More on the Progressive Party of 1948 in the South, and Buford Posey, et al.

 My memory can be wrong, but often it is clear and correct - though it may take me a day to retrieve it.  I recall a gathering in New Orleans at the home of a slightly older friend Jack P., and his wife Nydia, probably in summer of 1968.  It was a small group, about a dozen, and it was to greet Ann Braden, a civil rights and civil liberties activist at least since the 1940s.  She and her husband Carl  were living in Kentucky, and had blacks visiting their home, or about to sell it to blacks or something on the race issue, and their home was bombed.  The local authorities blamed it on the Bradens, and court cases ensued.  Ann had written a book on the subject, THE WALL BETWEEN, which I had read when young.  They were also activists against HUAC, the House Un-American Activities Committee.  Carl had died, but Ann was coming to NO, and Jack invited some local activists to meet her. 

 There was general chit-chat and questions, and then things changed with the arrival of Buford W. Posey from Philadelphia.  Buford first entered the national news light when in 1963 he alleged that the 3 missing civil rights workers, Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman, were murdered, and NOT as local authorities were speculating, in Havana, Moscow, or New York.  At this little meeting in NO, Buford elaborated.  He knew they were dead because he had received a phone call late into the night, to the effect: "We just killed those 3 **** and you're going to be number 4."  I don't recall the exact words but they were harsher than those in the Mississippi archives.  Buford added, he recognized the voice: it was that of a local minister.  He added, that the sheriff and authorities could have left the 3 out of custody earlier, but the authorities wanted to wait until the Sunday night religious service was over, because some of the congregation would be involved in the attack on the 3 "outside agitators."  Buford elaborated about that era.  One day a car he did not recognized pulled up in front of his home.  Buford went on the porch with his rifle, "Who are you?" he asked the stranger emerging from his car.  The stranger now seemed most nervous: "Can you put that gun down.  I'm from the Justice Department.  I have been sent here (by Bobby Kennedy) to protect you."  Buford asked, "Well, where's your gun?"  "Oh I don't have one."  Buford then told him to get out of here; I have enough trouble protecting myself without trying to protect you, too."  I think many on the Left in the South had a very different view toward weapons from the Northern Left.  Buford also said he was the only person who had lost his Mississippi citizenship; a law had been passed denying him that and the right to vote.  When someone asked him about a court case, he replied it only applied to one and was too costly to try to win just for one person.

     The Mississippi historical group maintained Buford got in trouble in 1948 when he supported Democrat Harry Truman instead of States Rights (Dixiecrat) Strom Thurmond for President.  But Ann Braden said something to Buford that he got in trouble as a Progressive, and he agreed.  Of course, they might have meant progressive rather than the Prog. Party.  I suspect he was PP.

     New Orleans had some interesting Progressives.  NO her native city, playwright Lillian Hellman was a delegated to the PP Convention that nominated Henry Wallace.  Gwen Midlo Hall was a teenage member of the Young Progressives, and she would later become a major scholar in black history.  Long before the 1963 raid on the Quorum Club on the edge of the French Quarter, there was a raid in 1949 of a Progressive Party party, in the French Quarter and about 70 were arrested for race mixing, etc.

     The Progressive Party was a popular front organization, with Communists and non-Communists, and in the South pushing for integration.  On the other side, all race mixing, mongrolization, etc. WAS COMMUNISM.  Paul Robeson was a leader of the PP, and his defense of the Soviets cost him dearly.  From the most popular black man in the world in the early 1940s, to a non-person in America by 1950.  Stalin was a dictator, even more murderous that Hitler.  Yet, for the uncomfortable question, had there been no Stalin, would there have been an end to legal segregation in the USA?  Would there have been de-colonialization of much of the world?  Would Britain still rule India, Pakistan, and half of Africa?  Would France still rule Vietnam, and the other half of Africa?  The Cold War forced change on America and the world, changes neither wanted, and some of that change was for the good.-----------Hugh Murray

THOUGHTS ON THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION AND KAMALA HARRIS

 Did the Border Czarina mention the millions of invaders who entered during her control of the border? Or the fake stats from the Commerce Dept. telling of many new hires of jobs, but revising down each month so that 800,000 job gains proved to be more lies by the Biden-Harris Admin.? And most of the small number of new hires are NOT OF AMERICAN WORKERS, but for the invaders? Did she mention the military unde the Democrats of Biden-Harris, and the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan? And how now girls are forbidden school after age 12? The Biden-Harris unlocking vast sums to Iran, so it could fund Hamas, and other terrorist groups in the Middle East? Did she mention how she paid bail for terrorists and looters in America following the George Floyd insurrections? How her policies led to disaster in San Francisco?

Her policy, print dollars so everyone will think they are middle class with health insurance and all the goodies. Price controls. You had that in the USSR, and the department store had a low-priced bedroom set on display. Oh, but we don't have it in stock yet. Sign up, and in 20 years we might have it for you. A phone, 25 years. A car, sorry, I can't stop laughing. Coffee, if you know the clerk in that department, he may be able to help, maybe.

      Hugh Murray

PS-  Some contend that Kamala was never the Border Czar, and they are correct - she was the Border Czarina.

 Oh, IT HAS BEGUN!  Today the Dems in the swing state of Wisconsin have gone to the Wisc. Supreme Court to demand that the left-wing Green Party be kicked off the ballot this November.  The small Green Party will have 24 hours to reply.  I heard that they plan to do the same in Nevada and in all swing states.  They call themselves "democrats," but they  try to deny the rights of those who want to vote Green, or any left wing party because THEY DEMAND ALL LEFTISTS VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATS.  So the Democrats go to the leftist Wisc. Supreme Court to prevent people from voting green ,red, blue, orange.  In time, they will prevent us from voting Republican too, after Trump, Bannon, Novarro, Giuliani, are either in prison or impoverished.  To save democracy in America, vote Trump.

Was Paul Robeson Bi-Sexual? End of Dispute.

 In spring of 2023, browsing on Google, I found this article that mentioned me in the Lambda Philatelic Journal (LPJ) for March 2011 (v.30, #1)

“Paul LeRoy Bustill Robeson (1898 –1976) Robeson was a multi-lingual American actor, athlete, Basso cantante concert singer, writer, civil rights activist, fellow traveler, Spingarn Medal winner, and Stalin Peace Prize laureate.

“In 1921 Robeson married Eslanda Cordoza Goode. The couple had one child. Robeson would not play a significant role in Gay and Lesbian history was it not for the fact of rumors concerning his bisexuality. In a 1981 issue of the left-wing magazine WIN (now defunct), an article on Robeson had referred to his bisexuality as if it were a well-established fact. Some years later The Advocate (a national gay magazine) printed the claim that Robeson had 'recently [been] revealed to have been gay.' Again in a 1990 article by Hugh Murray, the author insisted that the matter of Robeson's bisexuality remained 'an open question.' His biographer, Martin Duberman, an American historian, playwright, and gay-rights activist and himself openly gay, insists adamantly he had evidence to the contrary and that 'he found absolutely no evidence of Robeson's erotic interest in men.' and that Robeson was 'singularly, rigorously, contentedly heterosexual.' Duberman did find that Robeson had many sexual liaisons and that his most intense, long-lasting affairs were nearly all with white women and that Robeson’s wife seemingly accepted these extramarital sexual adventures. So the rumor of Robeson’s bisexuality appears to be just a rumor started and continued, but also seems to have been disproved by an openly gay scholar who was chosen by Robeson’s own son to complete the biography of the father.”

I was NOT convinced by this article, especially as relatives of the person in question, especially a wife and/or children, might be the least willing to admit that their husband or dad was bi-sexual. But I decided to make some further inquiries to see if it could be settled to the satisfaction of most.

How did I get into this dispute? I had read Duberman's biography of Robeson and was quite impressed. I wanted to review the book, as I had reviewed many others, publishing them mainly in academic journals. This was before the days of Amazon, where I have now reviewed another 80 books or so. Though much of Duberman's biography of Robeson was terrific, I was convinced Duberman had not properly assessed Robeson's political activities while the black celebrity resided in Britain. I began my review with criticism of a guest on Leonard Lopate's WNYC radio talk show, an NAACP spokesman who declared that Robeson was not involved in the American civil rights movement, and Lopate dropped the topic, allowing that distortion to stand unchallenged.

My review was intended to refute the view of the NAACP, which was so critical of Robeson. I am not going to repeat the bulk of my lengthy review here, but will give one example: the most famous civil rights case of the 1930s was the Scottsboro rape cases, in which 8 teenaged blacks were sentenced to death for raping 2 young white women aboard a freight train near Scottsboro, Alabama. The 14-year-old, also found guilty, was given a light sentence because of his age, - a light sentence of life in prison.

When Robeson was in the UK, the Scottsboro rape case continued as a prime example of American racism and injustice. The NAACP and the Communist-front International Labor Defense fought each other to control the defense; the NAACP lost; the ILD appealed all the way to the very conservative US Supreme Court, and won new trials; major civil right legal victories.

The Comintern, that is the international communist movement, had made this a global effort, like the Sacco-Vanzetti case of the 1920s. The Scottsboro case was the cause celebre of the early-mid 1930s. It was the first time since the American Civil War that America's race problems were a major world-wide issue. And domestically it was important because of the contrasts between policies of the NAACP and the ILD. The NAACP sought to provide the attorneys so it could and plead its cases in court. The ILD believed in that too, but equally important, the ILD also sought to mobilize popular opinion through plays, poems, protests, marches, telegrams to officials. The ILD even sent the mother of two of the Scottsboro boys to present the case of her boys, the background of racism in Alabama and in America, and to urge support as she spoke to audiences in London, Moscow, Amsterdam, and pre-Hitler Berlin. Support for Scottsboro defendants came from South Africa, Mme Sun Yat Sen, widow of China's first President, many of the literary figures of the era, and Einstein. The NAACP could not have conducted such an international campaign to save the young blacks, even if it had wantted to.

My purpose here is not to detail all the ups and downs of the Scottsboro case, but a few more should be mentioned. The case was appealed to the US Supreme Court a 2^nd time, and again the “horrible 9 old men” ruled in favor of the defendants in a 2^nd major civil rights case victory. FDR, the great liberal, was no fan of the Court he tried to pack. Failing that, Roosevelt finally had his chance to “improve” the court. Might Roosevelt choose a most courageous Alabama former jurist, Judge Horton, who heroically threw out a Scottsboro guilty verdict by the jury of Decatur, Alabama, causing him to lose re-election as a judge; might Judge Horton be the President's pick for the Supreme Court? Close, because FDR's first pick for the high court opening was an attorney from Alabama, but Roosevelt chose instead Hugo Black, an attorney for the Alabama Ku Klux Klan. But the liberal wing of the Klan. If there is some question re FDR's racial views, following the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin, the President never invited to the White House Jesse Owens who won 4 gold medals, and who had been cheered in the huge Olympic stadium in Berlin. Nor were the other black atletes invited. Owens later complained, that Hitler did not snub him, but Roosevelt did. I mention this because academia and the historical profession are overwhelmingly Democratic, and for them FDR is a near god. America was not merely racist, it had provided inspiration for some early Nazi racial laws. It is noteworthy that Scottsboro earns some discussion in the new book by British critic Kenan Malik, Not So Black and White: A History of Race from White Supremacy to Identity Politics, in which Malik even contrasts the racial implications of the philosophies of Immanuel Kant and his pupil Johann Gottfried Herder. Not the typical work on race, but a fascinating, thought-provoking one nonetheless.

While this was occurring in the US, Robeson was in mainly in Britain, making films that could be shown throughout Africa – half of which was part of the British Empire. (He was in the US to be featured in Hollywood's 1936 version of “Show Boat,” singing Ole Man River.) Robeson in Britain and America was often on stage in plays and singing. He was aware of America's race problems too, and so it is no surprise noting the 2 co-chairs of the British Scottsboro Defence Committee were Paul Robeson and a university student from east Africa. Johnstone Kenyatta. On the set of some films Robeson, a star, met and befriended some of the extras who were African students. Here, for example Robeson met Nnamdi Azikiwe, who would later become the first President of Nigeria. Robeson surely conversed with the Africans and gained a more comprehensive notion of events in the British Empire, which in the 1930s ruled a quarter of the earth. It should be no surprise that when Robeson returned to the US, he became a leader of the Council on African Affairs. And when one student returned to his homeland, Johnstone became better known as Jomo Kenyatta, led the Mau Mau insurrection against the British, and evertually became the first president of Kenya.

No mention of Kenyatta in Duberman's book. Robeson was aware of race problems in the US and in Africa related to colonialism. The common view now is that Robeson was NOT involved in the American civil rights movement, when he lived abroad, AND when he returned to the US. Most historians follow the lead of the NAACP officials in their hostility both to Communism, front groups, and Robeson, and anyone to their Left. Not only do I disagree with this view, I see it as propaganda of the Truman Democrats and their deal with the NAACP, which would soon include creating new intelligence agenciesfor the Cold War and a Democratic Party McCarthyism before McCarthy..

During his fight to change the Supreme Court, when Roosevelt sought to pack the court with his ideological friends, VP John Nance Garner of Texas opposed his boss. When war in Europe erupted in September 1939, Roosevelt had other worries than the Great Depression to consider. And should he defy convention and run for a 3^rd term as President? If he did, Garner had to go. There was no great support for him, and the party was satisfied to dump Garner. FDR decided to replace him with his Sec. Of Agriculture, Henry Wallace. The news of spring 1940 was dominated by the swift German victories over Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium and then spectatularly over France. Europe's news brought change to the Republicans, with the nomination of a former Democrat whose foreign policy was closer to that of FDR than to the isolationist Republicans. In 1940 Congress finally passed an anti-lynching bill, but FDR chose NOT to sign it. Ending lynching was too controversial for the great liveral Democrat. Roosevelt was re-elected for an unheard of 3^rd term.

A Soviet agent in the American Treasury Dept. would play an important part in events of 1941. He was assigned to draw up terms to which Japan would have to agree so that the US would not cut off oil and metal shipments to Japan. The agent basically demanded that Japan withdraw all troops from China, which it could not do and remain a major power. It promised to let us know its answer in December 1941. Stalin knew that Japan would not attack Siberia, so he could then release troops from the Far East to defend Moscow, which was under attack by the Germans by winter 1941. The fresh troops from Siberia helped save Moscow, the USSR, and Stalin. Spies can make a difference.

Democratic President Woodrow Wilson had segregated the American armed services as he segregated the Federal Civil Service. One of his progressive reforms. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt kept the segregated armed services and Civil Service all through WWII.

An NAACP official on WNYC radio in New York asserted that Robeson did not partake in the American Civil Rights movement. Everyone knows, the CR Movement began in the 1950s, usually with the arrest on the bus of seamstress Rosa Parks. I contend that this version of history is distorted for political reasons, and as most historians and media folks are liberal Democrats, they prefer this version. I contend, the first major post-WWII Civil Rights movement began in 1947-48, it was closely allied with the Henry Wallace Progressive Party, and Paul Robeson was a co-chair of that party. Most Americans have never heard of those civil rights efforts BECAUSE it was a movement destroyed by Harry Truman and the Democrats, with the collaboration of the NAACP.

When Robeson returned to the US, he was involved in civil rights. Moreover, I contend that the real post-WWII civil rights movement began not in the 1950s, but in 1947-48 with the founding of the Henry Wallace Progressive Party, especially with its efforts in the South. Robeson was a co-chair of the PP, and while the Wallace campaign tour of the South got some attention, the attempts by Robeson to hire civic halls for the Party and songs were usually dismissed for various reasons, but the real reason, these were to be racially integrated events. Names of Progressive supporters like Daisy Bates and Buford Posey and Floyd Mc Kissick would pop up later,(Bates during the Central High integration in Little Rock, Posey in exposing the locals in Philadelphia, Miss. who contended that the 3 missing civil rights workers were alive and well and had secretly gone to Cuba, Moscow, or New York; and Floyd Mc Kissisk who in the mid-1960s headed the CORE organization). The Progressive Party activists were in the struggle against the one-party Democrats' misrule in the South. Robeson was Co-Chair or the PP. Even in 1949-50 a 4-year old Carl Bernstein (you may have heard of the Watergate scandal) was involved in restaurant sit-downs (later called sit-ins) in the Baltimore/DC area, thanks to his Progressive mother. The Progressive Party WAS the Civil Rights movement following WWII. And it was smashed by Harry Truman, the Democrats, and the NAACP. Most liberal histories present Truman as a civil rights President, the first to address the NAACP, the first to push for integration of the military. But his Atty. Gen. List of subversive organizations meant that any who had been members of the International Labor Defense, the National Negro Congress, the Civil Rights Congress, or the Council on African Affairs might lose their jobs and suffer other consequences. Robeson stood against the Truman Doctrine on the domestic as wall as the foreign fronts. I hope some day someone will write the history of that earlier civil rights movement. Unfortunately, some of that history, is crumbling, on local newspapers that can fall apart as you turn a page and are then lost, unless also on microfilm. There was an earlier civl rights movement that the Democrats seek to deny. I hope some younger historians can become archiologists of that now hidden movement of about 75 years ago. (There was an early Freedom Ride sponsored by the Fellowship of Reconciliation) in 1947 but its participants were arrested in North Carolina, and it was forgotten until revived in the early 1960s by James Farmer of CORE. (Jim Peck, who had partaken in the earlier ride, was among the first to ride in the 60s and was severely beaten by the segregationists in the South. On some of Robeson's efforts to desegregate auditoriums in the Progressive campaign, see, https://specialcollections.buncombecounty.org/2017/11/09/baritone-singer-paul-robeson-and-the-segregation-policies-of-the-asheville-auditorium/ I hope some younger historians will shake the Democrati/liberal blinders from their eyes and research the earlier civil rights struggle in the South by the Left. The Truman/NAACP deal was clear. When Du Bois, and employee of the NAAACP refused to support Truman, and was openly for Henry Wallace, he was promptly fired. That was the kind of freedom offered by the Democrats. Robeson was against colonialism; why would he support Truman? Happily, the Trumanites did not resort to Stalin's methods of dealing with opponents. Radicals were not executed, (unless they were convicted spies). But it was not an easy time for civil liberties, or civil rights..

When I became aware of the LPJ article years after its publication, I realized my charge about Robeson being bi-sexual was still out there. I then thought, can this be cleared, one way or another before we all die?

In my review of Duberman's biography of Robeson, published in the Journal of Ethnic Studies (Summer, 1990), most of my lengthy review concerned Robeson's politics. However, I added a few pages at the end when I included information of a different sort, based on a source whom I thought would have expert, but rather hush-hush allegations. I first met Eric Gordon in the summer of 1969 in my home town of New Orleans. Eric Gordon, then a graduate student at Tulane U., in New Orleans was organizing the Students for a Democratic Society in the South, and the first such meeting was being conducted at the Tulane student center. I had been teaching the university year at Southern U. in N. O., basically the black branch of the state's black university. Once LSU had a New Orleans branch, then called LSUNO, Southern U. in Baton Rouge would get a branch too, SUNO. I had also been among several faculty members fired for supporting a lengthy student strike that began with pulling down the American flag and replacing it with a black nationalist one – black, red, and green. Of course, in the spring of 1969 many campuses throughout the nation erupted, as at Cornell U. in New York. Eric hoped the new SDS would supplant the less radical SSOC, the Southern Students' Organizing Committee. I remember that organization best for its button, - in the foreground a black hand and white hand shaking in friendship, background, the Confederate battle flag (the rebel flag) SNCC and CORE had generally expelled all their white members in the early-mid 60s, so SSOC was mainly for white Southern lefties and liberals. It was also before politically correct madness that would stigmatize as “racist” any symbol of the South, and later, any symbol of America in general. Ironically, the model for the black hand on the button was John Lewis, who became an elected Representative from Georgia. He would later have to give his denunciation of the rebel flag to satisfy the new intolerance of our times.

After being fired at SUNO, I left for Europe. In New York City in the 1980s I encountered Eric Gordon again. We were both singing in the Gay Men's Chorus. I have an extremely nasal, and limited voice, but the chorus invited all. Eric however could really sing, and we stood next to each other, sang and chatted. When he heard I planned to review the book on Robeson, he wanted to give me important information. He assured me that Robeson had a male lover. His lover lived in a separate home; it was all kept secret, but Eric was emotional in asserting that it was true. I asked the name of his lover; but Eric was not at liberty to provide that. If you check Eric's name on google, you will see he is an expert on music, and radicals, so I assumed his story was true. I also assumed that with his radical background he had inside information.

In the concluding pages of my review in the J. of Ethnic Studies (Summer 1990, pp. 125-42), I criticize Duberman for not probing into the possibility that Robeson was bi-sexual.(136) For that, Duberman would denounce me in print, and even the stamp world would read of our dispute.

Interestingly, I made another error in the final “musical “ pages of my review. I accused the wrong Robeson accompanist of being gay. Eric Gordon caught the error, wrote to the journal, and Gordon's letter criticizing me was published, along with my acknowledgement of my error. That was published a year after my article. But Gordon did NOT criticize what I had written about Paul Robeson possibly being bi-sexual.(See Journal of Ethnic Studies, Winter 1991, p. 142)

When I read the LPJ article, I thought we should settle this before we die. I wrote to an old acquaintance, and she kindly gave me Eric Gordon's address. I wrote to him, in part here is the email -

> Hello Eric,
   ...
>      I recall that you knew much more about his male lover.  Not only is he dead, 
but our time is running out.  If you know, I urge you to reveal pertinent material and 
end the debate.  Of course, I would like to claim Paul as one of ours, but truth is what 
is important.  Can you settle the issue one way or the other?

and Eric responded:

Sent to me March 3, 2023
I'm not sure I can settle this one way or another. I heard a story third hand that 
intrigued me but with no substantiation I have long since concluded that it was either a 
fantasy or perhaps my informant’s memory was faulty. So I have not put much stock in it 
ever since. I trust Duberman to have the final answer to your question. 

	In the 1990s I encountered a man who had been a paper boy in his youth for radical publications.

  He delivered to the elderly Roberson, and on one occasion, thought Paul was coming on to him.  He

 said Paul invited him for some green tea, and that in the gay community, that was an “invitation.”  

As someone who has resided in Asia, I know that many Asians believe green tea is healthy, and green 

tea is added to many items.  In Saigon I had green tea cheese cake at Starbucks.  I think you can find it

 in toothpaste.  The man who had been a paper boy, never said there was sex, just that he thought 

Paul was inviting him.  I think he was mistaken.  Moreover, IF Paul Robeson had been bi, surely over 

the years someone would have come forward with their more elaborate stories.  The absence of

 more allegations over time, basically confirms what Duberman wrote.

	I apologize.  I was wrong.  I have no evidence that Paul Robeson
 was bi-sexual.  I apologize to the Paul Robeson family and 
to Martin Duberman.       Hugh Murray

	

FAMILY VALUES - A THREAT TO THE STATE?

In 1781 after a battle between Tories and Rebels in the Carolinas, two teens raced away into the wilderness when the insurgents lost. Eventually, home, but they were spotted by a Tory who informed the British. Soon several troops arrived at their home and began teaching these colonials what happens to rebels; they proceeded to break dishes, tear clothing, smash furniture. The mother could do nothing but watch while her small treasures were being destroyed before her eyes. Then, the captain demanded her 14-year-old kneel and clean his boots. The lad refused, the officer then raised his sword. It was coming down on the lad's head when the boy raised his hand to deflect the blade. His hand was cut to the bone, and he gained a scar on his forehead. The officer then used the bloodied blade on the 16-year-old brother of the young Andrew. Within a few days, the elder brother and the mother would die (the mother of disease), and Andrew Jackson would survive to haunt the British, especially when he defeated some of their proud veterans who had defeated Napoleon.  In 1815 these British veterans lostg to the ragtag army of volunteers, pirates, free people of color, and some regulars, all led by Andrew Jackson, who thus became the “Hero of New Orleans” and later President of the United States.

In 1381 the Ming Dynasty sought to expand into what had been Mongol territory in Yunan. An officer of the Ming encountered a lad of about 10 on the road; asked him a simple question, and received a “smart a**” answer from the kid, Zheng He. The kid was captures and between age 10 and 14 castrated. He was then sent to serve in the home of newly installed prince. In time, that prince became the new Ming Emperor, and was so impressed by the skills of Zheng, that the servant was made into an Admiral. But not just an admiral. His trips were world marvels. From China, they sailed into the South China Sea (probably the historical expedition for basing today's claims of that sea by the Peoples' Republic of China. Admiral Zheng He probably sailed on the longest wooden ships ever, the main one with 4 decks, and the fleet composed of about 30,000 men. They sailed to Indonesia, South East Asia, India, Arabia, and East Africa. They returned with exotic animals, like giraffes, herbs from the “spice islands,” and knowledge of another route west in addition to the Silk Road. Europe had nothing to compete with such a fleet at this time. By contrast, Vasco da Gama's Portuguese expedition (began 1497) had only 170 men. Columbus sailed in 1492 with 3 ships, but only 90 men. Even if the number of men on Zheng He's voyage is exaggerated, it would still dwarf those of the Europeans decades later.

The Chinese expeditions occurred from about 1400 to 1435. Soon after a new emperor rose to the throne; thought the project a waste, and decided it was more important to build defences against land enemies. He ordered the destruction of the Chinese ocean going fleet, AND the destruction of the blue prints for ths ships, so no such foolishness would occur again.  And eunuchs had considerable power in the Chinese dynasties until 1900.

There are other surprising points about these stories – on one of these major voyages, Admiral He left the command to travel to Mecca, because he was originally a good Muslim.  A major contrast – the Chinese official captured and later castrated the insolent boy. I suspect the British officer near Camden town may have willing to kill the insulant Andrew Jackson, but I doubt if he would ever think of castrating him. Why as castration used more often in one part of the civilized world, and not much at all in the other? Moreover, Zheng He, a eunuch could rise to be an Admiral, commanding 30,000 men.  That would have been unheard of in the West.

I will speculate. I see 2 major reasons for castration, 1, to have defenders of the harem who would be strong enough as fighters, but unable to impregnate the emperor's females. Harems existed not only in China but in the Arab world, and probably in most areas where there was enough wealth for an emperor to have many women. And depending on the inclinations of the emperor, there might also be a harem of men.

If a man is finally able to forge an army to topple an emperor, he become the new ruler, and his family and friends will proceed to take what they want. But there have to be people who take care of government, taxes, who can enter the border, the town, the forbidden city or the royal castle?  All kinds of issues even in early times. Family values are no good for this, because one thinks only of your family or at best, your extended family. The culmination of family values is the Mafia. An emperor may make deals with this or that powerful family, but he will also want some loyal to him. How can you get those who will be loyal to the state above the family? Get a civil service composed of those who have no family. The solution: castration. The civil service exam, and castration, and you will have a loyal civil service.

Why did the castration solution not develop in the West? Around 300 AD, Constantine defeated several traditional pagan Roman competitor emperors, and what was different, Constantine was sympathetic to  Christianity. He quickly issued a Edict of Toleration for the new religion, but in time his successors would go much further.  Many temples were converted into Christian churches, and Christians were granted various privileges. Over time, the old was changed. Without support, for example, the scribes who kept the ancient Egyptian language alive, had to find new professions, and the writings of thousands of years was lost as no one could decipher it until the 1900s. The well-to-do were discouraged from having a wooden male penis hanging near the front door, there was less support for the gladiators and the games, and animals in the coliseums.  Even the Olympic Games, so entrenched in pagan society that it determined a Greek calendar, the Olympics were banned by the Christians. After a century or 2, the new Christian Roman Empire collapsed, Rome itself fell to barbarians, and most of Europe entered the Dark Ages.

Civilization seemed to be ending in the West. Instead of an empire, there would be smaller states, but even these had certain requirement. Mere family values, Mafia values, are hardly just values. It is entirely a society of who you know, not justice.  Family was all.  Secular education and schools had come to an end. The only institution that might have books, and some of the knowledge of the past, of science, of medicine, of building, of weaponry, would be the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church. So, in the new small states and towns, the duke, or prince, or count, or whatever title, would make a deal with the church. It would support the new state, and it would be privileged in the new state. And unlike families who might simply want to pillage the new state, steal everything they could get for their many relatives, the priests generally had no families of their own. In some ways, they were akin to eunuchs, but with balls. So Europe did not require the service of eunuchs as did China.  In the West, priests would serve the state in the role the eunuchs had in the East.

What about harems in Europe? In Christianity, even the king was allowed only one wife. And from that wife would come the heir. Now the duke might have many mistresses, but if anyone else was caught sleeping with them, he could throw them out of the castle, away from the royal court, into poverty. And even if she had a child by someone else, it would be a bastard with no claim to the thrown. Again, no need for special guards for the mistresses so no need for castration.

Ptolomy was a general of Alexander's army that changed the world. He eventually became ruler of Egypt, and he and his descendants generally adapted to traditional Egyptian customs. Not entirely for the Ptolemys did build one of the wonders of the Ancients, the lighthouse of Alexandria, and they began another wonder, the great library of Alexandria. But they wore the garb of Egyptians, and adopted many customs. Thus, brother-sister marriage occurred between the famous Cleopatra and her brother. But as rivals for the throne, it was surely worse than most bad marriages – Cleopatra with help succeeded in killing her brother before he could do the same to her. Later she had her sister murdered too. She was also a priestess of Isis.  In the Middle East for centuries, where rulers are allowed 4 legitimate wives, and can have many children, and there is no rule of first come first serve, no rule that the eldest become the heir, some of the history of that area is “survival of the fittest – or deadliest” to succeed to the throne.  Of course that can happen in the West too, but less so, with one wife, and the custom of the eldest male becoming the heir.. Prince Harry may complain about being a “spare,” but he is spared from more bloody methods of culling the royal heirs.

Both China and the West were able to create stable empires/states that depended on bureaucracies. Eunuchs and priests were initially needed to begin this building process, and sway people away from mere family values – to plunder everyone to build your family. The state has been, with good reasons, the enemy of family values. Now the question is: Has it gone too far?-------Hugh Murray

Chris, A Chinese friend, responded on 29 July 2024 to an earlier version of this in our correspondence.

This is very interesting comparative study. Some eunuchs were actually having an affair with the big man's women, in their own way. Some eunuchs only cut one ball, so they kept certain sexual functions, only lesser than an ordinary guy. Whatever the case, corruption was common among them, regardless of whether they have children. Powerful eunuchs often end up adopting a child who could carry on their family name. Even more powerful eunuchs get to decide who becomes the next emperor. So I guess greed is part of human nature. 

By the way, it's admiral Zheng. Zheng He was his full name. I didn't know he was a eunuch. Interesting. 

More from Hugh Murray.  I know of the castrati, the choir boys, who to retain their youthful voices, were castrated, but these were a small number.  There may have been a much larger number involved in the African slave trade - not to the West, but to the East, the Middle East and mainly Muslim areas, where they were castrated.  But I know little of this and suggest the reader check it out.