Irrational Anti-Communism and the Fight Against Racial Equality

[Nova Land]

Irrational Anti-Communism and the Fight Against Racial Equality

Some time back, renata had a thread about the Talmud (and allegations of racism in it) in which Benjamin Freedman and his book Facts Are Facts came up.

This past November I had a chance to get to a good library, and while there located and photocopied some material on Freedman from Arnold Forster's 1952 book The Troublemakers. What I was interested in were details about Freedman and about the smear campaign he launched against Anna Rosenberg. I'll get around to posting about that one of these days. But in the process of those details (which makes up the bulk of Chapter 2, "The Smear"), I discovered another story which I decided I had to share with people here. So I copied some additional pages and have (finally!) gotten around to transcribing them.

Some of you may not be aware that extreme Anti-Communism, of the kind practiced in the US from the early 1900s through the late 1980s (and remnants of which are still around) was a deeply irrational philosophy based on invented anecdotes, made-up quotations, and spun-from-air conspiracy theories -- the same type of irrationality that underlies many paranormal philosophies. I do not say this in defense of Marxism, which as practiced has also commonly been based on fictions and irrationalism. But many people (in the US, at least) are willing and eager to see and point out the failings of Marxism. The irrationality that has been a key element of extreme Anti-Communism is less widely-known and more widely denied.

For a time in the 1990s it seemed as if there were coming to be a general awareness that the anti-Communism practiced by Joe McCarthy and others in the late 1940s and early 1950s was seriously wrong. But now I am once again seeing right-wing defenses of McCarthy, along the lines that he was basically right but used improper methods. That's one reason I think it is worth sharing the slice of history which makes up the next several posts.

The extreme Anti-Communism of the '40s and '50s was a deeply racist movement, not only in its prejudice against jews (who were believed to be the masterminds behind Communism) but in its prejudice against blacks and other races as well. The House Un-American Activities and many other governmental arms of this movement, as well as groups such as the John Birch Society and the Minutemen, were deeply hostile to the Civil Rights movement, believing it to be Communistic because they thought only Communists or Communist dupes could be in favor of the mixing of the races.

For those who don't understand what Strom Thurmond and others like him stood for -- for those who don't understand why some of us took umbrage at Trent Lott's comments about how we might not have a lot of our modern problems if Strom Thurmond had been elected president -- I hope this slice of history will help people understand how different the world is today from the world 55 years ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said at the start of this post, the story I was looking up was the attempted smear of Anna Rosenberg (which was a front-page national news story back in 1950). Having told about that (and how it backfired on Freedman), Forster continues, on pp 61 - 64:

Not only the nationally known are slandered in this fashion. For every public personality who suffers such an ordeal, there are undoubtedly scores of lesser-knowns who have been similarly pilloried, but who never receive the wide publicity of an Anna M. Rosenberg.

A typical case is that of Miss Loretto Chappell of Atlanta. Georgia... In her instance, she was attacked and defamed by those who sought to equate her decent views on racial segregation and the FEPC [the Fair Employment Practices Commission] with Communism. And she, in her own way, became a cause celebre in the South in 1951.

Miss Chappell, a tiny, gray-haired, and rather shy lady of fifty-five, had been Director of the Children's Division of the Georgia State Department of Welfare for 16 years...

The Georgia Legislature in 1950 had set up a joint House-Senate Committee to study the general administation of the Welfare Department. With this as a foundation, Representative J Bush Mims, chairman of the Committee, a lawyer from rural southern Georgia, called Miss Chappell before the Committee and publicly charged her with Communism.

The evidence he had was as follows:

1. In 1946 Miss Chappell had signed a petition for a permanent Fair Employment Practices Commission.
2. The Committee had an authenticated instance in which Miss Chappell had actually fed Negroes in her home.
3. The Committee had impounded a number of highly suspicious books from the Child Welfare Library. These included Red Wine First by Nedra Tyre, a series of moving autobiographical sketches, as told to a compassionate case worker by her clients on relief, many of whom were Negroes; The American Race Problem, by Reuter; Our Rejected Children, by Albert Deutsch, an ex-newspaper reporter and writer on social evils; and, most damning of all, The New Russia's Primer. This last had been a 1934 Book-of-the-Month Club selection, at the time highly recommended for all literate readers. For 17 years it had gathered dust on the library shelves, and it was still there when Committee agents raided the library -- and Miss Chappell, as head of the division, was responsible for it even thogh she had never gotten around to reading it...

Miss Chappell had no counsel at the hearing. Mims demanded of her why she had signed the FEPC petition. "Because our President has requested such legislation," Miss Chappell replied serenely.

Mims brandished The New Russia's Primer, and demanded: "Miss Chappell, are you a Communist? Are you a member of the Communist Party?"

"No, sir, I am not," she replied. "To my knowledge I have never even known a Communist."

Mims opened the book. On the flyleaf was written the name Van Dusseldorf. "Do you know anyone named Van Dusseldorf?" Mims asked. Yes, said Miss Chappell. She knew a former social worker, O. van Dusseldorf, who apparently had purchased the book for the library before she, Miss Chappell, had joined the department in 1934.

Wasn't Van Dusseldorf a German or Russian name, Mims pressed? Miss Chappell shook her head. No the name was Dutch.

Mims closed the book with a bang. "Obviously," he said, "Van Dusseldorf is a Red. And you, Miss Chappell, are a Red from the bottom of your feet to the top of your head!" A few minutes later, without allowing her to make a defense, Mims adjourned the hearing until March 28th.

Miss Chappell emerged furious. She was going to fight...

This seems like a good place to take a short break.

Just in case anyone missed it: "The Committee had an authenticated instance in which Miss Chappell had actually fed Negroes in her home." Yes. Fifty-five years ago, that was considered by many to be evidence that someone was a Communist. And there's worse to come...

 

[Nova Land]

The Troublemakers, pp 64 - 66

When the hearing resumed march 28th, Chappell had a lawyer. She also had backing from liberal elements in the community, including the Altanta Journal-Constitution, which ran editorials in her favor. If I get a chance, I hope to look up some of their editorials and news coverage of this next time I am in Atlanta.

Meanwhile, back to the story, already in progress. Chappell's lawyer, John Mackay, insisted on and won for her the right to make an opening statement:

Miss Chappell, reading from notes, declared firmly:

"As far as my loyalty to this state is concerned, let me say that I am Georgia-born, Georgia-raised, and Georgia-minded. I conceive it to have been in the tradition of Georgia women to stand up for the helpless, and particularly for the children of all races and creeds. Those who do less are not a part of the Southern and Christian tradition as I learned it from my family.

"I am not a Communist nor a Communist sympathizer and have never been either. As a lover of books, I think they should be read; the Communists think they should be banned. I welcome truth and loather wild charges, unsubstantiated assertions and character assassinations. These are well-known Communist methods. I want to see peace and amity between all men and races of men; Communists foment race and religious hatred... Mr Mims' wild and irresponsible charge of Communism is the very type of un-American conduct which in the end tends to set American against American, sow the seeds of distrust and disunity, divide our country and weakenit before its dreadful enemies -- the real Communists..."

... [Mims] thundered: "Miss Chappell, you say that you selected these books for your library on the basis of their helpfulness in your work. I want you to explain to me and to this Committee how you think that Red Wine First would be helpful to you as a child welfare director."

The book contained 25 brief sketches of human beings on relief... The author, a social service expert for 11 years, described with tragic simplicity the emotional bewilderments, sex experiences, and physicall illnesses suffered by relief clients in the course of lives of appalling deprivation. Apparently paragraphs concerning sex involvement disturbed Chairman Mims.

"Mr Chairman," Miss Chappell declared, "In all ages books have been written which have shown the seamy side of life as well as the bright and beautiful. There are doubtless in those books -- and many others we have read -- things that are shocking. I remember when I was a child of fifteen how profoundly shocked I was at some passages in the Bible... I felt sure this would come up so I brought my Bible with me today. I should like to read you a passage from it." With this, she read from the story of incest in Lot's family.

Mims had to listen with growing discomfort...

That makes another good breaking point. Don't go away. In the next installment things get so explicit I'll have to use asterisks.

 

[Nova Land]

The Troublemakers, pp 66 - 68

Picking up right where we left off:

... Mims had to listen with growing discomfort -- and then change the subject. What ... was her explanation for siding with a local faction in the Unitarian Church which urged admission of Negroes to membership? ... Was this not proof of her Communist orientation?

Her answer: "I believe churches should be open to all who wish to enter."

Mims shifts back to the matter of the books and (in the excerpt quoted by Forster) is unable to make headway there so shifts again to the matter of the FEPC petition.

Mims hammered again on the FEPC petition. He insisted that it called upon Congress to put the FEPC into law. Mackay, Miss Chappell's counsel, asserted that it called on Congress simply to support the FEPC as a fact-finding body, and he demanded that the Committee produce a copy of the petition to determine who was right.

The Committee refused.

"Am I to understand that you refuse me the right to see that petition?" Mackay demanded.

"I don't have it," Mims retorted. "Just remember you are not at a n*gg*r meeting this morning."

"I ask calmly, then, may we see a copy of the petition which your committee showed the press."

"I don't have it, but your client already has stated that she signed it," Mims snapped.

Another member of the Committee, Senator Farrar, broke in. "Miss Chappell, you say that you are Georgia-minded, but you signed that petition calling on Senators to vote for the FEPC. Do you consider that Georgia-minded?"

"I do," said Miss Chappell. And she went on to point out that the chief evidence Mims had for his charge of Communism was that she had supported legislation "which has been asked for by both major political parties, the President of the United States, and by Senator Taft and Governor Dewey. Mr Mims is in the same position as those who called Senator Taft a Communist because he is for public housing."

Mackay again called upon Mims to withdraw his charge of Communism. Mims now denied he had called Miss Chappell a Communist. He had called her a "Red", he declared, but not a Communist.

Mackay said, "Don't you mean that she looks like a Truman Democrat?"

"No," Mims fired back. "She looks suspiciously like a Red to me."

Mackay repeated his demand for a retraction, but Mims was firm. "I don't withdraw the statement," he insisted, "because I think the Communist Party is trying to break down racial barriers in the South, and I think she is going along with it. I don't agree with that, and I think that is Red activity. Certainly it is Red sympathy."

Time to take a break again, so people can let that soak in.

 

[Nova Land]

The Troublemakers, pp 68 - 69

A number of character witnesses ... appeared for Miss Chappell. They, too, were interrogated on the subject which seemed to exercise Mims almost as much as the FEPC petition -- Miss Chappell's endorsement of the move to allow Negroes into white churches.

Dr Hines Roberts, one of the city's best-known pediatricians, took the stand in her behalf. "I have known Loretto Chappell since I was a very small boy and she was a very young girl. I would like to say that I deem it a privilege to be counted among Miss Chappell's friends..."

The chairmany began quietly: "Doctor, let me ask you this question. Do you favor breaking down the barriers of segregation of the races?"

"I can't say that I do," replied the witness. "But I think I am probably about 25 or 50 years behind Miss Chappell. I can see as I look back I have changed my attitude considerably toward the races. As I deal with them, I even call certain Negroes Mr and Mrs."

"Dr Roberts," Mims demanded, "Do you, sir, favor commingling of the races in the churches?"

Dr Roberts observed dryly: "Jesus Christ did."

Having scripture quoted to him twice was almost too much for Mims. Red-faced, he retorted: "That wasn't my question. Do you, Dr Roberts, believe in it?"

Dr Roberts hesitated. Those in the room could almost sense that he was thinking of his practice, of his reputation, of all that could flow from a statement considered heretical by many Georgians. But there was a question of conscience which loomed larger than these, and he replied slowly: "Mr Chairman, I have never advocated the commingling of the races in the churches, but to the extent that I do not believe in it, I would to that extent not be a Christian."

At this point a member of the Committee, seated near Dr Roberts, was seen to make a gesture as if her were spitting. He rose abruptly and walked away, as if to say, I will not sit by such a man.

One last break, and then the conclusion.

 

[Skeptic]

Some of you may not be aware that extreme Anti-Communism, of the kind practiced in the US from the early 1900s through the late 1980s (and remnants of which are still around) was a deeply irrational philosophy based on invented anecdotes, made-up quotations, and spun-from-air conspiracy theories...

Or, perhaps, the REAL reason so many people in the 50s believed there is a serious infiltration of Soviet spies in the USA, most of whose agents coming from progressive intellectual circles, has less to do with their alleged racism and anti-intellectualism, and more with the fact that there REALLY WAS a serious infiltrations of soviet spies in the USA, most whose agents coming from progressive intellectual circles, at the time.

This has been proven without a doubt laterly, bt the recently declassified VENONA documents and KGB archives, which prove that the greatest heroes of the anti-anti-communists, the "progressive thinkers" who were the "victims" of a "communist witch hunt", were, in fact, Communist spies: people such as Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs, to name just two.

There is little doubt that McCarthy, for instance, was paranoid--or more precisely cynically manipulative of others' paranoia--but, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the commies aren't out to get you. In this case, they were.

The real racism, or stereotyping, in this case was something else: the public correctly surmized that virtually all communist spies were left-wing intellectuals--which they were--and then "decided" that this means all left-wing intellectuals are communist spies.

 

[Nova Land]

The Troublemakers, pp 70 -71

A few moments later a Mrs Lanier from Milledgeville took the stand in defense of Miss Chappell. Mrs Lanier was a determined little woman of perhaps 80, a member of the DAR, and a person held in high esteem.

"I have known Loretto Chappell since her birth," she testified stoutly. "I had the privilege of teaching her in college..."

Mims, feeling himself on safe ground, asked her: "Do you, ma'am, favor the commingling of the races in the churches?"

"In the Episcopal Church?" Mrs Lanier inquired gently.

"Miss Chappell," the chairman explained, "is a member of the Unitarian Church."

"Well, you know," the little lady informed Mr Mims, "the Great Episcopal Church in Georgia has colored people in it."

"Do you believe in that?" demanded the chairman.

"I am a Southern Methodist," grinned Mrs Lanier.

What those in the room were witnessing was the breaking down of a long-held taboo. As Lillian Smith, who has written intensively on racial problems, recently pointed out, segregation in the South "has been like a primitive taboo. A taboo says, 'You must never question, you must simply obey.' A taboo's magic lies always in its ability to keep everyone from daring to break it or talk about breaking it. If one person questions it aloud; if two question, three, four, -- ah, then, the magic no longer works."

Miss chappell had spoken out; Dr Robers had questioned the taboo; Mrs Lanier had poked fun at it. All three were respected leaders in the south. If they -- and still others -- insisted upon breaking the conspiracy of silence, the Kempers and Mims and others would ultimately find themselves invoking a magic which no longer existed.

At the time the book in which this appeared was published, that "magic" still existed. But Forster was correct, that the "magic" could not withstand exposure. While there is still a great deal of de facto segregation, the days when it was casually assumed that segregations was a good thing, and when the "commingling of the races" was viewed by many as something so outrageous only Communists could possibly advocate it, are gone.

Chappell's story, unfortunately, does not have an entirely happy ending. Although the Mims Committee gave up on trying to brand her as a Communist, she underwent so much harassment in her personal life that, 8 months later, she resigned from her job. Using Google turned up only the barest of details about her life after that, although she does seem to have been well-respected in her later years.

 

[Nova Land]

...and of the 50 million dead in Stalin's and Mao's gulags and mass starvations.

The fact that one extreme philosophy is irrational, and leads to great evils, does not mean an opposing extreme philosophy cannot also be irrational and lead to great evils. I think it is worthwhile to be aware of, and criticize, irrationality and evil wherever one finds them.

Perhaps I am misreading your post, but you seem to be implying that the evils of Communism under Stalin and Mao somehow excuse from criticism the evils which were perpetuated in the USA under the guise of fighting Communism. If so, I am sorry to see you making such a mistake.

 

[RandFan]

The fact that one extreme philosophy is irrational, and leads to great evils, does not mean an opposing extreme philosophy cannot also be irrational and lead to great evils. I think it is worthwhile to be aware of, and criticize, irrationality and evil wherever one finds them.

Perhaps I am misreading your post, but you seem to be implying that the evils of Communism under Stalin and Mao somehow excuse from criticism the evils which were perpetuated in the USA under the guise of fighting Communism. If so, I am sorry to see you making such a mistake.

The anecdote you post certainly proves that there were those who were willing to exploit our fears to their own advantage.

That said; the staggering and nearly incomprehensible cost of Marxism or Communism or whatever systems existed in the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China as a result of Marx’s philosophy simply cannot be equated to the events that transpired during the period of time you discuss.

You are correct, wrong is wrong and should be noted. America reacted wrongly over its fear.

However there was truly something to fear, 100,000,000 dead, millions more unjustly imprisoned simply because they spoke out or for other political reasons. Those not imprisoned lost their freedom and lived in a fear society.

The fear was NOT irrational. Be afraid, be very, very afraid. Once one goes down that road there will be a giant cost in freedom and lives. Be afraid, unless of course freedom of speech, assembly, religion, the press, etc., etc. are something you don't value. The Case for Democracy

Your anecdotes can hardly compare. Still, by all means make the case that our reaction was wrong. You will have a very difficult time if you try and tell us that there was nothing to fear.

 

[Skeptic]

The fact that one extreme philosophy is irrational, and leads to great evils, does not mean an opposing extreme philosophy cannot also be irrational and lead to great evils. I think it is worthwhile to be aware of, and criticize, irrationality and evil wherever one finds them.

But when you fear--quite correctly--that those who murdered tens of million in their ideological pursuit of a false economic utopia are trying to set up the same thing in your country, what you call "paranoia" is quite justified, or at least understandable.

 

[RandFan]

Let's not forget Cambodia's killing fields, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. All these folks live in a fear society without any opportunity to change philosophies or leaders or anything. If what they have is not what they like then tough.

We rightly complain when George Bush’s administration infringes our freedoms. But at least we get to complain and seek redress. There is no such right and no such redress in countries that sought to follow the teachings of Marx (let’s not forget Engels). He deserves some of the blame.

I'm going to say it again; the philosophies of Marx are something to be feared. Just because his ideas have always been perverted is no reason to assume that someday it will all work out ok if we keep trying. There are very real reasons why Marx's ideas lead to this kind of misery and loss of freedom.

 

[Nova Land]

The anecdote you post certainly proves that there were those who were willing to exploit our fears to their own advantage.

Some were, indeed, cynical exploiters. But part of the tragedy is that, just as there are many people who truly believe that astrology works, that Uri Geller can perform incredible paranormal feats, and that John Edward can talk with the dead, so there were many people who sincerely bought into the myths and lies they were taught about Communism -- that it was a jewish conspiracy, that sex education and rock and roll were part of a communist plot, that people who worked for racial equality were communists, etc.

However there was truly something to fear... The fear was NOT irrational.

Yes, there was, and Loretto Chappell exemplifies someone who was rationally fearful of Communism. As her testimony shows, she recognized its actual evils, not its imaginary ones.

Fear is often a rational thing to have. But it is important to have a realistic view of what it is you are fearful of. The extreme Anti-Communists had a very unrealistic view of Communism, based on lies and fabrications. That's why it led to so much harm.

 

[pgwenthold]

But when you fear--quite correctly--that those who murdered tens of million in their ideological pursuit of a false economic utopia are trying to set up the same thing in your country, what you call "paranoia" is quite justified, or at least understandable.

The only way that could happen in the US is if the constitution is completely abandoned.

Was that a justifiable fear?

(the irony, of course, notwithstanding)

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

unjustly imprisoned simply because they spoke out or for other political reasons. Those not imprisoned lost their freedom and lived in a fear society.

And so you propose to fight this by restricting peoples freedoms for speaking out? By making people live in a fear society?

Be afraid, unless of course freedom of speech, assembly, religion, the press, etc., etc. are something you don't value.

In America who came closest to restricting freedom of speech, assembly, religion, the press and the media? The communists or those who saw communists in every person whose views differed from their own?

The evils perpetuated under communist regimes should be a message to everyone that the things that separate free societies from such regimes are important and to be cherished. They should not be used as an excuse to abuse the self same freedoms that differentiate free societies.

 

[aerocontrols]

Still, picking a Joe isn't that tough, is it?

 

[RandFan]

Fear is often a rational thing to have. But it is important to have a realistic view of what it is you are fearful of. The extreme Anti-Communists had a very unrealistic view of Communism, based on lies and fabrications. That's why it led to so much harm.

I find your distinction meaningless. Many of the responses were wrong. I don't think you have made the case that the problems were caused only by irrational fear. There was a real fear. That alone could have been at the root of the anecdotes you cite.

 

[Lurker]

I don't get it. What should I have been afraid of. Was the US in danger of being invaded by Russia? Not really. Was the US in peril of being infiltrated by communists? Not really. I don't recall any communists being elected to govt. So what exactly should the US have feared back then? Why should I have been "very, very afraid"?

Anyway, is it illegal to be a communist in America? If communism catches on, so be it. It is the will of the people at that point, eh? I don't see why communism should be excluded from the marketplace of ideas other than people just not subscribing to its principles.

So there were a few commie spies in America. Prosecute em. But don't tar and feather very communist as a spy or every liberal as a communist.

good story, Nova

Lurker

 

[RandFan]

And so you propose to fight this by restricting peoples freedoms for speaking out? By making people live in a fear society?

What? Are you kidding? I said the actions of those who acted as Nova points out were wrong. I said that we "rightly" complain when Bush's administration infringe on our freedoms.

My only point is that we should have a very healthy fear of Marx's philosophy. We shouldn't give up any essential freedom's due to that fear. Am I clear?

In America who came closest to restricting freedom of speech, assembly, religion, the press and the media? The communists or those who saw communists in every person whose views differed from their own?

No argument. It doesn't obviate the very real fact that there was a very real danger.

And please note that because we live in a free society common sense and decency WON!

The evils perpetuated under communist regimes should be a message to everyone that the things that separate free societies from such regimes are important and to be cherished. They should not be used as an excuse to abuse the self same freedoms that differentiate free societies.

Again, no argument. Fourtunatly there is no dichotomy. We can have a healthy fear of Communism and respect human rights.

 

[RandFan]

I don't get it. What should I have been afraid of. Was the US in danger of being invaded by Russia? Not really. Was the US in peril of being infiltrated by communists? Not really. I don't recall any communists being elected to govt. So what exactly should the US have feared back then? Why should I have been "very, very afraid"?

Anyway, is it illegal to be a communist in America? If communism catches on, so be it. It is the will of the people at that point, eh? I don't see why communism should be excluded from the marketplace of ideas other than people just not subscribing to its principles.

So there were a few commie spies in America. Prosecute em. But don't tar and feather very communist as a spy or every liberal as a communist.

Good post.

 

[crimresearch]

So there were a few commie spies in America. Prosecute em. But don't tar and feather very communist as a spy or every liberal as a communist.

And by the same token we shouldn't dismiss every concern about the threat from communism as paranoid delusions or racism.

Also, do not overlook the fact that people at the time were not looking at the term 'Communist' from today's perspective, but were probably referencing the more recent part of their history involving Bolsheviks, bombs, and 2 world wars.

As it turned out those who wanted to abuse power for personal goals did so..both in the name of communism, and in the name of anti-communism.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It doesn't obviate the very real fact that there was a very real danger.

A very real danger of what?

The fact there were communist spies does not equal a very real danger of the US undergoing a communist revolution.

What is the evidence that there was "a very real danger" to the US from communism?