Read this article about Paul Robeson's career and his testimony before HUAC in 1956.
Does HUAC's treatment of Robeson (and other witnesses) seem consistent or inconsistent with US foreign policy during this period, as outlined by the Kenan telegram, the Truman Doctrine, and NSC-68?
This post will be available for comments until Monday, November 23.
What happened to Robeson seems to be consistent with the spy part of the policies of the time. For example, his not-yet-spoken speech was transcribed by an unknown person, who could be a spy. Spies were commonly used to catch communists, although the evidence against them was not always reasonable.
ReplyDeleteHUAC's treatment of Robeson (and other witnesses) seems consistent. Even though Robeson constantly states that he is fighting for civil rights and that he wasn't for or against the Soviet Union's communist ideology. The HUAC continues accuse him of being a communist and tries to make Robeson incriminate himself.
ReplyDeleteThis treatment of Robeson by the HUAC goes against U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War as one of the main premises of foreign policy was to create alliances. HUAC's objective was to incriminate people for being part of the communist party, which was completely legal in the U.S. which creates a disharmony with the people of the United States. The U.S. is creating alliances outside of the country but it is not creating an alliance with the people. By accusing people of things that are legal in a way that would incriminate them is outrageous.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Michael on the point that the U.S goes against their own policy by not creating an alliance within the country. Robeson being a man with international power, whom was not for communism or against it, puts him a "peaceful" position plus him being a singer (not a politician) gives him creative license that the US Govt' does not have to influence the world in US favor. Had he been quoted properly, (or misquoted w/o the last statement) it would have been a US advantage point.
DeleteIt is consistent, however with the part of Foreign Policy that states " No Negotiating" with Soviets, and "Prevent the Spread of Communism" by annexing Robeson, whom was not ANTI-communism. Overall, the act against him was excessive to say the least.
Treatment of Robeson is consistent with the policy at the time. Spies were a supposed problem and HUAC was doing this to many other people. People believed he advocated communism and is treated as a criminal/spy. Even if evidence was near non-existent word of mouth was enough.
ReplyDeleteHow Robeson was treated within his case and thereafter is rather consistent with the US foreign policy. Despite stating that he was not for an imperialist war, he said he was not for or against Communism, which made people question who's side he was really on. This miscommunication was followed up by the HUAC revoking his passport and a close watch on Mr. Robeson. The HUAC criminalized him. Robeson and many other people were accused and blamed for supporting the Communist party, which defeated the purpose of an end goal of being a nation in harmony.
ReplyDeleteThe way that Robeson was treated coincides with the policy enforced by the HUAC at this time. A big problem pressed by the HUAC was the spies and there were many spies monitoring many people. People believed that Robeson was a voice for communism and thus was treated as a criminal/spy, even if the evidence was non conclusive.
ReplyDeleteHUAC's treatment of Robeson seems consistent with US foreign policy during this period because he stands with his civil rights and claimed that he is not with the Soviet Union. He claims that he is not a communist when he is being accused.
ReplyDeleteHUAC's treatment of Robeson was definitely consistent with the foreign policies during this time period. It was a time period that essentially started during the Red Scare, the fear and paranoia remained present throughout the mid 1900's. This treatment of Robeson demonstrated the impulsive acts and bluntness that was depicted by McCarthy himself, although not as deranged. Fear of spies and any Soviet influence was what generated the chairman's attempt to revoke Robeson's 5th amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteThe treatment of Paul Robeson was consistent with the U.S. foreign policy during this time period. Word of mouth was solely enough to convict people of being communist during the Red Scare, and Robeson was a victim of the hearsay. HUAC tried to contain communism by incarcerating anyone affiliated with it, which is related to the Kennan Telegram's ideology of containment directly.
ReplyDeleteThe treatment of HUAC and Robeson was consistent. The fear of communism rose and people were accused of being a communist in which includes Paul Robeson. The HUAC tries to criminalize innocent people.
ReplyDeleteI think the main aspect of US foreign policy that was consistent in HUAC's treatment of Robeson was the importance of Americans' roles as citizens. Americans were told to keep quiet about internal affairs so that Soviet spies could not hear and become aware of weaknesses that America faced. I think that because it was believed that Robeson spoke internationally about a whole group of people being in favor of the enemies is why his treatment was so harsh. What they thought he said showed a lack of unity amongst American people, a weakness. Also, HUAC used Robinson and other witnesses with their careers and lives on the line as well as a way to get the ammunition that they needed against Robeson. HUAC coated their malicious tactics by saying that what the witnesses were doing were their roles as Americans.
ReplyDeleteHUAC's treatment of Robeson reflected the fear of communism that plagued the United States at the time. US foreign policy at the time saw the Soviet as an imminent threat and that the containment of communism was top priority. This ideology influenced the public's opinion and spurred on an irrational paranoia. This led to suspected traitors needing to testify and propelled this atmosphere of insecurity and unrest.
ReplyDeleteThe way that Roberson was treated by HUAC is consistent with foreign policy during the cold war. Although I would say that he was treated unjustly. The suspicion of him being communist was enough to convict him during this time. The fear of the Soviet Union was too great during this time, and Roberson's nice remarks towards the Soviets caused his downfall.
ReplyDeleteHUAC's treatment of Robeson is consistent with U.S. foreign policy during this period. The threat of spies during this period caused paranoia and fear often leading to false accusations of people being spies or communists. Robeson became a victim, like many others, of hearsay. People's fear lead them to believe he was a spy supporting communism. HUAC contained communism through the incarceration of anyone who was found to be affiliated or thought to be affiliated with communism. The Kenan Telegram reiterates this idea. The U.S. took the threat of the Soviet Union very seriously causing them to act on impulse without legitimate evidence proving that someone was tied to communism.
ReplyDeleteThe way Robeson was treated by HUAC conveys Cold War foreign policy through their insisting nature of attempting to apprehend him for being involved with the Communist party. Not only are they unforgiving but they allow him little room to maneuver in the conversation. They viewed him as a threat/spy and so they treated him as an "other".
ReplyDeleteThe treatment of Robeson during the time period is consistent with US foreign policy. The miscommunication of Robeson led to the criminal accusations he faced because he stated that he was neither for or against the communist period. During that time period, the HUAC tried to arrest anyone that was linked to communism, even in the slightest. The way HUAC treated Robeson directly correlates to how seriously of a threat the US took the Soviet Union and how they handled foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteThe Kenan telegram, the Truman Doctrine , and NSC-68 outlined American opinion and behaviors of anti-communisim founded in unbiased terms. One such point outlined in the Kenan telegram is a "communistic tendency" to back down when confronted, which is simply a response to fear seen in all human beings. This was incorrectly associated with Robeson in his defense with the accusations that HUAC has made against him , consistent with beliefs on foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteThere was an constituency between the treatment of Paul Robeson and the US foreign policies during that specific period. People were fearing that there would be an rise of communism and that there might be false accusations.
ReplyDelete