Notes

Preface

1. Koelsch, Clark University, 70.

2. Vitalis, “International Studies in America”; and Vitalis, “Birth of a Discipline.” For circulation of the journal’s origin since then, see, for example, Anderson, Pursuing Truth, Exercising Power; Blatt, “‘To Bring Out the Best That Is in Their Blood’”; Norton, “Political Science as a Vocation,” 69; Lederman, “Anthropological Regionalism,” 313; Lowndes, Novkov, and Warren, Race and American Political Development; and Tickner, A Feminist Voyage through International Relations, 121.

3. William Bundy, “The History of Foreign Affairs,” Foreign Affairs, 1994, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/about-us/history, accessed October 4, 2014. I presented a short version of the story on a panel on which managing editor (and now editor) of Foreign Affairs Gideon Rose also appeared.

4. See Peter Kihss, “Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois Joins Communist Party at 93,” New York Times, November 23, 1961.

Introduction: A Mongrel American Social Science

1. There are, nonetheless, scholars in international relations in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and elsewhere that are critical of the mainstream’s ongoing, pervasive preferential option for the powerful and more generally for “the West.” See Barkawi and Laffey, “The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies”; Hobson, “Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western Imperialism?”; and Hobson, The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics. For the relationship between Hobson’s work and mine, see Vitalis, “A Great-Grandson Breaks New Ground in Critical IR Thought.”

2. Around 1998, as I launched this project on recovering the history of black scholars in international relations in an era of segregation, racism, and imperialism, other political scientists were taking up the issue of race in the contemporary era and the discipline’s silence about it. They include Roxanne Doty, Siba Grovogui, Errol Henderson, Sankaran Krishna, James Mittleman, Randy Persaud, Robbie Shilliam, Srdjan Vucetic, Rob Walker, and Hilborne Watson. For a comprehensive bibliography and representative example of the state of the art, see Buzas, “Race and International Politics.” For the present range of views, see “Confronting the Global Colour Line: Space, Race and Imperial Hierarchy in World Politics,” a special issue of the Cambridge Review of International Affairs (26, no. 1 [2013]). I intend this and subsequent citations to the secondary literature to be suggestive rather than exhaustive. Interested readers are always one click or one book or article away from the expanded set of references, and we have a lot of ground to cover across the humanities and social sciences.

3. See, however, Singh, Black Is a Country.

4. Those who aren’t familiar with the signal contributions of Carol Anderson, Brent Edwards, Kevin Gaines, Paul Gilroy, Robin Kelley, Winston James, Susan Pennybacker, Brenda Plummer, Nikhil Singh, and Penny Von Eschen, among others, will find the references and get up to speed on the state of the art in Gore, Radicalism at the Crossroads; McDuffie, Sojourning for Freedom; Makalani, In the Cause of Freedom; and James, George Padmore and Decolonization from Below.

5. See Go, Patterns of Empire, for a recent standout in the long analytical tradition that international relations has for the most part ignored; Hobson, The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics, part II, for the varieties of positions on offer; and Kramer, Blood of Government, for an exemplary analysis of the role social scientists played in the occupation of the Philippines.

6. Vitalis, America’s Kingdom. For a brief discussion of the relationship between America’s Kingdom and this book, see my “Writing America’s Kingdom,” http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/qahwa_sada/files/americaskingdom.pdf, accessed July 25, 2014.

7. See, for example, Mills, “Crackpot Realism”; Chomsky, American Power and the New Mandarins; and Oren, “The Enduring Relationship between the American (National Security) State and the State of the Discipline,” 51–55 for just three of the many influential dissections of the university’s relationship to empire. One might also follow Chomsky’s many exchanges with political scientists in the 1960s and 1970s in the New York Review of Books. For policymakers’ views of new model of international relations professors and a likening of their role to that of “shamans,” see Kuklick, Blind Oracles.

8. Rice studied with Albright’s father, Josef Korbel, the founding director of the Center for International Studies at the University of Denver.

9. Zakaria, “The Rise of a Great Power,” 1, 3.

10. See, for example, James Traub’s review, “‘The Right War?’ and ‘A Matter of Principle’: Everybody Is a Realist Now,” New York Times, October 30, 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/books/review/30traub.html?pagewanted=all, accessed July 16, 2014. In addition, see Oren, “The Unrealism of Contemporary Realism.”

11. Nye, Bound to Lead; and Nye, Soft Power, which has gone through multiple editions. For the reputational rankings, see Maliniak, Peterson, and Tierney, “Trip around the World.” For a dismissal of the consensus view, see Anderson, “Consilium,” 119. The New Left Review devoted an entire issue to Anderson’s two-part analysis of “nonconformist” and “mainstream” foreign policy analysis.

12. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.

13. Kuklick, Blind Oracles, 40, describes George Kennan, the culturally conservative career diplomat and later “guru of foreign affairs” as the “first intellectual middleman of postwar national security studies.”

14. The critique in Waever, “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline,” applied to virtually the entire contents of the 50th-anniversary issue of the journal. Kuklick calls the genre “practitioner histories.”

15. I began this project at the same time that Carleton University’s Brian Schmidt (PhD State University of New York, Albany, 1995) was completing a dissertation that would become The Political Discourse of Anarchy. Twenty years later he leads a small group of exceptional professors of international relations who prove the rule. That is, they have made the history of the discipline and its leading ideas a primary focus of their scholarship (a “subfield”), attending to the problem of historical validity in ways that historians do and moonlighting insiders do not. They include Luke Ashworth, Duncan Bell, John Hobson, David Long, Nicolas Guilhot (the one non–international relations outlier), and Ido Oren. Their work has been of tremendous value, and this book succeeds in part to the extent that its findings are surprising and yet convincing even to them. Nonetheless, the imagined audience for this book extends beyond them and kindred dissident international relations theorists to diplomatic and intellectual historians, historical sociologists of race and empire, students of interwar internationalism, historians of the social sciences and area studies, humanists in American studies, African American studies, and specialists in black internationalism.

16. Thomas, “‘We’re Saying the Same Thing,’” 40–41.

17. On the uses and abuses of Thucydides, see Garst, “Thucydides and Neorealism”; Bagby, “The Use and Abuse of Thucydides in International Relations”; and Welch, “Why International Relations Theorists Should Stop Reading Thucydides.”

18. To test this claim, browse one of the online syllabus repositories in international relations.

19. Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy, for example, demonstrates that the “first great debate” from which the discipline is said to have emerged never actually occurred. His critic, Ole Waever, is right that the idea nonetheless “has become socially real if historically false”; Waever, “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline,” 692. The idea of “race” is another, even more immutable, biologically false social fact, although there is no convincing those leading what Troy Duster calls “the current march toward a biological reinscription of the concept.” Duster, “Race and Reification in Science,” 1050–1051.

20. See Moon, Syllabus on International Relations; and Ware, Study of International Relations in the United States. Both the new International Institute of Education (est. 1919) and the Social Science Research Council (est. 1923) sought to advance the new science in the United States, the latter through its Committee on International Relations. World War I led to increased enrollments in courses devoted to what the post-1898 pioneers at Wisconsin, Chicago, Clark, Harvard, and, above all, Columbia, offered up as a “new” interdisciplinary science, and the objective was to advance teaching and research in the peacetime context of the founding decade of the League of Nations and growing tensions across the color line.

21. Menand, The Marketplace of Ideas, 107–117.

22. Ibid., 115. For the effort to secure hegemony, see Guilhot, The Invention of International Relations Theory; and the H-Diplo/ISSF Roundtable on Nicolas Guilhot, ed. The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory (2011), 3, 5 (November 9, 2011), available as a PDF file at http://h-diplo.org/roundtables/index.html#2011.

23. Since some will consider this an overstatement, let me note, first, that it is a claim about a central tendency and not a report of the result of a polling of the professoriate. I have nonetheless been told more than once that the discipline has resolved the question definitively in the negative. I was told this, second, even as a few card-carrying U.S. members of the American Political Science and International Studies Associations used the occasion of accounts in the press and journals of opinion for and against America’s “new” imperial turn in Iraq to weigh in. The rough result was two qualified no answers. One is in Lake, Hierarchy in International Relations, which draws in part on earlier formulations and rediscovers what an entire generation took for granted; namely that hierarchy and not anarchy characterizes the world we live in. The other is in Ikenberry, “Illusions of Empire,” which affirms the liberal or exceptional nature of U.S. rule. There was one yes response, in Nexon and Wright, “What’s at Stake in the American Empire Debate.” Motivated readers might further test the claim by examining syllabi repositories to see if these works are included in the syllabi of courses that prepare graduate students for their exams in the field. They didn’t in my department. They are less rather than more likely to do so as Americans imagine the end of such episodes and the pundits turn to debating U.S. “retreat” and “retrenchment.”

24. Doyle, Empires, 11. See, however, Vitalis, “Birth of a Discipline”; and Barkawi, “Empire and Order in International Relations and Security Studies.”

25. I use the Carnegie Corporation grant programs and the Rockefeller Foundation here for convenience while recognizing that the latter in particular emerged out of the amalgamation of a number of different “memorials” during the period with which we are concerned. For background by the sociologist most concerned with the relationship of foundations to international relations as an academic discipline in an era of the rise of global U.S. power, see Parmar, Foundations of the American Century.

26. One problem is that until very recently studies of the history of the emerging social science disciplines have failed to consider the new imperialism as a phenomenon that shapes these institutions. See Kramer, “The Pragmatic Empire,” 380–383 (revision published as Blood of Government), together with my own and other contributions to Long and Schmidt, Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations; and Steinmetz, Sociology and Empire, notably the introduction by Steinmetz and Go, “Sociology’s Imperial Unconscious,” 83–105. Calls for recovering and overcoming the imperialist predisposition of international relations are common abroad. See e.g., Jones, Decolonizing International Relations.

27. Stocking’s pathbreaking account of neo-Lamarckism in the social sciences, Race, Culture, and Evolution, discussed a number of scholars in international relations and articles from the field’s Journal of Race Development, but Stocking’s work on racial science was not linked to theory building in political science and international relations until Hattam, In the Shadow of Race; Vitalis, “The Noble American Science of Imperial Relations and Its Laws of Race Development”; and Hobson, The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics. Hattam and I are both indebted to Adolph Reed Jr.

28. Compare with the idea that international relations “emerged as a social science relatively late,” in the 1930s, at the University of Chicago in Frieden and Lake, “International Relations as a Social Science.” Among other ironies, the essay appears in the journal Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, where early international relations theorists (not international lawyers) started publishing at the turn of the century.

29. For references to self-determination, see Locke, “Enter the New Negro,” 631–634; and “Harlem: Mecca of the New Negro,” 629–630.

30. These institutions and publications in turn have not been recognized in histories of international relations until now.

31. Franklin, “Dilemma of the American Negro Scholar,” 71. I found the essay by first reading Howard historian Michael Winston’s influential “Through the Back Door.”

32. If Nancy Cunard, the disowned shipping heiress, anthologist extraordinaire (Locke’s copy of her Negro: An Anthology (1934) sits in the University of Pennsylvania’s rare books room), and George Padmore’s collaborator, represents the model race traitor of her time, then interwar-era international relations represents an empty set. However, Locke’s papers include correspondence in 1923 with Carl Joachim Friedrich, a future president of both the American Political Science Association and the International Political Science Association. Friedrich was then on a kind of student goodwill tour, had not yet finished his Heidelberg PhD, and was three years away from his original appointment as lecturer at Harvard. Locke had been teaching for over a decade. Yet Friedrich calls the diminutive Locke “my little philosopher” in recalling a night, I think, at the theater (meanwhile typing “J” for “I” throughout). “You cannot imagine how glad J am about the last evening with You, and J am always carrying around with me the problems of racial sex arisen there. J was surprised to find verified my assertion that a slawic [Slavic?] joung man wouldn’t accept the second play at all in hearing the judgment of Palacek about it. Whatever it may be, J am too stupid to understand it, what constitutes these metaphysical differences. Why can’t the one people make wonderful music when the other makes beautiful dramas? Why can the one peo[p]le produce merely efficient businessmen when the other produces victorious generals? Are those facts all accidental?” Friedrich to Locke, January 12, 1923, box 30, folder 29, Papers of Alain Leroy Locke, Moorland Spingarn Research Center, Howard University, Washington, D.C. (hereafter Locke Papers).

33. See Frances Buell’s unpublished memoir of Corwin, April 1959, box 40, folder 15, Misc., Buell, Frances, 1946–1959, Raymond Leslie Buell Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (hereafter Buell Papers LC). Both the New Yorker and the University of Michigan Law Review turned down the memoir for publication.

34. See Francis Stead Sellers, “The 60-Year Journey of the Ashes of Alain Locke, Father of the Harlem Renaissance,” Washington Post Magazine, September 12, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/the-60-year-journey-of-the-ashes-of-alain-locke-father-of-the-harlem-renaissance/2014/09/11/2ea31ccc-2878-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html, accessed September 30, 2014.

35. See Gill, “Gramsci and Global Politics,” 1; and Gill, “Epistemology, Ontology, and the ‘Italian School,’” for the first uses of “Italian school.” For its dissemination, see Germain and Kenny, “Engaging Gramsci.” For a different and narrower application of the concept to Howard’s leading thinkers, see Henry, “Abram Harris, E. Franklin Frazier, and Ralph Bunche.”

36. See Toni Morrison’s “Black Matters,” the first of her three Massey Lectures, in Playing in the Dark, 9–10.

37. I am including Tilden LeMelle, who taught at Denver and the City University of New York; Lockesley Edmundson at Cornell; Martin Kilson in the years since his retirement from teaching at Harvard; Neta Crawford at Boston University; Hilbourne Watson, recently retired from Bucknell; and Errol Henderson at Penn State. In addition, see “ISP Forum: Diversity in the International Studies Profession,” notably the briefs by Christian Davenport, Brandon Valeriano, Wendy Theodore, and Minion K. C. Morrison.

38. On the parochialism of the U.S. professors in these matters generally, see Alker and Biersteker, “The Dialectics of World Order.”

39. Vitalis, “The Graceful and Generous Liberal Gesture.”

40. Arnold Rampersad quote from the distributor’s publicity materials for the documentary. http://newsreel.org/video/RALPH-BUNCHE.

41. Huggins, “Afro-American Studies: A Report to the Ford Foundation,” 29.

42. Tate’s research program can hardly be fitted to either tendency or moment—methodological nationalist or global imaginary—in the story black or Africana studies tells about itself, and she has been completely overlooked until recently. Sexism has played a role as well, as we will see.

43. To simplify a little, the first signals a more expansive focus on the reasons for and contemporary conditions of the larger African diaspora, of which African Americans form a part.

44. Biondi, The Black Revolution on Campus, 174–180.

45. Wallerstein, “The Unintended Consequences of Cold War Area Studies.”

46. Rooks, White Money/Black Power.

47. Rojas, From Black Power to Black Studies, 3, 21.

48. Biondi, The Black Revolution on Campus, 249–253; Rojas, From Black Power to Black Studies, 202.

49. Biondi, The Black Revolution on Campus, 251.

50. Kelley, “‘But a Local Phase of a World Problem.’” Among other signposts and programmatic statements of the shift, this key piece by Kelley appeared in a special issue of the Journal of American History titled “The Nation and Beyond: Transnational Perspectives on American History,” which is itself evidence that other quadrants of the humanities or human science were busy taking the transnational turn as well.

51. Steinmetz, Sociology and Empire, x; Wimmer and Schiller, “Methodological Nationalism and Beyond.”

52. Guyer, “Perspectives on the Beginning”; Gershenhorn, Melville J. Herskovits and the Racial Politics of Knowledge, 182–187.

53. See Ralph Bunche to Joseph Willits, [Head of the Social Sciences Division,] Rockefeller Foundation, September 15, 1950, box 112, folder Institute of Pacific Relations, Ralph J. Bunche Papers, Charles E. Young Research Library, University of California at Los Angeles (hereafter Bunche Papers). Bunche pressed Willits to aid the Institute of Pacific Relations as it faced charges of abetting the communist takeover of China and/or serving as a communist front. If the latter were remotely true, Bunche would have dissociated himself from it, as he had the Committee on African Affairs. Instead, he was working quietly to save it.

54. Robinson, “Area Studies in Search of Africa”; Robinson, “Ralph Bunche and African Studies”; and Robinson, “Ralph Bunche the Africanist.”

55. Payson Wild to Gerald Freund, March 24, 1961, Record Group 1.2, Series 200S, box 522, folder 4459, Rockefeller Foundation Archives, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, N.Y. (hereafter Rockefeller Foundation Archives).

56. Other intellectuals, particularly those in African studies and Caribbean studies, those who campaigned against apartheid, and those who founded organizations such as Transafrica, did write cogent analyses of contemporary world affairs for scholarly and movement journals. A good place to start is Minter, Hovey, and Cobb, No Easy Victories.

57. Foreign Affairs is conventionally categorized and ranked with the discipline’s peer-reviewed journals without noting the key difference. In addition it is usually the only non-peer-reviewed journal included on such lists. See, for example, Yoder and Bramlett, “What Happens at the Journal Office Stays at the Journal Office.” The authors were unaware of this key difference with the rest of the list (e-mail communication with me), as was I until recently. EBSCO Information Services meanwhile distinguishes between “academic” (that is, those with footnotes) and “scholarly” (peer-reviewed) journals.

58. Langer, In and Out of the Ivory Tower, 81.

59. For a complementary account of a moment that deserves more extensive study, see Go, “Sociology’s Imperial Unconscious.”

60. Gunnell, “Founding of the American Political Science Association,” discusses Burgess’s eclipse without reference to the imperial adventures that played a key role in provoking the split. For Burgess as a public intellectual, see Nicols, Promise and Peril.

61. Fox, “Interwar International Relations Research.”

62. Gilman calls “the postwar comparativists” associated with the Social Science Research Council in the early 1950s “the first group of American political scientists to consider non-Western countries worthy of systematic empirical inquiry”; Gilman, Mandarins of the Future, 118.

Part I: The Noble Science of Imperial Relations and Its Laws of Race Development

1. See Fairlie, “Politics and Science,” 24.

2. Lewis, Essay on the Government of Dependencies, v. Lewis was a parliamentarian and prolific writer, friend of John Stuart Mill, among others, who in 1836 began two years of service in Malta on a commission designed to reform the government there. The Essay may thus have been influenced by this experience. Under Palmerston he served as chancellor of the exchequer, home secretary, and, finally, war secretary.

3. Quoting from a tribute paid to Burgess by W. Randolph Burgess of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in an address ostensibly about the Young Plan. He had delivered it at Columbia’s Academy of Political Science, which Burgess had founded. See Burgess, “Introductory Remarks,” 213.

4. See Long, “Paternalism and the Internationalization of Imperialism”; and Hobson, The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics.

Chapter 1: Empire by Association

1. Ireland, “On the Need for a Scientific Study of Colonial Administration,” 210.

2. The eight-volume study was never published. Ireland produced two books, The Far Eastern Tropics in 1905 and Province of Burma in 1907, then reemerged, after a hiatus, in 1914 as the biographer of Joseph Pulitzer.

3. Powers originally trained in and taught romance languages at Wisconsin and then at Oberlin. He returned to Wisconsin to do a year’s work in economics and was appointed to a professorship of economics and social science at Smith. He was next hired at Stanford, went abroad again to study economics and social science in Germany, and accepted a chair in economics and social science at Cornell in 1899. As far as I can tell, he never published any work in economics. He resigned his chair in 1902 to found the country’s first organization dedicated to study abroad for undergraduates, the Bureau of University Travel, and wrote extensively in the next decades on U.S. history and politics. For background, see Cornell Alumni News 6, no. 26 (April 16, 1902), 190.

4. Du Bois, “The Present Outlook for the Dark Races of Mankind.” Du Bois used the revised phrase “the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line” in his “Address to the Nations of the World” at the Pan-African Conference in London in July 1900 and again The Souls of Black Folk (1903), in the introduction and again in chapter 2.

5. In addition to the papers in volume 18 of Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, titled America’s Race Problems, see Kelsey, “The Negro Farmer.” Kelsey, who took up a teaching position at Penn and served as the academy’s main expert on African Americans, evoked the Philippines in the introduction to this study of rural sociology, where he wrote that the Republicans were not about to repeat the mistakes made in the South, 5.

6. Herbert, “The Race Problem of the South,” 97, 99.

7. Ross, “The Causes of Race Superiority.” See http://www.asanet.org/page.ww?name=Edward+A.+Ross&section=Presidents, accessed June 27, 2007. The American Sociological Association biography of Ross was edited following my initial circulation of these materials. It now says that Ross “explored the dimensions of racism” in “Causes of Race Superiority”; see “Edward Alsworth Ross,” American Sociological Association, http://www.asanet.org/about/presidents/Edward_Ross.cfm.

8. Du Bois was known to the group around the Annals as a result of the year he spent at the University of Pennsylvania working on the project that resulted in the Philadelphia Negro (1900). He had already published two pieces in the journal. The record of the 1899 annual meeting noted that Du Bois’s paper was regarded by “many present…as the feature of the whole program.” See Annals 17 (May 1901), p. 87. Booker T. Washington was also scheduled to address the group, but he never showed up, and his paper, which was to be published in the Annals, apparently never arrived.

9. Du Bois, “The Relation of the Negroes to the Whites in the South.” The paper became “Of the Sons of Masters and Men,” chapter 9 of The Souls of Black Folk.

10. Ibid., 122.

11. McAfee, “Studies in the American Race Problem.” The piece is a measured criticism of Alfred Holt Stone’s Studies in the American Race Problem (1908). Stone believed that U.S. race problems were relevant to race problems in the African colonies and argued that it was important to encourage pride of race instead of training blacks to be white men. McAfee was then a faculty member at Park College in Missouri. Later he would lead the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions.

12. For Du Bois at the congress, see Lewis, W. E. B. Du Bois, 251.

13. Du Bois, “Relation of the Negroes to the Whites,” 131.

14. In contrast, the liberal anti-imperialist theorist John Hobson, writing at roughly the same time, argued for an international regime—a “federation”—that would prevent the exploitation of dependencies and instead rationally guide processes of “racial or national selection” in a more efficient and progressive direction. Hobson, “The Scientific Basis of Imperialism.”

15. See Du Bois, Autobiography, 197. I am following the unconventional but to my mind correct interpretations of Du Bois’s rapidly evolving ideas at this time as developed in Bay, “‘The World Was Thinking Wrong about Race.’”

16. Lewis, W. E. B. Du Bois, 277. The critical method and analyses of The Souls of Black Folk demonstrate that Du Bois was repeatedly ahead of his time. After it was published, Du Bois took his first fateful step away from the academy (no great university would even consider hiring him), toward building a political movement to combat racism and reverse black disempowerment, first through the Niagara Movement in 1905 and soon after that through the founding of the NAACP.

17. Kelsey, Review of Souls of Black Folk.

18. Ross, Origins of American Social Science, 128–130. On reform Darwinism, see Bannister, Social Darwinism, especially 137–162.

19. Giddings, “Imperialism?,” 585–586. The remaining quotes in this paragraph are found on 587, 595–99, 600, and 602–604. Giddings capitalized on events in Asia and the Caribbean and in 1900 published a disparate set of essays under the title Democracy and Empire, which included “Imperialism?” But all reviews noted that the book had little to do with the topic and that Giddings’s effort to knit together his work on regulation, socialism, industrial democracy and other matters with the topic of empire did not really hold together.

20. Sumner, The Conquest of the United States by Spain, 9, 15.

21. The School of Political Science was the core of what is now known as the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. For Columbia under Burgess’s influence, see Ross, Origins of American Social Science, 259. For Burgess’s politics, see Oren, Our Enemies and US.

22. Burgess, “How May the United States Govern Its Extra-Continental Territory?,” 1; Burgess, Reminiscences of an American Scholar, 312.

23. Somit and Tanenhaus note Burgess’s opposition to the war was an instance of the widely shared expectation that members of the emerging discipline would involve themselves in the great issues of the day, but they don’t make any connection between empire (nor do they use the word) and the founding of the association. See Somit and Tanenhaus, The Development of American Political Science, 44. They also observe that Burgess’s memory in Reminiscences of an American Scholar is “faulty because in it he writes that he and others at Columbia were so alarmed by developments that they ‘at once began publishing articles in the Political Science Quarterly against any steps being taken by our government which would lead to war with Spain.’” Although Somit and Tanenhaus say that “no articles were run along the line indicated” (44), Burgess was no doubt thinking of his own January 1899 lead article, which Somit and Tanenhaus missed, perhaps because of their choice of sample years.

24. For the follow-up quotation, see Burgess, Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law, 1:39 and 46. Reviews of the book drew attention to his pronouncements on Teutonism and empire (see, e.g., the unsigned review, “Burgess’s Political Science,” The Nation 53, no. 1369 [September 24, 1891], 240–241). Woodrow Wilson, whose harsh review of the work is well known, was conspicuously silent about these matters. See Woodrow Wilson, “A System of Political Science and Constitutional Law,” Atlantic Monthly 67 [May 1891]: 694–699. On Burgess and Teutonism generally, see Farr, “The Historical Science(s) of Politics,” especially 79–86.

25. Pratt, “The ‘Large Policy’ of 1898,” 239, is a good place to start.

26. Burgess, “The Ideal of the American Commonwealth,” 405–407, 410–411. He is also famous for advising the white oligarchy in Hawaii about how to effect the disfranchisement of the nonwhite elements on the islands. A few years later Burgess would describe black enfranchisement as a sin and Reconstruction as a punishment in gross excess of the crime. See Benjamin Shambaugh’s review of Reconstruction and the Constitution. Shambaugh, a political scientist at the University of Iowa, concluded his review with an amazing commentary: “Some argue that it was the fact of the Spanish-American war that ended the sectional divisions, but the two peoples had [marched together in battle] before and that had not prevented the dissolution of the Union.” The real significance of the War was “that the Republican party, in its work of imposing the sovereignty of the United States upon eight millions of Asiatics, has changed its views in regard to the political relations of races, and has at last virtually accepted the ideas of the South upon the subject. The white men of the South need now have no further fear that the Republican party, or Republican administrations, will ever again give themselves over the vain imagination of the political equality of man” (130).

27. See Gibb, “Unmasterly Inactivity?,” 24; Vucetic, The Anglosphere, 22–53.

28. Burgess, “The Recent Pseudo-Monroeism,” 45.

29. Ibid., 52, 55, 66.

30. Roosevelt, “The Monroe Doctrine,” 220, 223, 227, and 228. Roosevelt dedicated the book to Henry Cabot Lodge. I am quoting from a 1900 edition that was printed after Roosevelt was elected governor of New York.

31. Burgess, “How May the United States Govern Its Extra-Continental Territory?” 2, 14.

32. Ibid., 3, 11, 17–18.

33. Thompson, “Imperial Republic.”

34. For the rulings known collectively as the Insular Cases, see Smith, Civic Ideals, 433–439.

35. On the color ban in Harvard’s dormitories, see Painter, “Jim Crow at Harvard: 1923.”

36. Lowell, “Status of Our New Possessions.”

37. Lowell, “Colonial Expansion of the United States.”

38. Hart, Actual Government as Applied under American Conditions, 368–369.

39. A. Lawrence Lowell, Colonial Civil Service.

40. Burgess, “The Decision of the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases.”

41. Hobson, “The Scientific Basis of Imperialism,” 487–488.

42. “The March of Events,” in Page and Page, The World’s Work, A History of Our Time, 1, no. 1 (November 1900), 4, 17.

43. For this characterization of progressives, see his “What Is Real Progress in Political Civilization?” October 12, 1921, Box Labeled Burgess, John W, Manuscripts: Addresses and Articles # 1, John William Burgess (1844–1931) Papers, Special Collections, Low Library, Columbia University, New York.

44. See Burgess, Recent Changes in American Constitutional Theory, chapter 3, “Constitutional Development or Transformation from 1898 to 1914,” unpaginated (unfortunately). Also see Burgess, Reconciliation of Government with Liberty, 358–383; and Burgess, Foundations of Political Science, 134–140. The latter extracted his arguments about nation and state from his two-volume 1890 treatise, Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law, which he prepared for publication in 1917 at the urging of Columbia’s president, Nicholas Murray Butler, for use by those who were determining the fate of the former German colonies.

45. Burgess, Reminiscences of an American Scholar, 312–341. He ended his memoir in 1907 with his year in Berlin, but it was not published until the year after his death, in 1934. The delay in publication has never been explained, but in his unpublished and uncatalogued papers he reported that his publisher had broken their contract. Typed memorandum on the fate of his books, n.d., in box labeled Burgess, John W, Manuscripts: Addresses and Articles # 1, Burgess Papers.

46. This focus of political scientists and economists on efficient administration of empire was first discussed in the 1970s in Furner, Advocacy and Objectivity, 285, but has not been cited since.

47. Andrews, “Boston Meeting of the American Historical Association,” 424. The rapporteur noted, just as frankly, that the “medievalist found little to interest him professionally; the student of ancient history…would have found still less. Instead Modern American problems had the foremost place.”

48. See Silva and Slaughter, “Prometheus Bound,” 791–792.

49. See Willoughby, “Report of the Secretary for the Year 1904,” 30. Reinsch was appointed head of the section of dependencies, Rowe, who was then a colonial administrator himself, of was appointed the head of the section on municipal government. The division of the association into sections continues; today there are over sixty.

50. Watson, “Bernard Moses: Pioneer in Latin American Scholarship,” 212. Moses sat on the original executive committee of the APSA along with other figures discussed here. He retired from Berkeley in 1911.

51. Rogers, Congress of Arts and Sciences, 387–398.

52. Ireland, “On the Need for a Scientific Study of Colonial Administration,” 212

53. Ibid., 210.

54. Ibid., 215–216.

55. For the Atlantic crossings of these ideas, see Hobson, The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics.

Chapter 2: Race Children

1. See Worcester, A River Running West, 96, for “Anglo-Saxon,” and 398 for the paraphrase of Powell’s vision for the bureau. See Stocking, Race, Culture, and Evolution, 128–129, for Powell’s late anthropology. One of the less-heralded feats of Worcester’s beautiful biography is the detour he takes to avoid addressing Stocking’s superior analysis of Powell’s contribution to race theory.

2. Stocking, Race, Culture, and Evolution, 112, 121.

3. Degler, In Search of Human Nature, 15. See, however, a slightly contrasting reading of Darwin in Stocking, Race, Culture, and Evolution, 46–47.

4. William Z. Ripley, “Acclimatization,” Popular Science Monthly 48 (March 1896): 662–675.

5. Ellsworth Huntington, “The Adaptability of the White Man to Tropical America.” I am quoting the discussion in Stocking, Race, Culture, and Evolution, 54–55.

6. See, for instance, the treatise by James Bryce, the British ambassador to the United States and fifth president of APSA, The Relations of the Advanced and the Backward Races.

7. Stocking, Race, Culture, and Evolution, 48–49.

8. Ibid. 240.

9. Robert Bennett Bean, “The Nose of the Jew and the Quadratus Labil Superioris Muscle.” Bean (1874–1944) was an anthropologist and anatomist who did work on the brain of the Negro at Michigan before joining the Philippine Medical School in 1907. His main work in this period is The Racial Anatomy of the Philippine Islanders: Introducing New Methods of Anthropology and Showing Their Application to the Filipinos with a Classification of Human Ears and a Scheme for the Heredity of Anatomical Characters in Man (Philadelphia: J. B Lippincott 1910). Quoted in Stocking, Race, Culture, and Evolution, 244.

10. Reinsch, “The Negro Race and European Civilization,” 145–148, 150–152. The essay later formed part of chapter 2 of his Colonial Administration.

11. Reinsch, “The Negro Race and European Civilization,” 154–155.

12. Ibid., 164–166.

13. Ibid., 166–167.

14. Commenting on the Simon Report for India and as reported in Pacific Affairs 3, no. 9 (1930): 897.

15. Smith, “The Book of the Quarter,” 75, quoting W. M. Macmillan in a review of Macmillan’s Africa Emergent.

16. “Across about twenty years, Lemarkianism in biology ended ‘not with a bang but a whimper…as its older defenders passed away and younger biologists directed their research along Mendelian lines.” Stocking, Race, Culture, and Evolution, 254.

17. Ibid., 214.

18. Degler, In Search of Human Nature, 67.

19. Baker, From Savage to Negro, 99–126.

20. Put another way, Stocking’s work offers additional support for the revisionist readings of Bay and Holt, referenced above. See in addition Liss, “Diasporic Identities.”

21. Du Bois, “The Development of a People.”

22. See Kelsey, “Evolution of Negro Labor.”

23. Carl Kelsey, “Comments on D. Collin Wells, ‘Social Darwinism,’” 711. Wells was a sociologist at Dartmouth and a member of the founding executive committee of the ASA. His paper confounded the other commentator, Frank Ward. He had come with a pre-written response, but despite the title Wells’s paper was not about the growing European critique of ideologies of economic and race struggles, to which the concept “Social Darwinism” conventionally referred; instead, it was about the importance of pursuing the new science of eugenics.

24. For the historiography, see Sluga, Internationalism in the Age of Nationalism, in particular her references to foundational work by Mansour Bonakdarian, Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds, Susan Pennybacker, and Paul Rich.

25. As the organizer, Gustav Spiller, wrote in his original notice in The Times (London) a year earlier (September 6, 1910, 6), the conference would “discuss general relations between peoples of the West and those of the East” and would include speakers from “China, Japan, India, Turkey, Persia, and Egypt, beside the negro race in America and Africa.” For the papers, see Spiller, Papers on Inter-Racial Problems.

26. “Science and the Millennium,” Times (London), July 28, 1911, 8.

27. Ibid.

28. Paul Reinsch, “Influence of Geographic, Economic and Political Conditions,” in Spiller, Papers on Inter-Racial Problems, 49–52.

29. Ibid., 53, 55.

Part II: Worlds of Color

1. See Raymond Leslie Buell to Edward Corwin, March 18, 1923, box 36, folder 36, Writings, International Relations 1923–1924, Raymond Leslie Buell Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (hereafter Buell Papers LOC).

2. Harrly Elmer Barnes, review of International Relations. Remembered now chiefly as a Holocaust denier, Barnes was regarded at the time as a brilliant historian or history-oriented social scientist. Trained by Dunning at Columbia and recruited to Clark by its president, G. Stanley Hall, he became a full professor at age 30. Barnes served as co-editor of the Journal of Race Development/Journal of International Relations in its last years.

3. Raymond Leslie Buell to Alain Locke, May 23, 1925, box 18, folder 2, Correspondence, Buell, Raymond L, Alain Locke Papers, Moorland-Spingarn Research Library, Howard University, Washington, D.C. (hereafter Locke Papers).

4. Harris and Molesworth, Alain L. Locke, 147–148. Locke’s friendship with Pixley Seme, a founding member and future president of South Africa’s African National Congress, dated back to his Oxford years. The two helped found Oxford’s African Union Society in 1908. He traveled with Seme in 1923 (67–68).

5. For Locke as the “father of the so-called Harlem Renaissance,” see Huggins, Harlem Renaissance, 57. For the controversies that surrounded The New Negro and his editorship of it, see Rampersad, “Introduction.” On Locke’s involvement with millionaire Albert Barnes and his new art education project promoting Negro art, see Helbling, “Albert C. Barnes and Alain Locke”; and Helbling, “African Art and the Harlem Renaissance.” The Barnes Foundation was incorporated in 1922.

6. No anthropologist in the United States had done fieldwork in Africa, according to a 1925 assessment by Clark Wissler for the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial. See Stanfield, Philanthropy and Jim Crow in American Social Science, 78. Herskovits did his first field work in Africa in 1931 after completing a third major research project in Surinam. His 1931 research marks the beginning of his influential (and self-revisionist) ideas about African survivals in the New World. Chronological details are found in the biography included in the finding aid to Melville J. Herskovits Papers at the Northwestern University Archives in Evanston, Illinois, http://findingaids.library.northwestern.edu/catalog/inu-ead-nua-archon-1230. www.library.northwestern.edu/archives/findingaids/herskovits.pdf. See also Gershenhorn, Melville J. Herskovits and the Racial Politics of Knowledge.

7. For Locke’s first discussion of the mandates, see “Apropos of Africa.” This particular article has eluded most analysts and bibliographers, but Edwards includes it in his discussion of Locke in Practice of Diaspora, 108–109. Buell’s first piece, “‘Backward’ Peoples under the Mandate System,” appeared four months later. He gave a paper on the same topic, “The Mandate System as an Antidote to Imperialism,” on the panel Colonies, Mandates and the Far East at the nineteenth annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in December. It was one of eight panels for the meeting, six of which were about various aspects of administration. The topic of a second international relations panel was the League of Nations.

8. Buell, International Relations, 5, 59.

9. For an early version of the argument, see Bryce, The Relations of the Advanced and the Backward Races.

10. The name change followed the retirement of Clark University’s president and the journal’s founder, G. Stanley Hall, when Hall’s original co-editor, George Hubbard Blakeslee, brought on the young Columbia-trained Harry Elmer Barnes as co-editor. I could find no documentation about the reason for the name change.

11. On “anthropogeography,” of which Yale’s Ellsworth Huntington is the most influential American practitioner, see Merriam, “Recent Tendencies in Political Thought,” 19; and Thomas, “Some Representative Contributions of Anthropogeography,” 457–507.

12. Buell, International Relations, 59.

13. See Ada Comstock (president of Radcliffe) to the trustees of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, n.d., 1928, box 54, folder 573, Series 3.6, Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, New York. The bureau was a significantly scaled-down version of a proposal that originally envisioned a foundation for instruction in international affairs that would fund fellowships and seminars in addition to research. The original award (for five years) and the $500,000 renewal (for ten years) made it the best-funded university international relations institute through the interwar years. Compare, for example, the Wait Harris Memorial Foundation at the University of Chicago, which was founded the same year with a total endowment of $150,000, revenue from which would be used to fund foreign lecturers (Survey Graphic, April 1923, 51). Barkan’s Retreat of Scientific Racism includes a frank appraisal that Hooten’s research on the biological basis of criminality was “a dead end” (105). See Spiro, Defending the Master Race, 235, for Hooten’s quote.

14. Most notoriously, Stoddard, Revolt against Civilization. “More and more we are coming to see that hatred of civilization is mainly a matter of heredity; that Bolsheviks are mostly born and not made.” (224). William McDougall, the British-born Harvard psychologist and holder of the William James Chair of Psychology wrote a long laudatory review “Stoddard’s The Revolt against Civilization,” in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. This is not surprising; Stoddard took the basic argument from William McDougall’s lectures in Is America Safe for Democracy?, an account of imminent American decline unless enlightened opinion embraced eugenics. In a subsequent volume, The Indestructible Union, McDougall proposed as an “act of justice” that would solve the “negro problem” that the federal government purchase land either in some part of the southern states or abroad and that white America assist in building an independent negro nation. In his review, William Yale Elliott, then at the University of California, absolved McDougall for his self-professed sin of writing as a foreigner on American nationality. “Professor McDougall may claim to pass a sufficiently high test to satisfy the Ku Klux Klan—from whom he professedly differs chiefly in the possession of a sense of humor.” Elliott, Review of The Indestructible Union, 197.

15. Retrospective accounts recount the science wars between the Boasians and their critics in physical anthropology and biology or between them and “scientific racists.” See Barkan, Retreat of Scientific Racism; and Foley, Spectres of 1919. The Survey Graphic instead referred to the “culture historians” and the “biological sociologists”; see “The Gist of It,” Survey Graphic, June 1, 1924, 267. As we have seen, however, there were three, not two, camps on world interracial relations. The more one includes the work of black intellectuals, the easier it is to discern this.

16. Barkan, Retreat of Scientific Racism, 111.

17. The rejection followed his effort to make the course appear less controversial by changing it from interracial relations to interracial history. Logan, Howard University, 171. The Howard chapter of the NAACP and the Social Science Club sponsored the series, which Locke gave again in 1916. They remained unpublished until Jeffrey Stewart assembled them from Locke’s papers. See Locke, Race Contacts and International Relations.

18. Du Bois, “The African Roots of War.” It appeared in revised form as “Hands of Ethiopia” in Darkwater. As his biographer David Levering Lewis notes, the essay, “one of the analytical triumphs of the early twentieth century,” appeared two years before Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. See Stewart’s introduction to Locke, Race Contacts and International Relations for evidence of Locke’s first talks emphasizing the relationship of scientific racism to imperialism; Stewart, “Introduction,” xl.

19. Leonard Woolf, a former colonial administrator and a supporter of the mandate system, nonetheless also argued that “nine-tenths of what is said and written about race and racial conflicts, about the inferiority and superiority of races, and about their inherent antipathies, is unmitigated nonsense”; Woolf, Imperialism and Civilization, 19.

Chapter 3: Storm Centers of Political Theory and Practice

1. His tour d’horizon is included in Merriam and Barnes, History of Political Theories, quotes from 1–4.

2. “The Americanization movement asked me to go down and talk against them.” Buell to Corwin, November 30, 1920, box 3, folder 2, Edward S. Corwin Papers, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey. Corwin wrote back with advice on pairing a casebook with one of his own briefer texts, “to fill in the chinks between the cases,” before turning to Buell’s extracurricular activities. He added, “Speaking of ‘chinks,’ your adventures as a pro-Japanese propagandist were quite exciting.” Corwin to Buell, December 16, 1920, box 36, folder 5, Buell Papers LC.

3. See Buell, “The Development of the Anti-Japanese Agitation”; and Buell, “Some Legal Aspects of the Japanese Question.”

4. For the history detailed here I have relied on the correspondence between Hamilton Fish Armstrong and Blakeslee, box 8, and between Armstrong and Coolidge, box 2, Hamilton Fish Armstrong Papers, 1893–1973, Seeley Mudd Library, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey (hereafter Armstrong Papers). On Armstrong, see Roberts, “‘The Council Has Been Your Creation.’”

5. See Coolidge to Armstrong, December 9 and 11, 1922, box 17, and June 13 and 14, 1923, box 18, Armstrong Papers; and Buell to Coolidge, November 15, 1922, and April 12, 1923, box 21, Armstrong Papers.

6. Edwin Bjorkman, “The League of Free Nations Association of the United States,” ms., Board Minutes and Other Official Records of the Executive Committee, Foreign Policy Association, New York, microfilm reel 1, Foreign Policy Association Papers, Seeley Mudd Library, Princeton University, Princeton New Jersey.

7. Dennis, Foreign Policy in a Democracy.

8. Nonetheless, during his years as research director he taught colonial government at Columbia (1929–1930), as a visiting professor of international relations at Yale (1930–1931), as a lecturer at the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton (1931–1932), as a lecturer at the New School (1932), and as a visiting lecturer in international relations at Harvard (1933–1934).

9. Buell, “Again the Yellow Peril.”

10. The key sources include Higham, Strangers in the Land; Daniels, The Politics of Prejudice; King, Making Americans; Ngai, Impossible Subjects; Spiro, Defending the Master Race; Painter, The History of White People; and Ly and Weil, “Antiracist Origin of the Quota System.”

11. Buell, “Again the Yellow Peril,” 307.

12. Stalker, “Suicide, Boycotts, and Embracing Tagore.”

13. Buell, “Again the Yellow Peril,” 309, my emphasis. Ly and Weil, “Anti-Racist Origin of the Quota System” thus distinguishes between “racialist” and “racist” camps on these questions. For Buell’s later stumping, see the clipping “Raymond Buell in Address Opposes Anti-Jap Measure,” Los Angeles Telegram, August 24, 1924, box 40, folder 14, Buell Papers LC.

14. Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby, 12–13.

15. For Coolidge as a mentor, see the excerpt of the interview with Stoddard in the Boston Transcript, April 4, 1931, in Coolidge and Lord, Archibald Cary Coolidge, 70–71. See also Bachman, “Theodore Lothrop Stoddard,” 43–45, which draws on an unpublished and quite possibly lost autobiography by Stoddard. Coolidge’s biographer denied that the two even had ties.

16. Stoddard, Revolution in San Domingo, vii–viii.

17. Stoddard, “Santo Domingo: Our Unruly Ward,” 731. The glowing review of it by Columbia’s professor of international law and diplomacy John Bassett Moore, who had just come out with his own lectures on American imperialism and expansion (Four Phases of American Development, 1912) drew the parallel to Reconstruction after abolition. He noted that the success of revolution in Haiti led to “massacre of the whites.”

18. Stoddard, “Pan-Turanism.” The term then connoted the idea of the racial unity of peoples originating in Central Asia, including Maygars, Turks, and other members of the putative “Turanid” race.

19. Racial Realities in Europe (1924); Social Class in Post-War Europe (1925); and Re-Forging America: The Story of Our Nationhood (1927), all published by Scribner’s.

20. “There is nothing in the present volume to bear out the charge which has been brought against some of his other writings of alarmist intentions”; Lybyer, Review of The New World of Islam, 324. Harold Lasswell began his brief review of Social Class in Post-War Europe with the warning” “those who shriek at the name of Stoddard would be ill-advised to flee” (701). In his unpublished autobiography, Stoddard conceded that he had written The Rising Tide of Color to “shock” the general public “awake.” Bachman, “Theodore Lothrop Stoddard,” 99.

21. “Lothrop Stoddard called in on me yesterday pretty well satisfied with the world in general and with his own fortunes in particular. He referred with good-natured tolerance to Barnes’s criticism on his book. He is going to Europe and is to write twelve articles for the Saturday Evening Post for which he will received $1,000 a piece. That shows the financial competition that we are up against.” Coolidge to Armstrong, November 2, 1922, box 17, Armstrong Papers; Bachman, “Theodore Lothrop Stoddard,” 152–153.

22. Painter, The History of White People, 302–304, 321–324.

23. Ellsworth Huntington praised The Rising Tide of Color for its frank prediction of the “end of white political control from Anatolia to the Philippines”; Huntington, Review of Rising Tide of Color, 146.

24. “Harding Says Negro Must Have Equality in Political Life,” New York Times, October 27, 1921, 1. Du Bois, who had raised the fundamental issue of social equality in the pages of Crisis, took the speech apart in “President Harding and Social Equality.” Marcus Garvey, on the other hand, embraced Harding as an ally. See Lewis, W. E. B. Du Bois, 70–71. For one of the first historical analyses of the speech in the context of the Republican Party’s efforts to rebuild alliances in the South, see Sherman, “The Harding Administration and the Negro.”

25. See Buell’s account in The Native Problem in Africa, 1:136–149. See also his retrospective account of its influence in shaping proposals he began to put forward in the 1930s (and was clinging to) as an alternative to equality in the South; Buell to Francis E. Rivers, February 14, 1944, box 12, folder 18, Buell Papers LC.

26. Stoddard first discussed a system of hardened segregation, the banning of mixed marriages, limited political rights in communal matters, and the encouragement of separate development for blacks in the south in an interview in 1922. See Bachman, “Theodore Lothrop Stoddard,” 145.

27. Ibid, 217.

28. Ibid., 101.

29. Stoddard, Re-Forging of America, 46–50, 191.

30. Ibid., 236–248. The “local alienisms” that might persist in various cities of the Northeast would serve to “prevent the American people from being lulled into false security that would result in fresh misfortunes.” (251)

31. Stoddard, Re-Forging of America, 312, 321.

32. Ibid., 276–280. For proof of this “furious rage,” Stoddard quoted the first half of Claude McKay’s poem “White Houses” that Locke published in the New Negro, but he omitted the poem’s final lines: Oh, I must search for wisdom every hour, / Deep in my wrathful bosom sore and raw, / And find in it the superhuman power, / To hold me to the letter of your law! / Oh, I must keep my heart inviolate, / Against the potent poison of your hate.

33. Stoddard, Re-Forging of America, 324.

34. Quoted in Levy, University of Oklahoma, 138. Dowd is crediting with founding the departments of sociology, anthropology, and economics and helping found the School of Journalism, the College of Business Administration, and the School of Social Work at the University of Oklahoma. It is little wonder that he never managed to complete the masterwork. See also McKee, Sociology and the Race Problem, 82.

35. Dowd went on to praise his exposé of anti-Americanism in the universities where men were being stamped with “the Doctor Kallen philosophy.” See Bachman, “Theodore Lothrop Stoddard,” 214–217, for Stoddard’s correspondence with Ross, Black, and Dowd.

36. William Langer, review of Re-Forging America by T. Lothrop Stoddard, C. A. M. review of Re-Forging America, and Carleton P. Barnes, review of Re-Forging America.

37. Lake and Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line, 2.

38. Mazower, No Enchanted Palace.

39. Du Bois, “Worlds of Color,” 437.

40. To be precise, he created a final section of the book titled “Worlds of Color” comprising solely Du Bois’s Foreign Affairs article, which Locke retitled “The Negro Mind Reaches Out.”

41. Mazower, “Paved Intentions,” 78.

42. From The Liberator (July 1919), as reprinted in Van Wienan, Rendezvous with Death, 262.

43. Locke, “Foreword,” xxvi, my emphasis.

44. See Harris and Molesworth, Alain L. Locke, 192, 195, 207. For evidence of Locke’s familiarity with the Journal of Race Development, see the syllabus that accompanied his 1915 lectures in Stewart, Critical Temper of Alain Locke, 407–414.

45. Locke, The New Negro, 6–7. The figure for population growth comes from Douglas, Terrible Honesty, 73.

46. Ibid., 8, 14–15.

47. See the discussion of Locke’s legacy in Africa in Harris and Molesworth, Alain L. Locke, 386–387.

48. Guterl discusses the exchanges in The Color of Race in America, 42–144. The earliest reconstruction of Locke’s round is in Mason, “Alain Locke on Race and Race Relations.”

49. Locke, “The High Cost of Prejudice.”

50. Smith, “Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz.” Smith and Samuel Huntington, one of his critical foils, both trace the concept of the “American Creed” or its popularization to Myrdal, while giving the “tradition” it is said to represent a more illustrious set of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ancestors. See, e.g., Huntington, Who Are We?, 66–67. In fact, the “The American’s Creed” was the winning entry in a wartime patriotism contest by William Tyler Page, which the House of Representatives adopted in 1918. See Page, The American’s Creed. Schools used it to transmit the faith and support Americanization. See, for instance, Rice, “What Shall We Do for Armistice Day?” One can chart its revival in school materials issued at the start of World War II, including its adaptation into patriotic songs for children. It was thus a well-known phrase by the time historian Arthur Schlesinger used it in 1943 and Myrdal in 1944.

51. Stoddard, “The Impasse at the Color-Line.”

52. Grant said Stoddard’s proposals about biracialism would not solve the problem and that exile or amalgamation were the only real solutions. Grant to Stoddard, September 28, 1927, as quoted in Bachman, “Theodore Lothrop Stoddard,” 231. See also Lewis, W. E. B. Du Bois, 2: 235.

53. Lewis, W. E. B. Du Bois, 2: 237. It is impossible to top Lewis for drama.

Chapter 4: Imperialism and Internationalism in the 1920s

1. Jane Gordon makes the point more formally: the discipline of political science was historically heavily creolized. Drawing on the full range of resources relevant to understanding the political world, its early participants forced a shared field language through which those working on divergent questions could communicate findings (even if incompletely) to one another. Many constitutive works in this area of inquiry could as easily be considered studies in history, psychology, or sociology as in theory. They could be defined multiply precisely because their authors were less concerned with demonstrating subfield mastery or loyalty than with grasping problems larger than any single, historically contingent scholarly niche. Gordon, Creolizing Political Theory, 16.

2. See “A Preliminary Draft of a Survey of the Study of International Relations in the United States,” prepared in connection with the Program of Research in International Relations of the Social Science Research Council under the direction of Dr. James T. Shotwell,” 20, June 1933, box 133, folder 7, Charles E. Merriam Papers, Regenstein Library, University of Chicago.

3. Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 51–52.

4. Anderson, “Pacific Dreams,” 29–39; Wilbur, The Memoirs of Ray Lyman Wilbur, 315–320, quote on 318. Lyman gives key credit to co-chair Blakeslee, who is not given sufficient recognition in the secondary literature on the Institute of Pacific Relations.

5. Hooper, “A Brief History of the Institute of Pacific Relations,” 112.

6. McKenzie, Oriental Exclusion. McKenzie was a human ecologist who studied under Park at Chicago and was teaching at University Washington in Seattle when he was commissioned by the Institute of Pacific Relations to undertake the study. It was published by the University of Chicago in 1928, as was Mears, Residential Orientals on the Pacific Coast. Mears, who taught at the Stanford School of Business, had an MBA from Harvard. Mears specialized in geography and trade and served as commercial attaché to the American High Commission in Turkey during World War I. His first book was Modern Turkey.

7. DeWind, “Immigration Studies and the Social Science Research Council,” 70–71; Cochrane, The National Academy of Sciences, 264; Bowman, “The Pioneer Fringe”; Martin, Life and Thought of Isaiah Bowman, 109–121; Smith, American Empire, 211–234.

8. Editorial, “A School of Foreign Affairs,” New York Times, July 26, 1923, 12.

9. Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 49, 51.

10. H. A. Garfield, “Meet to Develop World Views Here,” New York Times, July 24, 1921, 9. For the most detailed contemporary account of the first month-long institute, see Abbot, “International Politics in the Berkshire Hills.” Garfield was an Ohio lawyer whom Woodrow Wilson brought to Princeton to teach politics. Both Williams College and the Library of Congress hold relevant papers.

11. “The Institute of Politics.” The institute published the first Round-Table Conferences of the Institute of Politics in 1923, which includes a complete list of attendees, which included Hamilton Fish Armstrong, a writer for the New York Evening Post and a future associate editor of Foreign Affairs. For Baruch’s annual contribution of around $25,000, see Coit, Mr. Baruch, 358. Additional details are drawn from Arthur Howland Buffinton’s appendix to Harry Augustus Garfield’s memoir, Lost Visions.

12. Williams, “The Institute of Politics,” 645.

13. Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 49. The roundtable concept was imported from the London pro-imperial organization the Round Table, which was founded in 1909 and began publication of The Round Table: A Quarterly Review of the Politics of the British Empire in 1910.

14. Leland Hamilton Jenks was a Canadian who wrote a dissertation under Dunning on the social aspects of the Glorious Revolution. He taught social and economic institutions with Harry Elmer Barnes at Amherst before moving to Wellesley, where he eventually chaired the sociology department. He followed his first book, The Migration of British Capital to 1875, with Our Cuban Colony: A Study in Sugar. The latter was part of a series on modern imperialism edited by Barnes. On Earle, see Ekbladh, “Present at the Creation.”

15. Bryce, International Relations. In addition, see Lybyer, Review of International Relations; Panaretoff, Near Eastern Affairs and Conditions; and Korff, Russia’s Foreign Relations. Albert Howe Lybyer was Harvard’s expert on the Ottoman state.

16. See Lawley, Review of L’Imperialisme économique: “There is not much literature on this subject, and students of international politics are therefore to be grateful.” He counted Leonard Woolf, a few “minor” and unnamed writers who focused on the oil issue, and journalist and Labour Party MP Edmund D. Morel, leaving Hobson out, presumably because his Imperialism was by then over twenty years old. The situation was to change dramatically in the next few years.

17. Culbertson, International Economic Policies, viii, and Edward Meade Earle, “The New Mercantilism.”

18. Frederic A. Ogg, “Personal and Miscellaneous,” American Political Science Review 19 (1925): 812–813.

19. “Personal and Miscellaneous,” American Political Science Review 20 (1926): 414.

20. “Riverside Institute of International Relations,” News Bulletin (Institute of Pacific Relations), January 1927, 11.

21. “Political Institute to Stress Orient,” New York Times, June 4, 1928, 7.

22. Russell B. Porter, “Politics Institute Concludes Session,” New York Times, August 31, 1928, 10.

23. For Logan, see Janken, Rayford W. Logan, 74–79. In September 1927, Logan began a two-year MA program at Williams that didn’t require residency. He continued to work on U.S.-Caribbean policies and published his MA in 1930 in the Journal of Negro History. The New York Times identified him (“a Negro”) in a story filed on August 12, 1928, about the day’s debate on interventions in the Caribbean. Logan had attacked the policy in Haiti. For his address at the institute, see Logan, “Operation of the Mandate System in Africa.”

24. For a retrospective account that, among things, confirms Logan’s precocious critique, see Bain, “The Idea of Trusteeship in International Society,” revised and published as Between Anarchy and Society. Unfortunately, Bain does not refer to Logan’s scholarship.

25. Smuts, The League of Nations, 15.

26. Bain, “The Idea of Trusteeship in International Society,” 114.

27. See Manuscript for Buell’s Talk to Institute of Politics, Eighth Session, 1928, General Conference no. 9, Problems of Africa, “Africa, Slave or Free,” folder 12, and the essay adapted from it, “Is Africa Headed for an Inter-Racial War?” Register (New Haven, Conn.), November 25, 1928, box 33, folder 11, Buell Papers LC. Russell Porter provided a brief account in “Charge Exploiting of African Natives,” New York Times August 28, 1928, 20.

28. Buell, “The Struggle in Africa,” 40.

29. See Buell to Locke, May 29, 1928, inviting Locke to speak on the mandate system from the point of view of African Americans; and Locke to Buell, June 4, 1928, recommending Johnson in his place, both in box 18, folder 2, Buell Papers LC.

30. Porter, “Charge of Exploiting African Natives.”

31. Ibid.

32. Russell B. Porter, “Sees Imperialism in the Firestone Deal,” New York Times, August 30, 1928, 12.

33. See Buell, “Mr. Firestone’s Liberia”; and Buell, “Liberia’s Paradox.” Also see Chalk, “The Anatomy of an Investment”; McCoskey, “When Firestone Entered Liberia”; and Sundiata, Brothers and Strangers.

34. “John Franklin Carter, 70, Dies; Wrote Column as Jay Franklin,” New York Times, November 29, 1967, 47; Coyle, “John Franklin Carter.”

35. Duffus, “War Is Hell—But It Is Human,” review of Man Is War, New York Times Book Review, October 17, 1926, 1. Duffus was a novelist and critic who compared Carter to many in the arts who abhorred illusion and sentimentality and who wrote with more sophistication and style “than the majority of those who advance this kind of argument.”

36. Carter, Man Is War. The same year that Carter published Man Is War John Bakeless came out with The Origin of the Next War: A Study in the Tensions of the Modern World, five years after publishing his prize-winning undergraduate thesis at Williams, “The Economic Causes of Modern War.” Bakeless combined an account of the population pressures and drive for resources that drove countries to wars—a version of the “lateral pressure” analyses of North, Choucri, and others of the 1970s—with a description of the new kind of total war to come: “War will be fought by entire populations with chemistry and bacteriology as well as airplanes and submarines. War will be everywhere. The distinction between soldiers and non-combatants will vanish.” Quoted in Frangis Deak, “The Inside and Outside of Diplomacy,” Harvard Crimson, April 10, 1926. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1926/4/10/the-inside-and-outside-of-diplomacy/?print=1.

A participant at the Institute of Politics at Williamstown, Bakeless was a brilliant student who turned down offers of professorships, delayed completion of his dissertation on Marlowe, and taught journalism and literary criticism part time. He served as assistant chief of the Balkan and Near East Section of the Military Intelligence Division of the War Department in World War II and was later a consultant for the CIA while writing popular books on Daniel Boone, Lewis and Clark, and the like. See the short biography “Bakeless, John Edward,” http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Bakeless__John_Edwin.html, accessed March 15, 2012. His papers are at the New York Public Library and deserve study.

37. Carter, Conquest, 4.

38. Locke to Melville Herskovits, n.d. [summer of 1925], box 36, folder 10, Locke Papers. For the longest and best-sourced account of these issues, see Logan, Howard University, 220–222, 231–242; and Harris and Molesworth, Alain L. Locke, 175–178.

39. Harris and Molesworth, Alain L. Locke, 226.

40. Helen Howell Moorhead to Buell, n.d. [early May 1927], box 10, folder 13, Buell Papers LC. For the proposal itself, see the handwritten memorandum “African Mandates Study Project, Foreign Policy Association,” May 26, 1927, box 105/164–105, folder 16, Locke Papers.

41. The Martinique-born Maran won the Prix-Goncourt, France’s premier literary award, in 1924 for his novel Batouala (1921, English edition 1923), which outraged many critics. The novel is, among other things, an indictment of the forced labor regime in French Equatorial Africa. As Brent Edwards discusses, Locke’s famous review of the book in Opportunity and Du Bois’s discussion in the Harlem number helped bring him to the attention of African American circles. More famous still was Maran’s open letter to Locke chiding him for his too-rosy view of France and its putative lack of color prejudice. The colonies and forced slavery there put the lie to the idea, he said, as Locke would come to see. See Ikonne, “Rene Maran and the New Negro”; Smith, “Rene Maran’s Batouala and the Prix-Goncourt”; Edwards, Practice of Diaspora, 104–115 in particular for Locke’s exchange with Maran; and Harris and Molesworth, Alain L. Locke, 152–153.

42. Abbe Livingston Warshuis served as a missionary in China for the Reformed Church of America. After returning to the United States, he played key roles in many international-oriented and educational associations, including the Foreign Policy Association, the Institute of Pacific Relations, and the International Institute of African Languages and Cultures, founded in 1926.

43. See Warshuis to Buell, May 27, 1927, Buell to Warshuis, June 2, 1927, and Buell to Locke, June 30, 1927, all in box 33, folder 11, Writings, Africa: General 1925–28, Buell Papers LC.

44. For one discussion of the Foreign Policy Association’s internal wrangling about authorship—Buell or Locke—of a future “Bulletin” on native labor, see Paul Kellogg to Helen Moorhead, December 24, 1927, enclosed in Kellogg to Locke, n.d., box 105/164–105, folder 19, Locke Papers.

45. See Harris and Molesworth, Alain L. Locke, 220–242, for an accounting.

46. Alain Locke, “The Mandate System: A New Code of Empire,” folder 24, box 116, Locke Papers.

47. “I’m a fairly good bodkin” is how he deprecatingly referred to his network-building skills. Locke to Paul [Kellogg], n.d. [late in 1928], box 166, folder 15, Rayford Logan Papers, Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, Howard University, Washington, D.C. (hereafter Logan Papers MSRC). A bodkin is a needle used to thread ribbon through eyelets.

48. Alain Locke to Rayford Logan, November 13, 1928, box 166–15, folder 15, Logan Papers MSRC.

49. His biographer, Charles Henry, says that Bunche went to Howard to “establish the political science department.” At another point, he says that Bunche created a separate department in 1932 after his return from fieldwork in Africa. See Henry, Ralph Bunche, 31, 36. Other recent studies repeat versions of this claim. However, Bunche was not the first person to teach political science at Howard; Rev. William V. Tunnell taught American government, comparative government, and theory for many years. Tunnell had graduated from Howard’s law department and was a onetime faculty member, a warden of King Hall (the nearby Divinity School), and a member of Howard’s board of trustees who returned to teaching in the history department in the early 1900s. He was then appointed head of what longtime Howard history faculty member Michael Winston called the political science department around 1919. Bunche was hired to replace Tunnell, who retired in 1928. See Winston, “The Howard University Department of History, 1919–1973,” note 28, http://www.howard.edu/explore/history-dept.htm#28, accessed August 11, 2010. Winston suggests that Bunche in effect reconstituted and expanded the department (personal communication, April 2, 2012). When Bunche moved to Howard, he had not yet chosen a topic for his PhD, and he wrote a thesis in political theory for his MA. He was clearly interested in race and empire, however, and he first considered writing on the League of Nations and the suppression of slavery. Henry, Ralph Bunche, 65.

50. Frederick P. Keppel to Alain Locke, February 1, 1929, box 42, folder 38, Locke Papers; Janken, Rayford W. Logan, 79.

51. See John Whitton to Raymond Leslie Buell, December 4, 1929, box 12, Buell Papers LC. Whitton taught politics at Princeton, coached the first rugby team, and in the mid-1930s directed the independent U.S.-organized and Rockefeller-funded Geneva Research Center, which basically studied league matters for U.S. organizations. He also designed the first project to monitor radio propaganda, the Listening Center, at Princeton in 1938, which was also funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, before it was taken over by the FCC. As for “Chinaman,” “it worked in the United States as a slur, in a way that, say, ‘Frenchman,’ or even ‘Irishman,’ never did.” Lepore, “Chan, the Man,” 70.

52. William Langer, “Some Recent Books on International Relations,” Foreign Affairs 10 (July 1932), 702 and 11 (January 1933), 368. The unsigned review of Lonely America (1932) in the Journal of Negro History notes that his still intact if somewhat subdued Nordic superiority still “stalk through the pages” but “they are the last gasp of this die-hard in a cause that no reputable scientist any longer espouses. Journal of Negro History, 18, no. 1 (1933): 85–86. The review’s narrow focus only on the chapter dealing with the Negro race in Latin America strongly suggests that Rayford Logan wrote it.

53. Stoddard, Lonely America, viii–x.

54. Keith gave the address “Prejudice and Modern Civilization” in 1931 upon his appointment as rector of the University of Abderdeen. He cited it in Evolution in Ethics, his essays on war and evolution.

55. Stoddard, Lonely America, 296.

56. Nor did the world look any better three years later, to judge from Stoddard’s next (and next-to-last) “important” book on western civilization’s impact on “other than occidental races,” Clashing Tides of Color. Neither Lonely America nor Clashing Tides of Color sold well. Popular reviews had all but dried up, and, for a while, Stoddard tried political risk consulting for an investment trust. His run as leading analyst of the world white supremacist order also seemed to be coming to an end.

Part III: The North versus the Black Atlantic

1. John Foster Dulles, “The Road to Peace,” Atlantic Monthly, October 1935), 492-499. For Dulles’s relationship to the foundation and the latter’s role generally in the period, see Parmar, Foundations of the American Century, 48ff.

2. See interviews with R[aymond] B[laine] F[osdick] and S[ydnor] H[arbison] W[alker], November 5, 1936, Mr. John Foster Dulles, box 7, folder 60, Record Group 3, Series 910, Programs and Policy, IR, 1929–1941, Rockefeller Family Archives. Walker headed up the international relations program. The discussion below is based on this memorandum. The list of commitments in international relations is found in Kittridge Memorandum, Future Program in IR, December 19, 1935, box 7, folder 60, Record Group 3, Rockefeller Family Archives.

3. Pruessen, John Foster Dulles, 177.

4. For the original rejection of the piece and subsequent wrestling over publication, title, and so forth see Du Bois to Hamilton Fish Armstrong, December 18, 1934, and subsequent correspondence in box 25, folder 5, Armstrong Papers.

5. Anderson, “Pacific Dreams,” 62; Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 217.

6. Mazower, Hitler’s Empire, xxxviii, 2, 44–45.

7. Ibid., 4.

8. Langer, “Critique of Imperialism”; Bukharin, “Imperialism and Communism.” Langer was then coming out with his two-volume Diplomacy of Imperialism and the next year would be appointed the first Archibald Cary Coolidge Professor of History at Harvard. Bukharin was destined for arrest, trial, and execution in the course of Stalin’s brutal purges.

9. Schuman, “The Dismal Science of World Politics.”

10. In the words of left-wing internationalist Schuman, the United States “beat a belated retreat”; ibid., 171–172. Nationalist (or continentalist) historian Samuel Flagg Bemis at Yale argued the same in his Diplomatic History of the United States, which Schuman promoted in “The Dismal Science of World Politics,” 177.

11. On Schuman, the most detailed account is Bucklin, “The Wilsonian Legacy in Political Science,” revised as Realism and American Foreign Policy. There is also a recent and extremely useful recovery of his ideas and those of some of his interlocutors in Scheuerman, “The (Classical) Realist Vision of Global Reform.” No one to my knowledge has used the Schuman papers at Williams, which were inaccessible during the research for this project.

12. See for example Roger H. Wells, Review of Nazi Dictatorship, which judged that Schuman had “unduly minimized the positive (as opposed to the “psychic”) achievements of Hitlerism. The resulting picture is, therefore, blacker than it needs to be” (678). For political scientists’ cautiously optimistic views of Germany more generally at a key juncture, see Oren, Our Enemies and US, which also discusses Schuman.

13. Schuman, International Politics xi–xiii, vii. My citations are from the second edition (1937). The book remained in print in updated editions through the 1960s.

14. Most “realist” scholars believe themselves to be objective observers, free of ideological bias. However, see Bell, “Anarchy, Power, and Death.”

15. Beard, The Idea of National Interest; Beard, The Open Door at Home. Philips Bradley of Amherst called The Idea of National Interest the most important work on American foreign policy “since the volumes by Mahan on sea power.” Bradley, “American Foreign Policy—In Perspective and Cross Section,” 145.

16. See Wolfers, “National Foreign Policies and the Strategy of Peace,” 141, which rejects the idea that anarchy characterizes the politics of a world “organized along national lines.”

17. Fox, Reinhold Niebuhr, 185, 193–195.

18. See for example Arthur Dugan’s criticism of Edward Mead Earle’s departure from the “strategic point of view” in his writing about “the totalitarian menace” and “totalitarian powers” in his tract Against This Torrent, although Dugan understood why he did it. It is “easier to work up emotions over slogans than over concrete realities.” Dugan, “Needed: A New Balance of Power,” 127. Dugan taught political science at the University of the South in Tennessee.

19. Bucklin, “The Wilsonian Legacy in Political Science,” 134–135.

20. Ibid., 147–149.

21. Spykman was a specialist in the thought of philosopher Georg Simmel. With Earle he would do much to make the pseudoscience of geopolitics a respectable part of the international relations toolkit; Millikin was one of the best-known academic impresarios of the Cold War.

22. Earle had once described himself as a disillusioned Wilsonian who had voted for Debs in 1920 and was committed to stopping Hoover and his politics of swagger. “Mr. Hoover has personally acted for the greater part of his life as one of the advance agents of that economic imperialism which is one of the principal causes of the war system.” Earle, “The Issue Is Tolerance,” 28. For Millikan, see Ramos, “The Role of the Yale Institute of International Studies in the Construction of the United States National Security Ideology,” 91–92. See also Earle, “Power Politics,” for his not-yet-ready-for-war stance and the rapidly shifting terms of debate. A second useful source for the state of the debate is O’Donnell, “American Foreign Policy.”

23. Buell tarred with a wide brush. He named New York Herald Tribune writer Walter Millis, author of the “isolationist bible” Road to War (1935); “Archie” [Archibald] MacLeish, the Fortune writer-turned-librarian of Congress; Felix Morley at the Washington Post; Spykman at Yale, and Brooks Emeny, an independent international relations scholar who was later president of the Foreign Policy Association. The change in view followed the “new party line,” and Buell alleged that many of the same men considered him a “war monger.” But Buell had also just undergone treatment for a brain tumor (one that would kill him two years later) and had grown increasingly distressed about the state of intellectuals, American culture, and the country’s future. See Buell to Vera Michaels Dean, Foreign Policy Association, July 17, 1944, box 5, Buell Papers LC. Dean had a PhD (1928) in international relations from Radcliffe and rose to the director of research at the Foreign Policy Association just as Buell was stepping down as its president. She remained the director and editor of the association’s Bulletin until 1961. By that time she was known primarily as an expert in the politics of developing nations. Her papers are at Radcliffe.

24. See Buell, Isolated America, six lectures he gave in 1939 at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, which includes his discussion of the totalitarian trend in the United States and his prescription for a new world order.

25. See also “Why Be a Congressman?,” Time, August 3, 1942. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,773317,00.html, accessed February 13, 2013. This is a report on Buell’s candidacy for Congress (he lost).

26. Parmar, Foundations of the American Century, 68–69.

27. O’Donnell, “American Foreign Policy,” 337.

28. Stanfield, Philanthropy and Jim Crow in American Social Science, 144.

29. Ekbladh, “Present at the Creation,” 119.

30. Schuman, International Politics, 219, 234–235, 259.

31. Shils, “Robert Maynard Hutchins,” 229. Shils wrote that he knew Schuman “quite well” and that “he was incontestably a fellow traveler.”

32. Following the campaign to get him fired, which involved intense pressure on Chicago’s president, Schuman took a leave of absence to teach at Williams, where he was offered a permanent position. Although Chicago promoted him from instructor to assistant professor, Schuman informed his mentor, Quincy Wright, he wanted a full professorship and it had been made clear to him he would not get it. Instead, he was advised by both colleagues and the administration to take the Williams job. See Schuman to Wright, January 2, 1936, box 23, Addenda 1, Quincy Wright Papers, Regenstein Library, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois (hereafter Wright Papers).

33. See Willey, “The College Training Programs of the Armed Forces.” The first of the army occupation schools was set up in Charlottesville, Virginia. The navy had its own programs, including the School of Military Government and Administration created at Columbia to assist in the occupation of the Pacific. See the brief account by one of its architects, Schuyler Wallace, “The Naval School of Military Government and Administration,” 29–33. Columbia’s School of International Affairs grew out of the naval school, with the same leadership, Professor Schuyler Wallace. See David Horowitz, “Sinews of Empire,” Most other universities shut down all these emergency institutes and programs when government funding ceased at the end of the war.

34. In addition to the discussion below, see Parker, “Made-in-America Revolutions.”

Chapter 5: Making the World Safe for “Minorities”

1. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America, 15. For two of the myriad accounts of the writing of the book and its significance for subsequent generations, see Lewis, W. E. B. Du Bois, 2:349–387; and Robinson, Black Marxism, 195–240.

2. Du Bois, “A Negro Nation within a Nation.” For the speech, see Gottheimer, ed., Ripples of Hope, 170–173.

3. Bunche, “Reconstruction Reinterpreted”; Harris, “Reconstruction and the Negro”; and Frazier, “The Du Bois Program in the Present Crisis.” For a general account of the views and significance of the three “radicals” or self-styled “Young Turks,” see Holloway, Confronting the Veil.

4. Roediger, Wages of Whiteness, is a good place to start.

5. Bunche, “Reconstruction Reinterpreted,” 570.

6. Bunche, “Marxism and the Negro Question,” box 133, Ralph Bunche Papers, Special Collections, University of California Los Angeles, reprinted in Henry, Selected Speeches, 35–48, the version I have relied on in this paragraph. The same argument with some of the identical text appeared five years later in Workers Age, an organ of the Communist Party. See Jim Cork, “‘Self-Annihilation’ in Negro Question: The C. P. and the Theory of Self Determination,” Workers Age, November 15, 1934, 5, http://archive.org/stream/WorkersAgeVol.320Nov.151934/WA20#page/n3/mode/2up, accessed January 23, 2013.

7. Bunche’s 1954 rebuttal to the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board investigation, quoted in Miller, Born along the Color Line, 276.

8. Robinson, Black Marxism, 207. In a 1981 lecture, C. L. R. James said that he knew “no finer single-volume history of any episode or any territory.” James, “Walter Rodney and the Question of Power.”

9. For one of the only efforts to avoid eliding Du Bois’s program with the idea of black state building or thinking that self-determination can be realized only through a national state, see Singh, Black Is a Country, 58–64. There is also now a much richer appreciation of the push and pull of local and external (Soviet) influence on the communist movement in the development of the Black Belt thesis than in the (still valuable) Cold War era accounts. See Maxwell, New Negro, Old Left, including his review of the key contributions by Mark Naison and Robin D. G. Kelley. Draper, The Rediscovery of Black Nationalism, is a representative polemic in response to the rise of black studies; and Howe, Afrocentrism, to the later Bernalian moment in parts of the discipline.

10. Guterl is the rare scholar who notes the parallels in Du Bois’s and Stoddard’s proposals; Guterl, The Color of Race in America, 149.

11. Buell to Locke, March 11, 1935, box 18, folder 2, Locke Papers. In this letter, Buell notes his worry about the fate of democracy abroad and his premonition of shifts in the southern political landscape in the wake of the New Deal. This was the reason for his interest in autonomy, drawing in part from work in the Caribbean and South Africa. In addition, see Buell to Rayford Logan, May 21, 1935, box 166–8, folder 23, Logan Papers MSRC, where Buell praises Du Bois’s “A Nation within a Nation” article and hopes the latter develops a more detailed plan.

12. See Henry, Ralph Bunche, 40–47, 174–181; and Miller, Born along the Color Line, 172–290. Within the National Negro Conference, Bunche pressed unsuccessfully for a focus on labor issues. He also produced a number of critical assessments, including one for Gunnar Myrdal’s Carnegie-funded project. In 1940, he quit what he called in essence, reasonably or not, “a communist cell.”

13. No scholarly account of the conferences exists to my knowledge. There is a late revised schedule of speakers in box 50, folder 4 of the E. Franklin Frazier Papers, Mooreland-Spingarn Research Center, Howard University, Washington, D.C. An earlier draft is archived in box 135, folder “Howard University, 1935,” Ralph J. Bunche Papers, Special Collections, Charles E. Young Research Library, University of California Los Angeles.

14. See Hatcher, “The World of Inter-Racial Relations,” a review of Locke’s lectures.

15. My discussion relies on Mazower, “The League of Nations in Interwar Europe”; Mazower, “The Strange Triumph of Human Rights”; and Pedersen, “Back to the League of Nations.”

16. Mazower, “The Strange Triumph of Human Rights.”

17. This was the working title for Bunche’s book when Locke first proposed the project in February and when Bunche formally accepted the commission in June 1935. See Alain Locke to Ralph Bunche, June 4, 1935, box 18, folder 7, Locke Papers. To date, only African American political scientists and intellectual historians have considered Bunche’s text worth discussing. See Holloway, Confronting the Veil, 163–167; Henry, Ralph Bunche, 56–57; Henry, “A World View of Race Revisited”; Kilson, “Ralph Bunche’s Analytical Perspective on African Development”; Kilson, “Ralph Bunche: African American Intellectual”; and Waters, “Ralph Bunche and Civil Rights.”

18. His biographer, Charles Henry, admires it for being ahead of its time in debunking the scientific status of race, for seeing the idea as a social construction, and for identifying the system of economic exploitation that race buttresses even as belief in its naturalness or reality takes on a life of its own. Henry, “A World View of Race Revisited.” These were all arguments that Locke had made twenty years earlier. They needed to be made again—not for the last time—and Bunche was probably unaware of Locke’s breakthroughs. What Bunche cared about most, however, was decoupling African American identity and political strategy from the future of colonial rule in Africa.

19. His introductory examples to illustrate the absurdity of typical depictions of the “threats” a politics of (racial) difference projects have lost none of their force today, even if the borders are different ones. “For instance, how can equality be advocated in America when one hundred million members of the ‘white race’ are constantly ‘menaced’ by twelve million members of the ‘black race?’ Can there be equality in Germany when seventy million ‘pure’ members of the ‘Teutonic race’ are said to be threatened with ‘degeneration and destruction’ by half a million members of the ‘Jewish race’? The ‘Oriental races,’ we are often warned, present a constant danger to the pace and unparalleled civilization of the ‘white races’ of Europe and America.” Bunche, A World View of Race, 2.

20. Ibid., 25, 1, 41.

21. Henry, “A World View of Race Revisited,” 48. He is misleading, however, about a further assertion that the analysis of the relationship between capitalism and slavery “foreshadows” (56) the dissertation published a few years later by Eric Williams and the reworked version of Capitalism and Slavery (1944). The problem is that the analysis was Du Bois’s from Reconstruction, which Bunche read and reviewed prior to writing the essay and cited extensively in the chapter on the United States.

22. Fields and Fields, Racecraft.

23. Raymond Leslie Buell to Rayford Logan, May 9, 1935, box 166–8, folder 23, Logan Papers MSRC.

24. Bunche, A World View of Race, 96.

25. Ibid., 95. Schuman argued the same thing in International Politics, 234–235.

26. Bunche, A World View of Race, 2.

27. Bunche, Review of How Britain Rules Africa.

28. Henry, Ralph Bunche, 75–86.

29. Lewis, Du Bois, 424–426, Harris and Molesworth, Locke, 298–301, Guy and Brookfield, “W. E. B. Du Bois’s Basic American Negro Creed,” quote from Locke, 70.

30. See Edwards, Practice of Diaspora, 243–244.

31. See Edward Frazier to Alain Locke, December 10, 1921, box 30, folder 27, Logan Papers, MSRC. He did not get the grant. Instead, Frazier traveled to Copenhagen to study cooperative agriculture and folk schools after a controversial award by the American Scandinavian Foundation to its first African American applicant. Platt, E. Franklin Frazier Reconsidered, 56–61.

32. Von Eschen, Race against Empire, 12–13; Padmore later wrote that three books in particular shaped his understanding of colonialism: Hobson’s Imperialism, Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, and Parker Moon’s Imperialism and World Politics. Polsgrove, Ending British Rule in Africa., 10.

33. Edwards, Practice of Diaspora, 245.

34. Padmore, The Life and Struggles of Negro Toilers, quoting the online version, http://www.marxists.org/archive/padmore/1931/negro-toilers/ch06.htm#s2, accessed February 19, 2013; Hooker, Black Revolutionary, 22–32.

35. The discussion below relies on David Henry Anthony III’s labor of love, Max Yergan, about the enigmatic activist who by the end of his life had become “the pointman for counterrevolution” (275) on the African continent.

36. For biographical information about Van Kleeck, see the finding aid to her papers at Smith College, http://asteria.fivecolleges.edu/findaids/sophiasmith/mnsss150_bioghist.html, accessed February 20, 2013.

37. See “Carnegie Corporation in South Africa: A Difficult Past Leads to a Commitment to Change,” Carnegie Results, Winter 2004, http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/winter_04southafrica.pdf, accessed February 20, 2013. This is the foundation’s own assessment. For a scholarly account, see Bell, “American Philanthropy, the Carnegie Corporation, and Poverty in South Africa.”

38. Anthony, Max Yergan, 191.

39. Henry, Ralph Bunche, 126, 175, 279n22; and Anthony, Max Yergan, 208 appear to disagree on the year—1941 or 1943—of Bunche’s resignation, with the former less precise on this point. I believe it is 1943. To be clear, other Howard faculty, including Franklin Frazier and Rayford Logan, joined the organization in its most active years during the war. The Council on African Affairs soldiered on in support of African liberation movements until 1955, after Yergan’s resignation and refashioning as a cold warrior, but the organization’s principals—Robeson, Du Bois and Alphaeus Hunton—faced charges under the McCarran Act before it shut its doors for good. Van Eschen, Race against Empire, 143. For an argument that the Council on African Affairs was the forerunner of solidarity organizations that fought apartheid in the United States, see Brock, “The 1950s: Africa Solidarity Rising.”

40. Polsgrove, Ending British Rule in Africa, 43–44.

41. Padmore to Locke, October 3, 1938, box 76, folder 16, Locke Papers.

42. The other was the St. Lucian economist and future Nobel Prize winner, W. Arthur Lewis, then the first black man to teach at the London School of Economics. Lewis also identified with a less radical (nonrevolutionary) circle of pan-Africanists, the League of Colored Peoples, but Padmore’s group published his critique, The West Indies Today, as a pamphlet in 1938. See Polsgrove, Ending British Rule in Africa, 33–34; and Tignor, W. Arthur Lewis and the Birth of Development Economics, 33–38.

43. Polsgrove, Ending British Rule in Africa, 67–68. The Anglo-American Caribbean Commission was founded in 1942 to coordinate wartime supplies and ostensibly to pursue economic reform in the region. See Parker, Brother’s Keeper. For Williams’s involvement, see Martin, “Eric Williams and the Anglo-American Caribbean Commission.”

44. See, for example, the papers delivered at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Center’s conference in Williams’s honor, published as Solow and Engerman, British Capitalism and Caribbean Slavery.

45. “There is nothing definite to report yet on the Hull invitation. I am trying to do everything possible, but as you know, things move very slowly here. I will keep trying though, because I think it is an excellent idea.” Bunche to Buell, May 22, 1939, box 2, folder 19, Buell Papers LC.

46. Herskovits quoted in Harris, “Segregation and Scholarship,” 319, patronizing emphasis mine. Herskovits’s paper trail about this kind of gate keeping and behind-the-scenes denigration of scholars is a long one. According to Herskovits, Du Bois, who would soon participate in the first integrated panel on African Americans at the American Historical Association, was “not a scholar” but a “radical” and a “Negrophile.” See Janken, Rayford W. Logan, 95. Like too many others of this species of scholar, he was also prone to exaggerate his ability to “kill” some project or other. Rayford Logan referred to him in 1943 as the would-be “dictator of Negro studies.” See diary entry for May 24, 1943, box 4, Diaries, 1943–1944, Rayford Whittingham Logan Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (hereafter Logan Papers LC).

47. Locke, “In the Setting of World Culture,” 5–6.

48. Frazier, Review of When Peoples Meet.

49. Ibid., 92.

Chapter 6: The Philanthropy of Masters

1. The title of the chapter is from Du Bois, writing about the outcome of the Dumbarton Oaks discussions, quoted in Anderson, Eyes off the Prize, 38.

2. Earle was ill during part of this period, but the truth is that he hadn’t published much since he revised his dissertation in 1923. His next book, published in 1941, consisted of three essays totaling seventy-one pages, which he directed at isolationism. It assayed the costs of a German victory for the United States and called for resistance by all means necessary. What was once imperialism was now U.S. expansionism for strategic considerations. And although President Woodrow Wilson himself claimed the opposite, Earle now felt that Wilson’s main objective was preservation of the European balance of power. Earle, Against This Torrent.

3. Since it apparently didn’t look good for the Institute of Advanced Study to be concerned with emergency public policy matters rather than basic research, Carnegie originally designated the American Committee of International Studies as the grantee. Foundation officers also did not want to run the risk of “offending the soul of good old Andrew and the peace of mind of his widow,” so the funds were specified for “studies on foreign policy.” Earle nonetheless used the cash to run his seminar on the American military. With the dissolution of the American Committee of International Studies the next year, the funds were shifted to the institute. See Conversation between Edward Mead Earle and John Dollard and Frederick Keppel, Notes by W[illiam] W L[ockwood], 1/29/41, marked confidential, box 4, folder ACIS-Correspondence, Rockefeller Foundation, 1939–1941, Edward Mead Earle Papers, Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey (hereafter Earle Papers). Keppel was then in his last year as president of Carnegie. Dollard, his assistant, became president in 1948.

4. For the Social Science Research Council’s courting of Earle and plans for the conference, see Robert Crane to Earle, October 1, 1940, box 4, folder ACIS-Correspondence, SSRC [U.S.-British Dominions-Latin America] 1940, Earle Papers. For the history of the international studies conferences, see Long, “Who Killed the International Studies Conference?”

5. Buell to Earle, April 15, 1941. For the Alpha Phi Alpha press release, see Logan to Buell, April 8, 1941, box 9, folder 19, Buell Papers LC. The fraternity, of which Logan was president, was launching his program for “the Negro in the new world society.” The Carnegie Corporation had also allocated funds as part of its national emergency effort to consider what it referred to as problems of Negro morale. See Conversation between Earle and Dollard and Keppel. I have not found any scholarship that deals with this aspect of Carnegie funding. For the general situation see Parmar, “‘…Another Important Group That Needs More Cultivation.’”

6. Earle to Buell, April 16, 1941, box 6, folder 1, Buell Papers LC.

7. Minutes of meeting of American Committee on International Studies, February 21, 1941, SSRC, box 1, folder ACIS Minutes-General 1932–1941, Earle Papers. Wright and Percy Bidwell, who headed the studies staff of the Council on Foreign Relations and represented the council on the American Committee on International Studies, were the other members.

8. Wright to Carter, February 14, 1941, box 10, ACIS-CNAR Conference Files General 1941, Earle Papers.

9. Carter to Earle, February 27 1941, box 10, ACIS-CNAR Conference Files General 1941, Earle Papers.

10. Wright to E. C. Carter, March 3, 1941, box 3, folder 2, Wright Papers.

11. Lockwood to Carter, March 4, 1941, box 10, ACIS-CNAR Conference Files General 1941, Earle Papers. It was Buell who had inspired Lockwood’s trip to Howard.

12. Lockwood to Buell, April 17, 1941, box 9, folder 26, Buell Papers LC.

13. Quincy Wright to Lockwood, June 2, 1941, box 10, Earle Papers. Wright sought to amend the preliminary agenda invitation: “I do not like the idea that an Anglo-American sea power bloc is to be the permanent foundations for a new order, and do not think it can. It can and should be the initiating nucleus of such an order, however.” He also continued to press, without success, for the inclusion of some Latin Americans, Portuguese, Spaniards, and Icelanders.

14. Wheeler-Bennett to Carter, March 3, 1941, box 10, Earle Papers.

15. Earle, “Memorandum Regarding Problems of Morale, Recreation, and Health in Connection with American Naval and Air Bases in the Caribbean,” box 25, folder Professional Activities, Consult/Adv.: War Dept-Military Intell. Div. G-2, 1941. Earle Papers. Unfortunately for Earle, matters played out differently. Von Eschen describes the popular calypso Lord Invader wrote following the influx of U.S. troops (Since the Yankees came to Trinidad / They have the young girls going mad, / The young girls say they treat them nice, / And they give them a better price.) Von Eschen, Race against Empire, 37. Comedian Morey Amsterdam (later of Dick Van Dyke Show fame) stole the song, changed the most damning of the lyrics, and the Andrews Sisters recorded it. “Rum and Coca-Cola” became the best-selling U.S. single of 1945.

16. Janken, Rayford W. Logan, 133–134.

17. Entry for April 15, 1941, Logan diary, box 3, Logan Papers LC.

18. Polsgrove, Ending British Rule in Africa, 43; Parmar, “Black Americans”; Chadwin, Hawks of World War II, 184–186.

19. Logan eventually got in to see FDR. There is a good discussion of these matters in Janken, Rayford W. Logan, 116–125.

20. See Harris, “Racial Equality and the United Nations Charter,” 127–128. For the NAACP see Anderson, Eyes off the Prize.

21. Headline of the Labor Party’s newspaper following Deputy Prime Minister Clement Attlee’s appearance before the West African Students’ Union. Quoted in Janken, Rayford W. Logan, 168.

22. Twelve blacks on a 40-person committee, by Du Bois’s count (he was one of them). See his review, “The Future of War.”

23. For the drafting of the charter, see Venkataramani, “The United States, the Colonial Issue, and the Atlantic Charter Hoax,” 3. Unfortunately, there is no good detailed account of the work of the Africa Committee, but see Plummer, Rising Wind, 110–113; and Janken, Rayford W. Logan, 171–173. Remarkably, Bunche’s biographer and friend imagines him to have been a critic of the “ill-informed, unrealistic, and wooly thinking” of the American Committee, which allegedly was pining for political control by Africans. He clearly had not read the report and was unaware that Bunche wrote it. Urquhart, Ralph Bunche, 107. His other biographer repeats the error; see Henry, Ralph Bunche.

24. Quotations from the charter found in Committee on Africa, the War, and Peace Aims, The Atlantic Charter and Africa from an American Standpoint. For Padmore’s reporting and the quotation from Churchill’s controversial clarification, see Von Eschen, Race against Empire, 26.

25. Smuts, “The Basis of Trusteeship in African Native Policy.” Stokes forwarded the “encouraging address” to Buell and drew on it in the introductory section of the conference call. Stokes to Buell, June 3, 1942. Much of the white commentary from the time saw it as heralding the end of race segregation. See Janken, Rayford W. Logan, 172–173. For a recent retrospective commentary on Smuts and trusteeship, see Dubow, “Smuts, the United Nations and the Rhetoric of Race and Rights,” 65–66.

26. Mazower, No Enchanted Palace, 56; African National Congress, “Africans’ Claims in Africa,” ANC Historical Documents Archive, http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/anc/1943/claims.htm, accessed March 1, 2013. This was a moment when Smuts was still imagining the creation of a white-ruled pan-African state stretching north to the equator.

27. Committee on Africa, the War, and Peace Aims, The Atlantic Charter and Africa from an American Standpoint, 38, 56, 126–127; Walker, The Cold War, 30.

28. See Logan’s remarkable dissection, “Smuts Speaks of Africa”; and his autobiographical fragment on Smuts in box 166–33, folder 4, Logan Papers MSRC.

29. Du Bois was more blunt. After meeting with the committee on its draft, Du Bois told Logan the next day that “Ralph Bunche is getting to be a white folks’ nigger.” diary entry for Tuesday Afternoon [September 9, 1941], box 3, folder 1941 Diaries 1941, Logan Papers LC.

30. Williams, “Africa and the Post-War World.”

31. For the book’s outline and Tate’s failed attempt to find funding for the project, see outline, box 23, and William C. Hapwood, Julius Rosenwald Fund, to Merze Tate, December 23, 1942, box 31, Merze Tate Papers, Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, Howard University, Washington, D.C. (hereafter Tate Papers). These papers were unprocessed when I worked in them, and materials in boxes were not in file folders. They have since been processed.

32. Tate, “The War Aims of World War I and II,” 523.

33. Entry dated “Thursday Morning [February] 11, [1943?], box 4, Diaries, 1943–1944, Logan Papers LC (although Janken says 1942; Rayford W. Logan, 276n21). Nkrumah had just earned his MA (his third master’s degree) in philosophy at Penn and was working fitfully on the topic of the philosophy of imperialism in Africa under Glenn Raymond Morrow, a specialist on Plato and a later dean of the college of arts and sciences. His dissertation was never accepted, for reasons that remain a mystery. A detailed outline of the imperialism thesis (one of two he wrote, apparently) remains, however, which develops his critique of the Atlantic Charter and argues that the colonial powers would never give up their possessions without resistance. This is why he believed a revolutionary movement was needed. He called “for independence, the federation of all West African territories, the formation of a constitutional assembly and the return of all expropriated lands and mines.” Sherwood, Kwame Nkrumah, 65.

34. Janken, Rayford W. Logan, 169–170.

35. Ibid., 174.

36. Gerig was a Mennonite who served for years on the League’s Information Section in Geneva; taught political science at Haverford; and became a chief official in the state department, where he planned for the future of colonial areas. In 1944, he was made the head of a rechristened Office of Dependent Area Affairs at the state department. Ralph Bunche began working under him starting in July 1944. See Homan, “Orrie Benjamin Gerig.”

37. See Louis, Imperialism at Bay; Wolton, Lord Hailey, the Colonial Office and the Politics of Race and Empire in the Second World War.

38. Logan to Walter White and Du Bois, June 30, 1945, box 181–8, folder 3, Logan Papers MSRC. For Bunche, see Plummer, Rising Wind, 156. On the Manchester meeting, see Adi and Sherwood, 1945 Manchester Pan-African Congress Revisited. For the competing plans and the eclipse of Du Bois, see Lewis, W. E. B. Du Bois, 499–502.

39. See the manuscript of his talk “Race, Colonies and Imperialism” for the YMCA’s National Peace Conference, June 15, 1943, box 166–26, folder 42, Logan Papers MSRC.

40. See e.g., entry for October 30, 1944, box 4, Diaries 1943–1944, Logan Papers LC.

41. For the writing of the pamphlet and the search for a publisher, see Polsgrove, Ending British Rule in Africa, 56–62. I am referencing the version reprinted in Cunard, Essays on Race and Empire, 7–178.

42. Padmore, The White Man’s Duty, 145, 172, 134–135, 145–146.

43. Ibid., 146. Oxford’s expert on colonial administration, Margery Perham (a Leslie Buell on steroids), was one of the frankest voices in the debate with colleagues who saw some merit in even marginal change toward “integration” of the colonial state apparatus. “The political demands of the African intelligentsia ‘were rapidly acquiring political consciousness’ and, rather than ‘give in to them too soon’, she proposed ‘setting up large regional councils of native administration’ which should aim ‘to speed up the political education of the native authorities and to head off the intelligentsia from the state system.’” Wolton, Lord Hailey, the Colonial Office and the Politics of Race and Empire in the Second World War, 53. Both Padmore and Williams treated her only thinly veiled published positions in particular with scorn.

44. His biographer says that Melville Herskovits originated the idea, but Bunche’s early correspondence about possible participants was with Stokes, not Herskovits, and the latter had nothing to do with the American Committee, whose members independently proposed convening a conference. Gershenhorn, Melville Herskovits, 182. Anson Phelps Stokes to Bunche, March 4, 1943, box 104, folder African Conference, Bunche Papers

45. Anson Phelps Stokes to Bunche, March 4, 1943, box 104, folder African Conference, Bunche Papers.

46. Marika Sherwood suggests a possible reason: the counsel by both representatives of the State Department and the Colonial Office advised that transportation for an international conference would be impossible. She also notes the dissent by Nkrumah’s colleagues in the African Student Association to the paternalism of Stokes and the committee’s opposition to African liberation. Sherwood, Kwame Nkrumah, 86–88.

47. Entry for Sunday, February 9 [sic; 8], 1943, box 3, Diaries 1942, Logan Papers LC.

48. Akami, Internationalizing the Pacific, 267–270; Anderson, “Pacific Dreams,” 91–118.

49. The description is from “Ethnogeographic Board (Washington, D.C.), Records, 1942–1946,” Smithsonian Institution Archives, http://siarchives.si.edu/collections/siris_arc_216694, accessed April 2, 2013.

50. Gershenhorn, Melville J. Herskovits and the Racial Politics of Knowledge, 182.

51. Edwin Embree to Bunche, May 12, 1943, box 112, folder labeled Institute of Pacific Relations, Bunche Papers.

52. Which should have been a piece of exculpatory evidence in the later effort to destroy the Institute of Pacific Relations, since Bunche was particularly concerned then to avoid any involvement with “front” organizations. Instead, Bunche’s participation at Mont-Tremblant was used to tar him as a communist sympathizer later in the 1950s.

53. Carter to Bunche, March 17, 1943; Bunche to Carter, March 21, 1943; Edwin Embree to Bunche, May 12, 1943, all in box 112, folder Institute of Pacific Relations, Bunche Papers.

54. Reprinted in Henry, ed., Ralph J. Bunche, 274.

55. Entry for Tuesday, [February 10?], box 3, folder, Diaries, 1941, Logan Papers LC.

56. See Logan’s discussion of Emerson’s views at the March 1943 Minorities Workshop at Howard; entry for Thursday, March 4, box 4, Diaries 1943–1944, Logan Papers LC. For Emerson, see “Professor Rupert Emerson Is Appointed to Dept. of Interior: Territories and Possessions to Be in Government Instructor’s Jurisdiction,” Harvard Crimson, May 3, 1940, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1940/5/3/professor-rupert-emerson-is-appointed-to/, accessed March 13, 2013.

57. Document headed Mr. [Henry A.] Luce [as author] November 3, 1943, box 17, Luce folder 9, Time, Inc. Memoranda, Buell Papers LC. Not surprisingly, when Du Bois sought a meeting with Luce to discuss Africa’s position in the world, Luce refused. Lewis, W. E. B. Du Bois, 502.

58. The last discussion of what to do after the American Committee on International Studies shut down can be found in the Minutes of the Problems and Policy Committee, December 7, 1941, box 66, Social Science Research Council Records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, New York (hereafter SSRC Records).

59. Analysis of the sixty or so more or less independent political units into which the world was divided demanded “discussions of race and racial characteristics, of the relations of geographic environment to social development, of group psychology, etc.” Lewis Lorwin, “Memorandum on Research in International Relations,” n.d., enclosed in Minutes, Committee on Problems and Policy, January 28, 1940, box 66, SSRC Records. This memorandum was likely commissioned by the president, Crane, or by the Committee to provide guidance in the emergency situation the United States confronted.

60. Meeting of American Committee for International Studies, afternoon session, October 4, 1941, box 1, folder ACIS Minutes-General 1932–1941, Earle Papers.

61. Fox, “Geopolitics and International Relations,” 18–19.

62. See Fox to Quincy Wright, June 19, 1941, box 14, folder Fox, William, Wright Papers. Fox defended his dissertation, “Some Effects upon International Law of the Govermentalization [sic] of Private Enterprise,” in 1940. For the date of his move to Yale, see Kaplan, Wizards of Armageddon, 21.

63. Strausz-Hupé, Review of The Super-Powers. Hans Morgenthau’s review underscored how few professors outside the Yale Institute of International Studies and “Mssrs. Lippmann and Welles” shared Fox’s “realistic approach”; Morgenthau, Review of The Super-Powers. The sole exceptionally critical review called it an exercise in sophistry: “Only the very foolish, for example, are going to be lulled into complacency by the invention of the phrase ‘defensive expansionism’…to characterize what has long been called imperialism.” Hallowell, Review of The Superpowers.

64. Fox, “Interwar International Relations Research.” Brian Schmidt discusses the tendentiousness of this particular essay and its relationship to the rash of other such accounts in “The Rockefeller Foundation Conference.”

65. See Kenneth W. Thompson interview with David Rockefeller, November 20, 1953, box 7, folder 61, IR 1943–1954, RG 3, Series 910, Rockefeller Foundation Archives. Guilhot burdens the fact of the early termination of a committee divided between behavioral-oriented social scientists and “IR scholars” led by Hans Morgenthau with more weight than it can bear. Had the committee not failed, “IR would probably have evolved into an entirely different discipline,” Guilhot wrote. Although the Rockefeller Foundation supported the “realists” for the next few years, Guilhot claims that the Social Science Research Council bet instead on the “behavioral approach to international affairs” in the form of its Committee on Comparative Politics in 1954. He was unaware of the Social Science Research Council’s support for Fox, Henry Kissinger, and others in the national security policy committee during this same period. See Guilhot, “One Discipline, Many Histories,” 16–20.

66. Reinhold Niebuhr, the postwar realists’ influential ally, was also considered for the presidency. It is hard to imagine him making the same decision. See Fox, Reinhold Niebuhr, 239.

67. Those who left with Dunn were Gabriel Almond, Bernard Cohen, Percy Corbett, Annette B. Fox (Bill’s wife), William Kaufmann, and Klaus Knorr, who would take over the Center for International Studies after Dunn in 1961. The New York Times ran a front-page story on April 23, 1951, “Six of Faculty Leaving Yale for Princeton in Policy Spilt,” but Griswold’s motives remained opaque. For what the archival records reveal, see Ramos, “The Role of the Yale Institute of International Studies in the Construction of the United States National Security Ideology,” 132–139; and Kuklick, “Rise of Policy Institutes in the United States,” 690–691.

68. As for other key Yale Institute of International Studies personnel, Bernard Brodie went to Rand. Arnold Wolfers, who could not get Princeton to match his chair at Yale, remained in New Haven until 1957, when he accepted the directorship of the Foreign Policy Institute at the School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. Millikan left Yale for MIT in 1949 but then immediately took an extended leave to work for the CIA. On the early days of the Center for International Studies, see Blackmer, The MIT Center for International Studies.

69. In 1984, Robert McCaughey defined “international studies” as “serious inquiry by Americans into those parts of the world Americans have traditionally regarded as having histories, cultures, and social arrangements distinctly different from their own” and an enterprise that was different from “international relations, here considered part of political science.” McCaughey, International Studies and Academic Enterprise, xii–xiii. It may be that McCaughey’s reliance on a single native informant for his views on international relations, namely William T. R. Fox, explains the anachronism.

70. Lyons, “The Growth of National Security Research.” See also Morton and Lyons, Schools for Strategy, which surveyed civilian institutions at great length; and Bock and Berkowitz, “The Emerging Field of National Security,” which reinforces the story of the universities lagging behind institutions such as Rand until the 1960s. Finally, see Max Beloff’s review of Schools for Strategy for the distinction he draws between the relative more scholarly approach of Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and Hopkins and “the very doubtfully useful offerings of the University of Pennsylvania’s Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Georgetown Center for Strategic Studies.” Given what to many appeared to be “engaging in what is…propaganda for a particular (and some would argue very dangerous) view of the ‘Cold War,’” Beloff concluded that one “can understand why a great university like Yale which would have much to offer has preferred to stand aloof.”

71. “It is now so frequently employed by the radio and the press communicating in almost any spoken tongue on earth that in February 1960 a frequency account, including the press and radio of America, Europe, Asia, and Africa, showed that imperialism was used at a rate of at least one in every ten political broadcasts. The term was most often used in the Middle East, in Central and North Africa, and in communist countries.” Koebner and Schmidt, Imperialism, xviii.

72. Lauren, Power and Prejudice, 4.

73. Morrison, “Unspeakable Things Unspoken,” 24.

Part IV: “The Dark World Goes Free”

1. New York Times, July 28, 1958, 1. The title of the chapter is from Du Bois, Dark Princess. Toward the end of the novel, the protagonist, Matthew Townes, learns from his ex-lover, an Indian princess, of plans to cement an alliance of colored peoples against imperialism. “The High Command is to be chosen. Ten years of preparation are set. Ten more years of final planning, and then five years of intensive struggle. In 1952 the Dark World goes free—whether in Peace and fostering Friendship with all men, or in blood and storm—it is for Them—the Pale Masters of today—to say” (296–297).

2. Meriwether, Proudly We Can Be Africans, 174, quoting a printed copy of Bunche’s remarks, Meriwether’s emphasis.

3. The attack on Bunche came up in the notorious 1959 documentary by Mike Wallace and Louis Lomax, The Hate That Hate Produced, which introduced millions of white viewers to Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam. The main reason for the hostility was his role in Palestine. He was the real “George Washington of Israel,” according to one of the interviewees, James R. Lawson, head of the United African Nationalist Movement. See the transcript provided in Memorandum from SAC New York to Director, FBI, July 16, 1959, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ccbh/mxp/pdf/071659hthp-transcript.pdf, accessed March 18, 2013.

4. Harold R. Isaacs, diary note, New York, January 6, 1959, box 19, file Ralph Bunche, Harold R. Isaacs Papers, Institute Archives and Special Collections, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts (hereafter Isaacs Papers). For the dinner, see “Ghana Honored,” Crisis (August–September 1958), 407–408. Forty years later, James Meriwether, the only historian I am aware of who discusses the moment, thought that Bunche’s sentiments that night reflected a change in the thinking of African American liberals about “increased blending of a racialist nationalism with liberal integrationism.” Meriwether, Proudly We Can Be Africans, 174.

5. In one sense it foreshadows what international relations scholars in the late 1970s identified as the problem of “the second image reversed,” or the international system’s effects on domestic politics and society. However, no one working in this area referred to Isaacs, let alone the many African American thinkers who were then discussing the impact of decolonization on the United States, since white supremacy was never a “case” the theorists considered, even as they unselfconsciously resurrected one of its core concepts, “dependency.” See Gourevitch, “The Second Image Reversed,” 881–912.

6. See Harold Isaacs to Rayford Logan, n.d. [early 1958], enclosing draft “First Notes” on “World Affairs Impact on U.S. Race Relations,” dated January 3, 1958, CIS, Communications Program D-58/1, and Isaacs’s unpublished paper for the August 1971 meeting of the American Political Science Association, “Group Identity and Political Change: The House of Muumbi,” both in box 166–14, folder 1, Logan Papers MSRC.

7. See “Negro Number Meeting,” Survey Library, April 14, [1942], 2:30 pm, box 110, folder 32, Locke Papers; Locke, “Color: The Unfinished Business of Democracy.” Molesworth, Collected Works of Alain Locke, refashions the text of this and thus possibly other pieces. Seek the originals!

8. The critical exception to this rule is Füredi, The Silent War.

9. Myrdal, An American Dilemma, 1018.

10. Drake was a member of Padmore’s circle. He headed the sociology department at the University College of Ghana in Accra in 1958 and built Stanford’s black studies program starting in 1969.

11. Drake, “The International Implications of Race and Race Relations.” E. Franklin Frazier developed the same line of analysis while a member of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). See his “Memorandum Submitted to the Division of the Social Sciences of UNESCO on The Influence of the Negro on the Foreign Policy of the United States, 1951,” box 54, folder 23, Frazier Papers. For similar accounts by whites, see Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow; and Isaacs, “World Affairs and U.S. Race Relations.”

12. The first accounts of the setbacks to the civil rights movement of the 1950s exacted by the Cold War policy of containment are in Roark, “American Black Leaders”; and Cheng, “The Cold War.”

13. Lincoln received his PhD in social ethics from Boston University in 1960 for his path-breaking study of black Muslims in America, to which MIT’s Harold Isaacs had made two strategic contributions. One was to bring Lincoln to the attention of the Anti-Defamation League, which began to support the work in return for periodic reports from Lincoln to the former FBI agent who handled the league’s investigations of “hate groups.” Isaacs also intervened with Boston University’s dean when Lincoln considered changing topics. Lincoln was uncomfortable with the role of informant for Anti-Defamation League staffer (and later national fact-finding director) Milton Ellerin and looked to Isaacs for advice. Details can be found in Isaacs to Lincoln, November 13, 1959; Isaacs to Oscar Cohen [national program director of the Anti-Defamation League], October 29, 1959; and Lincoln to Milton Ellerin, August 25, 1959. Isaacs also introduced Lincoln to Harvard psychologist Gordon Allport, a member of the editorial board of the international relations journal International Organization who later wrote the foreword to C. Eric Lincoln and Aminah Beverly McCloud, Black Muslims in America (1961). See Laura [Isaacs’s secretary?] to Isaacs, August 18 [probably 1959]. For Isaacs’s outreach to Boston University, see Isaacs to Dean Walter Muelder, Boston University School of Theology, March 13, 1959, all in box 2, folder “L,” Isaacs Papers.

14. Lincoln, “The Race Problem and International Relations.” James Baldwin made the same point toward the end of a famous New Yorker essay, “Most of the Negroes I know do not believe that this immense concession [the 1954 Supreme Court decision] would ever have been made if it had not been for the competition of the Cold War, and the fact that Africa was clearly liberating herself and therefore had, for political reasons, to be wooed by the descendants of her former masters.” Baldwin, “Letter from a Region in My Mind,” 130. A new generation of historians with access to declassified government records revived the tradition in 1980s and early 1990s; see Dudziak, “Desegregation as a Cold War Imperative”; and Dudziak, “Cold War Civil Rights.”

15. Vucetic, The Anglosphere. For an account of the pervasiveness of talk of race war in this period, see Plummer, Rising Wind, 312–315.

16. Füredi, The Silent War, 202–221.

17. Sayre, “Quest for Independence,” 564, 566–567. Sayre taught government at Williams and international law at Harvard before entering government service as assistant secretary of state and high commissioner of the Philippines under FDR. Also see Perham, “The British Problem in Africa.” Perham, who had previously opposed self-government in the colonies, had apparently come around, predicting that most would gain their independence by the end of the twentieth century, although she believed that the second of the two great conflicts of the Cold War, the “division of race, or less inaccurately, of color” might not be contained. See also Huxley, “The Next-to-Last Act in Africa,” which imagines Cairo, Conakry, and Accra planning for a widespread anti-white uprising, or what she calls “the racial bomb.”

18. “Squeezing A Civil War to Death,” New York Times, January 27, 1962, 20 (“Algeria, where anarchic race war prevails”); “How to Break Up an Empire,” New York Times, January 12, 1966, 20 (“Should fighting erupt along the Zambesi line, a brutal and extensive race war might become inevitable”); “Africa’s Heart and Horn,” New York Times, December 9, 1966, 46 (“there is reason to foresee race war along the edges of the white held triangle of Mozambique, Angola, Rhodesia and South Africa…. China’s neo-colonialism aims at the Congolese heart of darkness and continental dominance”); and “A Sad New Look,” New York Times, June 15, 1969, E16 (“There is profound worry today about the possibility that the essence of China’s revolutionary efforts may lie in a hateful challenge, an attempt encourage race war in the rest of the world…. This analysis may help to explain why Peking now regards Moscow as even more of an enemy than Washington. It simply cannot afford to have another and white nation speaking as a legitimate revolutionary power”)

19. “‘Great Efforts’ Have Been Made to Cause Race War, MacArthur Tells Negro Paper,” New York Times, January 4, 1951, 9. Senator Paul Douglas, a liberal from Illinois who backed losing candidate Estes Kefauver as the Democratic Party nominee in 1952, argued the same in his convention speech, where he counseled against the expansion of the war into China because he believed it would hand the communists “a powerful propaganda weapon to inflame the darker skinned races of Asia and to swing India and Malays against us.” New York Times, July 22, 1952, 15.

20. Adolph Berle Jr., “Communist Thunder to the South,” New York Times, July 4, 1954, SM8.

21. Quoted in Jones, After Hiroshima, 4.

22. Schelling, “Strategy of Conflict,” 203, my emphasis. Schelling would soon publish The Strategy of Conflict (1960).

23. Browne, Race Relations in International Affairs, iii–iv. Browne had just been forced to quit his position in the U.S. aid administration in Vietnam after authorities learned that he had married a Vietnamese woman. He later founded the Review of Black Political Economy. See “Robert S. Browne, 79, Dies; Economist and Advocate,” New York Times, August 15, 2004; and Wu, “An African-Vietnamese American.”

24. In 1952, the Royal Institute of International Affairs appointed Lord Hailey as chair of a new Board of Studies on Race Relations. The board appointed novelist Philip Mason as director of studies of race relations. The president of the Rockefeller Foundation, Dean Rusk, agreed to fund some of the first studies, although his staff advised him that “we should not anticipate an important result either as a solution to the problems or as an addition to knowledge.” Mason parted ways with the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1958 and founded an independent Institute of Race Relations. See the memo from J[oseph] H[.] W[illets] to Rusk, October 30, 1953, box 65, folder 565, Series 4015, Record Group 1.2, Rockefeller Foundation Archives. For the history of the Institute of Race Relations, see Sivanandan, “Race and Resistance.”

25. Hodson, “Race Relations in the Commonwealth.”

26. Saxton Bradford, USIA, to Nelson A. Rockefeller, February 9, 1955, Subject: Our Psychological Position in the Far East, box 83, F.635–636, folder “Afro-Asia—Colonialism & Neutralism,” Rockefeller Family, Record Group 4 Rockefeller Foundation Archives. For the impossible-to-miss reading by top U.S. officials of Bandung as an anti-white, anti-U.S. gathering see Fraser, “An American Dilemma”; Jones, “A ‘Segregated’ Asia”; and Parker, “Cold War II.”

27. For the problem with this and other myths about the Asian-African Conference, see Vitalis, “The Midnight Ride of Kwame Nkrumah and Other Fables from Bandung.”

28. Tate, Review of The Color Curtain. Tillman Durdin, the New York Times correspondent who wrote some of the first reports on Japanese atrocities in Nanking in the 1930s, challenged Wright and by implication others who imagined Bandung in these terms in “Richard Wright Examines the Meaning of Bandung,” New York Times, March 18, 1956.

29. Toynbee, “Is a ‘Race War’ Shaping Up?” 26, 88–90, quotation on 88. Toynbee’s answer was a qualified no. The point, however, is the assumptions about the identities that mattered and the contradictions to which these gave rise. For his critic, see Neil Leonard, “Race and Color,” New York Times, October 11, 1963, 12.

30. Quoted in Isaacs, The New World of Negro Americans, 12. How one assesses the extent of threat inflation depends on assumptions about the pace and extent of change toward African American liberation in the period. If one accepts the view that change was slow and prone to setbacks, then the problem is that no one has shown continued resistance to U.S. leadership abroad in response after 1965. Those who are more optimistic about the “civil rights revolution” have to consider the implicit counterfactual, that had Jim Crow remained more or less intact, then key Third World allies (dependencies) such as Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and so forth would have defected.

31. Memorandum of a Conference with the President, White House, July 31, 1956, Foreign Relations of the United States 1955–1957, Vol. XVI, Suez Crisis, July 26–December 31, 1956, Document 34, http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v16/d34, accessed April 10, 2013. See also Connelly, “Taking off the Cold War Lens.”

32. Füredi, The Silent War, 217–221.

33. Hoffmann, “Discord in Community,” 524.

Chapter 7: The First but Not Last Crisis of a Cold War Profession

1. Vitalis, “Guilhot’s Gambit.” For the founding of the International Political Science Association, see Boncourt, “Political Science: A Postwar Product.”

2. See Harold Sprout to Quincy Wright, January 11, 1949, box 2, folder 21, Wright Papers. Specialists in international relations had a particularly difficult time securing slots at the annual convention. Meetings consisted of only about two dozen panels in those days.

3. Bernard Brodie to Edward Mead Earle, October 5, 1942, box 26, folder “Professional Activities, Prof. Assoc.—American Pol. Sci. Assoc.,” Earle Papers.

4. See Memorandum, “Arnold Wolfers, Professor of International Relations, Yale,” box 5, folder ACIS-Correspondence W 1940–1942, Earle Papers.

5. Sondermann, “The Merger.”

6. Henry Teune, “The International Studies Association,” n.d., unpublished revision of a paper originally prepared for the International Studies Association Leadership Meeting, University of South Carolina, 1982, in my possession.

7. Charles McClelland to Quincy Wright, September 30, 1960, box 18, Wright Papers.

8. Quincy Wright to Arthur W. MacMahon, November 25, 1947, box 2, folder 20, Wright Papers. MacMahon, a Columbia University professor of political science, a pioneer in the study of public administration, and, in his own radical days, the lover of Georgia O’Keefe, served as president of the APSA in 1947–1948. http://www.okeeffemuseum.org/chronology.html, accessed March 30, 2015.

9. Wright, “Political Science and World Stabilization,” 2.

10. Bunche, “Presidential Address,” 970. Hanes Walton Jr. provides a thoroughly misleading gloss on this point by adding words that Bunche never uttered. He imagines Bunche to have raised pointed questions not just about colonialism but about “the fear, intolerance, suspicion and confusion emanating from racial demagogues; and the second-class citizenship emerging from racial segregation, White supremacy, and disenfranchisement.” You won’t find these ideas expressed on the page Walton erroneously cites or anyplace else. See Walton, “The Political Science Educational Philosophy of Ralph Bunche,” 147.

11. Miller, Born along the Color Line, 290.

12. Bunche, “Presidential Address,” 969.

13. Lilian Sharpley, YWCA National Board, to Bunche, June 30, 1950; and Bunche to Sharpley, July 5, 1950, box 127, folder 60, Bunche Papers.

14. The copy is contained in box 109, folder 13, Locke Papers.

15. Collier, Political Woman, 33–35, 67–69; William Chapman, “Scholars Check CIA Activity,” Washington Post, February 23, 1967, A8; Lowi, “The Politicization of Political Science”; Barrow, “Intellectual Origins of the New Political Science”; and See, “Prophet without Honor.” For a complementary account, see Oren, Our Enemies and US, 155–164.

16. “The study of exotic areas is necessarily costly, and he who would measure the progress and locate the growing points of international relations research must look elsewhere than to the university’s cash box.” William T. R. Fox, “Growing Points in the Study of International Relations,” address at the dedication of the University of Southern California’s Von KleinSmid Center of International Affairs, October 1, 1966, reprinted in Fox, American Study of International Relations, 97–116.

17. Rosenau, International Studies and the Social Sciences, 29. See also Pye, Political Science and Area Studies. Round two of this battle began in the early 1990s. Also see, Wallerstein, “The Unintended Consequences of Cold War Area Studies,” 206–210.

18. Stocking, Race, Culture, and Evolution, 266. Stocking discusses the transformations in anthropological theory that would exert such a heavy influence on political scientists who pioneered what they called “modernization theory,” no more obviously than in the case of early Yale Institute of International Studies member Lucian Pye, who had moved on with the group to Princeton, then joined MIT’s Center for International Studies in 1956. Samuels and Weiner, The Political Culture of Foreign Area and International Studies.

19. Eisenhower’s views as reported in a Memorandum of Conversation, September 3, 1959, quoted in Plummer, In Search of Power, 1.

20. Hall, Area Studies, as quoted in Wallerstein, “The Unintended Consequences of Cold War Area Studies,” 199–200. For Hall’s career, see L. A. Peter Gosling and George Kish, “Professor Emeritus Robert B. Hall,” University of Michigan Faculty History Project, http://um2017.org/faculty-history/faculty/robert-b-hall/memorial, accessed April 17, 2013. In addition to Michigan, Harvard (Regional Program on China and Peripheral Areas), Columbia (Russian Institute), the University of Washington (Far Eastern Institute), and the University of Pennsylvania (Department of South Asian Regional Studies) also founded centers a year or two after the war.

21. Wagley, “Area Research and Training,” Area Research and Training, 3, both quotations in this paragraph.

22. Although routinely described as the first such African Studies center, Lincoln University’s president, Horace Mann Bond, founded an Institute for the Study of African Affairs in 1950. Foundations declined to support it, and Herskovits was kept abreast of efforts to make sure of this outcome. Without external support, Bond, who was an outspoken advocate of African independence, failed in his bid to recruit additional faculty. See Gershenhorn, “African American Scholars and the Development of African Studies,” 51–53.

23. Gershenhorn, Melville J. Herskovits and the Racial Politics of Knowledge, 184–192, is essential for its detail and its demonstration once more of Herskovits’s remarkable willingness to shape his research program in response to donors’ preferences (and to undercut his colleagues). Carnegie officials had mixed views about Herskovits and took a while to agree, even after Penn made the decision to narrow its focus to North Africa. Penn eventually shipped one and a half tons of materials on sub-Saharan Africa to Northwestern University. No scholar has explained what led to the decision, although the library’s Web site now refers to it as “disastrous.” http://www.library.upenn.edu/collections/policies/african.html, accessed March 30, 2015.

24. Janken, Rayford W. Logan, 193, calls him a “gadfly…challenging government officials and other interested parties…over their alleged disregard of African affairs and their procolonial attitude toward trusteeship,” although he was also producing position papers for the organization and representing it at State Department conferences and other official and unofficial meetings.

25. Logan Diary entry June, 4, 1949, box 4, Logan LC. He had also witnessed Woodrow Wilson’s son-in-law and onetime high commissioner of the Philippines, Francis Sayre, the U.S. representative on the UN Trusteeship Council in 1951, criticize Great Britain for “going too fast in promoting self-government” in the Gold Coast, Nigeria, and Tanganyika. The exchange with Sayre took place at a UNESCO meeting in Paris. box 166–34, folder 1, containing a draft chapter of Logan’s unpublished autobiography, Logan Papers MSRC.

26. See Gerri Major, “Society Founder, Eminent Negroes in World Affairs Share Honors at Annual Meeting of History Group,” New York Amsterdam News, February 24, 1951, reporting on the meeting of the New York branch of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, which Logan headed after the passing of the founder and longtime executive director, Carter Woodson.

27. Gershenhorn, “African American Scholars and the Development of African Studies,” 53.

28. Frazier’s model for African studies mirrored Herskovits’s original diasporic vision, although he was also a relentless critic of Herskovits’s belief in the significance of African cultural “survivals.” Inside Howard, Frazier’s proposal was controversial mainly for his refusal to include Leo Hansberry’s courses on ancient and medieval African history in the program on the grounds that Hansberry was not a serious scholar. Neither factor explains why Howard fared so poorly.

29. Logan Draft Autobiography, box 5, folder 5, Logan Papers MSRC; Gershenhorn, “Not An Academic Affair,” 54–56; Gershenhorn, Melville J. Herskovits and the Racial Politics of Knowledge, 192–195; “Harvard Once Refused Aid to Create Africa Program,” Harvard Crimson, April 30, 1968, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1968/4/30/harvard-once-refused-aid-to-create/, accessed April 21, 2013; Robinson, “Area Studies in Search of Africa,” 94.

30. Parmar, Foundations of the American Century, 158.

31. “Report of First Annual Meeting, September 8–10, 1958,” African Studies Bulletin 1, no. 2 (1958):12–21; William G. Martin, “1957 Whitewash: Africanist and Black Traditions in the Study of Africa,” paper prepared for the conference on Black Liberation and the Spirit of 1957, November 2–3, 2007, draft, http://www2.binghamton.edu/fbc/archive/martin%201957%20whitewash.pdf, accessed April 22, 2013. The African Studies Association was a Carnegie-led initiative put together by program officer (and future president) Alan Pifer and a few insiders who had met periodically with him to draw up plans, which included mechanisms for keeping control of the organization in their hands to protect the association against interference by “action groups, dilettantes, or faddists” through what was called the “College of Fellows.” They appointed Herskovits the first president.

32. The unnamed compiler of the African Studies Association Bulletin’s original list of programs in the United States omitted the programs at Howard University and Roosevelt University. St. Clair Drake, an outspoken defender of African independence, directed the latter program and had been turned down for funding by Ford. See Gershenhorn, “Not an Academic Affair,” 58–60.

33. Logan’s unpublished autobiography, box 166–35, folder 2, Logan Papers MSRC; Logan diary entry, September 14, 1958, box 6, Logan Papers LC; Gershenhorn, “Not an Academic Affair,” 57–58.

34. Quoted in Parmar, Foundations of the American Century, 159, but also see the parallel analysis in Martin, “1957 Whitewash.”

35. Parmar, Foundations of the American Century, 159. Frazier himself had pitched his proposal on these grounds. See Martin, “1957 Whitewash,” 20.

36. Parker, “Made-in-America Revolutions.”

37. Biondi, The Black Revolution on Campus, 202–203.

38. George Shepard Jr., a specialist in African politics and founder of the Institute for International Race Relations at the University of Denver, quoted in Matthews, Gappert, Snyder, and Kornegay, “Washington Task Force Black Paper on Institutional Racism,” 27.

39. Parmar, Foundations of the American Century, 159. LeMelle received his PhD in international relations from the School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1963 and taught for two years in the African Studies program at Boston University before joining Ford, serving in the Carter administration, and eventually serving as president of the Phelps-Stokes Fund.

40. Turner and Murapa, “Africa: Conflict in Black and White.” Turner received his PhD from Northwestern and was hired to build the Africana Studies and Research Center at Cornell. Murapa received his PhD in 1974 from Northern Illinois University, where he wrote a dissertation on Padmore’s role in the African liberation movement.

41. For an early glimpse of the reconsideration of Hansberry’s reputation after his 1959 retirement from Howard, see Crawford, “The Scholar Nobody Knows,” where one finds possibly the first use of the future cliché about him, “prophet without honor.”

42. Urban, Black Scholar: Horace Mann Bond, 152–153.

43. See the discussion in Logan’s unpublished memoir, box 166–35, folder 2, Logan Papers MSRC.

44. See Isaacs to Ezekiel Mphahlele, June 23, 1958, box 1, Isaacs Papers.

45. See Paris to Washington, May 3, 1956, 54, FBI Files, Richard Nathaniel Wright, part 2 of 2, http://vault.fbi.gov/Richard%20Nathaniel%20Wright/Richard%20Nathaniel%20Wright%20Part%202%20of%202/view, accessed April 29, 2013.

46. Wilford, The Mighty Wurlitzer, 198–224, is the most detailed account to date. There is still much to learn, however. For background on Davis, see Kilson, “Political Scientists and the Activist-Technocrat Dichotomy.” Kilson’s essay does not discuss Davis’s extracurricular activities, even though at the time Kilson was a critic of the transformation of the American Society for African Culture from a predominantly African American awareness organization to a Cold War cultural export agency. Davis’s name today adorns a diversity center at his alma mater, Williams.

47. Baldwin, “Princes and Powers,” 18–19.

48. Entry for August 4, 1958, box 6, Diaries 1958–1959, 1960, Logan Papers LC.

49. See Interview 25/B-6, December 4, 1958, Ralph Ellison, Tivoli, New York, box 21, folder 1/3 Interviews Typed, Isaacs Papers. In 1955, the State Department offered to send Ellison to the Gold Coast and pay him to write a novel about the country that would then be filmed “as a phase of the country’s Independence Day’s celebrations.” Ellison wanted nothing to do with Ghana or the crude propaganda project. See Rampersad, Ralph Ellison, 312.

50. Nielsen quoted in Richard Harwood, “O What a Tangled Web the CIA Wove,” Washington Post, February 26, 1967, E1. For Nielsen’s background, see Wolfgang Saxon, “Waldemar Nielsen, Expert on Philanthropy, Dies at 88,” New York Times, November, 4, 2005. Nielsen insisted on ending the relationship with the CIA as a condition for taking over, an arrangement Harold Hochschild and top officials of both Ford and the Rockefeller Foundations negotiated. Hochschild secured a promise from Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (and later Ford Foundation president) McGeorge Bundy to shift funding from the CIA to the Agency for International Development. See Berman, The Ideology of Philanthropy, 132.

51. Wilford, The Mighty Wurlitzer, 214.

52. Menand, “Both Sides Now,” 193.

53. Kuklick, Blind Oracles, 16.

54. Niebuhr, “The Colored Continents”; and Niebuhr, “Power and Ideology in National and International Affairs.”

Chapter 8: Hands of Ethiopia

1. Rotter, “In Retrospect: Harold R. Isaacs’s Scratches on Our Minds.”

2. For conservatives’ views on decolonization at the time, which the idea men at the Foreign Policy Research Institute reflected quite faithfully, see Staniland, American Intellectuals and African Nationalists, 223–236.

3. See, e.g., the summary in Muehlenbeck, Betting on the Africans, 3–33.

4. Grunfeld, “Friends of the Revolution,” 116; Messmer, Jewish Wayfarers in Modern China, 48–55; and Isaacs, Re-Encounters in China.

5. Pye, “Harold R. Isaacs”; Wald, The New York Intellectuals, 108–109. The Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On-Line lists articles and party resolutions through mid-1941 by Isaacs (sometimes writing as George Stern) in the short-lived theoretical monthly Fourth International; see “Harold Isaacs Internet Archive,” http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/isaacs/index.htm, accessed May 29, 2013.

6. Isaacs, No Peace in Asia, 72. See also “Hurley Hits Books Critical of Chiang,” Washington Post, April 11, 1948, M11.

7. Freeman, Review of No Peace in Asia.

8. See FBI, W[ashington] F[ield] O[ffice] Report, Harold Robert Isaacs, November 12, 1965, enclosing classified information from Isaacs’s State Department passport file, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., released in response to a Freedom of Information Act Request, in my possession (hereafter Isaacs FBI File]. Isaacs had been designated a security threat. He describes the money smuggling in Isaacs, Re-Encounters in China, 25.

9. Letter to Boston Re: Harold Robert Isaacs, n.d., declassified April 27, 2010, FBI, Isaacs FBI File.

10. Isaacs, No Peace in Asia, xxvii.

11. Collin, “Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution.”

12. See United States Civil Service Commission, Report of Investigation, Harold Robert Isaacs, September 27, 1965, in my possession. The quotation in the next sentence is from this document.

13. Blackmer, The MIT Center for International Studies, 35–38; Blackmer, e-mail to author, May 10, 2013.

14. Schwoch, Global TV, 64–65.

15. Isaacs, No Peace in Asia, 1967 reprint, xxv.

16. “Educators Back Vietnam Policy,” New York Times, December 10, 1965, 1. Isaacs did not recover his critical temper until Kissinger and Nixon took over.

17. Isaacs, “Western Man and the African Crisis,” 55.

18. Isaacs, “Back to Africa,” 105; Pauli Murray to Harold Isaacs, May 28, 1961, box 21, Isaacs Papers. As Kevin Gaines puts it, “Through Isaacs, Murray inadvertently helped craft a new journalistic image of alienation between African Americans and Africans that debunked notions of pan-African solidarity as illusory and inauthentic.” Gaines, “Pauli Murray in Ghana,” 258. Polsgrove, Divided Minds, 141–146, discusses the article and the controversy it engendered.

19. Russell Warren Howe, “Strangers in Africa,” The Reporter, June 22, 1961, 34–35.

20. The quotations are from the invaluable archival work in Polsgrove, Divided Minds, 145, which documents Howe’s anger at the way his article had been reworked, and the Reporter’s dim view of their own handiwork in comparison to the Isaacs piece. On the UN demonstration, see Woodward, “Amiri Baraka and Black Power Politics,” 57–60.

21. Drake “The Negro’s Stake in Africa,” 42, 44.

22. Rayford Logan to Harold Isaacs, June 26, 1961, box 1, folder “LOGAN, Professor Rayford,” Isaacs Papers.

23. Isaacs to Logan, June 29, 1961, box 1, folder “LOGAN, Professor Rayford,” Isaacs Papers.

24. For Baldwin see July 27, 1961 Diary Notes, Conversations with James Baldwin, box 19, Isaacs Papers. For Frazier (who said “Despite everything the Negro will not be accepted in American life. We are not going to wipe out the stigma of Negro ancestry and it is a stigma, I say that quite objectively.”) 11/A-5 EF Frazier, August 1, 1958, box 21, Isaacs Papers. For Clark, who said the quote was from Thurgood Marshall, re-interview, January 5, 1962, box 19, Isaacs Papers.

25. For Isaacs’s disparaging view of Bond, see Isaacs to his children, n.d. [around July 1961], box 37, folder “Back to Africa,” New Yorker, 1961, Reviews and Correspondence, Isaacs Papers. For Bond’s critique, see Bond, “Howe and Isaacs in the Bush.” South African writer and Isaacs’s friend Ezekiel Mphahele agreed with and extended his view of the “painful complexes, paradoxes and ironies with which we Negroes related to each other” in Mphahele, “The Blacks: Dialogue across the Seas,” 22.

26. “Of course the real point (made neither by Isaacs nor Howe, nor by their Negro critics) is that, as you have pointed out, Negro Americans are generally conservative, if not reactionary, in their social and political thought, and as such will inevitably come into conflict with African states as more of them move along some sort of socialist or radical path as that taking shape in Ghana, Guinea, and Mali, as I believe most will do in due course.” Martin Kilson to E. Franklin Frazier, July 3, 1961, box 12, folder 6, Frazier Papers. Kilson came around to Isaacs’s views on alienation when he explained Harvard students’ romance with black nationalism. See Kilson, “The Black Student Militant.”

27. Mel Fox to Harold Isaacs, August 12, 1961, box 37, folder “Back to Africa,” New Yorker, 1961, Reviews and Correspondence, Isaacs Papers.

28. Isaacs to his children, n.d. but [around July 1961].

29. Isaacs to Margaret Mead, August 1, 1961, box 37, folder “Back to Africa,” New Yorker, 1961, Reviews and Correspondence, Isaacs Papers.

30. For the positioning of Etzioni at the time, see the discussion of his Hard Way to Peace (1962) in Sondermann, “Peace Initiatives: The Literature of Possibilities.” Sondermann was a founder of the International Studies Association.

31. Etzioni, “Beyond Desegregation,” 22.

32. Ibid.

33. Jackson, Science for Segregation, 10 (location 321), 148 (location 3074), 150 (location 3113), Kindle edition. Anthony James Gregor, a longtime student of fascism, security studies specialist, and future Berkeley political scientist, was the secretary of its parent organization, the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics. For his abiding interest in racial science, see “A. James Gregor,” Bibliographies: Institute for the Study of Academic Racism, http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bibliography/gregrbib.htm, accessed July 5, 2013.

34. Weyl, Review of The New World of Negro Americans. Weyl’s story is a variant of the one we now practically know by heart: he was a rebel at Columbia in the early 1930s and a Communist Party member for the rest of the decade (which he denied when investigated during the war). He left the party in the wake of Stalin’s pact with the fascists and eventually ended up in the extreme right wing of the Republican Party.

35. Weyl and Possony, The Geography of Intellect, 146.

36. Ibid., 226, 283, 248, 288–289.

37. Dunn, Review of Geography of Intellect; and Klineberg, Review of Geography of Intellect.

38. Strausz-Hupé and Possony, International Relations in the Age of Conflict between Democracy and Dictatorship. Strausz-Hupé and his disciples opposed this behavioral revolution in international relations theory and played no role in the new professional association, the International Studies Association. For a unique retrospective account by a onetime partisan, see Plantan, “Multidisciplinary Approaches, Disciplinary Boundaries, and Institutional Response in American Higher Education.”

39. Strausz-Hupé, In My Time, 193. For the Foreign Policy Research Institute–Hoover Institution–Center for Strategic and International Studies alignment (and their hard-line anticommunist “ideological approach”), see Lyons and Morton, Schools for Strategy, 185–192. For the temporary eclipse of Strausz-Hupé (whom Arkansas senator William Fulbright called a threat to world peace) and the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s move off the Penn campus after revelations in the New York Times of CIA funding, see the account by Harvey Sicherman, an acolyte: “Robert Strausz-Hupé: His Life and Times,” which has been reposted on the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Web site, http://www.fpri.org/articles/2003/04/robert-strausz-hupe-his-life-and-times, accessed March 10, 205. Strausz-Hupé held multiple ambassadorial posts during later Republican administrations. At Hoover, Possony was an early shaper of Governor Ronald Reagan’s views on what became the Strategic Defense Initiative (or “Star Wars”), and when Possony died, the hyperbole of Strausz-Hupé’s eulogy easily broke through the upper limits of the earth’s atmosphere. “The greatest strategist of the twentieth century.” See Possony’s obituary, San Francisco Examiner, May 2, 1995, http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Stefan-Thomas-Possony-3147535.php, accessed April 1, 2015.

40. Possony and Strausz-Hupé, International Relations in the Age of Conflict between Democracy and Dictatorship, 608, 631. All quotations are from the second, revised edition of 1954.

41. Ibid., 631, 623–624.

42. Ibid., 632.

43. Ibid., 621, 603, 635; Possony, “UNESCO and Race.”

44. Strausz-Hupé and Hazard, The Idea of Colonialism.

45. Possony, “Colonial Problems in Perspective,” 36, 17, 40. This polemic fails to cite a single author or text in its catalogue of the “theories” that constitute ideological anticolonialism.

46. See Rhoodie, Third Africa, concluding chapter by Possony, 311, 326. When Rhoodie died, the New York Times him as “apartheid’s chief propagandist” in the 1970s who ran a dirty tricks department in the ministry of information that, when exposed, brought down the presidency of John Vorster. Wolfgang Saxon, “Eschel Rhoodie, a South African at Center of Scandal, Dies at 60,” New York Times, July 21, 1993.

47. Weyl and Possony, The Geography of Intellect, 247–249, 283.

Chapter 9: The Fate of the Howard School

1. Von Eschen, Race against Empire, 6; for the discussion of Logan, 145, 148–149.

2. Bunche to Frazier, January 29, 1951, box 127, Bunch Papers; Lewis, W. E. B. Du Bois, 1919–1963. For Du Bois and Logan’s beliefs about Bunche, see Janken, Rayford W. Logan. Logan helped Isaacs get an interview with Du Bois in 1958.

3. Transcript of Logan interview with Ed Bradley, 20, n.d., box 166–7, folder 10, Logan Papers MSRC.

4. Logan’s unpublished autobiography, 27, box 166–4, folder 5 WBL-A-V II-“Defiance of McCarthyism”-Chapter II, Logan Papers MSRC.

5. Entry for September 8, 1955, box 6, Diaries 1954–1957, Logan Papers LC. Decades later, Tate used the same word, “coward,” to characterize her stance in the 1950s. See the transcript of the oral history interview with Merze Tate, May 2, 1978, Black Women Oral History Project, Tapes 6, 7, 8, p. 54, Black Women Oral History Project, Schlesinger Library. The librarian at Schlesinger would not grant me permission to use the transcripts on the grounds that no one else had been given access. A much more honest and forthcoming scholar, among others who have been allowed to use the transcripts, shared her detailed notes of the tape-recorded interviews, and my quotations are based on those notes.

6. The quote is from Logan’s friend and erstwhile colleague, John Hope Franklin, who wrote a powerful essay on the oppressive and alienating conditions of black intellectual production in a still-segregated United States (“Dilemma of the American Negro Scholar”). He wrote it after he was hired at Brooklyn College (after teaching at and being passed over by Wisconsin and Cornell in a quest that his Harvard advisor Arthur Schlesinger criticized as “scattering his energies too much.”) See entry for January 2, 1955, box 6, Dairies 1954–1957, Logan Papers LC. Janken emphasizes the generational differences that determined the likelihood of a black scholar entering the white academy; Janken, Rayford W. Logan, 225.

7. Winston, “Through the Back Door,” 708.

8. Entry for December 16, 1960, box 6, Diaries 1960, Logan Papers LC; Janken, Rayford W. Logan, 213–214. Also see Michael R. Winston, “The Howard University Department of History, 1913–1973,” 1998, http://www.howard.edu/explore/history-dept.htm, accessed August 8, 2013.

9. Winston, “Through the Back Door,” 708.

10. See “John H. Herz, 97, Howard U. Scholar,” Washington Post, January 25, 2006. Herz’s papers are at the State University of New York at Albany.

11. See Fall, Bernard Fall, 139–172. For Tate’s role in bringing Fall to the attention of the Rockefeller Foundation, see Merze Tate to Kenneth Thompson, January 9, 1961, box 522, folder 4459, Series 200S, Record Group 1.2, Rockefeller Foundation Archives.

12. Eric Williams to Alain Locke, n.d. [presumably summer of 1942], box 93, folder 23, Locke Papers.

13. Entry for September 5, 1942, box 3, Dairy 1942, Logan Papers LC.

14. Atwater, Review of The Disarmament Illusion; Logan, “No Peace for the Pacifists.”

15. Morgenthau, Review of Disarmament Illusion; Frei, Hans J. Morgenthau, 123–125.

16. Arnold-Foster, Review of The Disarmament Illusion; Du Bois, “Scholarly Delusion.” Contrast these with the Pitman B. Potter’s patronizing review in the American Political Science Review. Potter, a leading interwar-era international relations scholar who was obviously incensed by her implicit critique of the disarmament movement, didn’t bother to summarize the argument and instead mocked Tate’s style and the publisher’s choice of an overly generalized title.

17. Theresa Danley, interview of Merze Tate, 205, April 24, 1978, personal files of Ruth Hill; Jean E. Busch, Princeton University Press, to Merze Tate, February 19, 1958, box 31, Tate Papers; C. E. Carrington to Gerald Freund, March 24, 1961, and Payson Wild to Gerald Freund, March 24, 1961, box 522, folder 4459, RG 1.2, Series 200S, RFA; Merze Tate, “Extracts from a New Zealand Scholar’s Report on Australia and New Zealand from the Tropics to the Poles,” 1969), box 20, Tate Papers. Two other facts emerged from the fragmentary correspondence on fate of the Australia–New Zealand book in the unprocessed mass of Tate’s papers at Howard. An editor and friend at Yale University Press who had been working with her on it left the press and his successor declined to continue. Her exhaustively detailed narrative style had also fallen out of fashion (“not sufficiently penetrating and interpretative for a scholar”). See Merze Tate to Edward Tripp, Yale University Press, July 19, 1972, and R. Miriam Brokaw (the editor who disparaged the manuscript), Princeton Box, University Press, to Tate, March 13, 1973, 9, Tate Papers.

18. Tate, The United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom; and Tate, Hawaii: Reciprocity or Annexation?. She produced a third manuscript from her research on Hawaii on the life and short reign of its fourth king, Kamehameha, who attempted to resist the encroachment of American interests. Tate imagined the long, novelistic history being optioned for the screen and even shopped it for a while under the pseudonym Lelia Kaliokalani, but she failed to sell it.

19. See, for example, Lilley and Hunt, “On Social History, the State and Foreign Relations.”

20. Transcript of the oral history interview with Merze Tate, May 3, 1978, Black Women Oral History Project, Tape 9, p. 14, Schlesinger Library; Merze Tate, Review of Warning to the West. The topics of Tate’s subsequent reviews ranged widely, from U.S. society and foreign policy to South Africa, India, and China.

21. See, for instance, Tate’s embittered letter of protest to Dean Frank Snowden, a Logan ally, September 1, 1960, box 31, Tate Papers: “Under the discriminatory treatment which has existed for years I have suffered a tremendous financial loss not only in compensation but in retirement benefits…and trust some rectification will be made to cover my remaining years.”

22. Entry for September 24, box 6, Diaries 1954–1955, Logan Papers, LC.

23. Entry for Thanksgiving Day, November 28, [1957], box 6, Diaries 1956–1957, Logan Papers LC.

24. Logan’s unpublished autobiography, Chapter VII, box 5, folder 8, WBL-A-Vol II-“Seven Distressing and Productive Years, 1960–1967,” Logan Papers MSRC; Tate to Logan, February 9, 1964, box 166–21, file 2, Logan Papers MSRC; Washington Post, January 25, 1964. See also Washington Afro-American, November 21, 1964, for the luncheon Tate held to thank her supporters, including Radcliffe president and friend Mary Bunting, who was then on leave while serving on the Atomic Energy Commission. Both clippings in box 26, Tate Papers.

25. Tate never forgave Logan. When his biographer approached Tate about him, she closed the door in his face; Kenneth Janken, personal communication. Janken also chose not to write about it directly but instead discussed Logan’s penchant for rewarding friends and punishing rivals “and colleagues with whom he did not get on well.” Janken, Rayford W. Logan, 208. One would be hard pressed to name a colleague whom Logan treated worse, however.

26. Harris, “Professor Merze Tate.”

27. See Woodard and Preston, “Black Political Scientists,” 81, Table 1, which identifies Jewel Prestage wrongly as the first black woman to obtain a PhD (in 1954), based on information Prestage had provided. The record was not corrected until 2005.

28. Shepherd, “The Center on International Race Relations”; Shepherd and LeMelle, Race among Nations, xvi. See also Shepherd, Racial Influences on American Foreign Policy; LeMelle and Shepherd, “Race in the Future of International Relations”; and LeMelle, “Race, International Relations, U.S. Foreign Policy, and the African Liberation Struggle.”

29. See Donald S. Will, “Paradigm of the Scholar/Activist: Reflections on the Life of George W. Shepherd, Jr.,” 12, unpublished paper written for a panel honoring Shepherd at the International Studies Association annual meeting, Los Angeles, March 2010, in my possession.

30. Details on the centers story come from George Shepherd Jr., to whom I am grateful. Edmonson, one of the earliest commentators on Fanon’s role in the black power movement, wrote two influential early articles as part of this challenge to international relations theory: “Internationalization of Black Power” and “The Challenge of Race.” By 1974, Edmonson was engaging Eric Williams via a rediscovered idea in international relations from Joseph Nye (Harvard) and Robert Keohane (Swarthmore) and was analyzing both racism and slavery as transnational processes. See Edmonson, “Transatlantic Slavery and the Internationalization of Race.”

31. Preston and Woodard, “The Rise and Decline of Black Political Scientists in the Profession”; Wilson, “Why Political Scientists Don’t Study Black Politics.”

32. Doty, “Bounds of ‘Race’ in International Relations.”

33. Doyle, Empires, 10–11.

34. Ibid., 11.

Conclusion: The High Plane of Dignity and Discipline

1. Lindblom, “Political Science in the 1940s and 1950s,” 261. As George Steinmetz writes about political science’s close relative, “Sociology can never aspire to be a cumulative science in which earlier work can be safely discarded. Ongoing social research always remains connected to its own past in ways that distinguish the human sciences from the natural sciences. The much vaunted reflexivity of social science requires historical self-analysis. Intellectual history or the historical sociology of social science is an integral part of all social science.” Steinmetz, Sociology and Empire, xi.

2. Barnes, Review of Empire and Commerce in Africa, 130–131, quotation from Woolf in this paragraph from 131.

3. Quoted in Woolf, “International Morality.”

4. Woolf quoted in Bain, Between Anarchy and Society, 84.

5. White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President at the US-Africa Business Forum,” August 5, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/05/remarks-president-us-africa-business-forum, accessed August 20, 2014.

6. In Imperialism (1902), John A. Hobson, another supporter of the mandates, sought a strategy, as his great grandson puts it, for bringing the “practice of the benign civilizing mission into line with the theory.” Hobson, The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics, 47.

7. For a discussion of the key differences, based on Bunche’s analysis of one mandate and one non-mandate French possession, see Crawford, “Decolonization through Trusteeship,” 93–114.

8. Abbott, “A Re-Examination of the 1929 Colonial Development Act,” 68–81; Hinds, Britain’s Sterling Colonial Policy and Decolonization.

9. Perham, “African Facts and American Criticisms,” 444–457. Equally reliably, the first postmortem of the amended Colonial Development and Welfare Acts showed that local British colonial administrations had no planning mechanisms in place and that the earmarked funds went unused. See Wicker, “Colonial Development and Welfare, 1929–1957,” 170–192.

10. Isaacs, The New World of Negro Americans, ix, xiv.

11. The quote is from Jackson, “Surrogate Sovereignty?,” 9. Support for this point can also be found in Bain, Between Anarchy and Society, 121–124; and Lyon, “The Rise and Fall and Possible Revival of Trusteeship,” 96–110.

12. Crawford, “Decolonization through Trusteeship”; Fearon and Laitin, “Neotrusteeship and the Problem of Weak States,” 5–43. See also Pugh, “Whose Brother’s Keeper?,” 321–343, both for following the state of debate and for the author’s fanciful account of the “flexible” UN Trusteeship “system,” which Pugh claims the designers intended to apply to any and all “weak, postcolonial, post-conflict or fractured states” that might be “administered under the aegis of the UN, a great power state, or group of states” (324). Bunche would be rolling over in his grave if he saw that. Pugh also explains the logic behind trusteeship in the way that his international relations ancestors once explained imperialism: “a parent (or foster parent) teaches a child how to take care of herself during the first two decades of her life before allowing herself to take responsibility for herself in the world” (328).

13. For the powerful hold of this idea, see Mazower, No Enchanted Palace; and Throntveit, “The Fable of the Fourteen Points,” 445–481.

14. Contrast the idea of the Wilsonian moment with St. Croix-born, Harlem-based writer and orator Hubert Harrison’s dissection of the white race at war and the prospects for independence in India and Egypt following its end. Harrison, “The White War and the Colored World,” 202–203.

15. For the radical revisioning of Germany in the imagination of political scientists, see Oren, Our Enemies and US.

16. See Guilhot, “Imperial Realism.”

17. Dobbin, Jones, Crane, and DeGrasse, Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building.

18. Kuklick, Blind Oracles, 160–161. For May’s continued disdain for the revisionists, see Ruth Glushien, “Profile Ernest R. May,” Harvard Crimson, October 18, 1969, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1969/10/18/profile-ernest-r-may-ptwo-years/, accessed August 23, 2014.

19. Vitalis, “The Democratization Industry and the Limits of the New Interventionism,” 46–50.

20. Brownlee, Democracy Prevention.

21. Quoted in Hazbun, “The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Challenge of Postcolonial Agency,” 217.

22. Faust, “The Scholar Who Shaped History.”

23. For example, Howe, Afrocentrism.

24. Marable, Malcolm X.

25. For example, Gaddis, George F. Kennan, which has no index entries for race, racism, African Americans, eugenics, and so forth, and a one-sentence explanation, in the course of explaining Kennan’s defense of separate development and of the incapacity of “Bantus” to govern themselves, for his long held belief that “race shaped culture” (603). Kennan was a throwback to John W. Burgess.

26. H. R. Haldeman diary entry for April 28, 1969, quote in Plummer, In Search of Power, 251. Nixon (and doubtless others) distinguished between personal feelings of enmity (“prejudice”) and the truth of sociobiology. “I have the greatest affection for them [blacks], but I know they’re not going to make it for 500 years. They aren’t. You know it, too. I mean, all, this, uh, Julie [Nixon Eisenhower], I asked her about the black studies program at Smith. You know…and she said, the trouble [is], they didn’t find anything to study…. The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage, but at the present time they steal, they’re dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life at least. They don’t live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like.” Nixon in conversation with John Erlichman and H. R. Haldeman, May 13, 1971, Conversation No. 498–005, Presidential Recordings Program, Miller Center, University of Virginia, http://whitehousetapes.net/clip/richard-nixon-john-erlichman-hr-haldeman-nixon-race.

27. Kaplan, “Looking the World in the Eye,” 68–82.

28. Huntington, “Clash of Civilizations,” 25.

29. Ikenberry, “Illusions of Empire,” 144–154, my emphasis.

30. Vucetic, The Anglosphere.

31. Biersteker, “The Parochialism of Hegemony.”

32. Oren, “A Sociological Analysis of the Decline of American IR Theory”; and Whitley, The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences.

33. Holsti, “The Study of Strange Bedfellows,” 217–242; and Pfaltzgraff, Holsti, Riley, Kennington, Marenin, Eckstein, Bloom, and Allen, “Communications.”

34. On the histories of internationalism (of which the discipline of international relations forms a part) and the beginnings of engagement with worldwide liberation struggles see Mazower, Governing the World; Sluga, Internationalism in the Age of Nationalism; Parmar, Foundations of the American Century; Rietzler, “Experts for Peace”; Pedersen, The Guardians; Zimmerman, Alabama in Africa; and Anderson, “Pacific Dreams.”

35. Including Douglas, “Periodizing the American Century”; Gines, Hannah Arendt and the Negro Question; Gordon, Creolizing Political Theory; Kaplan, The Anarchy of Empire in the Making of U.S. Culture; and Singh, Exceptional Empire.

36. Menand, The Marketplace of Ideas; Jenny Blair, “Louis Menand Challenges Humanities Colleagues to ‘Take No Hostages,’” Alcalde, April 26, 2013, http://alcalde.texasexes.org/2013/04/louis-menand-challenges-humanities-colleagues-to-take-no-hostages/, accessed March 1, 2014.

37. Including Tarek Barkawi, Branwen Gruffydd Jones, John Hobson, Naeem Inayatullah, Lily Ling, Richard Seymour, Robbie Shilliam, Christine Sylvester, and J. Ann Tickner. Their work will lead readers to others who have been left off the reading lists of intro courses and grad seminars.