In the complex landscape of early twenty-first-century geopolitics, racial ideologies and the concept of the “color line” continue to shape international relations. Charles Henry Pearson, in his seminal work National Life and Character: A Forecast (1893), introduced the idea of “unchangeable limits of the higher races,” theorizing that European “higher races” are bound by natural and climatic constraints that prevent them from fully dominating regions populated by “lower races,” such as Africans, Chinese, Indians, and Indigenous peoples. Pearson predicted that these lower races would eventually outnumber and challenge European dominance, reflecting a deterministic view of global racial dynamics.
In contrast, W. E. B. Du Bois expanded the concept of the color line, first introduced by Frederick Douglass in Reference Douglass1881, to describe global racial discrimination in The Souls of Black Folk (Reference Du Bois1903). Du Bois identified the color line as the defining issue of the twentieth century, providing a critical framework for understanding how racial hierarchies have structured global economic, social, and political relations.
Although Pearson and Du Bois differed in their conclusions, both addressed the implications of racial hierarchies on global power structures. Du Bois’s color line critiques the social constructs sustaining racial discrimination, whereas Pearson’s unchangeable limits offer a fatalistic perspective on racial characteristics and their supposed destinies. These frameworks offer a comprehensive lens for analyzing contemporary state-led initiatives like the Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa (BRICS), spearheaded by China, and the Alliance des États du Sahel (Alliance of Sahel States [AoSS]), which became a confederation on July 6, 2024, reportedly supported by Russia and China (Ajala, Reference Ajala2023; Hairsine, Reference Hairsine2023). Despite divergences—such as Russia’s historical alignment with the White European Bloc—the BRICS and AoSS, established in 2009 and 2023, respectively, are often perceived as counterbalances to Western dominance. Du Bois’s framework sees these alliances as collective efforts by non-Western nations to assert their agency against historical racial hierarchies, whereas Pearson’s framework highlights the demographic and geopolitical shifts challenging the global order.
By juxtaposing Du Bois’s critique of racial ideologies with Pearson’s deterministic racial theories, this article seeks to explore how these frameworks illuminate the geopolitical strategies of the BRICS and the AoSS, contributing to our understanding of shifting power dynamics in a racially stratified world.
CHARLES HENRY PEARSON’S UNCHANGEABLE LIMITS OF HIGHER RACES AND FORECAST OF GLOBAL POWER SHIFTS
At the end of the nineteenth century, Western expansionism reached its peak, with scholars contributing to the justification and perpetuation of Western hegemony. As Fernand Braudel (Reference Braudel1992) aptly noted, “Europe invented historians and then made good use of them” (134), using historical narratives to reinforce dominance both at home and abroad. During this era, Anglo-Saxonism emerged as a dominant cultural ideology, promoted by British and American intellectuals, who asserted the superiority of English-speaking nations based on “racial traits and characteristics inherited from the Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain” (Kaufman & Macpherson Reference Kaufman and Macpherson2005, 90–91). Edward Augustus Freeman exemplified this view by claiming that the Teutonic branch of the Aryan race, originating from the “German forest or on … Scandinavian rock,” had surpassed even the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome (Freeman Reference Freeman1872, 12). His superiority complex was further evident in his comment about America: “This would be a grand land if only every Irishman would kill a negro, and be hanged for it” (Belich Reference Belich2001, 296). This period also saw the popularization of concepts like Rudyard Kipling’s “white man’s burden” (Kipling Reference Kipling1899) and Jules Ferry’s (Reference Ferry1884) “mission civilisatrice,” both advocating for Western exceptionalism.
Charles Henry Pearson’s National Life and Character: A Forecast (Reference Pearson1893) stands in stark contrast to the triumphant attitudes of Western expansionism of the time. Dubbed the “prophet of decolonization” by Marilyn Lake (Reference Lake2004), Pearson was one of the few scholars who foresaw that colonized and subordinated peoples would eventually break free from “tutelage” and become self-governing states, actively participating on the world stage. He predicted, “The day will come, and perhaps is not far distant, when the European observer will look round to see the globe girdled with a continuous zone of the black and yellow races… . We shall wake to find ourselves elbowed and hustled, and perhaps even thrust aside by peoples whom we looked down upon as servile and thought of as bound always to minister to our needs” (Pearson Reference Pearson1893, 89–90).
Pearson identified education as a critical element in the transformation of oppressed nations, particularly Black people in America and around the world. He foresaw that education would empower emerging nations to demand and achieve political and economic participation, stating, “sooner or later the black race will be educated to a point at which it will demand and receive a share in these employments and in the government” (Pearson Reference Pearson1893, 41). This access to education, according to Pearson, would enable these populations to reject subjugation and claim leadership roles in governance and society. However, Theodore Roosevelt, in his review of National Life and Character, refuted the idea of any near-future liberation for Black people, arguing that they would remain under subjugation for “too many thousand years ahead.” He remarked, “The danger to which Mr. Pearson alludes, that even the negro peoples may in time become vast military powers constituting a menace to Europe, really seems to belong to a period so remote that every condition will have changed to a degree rendering it impossible for us to make any estimate in reference thereto. By that time the descendant of the negro may be as intellectual as the Athenian. Even prophecy must not look too many thousand years ahead” (Roosevelt Reference Roosevelt1894). Looking at the creation of the Confederation of Sahel States and the ousting of French and US military bases from these regions, it is likely that Roosevelt would be turning in his grave, witnessing the very developments he believed were far beyond reach.
Technology was another transformative factor in Pearson’s vision. He acknowledged that the spread of technology, facilitated by European expansion, would eventually empower colonized nations to assert their independence. Pearson noted, “We are bound, wherever we go, to establish peace and order; to make roads, and open up rivers to commerce; to familiarize other nations with a self-government which will one day make them independent of ourselves” (Pearson Reference Pearson1893, 14). This highlights the paradox of colonialism: the very tools intended to control and exploit would ultimately be appropriated by the colonized to challenge and overturn that control.
Population growth was another factor Pearson believed would contribute to the shift in global power. He observed a demographic trend that posed a significant challenge to European dominance: “The general law is that the lower race increases faster than the higher” (Pearson Reference Pearson1893, 32). He noted, “The average for all Europe is to double in about a century. Against this, we have the negro doubling in forty years, and the Hindoo in about eighty” (Pearson Reference Pearson1893, 80). This rapid population growth among non-European races would eventually overwhelm Europe’s demographic advantage, contributing to a significant shift in global power dynamics.
Pearson also foresaw that military power, once monopolized by European states, would increasingly be wielded by the very nations they had subjugated. He warned, “It might conceivably be of use if European statesmen could understand that the wars which carry desolation into civilised countries are allowing the lower races time to recruit their numbers and strength” (Pearson Reference Pearson1893, 14). Pearson predicted the rise of military capabilities in the East, stating, “In China or India, where the people are as intelligent as our own, there will rise up an educated class capable of using the knowledge and the arms that Europe has supplied to them” (Pearson Reference Pearson1893, 33). This acknowledgment of eventual military parity between Europe and its former colonies reflects Pearson’s understanding of the inevitable decline of European hegemony as other nations gained the knowledge and tools to defend their sovereignty.
Although Pearson’s theories were deeply rooted in the racial anxieties of his time, they contrast sharply with W. E. B. Du Bois’s concept of the color line. Pearson’s work reflects a fear of demographic shifts and the loss of European dominance, whereas Du Bois critiques the social constructs that sustain racial discrimination and advocates for racial solidarity among oppressed peoples. The following section will explore Du Bois’s framework as the second theoretical lens for understanding the ongoing influence of racial hierarchies on global power structures and contemporary geopolitical strategies.
W. E. B. DU BOIS’S GLOBAL COLOR LINE AND CALL FOR AFRO-ASIATIC SOLIDARITY
W. E. B. Du Bois’s seminal concept of the global color line offers a profound lens for dissecting the intricate nexus of race, colonialism, and global capitalism. This framework is pivotal for understanding contemporary geopolitical dynamics, notably reflected in the Brazil-Russia-India- China-South Africa (BRICS) and the AoSS. Du Bois’s global theorization of race introduces four essential guideposts that illuminate our analysis: the recognition of race as a mechanism of exclusion and oppression; the value of empirical insights derived from the experiences of oppressed populations; the necessity of a global perspective to link localized instances to a broader schema of racial colonial capitalism; and the identification of the color line as a construct born from economic exploitation, conflict, and white supremacist ideologies. Through Du Bois’s lens, we perceive the global color line not as a monolithic entity but as a series of interconnected, local phenomena, shaped by historical processes of exploitation across the United States, Africa, and Asia. His advocacy for decolonization emerges from this comprehensive analysis, guiding our exploration of modern geopolitical shifts through the foundational principles he laid out.
Du Bois’s famous assertion that “the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line” (Du Bois Reference Du Bois1903, 15) lays the foundation for our analysis. This statement emphasizes the enduring and pervasive effects of racial discrimination as a global phenomenon, structuring economic, social, and political relations worldwide. It is through this lens that we assess the BRICS and AoSS as contemporary manifestations of the global struggle against racial segregation and for sovereignty and economic independence.
Du Bois’s commitment to racial solidarity against white supremacy is central to our theoretical approach. He argued for unity among the world’s exploited peoples, specifically highlighting the shared struggles of peoples of color. Du Bois (Reference Du Bois and Gates1947) stated, “your nearest friends and neighbors are the colored people of China and India, the rest of Asia, the Middle East, and the sea isles, once close bound to the heart of Africa and now long severed by the greed of Europe” (198). This call for global solidarity among the peoples of the Global South underscores the thematic core of our article, as we explore how the BRICS and AoSS represent efforts to forge stronger ties and cooperation initiated by developing nations in resistance to the legacies of colonialism and racial capitalism
In her analysis, Quisumbing King (Reference Quisumbing King2022) elucidates Du Bois’s view of racial solidarity as instrumental in challenging the structures of white supremacy that perpetuate global inequalities. Du Bois (Reference Du Bois and Gates1947) compellingly argued, “Black Africa welcomes the world as equals; as masters never; we will fight this forever and curse the blaspheming Boers and the heathen liars from Hell” (185). This declaration not only emphasizes Africa’s rejection of subjugation but also calls for a unified stance against colonialism and exploitation, echoing the broader aspirations of the BRICS and AoSS toward self-determination and mutual support among nations of the Global South.
Moreover, Du Bois’s vision of a world led by previously colonized and oppressed peoples resonates with the objectives underlying both the BRICS and AoSS. He posited that “[i]f the uplift of mankind must be done by men, then the destinies of this world will rest ultimately in the hands of darker nations” (Du Bois Reference Du Bois1920, 49). This perspective aligns with the goals of the BRICS and AoSS initiatives, which seek to assert economic independence and development outside the traditional Western hegemony.
BRIDGING DU BOIS AND PEARSON: THE INTERSECTION OF RACE, COLONIALISM, DECOLONIZATION, AND GLOBAL POWER
The connection between W. E. B. Du Bois’s concept of the color line and Charles Henry Pearson’s anxiety about the “unchangeable limits of higher races” can be understood through the lens of racial politics and the shifting dynamics of global power. Both Du Bois and Pearson were concerned with the consequences of racial hierarchies, albeit from different perspectives. Pearson asserts that the expansion of what he terms the “higher races”—specifically Europeans—is inherently limited by both environmental and demographic factors. He argues that the higher races are confined largely to the temperate zones, as their ability to colonize and thrive in other climates, such as the tropics, is limited. Pearson suggests that even if European migration were to target Africa or Asia, the populations of these regions, such as the Chinese, Indians, and Africans, would increase faster than that of the European settlers, thus limiting the latter’s ability to dominate these regions permanently. He elaborates that in regions where Europeans might attempt to establish themselves, “the negro would increase faster” (Pearson Reference Pearson1893, 32). This demographic trend, he argues, would eventually confine the European races to a portion of the temperate zone, leaving other regions of the world predominantly in the hands of the “lower races.”
Pearson’s analysis leads to the concept of the “white man under siege,” a term coined by Marilyn Lake (Reference Lake2004), which can be viewed as a counterpart to Du Bois’s “color line,” but from the perspective of preserving European dominance. Unlike Pearson’s notion of “unchangeable limits of higher races,” Du Bois’s color line focuses on the artificial, socially constructed barriers that perpetuate racial discrimination and economic exploitation on a global scale. Pearson’s forecast, rooted in a fear of demographic shifts undermining European dominance, reflects anxieties about the decline of Western power in the face of growing non-European populations. In contrast, Du Bois critiques the structures that sustain racial oppression and advocates for racial solidarity as a way to dismantle these barriers. By juxtaposing these two perspectives, it becomes evident that while Pearson’s work mirrors the concerns of European decline due to demographic and environmental pressures, Du Bois provides a more proactive and socially engaged critique, calling for a global struggle against the color line and the injustices it upholds.
CONTINUITIES IN PEARSON AND DU BOIS’S RACIAL THEORIES ON GEOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS
The racial theories of Charles Henry Pearson and W. E. B. Du Bois, though distinct in their perspectives, share notable continuities in their influence on global and domestic policies. Pearson’s theories on racial hierarchies, particularly his concept of the “unchangeable limits of higher races,” significantly resonated in the policies implemented by Western powers during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His ideas, which underscored the perceived superiority of Western nations, influenced key figures like Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt became a strong advocate for Western global expansion and stringent immigration policies despite his democratic ideals, revealing the irony in his presumptions about democracy. While championing democracy, Roosevelt simultaneously supported policies that restricted the rights and freedoms of non- Western peoples, exposing the contradiction between his democratic rhetoric and imperialist actions. In his 1894 review of Pearson’s National Life and Character: A Forecast, Roosevelt praised Western democracy, highlighting its inherent “clear instinct of racial selfishness,” which, in his view, could be effectively used to exclude the “dangerous alien” and the “racial foe” represented by non-Western nations.
The implementation of Australia’s Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, which included the infamous dictation test, and the Pacific Island Labourers Act, directed at maintaining a white Australia, can be seen as direct applications of Pearson’s theories. These laws were designed to maintain racial homogeneity by barring non-white immigrants and deporting those who had already arrived. Australia’s Prime Minister Edmund Barton, speaking in Parliament in support of the White Australia policy in 1902, held Pearson’s book as he quoted its disturbing forecast about the future rise of non-Western nations, demonstrating the continuity of Pearson’s racial theories in shaping domestic policy.
In the mid-twentieth century, policies such as the creation of NATO and the development of stringent visa regulations can be seen as extensions of Pearson’s ideas. These measures, ostensibly focused on security and economic stability, also served to maintain the dominance of Western nations and limit the influence and movement of non-Western populations, thereby continuing the racial hierarchy established in Pearson’s work.
In contrast, Du Bois’s concept of the color line offered a framework for understanding and challenging racial discrimination, yet it too underscored the global implications of racial hierarchies, much like Pearson’s work. Du Bois’s influence was instrumental in the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909, an organization dedicated to dismantling the legal and social barriers upholding racial segregation in the United States. The NAACP’s efforts, influenced by Du Bois’s ideas, sought to challenge discriminatory laws, such as those upholding segregation and disenfranchisement, reflecting the continuity of racial theories in shaping domestic civil rights movements.
Du Bois’s advocacy extended beyond the United States, recognizing the interconnectedness of racial struggles worldwide. He played a significant role in the Pan-African movement, which sought to unite people of African descent across the globe in the fight against colonialism and racism. His participation in the Pan-African Congresses brought together leaders and activists from Africa and the African diaspora to strategize for racial equality and independence from colonial rule.
One of the most significant manifestations of Du Bois’s global vision was the Bandung Conference in 1955, which united leaders from African and Asian nations to address their shared struggles against colonialism and imperialism. Although Du Bois did not attend the conference, his ideas about the color line and the need for solidarity among oppressed peoples were echoed by scholars like Richard Wright (Reference Wright1956), who published his report on the conference, The Color Curtain, calling for racial and economic justice. The Bandung Conference laid the groundwork for emerging solidarity among nations in the Global South, a legacy that can be seen today in the formation of groups like BRICS and the AoSS. These initiatives, which challenge the dominance of Western economic and political institutions, reflect the ongoing struggle for a more equitable world order—an extension of the racial dynamics that both Pearson and Du Bois addressed in their work. BRICS, for instance, represents a coalition of non-Western powers that seek to assert economic and political independence from traditional Western hegemony. Pearson’s concerns are echoed in the geopolitical tensions that arise from these shifts, as former colonies now wield significant influence on the global stage.
The intersection of geographic and racial lines becomes particularly significant when analyzing the geopolitical strategies of these alliances. Whereas Du Bois focused on racial solidarity, Pearson emphasized geographic determinism, particularly the constraints of the temperate zones on European expansion. The BRICS, with its geographic spread across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, challenges these geographic limitations by uniting diverse nations with a common goal of reducing Western influence. In fact, the BRICS, launched in 2009, has held 15 summits as of 2024, with the latest marking the expansion to BRICS+ by including Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. This expansion highlights BRICS’ growing influence, positioning it as a key player in global governance. The 2014 Fortaleza Declaration emphasized “solidarity” among BRICS nations, establishing the New Development Bank as a mechanism for “promoting South–South cooperation.” In the 2017 Xiamen Declaration, BRICS called for “stronger BRICS solidarity” to reshape global political and economic relations, advancing a cross-racial political vision that champions diversity and equity. The 2020 Moscow Declaration reaffirmed BRICS’ commitment to solidarity in addressing global challenges, such as equitable vaccine access during the COVID-19 pandemic, underscoring its role in “bridging inequalities across racial and economic lines.” The 2023 Johannesburg Summit further emphasized “solidarity with African and other developing countries,” reflecting BRICS’ ambition to promote inclusivity and challenge Western-dominated institutions. Through these summits, BRICS has consistently positioned itself as a coalition for South–South cooperation, fulfilling a cross-racial political vision that seeks to reshape global power dynamics and enhance the role of the Global South in international decision making.
Moreover, the migration patterns discussed by Pearson, rooted in maintaining racial and cultural homogeneity, resonate with contemporary debates on immigration and national identity within the West. The analysis of initiatives like BRICS and AoSS through the lenses of Du Bois and Pearson reveals the enduring influence of racial politics in global affairs. These initiatives challenge traditional notions of Western superiority by advocating for a more equitable and “multiplex” world order, reflecting both Pearson’s concerns about maintaining racial hierarchies and Du Bois’s vision of dismantling them for a just and equitable world (Acharya, Reference Acharya2017).
CONCLUSION
In the context of contemporary geopolitics, the theories of Charles Henry Pearson and W. E. B. Du Bois provide critical lenses for examining the shifting dynamics of global power, particularly in China–Africa relations. Pearson’s pessimistic forecast of the “unchangeable limits of higher races” and his anxiety over the rise of non-European powers find resonance today, where former colonies like those in Africa are increasingly asserting their sovereignty and autonomy. The formation of coalitions such as BRICS and the AoSS exemplifies Pearson’s fears, as these groups represent collective efforts by non-Western nations to challenge Western dominance.
Conversely, Du Bois’s concept of the color line remains a vital framework for understanding enduring racial hierarchies and the potential of solidarity among previously oppressed nations. The rise of BRICS, especially with China’s central role, reflects Du Bois’s vision of global racial solidarity, bringing together nations from Asia, Africa, and Latin America to reshape global governance. This solidarity, especially evident in China–Africa cooperation, hints at a move toward a multipolar world order where the Global South asserts greater agency. However, although this new alignment challenges Western hegemony, it also raises questions: are these current manifestations of South–South cooperation, like BRICS, truly addressing the global color line, or are they merely creating new power dynamics with their own core-periphery relations?
Pearson’s and Du Bois’s analyses remain relevant, but parts of their theories are challenged in today’s global landscape. For instance, Pearson’s inclusion of Russia within the “White European bloc” contrasts with Russia’s modern alignment with non-Western powers, including China, to oppose Western hegemony. Although Russia is still predominantly viewed as a “white” nation, its role within a counter-Western bloc marks a sharp divergence from Pearson’s predictions. Likewise, Pearson’s geographical determinism, which suggested that higher races would dominate specific climatic zones, is undermined by China’s global ascension. China, particularly with its Belt and Road Initiative, has emerged as a central global player, challenging Western dominance and redefining global power structures. As Martin Jacques (Reference Jacques2009) contends, China’s rise will profoundly reshape global politics, leading to a “contested modernity” with China at its center—a view contrary to Joseph S. Nye Jr.’s (Reference Nye2011) skepticism about the decline of US power, which advocates for a “smart power” strategy to maintain American dominance.
At the same time, Du Bois’s call for “Racial Solidarity against White Supremacy” faces similar complexities. Although non-Western nations have come together, the solidarity Du Bois envisioned remains fraught with obstacles. China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, viewed by some scholars like Jones and Zeng (Reference Jones and Zeng2019) as a form of neo-imperialism, raises concerns that China’s economic investments are less about solidarity and more about strategic influence. Blanchard (Reference Blanchard2018) highlights the risks of “debt diplomacy” within the Belt and Road Initiative, where unequal financial practices may recreate the very power imbalances reminiscent of Western imperialism. Thus, even as South–South cooperation challenges the global color line, it also risks reproducing new hierarchies and inequalities.
Looking forward, the question remains, will these new manifestations of South–South solidarity genuinely dismantle the global color line, or are they creating new divisions with their own forms of core-periphery relations? The answer depends on how these alliances evolve—whether they foster genuine mutual respect and equitable development or replicate old patterns of domination under different leadership.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare no ethical issues or conflicts of interest in this research.
