More INFORMATION.

So now that you’ve met the cast of characters I’m studying, a good question would be: why? Why these people? Why these people together?

Basically, I am interested in one key concept: “anticolonial internationalism,” or the combination of anticolonialism (trying to gain independence) and internationalism (trying to build some kind of world order). Usually historians have seen anticolonialism as inherently nationalistic—purely interested in building a nation-state out of a formerly colonized territory. However, I think that the careers of the men I am studying show that anticolonialism could be both nationalistic (trying to build an independent nation) and internationalist (trying to build a world order out of those independent nations). 

To make an analogy with U.S. history, many of the Founders were interested in building up their own states or commonwealths and the federalized United States, not to mention how these United States should relate to the former ruler and other countries (remember the War of 1812?). They didn’t see the two purposes as contradictory. Likewise, African or Arab leaders trying to build independent Nigeria or Syria both wanted to build an independent state and bring greater unity among African and Arab nations. I’m interested in the tension between those idealistic purposes and the difficulty of achieving those goals amid the hurly burly of real-life politics. To take the case of Nigeria: how do you try to integrate Nigeria with other African nations when you have a big enough task trying to hold Nigeria together?

That still leaves the question of why these people, and why together. Essentially, I chose to look at anticolonial internationalism in multiple regions, and in order to keep the project manageable, I decided to study one person from each region. Within that selection, I tried to choose less famous figures, and to get a variety of political ideologies and a variety of empires. To further narrow it down, I wanted to study people who were roughly contemporary to each other; as I looked at the people I ended up studying, I discovered they had peaks and valleys in their careers at similar times (the mid-1930s; 1943; 1945; 1955; the mid-1960s). Here’s a little breakdown of the diversity I hope to manage:

Figure	Region	Imperial Power	Cold War Alignment	Religion	Ideology (generally)
Shukri al-Quwwatli	Arab Middle East (Syria)	France (Ottoman Empire pre-1918)	Non-aligned/leaned pro-Soviet	Islam	Center-left (left, at times)
V.K. Krishna Menon	South Asia (India)	United Kingdom	Non-aligned/leaned anti-USA	Atheist (Hindu background)	Socialist
Carlos Romulo	Southeast Asia (Philippines)	United States	Pro-USA	Catholic (Christian)	Conservative
Nnamdi Azikiwe	West Africa (Nigeria)	United Kingdom	Non-aligned/leaned pro-USA	Protestant (Christian)	Center-left

Now, you will correctly notice that in one area my figures are not diverse: gender. They’re all men. While there are a couple of women contemporary to this period who could fit the bill (notably Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, a prominent representative of India at the United Nations), male leadership was the norm for anticolonial leadership in the early- to mid-twentieth century. Rather than accept this as a given, though, I’m going to try to understand why that was the case. (After all, most political leaders in the Great Powers from the 1930s-1960s were men too. What can that tell us about world politics?) Moreover, the men I’m studying had quite different relationships with women, with Krishna Menon never marrying while the others married, with their wives and their marriages playing different roles in their personal and political lives.

So these are some of the problems I’m investigating. As for where it’s going to end up, what I’m going to find, I have to admit I feel like I’m throwing a bunch of darts and seeing where they all land. In other words, I have no idea what the conclusions are going to be yet! Through these disparate stories, I hope to uncover, at least partly, answers to some of the following questions:

• Why did the hopes of these anticolonialists all around the world not come to pass? Which goals did they achieve, and how?
• How did the onset of the Cold War alter the political trends toward decolonization unleashed by the Second World War?
• How did the experience of this particular generation (you might call them the anticolonial “Greatest Generation,” leading from the 1930s-1960s), experiencing anticolonial struggle, independence, and post-independence difficulties all in a single career, offer a unique perspective on world politics?
• How could that “Greatest Generation” perspective be useful to their successors across Asia and Africa today, and to current leaders in the former colonial powers like the United States and Great Britain?

I believe that by combining the study of multiple regions through the men I’m studying, I will be able to answer these questions in a more holistic manner than I could if I studied just the leadership of Nigeria, or just Arab countries. Although my scope is limited to four people, the depth of their individual experiences gives combining them all a useful depth.

I hope you’ll come along the journey with me, and feel free to ask questions (also feel free to see the prospectus attached to the last post for a longer explanation). I find I think through things better when I have to answer questions!

*For another stimulating combination, try Hot Water and Ham—you can call it “Hot Ham Water”: