In August 1919, the Defender contained a short squib announcing the publication of Our Boys and Girls, a “unique little monthly . . . [that] appeals especially to our boys and girls and is distinctive in the journalistic world of our Race.” See Defender, August 30, 1919, 4. See also advertisement in The Crusader 2, no. 1 (September 1919): 32. “Distinctive” though it might have been, the magazine no longer appears to be extant. The only runs of Our Boys and Girls that I have been able to locate are mainstream, ostensibly “white” magazines; these include Oliver Optic’s Magazine: Our Boys and Girls (1867-1875) and a range of magazines— published in locales ranging from Pennsylvania to Missouri to California—entitled Our Boys and Girls published between the 1870s and the 1940s.

W. E. B. Du Bois and A. G. Dill published the Brownies’ Book, which they advertised as being “for the Children of the Sun”—from 1920 to 1921; see Brownies’ Book 1, no. 2 (February 1920): frontispiece.

For decennial statistics pertaining to African Americans, see Negro Population, 1790-1916, 21-27, esp. 25; [U.S. Department of Commerce; Bureau of the Census], Negroes in the United States, 1920-1932 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1935), 1, 2, 13. Useful analysis of African American population growth rates per decade—along with adjusted figures to account for undercounts during the late nineteenth century—may be found in Jamshid Momeni, “Black Demography: A Review Essay,” in Demography of the Black Population in the United States: An Annotated Bibliography with a Review Essay (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 5-7).

Of course, race suicide was a hotly discussed issue among native-born white Americans as well. See, for example, Linda Gordon, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America (New York: Grossman, 1976), 136-58; and Louise Michele Newman, ed., Men’s Ideas/Women’s Realities: “Popular Science,” 1870-1915 (New York: Pergamon Press, 1985), 105-24, esp. 114-15.

Nell Irvin Painter illuminates why race activists tended to focus on women in “‘Social Equality’ and ‘Rape’ in the Fin-de-Siecle South,” Southern History across the Color Line (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002), 112- 33, esp. 128-30. For allied analyses—albeit with a different focus—see Thelma Jennings, “‘Us Colored Women Had to Go Through a Plenty’: Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” Journal of Women’s History 1, no. 3 (Winter 1990): 45-74; and Hélène Lecaudey, “Behind the Mask: Ex-Slave Women and Interracial Sexual Relations,” in Discovering the Women in Slavery: Emancipating Perspectives on the American Past, ed. Patricia Morton (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996), 260-77.

For Afro-American expositions on social equality in primary documents, refer to the following: William Hooper Councill, The Negro Laborer: A Word to Him (Huntsville: R. F. Dickson, 1887), 25-27; William Pickens, “Social Equality,” Voice of the Negro 3, no. 1 (January 1906): 25-27; W[illiam] S. Scarborough, “Race Integrity,” Voice of the Negro 4, no. 5 (May 1907): 197-202; “Social Equality,” Crisis 8, no. 2 (June 1914): 72-73; W. E. B. Du Bois, “President Harding and Social Equality,” Crisis 23, no. 2 (December 1921): 53-56; Negro Yearbook: An Annual Encyclopedia of the Negro, 1921-1922 (Tuskegee: Tuskegee Institute, ca. 1922), 46-53; W. E. B. Du Bois, “Social Equality,” Crisis 35, no. 2 (February 1928): 61-62.

Critical historical context may be found in a number of works, including Nell Irvin Painter, “‘Social Equality,’ Miscegenation, Labor, and Power,” in The Evolution of Southern Culture, ed. Numan V. Bartley (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1988), 47-67; Gaines, Uplifting the Race, 47-66; Martha Hodes, White Women, Black Men: Illicit Sex in the 19th-Century South (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 146-208.

Despite Bruce’s hope that “Washington’s Colored Society” would find a “place on the centre table of every well regulated family” (21) the audience for his work was likely limited to associates and relatives. The manuscript apparently did not appear in print until black sociologist E. Franklin Frazier quoted liberally from it over sixty years later. See Gatewood, Aristocrats of Color, 377 n. 52.

Reference to Bruce’s standing as a journalist may be found in Charles Alexander, One Hundred Distinguished Leaders (Atlanta: Franklin Printing and Publishing, ca. 1899), 57.

It is not completely clear whether Holsey meant “sodomy” to indicate same-sex intimacy or bestiality. Moreover, Holsey’s varied convictions about sexuality did not result in his offering a lengthy condemnation of rape in this text.

For writings submitted to the Atlanta Constitution, see “Bishop Holsey on the Race Problem,” (Atlanta: n.p., ca. 1899), Daniel A. P. Murray Pamphlets Collection, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Also see Lucius Henry Holsey, Autobiography, Sermons, Addresses, and Essays of Bishop L. H. Holsey (Atlanta: Franklin Printing and Publishing, 1898). Here, it is also important to note that “segregation” is, at times, roughly equivalent to “separatism” in Holsey’s thought.

Significantly, Holsey was a major figure in the short-lived Colored National Emigration Association that was spearheaded, in large part, by Bishop Henry McNeal Turner. See Edwin S. Redkey, Black Exodus: Black Nationalist and Back-to-Africa Movements, 1890-1910 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969), 252- 86, esp. 271.

Glenn Eskew contends that the bishop viewed his white father “[w]ith muted contempt.” See Eskew, “Black Elitism,” 637-66, esp. 639.

Like Holsey, Adella Hunt Logan also expressed hereditarian sentiments. Curiously, however, Logan invokes race within an essay on heredity, but she does not deal explicitly with heredity and miscegenation—curious because Logan was multiracial herself. See Logan, “Prenatal and Hereditary Influences,” in Social and Physical Condition of Negroes in Cities. Report of an Investigation Under the Direction of Atlanta University . . . (Atlanta: Atlanta University Press, 1897), 37-40. A later invocation of hereditarian thought (albeit somewhat brief) within Afro-American assessments of miscegenation may be found in Sarah D. Brown, Color Trees and Tracks (Chicago: Published by the Author, 1906), 17.

For the quote about “African[s] in disguise,” see Fannie Barrier Williams, “Perils of the White Negro,” Colored American Magazine 13, no. 6 (December 1907): 421-23, esp. 423. For commentary on passing and intimate relationships as explored in black women’s fiction, see Claudia Tate, Domestic Allegories of Political Desire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), esp. 197-99. Commentary on the ways in which other Afro-American—female as well as male—novelists used fiction to analyze miscegenation’s impact may be found in the following: Painter, “‘Social Equality’ and ‘Rape,”’ 127-28; Gaines, Uplifting the Race, 54, 120, 123-24; Edward L. Ayers, The Promise of the New South: Life after Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 366-71; and Sandra Gunning, Race, Rape, and Lynching: The Red Record of American Literature, 1890- 1912 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

Adele Logan Alexander points out that Caroline Bond Day began research for A Study of Some Negro-White Families around 1919 and that Day had once been taught by Du Bois. See Alexander, Homelands and Waterways: The American Journey of the Bond Family, 1846-1926 (New York: Pantheon, 1999), 342-78, esp. 349, 375-78. Refer also to “Harvard University Anthropologist Makes Preliminary Report of Study,” Amsterdam News (New York, N.Y.), June 11, 1930.

John D’Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman point out that African Americans made such arguments during the early stages of Reconstruction. See D’Emilio and Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), 104-7. For further scholarly analysis along these lines, see Tate, Domestic Allegories of Political Desire, 271 n. 13; Martha Hodes, White Women, Black Men, 148-49, 165-67; Bardaglio, “‘Shamefull Matches,”’ 112-38, esp. 113. For information regarding when laws were passed, see Randall Kennedy, “The Enforcement of Anti-Miscegenation Laws,” in Sollors, Interracialism, 140- 62, esp. 144.

Of course, during the 1910s, sensationalist outrage over the sexual adventures and choices of “black pugilist” Jack Johnson were an ever-present informant to attempts to pass anti-intermarriage laws. See “Spoiling Good Work,” Gazette, July 12, 1913, 2; “Jack Johnson Again,” Age, December 12, 1912, 4; “Aftermath of Johnson Muss,” Age, December 19, 1912, 1; “Intermarriage,” Crisis 5, no. 4 (February 1913): 180-81.

Hazel V. Carby’s work on sexual policing provides a provocative analytical prism through which to view this incident. See Carby, “Policing the Black Woman’s Body in an Urban Context,” Critical Inquiry 18, no. 4 (Summer 1992): 738-55.

Here, it is important to note that when Marcus Garvey decided to relocate to the United States, he was part of a steady stream of black immigrants from South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. David Hellwig notes that this stream crested in the mid-1920s; his work further chronicles tensions between African Americans and recent black arrivals. See David J. Hellwig, “Black Meets Black: Afro-American Reactions to West Indian Immigrants in the 1920s,” South Atlantic Quarterly 77, no. 2 (Spring 1978): 206-24.

For critical analysis of radicalism and Caribbean migration to the United States, see Winston James, Holding Aloft the Banner of Ethiopia: Caribbean Radicalism in Early Twentieth-Century America (London: Verso, 1998). Relevant analysis may also be found in Charles V. Carnegie, “A Politics of Transterritorial Solidarity: The Garvey Movement and Imperialism,” in Postnationalism Prefig-ured: Caribbean Borderlands (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2002), 145-75.

Garvey also forged unlikely relationships with at least two other white supremacists in addition to Clarke over the question of racial purity: John Powell, founder of the Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America, and Earnest Sevier Cox, author of White America. Refer to J. David Smith, “John Powell and Marcus Garvey: The Peculiar Alliance,” in The Eugenic Assault on America: Scenes in Red, White, and Black (Fairfax, Va.: George Mason University Press, 1993), 23-35; William A. Edwards, “Racial Purity in Black and White: The Case of Marcus Garvey and Earnest Cox,” Journal of Ethnic Studies 15, no. 1 (Spring 1987): 117-42.

Even with its publication of Garvey’s desideratum that black men must “strike back on white men,” the Negro World would also acknowledge that doing so often resulted in a less than desirable outcome. In the spring of 1921, for example, the paper publicized the case of W. T. Bowman, a Mississippi teacher who had been attacked by a mob upon expelling a 17-year-old schoolgirl whose lover was a local white man. See “Southern Mob Whips Negro Teacher,” NW, April 23, 1921, 1.

The Negro World followed the unsuccessful campaign to pass the Dyer AntiLynching Bill during the early 1920s and featured brief items about lynching. One such item, “An Eye for An Eye” (May 27, 1922, 4), decried lynching as it implored “black men [to] rise en masse and wage war on the licentious violators of black womanhood!” For a statement suggesting that combating lynching entailed maintenance of race purity, see “Negro Race Purity” (July 12, 1930, 4).

Although other interpretations of the UNIA differ from my own in several regards, critical discussions of women and gender in the UNIA include Mark Matthews, “Our Women and What They Think: Amy Jacques Garvey and the Negro World,” in Black Women in United States History, ed. Darlene Clark Hine (New York: Carlson Publishing, 1990), 7:866-78; William Seraile, “Henrietta Vinton Davis and the Garvey Movement,” in Hine, Black Women in United States History , 8:1073-91; Tony Martin, “Women in the Garvey Movement,” in Garvey: His Work and Impact, ed. Rupert Lewis and Patrick Bryan (Trenton, N.J.: Africa World Press, 1991), 67-72; Honor Ford-Smith, “Women and the Garvey Movement in Jamaica,” in Lewis and Bryan, Garvey: His Work and Impact, 73-86; Barbara Bair, “True Women, Real Men: Gender, Ideology, and Social Roles in the Garvey Movement,” in Gendered Domains: Rethinking Public and Private in Women’s History, Essays From the Seventh Berkshire Conference on the History of Women, ed. Dorothy O. Helly and Susan M. Reverby (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992), 154-66; Ula Yvette Taylor, “The Veiled Garvey: The Life and Times of Amy Jacques Garvey” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1992); Karen S. Adler, “‘Always Leading Our Men in Service and Sacrifice’: Amy Jacques Garvey, Feminist Black Nationalist,” Gender & Society 6, no. 3 (September 1992): 346-75; Martin Anthony Summers, “Nationalism, Race Consciousness, and the Construction of Black Middle Class Masculinity during the New Negro Era, 1915-1930” (Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University, 1997); Ula Y. Taylor, “‘Negro Women are Great Thinkers as Well as Doers’: Amy Jacques-Garvey and Community Feminism in the United States,” Journal of Women’s History 12, no. 2 (Summer 2002): 104-26; Taylor, The Veiled Garvey.

In contrast, Beryl Satter maintains that the UNIA was always predominantly male; see Satter, “Marcus Garvey, Father Divine and the Gender Politics of Race Difference and Race Neutrality,” American Quarterly 48, no. 1 (March 1996): 43- 76.

In an interview conducted in 1978, Audley Moore recalled that when she lived in New Orleans during the early 1920s, she heard Garvey speak in person; that very first encounter inspired Moore to become a fast and ready adherent to the principles of Garveyism. See Cheryl Townsend Gilkes, “Interview with Audley (Queen Mother) Moore,” The Black Women Oral History Project (Cambridge: Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe College, 1978), 9-10.

Barbara Bair’s analysis of this conflict is particularly useful; Bair, “True Women, Real Men,” 160-61. Mark Matthews, Beryl Satter, and Karen Adler (who focuses mostly on the rift between Amy Jacques and Marcus) also explore more general tensions between women and men in the movement: Matthews, “‘Our Women and What They Think,”’ 11-12; Satter, “Marcus Garvey, Father Divine,” 51; Adler, “‘Always Leading Our Men,”’ 354-66.

Further details of the crises that marred the 1922 convention may be found in Hill, Garvey Papers, 4:xxxi-xxxv.

Useful examination of how a range of women politicized motherhood during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries appears in Eileen Boris’s “The Power of Motherhood: Black and White Activist Women Redefine the Political,” in Mothers of a New World: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States, ed. Seth Koven and Sonya Michel (New York: Routledge, 1993), 213-45.

Historical analyses of race, ethnicity, social Darwinism and/or eugenics include Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought: 1860-1915 (New York: G. Braziller, 1959); Thomas Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America (New York: Schocken Books, 1963); Mark Haller, Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1963); Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985); Edward J. Larson, Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); Martin S. Pernick, The Black Stork: Eugenics and the Death of “Defective” Babies in American Medicine and Motion Pictures since 1915 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996); Lisa Lindquist Dorr, “Arm in Arm: Gender, Eugenics, and Virginia’s Racial Integrity Acts of the 1920s,” Journal of Women’s History 11, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 143-66; Gregory Michael Dorr, “Assuring America’s Place in the Sun: Ivey Foreman Lewis and the Teaching of Eugenics at the University of Virginia,” Journal of Southern History 66, no. 2 (May 2000): 257-96; and Wendy Kline, Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).

For the connection between race, gender, eugenics, nationalism, and empire, see Nancy Leys Stepan, “The Hour of Eugenics”: Race, Gender, and Nation in Latin America (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991); Alexandra Minna Stern, “Buildings, Boundaries, and Blood: Medicalization and Nation-Building on the U.S.-Mexico Border, 1910-1930,” Hispanic American Historical Review 79, no. 1 (February 1999): 41-81; Alexandra Minna Stern, “Responsible Mothers and Normal Children: Eugenics, Welfare, and Nationalism in Post-Revolutionary Mexico, 1900-1940,” Journal of Historical Sociology 12, no. 4 (Fall 1999): 369-97; and Laura Briggs, Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Science, and U.S. Imperialism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).

The following sources illuminate how Garvey appropriated social Darwinist concepts: “Report of UNIA Meeting” (original headline unknown), NW, November 1, 1919, reprinted in Hill, Garvey Papers, 2:138-42, esp. 139-40; Editorial letter by Marcus Garvey, NW, May 8, 1920, reprinted in Hill, Garvey Papers, 2:330-31; Marcus Garvey, “Shall the Negro Be Exterminated?,” in Philosophy and Opinions, 1:63-67; Marcus Garvey, “Blazing the Trail of African Redemption,” NW, May 5, 1923, 1. Also see “Women Who Refuse Responsibility of Parenthood Traitors to Race,” NW, July 12, 1924, 12. This particular editorial—which was reprinted from the New York Times—in “Our Women and What They Think” contains classist, eugenic injunctions to “women of intelligence and culture” to bear children.

Several Garveyites mouthed the language of social purity as well. Although the Progressive Era was effectively over by the time the UNIA took off in the United States, the redress of social “impurities” remained on the agenda of American reformers, educators, writers, and politicians. Examples of social purist language in the UNIA include “We Must Maintain A High Standard of Morality,” NW, August 2, 1924, 4; Hannah Nichols, “Lady Delegate . . . Demands Single Standard for All,” NW, August 23, 1924, 16; Florence Bruce, “The Great Work of the Negro Woman Today,” NW, December 18, 1924, 8; “Convention Report,” August 12, 1924, in Hill, Garvey Papers, 5:717-22. Relevant commentary on social purity may be found in Christina Simmons, “African Americans and Sexual Victorianism in the Social Hygiene Movement, 1910-1940,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 4, no. 1 (1993): 51-75, esp. 53; Linda Gordon, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America (New York: Grossman, 1976), 116-58.

Some Garveyites invoked Native Americans when they discussed the possibility of genocide; one such example is Ida Jacques, “Fate of Red Indians Should Be a Warning to Negroes,” NW, January 24, 1925. A group of Garveyites in Kansas went in a different direction: they associated the threat of extinction with a need to leave the United States for Africa. See [Alfred D. House?] et al. to Earnest Sevier Cox; Earnest Sevier Cox Papers, Special Collections, Perkins Library, Duke University, Durham, N.C., box 3, folder 1929-1930.

An especially compelling counterargument to Garvey’s appears in A[rnold] H[amilton] Maloney, “Maloney Says Negro Race is Not Doomed to Extinction,” NW, September 16, 1922, 3. Maloney, a professor at Wilberforce University who would later publish Race Leadership (Xenia: Aldine Publishing House, 1924), also provided one of the only articles in the Negro World to advocate miscegenation. See “Miscegenation Only Local Alternative to Social and Economic Serfdom- Maloney,” NW, June 17, 1922, 2.

Mainstream epidemiology during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries consistently supported the view that black children, women, and men were anything but vital. Examples of arguments that venereal disease and tuberculosis were especially prevalent among blacks may be found in Frederick L. Hoffman, Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro (New York: Macmillan, 1896); Mary White Ovington, Half a Man: The Status of the Negro in New York (New York: Longmans, Green, 1911); Mark J. White, “Report of the Committee on Venereal Diseases of the State and Provincial Health Authorities,” American Journal of Public Health 13 (1923): 723-37.

Works that explore reifications of motherhood in nationalist ideologies include Deborah Gaitskell and Elaine Unterhalter, “Mothers of the Nation: A Comparative Analysis of Nation, Race, and Motherhood in Afrikaner Nationalism and the African National Congress,” in Woman-Nation-State, ed. Nira Yuval-Davis and Floya Anthias (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989), 58-78; Leila J. Rupp, “Mother of the Volk: The Image of Women in Nazi Ideology,” Signs 3, no. 2 (Winter 1977): 362-79; Leslie Lynn King, “Gender, Nation, Pronatalism: Encouraging Births in France, Romania, and Israel” (Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1998); and Taylor, “‘Negro Women are Great Thinkers.”’

In addition to acknowledging that “reproduction” refers to a range of processes (child-bearing, material production, maintenance of citizenry, replication of “national” groups), Yuval-Davis and Anthias offer a theoretical etymology of “reproduction” as an analytical term that is worth quoting at length: