Essie provided an illuminating description of some of these sessions that suggested that they were not entirely of the ordinary variety. Starting by contrasting the states of African and African-American education, they moved to politics, again in a comparative framework, and then into the arena of ameliorative strategies. This led them to India (where Yergan had recently met Nehru) and its independence. Next the scene shifted to Italy’s Ethiopian adventurism, Japan’s assault on Manchuria, Spain, the possible restoration of Germany’s former African holdings, and the bland inefficacy of the League of Nations. Then the conversation built up to a striking but not wholly unanticipated climax:
And the one hopeful light on the horizon—the exciting and encouraging conditions in Soviet Russia, where for the first time in history our race problem has been squarely faced and solved; where for the first time the words of the poets, philosophers, and well meaning politicians have been made a living reality: Robert Burns’ “A man’s a man for a’ that”; France’s Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité; America’s “All men are created equal” and “are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” All these grand ideas and statements have been hauled down from the dusty reference shelves at the back of men’s minds and have been put into active, vigorous, successful practice by the Russians, so that men and women and children of all races, colors, and creeds walk the streets and work out their lives in dignity, safety, and comradeship.144
William Patterson, James Ford, and Ben Davis, who seem to have played a part in Yergan’s Soviet sojourn, were three of the most influential African-American office holders in the Communist Party. All had spent time in the Soviet Union and would have shared their impressions of the Soviet experiment with Yergan. They would build upon this personal and professional relationship for the next decade. Together they were able to facilitate Yergan’s post–South Africa entry into the U.S. Left.
Whatever ambiguity lingered in Bull’s mind regarding the authenticity of Yergan’s conversion, his voice was a minority opinion. It was not insignificant, however, and probably carried considerable weight in the YMCA, whose International Committee trusted him. To the outside world, and especially to the Left, Yergan was taken at his word. In a pointed paragraph, he was quoted as sharply saying,
“I cannot go on as I am in the face of this failure of so-called liberalism which is condoning the increasing political and economic repression of the Africans. The time has come when the African Natives must be assisted in their open fight to organise themselves whereby they can act unitedly in resisting the powers that exploit them.”145
Yergan received a vote of confidence from Paul Robeson, who lauded him for having the courage of his convictions, whatever the short-term cost. In a response that set the tone for the way Max’s resignation would be seen for years afterward, Robeson was, as was customary for him, formidably eloquent.
Max Yergan’s stand is one of the finest and most important things that could have happened. His taking the only honest way out of a false position should show the light to many so-called leaders who want to be blind and who have not the courage, honesty and manliness of a Max Yergan to speak out boldly and to defy the powers that be, or to strike a note of discord against those who pay the piper, and, consequently, call the tune. The YMCA, a supposedly Christian organization and religious institution, has long befuddled and betrayed the Negro people. Yergan’s admirable stand provides a fine lead for other Negro intellectuals who are occupying false positions from which they may wish to escape, but who are wavering.146
Another indication of the way posterity would honor Yergan’s departure from South Africa came from Carter G. Woodson, editor of the Journal of Negro History. Woodson, a champion of Yergan’s efforts since the 1920s, stressed the larger ramifications of what he construed to be a major sacrifice:
Certainly Max Yergan, though not an African, but a Negro American casting his lot wholly with those people, deserves much credit for his recent decision. After working under the auspices of the Young Men’s Christian Association in South Africa [for] fifteen years he learned from experience that such Christian teaching as is permitted the natives in South Africa without any mention of their oppression is mere mockery. He has come out of Africa in protest against such an ineffective method, hoping in a more direct way to prepare and to arouse intelligent natives to work against this injustice and ultimately deliver themselves from serfdom. In thus taking this stand Yergan will make it difficult for Negroes to enter South Africa even as missionaries. There is today considerable objection to the program of certain missionaries and only with extreme difficulty can Negroes enter the country. The Government of South Africa seriously objects to the teaching that all men are brothers and that a Negro before God is the equal of a white man. The Government has decreed that all men are unequal, and the blacks must remain content to be the serfs and wage slaves of the whites. No law to bar evangelization has been enacted, but certain economic imperialists believe that it must be done ultimately if their program of exploitation is to continue with success.147
Both Oswin Bull’s criticism of it and Max’s cover story had merit. Each played a role. Yergan had been in personal turmoil since the summer of 1931 and probably before. Bull was correct that missives exchanged did not go unobserved by Yergan’s secretary, Thamae, nor others with whom he came in contact. Thamae’s wife recollected that Susie Yergan upbraided Yergan for his lengthy and unexplained absences, and both the Thamaes and Govan Mbeki sensed tensions in the Yergan home. In 1930 these impressions of Yergan’s private life had entered the very public record of both the WSCF and the YMCA. With the furthering of his ideological growth, controversy increased. Bull, whose acerbic reactions were clearly recorded, even suggested that Max did not have a bad time of it in South Africa. He probably felt this way by judging from Yergan’s extraordinary standard of living.
In a curious off the cuff remark to an itinerant Ralph Bunche in 1937, Bull issued a parting shot at Yergan. In his notebook, Bunche jotted the following entry after a revealing chat with Bull:
November 7, 1937:
—Bull says he thinks Yergan exaggerated the physical inconveniences he suffered here—he thinks that Yergan was treated very well in that respect, tho he added piously: “it is not for a white man to say what spiritual suffering a colored man undergoes in such a situation.” Bull emphasized that Yergan underwent a change after his trip to Russia—he wanted everything to be “more radical” in the union after that.
—Said Yergan lacked organizational ability, tho he was a good contact man. Said Mrs. Yergan’s work would be more lasting than Max’s and both Mr. and Mrs. Bull had more praise for Mrs. than for Mr. Yergan.
—Said Yergan cooked his Y.M.C.A. goose in South Africa when he wrote a stinging, discourteous letter to the international Secy., charging that as a white southerner he was prejudiced and blacking Max’s work (re Denmark conference).148
In the months following the departure from Alice, it is unlikely that Yergan thought much about Oswin B. Bull. The South Africa that concerned him was less the one “adjusted” by the YMCA and more the one envisioned by the All African Conference, responding to activists like Xuma and Robeson, whose voices, with Frieda Neugebauer close by, helped shape an International Committee on African Affairs.
What may have been the last straw for Yergan was described by the late controversial founder of the Unity Movement of South Africa, I. B. Tabata, a resident of the country during Yergan’s term of service. In his inimitable fashion, “Tabby” once said that at a certain point after his movement to the left, Yergan took the unprecedented and powerful step of torching his theology texts.149 No one else has written or spoken of this; yet it has a profound symbolic value as an action that most would consider irrevocable, not only for his missionary career but also for his relationship with the Gibraltarlike Christian, Susie.
5
Progressive Leader, 1936–1948
Upon returning to the United States Max Yergan
fully dedicated himself to a life of left-wing activism. This took three forms. First, he deepened his connection to the National Negro Congress, becoming first its Harlem and then its national representative. Second, he concentrated upon building the new International Committee on African Affairs (ICAA), both domestically and internationally. Third, he sought to build a base in academia, using his adjunct position as instructor of Negro history at City College of New York as his anchor.
By 1936 Max Yergan was by most estimations, including his own, a revolutionist. He had said as much to Govan Mbeki, both explicitly and implicitly, but it was also quite evident from his public utterances and whenever his personal correspondence strayed into political affairs, as it had been doing since 1931. He had presented himself in this way to Ralph Bunche and John Davis, but also to Quaker pacifist Clarence Pickett.1 The question remained for him of how to move forward with his principled ideological transformation yet still maintain his connections to his prior constituencies and backers.
As Max prepared to leave South Africa he was already setting up a strategy that would ensure a smooth transition from his previous decade and a half of service abroad. Using his transnational network of contacts, he combined expertise gained in the YMCA both nationally and internationally with experience of foreign travel to carve out a unique approach to race leadership that fused progressivism with a bit of rhetorical Pan-Africanism. Thus he became accomplished in three different arenas, as NNC administrator, as ICAA executive director, and as City College faculty member employing sophisticated publicity strategies. The prime and perhaps most pivotal of these platforms was the National Negro Congress.
The National Negro Congress
The National Negro Congress grew out of a Howard University conference on the “economic status of the Negro” held during May 1935. Cosponsored by the university’s Social Sciences Division and the Joint Committee on National Recovery (JCNR),2 the meeting had originated with Ralph J. Bunche, chair of Howard’s Department of Political Science, and JCNR executive secretary John P. Davis. The Howard meeting identified a need for closer collaboration among Black organizations, political, fraternal, or religious, and for a central coordinating authority to articulate objectives for racial struggle. The body envisioned was a broad-based National Negro Congress that would “give strength and support to all progressive programs of all Black groups” without duplicating or replacing the work of any already existing structure.3 Secretary Davis sought race leaders, Max among them.
The first NNC took place in Chicago’s Eighth Regiment Armory in mid-February 1936. Attending were 817 delegates representing more than 385 political, laborite, and religious organizations and more than five thousand visitors, including several Communist Party sympathizers of both races. In the course of the week preceding the founding Congress a committee led by Adam Clayton Powell Jr. drafted a reluctant Asa Philip Randolph as the group’s president, acknowledging his stature as chief spokesperson for Black labor.
The NNC meeting was noteworthy for balancing national and international issues, paying special attention to the Italian fascist “Rape of Ethiopia,” a sensitive racial issue for African-Americans, within whose communities antifascist sentiment intensified.4 Lij Tasfaye Zaphiro, special envoy of Ethiopia’s London legation, addressed the gathering, countering European colonial allegations of Abyssinian barbarism with news of the savagery of fascist Italy’s invasion.5 Black Communist leader and vice-presidential candidate James Ford tied Ethiopian resistance to Italian aggression to the African-American fight “against lynching and for civil rights and decent human relations.”6
Then Congress attendees heard a missionary recently arrived from Cape Town7 who linked Italian imperialism in Ethiopia to the expropriation of African land in South Africa, describing conditions in that country resembling those afflicting Black folk in the United States. Bringing the NNC into the picture, the speaker ended by saying that “this Congress has the opportunity and responsibility to make it possible for all organizations here represented to subscribe to a minimum program—to fight for those things on which the organizations are in agreement.”8 Max had entered the National Negro Congress. His introductory speech garnered attention from both national and international reporters.9
Yergan’s NNC position was extremely strategic. When he appeared as an intense bystander at the first National Negro Congress, catching the eyes and ears of John Davis and Ralph Bunche, architects of the NNC, he came with another potent recommendation. Not merely an individual, he was also of keen interest to the Communist Party. Known to former YMCA member Communist Party leader James Ford since his student days, Max met Party leader Abner Berry, later quoted as having thought, “look at the big fish we caught.”10 He was not alone.11
Yergan brought the new group his YMCA expertise, along with fresh familiarity with the campaign waged by the All African Convention (AAC) in South Africa. As its external secretary he was well placed to keep its goals and needs before his American comrades. It was logical and consistent for him to do so as the African National Congress, part of the AAC, had been influenced by the NAACP, and the AAC’s aims resembled those of the NNC.
Max’s initial NNC speeches emphasized his strengths as a specialist in African affairs by connecting Africa’s struggles to one another as well as to those of African-Americans. At the first congress in Chicago in February 1936, Yergan stood at the podium and said,
I have spent the last 15 years in Africa, traveling and working in all parts of the continent. However, I will speak today mainly of Ethiopia. Through the attack on this small country we are becoming aware of the aggressive nature of Fascism, and of the necessity for an intelligent, organized resistance. This thing called Fascism is the outgrowth of a larger force—imperialism. Imperialism has reached such a point that it controls much of finance capitalism.12
Yergan went on to zero in on “capitalist trusts.” In a section referred to by later descriptions of the Congress, Yergan, implicitly invoking Marx, linked land, labor, and capital:
The capitalist trusts divide up the spoils and partition the territories of the world among themselves. This phase of imperialism has manifested itself in every part of the African continent. Britain, France and other European countries have taken much of the land; the French colonies alone have a population of 50 million. In the taking of land a labor market is set up. Various new forms of labor are forced on the people, and labor is drained out of the country.
He then provided a further analysis of the effects of the imperialism he described:
Imperialism, then, means annexation of land and confiscation of labor.… It destroys the culture—the basic social fabric of the people’s life. In South Africa through the color laws, Africans are kept out of many phases of skilled labor, and on the lowest level, industrially. Laws limiting freedom of assembly make it difficult for them to organize to defend themselves. Other legislation prevents their moving about freely.
The platform provided by the NNC made Yergan better known to a wider and more secular audience. It also provided him with the support needed to embark upon a new venture, the establishment of an information and lobby group about which he had been communicating with Paul Robeson. Out of their collaboration was born the ICAA, or International Committee on African Affairs. It grew directly from recent experience.
International Committee on African Affairs, 1937–1941
The principal transnational activity in which Yergan became engaged during his militant period was the International Committee on African Affairs. Founded with Paul Robeson in 1937, it profited from the energy of its skillful secretary, Frieda Neugebauer. Taking its cue from the International Committee of the YMCA, the ICAA was an idea to which Robeson contributed in large measure. Despite his critical reassessment of the Y, the new group’s title and personnel indicated Max’s persistent desire and intention to replicate YMCA achievements. Yergan’s African connection did not end on his exit from Fort Hare. Continuing as AAC external secreta
ry, Max went public in a series of exposés excoriating Y “racial adjustment” policies; in interviews conducted in London during his spring 1937 European tour, he questioned the use of local YMCAs to mitigate Native oppression. Scrupulously quoted by African-American reporter Homer Smith, stringer for Black and White U.S. gazettes (one of a handful of correspondents accredited to the Soviet Union), who wrote as “Chatwood Hall,” Yergan explained why he had quit South Africa.13 The Hertzog Bills were uppermost in his mind; called upon to bear witness and testify, he saw the problem as caused by colonial finance and settler capitalism and its remedy as being popular democracy.
Before leaving Fort Hare, Yergan told Smith, he had gone out to Africa believing social service and Christian teachings would lead Africans to “the good life.” Twenty years later, “I am convinced now that there will have to be fundamental changes, striking at the very roots of political and economic conditions in South Africa, before the African can be assured of even the beginnings of a good life.” He illustrated this point with mining salaries:
Since 1932 profits in the gold mines around Johannesburg and in the Transvaal increased 100% and dividends over 70%. Wages of white workers measurably increased. But not since the war has there been a single increase in the wages paid to over 200,000 Africans working in these mines.14
To Yergan this disparity resulted from the fact that Nonwhites were afforded neither access to organized White workers nor recognition for their own labor combinations. Previously, under Clements Kadalie, “a militant African,” the Industrial and Commercial Union voiced the demands of African workers until government and coopted “European” labor collusion undermined it, outlawing future endeavors like the ICU. The Native (Yergan preferred to use “African”) National Congress consisted of “detribalized” (Western-trained) professional Natives, teachers, ministers, and lawyers who were intended to find token spaces in a Eurocentric schema, but, Max opined, “There is no place for them under European imperialism.” He amplified this comment by adding,
Max Yergan Page 22
