In many ways … the participation of ethnic diasporas in shaping U.S. foreign policy is a truly positive phenomenon.
—Yossi Shain 1
At present, the negative consequences of ethnic involvement may well outweigh the undoubted benefits this activism at times confers on America in world affairs.
—Tony Smith 2
The role of ethnic identity groups in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy appears to be a durable characteristic of the foreign policy process. Prior to the rise of a “multicultural foreign policy”—in which non-Anglo-Saxon groups became increasingly prevalent and powerful—U.S. foreign policy had long had an ethnic component. McCartney's chapter (chapter 2), for example, shows how American national identity was closely connected to the dual principles of Anglo-Saxon superiority and democratic political values. America's entry onto the world stage during the Spanish-American War was driven in large part by the ethnic-ideological identity of Americans. Furthermore, Catherine Scott's chapter (chapter 3) identifies “whiteness” as a basic principle shaping U.S. policy toward South African apartheid. Together, these two chapters illustrate that the “ethnic influence” on U.S. foreign policy began much earlier than many commentators would admit. 3 The principal cause of this misunderstanding is what Walker Connor, an outstanding observer of nationalism, called the “terminological chaos” that continues to infect much of political science and sociology—in particular, ignoring the distinctions between nations (political-cultural entities) and states (political-territorial entities) and employing the term ethnic group to refer almost exclusively to minorities within the United States or cultural groups outside of the United