserve it.
Share this:
Categories: Baseball books, Book Reviews
McCarthyism was the worst of several “Red Scare” eras between the post-World War I period and the rise of Ronald Reagan after Watergate. The extremist wing of the conservative movement (which is mostly, but not uniquely, tied to the Republican Party) had to chill out after the furor over the Army-McCarthy hearings that brought Senator Joe McCarthy down. The movement that ended up “begetting” Trump and the MAGA phenomenon then bided its time, getting its feet back on terra firma with Nixon’s wins in ’68 and ’72, gaining momentum with Reagan’s landslides in ’80 and ’84, then coming back at full strength with Obama’s two victories in 2008 and 2012 by becoming the loud, vitriolic, and undeniably racist “disloyal opposition.” Ironically, Democratic Presidents such as Truman and Kennedy got us involved in Korea and (especially) Vietnam primarily for domestic political reasons; they did not want to be tarred by Republicans as being “soft on Communism,” especially since Republicans and the so-called China Lobby blamed Communist leader Mao Zedong’s victory in the Chinese Civil War on President Truman and his Administration.
The “Who Lost China” brouhaha basically boiled down to this: American conservatives and various religious leaders were enamored with the notion that the Chinese people could be just like us if they adopted Christianity and American economic and political ideas. The politicians and their wealthy backers saw China as just another huge market for American goods; the Catholic and Protestant missionaries saw the Chinese people as heathens who would be much better off if they converted to Christianity and joined the “civilized world.” Both groups, then, pinned all their hopes on Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek and his lovely, U.S.-friendly wife, Madame Chiang.
But as often is the case when America backs foreign big-wigs, Chiang wasn’t the right guy for the role that the China Lobby wanted him to play. He started out as an idealist, but once he became the head of the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) and became a “Generalissimo,” he devolved into being a corrupt and strategically inept leader. He stayed in power during WWII not just because the U.S. supported him with arms and money, but also because he’d been kidnapped by Mao’s agents and forced to cooperate with the Communists in the fight against the invading Japanese. Once Japan surrendered in the Fall of 1945 and its occupying forces went home and demobilized, the shaky “alliance” broke down, and the Chinese Civil War resumed after the Americans failed to broker a political settlement. Even with billions of dollars of American military hardware in hand, the inept and corrupt leadership of Nationalist China suffered a string of major defeats between 1946 and 1949, and Chiang ended up as the ruler of Formosa, now known as Taiwan.
Realistically, America did not “lose China” because China was not America’s to lose in the first place. But the conservative movement (which I obviously oppose) loves mythology more than reality, and the “Who Lost China?” question became a cudgel which the GOP wielded with gusto between 1950 and 1960. Truman was staunchly anti-Communist by nature, and so was JFK, and many of their Cold War decision-making was guided by that stance. That said, while I believe Truman made the right call when he called for the United Nations to defend South Korea from North Korean aggression, the big motivator was, truly, the concern that the GOP would accuse him of waffling during a Cold War crisis. That’s also why he decided to give military equipment to France during its failed attempt to reassert its role as a colonial power in Indochina after 1946. (Also, the French government strongly hinted that if we didn’t help, then perhaps Paris would seek closer relations with Moscow.)
Thus, McCarthyism got its start….and its echoes rippled all the way to the 2000s…..