for today's panel discussion on global racism past, present, and future. Yeah, okay, let's see. Before we dive in into the lively discussions between our Eschemed panelists and the most important part of the panel, the Q&A session with the audience, I wish to say a few words on why I think this topic is incredibly worth our time and energy to discuss on a Friday evening. On June 28th, 2021, the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights released a report on racial justice and equality, drawing attention to the murder of George Floyd on May 25th, 2020. The report found that people of African descent, not only in the US, but across the world in places like France, UK, Brazil, Canada are more likely to be victims of excessive policing, fatal shootings, arrests, incarcerations, and harsher sentencing. Leading UN High Commissioner Michelle Bolshale to make an urgent call for states to stop denying and start dismantling racism, to end them community and to build trust, to listen to the voices of people of African descent, and to confront past legacies and deliver redress. As the people of African descent, the UN has further drawn attention to other people's vulnerable to systemic racism, such as women, LGBTQI plus, Romance Into Travelers, refugees, migrants, indigenous people, people living in poverty, and other minorities. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres claimed that systemic racism quote, poisons institutions, social structures, and everyday life in every society, driving persistent inequality, denying people their fundamental human rights, destabilizing societies, undermining democracies, eroding the legitimacy of governments, and stymying an inclusive and sustainable recovery from COVID-19. In line with the findings and comments on the aforementioned UN officials, today we'll attempt to understand how racism is embedded not only in the conduct of states and non-state actors, but also in the paradigms we use to understand international world order. We will then discuss on how our understanding of race and racism can guide us in reimagining the field of international relations and international institutions. Although discussed in many other places on and off campus, I believe that it's crucial that we discuss this issue of global racism today. It's also an important dynamic which has also been reflected in the global migration and the current crisis in Ukraine. But the Ukrainian refugees treated in stark contrast to the way refugees in Syria were treated in Europe. And reports of Afghans having been denied safe passage out of the country reportedly due to racism. With that drawing to our attention, the period of 2015 to 2024, as the international decade for people of African descent, here's how today's panel will work. The panelists will make a five-minute opening remarks following the moderator's brief introduction. Then for the remainder of this hour, we'll start with an opening question to kickstart the roundtable discussions, conversations among the panelists. Only for 30 minutes to an hour, depending on our collective energy, the audience will be able to ask questions to the panelists on topics pertaining to the theme. Does that all get? Alrighty, let's begin. I'm honored to present you with these distinguished panelists. On the right, we have Ms. Bianca Freeman, who's a PhD candidate in political science in UC San Diego, where she's currently focusing on international relations, race, law, and intervention. Her and projects examined the status of force agreements and how race shapes the terms of criminal jurisdiction between military partners. Her work considers how other international legal norms by the responsibility to protect and gender patterns of racial hierarchy, and she's also an ambassador of the beaches of UC San Diego. So with that, you have the floor, Mrs. Freeman. Thank you so much, Joseph. Good evening, my name is Bianca Freeman, and I'm a PhD candidate in political science at the University of California, San Diego. First, I quickly just like to thank the Fletcher School and Joseph and the organizers of such a fantastic panel and symposium. It really is a pleasure to be with you all. As some of what Joseph mentioned, I studied race and racism and international law. Broadly, I'm interested in understanding how certain outcomes that we care a lot about and debate and world politics vary or are even ordered by race. And so specifically, I consider the ways that racial hierarchy is often concealed behind planes of equality before the law and other norms that regulate interactions between states. But right now my work theorizes and empirically examines American status of forces agreements, a stateful in U.S. defense partnerships and foreign policymaking, and how jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel is shaped by perceptions of close countries that are themselves racialized. So with that, I look forward to a lively conversation. Thank you, Miss Freeman. Let's see. On the bottom, we have Professor Lucien Ashworth. He's the author of Warriors, Pacifists and Empires, Race and Racism and International Thoughts before 1914 and International Affairs. His research interests include the history of international thought, early geopolitics, and the origins of feminist IR. And he's currently writing a book titled, Worlding Beyond the West. Thank you for joining us, Professor Ashworth. Yeah, the floor. Thank you very much. And thanks for inviting me here. Yes, my latest work was is in international affairs is the, the piece you mentioned and I think there are two things that spurred me to do this and I think it's kind of relevant to this panel. So the first was about a decade ago coming across information from a conference on Alfred Thayer Mann. And Mann was a white supremacist, his international relations was very much based upon race, but I read a transcript of this conference and there wasn't a single mention of his racism, even though it was central to what, to what he did. Another spur for my interest here is that a lot of my early work was done on debunking the realist idealist debate. And the article on international affairs has been a chance to go back to some of that work, and to really begin to unpick the different forms of racism that existed in pre 1914 international thought and to really kind of lay out the racist origins, particularly linked to empire in in international relations and how of course that has continued and that that history has kind of continued through into international relations today. And the bottom line I think on all of this is that much in the same way as cities have had to began to rethink many of the statues that they have in their public spaces, and the way that these statues linked back to a racist past that has to do with international relations to as a as a field needs to have some serious discussions and to interrogate the silences in our accounts of international relations disciplinary history. Thank you Professor Ashworth. Professor Professor Earl Henderson associate professor of international relations and Penn State established the diasporas and politics project in 2019 to analyze the influence of racial and religious diasporas and world affairs. He has authored 50 scholarly publications including five books on race, including the revolution will not be theorized in African realism international relations theory and Africa's wars and post colonial era. A veteran in the US Army has also been outspoken in challenging white supremacism in academia. Thank you for joining us Professor Henderson, you have the floor. Thank you very much and thank you for the conveners of this conference and for and I want to especially thank Dr. Abby Williams who actually started my introduce me to touch university and first invited me here to correct one thing I haven't written any books on race that I don't focus on race I study war and culture and international international relations scholar. I do talk about racism and white supremacism, but but being a good Detroit or born and raised I want to keep my union card, and I want to take advantage of this five minutes now when I want to read a bit of But if there's one thing you should leave with is this basic notion of white supremacism won't just teach you what to think it'll teach you how to think. Appreciate that. Let me read and take advantage of this four minutes and six seconds I got left. Here we go. In a famous though often poorly contextualized quote I asked college at Levy asserted that the Democratic peace thesis is quote, as close as to an empirical law and world politics in quote, less famously but even more resolutely Bruce rested maintained that the Democratic peace thesis was quote, one of the strongest non trivial or non total logical generalizations that can be made about international relations in quote, they were both wrong. Then there's now much better candidate for the moniker of closest thing to an empirical law, or most robust generalization and IR is the phenomena that we observe within all states that wherever you find sizable numbers of whites and blacks and states and international institutions across the globe, those who are white and associated with whiteness occupied the superordinary position, and those who are black and associated with blackness occupied this important position. This phenomenon this banality of white supremacy is neither random natural or inconsequential, yet empirical examinations of this global phenomena are rarely found in our most prestigious, widely cited or highly ranked mainstream scholarly publications, or discussed in plenary sessions at our mainstream IR conferences, like the one is going on now at the other is a or addressed and required reading and syllabi of mainstream IR courses. The banality of white supremacism phenomena is evident at the system dyadic and state levels and across swaths of individuals and groups within states and international regimes international trade economic relations. And the NGOs TNC's MNC's every major lead group you got terrorist groups drug cocktails, etc. Get this most prominent empirical regularity remains one of the most understudied aspects of world politics, among those conducting empirical work across the spectrum of quantitative case study analysis and IR. This absence results in part, because the banality of white supremacy is an empirical regularity and world policy as an empirical regularity and world politics, generates a concomitant phenomenon among our scholars practitioners as a powerful by product the norm against noticing which is vitalizes characterization of the propensity within mainstream IR discourse to dismiss ignore and fail to acknowledge much less engage white supremacism world politics, he took that from Tony Morrison characterization is also a subtitle an excellent review essay done by miss Bianca Freeman and some colleagues at UC San Diego. I got 149 left. Let's do this white racism and mainstream IR Militates against the banality of white supremacy, even being acknowledged much less analyzed in mainstream IR. This condition obtains because the banality of white supremacy, the empirical condition discussed above is a company to reinforce the banality of white supremacism, the prominent form of racism in the global system. And that's what I focus on as a good IR scholar University Michigan train doing a lot of quantitative analysis, I focus on power. Racism is the power relationship, as opposed to race I don't focus on race not knocking on anybody would I just want to find what I'm doing. I got 109 left. One may think of white supremacy as a description of a static condition of white racial dominance whereas white supremacism as a form of racism is fluid. As far as its justifications may range from the theological to the biological to the anthropological to the sociological and its practices may fluctuate from Jim Crow discrimination apartheid racial slavery racial imperialism to genocide. Let's be clear about this turn before proceeding further racism is a belief in practice and policy of domination based on the species concept of race is not simply bigotry of prejudice, but public and private practice typically supported by institutional power, especially state power white supremacism is a form of racism that presupposes the inherent superiority of people designated as white. And among other things, justifies the construction and maintenance of systems institutions and relationships to perpetuate this superiority. It's the latter white supremacism, which prevents precludes and punishes acknowledgement of engagement with or challenges to white supremacy and IR that that are as obvious as they are ignored. Um, that's my five minutes on the dot. I'm stopped there constantly time. Thank you Professor Anderson. Finally, we have Professor Murphy, Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College. He has taught world politics and global governance from a perspective influenced by both Africana studies and peace and justice studies. And he has worked and studied in a field for 40 years as part of the policies political science and international relations faculty. Professor, you have the floor. My apologies. He was in, he was in the zoom meeting a few moments ago. That said, You'll now go to the prepared questions on the panel. The first, it regards to Professor afterwards your introduction and comments regarding debunking the debates between idealism and realism. In the field of IR, many academics and policymakers have historically interpreted world events and conducted foreign policy through a lens of realism and idealism. Are these lens racist? And what are the implications if they are. Whoever wants to go first has the floor. I suppose. Yeah, I could start on that one. I don't think it's realism and idealism that are racist per se, mostly because a lot of my work has been on the fact that actually idealism doesn't exist. This has actually been a bad way to frame the discipline historically. I would argue though that the whole concept of realism, a realist idealist debate has has been racist. In the sense that by framing the discipline as a conflict between realist and idealist, it's framed the discipline as something that is about the issue of war and about the issue of conflict. And it's encouraged a mining of past thinkers, particularly people like man, people like Norman Angel for what they say about war and peace. And what that has done is it's left on the cutting room floor. The work that these early IR scholars did on things like empire on colonial administration on the concepts of race and also on the concepts about civilizing mission and all this is tied up in different forms of racism. So I think that by framing the discipline as happened in the kind of the 19, the 1940s and 1950s by framing the past in terms of a realist idealist debate that this has actually helped kind of mask the racist and the imperialist past of international relations and international thought. Ms. Freeman or Professor Anderson. Yes, so this question certainly reminded me of what Professor Krishna told us in 2001, and he explains that contemporary IR discourse is predicated on this type of forgetting or an abstraction from the role of racialized violence in the construction of nation states and the system that they inhabit here and our attention is drawn to the assumptions that kind of underpin and undergird our quote unquote core theories of international relations. And notably, as the discipline developed be what appears to be the kind of timeless problem of anarchy and the security dilemma came to define the core questions of IR. Largely in line with Cold War imperatives at the time, but this shift made race, almost irrelevant for many scholars at the time. And I totally agree with Professor Ashworth and kind of calling our attention to the development, the intellectual and professional development of what we know today is the discipline of IR, American IR specifically. And so relations between states, and kind of the things that we know where material power and national interest shaped state behavior were assumed to occur kind of above, or apart from the issue of race, which was largely seen as mostly a domestic issue of race. So intellectual commitment to the assumption of anarchy and world politics, however, was in fact coterminous with the disciplines willful amnesia about race. So, one more thing I think it's important to note is that at the time the concept of anarchy became equated with the idea of the primitive. Professor Samson in 2002 wrote about this. So equating the resulting state of nature with supposedly violent peoples outside of Europe. Doing this scholar stripped anarchy of essentially any notion of race. And again, these kinds of ideas and conceptions and views of those in Europe and those outside of the European world. Undergirds a lot of how we think about IR, whether it's realism, or other core theories. But I think what's essential to this is understanding the development of the field and how as Professor Ashworth mentioned, it worked to obscure or kind of conceal and hide race. So we might not think that we're talking about race, but in reality we really are. And when we talk about race, what we're really talking about is power. So it's quite complimentary to our understanding of realism, in particular, even though it's explicitly silent, it's still there. My best and most immediate, a most direct answer to your question is the paradigms of realism and idealism of races. No. And on irrelevant notes. What I think Professor Ashworth you expressed it as in terms of silence is Freeman you've also expressed it in terms of the concept of race being left out in the discipline. I think that was intentional a part of the creators of the international relations field, or is it more a byproduct of the ongoing wars and conflicts by necessity that Ned led to a prioritization of certain aspects of society. Yeah. So if he thinks about that as well I think there is to a certain extent that I think an attempt to maintain the kind of ideas that come out particularly from pre First World War international relations in later international relations and to try and change its meanings. I think it doesn't look as as starkly racist as it was before the First World War and I think one good example of that is the way that a lot of pre First World War international thought talks very directly about about race in terms of of empire. It talks very directly about race in terms of kind of concepts of a civilizing mission, which is very much linked to to race and to color. But what you see. By the time you get to kind of mid century is you often find the same concepts coming up. But the language has been changed and perhaps a very good one on this one and Ian Hall has done I think a very good dissecting of this is with the the English school, Martin White, particularly heavy bull Butterfield, and there's a talk about revolt against the West, and there's a kind of a Western siege mentality, but the structures of that kind of Western siege mentality is very much very similar to the kind of racial siege mentality that we find with people like So we get a kind of a softening of the language but the but the structures of the way of looking at it and particularly playing up the kind of the ideal of the kind of the cozy world of the colonial powers where they could kind of run the international relations in the way they wanted to, and the kind of resentment that comes out in some of these writings about the kind of the new states coming the new decolonized states coming in is very, very much kind of plays up that old language but kind of redressed into a way in which there's a certain level of plausible deniability about it being racist. Yeah, I, I share a lot of those thoughts and I, I, and what's interesting is, I think we in the last few years have seen this moment in American IR and ideally the field of IR or American I was catching up a little bit, but I are in general, and kind of appreciate and come to terms with what the idea of the discipline is. And some of what Professor Ashworth mentioned, and the initial kind of creation and kind of purpose of IR as a discipline, and used to engage and kind of dance with ideas of colonial administration. And that's, that is a kind of tough history to reconcile and negotiate with for scholars today, not everyone but some scholars today, but what I personally found very useful in Professor Henderson mentioned this earlier it's not so much, perhaps our focus is is race and racism and is the field racist and when was it racist and the ways it kind of perpetuates and embeds different styles of racism, but it's simply focusing on the outcomes, the empirical patterns in the world. That matter to us personally and that seem to matter like our field kind of coalesces around as a discipline and ask ourselves, currently, introspectively, and are these patterns do they vary by race are, are they reflecting and perpetuating systems of racism of white supremacy of other types of racism that are very powerful social constructions. And so it's focusing on the empirical outcomes that exists and understanding them in a more truthful and accurate way. And so I think, for me, those questions have been more meaningful for my own work and interests versus kind of staying in this position of rehearsing the history and, and kind of asking, you know, is, what about IR, and our theories continues to, you know, kind of be racist. I really appreciate, since Bianca's point there. I'm not an intellectual historian, but about in 1970 James Rosenau, not an obscure figure in mainstream IR said there was a surfeit of models to examine what he considered racial conflict and world politics. You don't have to go back to the 19th century to say, and I want to demystify some of this, and there were people talking about racism, including the white supremacism just as Professor Asworth was saying, and probably so, in the end of the 19th century early 20th century, including the founders of American international relations. Um, but I'm keen on demystifying this. So the passive constructions I'm less comfortable with sort of Rosenau sees this in 1970 but by 93 rocks and Dodias argue that our journals are rarely mentioned racism racism white supremacism, and then people like Paul Lauren Gordon are highlighting how during the Cold War race was such a central issue racism I'm sorry white supremacism such a central issue to United Nations, and it becomes not why they, they have it for me are they why they haven't or if they're racist I don't care what they what they are and that's it. The problem with racism as a social scientist not simply that and I mean to be dismissive. It's clearly morally odious, but it's also inaccurate as a social scientist, it's not accurate. So what I want to examine are the empirical outcomes associated with an analysis that's not white supremacist, and we can do that it's like with bell hooks argued in a feminist theory from margins to center to move from and she doesn't mean get over she means thoroughly engaged but then to develop from victimization to representation to agency. And when you get to the agency you get to what does a feminist world look like. And white supremacism in particular racism in general, often involved initially a feminization of whole swaths of people beyond gender. So the races that were feminized were lowered. Okay, so it's important to appreciate this history, sure. But also it's practice today, we can address this right now, right at the level where we know this won't be engaged and that is at the level of the syllabus. If you can simply look at the syllabi. We're going to transform this almost immediately because the white supremacism is maintained because we as scholars are focusing on imperialism and war, they'll they'll move to that instead of talking about because I'm sorry I'm blocking on what's going on in the on my screen, because they won't engage Du Bois is analysis of the role of racism and white supremacism, or Elaine locks view of racism and racial imperialism. If you want to, you may not see the words homophobia my syllabus, but you'll see the Orlinberg scandal of World War One, which was a scandal related to the alleged softening of the Kaiser toward the as a result of gaze around him as consultants. This is the discussion of the Orlinberg scandal in your syllabus. But the question for me is what's the value added by having these amounts from Du Bois Elaine lock Merz take and others. And to looking at why Kenneth walks and Bob Gilpin don't engage issues of white supremacism and racism or even the transatlantic slave trade, when they're talking about major wars in the global system. And more importantly, what does that suggest for the predictive ability of their models, they're covered under language of a natural slaves like mercantilism. But how do you talk about the war of Jenkins here, which in the Spanish was the I see into a war. The I see into was the contract for slave trading. It's hidden and plain sight. There's no mystery to it. It's hidden in plain sight so you can see it. If you simply engage it, you don't need to turn the classroom into a circle. You don't need somebody who has mine or sister Bianca's exquisite tan. You can simply do this because white supremacism as a social science is simply inaccurate social science. And we don't want to teach inaccurate social science. I want to focus on the word on the words hidden in plain sight. And I think this is a good transition to the next set of questions. It was does racism manifest in the creation and enforcements of international law, military interventions or even distribution of humanitarian aid. I think it relates back to what Professor Henderson your remarks were about NGOs, NGOs. It's everywhere in the international system. I was wondering if anyone could start in response to that. We'd like to start us off. Sure. So this question. I quite enjoy because I think it encourages us to think about things. This is an empirical question. Certainly with important normative implications for scholarship and policy, but to know the impacts, we actually have to theorize and then test the impacts. And so I do appreciate how scholars that think about and care about legacies of empire, legacies of colonialism and how those may perpetuate patterns and contemporary world politics, how we have intuitions and ways of seeing the world. But it's important to go a step further and in order to allow our theories to more accurately engage and explain the world around us, then we need to theorize and test these things. So one thing that I would say is that I'm checking the assumptions that underpins certain practices or actions actors may take, in addition to those actors interests and preferences. And so some international norms and principles, for example, that are codified into law, which is this is what I study. They may advance or even reward behaviors that are seen as already perfected in the European world. So what we see is that international law may uphold a standard that certain states are by definition are kind of anticipated as not being able to meet for one reason or another. Here I'm talking about ideas of good governance ideas of meeting one's responsibility to protect the citizens within a defined territory. I look at this in status of forces agreements and how conceptions of state capacity are often used as a guys or shield to kind of make these policy decisions that see non right states as unable to meet the capacity to govern us soldiers on the soil. So the point here, at least for me is that it's important to check the assumptions that undergird a lot of these international laws and policies that were strong proponents of and that are often championed as cornerstones of international liberal order. And so this is how I would were able to kind of answer this question at least a little better understanding the actual impacts of racial hierarchy and other kind of forms of racism and world politics. Yeah, I might add to that one of the the pieces that was in the special issue of international affairs in January was a piece by Amitabh Acharya on the, what was the title. Yeah, race and racism in the founding of the modern world order. And he does rather a good job I think of discussing how with the kind of the development of of an American led order. And the development of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, how, you know, although there were parts of that development of the world order that were very positive there were certain things that were kind of baked in to that order that that either were racist element or didn't deal directly with race and he particularly is concerned with how the the Covenant and the way that the sort of the post war international order concentrated heavily on sovereign equality, rather than racial equality and rather colonization. And now, you know, he does also talk about how there was a kind of a pushback from that that there was an anti racist moment as well he concentrates particularly on the bandung conference of 1955 to kind of flesh that out. And I think, you know, in terms of kind of supplementing Bianca's answer there, you know, there were certain elements within as as Amitabh lays out the certain elements within the creation of the liberal world order that kind of allowed the continuation of racist elements from the from the pre war order as well. And so that's something something we have to take seriously when looking at the kind of the, the, the empirical issues that are sort of the contained in this question. The answer of the technical answer is, of course, it's white supremacist, the foundation of the United Nations the construction of genocide so it would have no bearing on the issue of Jim Crow, and the treatment of African Americans with respect to the to the US, and you know, the treatment of ethnic minorities and Jews in the Soviet Union was constructed that way. And what's important to demystify these things. The question for me is, why do authors not engage these issues empirically and examine these, these empirical results. I'm sorry, and examine the empirical impact that's what's so refreshing about a graduate student like Miss Freeman doing these things and asking about the empirical implications of them.  And because and what does that suggest, the continuation of these white supremacist policies. I'm looking at. Oh, I find it. So I think it's important to see the implications of these things the empirical ones. And minimizing the moral was please don't get me wrong. But I'm saying the fact that it's not accurate. Let me show you how challenging this can be even an overtly white supremacist claim, even an overtly one can accurately describe and predict phenomena in world politics. For example, if you said, wherever you have large wiles of blacks and whites and this includes international organizations, I want to see how it saturates the question that you're asking. The whites will be in the primitive, the supportive position blacks in the support and those associated with black, right. You find that if someone says, if you look at international organizations white, whites will be on top blacks on the bottom. That's not a racist claim.  If you say, in the, in the next 10 years, if you look at it, the overwhelming of those who are white and associate with whiteness will be a supportive position, but they won't and blacks and associate with blackness was associated in supporting it. If you say that you can predict that that's not a racist claim either. It's the recognition of a racist reality. Just you said you investigated the other. You predicted that there will be no women US presidents from its founding to the present. That's not a sexist claim is the recognition of a sexist reality. So back to white supremacism. What can it do. It can explain why that's there. The white supremacism, but whites are on top blacks. Why because well many whites are superior or there's some social anthropological reason why it's the cultural or some social logical reason why they can't explain why because white supremacism is inaccurate. So, are you saying an implication that this is that what we're learning here is not accurate. So I mean maybe we should be asking for tuition money back. If you're learning white supremacism, as a social is inaccurate. It saturates it. It's all the way to the syllabi. How many you have DuBlois and merge tape, or it doesn't have to be them.  John hers. He's been, he was white all his life. When he conceived at Howard University, Howard University, Roberta Wolstetter. Yeah, the, um, with, uh, I'm sorry, um, the, the Wolstetter is the, um, the, the delicate balance of terror. I said Howard to, I'm not saying you got to go through Howard and the HBC use that's no, I'm saying these are empirical questions and we mystify them because when we know that the reason why these things are that the forefront is because these issues remain the white supremacism remain. I'll say this last part. I published a book. It won some choice outstanding, not some, it won a choice outstanding academic title. It challenged white racism and international relations theory, and it gained to draw from Africa's international politics, international relations thesis theory. After it could be the site or the subject of, but you couldn't get good theory from that you learn about genocide and ethnic cleansing and so called tribal warfare. I had three quantitative chapters. That book was not reviewed in any mainstream IR journal including the main one perspective and politics refused to review it. So what happens to this work. There's no mystery to it. The, the, it says plain as the professor who's teaching your class. Look at the syllabus and then if the professor is jammed up, which one of the reasons I'm presently in the lawsuit against Penn State University for racial discrimination, just truth and packaging, you can Google it and I asked you for advocacy. And also I don't teach advocacy, I teach accuracy. You're not obligated to follow any ideological orientations of professor and sign up for that. And I don't impose that on other students teach accuracy. Now accuracy may sound like advocacy to you if you're not familiar with the literature. And it's so important that we, we recognize this, you can call it professional development, you call it what you want, but empirical work in the social sciences, white supremacism is inaccurate. Patriarch is inaccurate homopho, it's inaccurate, elitism is inaccurate. We can describe and even predict, but it will not explain because it's inaccurate. That should motivate us to change it, beyond whether you think it's morally odious or not, or whether this person in particular races, I don't know, I don't care. Last point. What was the first challenge doing in empirical work or quantitative work? The creators of the Pearson's R, Fisher and these other, they were, they were racing. The logic of that. The first quantitative analysis in the US of sociology was the Philadelphia Negro by W. E. B. Du Bois. Notice what I said, I didn't say the first one conducted by a black person, the first quantitative analysis in sociology. Systematic study of lynching, that's Ida B. Wells in 1892 Southern Horse. The logic that the genealogy is dispositive of its usefulness, that's like saying, because our Austin Freeman, no relation to Miss Bianca Freeman, our Austin Freeman, the creator of the inverted detective story, if you don't know what that is, it's like the Colombo series where you know the murder at the beginning and you watch how they saw our Austin. He was a eugenicist.  That's silly that sound. And often people who will force where will not use quantitative analysis. When would they go get that methods from philosophy, history, comparative literature, no racism found in any of those right. It's silly. How do you test empirically your thesis so we can do what make meaningful policy to change the empirical reality facing so many of the world's people who suffer under these arbitrary modes of oppression, sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, elitism, etc. That's part of it. If you don't subscribe to that, it can be morally odious. At least we should subscribe to having accurate social science. So on that point, I was curious. What is the nature of power? I think that it brings back to what you mentioned in the beginning, that you didn't study race, but you studied about power that allows it to under be an undercurrents of racism, different fields of social science. Could you unpack what a power is. And when you defined racism as well and please I'll do panels. You can answer the question as well. Can you justify what race and power is. Okay, a lot put it best rate, like define a lane lock. It's not john. This is a lane lot of the first black rose color. The first black rose color of what's his name.  I'm sorry, because he's at UC Santa Barbara. So Bianca, are we are we allowed to say other UC schools in your presence. They're not sending. Okay, I wouldn't want to be. Okay, so you see that Jeffrey Stewart just want to pull it surprise, mind you just want to pull it for his study of Elaine Locke. But um, Elaine Locke argued in 1915 that race was a social was sociological. Remember boy as it say he's still talking about some anthropological elements of race that would. So that's why he was proposing intermarriage. Locke says no, it's purely sociological there's no biological or anthropological aspects of race. He says, watch, watch what like says he says, races didn't create civilizations. Civilizations created race, races simply the modern expression of imperialism that's why I call it racial imperialism. It's an issue of status in your higher. It has no red zero biological anthropological but it's utterly a species concept. There's differences of people sure there's difference or not race. Okay, so a lot does this in 141915. That's why don't wreck me to wait for 1970 80 and 90s are rediscoveries, these folks haven't rediscovered race, folks were talking about race of white supremacy in the 90s the early 20th century. Okay, so the question is why do people ignore it I'm gonna be I'm gonna try to be quick. And you all in the tennis you need to break blame Joseph for this he said I need to get over my shyness. Here we go. So, so, so a lot argues that World War one is actually a race war within the white civilization Anglo Saxons and two times arguing who's going to dominate the European civilization white civilization. So what does that suggest the implications of that is that you can pose racial differences because their species construct them even against people who seem similar. This is what Hitler does doesn't it. Some of the most assimilated. Some of the most German Germans at the time where stimulated Jews, but he constructed them as a different race of areas, the construction of Ukrainians to prosecute the Holodomor. You see the present construction of Ukraine, you can use race, even against those who are similar. But look what luck does he doesn't abandon the concept. He says race can still be utilized by those subjugated by you call race secondary race consciousness to mobilize against it, but straight to your point, what is power. Power simply relative capabilities that's all period, what people confuse power and influence they think that because someone or something is more powerful, they should be able to realize their, their outcomes that influence that's not power power simply relative Okay, so when I say I'm talking about racism is so I'm not getting caught up on how many angels spinning on the head of a needle, what is race what was racism, the practice the policy, that's the power relationship that's imposed. You see I'm saying that's what gets me to imperialism and these other aspects of world politics. Again, I'm not knocking anyone that does this I want to be clear, but I wanted to carve out where my line is in the way that I'm approaching because I want to eradicate those types of things that that's where I'm coming from I'm not making evaluation of other folks research who are doing these other types of things, which are often invaluable, but I also know that many white supremacists will exercise ignorance, mystify these things that don't need to be mystified to get us to waste our time talking about these things that we already know the answers for we just wait to see will somebody say it. Why is white supremacism perpetuated because white supremacists do it and white folks in orderly profit from it. There's no mystery to that. Okay, I can't say one more last thing, walking across campus with a white professor who as far as I know been white all his life, who we would eventually get a $2 million grant to do the developer the data set on all the religious adherence of the white supremacists and we can test different thesis about religion and world politics, walking across the campus okay. Ask me, how do you like your head pin stay there. I sound like a lot so for the white supremacist. He said, Oh, well, um, will you know more about that than I would I said no you will. Most of I think I said no I think you would most of white supremacism idea we come from white folks you know people like you white folks. And he gave the best answer a white person could give in that scenario. That's the point, and we wouldn't have lunch. That's my small talk people are not used to talking about white people and what they used to to to of making white supremacist comfortable in a conversation.  He asked me how I'm doing that's what I told. And then we can have that's my small talk.  And that's why it. It's perpetuated, even when they think or will tell other people that they don't. And the last day white folks know exactly what white supremacists may or don't need a cataclysm from black folk. Same reason you don't invite certain friends home and Aunt Mary is their uncle or just your parents, or you know exactly what it is so I don't play into strategic ignorance. I'm so confused I'm waiting for a black guy to inform me or black. I don't play that that's a waste of time. It's intentionally diversionary just the same argument that white people somehow fear a new and not afraid. It just gives them a position even from the supportive position to claim victim hood. I was so afraid I'm six one four unborn and black. I'll make all these comments I'll make, and someone will come back and say like, I really respect your passion. What was that was all you heard. You seem so ain't I'm a happy guy. I'm happy. Okay, so please I'll pass to my friends. Professor Ashworth or miss Freeman. It's hard to follow. I think they the concept of strategic ignorance and I think it was a real good one and I think that's something definitely to come back to I think for the third prepared question because I think that's that's such a key point. Any last remarks. No, Dr. Henderson said it all. Did you disappear for a moment. Oh, I guess the last question for the moderate session and we'll go to be the spicy Q amp a session with the audience. The last question I phrased as, how do we reimagine the world in a way that's less racist. I guess, stripping it away from racism, but hearing Professor Henderson, I guess it doesn't require reimagining but seeing things how it is without be a good characterization.  There are certain things your parents will do and you stop dealing with your parents. Racism for many white Americans is not one of them. And I'm not making arguments about the, this personal thing remember what I said before. It's, it's like when you first learned that the main way people get wealth in this country is not from hard work and it's from inheritance okay. We missed the fine this stuff, but but teaching that you got to get the circle you got. No, that feeds the continued myth, and, and it's similar to why we need to learn or not need to why there's so much investment in every single Ukrainian who crosses the border. And, and that's important. Every child of Ukrainian struggle, everyone has to be in the subway. You didn't see this coverage on the Ethiopian Civil War. You didn't see this kind of thing. I'm not arguing for less coverage of Ray. I'm asking why do you think you didn't see this in Ethiopian Civil Civil War, though the administration called it genocide when it when it wasn't, but it has this magnitude. It's hitting in plain sight. Exactly what it is. So my issue is, what will you do. So among the things I try to do is show the empirical impact of these analysis that avoid a race race racism. It's like trying to understand conditions of women and women and girls whatever country you're from, and not engaging sexism. You're going to do something you may describe you may even aggregate you're not going to explain much anyway. You see, so that's why I said so what do we do. And I'm prepared to show you what the approaches that I use in my classroom, which include having students write two to three page scholarly essays every week I don't inflate grades and developing their analytical abilities and I do that from undergrad. And this what I get in a lot of trouble from because I read every word every I died every T cross why because one of the things I understand is that folks will come into these contexts and they are often white supremacist context. And I want you to see I don't use that flipping me I'm the first tenure black professor African American professor in the history of Penn State political science department. They've been teaching political science here for over 100 years. I'm brilliant.  They've never tenured an African American for professor. Okay, so I don't want you think I'm using those terms loosely. But if we develop students analytical abilities early, they'll begin to see the so called explanations they're not explaining. So what I said about walks and guilt and, and I have a piece I'm desperately trying to get it, get it published and whenever I want to publish about races and world politics, I have to go abroad. I can't get it published in the United States maybe my stuff when I write us is just awful. It'll be published abroad though. Okay, so I'm trying to show the empirical impact of those things, not to ignore the other types of impacts, but this one. So you don't have to make a moral argument, but I'm just trying to make an argument that this stuff is not accurate and we should at minimum be teaching an accurate social science. And that's why it's so refreshing to hear an advanced graduate student like Miss Freeman talking in those terms. And it's also the usefulness of someone like Professor Ashworth, Ashworth, intellectual history and so many others from from Bob Vitalis, Mira Sir, Robbie Shilliam, so many others. This would be a roll call of them, you know, I said, Schmidt and long as well. And so that these folks that are doing this kind of work so we can build on it so we can what change the material conditions that people face today. So that's where I'm coming from. Yeah, there are just several things that Dr. Henderson listed that I appreciate because a lot of it is just simply practical and kind of training students and encouraging them and equip them with the tools to honestly be more kind of sensitive to these nuances. At the same time they're engaging kind of the what are often held is the canonical theories and ways of understanding the world and American I are in particular. Some things that I also think are important. And I've also encountered myself and my own work is kind of bringing up the fact and acknowledging the fact that racism isn't always going to be conscious. It's not always going to be expressed at the individual level and it's my opinion that some of the subfield is still there. That's the kind of racism there keen on finding and looking for in the empirics. But I think we miss a lot by just limiting our scope to being open to understanding a certain outcome that's driven by racism at the individual level. And so what I mean is that maybe racism or racial hierarchy. It's a structure. It's a system and individuals have a role to play there. But it's, we can only go back and use perhaps historical early post war examples for so long. What about politics today. And this is part of what I try to engage with the sofa paper in that if I can demonstrate and and test and retest and find that an outcome indeed does vary by race. That is like Dr. Henderson suggested that is not racist. It's a racist fact. And then there are many theories I can use there are many ways I can go about explaining that racism might be one, or it could be another type of ordering. But the point is that I think it, we would grow as a discipline, especially in the United States, when we understand that there are multiple types of racism, perhaps at work, whether it's individual and individual and conscious and maybe even explicit, or it's more structural but it's difficult to find that smoking gun today. Simply put, I may not have a quote from, you know, some official X, making a egregious racist comment in this meeting. That's hard to find. However, it doesn't mean we can just wash our hands of these very important policies and policy making processes that may be really shaping our world and the people that are in it in ways that are detrimental and that are not that are racist or not anti racist. And so that's one thing, practically speaking, I think as students, we can be mindful of and maybe even take the mantle up. And first of all, engaging the outcomes that we care about personally and understanding that look these things can vary in ways that embed and reinforce racism, and it doesn't mean, and no one has to speak a word. It's just how certain processes and institutions are working. Yes. And I really like Professor Henderson's examples of humanitarian crises and this is the last thing I'll say. This is something that in the review piece we took care to think a little bit about and that is, okay, racism isn't always explicit or conscious or articulated by individuals or key actors in world politics. Then maybe we need to look a little closer at how these laws are applied. So you're going to find racial equality everywhere in modern international law and norms and principles. However, it doesn't mean much if they're applied and kind of disparate or if they're applied unevenly by race. And so that is largely what my work seeks to do and that could be a useful entry point for students is to consider anything that is kind of a blaring racial equality, whether it's law, whether it's aid, we have to, you know, take care to look at, okay, are these things actually being applied and maybe even enforced equally. So yeah, that's all we did there. Yeah, I just, I'd like to, it's returned to a point that Bianca was making about students return to a point as well that I was was talking about about syllabuses and maybe in this sense going down to real brass tax in terms of students and professors is there's there's a kind of sort of line of least resistance when it comes to syllabuses and you even go as far as to call it a sort of a cowardice that we have sometimes about this that we with our syllabuses. There's a kind of a what's expected to be it is particularly when we do international relations theory or introduction to international relations. Okay, we've got to do all the paradigms we got to do all of this all of that and there isn't very much room left over for everything else. And a lot of this is driven as well I have to say by textbooks, there were one or two textbooks that are rather good out there, but most of them what they'll give you is a quick burst of history, paradigm one paradigm to paradigm three, and here's a few case studies. And there's no room to really get into any kind of wider analysis new analysis. And the analysis of the kind of going back you know to the confronting those kind of strategic ignorance as you were talking about there. There's, there's no room for that and I think in some respects we have to be brave enough to say, look, we don't have to do what in our syllabuses what's expected of by the discipline that we actually are the discipline, whether we're a PhD candidates whether we're an early career, early career, mid career, late career. We are the discipline. And so we can turn our courses into what we want to teach. And more importantly what our students want to hear and I find this as well is that, you know, when I feel the weight of what I, I have to teach in the course. Today it bores the students. It bores them because they're, they're getting kind of it's usually stuff from the 1980s it's it's you know it's the old interparadigm debate or something like that bores them rigid, because it doesn't speak to their world. It doesn't speak to our world. It doesn't speak to the world around us now. It doesn't speak to the new worlds that we've created in international relations, as we've moved into doing more work on gender and I on race and I on poverty on an indigenous peoples and international relations as well as a whole series of of new work that we've been doing that's coming out and it's not reflected in the textbooks and as a result it doesn't get reflected in the courses and our courses are kind of pale limitations of what was taught in the 1980s. So I think we really do need to go back to the syllabus is and we need to have the bravery to say that we are the discipline, and that we are going to teach what interests us, and also what relates directly to our students life life life experiences. And you know if we do that, what we'll find is not only that we'll enjoy our teaching more. And our students will enjoy teaching more but we'll be asking some of these questions and we'll be dealing with many of these problems that we've been talking about on this round table. Joseph, can I comment on that. Of course. Yeah. I appreciate your use of the world we but some of us have been doing this and been doing this for decades. If you read my syllabus, it looks like a conventional I syllabus this is my point to train students in what's in the literature so it starts with realism that is idealism liberalism Marxism feminism of pan Africanism. And what I do and what keeps their interest one I think that's a pedagogical issue, largely, because I don't want to give them this present as notion, you have some students that like, well that's the Vietnam War I wasn't even born then you were born during the Civil War either you suggested salience, you were born to it. You know, so what I say is to show how today is grounded in what's before. So they see the cycle of what containment is of for Paul Nitsi, and then under our cannon but really partner to militarize it, and then Samuel Huntington is cultural containment is, you know, so they civilizational real politics. So I think that's you can ground them that's not difficult. But the challenge is to teach them what's in the literature so believe me I hear you and I read your work early on about the absence of the realist idealist debate. But if you're going to read the literature you're going to encounter that I'm saying I'm preparing you for what's there, and then what really gets the students interest. We're halfway done and I show you you've been tricked. Now, truth and packaging. Now let's talk about it and they really get it. They get those. When I talk about the critiques but the critiques are already there. The realists are talking about racism. But when I'm presenting and I'm talking like I'm George Patton, when I bring in the idealist that's when the critique of the realist but then you got the white supremacism of Woodrow Wilson was beautifully followed and then mark systems. This can be done. What's different is when you look at my PowerPoint in the PowerPoint white supremacism is there. The feminism is there it's going to be on the test. Patriarch is going to be on the test, but how do people ask well how do you teach how do you get a discussion going about racism I don't. You can lecture on racism and why lecture World War two, but you can lecture World War two, and it doesn't have to start September 1 1939. It could start with the Marco Polo Bridge incident. How about the first use of poison gas against civilians, the Italians against Ethiopia. But when you read the syllabus it just says World War two, that's what we're going to discuss. That's how we do it. And we know the strategies to use and but writing on the spirit of what I think Lucian is getting at to not to paraphrase I hate people trying to paraphrase me. He said what he said just like Bianca said what she said, but to to ride on it is that the challenge is to get deans to loosen up so that Ashworth can do what he's talking about to get professors and deans to loosen up so that Freeman can do what she's talking about. And that's when I bring up my own work. My dissertation was on afro centers and world politics mission only numbers are page numbers. You know who was the chair of my dissertation committee, J David sing. Singer is not a scholar after a century that's fair to say, but he was enough of a scholar to say I can follow a logical argument. If you want to develop this and culture and world politics and we did, and I promise we'll do quantitative things but and I'll stop with this. One of the big problems with understanding racism and world politics today was how dismissive political and international relations was of that after centric research in the 1980s and 1990s that they dismissed as pseudo scientific etc. I'm not talking about the streams of it. I'm not talking. My book is not a extreme. And there are a lot of other works that weren't this sort of rediscovery of racism, or rejection of the West, and then even in this construct the rejection of the west means I'm not talking except Marxism. How does that actually work. I'm not into rejecting this anti this be calling ID this and I find myself in the affirmative. And, and Joseph and this is why I stopped said introduce yourself. I said, I'm not Bianca Freeman. I'm not Lucian Ashworth. I'm not. You start with the affirming what are you accurate social science for to be accurate. We need to talk about these things. I'll stop there. Thank you for Professor Anderson. Say that I agree. I agree there. Oh, and I also rooted in history as well. And now Professor Anderson is time to wear your q amp a hat for the q amp a session. Yes. Okay. Although I'm the moderator for now I'm also the interfaith ambassador on campus and what we do is we do a little thing called stretching. It's been an hour of a long lecture series. Why don't we like stretch our bodies. It's a long evening. There we go.  Alrighty, in that case, we have two mics on the aisle. But before you ask your questions, just note, let's respect the panelists. I know our differences, but let's voice them out respectfully.  Any questions for the panelists. Right. Follow me up the floor. Hi, my name is so my day here my I'm a sophomore here at Tufts, and I'm studying international relations and I'm a part of the epic colloquium. Thank you guys so much for being here and talking about this really important subject. So interesting. I think this question is more directed at Ms Friedman, because you're talking about international law and I'm interested in 12 so the world pushes international law and in during my research I've gotten some critiques I guess I've seen some critiques and I don't want to evaluate them, but essentially saying that it is so decentralized that it's kind of hard to attack such a central framework framework that is white supremacism in our institutions. So I was wondering if you could maybe comment on that. Thank you so much for your question. So I want to repeat just so I know I'm understanding so you're interested in third world approaches to international law. And it's kind of a school of thought or approach to international law, and you mentioned that you got in the critique that it's difficult to use that approach to evaluate things like white supremacy. Is that correct. Yes, exactly a white supremacy in like very centralized institutions that have authority essentially. Oh, okay. Well, I full disclosure, I am not an expert on third world approaches to international law, but there is a robust literature from scholars all over. It's considered the global south. And that of course do this work. I, it's, I, I probably won't see to advise you on this one. But I'd say, um, let's see. Another panelist feel free to jump in here. I, I would say, um, where I have found probably the greatest help is engaging literatures that already exist and kind of seeing how scholars experts in the global south have engaged these problems. I think it's an interesting critique now that I think more about it. I'm kind of in real time and white supremacy strikes me as something that is not. Um, it, it made, I can make a case that it is, um, has this kind of centralized quality, but that it's something that multiple parts of the world have had to contend with and navigate and interact with over time. And whether it's white supremacy born out of empire colonialism, certain types of kind of paternalistic extractive systems. And so it's an interesting critique that you've got. But again, I recommend engaging the literature of scholars in the global south in particular that practice this so names that you may be familiar with. Um, like, um, Anthony, Angie, or Angie has excellent books on third world approaches to international law, which have informed my own work. Also, let's see, see book, Professor Seba grove we who writes on actually writes on race and racism, in the African context, and it's relation to international law. And those two come to mind right now. But that would probably be my first start to understand how they engage these things. They both do talk quite a bit. Certainly about racial hierarchy. And I'd have to search closer to see if they actually mentioned white supremacy or supremacism in particular. But if you can find it in, you know, and you think it's important and essential to how you would explain certain outcomes in international law, then perhaps it's something that you can make a case for, even if it hasn't been done so before moving on, we just want the panelists to be wary of the time we have a lot of questions and to limit the response to two or three minutes would be adequate. What other panelists have contributions to slow me this question. Okay, safe. Thank you so much. Hi, my name is safe. I'm a first year IR student on the identity track here at the university. You all talked a lot about academia and how to change so by to make them acknowledge the history of colonialism and racism and white supremacy. I'm in the kind of field of IR. And I was wondering, as someone who wants to be a practitioner one day, how in practice that could be applied. I think race and IR can be sometimes a very theoretical, I guess, theory or or way to look at IR. So how could we apply it in practice. Um, I didn't. I don't know if I should answer. The point that I don't do race. I am racism. I'm a scholar of international. My focus is culture and war. That's what I focus on. Okay. So I want that to be clear. Having said that, you may have noticed there's an international movement of Black Lives Matter. How does race apply to international relations? There's a Black Lives Matter movement in Nigeria, you know. So one is like, again, hidden in plain sight. How does race matter? Much of the foreign policy United States was constructed during the Cold War from congressional committees, etc. They're dominated by segregationists. How does, how does the race matter? Much, much of the foreign policy of the European powers are constructed by those who are advocates of imperialism, especially in Britain and France. The UN Charter, a Charter member to UN is fastest Portugal is a passage regime. That's not a political. That's not, I'm not calling my name. That's what the Salazar regime was. It was fast. The question, how does racism, how do you do that practically? Take your pick. What do you want to do? Something more specific. And I often share with students and people who just talked with me more than five minutes. Please don't mistake my intensity for hostility. I'm not mad at you. This is how I talk. I'm the youngest of 13. If I didn't talk louder, then get food. Okay. So I'm not mad. I'm saying it's right there. How does it apply with respect to the disparities you observe in world politics? Not how does it apply? It's like asking a question about water. Yeah, it's just water. But if you talk about the hydroelectric power of the of the GERD, the giant dam in Ethiopia, which is one of the things that's fueling the current conflict in Ethiopia, as well as the potential conflict between Ethiopia and Egypt with respect to the Nile. But if you don't look at it, if you just see it as water, but I use the analogy of water because it's ubiquitous. But if you just think of water as opposed to hydroelectric power. So the question is, what interests you? What interests you in world politics? And this is why I talk about outcomes because folks can often think of that in those terms, in my bias experience. Those things first, but not to stay there. But in the sense of what do you want to do, as opposed to thinking of the predictor so much. How does race and how do you do that practically? But I can talk about my own experience of working in a community based organization before I became a scholar. But again, I don't try to put my biases on students because I'm not teaching advocacy trying to be accurate, teach accuracy. I'm conscious of time. Yeah, just a building on that, you know, my, my experience from in, in sort of teaching is that actually though this these we are talking about issues of sexism of racism. You know, these are lived experiences and I find actually it's the other way around that quite often when I'm having seminars to click with grad students and many of the people who have have worked. Sometimes in work related to IR sometimes not is that quite often actually the discussions are when we talk about issues, like for example, race and international relations, they are bringing their experiences to it and then in fact, you know, I think it's the in many aspects as the other way around that certainly, you know, say at the grad level that it is the, it is not so much the case of a kind of rarefied academic subject which doesn't transfer to lived experiences but rather lived experiences that need actually to be worked into the the academic language in the seminar so actually find it the other way around. Thank you so much. Hi, thank you to all for joining us tonight. My name is the boss and I'm a senior at Tufts. Professor Anderson you kind of mentioned this happening at the beginning of the panel but I guess this question is kind of friendly the panelists is if you've encountered this because I'd be curious to hear from your personal experiences, but when you write an empirically accurate IR article that, you know, by extension can serve to help sort of dispel these strategically ignorant white supremacist narratives in the field. When you submit that article to a mainstream journal and they reject it I was wondering kind of why they made like why they're reluctant to include those in the journal and like sort of what that serves them and maybe like what excuses they often like come up with. Maybe a good project for a senior at Tufts to send to the editors of the major journals in IR and ask them in the past five years have the proportion of articles about this subject that they have rejected and and the most consistent regions reasons they gave why your power as unfortunately and in this situation as sort of a sort of market education is as consumers and the irony is that you probably get a fuller more fossil explanation than I would. I thought you were unmuting yourself. Okay. Thank you. Hi everyone thank you for being with us tonight. My name is Ellie Murphy and I'm a senior studying international relations and I had a question for miss Freeman. In our discussion today, one trend I noticed was that power imbalance and white supremacy in the field of international relations seems to thrive off of these fabricated binaries so feminized states versus or feminine states versus masculine ones primitive states versus racialized ones. And in an era where we're beginning to question these fabricated binaries in our social world and international systems. I'm wondering how you see the field of international relations as a field that will help us question these these binaries. Thank you for such a good question. They've all been really good questions. So, um, it's so encouraging. I have lost track of the students that I'm teaching a class that will approach me and rightfully note that an assigned text or an assigned article and seems to have neglected and entire histories of colonialism, legacies of empire, these, these systems that didn't just go away, but that, of course, and they continue to shape interactions between states. And as far as international relations and the scholarship itself, or the field as a tool to help us kind of identify and begin to deconstruct and eliminate these types of kind of false binaries as you put it is what you're doing right now. And engaging in talks like this, and being vocal, and even at times it might feel uncomfortable, but if you feel led to voicing, even if it's a question just I noticed that this is conveniently left out but I think it's very important for how we understand sofas, what I study, or the concept of R2P and intervention in states. And it's good because I think it puts the onus on the instructor, and by extension the syllabus to make a conscious public choice as to whether or not this is something worth discussing and hopefully amending one's syllabus and just conversations in these different seminars. But you really are the future of the field whether it's IR as a discipline or you'll take these things into your own professions and many of you maybe become practitioners. But you in large part are essential to things changing. I will say, and this is related to the previous question, we, we have an incredibly long way to go in terms of publications and how the field chooses to engage or not engage work that investigates outcomes and leverages the explanatory power of things like racism. But there have been some kind of silver linings or meaningful movement towards this. And there are some journals, and I believe Professor Ashworth brought up the special issue in IA, International Affairs, I think, earlier this year, and there've been some special calls for special issues on racism and security. And so our annual review published a piece about it. And this is all of course, in addition to the absolutely essential work that our panelists on here today have spent their careers contributing to. So all of that is to say that it's the students in the classroom that are kind of the future of the field. And so it's up to us to use IR ourselves to disrupt things that, again, as Dr. Anderson likes to say, not necessarily about advocacy, but just to make a more accurate, a more accurate discipline and just way of understanding the world, which is what we're after here. Thank you. I would like to encourage folks to as well to check out Hernandez, the Latina scholar at Fordham and her critique of the critique of the simple binary. There's nothing inherently better about a triadic, a quartnerism.  And you have the lowest of that category. I'll just claim it for the United States. I won't go any further. Okay, but I think this is going to hold beyond the US shores. There's something about attending to the least of these that can incorporate more without assuming and this is a white supremacist construct that you've got a universal solution to all of them. I'm going to do the BIPOC thing. I'm talking about African Americans, black folks to challenge what white supremacism. There's a particular role, given that it's the lowest of them in a white supremacist hierarchy to overturn that it's like the global application of the Coopers notion of when and where I enter as a black woman, most oppressed in US body politic. Remember that the native population was expelled from the body policy. Okay, I won't be clear. I don't think I'm dismissing it. But when and where I enter only ones that can claim it the whole race enters with me. So I think there is a valuation this with it is a white supremacism there's some value and targeted. I'm not suggesting that's what all the folks should do. But the what Hernandez is talking about the critique of the critique of the simple binary. It can easily become another diversion to not do with the main deal with the main mode of domination. So there are the other modes of domination across sex and sexuality. But there's something particular about patriarchy. Something particular about that. There's something particular about white supremacism. Okay, there's something particular about elitism. There's other. Okay, so I want to be clear about that. And it's not either or but the challenge of some of these things. I have one more person quote Audre Lorde out of context, the master's tools in the math. Oh my goodness. Okay, so it's so beyond the slogan and that's what trying to do something empirically challenges you to do. You just can't it's not just more phraseology or the invention of new neologisms, but to say empirically what does this do. Okay. Thank you. And I apologize for you to say your name and affiliation. Okay, so I'm Chichi. I took this course a couple years ago and I'm living the experience that I would have had it and not been online. Basically, my question has to do with you all mentioned Robert Vitalis, the likes of Mercedate, Elaine Locke, there's also Ralph Bunch, Eric Williams, like all of these black scholars that have kind of been erased from from academia and I'm wondering when we bring these scholars back into this like scholarship I suppose like mainstream scholarship. If there's harm in kind of acting like race, like racial hierarchy and IR like discussing that is new. And I'm also wondering how you take this discussion and apply it to like a more global scale like the color line and not just like in the US but all over the world if that kind of makes sense. Okay. Yeah, I think there's a great value in kind of taking, as you say, taking it up to the global scale and sort of thinking more in terms of international relations but beyond the normal kind of North Atlantic way of looking at it and I think that's even because I particularly when we're looking at many of the scholars, for example, that show up in Bob Vitalis's book and so forth, that these scholars were often part of a much wider community as well. I mean you mentioned Mers Tate for example, you know, who went to Geneva then went off to Oxford and then in her research of course taking her to South Asia and so forth that she was sort of walking the world stage. And you know, there is a there is a danger I think that, well, isn't the danger it actually happens doesn't it, let's face it, I can become very parochial in that sense. And I think that danger is even stronger in North America. So, so yes. Really nice question. I think that it's a good thing to endeavor to seek an actually site scholars that have done the theory and I've done the work that is tangent or related or very much central to newer work and developing work. I will say and this is not my personal critique, or it didn't originate with me but it seems that at least an IR scholars like Mers Tate and Ralph Bunch and those several that you mentioned. I would hope that they're known for their contributions, unless for being sidelined and locked out of meetings and ignored, you know, along their professional journey. And so I would want to, I want to hear Mers Tate talked about and discussed for her contributions on arms and disarmament theory like I want to hear that, because she, at the time at least. Even though we know her largely for her contributions on theorizing and understanding the world in such a way that is more accurate and acknowledges the systems of order and hierarchy that dictate a lot of this. Or a lot of what at least the outcome she's concerned with an IR and I don't always hear her described and talked about for her contributions and same thing with some of the other scholars also.  And so as much as WB Du Bois should be discussed, I would hope that Mers Tate and other women that were active in the 80s and the 90s in IR are also discussed. And so we can help do this by moving beyond kind of how they disrupt the norm against noticing, so to speak, to actually engaging their, their work, and hopefully not just in the kind of growing literature. As of late, I'm raised in IR, but actually the outcomes that that we prioritize and so incredibly essential to cite these works, and to just take it another step and if you're a scholar a student of IR and like Google scholar search like who who has written on this, look up who they are, you know, and, and kind of their contributions and how they self identify and, you know, across a host of characteristics. I'm going to ride on that with Ms Freeman said, yeah, I'm interested in that theory I'm not interested in bring I'm not interested in biography, I'm not knocking folks who are interested in that theory, and how it's applicable. So Hans Morgenthau found fitting to praise of Mers Tate's work on disarmament, you read Morgenthau, you know, it's what's what's what's their theory that's why I refer to Elaine likes his thesis on on on race. The boys is it thesis on racial imperialism. We talked about them. How do you bring in voices. I teach international relations on this. This is the book that I talked about African realism is just a struggle just to get a picture of regaining African in that relation. That's not a big overbearing dark skin brother with a AK 47 chess pieces strategy what epitomized strategy in the West, except they're black and brown because it's after so African realism question mark to engage that theory. It's just like we said with feminism it's not an issue of adding women and stirring. What they conceived of the world and how to change it in in transport and such positive transformative way. So that's where I'm coming from because these other things become draining distractive to this purpose of challenge them at the theoretical level. A member of the Black Panther Party David Hill you once said, he said the white left wanted us for our thuggery and not our theory. Frederick Douglass was constructed was constructed by white abolition abolitionist when he was speaking. Mr Douglas, you provide the story will provide the philosophy as I said, I'm interested in these folks as theorists and how their theory informed world politics, the rest they'll come in on and I don't see any of this. And let's go back to the issue about. No, let me stop there. I don't interest the time. Let me stop. Well, Professor understand your book on African realism is next to the library right next to our building right now. It's in again library so students are interested they can borrow the book. We have the question here with you. And you can ask me and I'll send you the PDF for free in in my book. Thank you very much. You've heard it. Yeah. Hi. First of all, I would like to say thank you. My name is I know that I'm from Brazil. So, I studied public administration. And I'm better. Articulation college. Articulation National to negra jovens feministas, or in English something like national articulation of black young feminist in Brazil. My question is how to keep. I don't know if you can see me but I am a black woman, of course, but okay. If the black people staying. I don't know what motivation and healthy to keep and to live to live in a country as a Brazil and as a US when so hard to us survive. So, how can we can stay better than now. I don't know if you can understand. In my class, I have a piece by Manuela peak, Manuela Levina's peak on Amazonian IR, and she's a French Brazilian scholar who's an activist in Ecuador my leather place. Manuela Levina's work speaks to this obvious national mentors work. I wouldn't be as presumptuous to talk to you about living.  I don't know and I can't see you and you didn't share that. But I do feel comfortable talking about the contributions of resilience to international relations. And if that's something that could be adjacent to what you're asking because I don't want to appear indifferent, but I also don't want to appear as if I'm in any way prepared to tell you about how folks live or survive. Does any of the other at panels have contributions. Okay, I can give you a resource. And if I can share it with with with Mr. Lim offline for a Brazilian scholar in the US who came from Brazil and and she's a she's a woman scholar. And she came to the US before even being able to speak English and about navigating so I can give you a reference to that I can give it to Joseph to share if that's okay. And yeah, thank you. And if you provide your email then I can send recent that's useful. And is there any more questions in the audience. Oh, yeah, one more. I just wanted to say, if I may be so bold. To thank the panelists and, and I was so inspired by everything I heard here that I wanted to say as a, yeah. Oh, sorry. My name is Molly tower. I am a founder and executive director of climate refugees. I'm a practitioner my humanitarian. Working with refugees and forcibly displaced populations for about 20 years now. And, and toughs very graciously invited me here to speak earlier today. I'm so inspired by what I heard today that I am so taking up this time, which is not mine. But I just wanted to say that I heard so many things that inspired me to share that seven years ago I founded this organization, because I heard from refugees themselves. There is an international relations in asylum law and refugee law. And if that doesn't demonstrate how much we don't represent people that are impacted by world governance. I don't know what else it does demonstrate. Two years ago living in New York City, and the murder of George Floyd. I was just beside myself like anybody else. And I was cooking dinner and a thought came into my head which was, if black Americans were to seek asylum they could qualify. I went to my laptop, and I wrote that down. And I published that op ed. And it was the first op ed I ever wrote and published. And I just dared to do it because it needed to be said.  When clearly I use to Professor Henderson's amazing point, the empirical evidence that the UN itself has documented decade after decade after decade to prove that. Clearly it reaches a threshold of persecution. And I, as someone who has a master's degree in international affairs and in human rights. I'm ashamed to say, and also in development that it's only after the fact that I learned that in 1947 WB Dubois public, you know had filed his petition to the UN, which kind of went nowhere. And in 1948 we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  My goodness, thank you so much. And I'm just sharing that, because here we are amongst people who are going to take us into the future I hope I know they will so thank you. If I'm allowed, this petition came from the, the NNC, which has been associated with Ralph Bunch, but it didn't go nowhere by 1951 William and Louise Patterson had published we charge genocide Louise Patterson is excellent book by Keith Gillier on her life and their struggle, they are from people from Queen Mother Moor, who would teach Malcolm X with respect to reparations. The issue of refugees and I'll just be very quick, then that should be supportive appreciating what you said of of argument for reparations if that type of persecution continues, this is where and we're here talking about policy implications with just the recent passage of the Emmett Till anti lynching bill. And if you remember the one of the, the, the main protagonist of the, one of the protagonists the white woman who that the image had, had been inappropriate toward her. She finally recanted it for she finally told the truth, right before she died and she was selling her own book, Brian, Brian. And just the point about it going nowhere. And the, the part of the refugee part I get the empirical relationship after America's never been refugees. This country that much more following the Native Americans have the longest and sustained citizenship claims to this country and establishment of the most democratic institutions that this country has. And so that's the one part of refugee part that I'm not with but I appreciate the point that the, the, the circumstances that they face, but it was like with Hurricane Katrina when they're talking about these, these folks as refugee their citizens. But they're treated as if there are so the language I would, I would, I would, I would encourage if, if, if blacks are persecuted as refugees, then this becomes a justification for reparations and international law, and maybe the freeing of the political prisoners of black political Tulu Shakur from a second Dingo who's been who was released after 33 years and Sunday out of Coley who still is in a prison today and Rochelle McGee, who's associated with the case associated with with Angela Davis, who's been in prison for half a century. So these issues become selling as well for activism and actions that can be taken now still I'm still in the context of international law. And it may sound not sound like this to some people. I'm talking international relations right now. International relations. Okay, so I want to start. Thank you. Hello. If I may ask really quick. Hey, I'm Janice. Yeah, yeah. I'm Janice. I'm a senior undergraduate of international relations in Athens, Greece. I was wondering that United Nations was constructed after the Second World War in a world that colonists still existed and as a system in general reflects a total different belief system, even from the, as we say that the column still existed and also the Security Council with that right and so on that is granted only to five members and stuff. I was wondering that how can combat the racism as an international community and gain a higher level of inclusion, while the structures that we have that have been made in a total different historical context, relevant of the today's reality, and how we can dismiss and discard this substantial component of today's international order. It's a big question. I don't want to appear to be avoiding the question, but what I said before, I don't teach advocacy, I teach accuracy, so that's why I'm going to defer to another pilot. You know, my excellent questions, quite worthy of discussing. I am probably in the academic my hat on and so we often kind of again evaluate these outcomes, but in terms of creating more kind of anti racist policy or making these policy changes. That's kind of beyond, at least where my experience lies, but I, you bring up very obviously incredibly important international actors. And one thing I like to at least believe is that the profession and the academic and thinking through kind of policy policy implications. It would seem to me that it's important to understand, in addition to the actors their interests and kind of where they relate relationally to each other in terms of material capability power. It's just, it's simply important to understand and just empirically that could be qualitatively or statistically how certain outcomes, especially that the big five members on the Security Council and have all the decision making power, how certain decisions or outcomes, whether it's human rights, so I, you know I consider the decision to intervene under the principle of R2P, whether it's aid, whether it's even NATO, I don't think has been brought up yet, and the decision to go to war. These types of decisions we can look at, like we have the numbers and to understand the ways that they may vary by constructions of both race and racism. And so I think that this is something that one can do, whether they have both feet in the Academy or both feet firmly in the policy world or maybe one in both, which is much more complicated. But I'd like to think that when we think about, if we're trying to create anti-racist policies and approaches, then it's, it would seem to me that to start, it's not so much, oh, like, do we have a policy or a law in place that is against racial discrimination or EDI efforts or whatever buzzwords one can imagine and think up that are floating around. It's not so much that because, again, our whole conversation has been the ways that IR conceals and obfuscates, yet perpetuates these types of systems. But it's more looking at the outcomes that you yourself as a student care about, you think about, and just asking, I wonder if this policy is applied differently depending on the geographic location or the actors of interest, the target community, you know, we look at the news and what's happening with Ukraine and a lot of people are talking about the differential treatment towards refugees based on perceived risks. So I would say, don't have an answer for policy recommendations at all, because it's a hard thing, and that's not my training at the moment. But just looking at the outcomes and just asking the question and conducting the investigation. And I did full disclosure, I did a policy master's before my PhD in political science. And so I had somewhat of your experience in this program that you're in. And I think that that's a common theme, and I'm happy that that's a common theme between types of professions, at least at the student level. I'd just like to add to that just briefly that, yeah, you know, we have inherited structures from the past and often a past that's a very much a foreign country. But it's worth remembering one more positive note that the structures may be inherited but the norms within those structures and and also acting on those structures are constantly changing. There's always that room for change, even if the outward form of the structures still seems to be from, you know, our grandparents generation. Thank you. Hi, my name is Karen Gore. I'm an attorney. I think I'm the only attorney in the room but I think we have some law students from Brazil and some of the other delegations here. I practice public international law, and I primarily focus on international economic law and international investment law, and Tufts graciously invited me to talk about R2P tomorrow so that has very little to do with economic law but has implications. I wanted to share a reference and a resource that I started to look up over dinner and I wish you were all here with us for dinner because the students are delightful and inquisitive and you have gotten a lot out of that. But earlier this week, Professor James Geithy of Loyola Law School in Chicago gave a lecture at Brooklyn Law School where his primary thesis and it's one that he's continuing to develop and I hope he'll publish a paper about it soon but it was just a lecture that he gave on zoom was that in order to unpack the racist legacy of some of these institutions or the race based legacy of institutions that we have today. We have to go back in history and see how their racist agenda has unfolded. What does that really mean well he he looks at the world banks reaction to the murder of George Floyd, which was to start an anti racism task force. That task force had two prongs to it the first thing was to look at internal policy so how do employees at the World Bank experience their time working there and things like that, but then also to look at the developmental agenda that the World Bank has, and what he theorizes that's impossible to unpack any of that, without going back to the origins of the World Bank, and looking at what they funded when they funded it, what were the race based prerogatives or motivations for that funding and it's only when you own up to that history that you can look at the future of the institution, both for you know the lived experience of people who work there, but then also their developmental agenda. I, it's not an area I purport to know anything about, but it was an event that took place earlier this week I was inspired by it. I hope you publish the paper. So if any of you are interested in this topic, I think you can look at the work of James Geithi and he's one of the scholars of third world approaches to international law so you might enjoy his work. Thank you. I appreciate the point. I don't agree with the only and it's impossible I share with students I'm absolutely opposed to absolutes and dogmatically against dogma, but if that's just a turn of phrase and that's fine. There's a piece about Raphael Lincoln's and I've heard you before the construction of the genocide convention of these things are some will call racialized to start with. I think you have to go back and there's a there was a reparations claim made against etna that was successful in Illinois for its for its financing of slave ships, you can engage these things contemporaneously. There's there's not necessarily an either or so I'm not opposed to it, only when it said the language of you can only do this impossible to unpack this. African American Civil War veteran George Washington will Williams and observing what was going on in the end of the 19th century in the Belgian Congo of coined the term that we use now, they were not simply crimes their crimes against humanity. The, um, often, I think it's important that we recognize that what's the, the, the, it's not something to hypocrisy but the notion that the Belgians will kill more than 10 million in Congo would now be presiding the EU and the Brussels and the on the ICJ and the but but they would be in the position as a regime. We're not even getting to the collaboration between Belgium France the US and assassination of a lumbar. It's not just the satiate of a person, but it's killing Congolese democracy, broccoli Congolese democracy was not still born it was it was murdered in this great. And the 32 years of my Buddhism, yet they would then focus on Paul Kagami, who overthrows that murderous regime that was subsidized by Belgium France the United States. And now these are the folks who are going to hold African leaders or call them to the world court, you don't need to study all this history to see that this is, I know the word for this is beyond hypocrisy. This is the hubris the audacity of white supremacism, so that these folks will preside over the determinant the French with respect to the Rwanda genocide to be in a position to talk about anyone being a war criminal you're serious. I think it's appropriate to have attention first to Ukraine, but I wish folks were more folks will focus on Ukrainian mercenaries operating in in Africa, and it have been for decades. The the aegis of Western support, and this these become our moral teachers are you serious. So the claims of what we can or can't do is just a matter of of challenging what is as a parent as the nose on your face. This doesn't take some deep study a deep dive in the history okay it's not required it's there, but but but who will challenge that and there are many people who are, but my challenge what I'm trying to do is to is to bring this into the mainstream. I'm not interested in boutique studies, or things like that I want to bring it right into the mainstream, because it is mainstream, and I hope before we close, I can leave you with a little precious I won't do it now but see if Joseph will allow me on how to immediately demonstrate this folks the importance of white supremacism and world politics with just four easy questions okay I stop. Thank you for the citation and kind of the, and the gist of this scholars argument and I think it's, I'm not experienced with these types of more historical and approaches to these important questions. One thing that kind of a light bulb for me, especially when I was earlier in a particular paper is that it's not a stretch of the imagination to engage the time period of the early post war period and find racism everywhere. And so it, you know, what is it telling us about now the contextual history is absolutely important, perhaps for understanding trends over time, and having that kind of institutional knowledge, there's definitely a use for it. And what's interesting is, and scholars like so tongue sauce who's an IR scholar identifies as such and is written on things relating to race and racism and IR, and he talks about how there's a pendulum, and it swings. And so just because race, and like the word race, and, and certainly racism, you won't find it written anywhere except that we're against racism now. And even though racial hierarchies kind of hidden, or at least it's not as explicit, and it's, it can swing the other way so. And I'm using this as an analogy to talk about IO's Brenton Woods, and that may have had these very like explicitly racist actors employed, mostly Europeans and positions of power, and certainly not all of them. But you had certain actors the same thing politics in the United States, of course, policymakers that were very vocal about their, their biases and their opinions of people outside of Europe and that's just a course of fact. And so, but I'm looking at that time it's not at all surprising. And because that was the norm that those were the customs. And there were laws that protected that. But now today, I think we're finding and this is a point that Professor Ashworth brought up and that the norms have certainly changed just on paper, legally. And, but it doesn't mean that these things racial hierarchy isn't still operating of course and so what I found very exciting is looking at data from today, and looking at it in such a way and seeing if it can be explained by perhaps the same racial structures as new ones ones that have evolved, but looking at the World Bank today which I know some IR scholars are already doing, who is currently employed. And what are their positions and these IOs who's making the decisions of where in the type of aid that goes, who is on the ground receiving the aid and gets to make these decisions. I'm not an expert on aid or this kind of this area in particular IOs, and there's excellent work out there already. But yes that there was a light bulb for me when someone told me that at the time is that we're not surprised at all to find these things when we delve back in time, but it can be a particularly useful example or even case study to pair with analysis of what's happening today. And I seem to think that that's kind of an important frontier and where positivists mainstream scholars can and that identifies positivist can step in and really engage that kind of work. Thank you so much. Well, panelists, I will give you a mission for parting mission. It is 9pm and it's time for our students to go in one minute, you can make a final remark. Or with the common denominator with the students, if you have any plans this weekend that you're looking forward to. Feel free to use this time. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. You gave me a really good cliffhanger regarding questions. And so if you want to use that time for expounding on what you wanted to expound on, you can do some fun. One minute strictly. Okay, one minute hold me to it just appreciate. Thank you all for coming out as well as here we go. How you demonstrate the relevance of white supremacist in IR for for quick question is international war major focus of IR. Yes. What was the most destructive war recorded history. Though we know that wars are the result of complex factors not a single one but let's just say if we can say there was one person responsible for making World War two World War two, who would that be.  Yes. So, white supremacism was a prominent factor in the most destructive international war in human history, the study of such wars being a major focus of IR, and white supremacism is central to IR. 34 seconds and so it's pretty amazing. Professor Ashworth. I like that. I thought that was that's great. And actually should have been, I think, you know, that's that's where we should end. But, but no, I just wanted to say, look, this has been a great discussion, and I really thoroughly enjoyed it and the questions have been have been great. They've, I think they've really brought out a lot of the points that some really good points there. And basically, you know, I think this is, this has been a great time. Look, I thank you for coming out for listening to us and and for asking such great questions. And finally, Ms Freeman. Oh, I echo what the other panelists have said, I like to thank you all for your time and energy. I know it's been a long, probably several days, and just making it a point to kind of bridge these worlds, which are clearly both contending with questions of how to deal and tend with race and racism in the field of international relations. And so it's so nice as a fellow student to hear your questions and gauge your excitement and just your your passion, but also interest in producing more, hopefully accurate policy. I'd like to thank you so much. I'm spoiled. I'm on the West Coast, so it's not quite 9pm. But it's been a wonderful time. And please do reach out if I can assist you in any way as you move forward. Well, with that, to share a little anecdote, somebody wrote on the notepad. I send this message to you be confident smile. And I hope you have a good night ahead. Thank you so much and can we get them around applause. Time to party. All right, hope you have a good night ahead. Hi everyone. It was a pleasure, as always. This was so wonderful. Be free. Thanks. It was wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And Gabriel, the art angle. Thank you. To Gabriel, the art angel. Have a good evening. See you next time.