1. For data and extended discussion see Elliott P. Skinner, Afro-Americans and Africa: The Continuing Dialectic. The Urban Center, Columbia University, New York, February 1973.

2. J.W.E. Bowen, Africa and the American Negro. Addresses and Proceedings of the Congress on Africa, December 13-15, 1895 Miami: Mnemosyne Publishing Co., 1969.

3. St. Clair Drake, “Negro Americans and the African Interest,” in The American Negro Reference Book, John P. Davis (ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966, p.683.

4. Curtin, Philip D., “African Studies: A Personal Assessment,” African Studies Review, Vol. XIV, No. 3, Dec, 1971, p. 362.Google Scholar

5. See Hsu, Francis L.K., “Prejudice and Intellectual Effect in American Anthropology: An Ethnographic Report.” American Anthropologist, Vol. 75, No. 1, 1973, pp. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Skinner, Elliott P., quoted in Cowan, L. Gray, “President’s Report,” African Studies Review, Vol. XIII, No. 3, December 1970, p. 349.Google Scholar

7. Adelaide Cromwell [Hill] Gulliver, “African Studies Programs,” in Africa, Seen by American Negro Scholars, Présence Africaine (AMSAC), New York, 1963, pp. 368-369.

8. Ruth Schachter Morgenthau, “Separating Spies from the Scholars,” in Africa Today, December 1966, p. 23.

9. Herskovits, Melville J., “Some Thoughts on American Research in Africa,” Presidential Address, First Annual Meeting, African Studies Association, Evanston, Illinois, September 5, 1958, African Studies Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 2, November 1958, p. 6.Google Scholar

10. Quoted in Cowan, L. Gray, “Ten Years of African Studies,” African Studies Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 1969, p. 6.Google Scholar

11. The Negro History Bulletin, February 1950.

12. The first and last time I remember Afro-Americans at ASA meetings attempting to nominate one of their members from the floor and seek his election was at Boston in 1959. Dean Horace Mann Bond was nominated for Board member, and then for Vice-President, and was defeated on both counts.

13. In attempting to explain why the ASA did not more actively take a pro-African position. Professor Cowan pointed out that the Certificate of Incorporation of the African Studies Association provided that the “corporation shall not carry on propaganda or otherwise attempt to influence legislation.” However, this explanation would not wash. There was no reason why as “individuals” members of the Board of ASA could not speak out in favor of Africa. Did they value their association more than the lives of Africans? Cf. Williard R. Johnson, “The Responsibility of Africanists-A Board Candidate’s Platform,” n.d., c.1970; Idrian N. Resnick, “Dialog: The Future of African Studies after Montreal,” Africa Report, December 1969, p. 22.

14. Willard R. Johnson, Ibid., p. 2.

15. Herschelle Sullivan Challenor, “No Longer At Ease: Confrontation at the 12th Annual African Studies Association Meeting at Montreal,” Africa Today, Vo. 16, Nos. 5 & 6, Oct.-Dec. 1969, p. 5. I do not know how customary it is for the President of the United States to send greetings to scholarly organizations, but President John F. Kennedy sent such a greeting to the President of the ASA on the occasion of the annual meeting on October 12,1962.

16. Morgenthau, op. cit., p. 22.

17. Herskovits, op. cit., p. 1.

18. The leaders of the ASA have always denied that they controlled fellowships. Someone, apparently Dr. Cowan, stated that “with one minor exception, the present grant for the Oral Data Committee permits the Committee to offer a few hundred dollars to enable scholars to deposit tapes. . . at the University of Indiana.” (“What Is All the Fuss About? An Inside Account of the African Studies Association—Its Structure, Activities, and Financing—by the Organization’s Incoming President,” Africa Report, December 1969, p. 18.) However, at the Spring 1971 meeting of the Directors of African Studies Programs in New Orleans, Dr. Cowan “was asked to comment on the future funding of African programs,” especially since the N.D.E.A. had cut back. “Professor Carter suggested that since the whole matter of funding was so complex, this body (the Directors’ Meeting] could not adequately deal with it in plenary session. She recommended that a small group of the Meeting be appointed to probe into the whole question of funding of area programs. The group agreed with this and the chairman asked Professor Cowan, whose interests now go beyond purely African matters, if he would select a committee to do this. Dr. Cowan agreed” (italics mine). Here in 1971 the same old guard was in power and still wheeling and dealing. The suggestion of Marshall Segal that N.D.E.A. needed restructuring got nowhere. “He reminded the group that not all African programs are recipients of N.D.E.A. grants. He asked about the concept of selected N.D.E.A. centers and the distribution of N.D.E.A. support. Professor Cowan noted that nothing formal has been done to deal with the question [of] the distribution of N.D.E.A. centers.” (African Studies Newsletter Vol. IV, No. 4, September 1971, pp. 16-18.)

19. In a surprisingly candid letter to the African Studies Newsletter, Immanuel Wallerstein admitted that “We live in an era in which the political consciousness of Black men is high, higher than at any point heretofore in modern history. It is high and it possesses a quality of intensive anger against whites especially but not only in the United States and Southern Africa. . . . Racism, in both overt and more subtle institutional forms, is a primary ideological ingredient of the American world system. Insofar as virtually all the members of the African Studies Association are direct beneficiaries of the present world system, none of us can escape moral involvement: we must decide whether our life actions will sustain this present system or seek to change it.” (Vol. IV, No. 1, February 14, 1971, p. 1)

20. Challenor, op. cit., p. 4.

21. C. Gerald Fraser quotes a speaker at the Black Caucus as saying, “The reason for this [action] is . . . 600 million African peoples. . . this is our frame of reference. And this is how. . . we have been discussing this whole political confrontation. It is a confrontation of African peoples with European peoples. I want this very clearly understood. Secondly, we want to point out that we have argued and maintained that the ASA perpetuates colonialism and neo-colonialism so that we know very, very clearly the objectives and design of this organization and the effect. . . this organization has on the lives of African peoples.” (“Black Caucus Deliberations at Montreal: Who Should Control African Studies and for What Ends?” Africa Report, December 1969, p. 20.)

22. Clarke, John Henrik, “Confrontation at Montreal,” African Studies Newsletter, Vol. II, Nos. 6-7, November-December, 1969, p. 11.Google Scholar

23. Ibid., p. 12.

24. Professor Rupert Emerson obviously had trouble reconciling what he sensed were just grievances of the Africans and the nature of the confrontation. He felt that “there can be no dispute; it is obviously desirable to enlist as ASA members as many qualified ‘Africans’ from both sides of the Atlantic as can be prevailed upon to join. In the eyes of the militant blacks, the ASA is and always has been a predominantly white organization, thus embodying the characteristic white American racism (and this in an organization devoted to the study of a continent with which they claim a special relationship). The Association is accused of having taken no more than token steps to redress the imbalance by promoting the training and employment of more black Africanists.” However, he disliked the notion that skin color should be the main factor in the allocation of half of the seats on the Board; that idea, he felt, “deserves to be rejected out of hand.” (“Dialog. . . Africa Report, December 1969, pp. 26-27.)

25. This resolution read: “The Board should follow a non-racial policy in regard to the election of officers and members of the Board of Directors, but at the same time follow a policy of trying to interest more black scholars in the affairs of the Association, or trying to promote a greater interest in African studies among black Americans.” (African Studies Newsletter, Vol. III, Nos. 3-4, May-June, 1970, p. 17.)

26. Loc. cit.

27. Clarke admitted that “The confrontation in Montreal took an unpleasant form in part because of a serious lack of trust. I know from a meeting with the Black Caucus that they were determined to bring about fundamental changes in the here and now in Montreal, so that the establishment could not use time to patch up the status quo. If indeed their suspicions are founded, the consequences can only be increased distrust and hostility. Our capacity for dialogue is already dangerously low and a further reduction would not only destroy the African Studies Association, but more seriously, it would so pollute the human relationships as to render any future association all but impossible.” (John H. Clarke, “Dialog . . .” Africa Report, December 1969, p. 25.)

28. Skinner, Elliott P., “Strangers in West African Societies,” Africa Vol. XXXIII, No. 4, October 1963.Google Scholar

29. It should be stressed that a number of continental Africans who are heads of African Studies Programs in the United States have consistently striven for the ASA to grant the demands of the Black Caucus. At New Orleans in 1971, “Professor Abu-Lughod further asked what the programs are doing to accomodate the demands made at Los Angeles and Montreal. . . . Professor Onwauchi reminded the group that he and other Africans brought this question [working with Afro-American programs on the same campuses, accomodating Black demands for scholarship funds for Black students, etc.] before Africanists long before Montreal.” (African Studies Newsletter, Vol. IV, No. 4, September 1971, p. 23.)

30. Skinner, Elliott P., “African, Afro-American, White American: A Case of Pride and Prejudice,” Freedomways, Third Quarter 1965, pp. 380-395.Google Scholar

31. lt is interesting to note that the representative of USAID who attended the African Directors’ meeting at New Orleans in 1971 were more positive about what AID was doing to involve blacks than were the scholars present. David Shear, a representative of Ambassador Samuel Adams (who was Administrator for Africa in the AID Bureau and an Afro-American), noted that “his office wants to broaden the participation of adacemicts], both Black and White, in African affairs.... Mr. Shear then outlined what AID is doing to involve the Black community. AID has met with 26 Black institutions and has sought their participation in African development. He noted that AID feels that institutions such as Florida A & M can tell us something about development that larger institutions cannot. Ten Black students are now in the African Bureau. Further, AID has a contractual agreement with the College Services Bureau (which represents 96 Black institutions) in order to identify the needs and talents of those institutions with the goal of the problems of development.” (African Studies Newsletter, Vol. IV, No. 4, September 1971, pp. 21-22.) This attitude of USAID should give the Africanists pause, for as a Mossi proverb states: “When the goat bites the thief, the dog should hang his head in shame!” Incidentally, Dr. Adams’ action is only one example of what black ambassadors could do for blacks, for Africa, and for America when given positions of power. Drs. Adams, Mercer Cook, and myself, who were interested in Africa long before being named ambassadors, have tried to do our best, sometimes against great odds.