We interview Jack Hodgson about his book, Young Reds in the Big Apple: The New York YPA, 1923–1934
Our member, Dr. Jack Hodgson (the University of Roehampton), talks about his new book, Young Reds in the Big Apple: The New York YPA, 1923–1934 (Fordham University Press, 2024).
Q: What is this book about?
Young Reds in the Big Apple delves into the heart of American communism through the lens of New York City’s Young Pioneers of America (YPA). It sheds light on a neglected aspect of American history, revealing the intricate details of the YPA’s formation, ideologies, and activities from 1923 to 1934. The book illustrates the YPA’s journey, from its early days as a branch of the Communist Party USA, intended for youth aged 8–16, to its eventual disbandment. I explore the organization’s unique structure, ethos, and activities ranging from protests to parties, summer camps, and sports meets, showcasing how it became a formidable force in New York’s political landscape.
I make sure to delve down into YPA members’ involvement in public protests, education reform, and their bold stance against prevailing social norms, including racial and gender issues. There are some fascinating stories. Harry Eisman went to school in the Bronx and fought for the Red Army at Stalingrad, for example. These stories offer deep insights into the internal dynamics of the YPA, children’s relationship with the adult Communist Party, and its interactions with other political entities including the KKK. Overall, the book is an exploration of youthful activism, political movements, and the complexities of American communism during a pivotal era.
Q: What made you write this book?
This book has an interesting origin story. As an historian, I work on the history of childhood and youth. I especially work to uncover historical children’s influence as political actors as well as examining their relationship with the law and the courts. For me, far too many works of political history are written as if the world is entirely peopled by adults.
I came across some primary sources to do with the Young Pioneers of America whilst I was researching my PhD. Now, my PhD thesis was California-focused. Young Reds in the Big Apple is centred on the big apple. My interest in these sources was insatiable. I also found it very hard to find any literature on the YPA. I was determined to write the book – to tell the story, but also because I think it challenges the assumption that the 1920s and 1930s was some type of interlude between the two Red Scares. I’m probably quite unusual in that my first book has nothing to do with my thesis.
An excerpt from the book (pages 23–26):
Leo Granoff appeared at Manhattan Children’s Court on November 28, 1923, wearing a smart but well-worn suit. One journalist remarked on how the “Boy Trotzky whose dark doings in Harlem” had been uncovered by the NYPD was “not so much a terror to meet.” They explained that “to begin with he’s only eleven years old, a little shaver with snapping brown eyes and unkempt black hair that blows in a Communistic wave over his head.” Granoff was not the terrorist boy bomber reports had made out but instead a “dreamy-eyed boy with a sensitive and mobile face” who it seems possessed that unquantifiable but incredibly useful quality of charisma.
...
The main argument put forward to support the notion that Leo Granoff was a delinquent child was his regular organizing of JSYWL meetings in Harlem. The radical bureau contended that he willfully corrupted other children, many of whom had come to see him as “something of an oracle.” When asked about the JSYWL Granoff first claimed that it was “just an athletic club for the children of the workers.” When asked about membership requirements he stated that there were “no bourgeoisie allowed,” describing them as “children of the rich parasites.” His answers illustrate that he was, as alleged, a vociferous and committed Communist. When asked if he would continue “disseminating Bolshevism” to other children Granoff assertedly replied “Yes.” But in describing Granoff as a “menace to the United States,” detectives certainly over-egged their pudding and engaged in the type of hyperbole which irked judge Hoyt. The accused boy let out a childish giggle, apparently amused by the idea of himself menacing the whole nation, and the case against him began to appear irreparably overblown and farcical.
Prosecutors put to Granoff that anybody in the United States could become a millionaire if they put their minds to it and he responded sarcastically, “Well, when I gets to be a millionaire, I shall buy you a pair of skates.” The boy lost his patience at being repeatedly described as delinquent, shouting “I haven’t done anything wrong!” By the letter of the law, he was of course correct. This was the start of what journalists described as “an extraordinary burst of rhetoric.” Interrupting proceedings he asked, “Gee, do they pinch a man in this free country for saying what he thinks?” This was not a serious attempt to invoke First Amendment rights. Indeed, the Supreme Court did not recognize that child citizens had such a thing until 1969. Even if a little sulkily, Granoff drew attention to highlight the hypocrisy of his accusers who sought to punish his political beliefs whilst insisting to him that he lived in a free country.
Even the judge was not spared from Granoff’s fiery tongue. When Hoyt asked why he had been out so late at night he could quite easily have explained that he was locked out. Instead, he questioned the line of questioning and launched into an angry tirade against American courts’ attitudes to child welfare. “Why don’t you worry about the children in factories who have to work all night?” When Hoyt did not answer Granoff continued, citing recent Supreme Court cases, to complain that the courts did not “look out for the kids” as he thought they should. The Daily Worker told how Leo “Talked about the repeal of the child labor law by the Supreme Court and wanted to know who was to protect the kids when the courts wouldn’t.”