INTRODUCTION

Thus the debate about the domestic cold war—including what to call the repression that was part of it—tells us that while the cold war may be over, its ghosts linger on. And they continue to haunt.

—VICTOR NAVASKY, THE NATION, 2001

RACE, RELIGION, THE 1950S, AND THE COLD WAR

I came of age in the 1950s in the Catholic schools of Cleveland, Ohio, places where religion, the Cold War, and racial integration converged and where the dangers of communism were brought home to Catholic schoolchildren in spectacles as intense and dramatic as miraculous apparitions. We read anticommunist comic books in school, prayed en masse for the conversion of Russia, and feared the Iron Curtain not as symbolic imaginary but as imminent threat. By the time I left the eighth grade, the names of Cardinal Mindszenty, the anticommunist cardinal of Hungary, and Louis Budenz, a former communist, Catholic convert, and paid FBI informer, were as familiar as the Little Flower and Our Lady of Fatima. The institutional Catholic Church in the United States was virulently anticommunist and supportive of Senator Joseph McCarthy, at least partly because religious persecution in communist countries was to the Catholic Church a real and present danger. The U.S. Catholic Church was also highly segregated. There were separate seminaries and convents for black priests and nuns and, though I didn’t know it then, there were also behind-the-scenes struggles by black parents and community folk in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s that forced U.S. Catholic schools and organizations to integrate. These disturbances never made it into any histories of Catholic education, but they were a part of black oral history. Since a major support for antiracist radicalism in the 1940s and 1950s was the Communist Party and radicals of the Left, the U.S. Catholic crusade against communism was accompanied by, and helped sustain for all those years during the Cold War, a deep suspicion of civil rights activism.

I was in elementary school when the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision was made, a landmark decision that not only was pointedly minimized by the Catholic hierarchy of Cleveland but also was used to bolster its anticommunist rhetoric. A month after the Brown decision, Cleveland’s major Catholic paper, the Catholic Universe Bulletin, complimented the court for its temperate choice in not trying to change “long established institutions and traditions over night” and for “taking the wind out of the sails of the Communists.” Without any suggestion of spiritual concern for the segregated children of God, the editorial chided those “petty politicians” (read: civil rights leaders) for trying to make personal gain out of a “pretended white supremacy” that could not exist, the writer claimed, in “the democratic atmosphere of America.” The editorial ends on this triumphal but premature announcement of national black inclusion: The “studied efforts to make second-class citizens of certain minority groups [are] now out of our national picture” (June 1954, 4). No wonder we forty or so black students among nearly one thousand whites at St. Thomas Aquinas School felt we were there on white sufferance, outsiders among the children of Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants, tolerated so long as we learned the important lessons of assimilation and invisibility.

The convergence of the Cold War and integration during my education meant that I imbibed a version of black racial identity filtered through and shaped by Cold War politics. It was an antiblack, self-abnegating form of racial identity based on white tolerance and black invisibility. Black teenagers in the 1950s had so absorbed these “lessons of Jim Crow” that they had adopted a humorous takedown for anyone whose behavior was considered “acting black” (loud colors, loud talking, uncouth behavior) and fell short of those elusive standards for white acceptance: “You ain’t ready,” someone would snap, which was shorthand for “You aren’t ready for integration.” The worst epithet we could use to describe racial discrimination was the anemic term “prejudice”; we didn’t know then that race militants and leftists called it, more accurately, “white supremacy,” thus making clear that there was an organized racialized structure based on political, economic, and social oppression, not just bad white behavior, and that the goal for black equality was not only changing minds and hearts but challenging institutions.

I begin with these personal reminiscences to highlight the ways that a deep animosity to black civil rights struggles ran like a vein throughout U.S. Cold War culture, preparing even those of us who benefited the most from civil rights militancy to be stand-up little anticommunists. The Cold War strategies that were used to undermine civil rights and civil rights activists are perhaps most obvious in the files of the FBI, where blacks and civil rights activists were the targets of FBI probes. The “equation between the red and the black” (Caute 1978, 167) was so fixed in the mind of J. Edgar Hoover that he recommended that the writer Richard Wright be kept on the Security Index because his “militant attitude toward the Negro problem” signified a weak commitment to anticommunism (Robins 1992, 285). Similarly, the FBI declared the once-acceptable James Baldwin “dangerous” in 1960 “as he became more vocal in criticizing segregation” and had participated in a rally to abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) (Robins 1992, 346). People who were called before “loyalty boards” were routinely interrogated about their position on racial equality in ways that assumed civil rights work was a sign of disloyalty, a typical question being: “Do you think an outspoken philosophy favoring race equality is an index of Communism?” (Caute 1978, 283).

THE BLACK-RED NEGRO

Yet until the recent outpouring of new scholarship, the Cold War was figured as white in the national imaginary and was routinely resegregated by Cold War scholars, who produced versions of the Cold War that featured the white Hollywood Ten, white Red Diaper babies, white HUAC hearings, white red feminism, and a white blacklist.¹ On the other side of this cultural divide, the Black Popular Front—the “Other Blacklist” of my title—has almost always been marginalized in black literary and cultural studies. Though nearly every major black writer of the 1940s and 1950s was in some way influenced by the Communist Party or other leftist organizations, and although the Left was by all accounts the most racially integrated movement of that period, the terms “U.S. radicalism,” “left wing,” “Old Left,” “New Left,” and “communism” came to signify white history and black absence.

Blacks came to the Communist Party through various channels: through unions, labor organizations, and grassroots antiracist work; through the WPA or anticolonial work like the campaign against South African apartheid; through community and cultural groups like the South Side Community Art Center in Chicago; and through the peace movement. As the witch hunts of the McCarthy Senate investigations and HUAC geared up, every kind of legitimate dissent, including teachers who tried to institute Black History Week in schools and unions that did antiracist work, was targeted as “subversive.” There may indeed have been reasons to oppose communism, but the war on radicalism that eventually turned into full-scale McCarthyism was ultimately “not about spies or celebrities or even grand inquisitors,” as Mike Marqusee so clearly shows in a 2004 review in The Nation. In Marqusee’s catalogue of Cold War targets, anticommunism was organized to obstruct any avenue of possible dissent: “factories and offices, schools, local libraries, PTAs. Radio stations. Comic books. TV series. Advertisements.” And, I would add, it was a war against black resistance. In the 1940s, when the leftist Esther Jackson and her husband, the black communist James Jackson, organized the Southern Negro Youth Movement in Birmingham, Alabama, to fight segregation and black poverty, their work was dismantled by the machinations of both the Ku Klux Klan and the FBI, which had declared war on civil rights. As Esther retorts, “We were fighting against white racist brutality in Birmingham, not taking orders from Moscow.”²

No one could have convinced me as a twelve-year-old Catholic schoolgirl or even as a twenty-something graduate student in the early 1960s that communism meant black people any good. But if I had listened carefully to the adults, I might have overheard them talking of unions, Paul Robeson, and civil rights. The Other Blacklist is my attempt to finally overhear those long-forgotten, repressed conversations. They reveal important and elementary facts about the Communist Party’s positions on race that bear repeating: “The CP was the only major American political party that formally opposed racial discrimination; it devoted considerable resources to an array of anti-discrimination campaigns; and it created a rare space for Black leadership in a multiracial institution” (Biondi 2003, 6). The CP signaled its commitment to black liberation as early as 1928, at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International (Comintern) in Moscow, when, with the encouragement of black activists, the CP made a statement in support of black rights to full equality. With its slogan of “self-determination in the Black Belt” focused on black equality struggles in the U.S. South, the Party embraced both black nationalism and fought against white supremacy, a dual project rooted in the belief that “antiracism should be an explicit component of the anticapitalist struggle” (4).³ The CP’s antiracist history was the catalyst for the writer-activist Julian Mayfield’s decision to join the CP while in his early twenties. As he recalled in a 1970 interview: “The Communist Party, it seemed to young people, offered the best advantage, the sharpest weapon by which to attack the society…. [So] we joined the most powerful, radical organization we could” (Mayfield 1970). For Mayfield, like many other black activists, that choice was made primarily because of the CP’s commitment to racial struggle.

Given the political history of the Communist Party as far back as the 1920s, it is clear why the CP attracted blacks, especially during the Depression. In industrialized cities, where blacks were at the bottom of industry’s discriminatory structures and were trying to organize themselves as workers, the militant efforts of the communists to unionize workers, stop evictions, protest police violence, integrate unions, and give positions of authority to blacks in the unions must have seemed like beacons of light. The CP gained black support and black confidence in the rural South because of its work organizing the Sharecroppers Union and in the northern industrial cities because of its organizing of the local CP Unemployed Councils, which fought for welfare relief and against evictions. Starting in the 1920s, the CP coordinated with, joined, or supported a range of black organizations: the American Negro Labor Congress 1925), the League of Struggle for Negro Rights (which replaced the all-black ANLC in 1930), the National Negro Congress (1935–1947), the Council on African Affairs, the Southern Negro Youth Congress (1937–1949), the American Youth Congress, and the Civil Rights Congress (1940–1955). The Chicago community activist Bennett Johnson described the Party as an almost ordinary aspect of the political landscape in Chicago, second only to the policy racket as the most popular organization in Chicago’s black communities in the 1930s: the policy racket took care of black entrepreneurs, and the Communist Party took care of the people who were playing the numbers. Horace Cayton wrote in Black Metropolis, his sociological study of black Chicago, that in the 1930s the Party was such an accepted organization that when a black family feared an eviction, it was not unusual for them to tell their children to run and “find the Reds” (cited in Storch 2009, 113).

The Left played such an important part in black struggle during the 1940s that scholars refer to that period as the Black or Negro Popular Front to indicate that for blacks the classic period of the Popular Front (1935–1939)⁴ extended well into the next decade and beyond (Biondi 2003, 6). I extend the period of the Black Popular Front to 1959 because the artists in my study continued to work collectively on the Left in Popular Front–style organizations. With the impetus of World War II and the black militancy it encouraged, the Left gained a much-needed boost in the fight against racism. The war provided a nice set of ideological slogans—represented best by the Pittsburgh Courier’s “Double V” campaign (victory against fascism abroad and victory against racism at home) and the “Don’t Buy Where You Can’t Work” campaigns. But it was the CP and the black labor Left that supplied the armor for those slogans. Leftist labor leaders—like Ferdinand Smith of the National Maritime Union; Ewart Guinier of the United Public Workers Union; leaders of the Communist-led United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America; the Left-led National Negro Congress; and the leaders of the National Negro Labor Council, Coleman Young (mayor of Detroit from 1974 to 1993) and Nicholas Hood (who would serve as a Detroit councilman for twenty-eight years)—led the struggle for black jobs in war production and in unions and made fair employment practices central to their political agendas. Black leftists also kept watch on the unfolding of events abroad as Asian and African states gained independence, a connection that many scholars see as one of the ways internationalism stimulated black American militancy. Beyond the war, African American civil rights activists tried to internationalize black struggle with petitions to the United Nations: the NAACP’s 1947 An Appeal to the World and the Civil Rights Congress’s 1951 petition, We Charge Genocide,⁵ both of which offered a powerful critique of America’s institutionalized racism. These were left in the dustbin: the U.S. State Department refused to allow these petitions to be presented to the world body. Nonetheless, these strategies show that, in Biondi’s (2003, 8) words, “the left’s wartime rhetoric, like mainstream civil rights rhetoric, cast racial justice in the national [and, I would add, international] interest.” In his commencement address to Vassar College in 1945, the leftist actor Canada Lee called this kind of left-wing political work “equality with significance” (Biondi 2003, 21).

THE BLACK LEFT: DOWNTOWN CLEVELAND, 1952

In 1952 in Cleveland, the National Negro Labor Council held its second convention not far from the parochial school I attended. Coleman Young, the NNLC’s executive secretary, and Nicholas Hood, its president, addressed the convention with stirring speeches about the NNLC’s spectacular labor victories. Young recounted the story of the capitulation of the Sears Roebuck Company, which had, for the first time, begun to hire black workers “in all categories” and to include blacks in all its job-training courses. Hood’s speech, on the other hand, emphasized the internationalist focus of the civil rights movement, linking the struggles of black labor in the United States with the fight in South Africa against apartheid and the movements for democratic and economic rights in “Asia, Africa, the Middle East, [and] Puerto Rico” to “End White Supremacy Rule” (quoted in Gordon 1953, 14).⁶ The delegates approved a program that called for a jobs campaign “to get jobs for Negroes in all industries,” to get one million signatures on the petition of the Fair Employment Practices Committee, and to include “FEPC clauses in union contracts.” They also approved continuing the fight for repeal of the repressive Smith and McCarran laws, reaffirmed “solidarity with liberation movements of colonial peoples,” and called for “special actions in the interests of Negro women workers.” The NNLC got even more specific about antiblack labor practices, with its delegate Vicki Garvin reminding the participants that there was full-scale discrimination against blacks in industry, offices, department stores, public utilities, and in the emerging commercial airline industry. The policies of the airlines meant that they would hire no black pilots nor black flight attendants (then called “stewardesses”), pushing many of the NNLC’s 1,500 delegates to leave the convention center and stage “a mass job demonstration at Cleveland’s downtown airline ticket counter” (Lang 2009, 172). The NNLC also made sure its convention produced a radical cultural program. As one of the invited guests at the Cleveland convention, Paul Robeson sang to the 1,500 delegates. The left-wing visual artist Charles White was commissioned to do the drawing for the convention program, and he did not disappoint. His drawing featured the Statue of Liberty as a black woman holding the torch above a black couple, the man in overalls and the woman in the peasant dress of a worker. In his signature style, White enlarged the forearms of Liberty and of the couple to suggest their strength. Their faces look to the future with determination and expectancy. From the convention program designed by a left-wing artist to the speeches by Hood and Young, the entertainment by Robeson, its internationalist perspective, and its civil rights demonstration against the airlines’ racism, the NNLC’s 1952 convention was the epitome of a militant, muscular, and modern civil rights agenda. Formulated and carried out in downtown Cleveland at the Public Auditorium, the convention took place just a few miles from where I was learning that the fight to gain black economic and political equality was a communist plot.⁷

FIGURE 0.1. Poster by Charles White for the second convention of the National Negro Labor Council, Cleveland (1952).

Source: C. Ian White and the Charles White Archives. © Charles White Archives.

THE BLACK LEFT IN AFRICAN AMERICAN LITERARY HISTORY

In the 1960s and 1970s, my anticommunist education continued at the universities where I was trained in literary criticism via the New Critical bibles of Brooks and Warren’s Understanding Poetry and Understanding Fiction. These Cold War–influenced productions assured their readers that the literary or cultural object could only be judged by its own internal formal qualities and must be separated from “outside” influences like historical or political contexts. So I recognize the New Critical biases in the stunning absence of Cold War history in many African American literary and cultural histories and anthologies. To take the most well-known and influential anthology as an example, the Norton Anthology of African American Literature (Gates and McKay 2004) labels the period from the 1940s to the 1960s as “Realism, Naturalism, and Modernism,” as though these formal literary categories emerged full-blown, at the height of the Cold War, detached from the ideological and political pressures of that period. Furthermore, this labeling of a period in purely aesthetic terms is anomalous in the Norton Anthology; all of the other periods in the anthology—“The Literature of Slavery and Freedom,” “Literature of the Reconstruction to the New Negro Renaissance,” “Harlem Renaissance,” and “The Black Arts Movement”—are anchored in their political, historical, social, and literary contexts. That structure breaks down when the editors confront the Cold War period, a pattern of cultural amnesia that is understandable given the normalization of anticommunism in U.S. culture, the demonization of the Communist Party, and the tight reins of secrecy maintained by people who were subjected to blacklisting and McCarthyism.

The Norton essay does catalog many of the political and social issues (atomic explosions, fascism, World War II, social revolution, labor issues, the fall of colonialism, and the civil rights movement) that the editors present as a part of the “sprawling mess of raw material” that writers drew from, but it does not present these social issues as influencing aesthetic form. The only recognition of the politics of aesthetics is the essay’s denunciatory view of social protest as producing the “brutal realism and naturalism” of the work of Richard Wright. Distancing Ralph Ellison from his own Marxist and procommunist involvements, the Norton essay elevates him as the figure of “artistic maturation,” whose highly acclaimed 1952 novel Invisible Man “unburdened [the novel from] the narrow naturalism” of Wright and led black narrative into the higher realms of modernism. This critical narrative normalizes 1950s New Critical assumptions that literature was supposed to be preserved from ideology and dismisses the socially conscious literature of the 1930s and 1940s, in the words of the Norton editors, as “an exhausted mode.” Consider that during this political moment in the 1950s black writers and intellectuals were being intimidated, arrested, interrogated, indicted, jailed, deported, and blacklisted. Yet the absence of any reference to the blacklist, the Cold War, the Popular Front, the assault on Paul Robeson, W.E.B. Du Bois’s arrest, the HUAC investigations, the silencing of Langston Hughes, the denial of passports to Robeson and Du Bois (among others), the labeling of every civil rights organization as subversive (including the NAACP), and FBI censorship⁸ both misses the richness (and messiness) of the literary and political debates of this period and consolidates a Cold War narrative that ultimately marginalized black literary history.⁹

The Other Blacklist proposes a counternarrative that begins with the Black-Left history that is missing in the Norton. Besides a kind of cultural and philosophical compatibility between communism and African American literary culture that scholars like Alan Wald, James Smethurst, William Maxwell, and Brian Dolinar, Aaron Lecklider, and Cheryl Higashida (to name a few) have so thoroughly documented, Wald maintains that the Left offered black writers the institutional support that they could get nowhere else in white America: the publications and clubs and committees that were created for black writers (at least in part) by Party members and with Party support, spaces in which “Black writers came together to formulate ideas, share writings, make contacts, and develop perspectives that sustained their future creative work” (Wald 2001, 267). As Wald (and many others) concludes, until the late 1950s, these left-wing clubs, schools, committees, camps, and publications “constituted the principal venues” for the production of African American literary culture. As James C. Hall (2001, 19) insists, “no adequate history of post–World War II African-American cultural accomplishment can be undertaken without a full accounting of the psychic, political, and other costs of the cold war.”

Focusing closely on six artists who were aligned with the Left, The Other Blacklist: The African American Literary and Cultural Left in the 1950s proposes an alternative literary/cultural history, one represented by debates, conferences, symposia, institutional affiliations, political commitments, FBI investigations, and government spying networks. I view this project as a more inclusive, dynamic, and dialectical method of doing cultural and literary history, one that is committed to documenting, though not uncritically, the central role of the Communist Party and the Left in the shaping of mid-twentieth-century African American cultural history and aesthetics. The six figures in my study—the novelist and essayist Lloyd L. Brown; the visual artist Charles White; the playwright and novelist Alice Childress; the poet and novelist Gwendolyn Brooks; the novelist Frank London Brown; and the novelist, essayist, and activist Julian Mayfield—represent a range of experiences with the Left. Although Lloyd Brown and Julian Mayfield are the only self-identified members of the CP in this study, all these figures were at some point active with leftist organizations. Lloyd Brown, Julian Mayfield, and Charles White were openly and organizationally involved with the Communist Party of the United States; like White, Alice Childress was actively involved with, though not necessarily an official member of the Party; Gwendolyn Brooks, who is almost never connected with the Left, was a part of the left-wing Chicago Black Cultural Front in the 1940s and 1950s; Frank London Brown was also involved with the Left in the 1950s, mainly through his radical union work in the left-wing United Packinghouse Workers Union. By extending the period of the Black Popular Front to include the 1950s and placing these artists squarely within Black Popular Front politics, I show how, through their writing, painting, and activism, they carried the resistant traditions of the Black Popular Front of the 1930s and 1940s into the 1950s and became a link to the militant politics and aesthetics of the 1960s and 1970s. The Other Blacklist aims, therefore, to challenge the ideas, assumptions, and practices of contemporary African American anthologies that tend to minimize or exclude altogether the role of the Left and the Communist Party in African American cultural production. Rather than reduce the literature of the 1950s to aesthetics, I read the 1950s as a dynamic, exciting period of debate, a moment when the Black Left continued to work despite the pressures of the Cold War, and I intend to acknowledge, though not uncritically, the central role of the Communist Party. This, then, is the question that The Other Blacklist tries to answer: What happens if you put the black literary and cultural Left at the center of African American studies of the Cold War?

THE BLACK NATION THESIS: POLITICS AND AESTHETICS, TOGETHER AGAIN

First, it becomes necessary to acknowledge the central intellectual role of the CP in black literary studies, beginning with what the intellectual Left called the “black belt” or “black nation” thesis. In 1928, at the Sixth World Congress of the Comintern, the international Communist Party considered the question: Do black people in the United States constitute a nation, a national minority, or a nation in the “black belt” South and a national minority in all other regions? It passed the resolution asserting that African Americans in the black belt (the southern states) of the United States do constitute an oppressed nation with a right to self-determination. Communists offered “Self-Determination for the Black Belt” first as a slogan for organizing efforts in both the North and the South, which eventually helped the Party establish the Alabama Sharecroppers Union in 1931 and organize steelworkers and longshoremen in some southern cities.¹⁰ But the idea of black nationhood also appealed to African American writers, including Langston Hughes, Lloyd L. Brown, Alice Childress, Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, Margaret Walker, and Chester Himes, all of whom, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, embraced some aspects of the “black nation” thesis. Richard Wright’s writings perhaps best illustrate its appeal to writers and intellectuals. In his 1937 manifesto, “Blueprint for Negro Writing,” Wright gave what is probably the most compelling and coherent statement of the appeal of the nation thesis for black writers. Insisting that black writing must focus on the folklore, customs, and vernacular traditions of the black masses, Wright urged black writers to embrace the nation thesis to discover and represent “the collective consciousness of the race” found in these traditions—and also to do so because of their potential to inspire political action:

In the absence of fixed and nourishing forms of culture, the Negro has a folklore which embodies the memories and hopes of his struggle for freedom. Not yet caught in paint or stone, and as yet but feebly depicted in the poem and novel, the Negroes’ most powerful images of hope and despair still remain in the fluid state of daily speech…. Negro folklore contains, in a measure that puts to shame more deliberate forms of Negro expression, the collective sense of Negro life in America.

(1382–1383)

Black leftist artists increasingly represented black vernacular forms in their texts, including folklore, folk speech, and celebrations of jazz and the blues. Both Wright and Ralph Ellison—as well as all the writers examined in The Other Blacklist and most of the black writers at mid-century—incorporated black vernacular forms in their work as representative of a larger effort to embody and represent a unified and oppositional black community. While the Communist Party’s notion of an African American nation rising up within the American South or forming a collective oppositional force was never a realistic political goal (and in fact was ridiculed and rejected by many African Americans), the potential of an organized black community, particularly one that celebrated black culture and history, excited many of the leading black intellectuals of this era. From Margaret Walker to Ralph Ellison, black writers found their literary direction in reclaiming the “folk.” According to the cultural historian Robin D. G. Kelley, these Marxist ideologies that valued the black working class, recognized the aesthetic value of black “folk” culture and black history, and celebrated traditions of black resistance became both a vehicle for black communist political operations and, most importantly for black writers, an aesthetic imperative (1996, 109). Of course, as Kelley also notes, African Americans “brought their [own] grass-roots, race-conscious cultural traditions to the Party,” including their deep religious beliefs—and, yes, the Party may have tried to transmute every expression of black culture into communist revolutionary significance, which writers often resisted. But the presence and power of the nation thesis for black writers is clear. I point this out as a response to the claim of African American literary historians that “during the forties and fifties, as previously during the Harlem Renaissance and earlier periods, there was no consciously formulated black aesthetic” (Hill et al. 1988, 1078). From the 1930s to the 1960s, that is, for a substantial part of the twentieth century, African American literary criticism and practice was, in fact, significantly influenced by the formulas of the Marxist-Leninist nation thesis and its focus on black folk culture as the basis for a national, oppositional culture.

THE BLACK BLACKLIST

Besides a philosophical compatibility between communism and African American literary culture, which is especially obvious in the ways that the black nation thesis was deployed for aesthetic purposes, the Left, as Alan Wald has observed, offered black writers the institutional support that they could get nowhere else in white America. Weaving back and forth between Chicago and New York, The Other Blacklist revisits scenes of major black leftist activity in the 1950s, where the subjects of my study encountered that left-wing support system, Lloyd L. Brown and Alice Childress, in New York, and Gwendolyn Brooks, Frank London Brown, and Charles White, along with artists and activists of the South Side Community Art Center, in Chicago (although White was fairly peripatetic, spending time in Mexico and New York before settling in California). During the 1950s, Black Popular Front activists organized and worked with freedom structures—like Robeson’s Harlem-based radical newspaper Freedom (1950–1955), which covered arts, culture, and politics on the national and international stage and reported extensively on the government repression of radicals and radical thought, with the goal of developing a politically informed and resistant black community. The arts-and-culture-centered Committee for the Negro in the Arts (1947–1954) produced plays by black writers at the progressive interracial Club Baron theater, at 437 Lenox Avenue at 132nd Street, and these plays might then be reviewed by Lorraine Hansberry in the left-wing newspaper Freedom and by the communist Lloyd Brown in the Marxist journal Masses & Mainstream, and proceeds from the box office might go to benefit the left-dominated Civil Rights Congress. Black Popular Front activists founded the progressive American Negro Theatre (where leftist artists including Alice Childress, Sidney Poitier, Harry Belafonte, Ossie Davis, and Ruby Dee got their start) and produced plays, some with subversive racial potential. The militant internationalist woman’s organization Sojourners for Truth and Justice (1951–1952) protested against the injustices to black women at the hands of the criminal justice system (Gore 2011, 65–89). In 1951, in a second-floor loft at 125th and Seventh Avenue in Harlem, the white communist Philip Bonosky and the black leftist John Killens formed the Harlem Writers’ Workshop (later the Harlem Writers’ Guild), which encouraged and helped publish progressive black writers. Black leftists spent time at recreational spaces such as Camp Unity in Wingdale, New York, the first interracial adult camp in the United States, and Camp Wo-Chi-Ca, an interracial coeducational summer vacation camp in Port Murray, New Jersey, both of which sponsored black cultural events. Black visual artists showed their work at galleries such as the socially conscious ACA Gallery, operating then at Ninety-First Street and Madison Avenue, which featured the work of Charles White and Jacob Lawrence at a time when mainstream art galleries did not show black art. Black leftists were enrolled in left-wing educational institutions including the George Washington Carver School in Chicago, the Sam Adams School in Boston, the Jefferson School in New York, the California Labor School in San Francisco, and the People’s Educational Center in Los Angeles. Many black leftists did work with the CP and in many cases did the dangerous work of defending leftist activists indicted under the Smith and McCarran Acts. When mainstream literary publications completely ignored black culture and black life, the Marxist, leftist, and communist journals covered, theorized, and critiqued African American cultural production: New Masses, Masses & Mainstream, the Sunday and Daily Worker, Contemporary Reader, and Negro Quarterly. Left-wing and Marxist publishers like International Publishers and Masses & Mainstream Press published these writers when the white mainstream, and even white left-wing liberals, would not.¹¹

Given this history, I take the liberty of extending the duration of the “Black Popular Front” or “Black Cultural Front,” or Negro Cultural Front, to highlight the continuing influence of the black literary, cultural, and political Left throughout the 1950s. These were the spaces, which until the late 1950s, as Wald (2001, 267) rightly claims, “constituted the principal venues in which many Black writers came together to formulate ideas, share writings, make contacts, and develop perspectives that sustained their future creative work.”¹² In other words, during the Cold War, when blacks were not even a blip on the white American cultural radar, it was in these leftist spaces of the Black Popular Front that African American literary culture was debated, critiqued, encouraged, performed, published, produced, and preserved.¹³

THE BLACK POPULAR FRONT: RACE RADICALISM IN THE 1950S

We have to understand that the U.S. government, with its Cold War mind-set, was not only in the business of trying to repress the Left; it was also shaping debates over race, integration, and civil rights.¹⁴ Several excellent studies of the civil rights years expose the role of government intervention in deliberately constructing a Cold War narrative of racial progress that undermined civil rights struggles.¹⁵ A case in point is the fate of the NAACP petition to the United Nations in 1947, “An Appeal to the World,” inspired and led by W. E. B. Du Bois, asking that body “to redress human rights violations the United States committed against its African-American citizens.”¹⁶ The petition was rejected after U.S. opposition—which included Eleanor Roosevelt—because terms like “human rights,” “violations of the United States,” and “African American citizens” made it too radical for government sensitivities. The petition, however, became “an international sensation” when the Soviet Union demanded an investigation. But the State Department’s response to what was considered both a Cold War win for the Soviets and a black eye for America was not action but pamphleteering. In the early 1950s, the U.S. Information Agency put out a pamphlet, The Negro in American Life, in order to portray American history as a story of democracy at work overcoming the evils of the past.¹⁷ The pamphlet presented a “carefully crafted” portrait of race relations in the United States: black and white children were pictured in totally integrated classrooms and housing projects. In contrast to past evils like slavery, “Negroes,” it claimed, were now “large landowners,” “wealthy businessmen,” “physicists,” “metallurgists,” and “chemists.” Moreover, the pamphlet emphasized, education was lifting up the Negro, making him “more worthy of equal treatment.” The pamphlet’s rosy view of American race relations in the 1950s is depicted in its final picture of an integrated housing project. In what is a clearly staged photograph, black and white couples and their children are shown talking together amicably in someone’s backyard, with the success of the integration project underscored by the caption beneath the picture: “These neighbors in a housing project, like millions of Americans, are forgetting whatever color prejudice they may have had; their children will have none to forget” (Dudziak 2002, 54).

The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, which was argued, at least partially, on the basis of the psychological harm of racism to black children, was essential in the mass marketing of this story of racial progress.¹⁸ As several contemporary studies of the Brown decision show, the focus on “stigmatic harm as the essence of Jim Crow” shifted the focus of civil rights struggles away from the more militant economic- and labor-based civil rights struggles of the 1940s. Risa Goluboff’s study The Lost Promise of Civil Rights details that shift, showing that “The NAACP’s victory in Brown fundamentally changed the scope of civil rights lawyering and the constitutional imagination” (2007, 238). What that meant is that racism as psychological harm replaced the Left’s emphasis on labor, unions, and economic inequality; the young student, rather than the adult worker, would become the “central figure of American civil rights” (250). As this conservative 1950s racial discourse¹⁹ continued to promote a focus on signs of “racial progress,” the race militancy of the Left would seem too radical, even “un-American,” and those leaders on the Left who continued to pursue a more radical attack on state-sponsored racial inequality would be harassed and blacklisted.

Conservative integrationist narratives had filtered down into national discourse on civil rights even before Brown. In 1950, the editors of Phylon, a journal of black literature and culture published at the historically black Atlanta University, sent out a questionnaire to major black writers, college professors, and intellectuals about the state of black literature and published those responses in the December 1950 issue as a symposium on race and literary representation. The third question on the questionnaire suggested that the editors were fishing for a State Department–approved answer that would minimize racial conflict: “Would you agree with those who feel that the Negro writer, the Negro as subject, and the Negro critic and scholar are moving toward an ‘unlabeled’ future in which they will be measured without regard to racial origin and conditioning?” Several of the twenty-three respondents said that black writers and intellectuals could reach that “unlabeled future” and achieve what was then widely referred to as “universality” by minimizing blackness, race issues, and civil rights demands. Several even argued that “universality” required eliminating black characters and racial themes altogether, praising writers like Frank Yerby and Willard Motley for making their main characters white.²⁰ Except for the respondent Ira D. A. Reid, who taught at Haverford College, all the professors in the symposium, under the protocols of state-sponsored racial segregation, were employed at black institutions. Not one of them acknowledged, however, that their own positions at these racially segregated institutions undercut the “race progress” narrative they promoted.²¹ In a telling sign of Cold War pressures, some of the respondents reproduced, almost verbatim, the official State Department line that racism was “a fast-disappearing aberration, capable of being overcome by talented and motivated individuals.”²²

The symposium respondents were not alone in promoting conservative race politics. Hollywood’s “Negro problem films” of the late 1940s and early 1950s, like Intruder in the Dust (1949), Home of the Brave (1949), Pinky (1949), Lost Boundaries (1949), and No Way Out (1950), continued the practice of focusing on the psychological anxieties caused by racism and by holding up highly successful “Negroes” (the black doctor in No Way Out and Lost Boundaries, the nurse in Pinky, the black entrepreneur in Intruder in the Dust, and the soldier and soon-to-be-businessman in Home of the Brave) as signs of how racism could be overcome. In each of these films, race problems are ameliorated by the interventions of a nonracist white person and a highly competent black person tackling “the Negro problem” in his or her own individual life. In contrast to the Left’s analysis of racism as an ideology rooted in systems of slavery, colonialism, and imperialism, conservative race texts presented race problems as psychological problems of individuals. The Cold War historian Penny Von Eschen (1997, 156–158) meticulously documents how Cold War politics helped initiate this “powerful rewriting of ‘race’ in popular African American [and American] discourse” by shifting racial discourse from an analysis of institutional and historical racism to an emphasis on the psychological and sociological meanings of race. By keeping the focus on U.S. race problems as rooted in colonialism and imperialism, the radical Left refused to sanction the State Department’s propaganda that racism was rooted in individual prejudices and needed only a larger dose of American democracy for its total annihilation. Von Eschen argues that it was in the interest of the United States to dissociate U.S. race problems from colonialism and imperialism. The United States could then shift the spotlight away from the role of American racism as part of a global problem of racism and domination and turn it into a “domestic” problem, one easily overcome with the application of American democratic values. Cold War international politics, as well as Brown’s “remaking of Civil Rights,” thus helped produce a domesticated version of race, one disconnected from the struggles of other colonized peoples, and only a minor disturbance in the triumphal story of American democracy.²³

My intention in The Other Blacklist is to show how these artists on the Left—Lloyd Brown, Alice Childress, Charles White, Frank London Brown, Gwendolyn Brooks, and Julian Mayfield—through their writing, visual art, and activism disrupted these State Department–authorized versions of race, racism, and integration. In their literary and visual texts they challenged those conservative race narratives through three major representational choices: they focused on the radioactive subject of racial violence as a product of white supremacy; they connected U.S. race issues to international systems like colonialism; and they represented the Left, including the Communist Party, in complex ways—often, but not always, positively. Like the proletarian artists of the 1930s, the artists I will discuss in this book deliberately chose to document highly controversial racial subjects—not sufficiently “universal” by conservative 1950s norms—that allowed them to produce a critique of white supremacy and white racist violence. Mayfield recalls the “big” Left political campaigns of the late 1940s and early 1950s that became the subjects for leftist writers and artists: the Trenton Six, six men sentenced to the electric chair in 1949 for killing a white man in Trenton, New Jersey, despite a lack of evidence and evidence of a frame-up and coerced confessions; the Martinsville Seven in Virginia, seven young black men who were tried and eventually executed for the rape of a white woman; the 1950 Rosa Ingram case, which involved a mother and her two sons on trial for killing a white man who tried to sexually assault Mrs. Ingram; Willie McGee, on trial and executed in Mississippi in 1951 for allegedly raping a white woman with whom he was sexually involved. These were some of the stories highlighted by the leftist writers and visual artists in my study, stories that allowed them to pursue their critiques of antiblack, class, and gender violence. Because they understood race in a global as well as a domestic context, the artists in my study often represented these issues as part of an international process: Childress’s 1951 play Gold Through the Trees, for example, juxtaposes the story of the Martinsville Seven against the 1948 antiapartheid South African Defiance campaign, explicitly exposing the international implications of white supremacy.

The visual artist Charles White chose as his subjects “the everyday, ordinary, working-class people, the most African looking, the poorest, the blackest in our ranks,” which countered the images of assimilation offered by the State Department. Besides his magnificent murals of African American culture, White produced in the 1940s and 1950s powerful renderings of Rosa Ingram and her sons and the Trenton Six. These were published only in leftist publications like Freedom, the Daily and Sunday Worker, and Masses & Mainstream. He continued that kind of politically focused art in the 1970s, donating his artwork in support of the campaign to free Angela Davis. Lloyd Brown’s Iron City recounts the almost entirely unknown story of the quadruple lynching of two black couples in Monroe, Georgia, in 1946 and the story of the violent campaign to force blacks from jobs on the railroads; Frank London Brown’s 1959 first novel, Trumbull Park, centers on the real-life struggle to integrate public housing in Chicago in the mid-1950s. Hansberry’s and Brooks’s earliest poems were about lynchings, and Brooks’s 1953 novel Maud Martha is deeply involved in issues of racial struggle, women’s independence, class, and labor rights; Brooks’s 1960 volume of poetry The Bean Eaters includes poems about the Emmett Till murder, the integration of Little Rock Central High School, and housing segregation.

Childress, White, Brooks, Lloyd Brown, London Brown, and Mayfield all represented communism or the Left as a complex, meaningful, and often effective force in African American life and were thus able to draw on leftist forms and left-wing radical critiques in their expressive work. They experimented with political drama, documentary montage, black cultural forms, political satire, and theatrical genres like the Living Newspaper and the Living Theater, which had been popular proletarian cultural forms of the 1930s. They were not afraid to address issues of class, gender, and race that had been declared politically subversive during the Cold War. I maintain that these resistant notions of black subjectivity, which countered the conservative constructions of race we see in the reactions to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, in the Phylon symposium, and in my Catholic school instruction, are the signal achievement of these artists on the left.²⁴

READING FBI FILES, READING ANTHOLOGIES

Because J. Edgar Hoover suspected that anyone working against segregation or in the field of civil rights also had communist ties, the FBI (in league with Joseph McCarthy’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and HUAC) persistently targeted the black intellectual and cultural community of the 1950s. The literary historian William J. Maxwell labeled Hoover’s FBI, with only a bit of irony, a “publicly funded institution of literary study,” the only one, Maxwell insists, that always took African American literature seriously (forthcoming, 3). Irony aside, the FBI’s spying on black Americans from World War I through the 1970s is best described as “consistently hostile to African American aspirations” (Kornweibel 1999, 178); it was an arm of the federal government dedicated to spying, illegal searches, and deliberate intimidation and harassment of American citizens. The bureau’s files are full of deletions, redactions, and falsified, fanciful, and highly edited reports generated by a narrator known as the “Confidential Informant of Known Reliability” (Robins 1992, 18), which was built up out of the testimony of paid (often unreliable) informers, some of whom were friends, neighbors, and/or colleagues of the subject.²⁵ Recent investigations, for example, have uncovered evidence in the FOIA files that the famous civil rights photographer Ernest Withers, who was close to many civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., was paid by the FBI to spy on the movement he so expertly and, apparently, lovingly photographed.²⁶

Even though FBI files on black artists and intellectuals are crude tools for biographical and cultural research, they are also invaluable biographical aids, enabling scholars of the Left to excavate the half-buried history of the black blacklist. William Maxwell’s quip that “most every chapter goes better with an FBI file” (in a 2012 e-mail to the author) is a humorous but accurate appreciation of the value of these files. I have either read or have in my possession the files on Lorraine Hansberry, Alice Childress, Lloyd L. Brown, Julian Mayfield, Charles White, and Frank London Brown, which include pages of irrelevant or basic data like the subject’s height, weight, address, and marital status but also produce a comprehensive and fairly accurate list of Black Popular Front organizations they belonged to, the publications they wrote for, and the activities they engaged in. Apparently Gwendolyn Brooks escaped Hoover’s committees; the letter I received from the FBI says there is no record of Brooks in their files, though that does not necessarily mean a file does not exist.²⁷ Because Hoover decided Langston Hughes’s poems were “communistic,” the bureau put him on its list as far back as 1925, even though its own informants said Hughes was not a communist. Knowing the obvious biases and unscrupulousness of Hoover and the FBI, I read these files judiciously and against many other sources, including biographical material on these figures from other archival sources, my eight-year correspondence with Lloyd Brown (1995–2003), my own literary and cultural analyses, published interviews, and the oral interviews I conducted over the past fifteen years with people close to or on the Left: Dorothy Sterling, Lloyd L. Brown, Herbert Aptheker, Esther and James Jackson, Jack O’Dell, Phillip Bonosky, Bennett Johnson, Oscar Brown Jr., Joseph Kaye, Paule Marshall, Ruby Dee, and Elizabeth Catlett. Though these state records created the threatening environment, which made everyone—even those only peripherally connected to the Left—cautious and evasive, the files also provide the evidence of the dedication of these figures in my study to political struggle and a proud record of their refusal to be completely silenced by the intimidating power of the state.

THE PORTRAIT AS METHODOLOGY

I have been inspired by the model of the communist painter Alice Neel, who said that she painted her highly individualized portraits of communists (including the one of the writer Alice Childress that appears in chapter 3) because she wanted “to show everyone what a real Communist looked like” (Allara 2000, 113). I see each individual chapter in The Other Blacklist as a “portrait,” a way of illustrating the unique relationship between each of the artists in my study and the Left. I examine these subjects in some detail, looking at their intimate lives, their friendships, and their intellectual and institutional networks, and I try to give full attention to their sometimes ambivalent and contradictory relationships to the Left. Using archival material, oral interviews, biographies, and their FOIA files, as well as by doing close readings of their work, I piece together the traces of the Left in the lives of each of my subjects. With all five artists I make the connections that reestablish their relationships with the Black Popular Fronts of the 1950s, ties that were lost either because these subjects deliberately distanced themselves from their leftist pasts or because of the practices of contemporary literary and cultural histories. These portraits allow me to trace the influence of the Left over a lifetime, showing that their engagements with the Left continued to affect their work and their lives long after they had distanced themselves or disconnected from a formal relationship to the Left.

Obviously, this is not an inclusive or comprehensive study. There are many more figures that could have been included under the heading “1950s black Left radicalism”: Rosa Guy, Sarah E. Wright, Elizabeth Catlett, Frank Marshall Davis, Julian Mayfield, Lorraine Hansberry, John O. Killens, Paule Marshall—to name but a few. I was drawn to the five that I detail here because they allowed me to show a range of relationships with the Left. Because each was interested in formal experimentation in their work, they help prove my point that being on the Left did not preclude modernist experimentation. Through my close readings of these selected lives and works, I show the complexity of the intersection of issues of race, class, and gender among writers and artists on the Left in the 1950s. My analyses show that these individual lives and works are worth studying not only because they have been suppressed but also because they constitute a major part of the Black Cultural Front that continued to influence (some would say “dominate”) black cultural production throughout the twentieth century. My hope is to continue the effort to delegitimize the demonization of communism and the Left, which ideally will encourage further investigation of other writers and artists on the Left.

LLOYD L. BROWN

Lloyd Brown’s procommunist novel Iron City (1950) and his little-known two-part essay “Which Way for the Negro Writer?”—the first written as a challenge to Richard Wright’s Native Son, the second written in response to the 1950 literary symposium in Phylon—direct us to the contentious literary and political struggles over black aesthetics during the period of the “high” Cold War. I argue that Brown’s affiliation with the Communist Party in the 1950s allowed him the freedom to reject and expose the intellectual and aesthetic constraints on black writers, especially the pressure from black literary conservatives to abandon black characters and black themes. An anomaly for the 1950s, Brown’s Iron City focuses almost entirely and affirmatively on black characters and refuses to eliminate or subordinate racial themes. And in a period when most black writers were writing conventional realistic fiction and when only certain kinds of elite modernisms were considered authentic, Brown inaugurated what I call a black Left literary modernism using left-wing literary and cultural texts as his models for formal experimentation. The result is a remarkable novel that imaginatively integrates black folk traditions, employs modernist experimentation, and makes its central characters radical Left activists. In my remapping of literary history, I put Iron City in dialogue with Richard Wright’s Native Son, to challenge the latter’s status as the representative black proletarian novel and Wright as the representative black Left writer. Furthermore, I propose that Brown’s essay “Which Way for the Negro Writer?” which links black writers and artists to an international leftist intellectual community and professes faith in the militancy of black literary traditions, should become the standard bearer of midcentury U.S. black left-wing literary criticism.

CHARLES WHITE

Following the interdisciplinary example of the 1950s Left, I include the visual artist Charles White, the major black leftist visual artist of the postwar period. As they were for the literary figures in my study, Charles White’s associations with communism are downplayed or ignored by most of his major biographers and art historians.²⁸ I argue, however, that from the time White joined the WPA in the late 1930s until he left the Party in the mid-1950s, the CP supplied the institutional and philosophical support he could get nowhere else. That institutional support helped sustain White in his commitment to an aesthetic that focused exclusively on black subjects. The main text of chapter 2 is the 1953–1954 portfolio of black-and-white charcoal drawings, Charles White: Beauty and Strength, originally issued by Masses & Mainstream in large, ready-to-frame prints as a way of making art available to working-class audiences, “who are usually unable to afford such art,” according to its catalog text. Some art historians argue that this portfolio of highly representational art shows that White was under pressure to turn away from the modernist experiments that characterized his best work in the 1940s. I argue that White’s determination to stick with a representational realism in his art, even though he knew that decision would mean his exclusion from the canons of “high art,” produced the kind of experimentation that Arnold Rampersad (2002) associates with the work of Langston Hughes—a black modernism that is accessible, deeply racial, and rooted in an African American aesthetic.

ALICE CHILDRESS

From 1952 to 1955, Alice Childress wrote a column for Freedom, a Harlem-and Brooklyn-based international socialist newspaper. Childress’s “Conversations from Life” column in Freedom featured an outspoken domestic worker named Mildred, slightly more bourgeois and more political than Langston Hughes’s working-class hero Simple but clearly in the same mold, putting political and social issues in the language of a black working-class Harlemite. In the most resolutely leftist terms in her Freedom columns, Childress took on McCarthyism and Cold War liberalism, encouraged anticolonial struggles in Africa, and outlined a platform of labor rights for black working-class women.

But Childress was first and foremost a dramatist. Her 1950 play Florence, her 1951 musical drama Gold Through the Trees, and her 1955 Obie-winning play Trouble in Mind were all produced in left-wing venues and represent Childress’s Left radicalism. Childress wrote Florence in response to the men of the Harlem Left, who claimed that only black male issues were central to racial problems. Childress’s anti-McCarthy stance runs like a thread through Trouble in Mind, a play in which all three of the major characters try to hide their leftist pasts for fear of being investigated. The full effect of that fear is revealed as each is shown to be unwilling to take a strong position on racial violence. In chapter 3 I analyze the unpublished play Gold Through the Trees, a remarkable production for its focus on issues at the heart of the Black Popular Front of the 1950s: the South African Defiance Campaign, the central role of women in political activism, the trial of the Martinsville Seven, and black involvement in underground political work. Like Langston Hughes, Childress was formulating a socially modernist aesthetic, employing in Gold Through the Trees a montage-like structure that combined poetry, black music, and historical event in ways that complement the play’s political critique.

GWENDOLYN BROOKS

Although Gwendolyn Brooks was probably not a member of the Communist Party, she was an active part of the cast of progressives, including many communists and communist-oriented groups that formed the Black Left Cultural and Political Front in Chicago in the 1940s and 1950s. Nonetheless, except for the new scholarship on the black Left by Bill V. Mullen, James Smethurst, and Alan Wald, the biographical, autobiographical, and scholarly work on Brooks has erased all signs of her relationships with the Left. Focusing on her 1951 essay “Why Negro Women Leave Home,” her 1953 novel Maud Martha, and the poetry in her 1960 collection The Bean Eaters, I argue that Brooks’s writing of the 1940s and 1950s bears the “discursive marks” of leftist cultural and political influence.²⁹ Maud Martha is a self-consciously modern as well as a leftist portrayal of a young, female, dark-skinned, working-class intellectual whose experience of double consciousness is inflected by race, class, and gender. The work of black Marxist feminists such as Claudia Jones, Alice Childress, and Lorraine Hansberry, writing in Freedom, created the feminist space for this political bildungsroman. Brooks paired that leftist feminist vision with her own brand of black modernism in the novel’s representation of consciousness as fragmentary, signifying on “high” modernism. Focusing on Maud Martha and The Bean Eaters, I chart Brooks’s radicalism from the 1930s through the 1950s, showing that it was nurtured in South Side leftist communities and was not a product of the 1960s.

FRANK LONDON BROWN

Though many of the writers at the 1959 First Conference of Negro Writers continued to represent the legacy of the Left in their fiction, I’ve chosen to focus in chapter 5 on the 1959 novel Trumbull Park by the conference participant Frank London Brown. His novel has been read only as a race-based civil rights novel; its Left history has been forgotten or ignored. The historian Sterling Stuckey (1968) was the first critic to note that Brown was creating a new narrative based on Brown’s own activist engagements in progressive unions and civil rights protests. Brown’s activism included participating in the desegregation of Chicago’s public housing project called the Trumbull Park Homes, which became the subject of the novel. When I wrote the introduction to the Northeastern University Press reprint, I called Trumbull Park a “civil rights novel” because it seemed so clearly to be drawing on the Northern civil rights movement for both a subject and a method. The movement gave the novel a collective protagonist, a community of couples acting (like most civil rights activists) in spite of being fearful and unprepared. It inspired the novel’s representations of black musical traditions as assisting and nurturing political action as well as images of mass protests, walk-ins, and singing demonstrators that explicitly anticipate the aesthetics of protest of the 1950s and 1960s. Such scenes and images inspired my own readings of the novel as civil rights fiction. Since then, I have begun to reconsider how this emphasis on the novel as a civil rights/racial narrative, which has largely dominated as the main critical response to Trumbull Park, marginalizes or indeed entirely suppresses the novel’s leftist elements and has helped obscure Brown’s left-wing politics. Though I missed them the first time around, the signs of that leftist aesthetic are there in the novel’s focus on a collective protagonist and on the worker and working-class solidarity, in its documentation of historical acts of racialized violence, its positive references to communism, and its internationalizing of black political struggle.

Brown’s leftist politics became apparent to me only as I read his FOIA file, which was generously shared with me by the Cold War and black literary and cultural scholar William J. Maxwell. As with the other figures in The Other Blacklist, Brown’s FOIA files are invaluable biographical sources—because FBI agents were such exemplary models of surveillance scholarship. The files reveal Brown’s left-wing orientation as a civil rights activist; factory worker; trade unionist with the United Packinghouse Workers Union, a left-wing, communist-influenced, antiracist, predominantly black trade union; and supporter of women’s workplace equality, all of which became central to his art as well as his politics. Furthermore, the FOIA file shows that beyond his union organizing, Brown was involved in other forms of progressive work throughout the 1950s: he gave speeches to left-wing organizations like the Midwest Conference to Defend the Rights of Foreign Born Americans, affiliated with groups like the Women’s Peace and Unity Club; American Women for Peace; and the American Peace Crusade, all designated as CP fronts. At the height of the Cold War, he demonstrated against a Senate Internal Security Committee protesting the government’s failure to prosecute the 1955 racially motivated murder of Emmett Till. The FBI also discovered a political genealogy for Brown, claiming that Brown’s father, Frank London Brown Sr. and his wife, Myrtle L., a factory worker, were CP members for about six years, until 1945, when London Brown would have been eighteen.

Though he was a defender of Paul Robeson and apparently supported Fidel Castro’s communist revolution in Cuba, Brown nevertheless expressed anticommunist views in at least one speech he gave before a prominent black real estate organization in 1959, suggesting that new black postwar prosperity may have encouraged, perhaps even required, a retreat from radicalism. On the cusp of national recognition, Brown died of leukemia at the age of thirty-four in 1962, so we will never know how his radicalism might have played out in the coming decades of civil rights, Black Power, antiwar protests, and women’s rights struggles. Gwendolyn Brooks, who knew him well, eulogized him in a poem published in Negro Digest in 1962: “Of Frank London Brown: A Tenant of the World”—memorializing Brown as a revolutionary “liberator,” a figure not unlike Malcolm X. As the Brooks poem indicates, Frank London Brown was at the center of militant and progressive intellectual and political circles in 1950s Chicago—to his friends and comrades he was “Liberator,” “Armed arbiter,” and “scrupulous pioneer.” As a writer and activist, he cultivated and maintained these deep connections to his local communities, but his activism also produced a larger and more radical perspective—what Brooks calls his “vagabond View”—that inspired his writing. Brown not only drew from civil rights (the side that is preserved) but also from leftist-front legacies (the side that has been forgotten) and is, therefore, a pivotal figure in remembering these political and social formations of the 1950s. His work helps us tease out where black radicalism continued in the late 1950s; where it aligned itself with or distanced itself from the communist Left; where it became the radical vanguard; where it succeeded in holding on to its values of resistant, anticapitalist, interracial, internationalist black militancy; and where it failed to adhere to those values. The project of The Other Blacklist is to reassemble those clues, to reattach these figures to leftist radicalism, and, in the process, to reaffirm the radical imagination and activism of the cultural workers of the Black Popular Front.

SPYCRAFT AND THE LITERARY LEFT

Given that Hoover and the FBI were particularly interested in spying on black American political activity, which Hoover always considered subversive, black intellectuals and artists were of great concern to him and his spy agency. The subjects of this chapter are the 1959 Black Writers’ Conference in New York City and the selected papers from the conference published the following year in a slim volume called The American Negro Writer and His Roots, edited by John A. Davis. Billed as “The First Conference of Negro Writers,” it was sponsored by the American Society of African Culture (AMSAC) and held at the Henry Hudson Hotel in New York City from February 28 to March 1, 1959. Ostensibly organized to give black writers a forum for dialogue, the AMSAC conference was secretly funded by the CIA, as revealed in the 1975 Frank Church Senate investigation. Attended by both conservatives and leftists, it represents an important site of black literary debate at the end of the 1950s, a debate that was obscured by John Davis, who used his opening editorial to downplay the presence and importance of the Left. Because the published volume of conference papers omits many of the left-wing voices that spoke on behalf of protest writing, I use this chapter to reconstruct the original conference to include the presentations and commentary of Alice Childress, Lloyd Brown, Frank London Brown, John Henrik Clarke, and Lorraine Hansberry. At the beginning of the 1950s it seemed as though the conservatives would hold sway, but even in 1959, as we see from this conference, black writers and intellectuals continued to connect with the ideas and strategies that originated in the black cultural and literary Left, even as their attempts were framed and limited by government-authorized spies.