Douglas Little: Why We Need Diplomatic History
[Douglas Little is a professor of history at Clark University and the author of American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East Since 1945 (University of North Carolina Press, 2002), now published in a third revised edition.]
When Gallup pollsters asked the American public in January 2000 to list the most important issues facing their country in the new millennium, the respondents relegated federal spending on the military to 20th place; the U.S. role in world affairs tied for 21st. That was hardly surprising: After the fall of the Berlin Wall, enrollments in diplomatic-history courses plummeted, and freshly minted Ph.D.'s with dissertations on foreign relations had a difficult time finding tenure-track positions. By this autumn, however, student interest in topics like the cold war was rising, while a Newsweek poll showed that foreign policy had once again cracked the public's "top five" list, thanks to the stunning attacks on September 11, 2001, a controversial war in Iraq, and Russia's recent invasion of nearby Georgia.
Yet popular attitudes toward international affairs remain volatile. Frustrated by military stalemates in Baghdad and Kabul, impatient with complex issues like global climate change and nuclear proliferation, and frightened by the financial meltdown on Wall Street, Americans may be tempted to turn their backs on the world and to recite instead the dictum popularized by Will Rogers, the Jon Stewart of his day, during the Great Depression, another era of extraordinary crisis: "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' until you can find a rock." That dismissal has been echoed by some social historians, who have insisted that because the study of foreign relations is too state centered, elite oriented, and tradition bound, it and its practitioners neglect important work on race, gender, and popular culture.
In his splendid new book, From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776, however, George C. Herring, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Kentucky, reveals that diplomatic history is alive and well. In so doing, he also warns that Americans ignore diplomatic history at their own peril and insists that only by understanding the past can they ensure that the United States will play a positive role in international affairs in the future....
"It is one of the supreme ironies of recent history that leaders bent on perpetuating U.S. primacy squandered it through reckless use of the nation's power," Herring concludes. For the United States to find its way out of Iraq and back to political and financial stability, the American public will need to pay much closer attention to how the world works. Looking at Russia from a back porch in Alaska or attending grammar school in Indonesia may be a good start, but it's not nearly enough. For as George Herring has pointed out, America's transformation from colony to superpower required not only wise and realistic leaders willing to take calculated risks but also attentive and intelligent citizens willing to accept the consequences.
Read entire article at Chronicle of Higher Ed
When Gallup pollsters asked the American public in January 2000 to list the most important issues facing their country in the new millennium, the respondents relegated federal spending on the military to 20th place; the U.S. role in world affairs tied for 21st. That was hardly surprising: After the fall of the Berlin Wall, enrollments in diplomatic-history courses plummeted, and freshly minted Ph.D.'s with dissertations on foreign relations had a difficult time finding tenure-track positions. By this autumn, however, student interest in topics like the cold war was rising, while a Newsweek poll showed that foreign policy had once again cracked the public's "top five" list, thanks to the stunning attacks on September 11, 2001, a controversial war in Iraq, and Russia's recent invasion of nearby Georgia.
Yet popular attitudes toward international affairs remain volatile. Frustrated by military stalemates in Baghdad and Kabul, impatient with complex issues like global climate change and nuclear proliferation, and frightened by the financial meltdown on Wall Street, Americans may be tempted to turn their backs on the world and to recite instead the dictum popularized by Will Rogers, the Jon Stewart of his day, during the Great Depression, another era of extraordinary crisis: "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' until you can find a rock." That dismissal has been echoed by some social historians, who have insisted that because the study of foreign relations is too state centered, elite oriented, and tradition bound, it and its practitioners neglect important work on race, gender, and popular culture.
In his splendid new book, From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776, however, George C. Herring, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Kentucky, reveals that diplomatic history is alive and well. In so doing, he also warns that Americans ignore diplomatic history at their own peril and insists that only by understanding the past can they ensure that the United States will play a positive role in international affairs in the future....
"It is one of the supreme ironies of recent history that leaders bent on perpetuating U.S. primacy squandered it through reckless use of the nation's power," Herring concludes. For the United States to find its way out of Iraq and back to political and financial stability, the American public will need to pay much closer attention to how the world works. Looking at Russia from a back porch in Alaska or attending grammar school in Indonesia may be a good start, but it's not nearly enough. For as George Herring has pointed out, America's transformation from colony to superpower required not only wise and realistic leaders willing to take calculated risks but also attentive and intelligent citizens willing to accept the consequences.