The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 10 (1999)

Desegregating the 1950s: The Case ofFrank London Brown

Mary Helen WASHINGTON

Because the 1950s has such compelling meanings for me—I am a
product of both the Cold War and the Civil Rights movement—I havebeen researching and writing about this decade for many years. As a childin Catholic schools in the 1950s, I learned terms like “the iron curtain”
and “godless Communism” right along with “guardian angels,” and the“near occasions of sin.” In 1954, like good little national subjects, wewere outﬁtted with dog tags with a “C” in the bottom right corner to indicate our religious afﬁliation, that being more important in those days thanblood type. We had special prayer days to ward off a Soviet attackon the United States. Joseph McCarthy, the Catholic senator from
Wisconsin, was one of the good guys. Social justice meant bringing
money from home to “ransom pagan babies” in India and China. In
Cleveland, Ohio, where I grew up, there was, ostensibly, no segregation,
but there were no black teachers in the public or Catholic schools I attended, no black priests or nuns, no blacks in downtown businesses (including the Bishop’s ofﬁce), except as cooks and janitors, but no one admitted
to this de facto segregation. That Negroes existed on the margins ofAmerica seemed to be a natural fact of life. Though young black people
were dancing to do-wop music and rock & roll and improvising some of
the most aesthetically beautiful choreography, appropriated by whites
on television, there was almost no recognition of black culture. Insteadof celebrating black ﬁgures like Du Bois and Robeson and Langston
Copyright © 1999 Mary Helen Washington. All rights reserved. This work may
be used, with this notice included, for noncommercial purposes. No copies of thiswork may be distributed, electronically or otherwise, in whole or in part, without
permission from the author.
15

16

MARY HELEN WASHINGTON

Hughes, we grew up thinking there was something vaguely dangerous
about them, something that could not even be spoken aloud. When the
Civil Rights movement began in the 1950s, we blacks followed thatmovement from Montgomery to Little Rock, and, watching ourselves
for the ﬁrst time on the nightly news, for us and the country, everythingchanged.
Given my personal history as one of the repressed subjects of the 1950s
but also one changed by black political struggle, I have long been interested in re-reading the 1950s through the marginalized and neglected
texts of that period which I believe counter the notion of the 1950s as
simply a period of containment (Nadel, Whitﬁeld, Schaub). In interviewing people who were on the left during the 1950s, I have been struckby how politically active black writers were in a period that is commonly
characterized as one of repression and containment. Several months ago
when I interviewed Esther Jackson, the former editor of the left-wing
journal Freedomways, she completely rejected the idea that this was adormant period for black political activity:
This is the period in which Du Bois was traveling in the South speaking toradical groups. Robeson was also working and speaking in the South. The
organizing of the trade unions was taking place. Louis Burnham started theHarlem Writers Guild. Robeson began to publish Freedom, where AliceChildress, Hansberry, and Ollie Harrington had their ﬁrst work published.1
The Harlem Writers’ Guild was the center of rich cultural exchange. Killens
read sections of Youngblood there. The artist Charles White was involved.
(Interview, New York City, 1998)

To this list I would add Lloyd Brown, whose 1951 novel Iron City was
published by the Communist journal Masses and Mainstream; Lorraine
Hansberry who published her early writing in Paul Robeson’s journal
Freedom, was active in the Party and had begun to write for the lesbian
publication The Ladder before her death; Frank London Brown, a union
organizer, writer, and civil rights activist; Paule Marshall and AliceChildress who were both involved in the militant Association of Artists
for Freedom. It was Childress’s long-term involvement with theAmerican Negro Theater in the 1940s and 50s that enabled her to write
plays of resistance because the ANT directors commissioned her to write
plays speciﬁcally to counter the stereotyped roles written for black
actors.
Ordinary blacks were also situated on the left. In his critical study ofblacks and the Cold War, Gerald Horne claims that African Americans

DESEGREGATING THE 1950S

17

more often than whites were the targets of McCarthyism, and that despite
the dangers, blacks, both prominent and non-prominent, more often thanwhites, showed support for left causes (Horne xi). Because black civilrights activity was invariably labeled communist, blacks were enlisted
almost inescapably in the ﬁght against anticommunism, and Horne saysthat the civil rights work of the African American community of the
1950s and 1960s, must be given “substantial credit for helping to put
HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) out of business”(202). Anne Braden, radical activist and writer, goes even further thanHorne, declaring that “it was the new Black liberation movement—arising in Montgomery . . . that broke the pall of the 1950s. . . . The beginning of the end of HUAC came . . . when it was foolish enough to go
South in 1958 and attack people active in the civil rights movement”(252).
That most of us are unaware of the extent of the cultural and politicalwork of blacks in the 1950s is to be expected. The broad range of black
political and cultural activity driven by the surging spirit of de-segregation was hardly noted by mainstream journals of the day. Even left-liberal journals like Partisan Review and Commentary, assuming that there
was nothing in black intellectual and political life worth covering, neverintroduced its supposedly progressive white audience to black literary
and cultural expression and never, throughout the entire decade of the
1950s, dealt with race (Teres 210). Despite the intense political and cultural work of blacks during this period, most literary critics and historians, even now, return to the 1950s and re-segregate that period byfocusing exclusively on the cold war, excluding race issues and the civilrights movement; or they theorize about black writing of that period
through the traditionally canonized texts by Baldwin and Ellison neitherof whom was close to the more politicized elements in the black literary
world. What I want to do in this essay is to create a dialogue among threeof the “repressed” texts of the 1950s that were involved in powerful ways
in the postwar battles over universality, difference, and democracy: the1959 Black Writers’ Conference in New York City; Lorraine Hansberry’s speech at that conference; and the 1959 novel Trumbull Park by
Frank London Brown, each of which signals resistance to the conservative, assimilationist ideas of the 1950s. In trying to bring to attention
writers and texts which are seldom mentioned when critics re-read the1950s, about whom there is little scholarship, I hope to get beyond theparadigms that position blacks as marginal to US culture and also to con-

18

MARY HELEN WASHINGTON

tribute to the on-going project of trying to reconstitute an African
American literary and cultural left, one that was alive and well in the
1950s (Wald 1995).
I begin with the ﬁrst Conference of Negro Writers in America held inMarch 1959 at the Hudson Hotel in New York City and sponsored by
the newly formed American Society of African Culture (AMSAC)
because the entire black political spectrum, from right-wing to far-left,
was represented at this lavishly funded event and because both Frank
London Brown and Lorraine Hansberry were present and spoke but were
not acknowledged in the written account of that conference. Among theconservatives present were Arthur P. Davis and Saunders Redding, botharguing for an integrationist politics that demand a raceless literature (atleast without the black race), and the end of the protest tradition.
Reﬂecting the irresolvability of that project, Davis summarized the conservative position, saying he was looking for a new type of black writing which he called racial ﬁction without “the problem” (AMSAC 40).
Though it requires some detective work to ﬁnd them, the voices of theleft were actually present and actively involved at this conference.
Langston Hughes was there among the invited guests, speaking in suchdouble-voiced irony it is difﬁcult to know whether he was on the rightor the left, surely the result of his shakedown by McCarthy and HUAC.
His bitterly sarcastic comment that “to be highly successful in a whiteworld . . . you really should be white” or try to develop “eyes white
enough to look at Negroes clearly” left little doubt about his anger overwhite writers who had “taken my blues and gone” (AMSAC 42–43).
More radical and resistant positions—and these seem to be the dominantviews at the conference—were expressed by theater critic Loften
Mitchell and writers Sam Allen, Sarah Wright, and John O. Killens; butwhen the proceedings were edited by AMSAC’s executive director John
Davis and published in 1960 in a slim little volume called The American
Negro Writer and His Roots, much of what might have proved controversial was suppressed. As editor, Davis omitted the powerfully militantspeeches of Lorraine Hansberry and Alice Childress. The photographs
he included construct a congenial, middle-class gathering, with the participants smiling benignly, even Childress who delivered the most withering critique of white racism. Completely ignoring the multi-voiced
debate over protest writing, Davis declared in his preface that since
America is now committed to integration, the problem of black writers
having to write for a non-Negro audience was in the process of “being

DESEGREGATING THE 1950S

19

resolved.” His preface is a perfect cold war document, containing andobscuring much of the vibrant, sometimes contentious, debate at the conference over issues of integration, protest art, and white control of the
publishing industry.
Far from any such resolution, the most progressive voices at the conference raised issues of black representation that continue to be debatedin the 1990s. (Consider, for example, issues like a white-dominated publishing industry; whiteness coded as normative, blackness as other.)
Loften Mitchell’s panel, which included John Henrik Clark and AliceChildress, concluded that “the Negro writer, contrary to some of the condescending attitudes toward protest writing, should protest more than hehas.” This panel refused to even use the term integration, substituting
instead the more accurate term desegregation. Uncompromising as ever,Childress said that there were cash prizes available to the black writerfor forsaking racial themes and that the demands for black writers to
obliterate themselves by not writing about their own people, was part ofwhat she called “the ﬂow of white supremacist ideas.” The panel renewedsupport for protest writing and concluded with this remarkably cleareyed observation: at a time when civil rights is stirring in the south, colonialism is being uprooted, and the majority of the present-day shrinking
world happens to be colored, there is something absurd about questioning the value of writing about black subjects and themes.
There are other signs of a radical presence at the AMSAC conference.
We know, for example, that Communist writers Louis Burnham and
Lloyd Brown were there although they were not invited to speak(Interview 1997). We know that Frank London Brown was there because
he is pictured in the photographs and because his wife wrote later in amemoir that at the Black Writers’ conference he “spoke vehemently insupport of social protest” (Graham 288). Lorraine Hansberry is photographed delivering a formal speech that was omitted from the published text, but published posthumously in 1981 in The Black Scholar.
With her ﬁrst play about to open on Broadway in three weeks, Hansberry,at twenty-nine, was the ﬁgure in the spotlight at the conference, whichmakes it all the more intriguing that her paper was not included in the
published proceedings. Despite the fact that Hansberry is rarely deﬁned
as a left-wing activist, her speech is without question the most radical
statement of the conference.
Entitled “The Negro Writer and His Roots: Toward A New Romanticism,” Hansberry’s speech stands out from all the others because, even

20

MARY HELEN WASHINGTON

by contemporary standards, her politics are remarkably progressive. Shealigns herself ﬁrmly with the protest tradition, arguing that all art is inherently ideological—in her terms “ultimately social”—and that the workof the cold war was to encourage retreat from the political and social
while allowing the fundamentally ideological nature of ideas to go
unquestioned. She and Alice Childress are the only speakers to identify
white supremacy as the basis of race problems. Hansberry is the only
speaker to use the term black to designate her racial identity. She is the
only one to extend protest to include gender, class, sexuality, and physical disability. She is the only speaker to historicize the conference byreferences to the 1955 lynching of Emmett Till and by reminding theparticipants of the essential connection between this literary event andthe “ﬁfty thousand Negroes in Montgomery Alabama walking their way
to freedom” and nine small children who insisted on going to school ina town called Little Rock” (140).
What makes me so eager to return to Hansberry’s omitted text is thather defense of protest art is both an aesthetic as well as a political manifesto. In her argument for a more complex deﬁnition of protest literature, she remains ﬁrmly opposed to any evasions or denials of what black
life has meant in this country:
Let no Negro artist who thinks himself deserving of the title take pen topaper—or, for that matter, body to dance or voice to speech or song—if indoing so the content of that which he presents or performs suggests to thenations of the world that our people do not yet languish under privation andhatred and brutality and political oppression in every state of the forty-eight.
(138)

For Hansberry this is a “war against illusions,” but, for her, that means
constituting the black subject with all of its conﬂicts and dilemmas: “I
am saying that whatever the corruption within our people, tear it out andexpose it and let us then take the measure of what is left . . . the mostpainful exigency of cultural and social life will not be exempt from
exploration by my mind or pen.” The black writer must reject “the false
romanticism” that depicts evils in ghetto life as “folksy or harmless” pastimes; all forms of color prejudice; the ludicrous pursuit of materialism
in order to create a black bourgeoisie in imitation of their white counterpart; all forms of cultural apology that produce shame for and distancefrom the black folk heritage, or the slave past, or the sharecropper andghetto present” (137). For Hansberry this “outward-inward turning eye,”DESEGREGATING THE 1950S

21

focused outward to critique racism and domination and inward to examine black life in all its complexity, is the model for protest literature; andshe does not worry that the “inward-turning” eye will create negative
images: this exposure of “the confusions and backwardnesses of ourpeople will not result in a denigrated image but will “only heighten andmake more real the inescapable image of their greatness and courage”(138).
Hansberry’s war against illusions might very well have been aimed at
an earlier black writers’ forum, the 1950 Phylon symposium publishedat Atlanta University, in which many of the contributors, the major black
scholars and critics of the early 1950s, debated whether or not black writers should continue to focus on “Negro themes, Negro life, Negro characters” or whether, in a quest for “universality,” these race matters shouldbe abandoned. None of these symposium respondents dealt with the central, unspoken philosophical problem of these debates: that blackness is
excluded from the term “universal.” One participant, Hugh Gloster ofMorgan State, went so far as to claim that writing about black life was aform of cultural isolation from which black writers needed to be emancipated. Even Langston Hughes, whose entire literary output could be
described as culturally black, found it a “most heartening thing to see
Negroes writing in the general American ﬁeld, rather than dwelling on
Negro themes solely,” and he praises black writers like Willard Motley,Frank Yerby, Ann Petry, and Dorothy West for presenting “non-Negro
subjects” and therefore lifting their work to a “universal plane” (Phylon
307–311). A number of these critics felt that integration and full equality for blacks were so close at hand that writing about Jim Crow, whiteviolence, and oppression was a relic of the past. Sterling Brown, characteristically disdainful of black self-rejection, said that the Phylongroup had turned integration into a “literary passing for white,” (Sterling
Brown 46), but such conservatism, especially among established critics
and scholars was a typical reaction to cold war conditioning.
All during the early 1950s, conservatives weighed in on the side ofblackness as the “problem,” perhaps none so virulently anti-black as
Richard Gibson, whose essay “A No to Nothing” (1953), the lesserknown companion piece to James Baldwin’s famous anti-protest essay,“Everybody’s Protest Novel,” claims that the wall of restrictions blocking the black writer’s progress as artist is simply black writers’ inability to divorce themselves from the racial problem. The black writer,
Gibson insists, must “remember the claims of art,” avoid propaganda,

22

MARY HELEN WASHINGTON

connect himself to the traditions of Gide, Kafka, Mann, Proust and Joyce,“not merely of Langston Hughes and Chester B. Himes, and leave theissue of race for his life as a private citizen.” Then, in a telling metaphor,
Gibson declares that by following these dictates the black writer will
insure that his black skin [will be] no iron curtain about his brain” (91,emphasis mine). While Gibson means to imply that blackness is a constriction, he inadvertently describes its power: blackness is inherently
oppositional. Using the rhetoric of the cold war, Gibson equates blackness with Communism, as powerful in its opposition to the United States
as the Soviet Union. To be black in cold war America is to be both subversive and dangerous.
Frank London Brown’s 1959 novel Trumbull Park, published thesame year as Hansberry’s speech, explores, as Hansberry did, what
Sterling Stuckey called the “new militancy.” 2 Both were on the left, but
because Brown was a nationalist, “more concerned with 47th and King
Drive than with the international issues, his activism was not always recognized by the organized left wing (Johnson 1997). Brown was a civilrights activist, a labor union organizer, a musician who read his shortstories in jazz clubs, and a member of the prestigious Committee on
Social Thought at the University of Chicago. His concern for what the
new civil rights movement meant for black identity is the subject of
Trumbull Park, which recapitulates the 1950s debate over black representation, taking its characters from racial shame and fear, to their ﬁrst
acts of civil rights militancy, from experiencing blackness as a mark ofinferiority to its representation as empowering. I want to open up my discussion of this highly neglected novel by speculating on how important
it is to my claim that there is a radical black voice in 1950s black literature. Since it is obvious that the civil rights movement is the source ofpolitical change in Brown’s novel, I will use Kobena Mercer’s excellent
description of that process: “. . . the progressive character of the Civil
Rights movement involved a strategy for the rearticulation of black identity around the subversive logic of the demand for ‘equality’” (431).
To understand how Brown’s autobiographical novel enables this“rearticulation of black identity,” I begin with the fact that it is based on
Brown’s own experiences as a civil rights worker, speciﬁcally during thetwo years from 1954 to 1956 when he and his wife Evelyn, along withseveral other couples, moved into the all-white, public housing projectin Chicago called Trumbull Park.3 While Trumbull Park is about themassive and violent opposition of whites to integrated housing, the focus

DESEGREGATING THE 1950S

23

of the narrative is, as Hansberry has directed, on the “embattled
resisters,” the six black couples in the novel. I see four patterns in thenovel that foreground interconnection and interdependency rather than
individuality and thus ﬁx the novel’s attention, its “inward-turning eye,”on the collective transformation of its “embattled resisters:” 1) Although
told from a ﬁrst-person narrator’s point of view, the main character,Louis “Buggy” Martin, his wife, Helen, and the other ﬁve couples, byworking together, gradually develop the consciousness that moves themto political action, producing in the novel a sense that their fate, theirgoals, and ultimately, their success depends on collective struggle.
Throughout the text, the characters are always identiﬁed as part of a community, not as the isolated individuals we see in nearly all 1950s media
representations of heroic black characters. 2) In a novel whose ﬁrst-person narrative voice is male, and for the ﬁrst half of the text nearly oblivious to women as political forces, there is a dramatic disruption of themale-privileged narrative voice as Buggy, a working-class man, revises
his narrative and gives women the strongest political voice in the novel.
3) The novel retains throughout a vernacular (i.e. collective) voice that
nurtures political struggle, a vernacular that is not a “shorthand for indicating Negro inferiority,” but one that can express resistance, anger,
play—” a full range of communicative needs,” as John Wideman puts it(36). 4) Finally Brown employs a documentary style that links his ﬁctional world to actual historical events, not to authenticate his story fora skeptical white audience, but to signal the connections between
Trumbull Park and the larger world and as a gesture of solidarity to a
newly conscious, empathetic black audience. I note that Trumbull Park
sold more than 25,000 copies, that it was reviewed and celebrated in theblack press as well as in mainstream press, but a review of the novel byLangston Hughes in Jet, as well as articles on Brown in Sepia, Ebony,
and the Chicago Defender, suggest the importance of this book in theblack world. In its emphasis on collectivity, Trumbull Park represents a
section of working-class Chicago and challenges the dominant aesthetic of individuality that emerges in mainstream 1950s literature, particularly in the “chosen” black text of the period: Invisible Man.
I am going to look in some detail at the way this collective resistanceis narrated in the two chapters in Trumbull Park in which the couples
begin to defy the police who ostensibly are at the housing project to protect them from the white mobs but who in actuality are in league withthe whites. The six couples begin as a distinctly unorganized, contentious

24

MARY HELEN WASHINGTON

group whose political positions range from not wanting to offend whites
to planning to arm themselves and shoot whites on sight. For the ﬁrst
several months, the couples live in terror and shame, all of them reluctant to challenge the mobs which, with the collusion of the police, gather around their homes at night, chanting racial epithets and detonating
bomb-like explosives. In response, the black residents act in total fear:
they board up their windows as bricks come ﬂying through; they eat insilence; they try to hide the truth from their children; they sleep in terror. The most demeaning aspect of all of this is that the police, underorders not to arrest or use force against whites, force the black tenants
to ride in and out of the projects in police wagons and sign log books
each time they enter or leave the projects as if blacks are the ones guilty
of a crime. While Buggy is fearful of the police and the mobs, his greatest fear is that he lacks the courage to stand up to whites.
The ﬁrst confrontation with the police takes place when the six couples meet at Buggy’s house and decide that they will not sign the log
books. Each character, encouraged by the others, performs an act ofdeﬁance, men and women together, almost in counterpoint: Helen
begins, shouting to the police that they will meet whenever they want
and without police permission; Buggy’s voice follows hers; Ernestinebacks Helen up; Arthur and Mona join them, then Nadine and Terry. As
all of these unlikely “soldiers of Trumbull Park” gradually become
emboldened. In the ﬁrst act of physical deﬁance, Ernestine leads the way
out of the house through “the ring of uniforms and plainclothes,” refusing to sign the log books despite police threats. In the ﬁnal moments ofthis scene, Buggy watches Christine grab her husband and daughter and,like the others, plunge into the darkness, signifying her deﬁance with arhythm and blues song: “I heard her laughing as she walked out of sight
past the policemen into the almost pitch-black courtyard of the project. . , ‘Let the good times roll, Honey!’” (260). Shouting out this line ofsexual innuendo from a rhythm & blues song, Christine transmutes its
sexual energy into a force that intimidates the police and reinvigorates
the protesters.
The disruption of the male-centered narrative voice is another important part of the novel’s collective politics. If there is anything that marks
this novel as progressive for the 1950s, it is Brown’s questioning of andrejection of its male-centered narration and his characters’ reliance on
women’s strength and leadership. I consider this a remarkable feature ofa 1950s narrative in a decade in which gender politics are almost neverDESEGREGATING THE 1950S

25

questioned, in which male narrators and authors sexualize and silence
women without awareness or censure. Brown actually corrects own
male-centered narrative by having his narrator Buggy, nearly half way
through the novel, openly question the way the narrative has represented women:
What was getting wrong with me? Women were beginning to be on my mind
more and more . . . the women had done something that we men didn’t haveto do. They had put in twenty-four hours a day in good ol’ T.P. [Trumbull
Park]—no husbands, no nothing- and had faced up to the mob and the policemen everyday. (225)

As if both narrator and author are suddenly aware of their gender bias,
women are given the two major political speeches in the chapters following Buggy’s feminist awakening. The ﬁrst speech, given by Mona
Davis at a downtown church dramatizes what is happening in Trumbull
Park and enlists community support. Thus it is a woman who frames their“private” anger and struggle in a collective, public space. The second
speech is given by Buggy’s wife Helen, and I quote it in full because it
suggests Brown’s decision to make women central and to make Helenthe one who links this narrative to a larger international network of political activism:
Down South, Buggy, the radio talks about how Negroes are pushing trying
to get the Supreme Court to outlaw segregation in schools. Everywhere
everybody is doing something . . . what are we going to do? I don’t want a
Lincoln, or even a fur piece like some people have. I just don’t want to sit by
and watch life pass me by without doing something about it. (412)
You ever hear of Bandung? . . . That’s where the man on the radio says thata whole bunch of colored folks from all over the world—Africa, India, China,
America, all over—are getting together to ﬁgure out how to keep from being
pushed by all the things that are happening in the world—how to make thewagon go the way they want it to go. (412)

In the ﬁnal chapter, Helen’s political vision of solidarity with other“colored folks” motivates Buggy to refuse the protection of the policevans and stage a one-man walk-in: “I was going to get in line with all
those people that Helen had heard about on the radio, the ones from
Down Home, the ones from Bandung” (413).4 Buggy says at the beginning of this last chapter that he is done with listening to “Old Black Joe”
and “The Darktown’s Strutter’s Ball,” but it is Helen who acts, beginning a call-and-response by singing the ﬁrst line of a Joe Williams song

26

MARY HELEN WASHINGTON

as he walks out of the door: “Ain’t nobody worried!” Buggy “answers”
her with the second line, “And it ain’t nobody cryin’!” Buggy leaves thehouse singing the rest of the song, “Every Day I Have the Blues:”
Nobody loves me! Nobody seems to care! Speaking of bad luck and trouble—well you know I’ve had my share! Seems to me that every day, every
day, every day, I have the blues . . . (416)While these blues lyrics could easily be interpreted as a defeatist gesture, they can also be read as an act of supreme self-validation createdout of the singer’s acceptance of hard times and her (or his) ability toconstruct art out of “bad luck and trouble.” The real sense of the song as
afﬁrmation, however, can be discovered only in performance—both
Buggy’s and Joe’s. Buggy’s memory of hearing and seeing Joe Williams
in a club singing to an audience charges the song with its power:
I could see that big, dark, smiling, sweating, strong-looking crinkly-haired
Joe Williams at DeLisa’s singing that song. Holding the mike in one hand,
and walking with that head way, way up in the air, carrying the mike withhim as he walked, chest way out shoulders way back . . . singing and swinging, preaching a natural gospel of power—that ﬁnger-popping, hip-swinging, bust-you-in-the-mouth-if-you-mess-with-me kind of power! (416)Throughout the rest of the chapter, the song serves as a counterpoint
to the taunts of the white crowds. When Buggy imagines them callingout, “We dare you to walk, nigger! ” he sings a line from the song,“Noooooo-body wants me. Nobody seems to care!” Finally when he andhis buddy Harry who joins him in the walk-in have come through without backing down, the words come pouring out, this time with Harry
joining in. Consider how this chapter narrates collective action. The songassists, perhaps even compels action, creating a kind of antiphonal relationship between music and action, much as it did in many civil rights
demonstrations. Though Buggy originally plans a one-man walk-in, hisfriend Harry has joined him, and Helen’s voice impels him into action,then surrounds and encourages the two men for the entire walk-in. The
chapter ends with the words of the song inscribed in italics on the page
but unmediated by any character, so that the blues voice, the characters’
voices, and the narratorial voice all seem to be speaking as one: “Everyday, every day . . . Well, it ain’t nobody worried, and it ain’t nobody
cryin’!” Many of the images of Trumbull Park explicitly anticipate theaesthetics of protest of the 1960s and 1970s. These characters walking
through violent mobs, sustained by powerful singing accompaniment,

DESEGREGATING THE 1950S

27

and inspired by the vivid performance and blues rhetoric of Joe Williams,
will, in just a few short years, be replaced by demonstrators whose victory will be to march into police vans, rather than out of them.
I do not want to make any grand claims for this novel as a subversive
and revolutionary act, but I do want to keep in mind that the novel’s“inward-turning” eye, focused on black subjects engaged in politicalstruggle, repudiates the notion of an apolitical 1950s. In an article in
Sepia magazine celebrating the publication of his ﬁrst novel, Brown says
explicitly that he was writing this novel to encourage political change:“‘If I could get the Negro reader to identify himself with this man, then,at the end of the novel, the reader would be sworn to courage—if thetrick I tried to pull on Negro readers worked—’”(29). There are shortcomings in this text; the novel’s collective politics would almost necessitate a fuller development of the six couples and their relationships. But
as perhaps the only text we have that describes in detail the psychic andphysical cost of being involved in a desegregation struggle; as a text
which focuses on the formation of a black consciousness that leads topolitical action and self-afﬁrmation; and as one which ﬁgures women as
revolutionary inﬂuences, Trumbull Park is key to a reconstruction of a
black radical literary tradition.
One of the people who knew Brown well is the poet Gwendolyn
Brooks who wrote a poem in his memory after his death in 1962. Entitled“Of Frank London Brown: a tenant of the world,” the poem describes
him as a beloved and charismatic leader:
We let our spirited and our venturesome go—
Our Liberator and our insevere
Armed arbiter, our scrupulous pioneer—(44)

With the possessive “Our,” Brooks implies that this liberator is on intimate terms with his (and her) community. Combining words that suggest a revolutionary vocation as well as a moral integrity (the “pioneer”
is “scrupulous;” our “Armed arbiter” is “insevere”—) Brooks paints a
portrait of a person, not unlike Malcolm X, who combines the sometimes
cold task of revolution with love and carries out political action with religious conviction. Her poem captures something of the impact of Brown’s
writing and his life on the people he knew, indicating that Brown was at
the center of black intellectual and political circles in Chicago. Hiserasure and the erasure of so many forms of black radicalism from

28

MARY HELEN WASHINGTON

American literary canons puts me in mind of Ralph Ellison’s warning
about the most dangerous aspect of the containment politics of the 1950s:“Perhaps the most insidious and least understood form of segregation isthat of the word” (Shadow and Act 1962).
POSTSCRIPT: THE AMSAC CONFERENCE AND THE C.I.A.
We need to ask how and why so many novels like Trumbull Park arecompletely absent from black literary history, absent even from new
anthologies like the Norton and the Riverside, and simply not acknowledged as a part of that literary history. On the one hand the emphasis onformalism, on modernism deﬁned as a certain kind of experimental style,and the New Critics’ insistence on the text dissociated from politics andsocial issues paved the way for black literary history to make such judgments and create such omissions. But the suppression of these politicaltexts was also part of the deliberate effort of cold war practices to discredit radical or progressive politics.
We now know from the Frank Church committee exposé of C.I.A.
front organizations that the omissions and distortions of the AMSAC
conference were neither accidental not benign (New York Times,
February 26, 1976). Two years ago when I interviewed Lloyd Brown,
one of the Communists present at the 1959 black writers’ conference but
not allowed to speak ofﬁcially, he described an encounter at the conference with Langston Hughes in the Hudson’s hotel bar. He remarked toHughes that the conference seemed very well funded. “Yes,” replied
Hughes, “by somebody with a whole lot of dough.” “And,” Brown
responded, “he can print all the money he needs.” Hughes just shrugged
off this comment and asked if Brown were going along to the upcoming
AMSAC conference to Africa. Brown tried to be diplomatic, but bothhe and Hughes were well aware of the politics behind the African trip:
I said I couldn’t get away from my job. Actually I had not been asked andfor the same reason I was not asked to be one of the speakers—my long association with Paul Robeson. The AMSAC, which appeared from nowhere,
vanished the same way . . . So check out the Church’s committee’s report on
the phony organizations set up by the C.I.A. (Letter, April 8, 1996)

Several months later the poet Sam Allen, one of the conference speakers, told me that he had refused to accept a staff position with AMSAC
when he learned of the C.I.A. connection: “The offer was tempting, but

DESEGREGATING THE 1950S

29

I’d be dammed if I was going to cooperate with something that was set
up to go into the black community and report back to the government”(Interview, March 16, 1997). AMSAC’s C.I.A. connections are now amatter of record though it may be impossible to know who in AMSAC
was actually directed by the C.I.A. or aware of its operations. The discovery of how active the government was in helping to create the African
American literary canon of the 1950s underscores the legitimacy of theclaim Abner Berry made in the Daily Worker that the leading literary
critic of the 1950s was a senator named Joseph McCarthy.
We have not yet assessed the inﬂuence of the C.I.A. and the
McCarthyism on black literature of the 1950s. But we do know a great
deal about how black writers were harassed, intimidated and silenced.
Lloyd Brown’s 1951 novel Iron City and his ground-breaking essay“Which Way For the Negro Writer?” were omitted from all accounts ofblack literary history, and neither has ever been mentioned in any assessment of black writing of the 1950s nor included in any anthologies of
black literature. Ralph Ellison took great pains to separate himself fromhis earlier leftist politics, and the anti-Communist stance of Invisible
Man completed that separation. Perhaps the best example of the effectof McCarthyism on black writers is Langston Hughes’ retractions andsilences after his testimony before HUAC. According to biographer
Arnold Rampersad, Hughes dissociated himself from all left-wing circles and causes and ﬁnally, humiliatingly, agreed to cut from his biographical essays on famous black writers “almost all accounts of overt
racism,” and all references to Du Bois and other radicals (Rampersad
229–230).
Trumbull Park is not the only text absent from this history; but it is
not my intention to supply names of absent or neglected texts, rather toinsist that the ways we do literary history, our notions of the canonical,
lead to these kinds of omission. Using Michael Denning’s (and others)
direction that we analyze literature as a social formation, we must certainly construct any history of the 1950s by looking at what was coveredin black magazines of that period (and ignored in mainstream white magazines); at the political activism of people like Esther and James Jackson,
Lloyd Brown, as well as that of Rosa Parks, JoAnn Robinson, andSeptima Clark; at the creative writing published in left wing journals like
Masses & Mainstream and Robeson’s paper Freedom; at the work of thedramatists and actors at the American Negro Theater; at the effect of
blacklisting musicians, writers, artists, politicians, labor organizers, etc.,

30

MARY HELEN WASHINGTON

all of which ﬁgure importantly in this history (Denning 202–203). To
read the suppressed literary work of the 1950s in relation to the socialand political work black writers were engaged in —and I maintain thatmuch of this literature ﬁnds its source more fully in radical and progressive political activism—would enable us to reconstitute the period,
to see it, not as one of gradualism, passivity, and assimilation but as one
which projects an assertive and vital kind of progressive politics, and onethat maintains at its core an afﬁrmation of the distinctiveness of African
American culture. In rediscovering and re-recording these voices, I thinkthat what we will ﬁnd is that there is no missing link between the 1950s
and the militant political activity of the 1960s and 1970s, that the 1950s
did not represent the “triumph of assimilation” but is a part of a circle of
African American resistance and radicalism.

WORKS CONSULTED
Brooks, Gwendolyn, “Frank London Brown: a Tenant of the World,”
Negro Digest (September 1962): 44.
Brown, Frank London, Trumbull Park, Chicago: Regnery, 1959.
Brown, Sterling, “Athletics and the Arts,” A Documentary History of the
Negro People of the US., 1951–1959, ed. Herbert Aptheker, Secaucus,
New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1993, 17–54.
Davis, John A., The American Negro Writer and His Roots, New York:
American Society of African Culture, 1960.
Denning, Michael, The Cultural Front: The Laboring of American
Culture in the Twentieth Century, London and New York: Verso,
1997.
Ellison, Ralph, Shadow And Act, New York: Random House, 1964.
Foley, Barbara, Radical Representations: Politics and Form in U.S.
Proletarian Fiction, 1929–1941. Durham and London: Duke
University Press, 1993.
“Frank London Brown-Courageous Author” Sepia (June 1960): 26–30.
Gibson, Richard and James Baldwin, “Two Protests Against Protest,”
Perspectives (Fall 1953): 89–100.
Graham, Maryemma, “Bearing Witness in Black Chicago: A View of
Selected Fiction by Richard Wright, Frank London Brown, andRonald Fair,” CLA Journal, 33 (March 1990): 280–297.

DESEGREGATING THE 1950S

31

Hansberry, Lorraine, “The Negro Writer and His Roots: Toward A New
Romanticism,” in Speech and Power: The African American Essay
and Its Cultural Content, From Polemics to Pulpit, Vol., 2. ed, Gerald
Early Hopewell, New Jersey: Ecco Press, 1993.
Hirsch, Arnold R., “Massive Resistance in the Urban North: Trumbull
Park, Chicago, 1953–1966,” The Journal of American History.
(September 1995): 522–550.
Horne, Gerald, Black and Red: W.E.B. Du Bois and the Afro-American
Response to the Cold War, 1944–1963, Albany: State University of
New York Press, 1986.
Jackson, Esther, Interview with Mary Helen Washington, New York
City, March, 1998.
Johnson, Bennett, Interview with Mary Helen Washington, May 21,
1997.
Mercer, Kobena, “‘1968’: Periodizing Politics and Identity,” in Cultural
Studies, ed. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Paula A. Triechler,
New York and London: Routledge, 1992.
Nadel, Alan, Containment Culture: American Narratives, Postmodernism, and the Atomic Age, Durham and London: Duke University Press,
1995.
O’Meally, Robert G., “On Burke and the Vernacular: Ralph Ellison’s
Boomerang of History,” in History and Memory in African American
Culture, ed. Genevieve Fabre and Robert O’Meally, New York:
Oxford University Press, 1994.
Phylon, (December 1950).
Schaub, Thomas Hill, American Fiction in the Cold War, Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.
Stuckey, Sterling, “Frank London Brown—A Remembrance,” in The
Myth Makers by Frank London Brown. Chicago: Path Press, 1969.
Teres, Harvey, Renewing the Left: Politics, Imagination, and the New
York Intellectuals, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Wald, Alan, “Marxist Literary Resistance to the Cold War,” Prospects,
20 (1995): 479–492.
Whitﬁeld, Stephen J., The Culture of the Cold War, Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1991.
Wideman, John Edgar, “Frame and Dialect: The Evolution of the Black
Voice in American Literature,” The American Poetry Review, 5(September–October, 1976): 34–37.

32

MARY HELEN WASHINGTON

NOTES
1Hansberry and Childress actually published their ﬁrst work in Masses & Mainstream(Letter from Lloyd L. Brown to Mary Helen Washington, October 23, 1998).
2
While I am linking Lorraine Hansberry and Frank London Brown as two of the missing voices in the protest tradition, I should point out the many other stunning similarities between these two writers. Both Brown and Hansberry lived for thirty-ﬁve years,
Hansberry from 1930 to 1965; Brown, from 1927 to 1962. Both died from cancer. Bothwere from Chicago, and their ﬁrst major published work is about families struggling toescape the ghetto and to integrate an all-white Chicago neighborhood. Both managed tomaintain a delicate balance between being politically on the left and being amazingly
included in elite establishments; Hansberry in Broadway circles, and Brown as a graduate student and instructor at the University of Chicago and a member there of the prestigious committee on Social Thought. Brown was also a labor organizer with the United
Packinghouse Workers Union and a musician who read his short stories to jazz accompaniment, performing at one point with Thelonious Monk in Chicago and New York.
3
These battles for open housing, begun by the NAACP after the 1948 Supreme Court
ruling against racially restrictive covenants, became the major civil rights initiatives innorthern cities like Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago. According to Arnold R. Hirsch in
his article “Massive Resistance in the Urban North: Trumbull Park, 1953–1966,”(Journal of American History, September 1995, 522–550.) Trumbull Park Homes, built
by the federal government, operated, with government approval, as segregated housing.
White resistance to integration can only be described as massive and intractable. While
the police stood by, white tenants carried on sophisticated warfare, throwing bricks andsulfur candles through the windows of homes and detonated nightly hundreds of bomblike explosives. Whites made it impossible for blacks to use any community facilities,
including stores, parks, and churches. When white South African writer Alan Paton was
invited by Collier’s magazine to come to the US. in 1954 to do a story on “The Negroin America Today,” he visited Trumbull Park and interviewed Frank Brown. Paton said
that a world in which there were police everywhere, white tenants sitting outside in thesun on a spring day, “colored men and women and children sitting behind blinds,” andbombs going off at regular intervals, was unreal.
4
I ﬁrst heard a reference to the Bandung conference in Malcolm X’s speech “Not justan American problem, but a world problem,” given at Corn Hill Methodist Church in
Rochester, New York on February 16, 1965. He hailed Bandung as the ﬁrst time in history that the dark-skinned nations of the world united to reject colonialism and racism
and to promote unity among the colonized. No European nation was invited, nor was
the United States, their very absence signifying them as the world’s colonizers. In The
Color Curtain, Richard Wright gives a ﬁrst-hand view of the conference, which heattended. Adam Clayton Powell was there, asserting that far from being oppressed,
Negroes were a privileged group. The press praised Powell for his patriotism, andCongress passed a resolution commending Powell (Letter from Lloyd Brown, October
23, 1998).