Uncategorized

You’ll also see that the recording messages pop up We are recording this We have a good group here today, but we’ll have many more, especially as Ariana pointed out earlier, who would like to review this later, but they can’t, because they’re at work, or they have family obligations It’ll go on our virtual event library on the alumni parent section of the CMC website We encourage you to review all of our past events there from Professor Pitney to J. Taw’s [assumed spelling] previous talk and beyond It is with great pleasure that I welcome everyone back I hope you’re healthy and safe I know Fourth of July is on the horizon, and while many people will not have fireworks, we hope that you have community and family, and you continue to spend some time with Claremont McKenna and the Claremont McKenna community as we move through the mini crises that we currently are facing A little bit about Zoom On the bottom you’ll see both a chat and a participant section You click on those on the right The chat box in the participant box will pop up In the chat box put your name, your class year, your parent year, and where you currently are Just kind of a quick hello from you to everyone else And also, when we get to the Q&A portion, if you put a question in there, I will ask that question on your behalf to Professor Taw In the participant section, you’ll see there’s a raise hand feature If you want to ask Professor Taw the question directly, just click that raise virtually raise your hand, and I will call on you when appropriate to ask your question We do about a half hour lecture, and about 20 to 30 minutes for Q&A as well So welcome everyone And on the top right there are speaker view and grid view If you want to just see the speaker, make sure you’re on speaker view If you which would mean you’re pretty much just looking at me right now And if you want to see a number of people, 25, 35, 45 people, you’ll be on grid view, and you can kind of peruse all the names pretty easily of those that are here The college right now is working very hard to return our students, faculty, and staff to campus in August with an altered schedule start of August 24th and an end of December 5th to make sure we can accommodate everyone’s health and well being And to do that, we have a number of different scenarios we’re going through, and we have a team that’s very hard at work to make sure we can preserve the CMC experience A lot of people have asked how they can help Of course, we’ll need a lot of people to virtually help us in the fall, whether it’s mentorships on boards, and service opportunities But also philanthropy is very important as, of course, for us and other nonprofits this has become very costly If you’ve yet to make your donation to CMC, please do so prior to our end of fiscal June 30, cmc.edu /donate. Anything you could do, even if it’s a very nominal gift would be very much appreciated So with that, it is my pleasure to turn it over to Professor Jenny Taw Jenny Taw is about to start her 14th year at CMC She’s involved with places such as the Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies at the college, but of course is in our government department focusing on international relations This is her second talk with us So, Jenny, thank you so much for coming back I know we have a very interested audience here to hear from you and what you have to say Professor Taw focuses on American foreign policy, conflict defense, defense policy, international strategic studies, security studies, war and foreign relations, and foreign strategy Today, she’ll be talking about critical race theory, and international relations, and security studies, with an eye to erasure and neo racism Professor Taw, thank you so much The floor is yours >> Thank you I’m so happy to be here Again, thank you for having me It gives me this wonderful excuse to just kind of see all these alum whom I miss so much, and also to talk about things that I find interesting and important So I was asked if I could talk about issues related to race, and identity, and justice with respect to kind of ongoing and current events And I think that I am most qualified to do that with respect to how race is dealt with in the IR and security studies disciplines And so that’s what I’ll be talking about today And clearly, this is a topic that’s top of mind So Foreign policy last week, which is a top journal in the discipline, published an article that said, Why Race Matters in International Relations And that actually started a conversation between me and some colleagues at Pomona and at Occidental And we were talking about how when we filled our syllabi, it’s very hard, in fact, to find discussions of race that are related to anything that we’re teaching Ironically, because race, of course, permeates international relations, permeates issues of security And yet there’s very, very little scholarship on it And there’s certainly no mainstream scholarship on it, which I’ll talk about in the course of this discussion So we were kind of commiserating about the fact that we wanted to bring in more scholars of color

That we wanted to bring in more direct discussions of the significance and implications of race in international relations And that it’s just very hard to find the things that let us do that And it’s hard in part because of something that a scholar named Deborah Thompson calls racial aphasia Which is a calculated forgetting, a deliberate forgetting of race, and a substitution of the concept of race with other more innocuous concepts where we can talk about things like culture, or the state, or nationality We can talk about class We can even talk like Huntington did about civilizations, but we are eliding the issue of race We are avoiding it in order, in part, to reify the way that race has been entrenched in the international system, and then again within states So Thompson goes on to say that race free discourses eliminate the means by which we can acknowledge racist structures and change them And she says that the many manifestations of race along multiple geographic and temporal scales raises this important question for scholars such as me about international relations, comparative politics, and how we think through and about race Now, this erasure of race, this illusion is actually only since the end of World War II Prior to that there was quite a bit of discussion of race in international relations studies Unfortunately, it was used as justification for colonization, for aggression against people who are considered inferior, for missionary work, for going out among the lesser developed people in order to help them And so there was quite a bit of work on race in the 1800s up into the early 1900s, but it stopped being a point of discussion just about the time that it became clear that overt racism was going to be moving forward normatively unacceptable So in the article that I cited, the Foreign Policy Article, they wrote, importantly, IR has not always ignored race In the late 1800s, early 1900s, foundational texts invoked it as the linchpin holding together colonial administration and war Belief in white people’s biological and sociological supremacy offered a tidy dualism between the civilized and the savage, and that justified the former’s murderous exploitation of the latter And the article goes on to talk more about how the idea of race was used to justify some pretty terrible international behaviors that today we justify using very different terms We talk about development, we talk about democratization, but we don’t use race anymore as explicitly as it was done before So The Journal of Foreign Affairs, there are two primary journals in international relations, or the study of international relations, Foreign Policy, and Foreign Affairs And Foreign Affairs is the journal that’s published by the Council for Foreign Relations And it actually was, prior to becoming Foreign Affairs, it was the Journal of International Relations And before that, it was actually called the Journal of Race Development So even in kind of the flagship journals of international relations, they were rooted in a kind of overt racism that has since been rejected in favor of the removal of race from all discourse entirely That removal of race, Errol Henderson talks about as an obstruction that’s usually presented as the desire of the discipline to engage in theory building rather than in descriptive or historical analysis And it’s a screen that rationalizes and elides the details of these encounters So we encourage our students to display their virtuosity in obstruction And we thus bracket questions of the thefts of land, of violence, of slavery The processes that have historically underpinned the unequal global order in which we find ourselves And one of the things my students who are here are going to recognize is the concept of anarchy that underpins two of the three major paradigms of international relations theory There are three paradigms I think I discussed this in the last talk too Realism, liberalism, and constructivism, and within those many, many theories Realism and liberalism are rooted in an assumption of international anarchy, anarchy as described by Hobbes, and Locke, and Rousseau in their early philosophical political writings That anarchy is itself a fairly racialized conception It is the jungle It is the place where savage people roam, and it is only through the process of the creation

of the state, and hierarchy, social contracts, that people have been able to remove themselves from that savagery Hobbes, in fact, talked about the state of nature and the state of war, as real, as how it was for nonwhite people He cited specifically Native-Americans, but only hypothetical for white people Locke also described Native-Americans as lazy They didn’t add value to land to create property, and this, in fact, justified the seizure of their territory So when these early philosophers were talking about the state of nature, this wasn’t some metaphorical obstruction that they were using They were literally describing what they saw as the non European world And then they were abstracting it to explain the virtues of the European world Rousseau did this as well Kant did this as well So in international relations theory since the 1950s, that kind of explicit discussion of race as a justification for exploitation and oppression has been, has kind of disappeared from discourse as has any discussion of race And one of the things that you find is that just as race has been dropped out of international relations studies, so have women And so these two groups of people, POC and women, kind of disappear in the very abstract way in which we approach international relations There are very few experts, very few articles that we cite that look at the issues of women or look at the issues of race So my former students will also recognize these names, Waltz, Walt, Morgenthau, Machiavelli, Went, Carr, Mearsheimer, Schweller, Putnam, Wallerstein, Spiegel, Nye, Benido, Muscito, George [Assumed spelling] I could go on and on I have like a paragraph of names These are all the names that we refer to in international relations In fact, you don’t want to enter a masters or Ph.D. program without familiarity with these names What’s common to all of them is that they are either American or European white men There are very, very few people of color in the Canon to whom students are referred, and whose work they are expected to know In fact, I can’t think of a prominent IR theorist who is also a person of color Now, there are people of color who write about comparative politics These are people who focus on area studies They look at Africa, or Latin America, or South Asia And one of the things you’ll notice in our own department is that’s how race ends up being divided within the IR field itself So Professor Sinha, who is South Asian, studies South Asia Professor Pei studies China Professor Khan, Professor Lee, who are former professors in the department, both from Korea, studied Korea T-Lee Paul [assumed spelling] is a very famous theorist in international relations, but he studies specifically South Asia Victor Cha, again, very famous theorist in international relations But again, he’s a comparativist He’s looking specifically at the Koreas There’s very few people who are people of color who are looking at IR theory, who are looking more generally at the relations between states and the dynamics of power in the international system I could go through a very similar comparison for women We are very short on prominent women in international relations studies as well So Short and Cambrory [assumed spelling], actually both women of color, discuss this phenomenon in a term that they called neo racism And they say neo racism effectively erases race, delegitimizes it as a topic in international relations, and focuses instead – allows IR academics to focus instead on nationality, or on class So you focus on culture, you look at the clash of civilizations, you look at refugees and migration, but in none of this do you ever explicitly acknowledge or admit the racial divide This is true across all of the paradigms So I mentioned that realism and liberalism are rooted in discussions of anarchy and hierarchy, these big obstructions, the state of nature, we talk about states and the balance of power And, again, one of the things that’s interesting in both of these is that we only focus on what are known as the great powers, which tend to be Europe and the United States And within Europe, only the most powerful states And so we really are looking at a world in which the only countries that are perceived to matter in the study of international relations are those that are dominated by white people We look at this in terms of great powers

We look at it in terms of even war So when we think about the world and history, and when we teach it in international relations, we’re encouraged to teach it in terms of the period before World War I, World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and then the post Cold War And we don’t ever look at it in terms of colonialism and post colonialism, for example We don’t look at it in terms of the period of slavery and post slavery We don’t look at the world as it’s been divided by race We just look at the winners in the division between the races, and we focus on what they have done, and what their experiences have been, and completely erase from our discussions of international relations Everybody else as being meaningless, because they have no impact on kind of global politics and global distribution of power I could talk about other paradigms There’s some room in constructivism for critical race theory It’s not very prominent There’s very little room in Marxism for discussion of race Marxism tends to focus, as you know, on class Feminism focuses on sex and gender We don’t get a lot of intersectionality in international relations Economics, where you would believe there to be tremendous amount of room for discussions of race Again, class development, humanitarian assistance, the first versus the third world, we again don’t talk about race explicitly Discussions of ethics I mean, here you would think race would be front and center But, no, we talk about sovereignty, we talk about human rights Again, it’s devoid of discussions of race And then I teach several courses on security And so I look specifically at how race is addressed in questions of security, and security studies, and discussions of war And one of the things that you see completely missing from any of these discussions is kind of the long, tenacious tendrils of racist practices So we don’t see discussions of slavery, and the implications of slavery on the way that the world is organized today How people were taken from territories, how the population was drained of young, strong people The effects then on local patterns of power, on development in the regions from which people were taken We don’t talk about colonialism and its long standing effects The exploitation, the state building, the border delineation that created the states that we now accept as kind of this reified construction of the world These are all functions of colonial past that we again try to ignore as we talk about great powers, and distributions of power, and international relations And we certainly only really talk about genocide in terms of the Holocaust, sometimes in terms of the Armenian Genocide But we don’t talk about the genocides that were perpetrated across the African continent For example, in Congo, where King Leopold of Belgium did things that Hitler probably would have liked to do, except he just couldn’t go that far So we have these, we have these pervasive kind of European, parochial views European and American parochial views of international relations that have ignored in terms of security the implications of all the things that these powerful countries have done around the world We also don’t talk then about how the state system compounds the erasure of race, and how because we talk in terms of states, we can justify exploiting, ignoring, oppressing, repressing people on the basis of national interests And this became very, very clear when President Trump decided to put in place his immigration ban, which quickly became known as the Muslim ban, because initially it was mostly Muslim countries We were forced to kind of contend with the fact that there was a racist underpinning to this rejection of immigrants, and this ban on the movement of people into the United States from these specific countries Likewise, we talk about Brexit And Brexit is, I mean, among other things, this incredibly foolish self defeating exercise But it was also rooted in large part in a deep racism, and a deep fear of non British people kind of overwhelming Britain and British culture And in France you see very similar things where race isn’t even allowed to be discussed Race has been literally formally erased It’s now you are French, or not French And you can be French of any race, but what this means is that if you’ve experienced racism as a French person, and you try to call out racism, you will be gas lighted, because race is no longer a thing So it becomes very difficult as a French person to even acknowledge that race is an issue

And yet France, not only as a country with a huge immigrant population from Northern Africa, but also a country with a huge history of colonialism in Africa, France is probably the last country that should be denying race and avoiding discussions of the implications of its historic past Its colonial past, and its exploitations, and activities, especially in Algeria, but throughout Africa It’s the last country that should be denying that race exists There are real security implications of ignoring race There’s international relations implications of ignoring race One of the things is that we can’t deal with questions of the distribution of power honestly We can’t deal with the questions of economic relations honestly We can’t deal with questions of immigration and the movement of population honestly, if we ignore race entirely, which is something that we do Ignoring race also allows us to scapegoat people We scapegoat them as traders, and spies, and internal threats And we do it usually in the terms of nationalism rather than terms of race But as everybody who’s ever looked at the history of America knows, a really clear example of how this has played out was in the Japanese internment camps during World War II, where we weren’t throwing Germans into internment camps But we were throwing Japanese people, and people of Japanese descent into internment camps because of race They were visibly different It was easy to identify who they were And the American population as a whole was much more comfortable with moving those people into camps than they would have been moving, for example, people of German descent into camps, which was never even proposed We also dehumanize, because when we kind of internalize that people of other races in other places are somehow lesser, and we do internalize it It means that we can begin to think of things like collateral damage without understanding that what we’re talking about is the deaths and murders of people So drone strikes and air strikes, things that would be absolutely unacceptable within the US itself, become acceptable in countries where the people are black and brown We don’t see drone strikes and air strikes in Europe We don’t see them happening even in most of Asia, but we do see them in the Middle East and in Africa We also see a propensity for fighting wars abroad This is something that the European states prefer, clearly, and that the Americans also prefer, which is to have the fighting in other people’s territory where the presumption seems to be that those people will be less affected They have less to lose They are less civilized Again, these are internalized beliefs about race that then justify actual current international behaviors We also see this with arms sales to terrible governments, justification for exploitive economic practices And we see it in things like discussions of human rights, and how low that ultimately falls in our priorities We see it in discussions of humanitarian intervention, and it just comes up a lot So I’m going to move on because I’m going very slowly And I just want to make sure that I get to the rest of what I wanted to talk about One of the concepts that we don’t talk about enough that has been completely stripped of race is nation building Nation building sounds very generous It sounds kind It sounds benign Nation building sounds like something that we should be doing It’s used in the west to describe the infusion of military economic political aid and assistance to forestall, prevent, or mitigate state failures And we usually talk about it in terms of American and European post conflict efforts, or the efforts at the tail end of an ongoing conflict to create and build new governments What we don’t talk about is that we’re talking about – what we don’t talk about or acknowledge is that nation building is effectively the effort to transplant western patterns of behavior on other structures On structures in the Middle East, on structures in Africa, on structures in parts of Asia where we go in and try to impose basically what white people have developed onto nonwhite people And we don’t talk about it in that context This is also a failure to understand that where we’re trying to nation build is most often in places where there had been structures, political structures, economic structures, social structures that were wiped out in the past by colonialism, that were then preempted from further development by violence, by post colonial kleptocracy

They were influenced by slavery, and by conquering forces So one of the concepts that’s useful when you’re thinking about race and international relations is the palimpsest, which is kind of the paper that constantly erases itself, and you write something new and what was there before is gone In this case, older cultures are written over by newer ones The first nations, locals, indigenous peoples were written over by colonialism, and they’re now being written over by nation building And that’s something that we need to be careful of So I think I mostly covered the things that I wanted to mention to you And I’ve gotten all the way to my half hour point already, so I’m very happy to open this up for questions >> Thank you, Professor Taw Ben Turner is our first question Ben, go ahead, and unmute yourself, and ask away >> Hey, professor One of the things that I was thinking about as you were talking was larger minority groups in states that are dealing with them in pretty despicable ways So I think of the Rohingya in Myanmar, I think of the Uyghurs I think of the Kurds Maybe the role that non state actors in that sense and cultural minorities play in both the sort of self definition of those states, whether in trying to crush them, or trying to make sense of them, and also how they’re seen in the international spotlight, right So Bolton’s book had this conversation with Ping, with Xi Jinping and Trump about like these concentration camps as a sort of bartering chip, and whether they’d get approved or not And Trump sort of said, it’s fine, do whatever you want Whereas in other contexts, like, we would have a lot more, or maybe people different than Trump would have more hesitation to approve things like that, given the implications of rounding up a group of a minority in a country and persecuting them So could you maybe speak to again, just like those cultural groups, and how they have bearing on those state actors >> Yeah. I mean, one of the problems for Trump, of course, is that if he wanted to hold Xi Jinping accountable for internment camps in China, he would have to answer for internment camps in the United States, right And so Trump has been very clear about using race as a justification for all kinds of behaviors, limitations on immigration, detentions of people who have committed no crimes, the family separations, kind of across the board And he’s been dog whistling like crazy during current events, trying to talk about, you know, race relations within the US more explicitly between the white and black communities within the United States But race is certainly not, and racism itself, and structural racism are not things that are unique to America I mean, we know that this pervades all cultures I mean, my Chinese mother-in-law was appalled that my husband married me, but she was glad that I wasn’t black, right Because there’s a racial hierarchy there If you look in India, the racial hierarchy is explicit If you look in pretty much any country In Africa, there are differences less of race, but colorism is a huge issue, right Colorism I think itself being a long standing kind of nasty tendril of colonialism that’s pervaded everywhere in the world Where you see, you know, people who are literally of the same race, but different tinges, different hues, organizing themselves hierarchically on the basis of how light or dark they are And so this is certainly not something unique to the United States And neither is this kind of systemic, structural, institution building around race and color That’s something that’s global And it’s then used because it’s a very powerful thing to create in and out groups And it’s used to create in and out groups that then justify behaviors, seizures of land, movement of population off of territory, incarceration of population, the expulsion of population that’s happened with Rohingya I mean, there’s all kinds of terrible things that then are justified on the basis of these racialized hierarchies >> All right We’re going to go to Art Dodd next Art, if you’d like to unmute >> Yeah, Jenny, thank you Let’s talk vaccines for a moment How would you see if you were to write an article about a COVID 19 development and achievement, and critical race theory coming up regarding funding from where to where were developed, how distributed, how long? >> Yeah. So [laughs] populations that – nonwhite populations

around the world are actually terrified that they’ll be excluded from access to the vaccine And one of the things we’ve seen in recent weeks is both in South Africa and Brazil the governments in populations have begun testing vaccines in order to be able to get a jump on access to those vaccines that they fear they would otherwise be locked out of We know from history that when big Pharma, whether it’s in Europe or the US, develops a medication, the medication becomes very expensive It’s difficult to gain access to Distribution of it globally isn’t guaranteed What happens then is countries like India and Brazil more recently begin to develop their own off the shelf versions of those vaccines, or those medications in order to provide those to their own populations, which creates huge economic upset, and lawsuits, and all kinds of other efforts by the corporations and the companies in which they reside to protect the profits from those kinds of medications But there are going to be efforts to end run that And we’re already seeing that with both Brazil and South Africa >> We jump to the chat really fast, and then we’ll go back to Andy and then Allie Linda asks, in your opinion, did any point in the history of race lead to the change of gender terms in writing, use of he and she, over the gender term changes more related to the feminist movement? >> Yeah. Gender term changes were more related to two things The feminist movement, and the LGBTQ movement, which really raised awareness about and created kind of normative shifts in understanding of gender as being more along a spectrum than being kind of just either, or And so the pronoun shifts and the language shifts around gender really come more even into LGBTQ In fact, you find that there are some feminists who reject it You know, most prominently, J.K. Rowling just came out in opposition to acknowledgement of trans people, and the use of other than he and she pronouns, because she thought that – she sees it as a threat to women’s rights and women’s empowerment So I would actually say that you get the gender changes neither from racist literature, critical race literature, nor from feminist literature, but really from LGBTQ studies, and LGBTQ activists >> And Andy Willis Andy, if you want to unmute and ask away >> Hey, Jenny >> Hi. I miss you >> [Laughs] I was wondering, you spoke at the beginning a little bit about anarchy, and how it’s a foundational concept in IR that has its root in white understanding of savagery that existed beyond Europe And that sparked a lot of things for me As you know, we’ve talked anarchy a little bit And I was thinking of two things in particular One, Francis Fukuyama’s duology on political order, and his deconstruction of anarchy at the beginning of that, based on a historical analysis of how groups initially came together And the second was an article that you posted to Facebook a little while ago about boys, those boys who were stuck in an island >> Jorge >> And when it was expected that they turn on each other, they, in fact, came to each other’s aid and worked collaboratively And I wonder how nonwhite voices and accounts on anarchy reflect back on IR theory, and have challenged it in many ways >> I mean, the thing is, is that you and I both presume that there are nonwhite voices somewhere out there that challenge anarchy And we both presume that there’s some good work on this I can’t find it >> I mean, wouldn’t you say Fukuyama is at least one example of that? >> I have so many problems with Fukuyama [Laughs] But among my problems with Fukuyama is that he kind of rewrote the history of how anarchy became a foundational element of international relations theory I mean, if you you and I have read Locke, and Hobbes, and Rousseau, and Mill, and we know that anarchy was considered the state of nature It was this jungle, and that it was conceived of in terms by people who were explicitly racist in terms of savage versus civilized

And that, you know, they were celebrating the hierarchies that civilized people had created to lift themselves out of anarchy And that those were then used to justify the – well, to justify colonization and oppression of other people in the name of bringing them good governance, and civilization, and freedom, and all the other good things that the West has brought everybody else So you know, I think Fukuyama rewrote history a little bit there Which is, you know, it’s what he does >> I’m going to go to Allie >> Professor Taw, it’s been awhile So I really loved the way that you were talking about things that weren’t necessarily talked about, you know, in the general IR courses You know, we’re talking about slavery and internment, the different ways of talking about nation building and development I actually think we had this conversation when I was still at CMC But it made me wonder, one, whether this has changed the way you view the courses that are offered in the IR major at CMC And I was also wondering, just in the broader IR community, what your thoughts were on how to make the academic sector, the academic space, a more inclusive one >> Yeah. That’s a that actually was the crux of the conversation I was having with my colleagues this week, both of whom are bipod Both of whom have struggled to, you know, in their terms, decolonize their syllabi, and try to bring in more voices and more experiences And so far in international relations, because the major journals, the major kind of international relations organizations ISA is the, you know, the kind of the premier, International Studies Association The premier international organization, and they don’t even have a subcommittee, a committee, a group on race, right So there’s no way within the kind of current structure of international relations as a study, to put race front and center Even if you don’t want to center it, there’s no way to kind of include it as a primary thread as it should be throughout kind of a syllabus So one of my colleagues, she’s a South Asian background from South Africa, has decided that she’s not going to be teaching the paradigms You know, I start you guys in the paradigms, and then we kind of branch off from there, right She decided to just not teach her students the paradigms, and instead what she does is case studies And she uses the case studies to explore kind of all the various dynamics that international relations has contained within it, including race relations, and explores them through case studies My other colleague has tried to find authors from Asia, authors from African universities who are working on these kinds of things The problem is, is that the most prominent international relations scholars around the world have all studied in the United States And so they all pride themselves on being, I’m either a Waltzeon, or I studied Wendt You know, they associate themselves with these kind of canonical iconic figures in IR who are white European men And so it becomes very difficult to find within IR a good way to do this Now, within CMC, you know, each of us is trying to evolve how we approach these questions So, you know, we have – I’ve, you know, I teach IR I now have sections on race, and LGBTQ, and women, and it’s evolved over time So people who had me 10 years ago are like, what? She didn’t do that with me Because I didn’t I didn’t know I’m learning, right And I know that, you know, many of my colleagues are trying to introduce this into the work they’re doing as well How successful are we being? I don’t know I just propose that we do – that we actually have each of our centers, our institutes, Gould, and Keck, and human rights do a study this year that deliberately looks at race in the context of the discipline on which they’re focused So race and IR, race and human rights, race in kind of the humanities So I’m hoping that we can make that happen Nice to see you >> I’m going to go to Caitlin Walker, and then I have a question in the chat that I’m going to go to Caitlin, go ahead >> Hi, it’s so good to see you again How are you? >> It’s been forever It’s so nice to see you >> Good to see you So I was wondering As you started off the talk, you said that race has effectively disappeared from the discussion

of foreign policy beginning around the ’50s And around the same time, you would also see that the United States had become increasingly militaristic in its foreign policy We have – we’ve done a lot of work in trying to use neutral terms here outside of the traditional North Atlantic space, and outside of where we were thought of having our traditional foreign policy relations So I’m curious to hear your thoughts on how racial relations in the United States impacted our foreign policy from the Cold War era onwards I’m also interested in hearing how the racial demographics of the military play into how that would carry out Because while enlisted members of the military actually have greater representation for black service members relative to the civilian workforce, you don’t find that at the top levels at all And I can see a lot of space for that permeating white supremacist foreign policy So please say more These are all half baked thoughts in my head >> I mean, what you’ve described is a thread, right And the thread is kind of how race is conceived of in the United States, then had serious implications on how race was practiced by the US and its foreign policy And it had serious implications for two main reasons One was the ideas that underpin how the US presented itself in the world, and perceived other parts of the world And the other is very practical, which is that black Americans are just desperately underrepresented in the State Department at the highest levels of leadership in the military And you’re right Right. Black Americans are and have been over represented among the enlisted population of the military, but in leadership they are very few and far between And, you know, to rise up to that level has been, you know, there’s a glass ceiling, and it’s been a racial glass ceiling And then there’s the – so you don’t have those voices You don’t have that perspective You don’t have the people who have experienced race as it’s kind of built and baked into the American political structure and economic structure, then making policy internationally You only have the white people who have benefited from those structures making policy internationally Benefited from erased, and then denied those structures, making foreign policy internationally And I think it then justifies behaviors that the US has, you know, felt free to go, and, you know, build democracies in places that are resistant to American values, and resistant to American belief systems The US also is willing to work with people who have tremendous structural racist problems in their own countries From various authoritarian regimes to countries, you know, like China and India where the US has no leg to stand on to demand improvements in how those countries treat their minority populations, but also doesn’t seem to have any interest in doing that And so I think that what you see is that US foreign policy has been permeated by kind of the ways in which the elite in the US, the white, predominantly male elite in the US understand race, or don’t, ignore race because they can, and then behave that way internationally as well >> Go to a question in the chat and then back to the virtual hands raised Ken from Dallas asks, religion would seem to be a key element in this discussion, especially historically How does religion play into or impact this discussion about race both historically and currently? >> Yeah. That’s such a good question And it’s such an interesting question in the US where, you know, if you think about it, when Italians first came to America, these Catholic Italians, they weren’t perceived as white by the Protestant elites in the United States Subsequently, you know, Jews came, and they also were not perceived as white So you also have this kind of racist component to perception Because, you know, race is a construct, and it was constructed in the United States in such a way that it was exclusionary And then people who came in who were darker cast and with different religious backgrounds were immediately shunted into kind of the lower echelons of the racial hierarchy And, so, you know, religion plays a role in that way Religion also plays a role insofar as it’s another organizing principle So we organize by class, we organize by gender and sex, we organize by race,

and we also organize by religion And we organize ourselves into in and out groups by religion as well Another thing to keep in mind is that religion has been used, deliberately deployed as a means of, as a means of subduing or bringing into the fold people of other races, people who are perceived as other or lesser And so there was a huge push for sending Christian missionaries out into Africa, sending Christian missionaries into Asia, creating a strong root of Christian belief among slaves in the United States itself Religion has been used as a tool, as an instrument And I would – it was used in the colonization of the Hawaiian Islands quite explicitly And it’s been used in, you know, in many ways to justify what’s perceived or what might be perceived by the people who are sharing their religion, or promoting, or demanding that others adopt their religion It’s been, you know, perceived as maybe doing a good thing But it’s also been a tool of oppression >> Go to Michael Fern Michael, if you want to go ahead and unmute, and ask a question >> Sure >> Hi >> Hi, Professor Taw It seems that one of the difficulties that I see in addressing race is that, like you said, it is a social construction that seems to vary from time and place, and from country to country So in discussing the role of race in IR, do you believe it’s necessary to define it in a way that gives it certain contours to distinguish it, for example, from culture or ethnicity, and maintain some kind of definitional uniformity? >> Yeah. I mean, a very famous black political theorist whose name I’m forgetting right now actually wrote that the problem of the world really was drawn along color lines And I think IR in ignoring race, in eliding race, and erasing race, does this thing that we as a culture kind of try to do more generally, or have tried to do until very recently more generally, which is we gaslight people who make claims of racism And in IR if you tried to introduce race in the past, you were immediately kind of shunted to the fringe as dealing with something that clearly wasn’t consistent with these big abstract issues And yet, in doing that, what you do is you ignore how race has literally, significantly, substantively played in people’s behaviors Now, you don’t have to define race in your own terms What you can do instead is look at how race has been defined by the people who used it So how did colonizers use race to justify what they did? If you look at the kind of early colonizers documents on the Hawaiian Islands They talked about the Hawaiians as savages They talked about bringing them, you know, into religion, because they had to be introduced to culture, to values But in effect, this was all a justification for erasing local power structures, erasing local identities for, you know, there was a big LGBTQ community or facet of Hawaiian culture that was completely erased And this was all done kind of in the name of religion, and culture, and civilization, but it was clearly, clearly racial And so, and justified in terms of, you know, bringing these savages, you know, the kinds of good life that we enjoy So I think if we just use other people’s conceptions of race as it was weaponized, that’s adequate in IR, but we don’t even do that >> Thank you >> I don’t know if I answered your question >> Michael, any follow up there? Good >> Yeah. I guess one instance where race was specifically addressed that I can recall in recent memory was when Susan Rice called a Chinese diplomat, you know, a racist disgrace, because the diplomat made some mention about Washington, D.C., and areas that Americans won’t go to because it has blacks It does seem that, like you said race is often used as a weapon in a way, as opposed to sort of more of a kind of solution And maybe that’s – I was wondering what your thoughts are on that, the use of race as a weapon in IR, particularly in modern times >> Yeah. I think erasing race is itself kind of a cruel thing to do

Because it diminishes the impact on the people who know They see that they have been oppressed and repressed in the, you know – the brown and black people in the world have seen how they have been oppressed and repressed And yet there’s no language in international relations theory to explain what happened to them And that seems like a cruel thing to do It’s a form of gas lighting It’s a diminishment of their experience, and a diminishment of kind of the dynamics that allowed this to happen And it also means that if you don’t acknowledge it, you can’t fix it And so, you know, just like people are talking now that we have to acknowledge Black Lives Matter We have to acknowledge that there has been systemic structural racism in the United States That has to happen within the discipline of international relations too, because as we’ve already talked about, foreign policy is permeated with kind of the effects of racism and the ideas of racism And if you don’t acknowledge it, you can’t fix it So I think you’re right It has been weaponized, and it needs to be fixed And the only way to fix it is to acknowledge it >> I have a question I’m going to take from the chat We’re going to move over to Emma What do you believe Condoleezza Rice’s impact or legacy will be amongst IR scholars as it relates to bringing forward issues and topics about race or just in general? >> Yeah. Condoleezza Rice it’s an interesting story, because she’s really a comparativist So she focused on Russia Like, her expertise wasn’t even on, you know, these kinds of issues And she came into the Bush administration kind of denying that race or gender, race or sex had any implication She didn’t want to have those conversations She is part of the erasure of the role of race, and the role of gender and sex in how US foreign policy has been undertaken And so in her denial of those things, which, you know, maybe it was that if she had acknowledged them, then she would have to somehow describe her own experience in those terms And she wasn’t willing to do it Maybe she was afraid she would be tokenized Maybe she was afraid that she would antagonize the very people who had supported her on her way up I don’t know But she decided not to acknowledge those kind of racial and gender dynamics, and in so doing I think she will have very little effect on these kinds of questions And in the broader sense, you know, her effect is the effect of the Bush administration So you know, that we had two big wars start during the Bush administration that she was a proponent of A very active, aggressive US foreign policy that, you know, she was fully on board with a very neoconservative strain of American policymaking I think that’s where her effect lies >> Go to Emma Henson next Emma, if you’d like to ask your question >> Hello. So this is something we talked a lot about in war But in keeping with the theme of racial erasure, when you look into FGM, and IR scholarship on FGM, you mostly come across the idea of cultural relativism And I’m wondering what role you think race plays in this argument of cultural relativism Because to me and the CMC alum that I’m with right now, we came up with two possible ideas The first being that cultural relativism is a way for white western countries to not overcome the barriers inherent to addressing FGM, because it is, of course, something that almost solely happens to young female black and brown bodies And then the other argument being that cultural relativism, it allows white western countries to kind of pat themselves on the back and say, we are done being colonizers You know, like we’re – but they completely miss the point, obviously But I’m curious as to what you think the role of race is in that idea of cultural relativism, and also why the question of race just doesn’t show up when you dive into female genital mutilation, especially IR scholarship about FGM? >> Yeah. So this question of cultural relativism, and we did talk about it quite a bit, right It’s incredibly hard when you’re talking about race or gender, and here you have kind of the intersectionality of them at its most explicit, because you have, you know, race, and gender, and youth, and violence, and destruction, and all of these things And what role should the west have in trying to stop this violence against young black and brown girls and women? And is there any role that the west should have?

And, you know, we’ve also talked about this more generally in terms of the rights of Saudi women, and the rights of women more generally in very strict Muslim communities The role, the right, you know, we’ve talked about this in lots of contexts When is it okay to intervene? And in what means and by what means can you intervene? And, you know, I don’t know if cultural relativism is a cop out Which is what you’re implying, right Is it that, you know, we just don’t want to get involved? We don’t care enough to get involved? And so, therefore, we have this, like, wonderful you can have your cake and eat it too We don’t have to get involved, and we can pat ourselves on the back for not engaging in something that would be messy, and complex, and difficult And we can pat ourselves on the back and say, well, we don’t have a right to be involved, and so we should let them do it themselves, and deal with this themselves Is that what’s happening? Or is what’s happening, actually, I mean, maybe that’s a part of it Like, let’s acknowledge that’s probably a part of it But the other part is, is what would be the right thing to do? Right. Is the right thing to for the west to go in and teach these people how this isn’t good? I mean, in my view the right thing to do is for the rest to help elevate the voices of local people who have made that decision, and who are making that argument And that’s something that can be done That there are local women who are activists against FGM They should be elevated, they should be protected, they should be given voice internationally, they should be created in, you know, heroes, if this is something against which something we believe strongly is a terrible thing to do And I do believe strongly it’s a terrible thing to do, you know, rooted in kind of this sick patriarchy But it’s something that’s been adopted and accepted by generations and generations of women And so it can’t be that the external powers come in, especially white external powers come in, and say to black and brown people, stop doing this It just is inappropriate So what do you do? We talked about norm diffusion, that you start at the United Nations, and you let norms trickle down You also start at the bottom up by supporting local organizations and let norms trickle up And you hope that somewhere between those two you get positive change without any kind of international enforcement or efforts to enforce foreign values on populations that have experienced too much of that already >> Thank you, Professor Taw It is 5 o’clock, and I want to be respectful of everyone’s time, and of course yours Do you, Professor Taw, are you willing to stay on for a few more minutes? We have two more people in the hand raised area We have about four or five questions in the chat still If you’re open, we’ll keep going a little bit longer, but of course I understand if anyone here needs to leave, please do so We appreciate you joining us We do have Professor John Shields tomorrow talking about Trump’s Democrats Specifically areas that were traditionally blue that went red for the 2016 election And what he thinks will happen in 2020 So please join us tomorrow Otherwise, thank you so much and have a lovely evening So >> Bye, Evan >> Bye, Mom Okay. [Laughs] We’re going to go to Fiona next Fiona, go ahead and ask your question >> Hi, Professor Taw So I have a question that is somewhat related to what Emma just asked, and not an easy one, perhaps I guess, just thinking about kind of the like what’s next from a policymaking perspective in particular I think just talk to you a bit of in academia and scholarship, at least what starting to bring up to the lens of free and critical race theory would look like But from a policy perspective and using kind of like the frameworks that I know Kennedy’s made really popular of assimilationist versus segregationist versus anti racist I’m curious, just like what you’ve maybe been thinking about what anti racist foreign policy looks like And, like, I mean, I have a few ideas And I see in specific issues such as FGM, like what that could look like But on a broader scale, even just applied to security studies, like what would an anti racist security studies or security policy frame look like? >> Yeah. No, that’s a that’s an incredibly hard question So the first thing is that I would, you know, kind of reiterate that part of the problem is who makes foreign policy, right We have predominantly white men making foreign policy, and we know how much representation matters in even the recognition of issues internationally, even the identification of problems, even, you know, the creation of new perspectives

And there’s been this kind of overwhelming kind of shared perspective, whether it’s liberal internationalists on the right, on the left, or neo cons on the right It’s been, you know, kind of birds of a feather with, you know, a few women sprinkled in, and very few people of color So the first step, I think, towards fixing that is getting more people in, right Having, and unfortunately, we’ve seen a drain in this administration So women and people of color, just whatever was there is gone, right The numbers are incredibly low And, in fact, I was just looking at the numbers in the Pentagon today And they have just diminished precipitously for both women and people of color at the decision making levels So, you know, the first thing for anti racist policy would be to kind of have anti racist hiring in our governmental organizations, and also in our academic departments, right We have no black people in government We have, I think, three black professors on campus How do you have kind of an education that not only acknowledges race, but then becomes actively anti racist if you don’t have people who can represent that experience, that lived experience to the students on campus and talk about it So I think that in and of itself is a problem The fact that we have 4% black students enrolled at CMC, and that’s kind of a consistent number over the year, you know, over the years How do you have an actively anti racist education, if you can’t even overcome issues of who’s on campus, and who’s teaching And then what you’re talking about in the materials that are available, and how you then take those and apply them to issues of actual policymaking? So I think first and foremost, it’s a question of representation And then in terms of foreign policy, you know, specifically kind of trying to have an actively anti racist foreign policy, what would that look like? I, you know, the first thing that comes to mind, obviously, is immigration Where you would have to stop thinking of people as others And you would have to rethink kind of the state system, issues of refugees In a world in which we’re seeing massive mobilization of populations, not only because of conflict in Afghanistan, in Northern Africa, and Syria, but also because – and you know, Burma, and so many other places, but also because of the environment Massive mobilization of population If we don’t become less racist in our understanding of those things, so that we humanize these people who have legitimate, viable need to find a place in the world, right Islanders whose islands are now completely underwater, and yet because we’re in a state system that is a function of this kind of white European hierarchy as it was created through colonialism, they have nowhere to go, nowhere legitimate to go So what would be the first thing I would deal with that would be anti racist? It would be rethinking the state system and nationality in ways that would allow more fluidity for people >> Thank you We’ll go to Brian Toy next, and then we’ll go into the chat Brian >> Okay. I’m going to ask my question here Sorry, guys Yeah. So I guess one of the things that’s been on my mind is that, you muted there Sorry. Sorry about that Professor Taw I probably would have been at CMC Yeah, there we go Yeah. It’s been a while since I’ve been in Claremont But, yeah So, no. I just mentioned in the chat that I’m remodeling my grandpa’s house That’s kind of my work right now And on the other hand, you know, I guess, in the issues of race and gender, what a lot of people are talking about is dating Why is that things are unfair, and that blacks and browns, black and brown people are not allowed in the workplace And I think one of that one of the reasons is why is that one of the reasons why is that people are not comfortable dating them, that people are uncomfortable, and I include that myself in somewhat in that category And how can we resolve these uncomfortable feelings that we have towards people that are considered the other, that are that – how can we reach out and so that dating can be comfortable between black and white people, and black and Asian people, and Asian and blonde people, and white people? And, you know, we’re talking about, this is something that’s personal to me

I’ve had experience, you know, with my elderly black roommate to hit on me, and when I was a young person at CMC and shortly after with people from the Country Club who, you know, I was familiar with So if you could speak to that It’s an issue, I think that needs addressing >> I mean, let me put it in international relations terms You can bring it bring it back to personal after that Okay. So it turns out that if you have no exposure to people, you become fearful of them So if you look at the studies of the UK, and who supported Brexit and who opposed Brexit And the people who supported Brexit are people who did not have immigrants in the neighborhoods, who had no interactions with immigrants, and who had kind of developed in their minds this idea that immigrants would come in and change the culture, and threaten their values, and upset kind of their Britishness and they were terrified, right And the people who were exposed to immigrants felt very differently And so I think, you know, that’s one thing Actual, immediate exposure to people changes your views And then there’s the other things that change your views, right You know, deep reading What kind of media are you exposed to? I just watched Space Force, which I like stupid television, and I loved it And one of my favorite, favorite things in Space Force is the couple that emerges A spoiler for anyone who hasn’t seen it But this gorgeous couple emerges, which is like this Asian scientist, and this black astronaut And they end up in love because they share this like really, really nerdy love of manga, right And it’s awesome, and it’s just so natural, and it becomes beautiful And I think the more we see that portrayed, the more we understand that that these are possibilities, that we can – I’m married to a Chinese dude, right It’s just the – I grew up exposed to lots of different kinds of people Just never even was a question And for people who have been more insulated and more isolated, the way out of that is exposure >> I watched my first two episodes of Space Force last night >> It’s so good, right? >> It is. And now I know what happens So thanks >> Sorry. [Laughs] >> I liked it too I liked it too I thought it was very, very well done and quickly done So I’m going to go to Ashraf I’m going to ahead, and unmute, and ask a question >> Hi, Professor Taw >> Oh, God I’m happy to see you >> Very good to see you I heard there’s opportunity to watch you, or hear you lecture again, so I couldn’t miss it Okay. Like in your classes, you’re going to have to dumb it down for me a little bit I know this is like super theoretical and stuff I’m just looking for like the pragmatic way to go and like solve – obviously, you can’t solve it overnight But tactics and things we can do to solve some of these underlying issues So my question is, you know, what weapons do the quote, unquote good guys have in policing institutional, international relations, political racism? And, like, the examples I think of are, Ben brought up the example of the Rohingya internment camps in China And, you know, Israel annexation of the West Bank next month, and things like that There’s certain things that just seem wrong by human nature Like, what can we do? And my request is that you please don’t say the UN >> You had my classes You know I’m not going to say the UN [Laughs] The UN is good for norms, but it’s not good for, you know, these kind of more immediate things Look, you’ve asked this, like, very practical question It’s actually the Rohingya who have been pushed out of Burma into Bangladesh It’s the Uyghurs who China has interred It’s the, you know, Central Americans and Mexicans, immigrants and refugees whom we’ve interred There’s – this is a global problem of the use of identity to take advantage of, or subjugate, or weaponize a population in order to achieve political ends And I could walk you through why China’s interred the Uyghurs I could walk you through why Burma shoved the Rohingya out I could walk you through why the Trump administration has demonized immigrants And in every case, there’s a political reason for doing this It creates a unity among a subgroup of the population It creates justification for government action It creates opportunities in China for all kinds of, you know, technological advancements that are going to be rooted in how that we are being treated Like, it’s terrible So, you know, what is the solution to that? I mean, the solution in the US is that you vote out the Trump administration

The solution in China is that Xi is somehow forced out of power, because that guy’s a, you know, a wreck waiting to happen Oh, my God You know, the solution in Burma is to kind of wind it back to efforts to liberalize the government that, you know, kind of had started to happen, and then were reversed pretty dramatically The solution is the long term awareness of populations that this unacceptable And in the short term, what do you do? I mean, the US cannot say to China, don’t have this, unless we get rid of ours We can’t, you know, we can give Burma all kinds of reasons to want to have trade with the US, and security relations with the US You can create incentives, but you have to care, and the American population doesn’t care about the Rohingya There’s no domestic pressure for the US to act on that issue So what does it take? It takes caring It takes exposure So thank God for the media It takes knowledge So this is why education And it takes caring And that’s you I’m sorry I can’t give you a better answer >> I appreciate it Thank you >> That is a very good question and answer to end on I’m sorry, everyone I know we have about four or five more questions, but we need to end by 5:15 Professor Taw, thank you so much Hopefully, we’ll see you again in a month or two I will share the chat with Professor Taw I know many of you have expressed your thanks to her via the chat, and I will share that We’ll have John Shields talking about Trump’s democrats tomorrow Next week we have Professor Conver talking about the art of persuasion as well as Nyree Gray, our chief civil rights officer and associate vice president for diversity inclusion, which I think would be very good for a number of people here to join on Thursday of next week, July 2nd I’m going to unmute everyone A reminder that we do record these They are online Go to cmc.edu/alumni or cmc.edu/parents and click on the virtual library A lot of great content there So unmuting everyone You could say hello, goodbye, thank you Wonderful seeing everyone Be safe. Have a good night >> Thank you >> Thank you >> Bye >> Thanks >> Good night, everyone Be safe >> Bye >> Bye Caitlin Thanks Brian Sorry I didn’t get your second question

You Want To Have Your Favorite Car?

We have a big list of modern & classic cars in both used and new categories.