Race, International Relations, U.S. Foreign Policy, and the AfricanLiberation Struggle

Tilden J . LeMelle

STOR

Journal ofBlack Studies, Volume 3, Issue 1, Inequality and the Black Experience: SomeInternational Dimensions (Sep., 1972), 95-109 .

Your use of the JSTOR database indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use . A copy ofJSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use is available at http://wwwjstor.org/about/terms.html, by contacting JSTORatjstor-info@umich.edu, or by calling JSTOR at (888)388-3574, (734)998-9101 or (FAX) (734)998-9113 . No partof a JSTOR transmission may be copied, downloaded, stored, further transmitted, transferred, distributed, altered, orotherwise used, in any form or by any means, except : (1) one stored electronic and one paper copy of any articlesolely for your personal, non-commercial use, or (2) with prior written permission of JSTOR and the publisher ofthe article or other text.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen orprinted page of such transmission .

Journal ofBlack Studies is published by Sage Publications, Inc . . Please contact the publisher for furtherpermissions regarding the use of this work . Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://wwwjstor.org/journals/sage .html .

Journal ofBlack Studies@1972 Sage Publications, Inc .

JSTOR and the JSTOR logo are trademarks of JSTOR, and are Registered in the U.S . Patent and Trademark Office .For more information on JSTOR contact jstor-info@umich.edu .

@2001 JSTOR

http://wwwjstor.org/Thu Aug 2 11:59:53 2001

RACE, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,U .S . FOREIGN POLICY, AND THEAFRICAN LIBERATION STRUGGLE

TILDEN J. LeMELLEHunter College

City University of New York

The racial issue is becoming a central problem of interna-tional relations. Despite the prevailing disregard in inter-national studies, the racial factor can no longer be ignored.Its impact may well revolutionize the field as we come toappreciate how racial stratification dominates the worldpattern of state relationships . Unfortunately, disciplinedanalysis seems to lag behind events. A few prophetic analystssuch as W.E.B . Dubois, Richard Wright, and Gunnar Myrdalhave identified the significance of color in transnationalrelationships, but they have been ahead of their times. Therehas been, however, very little systematic attempt to relate theracial factor to the theory of international relations or toapply a consistent analysis to the problems of internationalracial conflict and integration (Shepherd, 1970).

AUTHOR'S NOTE : This essay is largely a revised version ofwork doneby the author at the Center on International Race Relations, Universityof Denver. Some of the theoretical concepts were developed incollaboration with George W Shepherd, Jr.. and published in Journal ofInternational Affairs (Vol. XXY, No. 2, 1971). The application to U.S.foreign policy is a modified version of an article published by the

[951

[96] JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / SEPTEMBER 1972

Race is treated in this study as both contributory to and aproduct of stratification . In that regard, race refers to a groupthat is socially defined on the basis of physical criteria . Incases where the phenotypical features are not similar, race isdetermined either by association or by choice . Racialstratification exists, then, when the range of individualchoices in society are determined among other factors,primarily by one's membership in a particular racial group. Ineffect, racial stratification is a function of discriminationagainst a subordinate racial group by a dominant one.Subordinate racial groups are denied or restricted in choicesavailable to them to maximize their group values andinterests or those of their individual members. Thus, in aracially stratified system, class strafitication is a function ofracial stratification and the boundaries of the two are highlycoterminous.

Racially stratified societies and polities may be found invarious parts of the world, and the patterns of stratificationmay vary significantly . The presence of such factors asideological racism, the power capability of the dominantracial group and the numerical presence of subordinate racialgroups in the polity all tend to make a difference both in thenature of racial stratification and in the degree to whichstratification exists .A racist system inherently tends toward dysfunction . In

such a system, race is the basis for establishing and regulatingdominant and subordinate relationships between races. It actsas the signaling device which evokes and justifies raciallyexclusive behavior on the part of the racially dominant andthe inevitable racial response of the racially subordinate. That

author in Social Action (October 1970). A more theoretical version ofthe present essay was presented at the conference "Linkages in theBlack Pluriverse, " sponsored by the Black Studies Department, SUNYat Binghamton in the Fall of 1971. The author acknowledges thecritical and editorial comments of his colleagues and the editors ofthisissue.

LeMelle / RACE, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U .S . POLICY [97]

is, in racist societies, race is not only the rationale for and acontinuing cause of racism and racial discrimination, but itcan often be the catalyst for eventual violence . In the firstinstance, it acts as a systemwide centripetal force drawingtogether all racial components under the assumed superiorityof the dominant (and solely racially legitimate) racial group.In the second instance, it acts as a centrifugal forcefragmenting the system along its already racially stratifiedlines. Race functions as a visible guide to regulatorydiscrimination, ultimately leading to interracial conflict .'

The simple mention of the terms racism or racial discrimi-nation today evokes images of conflict and violence . Thereason is that, with the exception of the classic example ofwhite supremacist South Africa, modern racism is increasing-ly more a cause of violent conflict than a force formaintaining a society in relative stability. But, racial discrimi-nation functions as a force for "racial harmony," as well asfor conflict . In order to understand this seeming paradox,one must first understand different kinds of interracialrelations that have developed in different types of raciallystratified, white-dominant systems. Second, one must beaware of the patterns of change that have emerged from theserelations.

In this essay, our concern will be with patterns of racerelations on the international plane. Emphasis will be given towhite-dominated racist systems, inasmuch as the pattern ofwhite domination is an internationally observable fact aboutmany multiracial and most racist societies . The paper endswith its focus on the United States, highlighting certaininterrelated ties between white racism practiced internallyand through prejudices embedded in the present U.S . foreignpolicy toward "nonwhite" states . Both levels of practices,national and international, merit serious reconsideration atthis point, given the growing political power and sophistica-tion of black peoples as citizens of this and other sovereigncountries in the world and the fact that thev are tied together

[981 JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / SEPTEMBER 1972

by certain common bases of identification and experience-one of which is racial inequality on both these levels .

TRANSNATIONAL DOMINANT ANDTRANSNATIONAL SUBORDINATE GROUPINGS

The function of race across national boundaries has beenperhaps the most obvious manifestation of an intraracialemanative' relationship in international relations . SinceEuropeans unite in a common bond of whiteness to dominatethe black, brown, and yellow peoples of the world, men havejoined in the bond of color across national lines to pursueracially justified (if not always racist) causes . The Pan-AfricanMovement, formed after black African resistance had failedin curbing white intrusion into Africa, is probably thebest-documented of transnational racial groupings organizedto counter white dominance. Black men of different national-ities and cultures and speaking different languages joined in acommon bond of color to win first humane treatment, thenequality, and finally independence for their black brothersunder white domination in Africa . Out of this movementgrew the race-conscious philosophies of Negritude and theAfrican Personality-philosophies of color which black menhave never before felt a need to formulate .

Although political independence has been won in most ofblack Africa, the ties of white emanation still linger in someAfrican states and all, to varying degrees, are tied througheconomic subjection to the white-dominant world. Theinherent contradiction in black political independence versuscontinued black economic subjection to white interests,coupled with total black subordination in the name of whitesupremacy in South Africa, led to the creation of theOrganization for African Unity, which dedicated itself to theeventual defeat of white domination of black and brownpeople in Africa .

LeMelle / RACE, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S . POLICY [99]

Expressions of transnational black racial ties are increasing-ly echoed across the Atlantic . What was once a domesticBlack Power-Black Nationalist Movement in the UnitedStates has become ideologically a Neo-Pan-Africanist move-ment dedicated to the liberation of all black people fromany kind of white domination . In this regard, it is instructivethat annual Black Power Conferences become internationalafter only two were held in the United States and have nowdeveloped a world organizational base in the recently formedCongress of African Peoples which held its first annualmeeting in September 1970 in Atlanta, Georgia.

The bond of color in opposition to actual or perceivedwhite domination has crossed not only black nationalboundaries but also those of yellow and brown peoples. TheBandung Conference of 1955 of African and Asian peopleswas the first explicitly called to unite "peoples of color"against white domination and oppression. Specifically usingthe argument of race, China was successful in keeping Russiaout of the Bandung meeting, making it an internationalconference of nonwhite peoples. The policies of racialdiscrimination in South Africa, the West Indies, and theUnited Kingdom are increasingly moving East Indians andother Asians to recognize they share common bases ofoppression as "nonwhites" with blacks . Similar alliances existin the United States among American Indians, Latins,Asian-Americans and blacks, under the banner of various"third world movements." By way of their rhetoric, thesegroups tend to identify themselves also as members of theworld revolution of the people of color.

History has provided and still provides much evidence oftransnational white ties in support of white domination overnonwhite peoples. The evidence of transnational racial ties inopposition to white domination is still sketchy but increasing .But its impact has already reached South Africa andZimbabwe (Rhodesia), where continued white domination issustained by the principal white nations of the world . If the

[ 100] JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / SEPTEMBER 1972

pattern continues on both sides of the racial lines, theinternational system cannot but experience increased racialdysfunction and incoherence . States cannot secede frominternational intercourse, nor can whole races any longer beisolated or controlled, as under white colonialism . Interna-tional racial equality will obtain or the world will be engulfedin racial war.

As far as transnational racial ties are concerned, it isinstructive to note the pattern of linkage between domesticrace relations and foreign policy . The suppressive andpaternalistic systems are not conducive to transnationallinkages between subordinate racial groups . In the former,attempts at transnational racial ties are quickly detected andsuppressed (South Africa); in the latter, subordinate emana-tive attitudes (pre-Black Power United States) preclude thedevelopment of subordinate transnational racial identity . Asa consequence, the foreign policies of these types of racistsystems reflect to a higher degree the racist assumptions andinterests of their dominant white groups . On the contrary, itis the open conflict-dysfunctional, incoherent stage of domes-tic race relations that especially invites intervention assubordinate groups seek aid for their rebellion or secession.The incipient pattern of racial pluralism encourages trans-national movements that strengthen the identity and culturalaccomplishments of various groups within their own soci-eties . Illustrative of this is the American blacks' quest fortheir African heritage, strengthened by the reverse flow in thePan-African Movement of ideas, historical knowledge, andrevolutionary accomplishments.

RACIAL STRATIFICATIONAND THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

Race also operates as a stratification device for the entireworld system . Because the white-dominant nations of theworld are the most powerful, they dominate the international

LeMelle / RACE, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S . POLICY [101]

system, whose present stratification patterns are themselves aconsequence of earlier white dominance. It is in terms of thisanalysis that Eastern Europe is joined with the white Atlanticsubsystem to create a world racial pattern of white domi-nance.The attitude of the white states of the world is in part a

reflection of their own internal racial stratification problems .There appears to be almost a direct relationship between theseverity of these internal racial problems and the defensive-ness or openness of a white nation's policy toward thenonwhite world, as reflected in support for human rightsconventions and international collective action to abolishdiscriminatory practices within and between nations (Shep-herd and LeMelle, 1970) .

International racial stratification can be seen in terms ofinternational mobility and opportunity. Here poverty figures,development trends, population growth, and internationalmigration all point to a very rigid global system of distribu-tion . The fact that state barriers of citizenship are thedetermining factors of life chances should not be allowed toobscure the growing disproportion that results from thiscompartmentalization of humanity . Race is only one consid-eration, but it is important, as shown by the Australian andBritish white immigration policy . Race needs to be carefullyexamined as one of the major factors perpetuating thepresent inequitable distribution of opportunity in the worldas a whole .The formation of the United Nations and other world

organizations has enabled the nonwhite peoples to gaingreater participation and visibility within the internationalsystem . Yet even an Afro-Asian majority within the UnitedNations does not change the realities of internationalstratification in the reward system . The basic decisionsregarding the world economy are still made by the white-dominant nations, as the GATT conferences and the presentinternational monetary crisis have shown only too clearly.

[ 102] JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES I SEPTEMBER 1972

The primary decisions regarding war and peace are still in thehands of these great powers, as symbolized by the SecurityCouncil and the veto power of the Euro-American powers .The only nonwhite vote on this council was, until recently, afarce of representation . China's hostility to the currentWestern domination of the United Nations, as well as of theworld system, is not simply ideological. Their brand ofcommunism contributes to this alienation, but the racialstratification pattern which places power and control in thehands of the white-dominant nations of the world is a sourceof suspicion, hostility, and conflict . Continuous rivalry andperiodic conflict between China and the two great whitepowers, the Soviet Union and United States, present a majorproblem in how racial differences intensify this hostility .

The possibility that the world system will be transformedto a racially plural one appears remote at present. Thechances are that international strife will develop along racialstratification lines. Points of primary irreconcilable conflict,such as South Africa, can become the incendiary event. Or,alternatively, racial conflict may simply add to the severalpoints of rivalry for prestige, military advantage, and eco-nomic opportunity that bring confrontations between greatpowers today. No major war is to be simply a racial war. Butthe international stratification pattern between the races isapt to be a major contributing source of hostility in thefuture . Lesser racial wars are already under way in SouthAfrica between secessionist liberationist forces and dominantwhite sections tied to the larger white Atlantic system .One might speculate on the implications for probable

future conflict . What will happen when the interactionbetween population and technological growth in the whiteindustrialized world creates greater demands for increasinglyscarce resources needed to sustain an "advanced" life style?Will these demands lead to the modes of lateral pressures thatdeveloped in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe?Given their projected development and growth, the nonwhite

LeMelle / RACE, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S . POLICY [103)

areas of the world from which many of these resources willhave to come, will have begun to develop their owncountervailing lateral pressures . Unless the nonwhite peoplesof the world forego their own chances for a better life inorder to sustain white civilization, the white industrializedworld will be forced to reduce its standard of living, changeits life style, or pay an increasingly higher price to sustainitself. The other alternative will be racial war. Neither is itlikely that rapidly developing, low-capability countries willbe satisfied with or even seek the status of "honorary white"in a white-dominant international system, as has been thecase with Japan as the sole nonwhite, high-capability coun-try. The thrust of an increasing sense of color identity aroundthe world in opposition to white dominance suggests thatnonwhite states will demand and attempt to force at least fairinternational competition on their own racial terms.

Thus, the present numbers game being played by somepopulation control demographers has more serious interna-tional implications for the "developed" world if it hopes tosustain its present life style. For the nonwhite world (exceptperhaps India), the question of population increase relatesmore to quality than to quantity if it is to withstand theprojected lateral pressures from the industrialized whiteworld.

The white and honorary white "haves" and the nonwhite"have nots," however, need not conflict racially . Anyprospect, however, for altering growing racial conflict islinked to radical changes within the white dominance systemsthemselves. This is not easily done, as most societies haveexperienced. The questions of time and pace are acute . Anddominant groups lack both the vision and the determinationso essential to turn the disastrous possibilities into morehopeful prospects .

(1041 JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES/ SEPTEMBER 1972

RACE AND THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES IN THEWHITE-DOMINANT INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

It is in the above context that one must view the role ofrace in U.S . foreign policy as it relates to African states aswell as to other "nonwhite" states in the world. Racialstratification patterns in the international system have beenso established and institutionalized by international whitepower that, with few exceptions, the function of thenon-European peoples of the world is that of subsidizing thelife styles of Europeans and supporting continued whitedomination of the international system at the expense of the"nonwhite." The role of the United States is to provideleadership for that portion of the white world subscribing towhat is called democratic capitalism or democratic socialismin its competition with what is called communistic socialism .

In order to fulfill its role, the United States has set up anelaborate white alliance system which commits millions ofpeople around the world to defend Euro-American interests.Beginning with NATO, which, in its full ramifications, is nota simple alliance of North Atlantic states, since peripherally itincludes South Africa and has considered Brazil and Argen-tina, in the South Atlantic (moreover, at least sixteen Africanstates are geographically North Atlantic states)' -NATO is awhite alliance system par excellence and is the hub of awhite-dominated alliance system . Beginning with NATO andincluding SEATO (U.S ., U.K., France, New Zealand, Aus-tralia, Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan), CENTO (U.K .,Greece, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan), ANZUS (Australia, NewZealand, U.S.), the Rio Treaty (OAS) and the bilateraltreaties of the U.S . with Japan, Korea, Taiwan-all of theseare Euro-American-dominated . In Southeast Asia, we findAsians fighting Asians to protect perceived Euro-Americaninterests . What is most interesting is that Euro-Americanshave not found it necessary to form multilateral militaryalliances with black African states-only economic alliancessuch as the Common Market and Associated African States .

LeMelle / RACE, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S . POLICY (105]

Could it be that such an alliance would be called upon tohold white supremacist South Africa in check militarily? Orcould it be that economic domination of African-controlledstates is sufficient to protect white interests on the conti-nent? It is both, since the African commitment to nonalign-ment has not deterred some African states from strikingbilateral military agreements with France, the United States,and African states. The fact is that Euro-Americans havebecome militarily involved in Africa only to protect per-ceived white interests.The case of direct and indirect U.S . military involvement

in support of Portuguese attempts to maintain white domina-tion in Africa is illustrative of U.S . racial priorities in Africa .First of all, to listen to the rhetoric of U.S . State Departmentofficials, one would conclude that the United States is notinvolved at all in the racial war in Africa . State Departmentrepresentatives basically argue that neither through NATOnor through the bilateral military agreement with Portugaldoes the United States support Portuguese counterinsurgencymeasures against the African liberation forces . They arguethat under both treaties they support Portugal in terms ofWestern European defense and security . And Europe is notAfrica .

Their argument, of course, is based on the assumption thatPortugal's military role in Europe is entirely separate from itsmilitary role in Africa . Needless to say, that assumption isfalse and the U.S . government knows that it is false.

(1) Portuguese openly make no distinctions between metropolitanPortugal and what they call the "overseas provinces." To thePortuguese, Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea Bissau are merelyextensions of Portugal on the continent of Africa, and they viewtheir military adventures in Africa as defense of Portugal .

(2) While each territory has its own armed forces budget, supportedby taxes collected locally and in Portugal itself, the expendituresfrom the central budget in Portugal are divided betweenordinary and extraordinary defense and apply to the entire"national" territory, which includes the African continent .

[1061 JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / SEPTEMBER 1972

(4) While direct U.S . military aid to other NATO countries wasphased out after 1959 (ten years after the formation of NATO),it has continued regularly to Portugal (for 23 years) .

Of approximately 180,000 troops, only 18,000 are assigned toNATO. The rest are in Africa, and rotation of units of troopsbetween Africa and NATO occurs regularly . A given unit usuallyserves a minimum of two years in Africa . Trained under theauspices of NATO, they fight in Africa .

To go into the nuances of how much of this material is used inAfrica would take us into too much detail now . There is directand circumstantial evidence that some of not only the pre-1961(before liberation movement) material but later arms suppliedby the United States are being used against African liberationforces. In 1967, the U.S. ambassador to the UN admitted thatF-86 Sabre Jets used in Africa had been removed at the requestof the United States .

(6) Not only through bilateral aid, NATO and the Azores base offthe coast of Africa is the United States officially and publiclysupportive of Portuguese military activities in Africa, but alsothrough U.S . guarantees for U.S . corporate business investmentsin the Portuguese-dominated African territories and, as somemay remember, through the CIA-supported attempt to smuggletwenty B-26 bombers to Portugal : the "Operation Sparrow"affair . The whole affair was revealed only when U.S . customsofficials who were not in on the plot caught up with thesmugglers, and they were brought to trial in Buffalo, N.Y . TheUnited States did not demand the return of the bombers fromPortugal.

The whole military involvement of the United Statesagainst African liberation forces can be summed up in thewords of Lyman Lemnitzer, Commander of Allied Forces inEurope, when he visited Lisbon on May 8, 1963. "Portuguesesoldiers, while fighting for the defense of principles, aredefending land, raw materials, and bases, which are indispen-sable not only for the defense of Europe, but for the wholeWestern World." Can it be put more clearly?

LeMelle / RACE, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S . POLICY [1071

Since Lemnitzer's statement, the status and leverage ofPortugal have been reinforced by the transfer of NATOheadquarters to Portugal and by a new signed agreement withthe United States extending the former lapsed Azoresagreement. The latter is significant in that the United Statesand Portugal had allowed it to lapse since 1961 because of adisagreement over Portuguese colonial policies in Africa . TheNixon administration, however, not only formally signed theagreement again in 1971, but included in it a substantialgrant of $460 million for education and food productionprojects in Portugal itself. The grant helps take pressure offthe domestic Portuguese economy, hard pressed by thedemands of colonial wars, and releases more monies tofinance the war against African liberation forces.

The case of U.S . support for Portuguese attempts tomaintain a white-dominant, racially stratified system inAfrica is just one example of U.S . involvement in the wholeof Africa in support of white supremacist interests as againstthe aspirations of African peoples. It illustrates how U.S . tieswith Africa reflect both the ideology of whiteness that hasinfected black-white relations at home and the raciallydiscriminatory behavior that follows when racism combineswith power in international relations . U.S . attitudes andbehavior toward its own black citizens have been carried overinto its dealings with Africa and reflect the same kind ofracial biases . If the United States cannot address itselfseriously to the aspirations and interests of its millions ofAfro-American citizens because of institutionalized racism athome, how can one expect it to transcend that racism in itsrelations with the millions of black Africans for whom it hasno immediate concern or responsibility?As dictated by the ideology of whiteness, just as the

well-being of Afro-Americans has received lowest priority inU.S . domestic policy, black Africa historically has been givenlowest priority in U.S . international relations. Just as U.S .domestic policy has done nothing to change the stratified

(1083 JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / SEPTEMBER 1972

position of black Americans imposed and existing sinceslavery, neither has U.S . foreign policy done anything tochange the stratified position of black people around theworld-a position of stratification imposed and maintainedby international white power. On the contrary, the mystiqueof "kith and kin" of the ideology of whiteness has dictatedjust the opposite .

Historic African-U.S . relations leave little for Africanpeoples to hope for in terms of advancing African interests .From the first contact made between Americans and Africansin the Atlantic slave trade, the relationship between blackAfrica and the United States has been infested by whiteracism. Politically independent though most African peopleare today, they still must function in an international systemin which white racism has not only been a formative andregulative ideology but institutionalized and legitimizedthrough international white power. Racism is a profitablebusiness (psychologically and economically) at home andabroad . The United States, like other white-dominant,racially stratified systems, will not really stop supportingwhite domination in Africa (or in the United States) untilthat support is made less profitable and too dangerous . Bythat time, it may be too late.

NOTES

1. The world of Richard Schermerhorn (1970: 22-25) and his conflict analysisof dominate-subordinate group relations, along with his modification of an earlierconflict model of group relations, has influenced our thinking .

2. The concept of emanation is used in the same sense as that employed byHalpern (1969) and Deutsch (1970) . In the latter is a discussion of sevencharacteristics of industrialization and modernization that tend to have a greatimpact on the breakdown of emanation and on the escalation of racial conflict .

3. An analysis of the structure of NATO reveals that the implied geographiccomposition of NATO is misleading. When NATO is viewed as an internationalsubsystem, both its core and its peripheral members include states on theMediterranean Sea, the South Atlantic, and the Indian Ocean. The last two areas

LeMelle / RACE, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S . POLICY [1091

are instructive in that they include white supremacist southern Africa and excludethe many black African states that geographically form part of the North Atlantictogether with the Portuguese-controlled Azores which are included in the NATOsystem . Thus, at least one criterion for inclusion (inversely, exclusion) in NATO isthe racial criterion of "kith and kin" with the dominant white powers of Westernand Central Europe-the former colonial masters of the world. NATO is thussimply an alliance system to protect the interests of the dominant white powersof Western and Central Europe whenever those interests are perceived asthreatened. In Africa, the threat comes from black people striving for independ-ence.

4. A detailed analysis of U.S . military and economic involvement in southernAfrica may be found in articles included in Africa Today of 1967 (October), 1970(July/August), and 1971 (October). See also the U.S . Congressional HearingsBefore the Subcommittee on Africa for March, April, and May of 1966 and forFebruary 26, 1970.

REFERENCES

DEUTSCH, K. (1970) "Research problems on race in intranational andinternational relations," in G. W. Shepherd, Jr. and T. J. LeMelle (eds.) RaceAmongNations. Lexington, Mass . : D. C. Heath.

EDMONSON, L. (1969) "The challenge of race : from entrenched white power torising black power." International J. 24 (Autumn) .

--- (1968) "The internationalization of black power: historical and contempo-rary perspectives ." Mawazo 1 (December).

HALPERN, M. (1969) "Applying a new theory of human relations to thecomparative study ofracism." Studies in Race and Nations 1, 1.

LeMELLE, T. J. (1971) "Foreword," in R. Burkey, Racial Discrimination andPublic Policy in the United States . Lexington, Mass . : D. C. Heath.

--- (1970) "Race and U.S. Foreign policy: the case of U.S.African relations."Social Action (October).

---and G. W. SHEPHERD, Jr. (1971) "Race in the future of internationalrelations." J. of International Affairs 25, 2.

MARCUM, J. (1971) "The United States and Portuguese Africa ." Africa Today18 (October).

SCHERMERHORN, R. (1970) Comparative Ethnic Relations: A Framework forTheory and Research . NewYork : Random House.

SHEPHERD, G. W., Jr . (1970) Racial Influences on American Foreign Policy .New York : Basic Books.

--- and T. J. LeMELLE (1970) Race Among Nations. Lexington, Mass. : D. C.Heath.