Mr. LaFeber, however, recognizes that power can be read not only in the memos of an Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of State, but also in the swoosh of a sneaker. And he wants critics of his field, those who dismiss it as boring, behind the times, or married to the Cold War, to recognize that he and his colleagues are ready to make a fast break. Mr. LaFeber, who has been at Cornell University since 1959, doesn't consider himself even a front-runner in his field. Diplomatic historians, he insists, have always taken an international approach to American history, lately the trend throughout the profession. Been there, done that.
Diplomatic historians cite a number of causes.
Some blame the perception that diplomatic history is mainly about dead white males. Some concede that the problem could be that it is mainly about dead white males. Others point to the attitude that with the end of the Cold War, foreign relations no longer matter. It may simply boil down to boredom. At last April's O.A.H. conference, one scholar from another field volunteered her opinion of diplomatic history to this reporter by shutting her eyes, clasping her hands together beside her head, and settling into a pretend snooze.