What do you think?
Rate this book
The Cold War and the Color Line: American Race Relations in the Global Arena
After World War II the United States faced two preeminent challenges: how to administer its responsibilities abroad as the world’s strongest power, and how to manage the rising movement at home for racial justice and civil rights. The effort to contain the growing influence of the Soviet Union resulted in the Cold War, a conflict that emphasized the American commitment to freedom. The absence of that freedom for nonwhite American citizens confronted the nation’s leaders with an embarrassing contradiction.
Racial discrimination after 1945 was a foreign as well as a domestic problem. World War II opened the door to both the U.S. civil rights movement and the struggle of Asians and Africans abroad for independence from colonial rule. America’s closest allies against the Soviet Union, however, were colonial powers whose interests had to be balanced against those of the emerging independent Third World in a multiracial, anticommunist alliance. At the same time, U.S. racial reform was essential to preserve the domestic consensus needed to sustain the Cold War struggle.
The Cold War and the Color Line is the first comprehensive examination of how the Cold War intersected with the final destruction of global white supremacy. Thomas Borstelmann pays close attention to the two Souths―Southern Africa and the American South―as the primary sites of white authority’s last stand. He reveals America’s efforts to contain the racial polarization that threatened to unravel the anticommunist western alliance. In so doing, he recasts the history of American race relations in its true international context, one that is meaningful and relevant for our own era of globalization.
Racial discrimination after 1945 was a foreign as well as a domestic problem. World War II opened the door to both the U.S. civil rights movement and the struggle of Asians and Africans abroad for independence from colonial rule. America’s closest allies against the Soviet Union, however, were colonial powers whose interests had to be balanced against those of the emerging independent Third World in a multiracial, anticommunist alliance. At the same time, U.S. racial reform was essential to preserve the domestic consensus needed to sustain the Cold War struggle.
The Cold War and the Color Line is the first comprehensive examination of how the Cold War intersected with the final destruction of global white supremacy. Thomas Borstelmann pays close attention to the two Souths―Southern Africa and the American South―as the primary sites of white authority’s last stand. He reveals America’s efforts to contain the racial polarization that threatened to unravel the anticommunist western alliance. In so doing, he recasts the history of American race relations in its true international context, one that is meaningful and relevant for our own era of globalization.
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 10, 2002
9 people are currently reading
267 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
November 28, 2019
Thomas Borstelmann has done another excellent job (a word of Dutch South African origin, btw) in drawing the dots between race and American foreign policy in the cold war era. In focusing on this particular timeslice, he somewhat slights the connections already established: the US "colored uprisings" of 1919 were seen as manifestations of Bolshevism to be crushed in the name of preserving freedom, as well as white supremacy. Reactionary authors like T. Lothrop Stoddard penned immensely popular tracts like "The Rising Tide of Color," linking the rise of Communism with the anti-colonial revolt against "white world supremacy." The Bolsheviks, in their turn, were promoting this link by sponsoring the 1920 "Congress of the Peoples of the East" in Baku. Thus when the cold war hit the fan there was an already well-disposed audience on hand to receive it. Stoddard's own embrace of Nazism underscored the bankruptcy of the old racial formulas for the postwar world.
But as Borstelmann shows, those ideas did not pass easily. US elites' racial attitudes were patronizing at best, at home and abroad (see Melvyn Leffler's "A Preponderance of Power" for the social views of US policy-making elites.) All "colored folks" were like servants: to be addressed respectfully, but firmly put in their place when forgetting it. Eisenhower, Dulles, and Reagan were sincerely confused at the ingratitude of such colored folk to rest content with sweeping and polishing - after all, they were being allowed in the house and given good clothes. The equating of race equality with socialism and revolution was a hard nut for national elites to crack, and they could do so only by positing their righteousness against the backward tendencies of regional Southern leaders. "We're not all like that," Kennedy and Johnson would insist to skeptical Afro-Asian observers, "so don't go Commie on us."
This obtuseness to the North-South cold war was played out in the US response to the Cuban Revolution, when Castro embraced the East-West linkage espoused by North American reactionaries; in turn leading Eastland and Stennis to justify racial crackdowns on the civil rights movement as home-grown Castroism. Kennedy and Johnson justified their initial interventions in Vietnam with the language of self-determination, vainly linking their guarded promotion of civil rights in the Mississippi Delta with bringing the American Way to the rice paddies of the Mekong. The fatuousness of this effort was revealed in the actual behavior of Pentagon strategists and troops on the ground, degenerating into ku-kluxing body counts of gooks and slopes. The 1960s liberal axis of civil rights and anti-Communism was fundamentally discredited by elite inability to rise above their own presumptions.
Though the liberal view finally prevailed with the passage of time, the cold war was as much a barrier to civil rights as a catalyst. Borstelmann rather slights that it took the final passing of Communism from the world stage to make the liberal hope a reality. South African leader F. W. DeKlerk was ready to concede free elections *only* because the Berlin Wall had fallen two months before (p. 265). As long as a Soviet counter-bloc existed, Reaganite and apartheid reactionaries could never be truly disarmed into "surrender."
With this caveat - that racial liberalism could triumph in the West only due to the Eastern enemy's demise - Borstelmann's book will stand as a definitive recounting of that other cold war.
But as Borstelmann shows, those ideas did not pass easily. US elites' racial attitudes were patronizing at best, at home and abroad (see Melvyn Leffler's "A Preponderance of Power" for the social views of US policy-making elites.) All "colored folks" were like servants: to be addressed respectfully, but firmly put in their place when forgetting it. Eisenhower, Dulles, and Reagan were sincerely confused at the ingratitude of such colored folk to rest content with sweeping and polishing - after all, they were being allowed in the house and given good clothes. The equating of race equality with socialism and revolution was a hard nut for national elites to crack, and they could do so only by positing their righteousness against the backward tendencies of regional Southern leaders. "We're not all like that," Kennedy and Johnson would insist to skeptical Afro-Asian observers, "so don't go Commie on us."
This obtuseness to the North-South cold war was played out in the US response to the Cuban Revolution, when Castro embraced the East-West linkage espoused by North American reactionaries; in turn leading Eastland and Stennis to justify racial crackdowns on the civil rights movement as home-grown Castroism. Kennedy and Johnson justified their initial interventions in Vietnam with the language of self-determination, vainly linking their guarded promotion of civil rights in the Mississippi Delta with bringing the American Way to the rice paddies of the Mekong. The fatuousness of this effort was revealed in the actual behavior of Pentagon strategists and troops on the ground, degenerating into ku-kluxing body counts of gooks and slopes. The 1960s liberal axis of civil rights and anti-Communism was fundamentally discredited by elite inability to rise above their own presumptions.
Though the liberal view finally prevailed with the passage of time, the cold war was as much a barrier to civil rights as a catalyst. Borstelmann rather slights that it took the final passing of Communism from the world stage to make the liberal hope a reality. South African leader F. W. DeKlerk was ready to concede free elections *only* because the Berlin Wall had fallen two months before (p. 265). As long as a Soviet counter-bloc existed, Reaganite and apartheid reactionaries could never be truly disarmed into "surrender."
With this caveat - that racial liberalism could triumph in the West only due to the Eastern enemy's demise - Borstelmann's book will stand as a definitive recounting of that other cold war.
April 3, 2019
An interesting if dry history of how internal racial politics in the US influenced foreign policy and vice versa. It's basically a book about American hypocrisy, and how that was inconvenient during the Cold War. The South Africa sections were probably the strongest parts.
July 18, 2020
The Cold War and the Color Line traces the evolution of race relations within the United States and the interconnection between this evolution and international changes such as decolonisation and the end of white minority rule. Some of the connections established are interesting and the book provides interesting vignettes on Presidents' views of race domestically and internationally. The book correctly highlights how - more often than not - progress within the US was heavily influenced by Cold War necessities such as projecting a better image of US politics and society.
The book, however, has a few weaknesses that make it very unbalanced. First, when looking at the international scene, with few exceptions (e.g. Congo) most of the attention is focused on South Africa and other apartheid regimes. While these were clearly hot spots in race relations during the Cold War, they were not the only ones. This might have to do with the author's area of expertise. Second, the account provided is very uneven. Several pages are dedicated to an analysis of early Cold War administrations (e.g. Truman and Eisenhower). On the contrary, late Cold War administrations are very condensed. Particularly odd is the decision to treat the Reagan Administration in only 10 pages under the sub-heading 'The End of the Cold War.' Finally, the book's conclusion is clearly too optimistic and too gracious to US leaders and presidents during the Cold War and afterwards. The book concludes that US leaders 'accommodated themselves with varying degrees of enthusiasm to the new era of racial equality' (p. 271). This is very generous - if not totally misguided - when looking at the domestic and foreign policies of - say - the Nixon and Reagan era. Similarly the conclusion that by the end of the Cold War 'the United States had emerged as the multiracial leader of a multiracial world,' looks really dated, even for 2001 (the year the book was first published).
The book, however, has a few weaknesses that make it very unbalanced. First, when looking at the international scene, with few exceptions (e.g. Congo) most of the attention is focused on South Africa and other apartheid regimes. While these were clearly hot spots in race relations during the Cold War, they were not the only ones. This might have to do with the author's area of expertise. Second, the account provided is very uneven. Several pages are dedicated to an analysis of early Cold War administrations (e.g. Truman and Eisenhower). On the contrary, late Cold War administrations are very condensed. Particularly odd is the decision to treat the Reagan Administration in only 10 pages under the sub-heading 'The End of the Cold War.' Finally, the book's conclusion is clearly too optimistic and too gracious to US leaders and presidents during the Cold War and afterwards. The book concludes that US leaders 'accommodated themselves with varying degrees of enthusiasm to the new era of racial equality' (p. 271). This is very generous - if not totally misguided - when looking at the domestic and foreign policies of - say - the Nixon and Reagan era. Similarly the conclusion that by the end of the Cold War 'the United States had emerged as the multiracial leader of a multiracial world,' looks really dated, even for 2001 (the year the book was first published).
January 13, 2024
I will preface this with honesty: I did not finish this book and I will not be going back to it.
The book I thought started out decent despite occasionally being a little dense-as a historian I'll tell anyone that historians often do not know how to write non-fiction that doesn't drag. Regardless I was committed because I am interested in the Cold War and the Civil Rights movement intersection-though reading other reviews it looks like that also is probably not given appropriate attention in this book.
The reason I will not finish the book is in referencing the beginning of the Zionist occupation in Palestine, the author specifically referred to that war (which includes the Nekba) as the Zionist War of Independence. This name is only used by Israel and seems to imply they needed to declare independence from Palestine and not what it actually was, an illegal occupation that was rooted in ethnic cleansing and genocide that still goes on to this day.
I have shelved history books I was reading for much smaller issues than this and making the choice to refer to the occupation of that was pointless unless the author had an agenda.
The book I thought started out decent despite occasionally being a little dense-as a historian I'll tell anyone that historians often do not know how to write non-fiction that doesn't drag. Regardless I was committed because I am interested in the Cold War and the Civil Rights movement intersection-though reading other reviews it looks like that also is probably not given appropriate attention in this book.
The reason I will not finish the book is in referencing the beginning of the Zionist occupation in Palestine, the author specifically referred to that war (which includes the Nekba) as the Zionist War of Independence. This name is only used by Israel and seems to imply they needed to declare independence from Palestine and not what it actually was, an illegal occupation that was rooted in ethnic cleansing and genocide that still goes on to this day.
I have shelved history books I was reading for much smaller issues than this and making the choice to refer to the occupation of that was pointless unless the author had an agenda.
April 25, 2018
Excellent history of the intersection of Cold War policies that affected world-wide decolonization efforts with the American Civil Rights movement. The Cold War lasted from 1947 to 1989 while the American Civil Rights Movement combined with national self-ryle actively was most effective from 1948 to 1990 with the collapse of South African apartheid. The book highlights Cold War strategy, African anti-communist strategies, and U.S. Jim Crow struggles for each presidential administration from Truman through Clinton. Very eye-opening read.
December 17, 2020
This is an amazing book and very unique for what it is. Not many historians have decided to analyze the color line in regards to the global sphere in the Cold War. Borstelmann brilliantly coins the theory of the East vs. West vs. the North vs. South Cold War. Essentially, he discusses how there were two different Cold Wars (even though American historians have typically only focused on the E vs. W one); one regarding the economic system struggle and one regarding anti-colonialism efforts throughout the world. This book is so insightful, I cannot fully express how eye-opening this is!
March 12, 2008
The general idea of this book is that foreign policy and domestic policy need to be put into conversation. During the Cold War the site of intersection for U.S. presidential politics was African Americans in the U.S. South and Africans in South Africa.
We are told immediately in the opening pages of the book that the U.S. embodies a tension (as it has from its first days) between racist colonial traditions and colorblind utopian possibilities. This liberal sentiment comes to fruition when President Carter steps in as the quasi-hero in the works’ final pages (echoing earlier moments of heroism by Kennedy and LBJ). Human rights in Africa combine with human rights within the United States to give the readers a glimpse of the potential utopia the US is still supposedly striving for (and which Carter fails to obtain, distracted by inflation and the soviets).
Yet, despite this slightly disappointing underlying political analysis (defining utopia through some inherent underlying ethos of colorblindness rather than multiracial struggles for justice), the author’s knowledge of foreign policy and domestic policy and clear and engaging writing style win out over my political objections. That is to say, I know disturbingly little about anti-colonial anti-racist anti-imperialist struggles outside of the U.S. This book taught me without boring me or losing me. I learned a great deal from reading this work. Moreover, the book strongly demonstrates the relationship between cold war foreign polices and cold war domestic polices. This is not a widely recognized connection (though its gaining increasing traction) and this may have been one of the earliest academic works to make this claim.
Each chapter focuses on a different presidential administration: pre 1945,Truman administration, Eisenhower administration, Kennedy administration, Johnson administration, and Nixon’s administration (moving quickly through Carter, Regan, Bush and Clinton for the conclusion). The book contains a lot more information on presidential personalities and politics than I am used to encountering but as the book remains focused on the relationship between the U.S.’s policies regarding Africa and the Civil Rights movement, even the focus on Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon kept my attention.
In the end the author makes the claim that a president’s stance on ending racial discrimination had more to due with the region they grew up in then the party they belonged in. “Non-Southerners displayed reticence: Dwight Eisenhower of Kansas, Richard Nixon of California, Gerald Ford of Michigan, Ronald Regan of Illinois, and George Bush originally of Connecticut. Southerners, by contrast, led the way: Harry Truman of Missouri, Lyndon Johnson of Texas, Jimmy Carter of Georgia, and Bill Clinton of Arkansas.”
We are told immediately in the opening pages of the book that the U.S. embodies a tension (as it has from its first days) between racist colonial traditions and colorblind utopian possibilities. This liberal sentiment comes to fruition when President Carter steps in as the quasi-hero in the works’ final pages (echoing earlier moments of heroism by Kennedy and LBJ). Human rights in Africa combine with human rights within the United States to give the readers a glimpse of the potential utopia the US is still supposedly striving for (and which Carter fails to obtain, distracted by inflation and the soviets).
Yet, despite this slightly disappointing underlying political analysis (defining utopia through some inherent underlying ethos of colorblindness rather than multiracial struggles for justice), the author’s knowledge of foreign policy and domestic policy and clear and engaging writing style win out over my political objections. That is to say, I know disturbingly little about anti-colonial anti-racist anti-imperialist struggles outside of the U.S. This book taught me without boring me or losing me. I learned a great deal from reading this work. Moreover, the book strongly demonstrates the relationship between cold war foreign polices and cold war domestic polices. This is not a widely recognized connection (though its gaining increasing traction) and this may have been one of the earliest academic works to make this claim.
Each chapter focuses on a different presidential administration: pre 1945,Truman administration, Eisenhower administration, Kennedy administration, Johnson administration, and Nixon’s administration (moving quickly through Carter, Regan, Bush and Clinton for the conclusion). The book contains a lot more information on presidential personalities and politics than I am used to encountering but as the book remains focused on the relationship between the U.S.’s policies regarding Africa and the Civil Rights movement, even the focus on Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon kept my attention.
In the end the author makes the claim that a president’s stance on ending racial discrimination had more to due with the region they grew up in then the party they belonged in. “Non-Southerners displayed reticence: Dwight Eisenhower of Kansas, Richard Nixon of California, Gerald Ford of Michigan, Ronald Regan of Illinois, and George Bush originally of Connecticut. Southerners, by contrast, led the way: Harry Truman of Missouri, Lyndon Johnson of Texas, Jimmy Carter of Georgia, and Bill Clinton of Arkansas.”
October 26, 2010
What I got from this book was the perspective of most presidents racial view. Some were racist and other liberal, some fail in their policies and some just ignore the issue. With our first black president is fun to see where this whole race issue will lead.
Other things I got from this book
-The world's view of America discrimination actions.
-foreign policies
3 stars
-Brushed some issues without critical detail
-I didn't get much of what I already knew.
Other things I got from this book
-The world's view of America discrimination actions.
-foreign policies
3 stars
-Brushed some issues without critical detail
-I didn't get much of what I already knew.
August 6, 2016
(This was an assigned reading for a U.S. Foreign Policy Class)
This book was very informative as far as how people that were not Caucasian were discriminated against.
Unfortunately the focus of the book is not on the Cold War, but on the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy when it comes to race, from the conception of the U.S. until the end of the cold war. (hence the 1 star)
This book was very informative as far as how people that were not Caucasian were discriminated against.
Unfortunately the focus of the book is not on the Cold War, but on the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy when it comes to race, from the conception of the U.S. until the end of the cold war. (hence the 1 star)
May 9, 2012
Really interesting history of race relations both in America and abroad through the lenses of the presidents, from Truman to Carter. It was an entertaining read that gave an interesting look at the men who set policy both domestic and foreign during the Cold War. This book makes Eisenhower look like a bigot and defends LBJ, not a history you get often. Interesting read.
October 20, 2014
Read this for a grad class.
Although I had a lot of criticisms for this book in class, I was truly impressed by Borstelmann's work. He leaves out a lot that I would think would make his argument that much stronger, but he couldn't possibly include everything. Rather, he lays a solid framework for others to build on. Very readable, very informative.
Although I had a lot of criticisms for this book in class, I was truly impressed by Borstelmann's work. He leaves out a lot that I would think would make his argument that much stronger, but he couldn't possibly include everything. Rather, he lays a solid framework for others to build on. Very readable, very informative.
May 2, 2010
Meticulously researched, well organized and carefully crafted, if you want a good introduction to how American racism and foreign policy collide, this is the book for you. (Plus Dr. Borstellmann teaches at my alma mater so I'm excited to plug the book for that reason. :) )
Read
September 30, 2015Places the cold war and race relations side-by-side, showing them as two closely related issues which structured/shaped the history of the US after WWII.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews