Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.34 AVERAGE
4.34 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
reflective
I wish I was smart enough to explain why this book is so good
This is, at the end of the day, a book that feels like it is written by a liberal academic philosopher.
Its first problem is the repeated and unexplained use of a "we" in claims like "we need to X." Who, exactly, is this we? It certainly does not include the capitalists that control the "global racial empire" that he describes. This appeal to an un-named "we" suggests a technocratic solutionism and passive diagnosis of the current problems that face the vast majority of people living on this planet. There are real systems (capitalism) and real people (capitalists) that shape the world and its trajectory with accumulated power. This book is hesitant to acknowledge this, indicated by its list of "tactics" and "targets" that are meant to be some list of things "we" are meant to try.
There are several other problems, including its (absurd, in my opinion) sort-of-passing claim that "all people just want some sort of equality". This is, of course, untrue unless your definition of "equality" is stretched to meaninglessness. Nazis do not want equality; libertarians do not really want equality etc., etc. This, again, lends itself to a sort of liberalism that refuses to take a stand on issues of power and violence.
It also introduces a concept of "distributive justice", ironically preceded with a Marx quote from the 18th Brumaire. It does not, at any point, discuss the dialectical nature between distribution and production, or really, the fact that production should be seen as the primary driver of this relationship. This leads, again, to a sort of technocratic view of things where we Just Need To Fix The Distribution Of Society's Gains - without considering the nature of what / why society is producing.
It ends with what is ultimately a pessimistic and, again, liberal view of the project going forward. It explicitly tells us to lower our expectations, encouraging us to take a "generational view" of things. If we fail to get rid of capitalism quickly, well, that's just fine! In fact, we might not even have to do it at all!
While this book may offer some useful intervention in discussing reparations amongst academics (the "constructive view" vs. other prevailing views), it does not offer much more than that.
Its first problem is the repeated and unexplained use of a "we" in claims like "we need to X." Who, exactly, is this we? It certainly does not include the capitalists that control the "global racial empire" that he describes. This appeal to an un-named "we" suggests a technocratic solutionism and passive diagnosis of the current problems that face the vast majority of people living on this planet. There are real systems (capitalism) and real people (capitalists) that shape the world and its trajectory with accumulated power. This book is hesitant to acknowledge this, indicated by its list of "tactics" and "targets" that are meant to be some list of things "we" are meant to try.
There are several other problems, including its (absurd, in my opinion) sort-of-passing claim that "all people just want some sort of equality". This is, of course, untrue unless your definition of "equality" is stretched to meaninglessness. Nazis do not want equality; libertarians do not really want equality etc., etc. This, again, lends itself to a sort of liberalism that refuses to take a stand on issues of power and violence.
It also introduces a concept of "distributive justice", ironically preceded with a Marx quote from the 18th Brumaire. It does not, at any point, discuss the dialectical nature between distribution and production, or really, the fact that production should be seen as the primary driver of this relationship. This leads, again, to a sort of technocratic view of things where we Just Need To Fix The Distribution Of Society's Gains - without considering the nature of what / why society is producing.
It ends with what is ultimately a pessimistic and, again, liberal view of the project going forward. It explicitly tells us to lower our expectations, encouraging us to take a "generational view" of things. If we fail to get rid of capitalism quickly, well, that's just fine! In fact, we might not even have to do it at all!
While this book may offer some useful intervention in discussing reparations amongst academics (the "constructive view" vs. other prevailing views), it does not offer much more than that.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
The information in this book is excellent and it is well worth a read. However, the pacing felt so slow to me. It felt very academic, and went over my head a bit. I don't think that is the book's fault, it's just not my preferred writing style.
Switching to five stars because I can't stop thinking about this book. Intriguing connection to present-day climate change political structure.
3.5/5
edit: bro i thought i struggled to read but some of these other reviews from self-proclaimed marxists are making me feel really good about myself bc these mfs actually CANNOT read. most of these issues are addressed in the actual introduction where Táíwò lays out who the perceived audience is and explicitly states that this will NOT be a logistical roadmap of details of what should be done. so if you were expecting that then sorry?? but this book isn't even trying to do that. i just read 2 supposed "critiques" that are so unserious and are issues that are directly addressed in the book.
one person attempts to say that Táíwò is undermining class solidarity amongst races by arguing that white people as a race OWE something to Black people which is the kind of airbrushing that Táíwò argues against. the author even spends multiple pages arguing against moral purity of certain groups, even going so far as to lay out the complexity of his own family history and how many of us have ancestors both on the "right" and "wrong" side of history. truly THIS reviewer's lack of reading comprehension skills has done more to dissuade me from cross-racial class solidarity than Táíwò's book ever could.
another person attempts to dismiss reparations as a liberal project because elites are now taking it up. isn't that literally interest convergence which Táíwò talks about? also, just because elites take something up doesn't mean it's not worth doing? Táíwò demonstrates this perfectly by discussing the advances made by the civil rights movement (from which key pieces are then taken up by US elites). the last chapter is literally all about how it would be very nice to end global racial capitalism within our lifetimes, and we should definitely move like it's possible, we also have a responsibility to advance struggle in the now. i feel like this critique is coming from an "all or nothing" perspective that legitimately just leads to nothing. like maybe you could say that Táíwò is just a liberal academic if he was pushing the normie line of reparations (which from my experience has mostly been about a single cash payment?) but he spends most of the book arguing for a much broader vision than the one that exists in the mainstream.
--
i will say that this book is relatively short and does A Lot. in particular, the first couple of chapters lay out a reframing of world history that emphasizes the development of global racial empire. thus, reparations is not about a 1 time payment addressing a 1 time event, but instead, reparations is about remaking the world & building a future. that's a big intellectual lift, and i found these chapters important and also the most difficult to get through because it was so dense. i feel like i also already knew these things (as i expect most of the audience to?) so i felt like this was the chapter that could have been cut down a bit or had more commentary rather than straight up facts. my only other gripe is that there are a few really noticeable typos/errors in the printing which is a bummer.
other than that, i always appreciate the interventions that Táíwò makes in conversations that are happening at such a large scale that the details start to get muddled. i'm probably just not paying attention but Táíwò is the first person i've seen argue for the centrality of addressing climate change as a part of reparations. what's the point of closing the racial wealth gap if Black residents in a city have all of their homes/belongings destroyed in the natural disasters to come? the focus on climate change & the future was the most appealing to me. Táíwò makes an interesting call in the end for us to consider what kind of ancestors we will be. i thought it was refreshing to read an author still demand that we struggle to remake the world while also being realistic(?) that we will probably not achieve that in our lifetimes. however, we still have a moral responsibility to advance that future and create an inheritance for the people who come after us.
again, i think Táíwò provides such timely interventions to a lot of topics that become "mainstream" discourse especially amongst social justice circles and movements, so i appreciated this book! i just struggled to read it lol which could be more about me than the book itself tbh
edit: bro i thought i struggled to read but some of these other reviews from self-proclaimed marxists are making me feel really good about myself bc these mfs actually CANNOT read. most of these issues are addressed in the actual introduction where Táíwò lays out who the perceived audience is and explicitly states that this will NOT be a logistical roadmap of details of what should be done. so if you were expecting that then sorry?? but this book isn't even trying to do that. i just read 2 supposed "critiques" that are so unserious and are issues that are directly addressed in the book.
one person attempts to say that Táíwò is undermining class solidarity amongst races by arguing that white people as a race OWE something to Black people which is the kind of airbrushing that Táíwò argues against. the author even spends multiple pages arguing against moral purity of certain groups, even going so far as to lay out the complexity of his own family history and how many of us have ancestors both on the "right" and "wrong" side of history. truly THIS reviewer's lack of reading comprehension skills has done more to dissuade me from cross-racial class solidarity than Táíwò's book ever could.
another person attempts to dismiss reparations as a liberal project because elites are now taking it up. isn't that literally interest convergence which Táíwò talks about? also, just because elites take something up doesn't mean it's not worth doing? Táíwò demonstrates this perfectly by discussing the advances made by the civil rights movement (from which key pieces are then taken up by US elites). the last chapter is literally all about how it would be very nice to end global racial capitalism within our lifetimes, and we should definitely move like it's possible, we also have a responsibility to advance struggle in the now. i feel like this critique is coming from an "all or nothing" perspective that legitimately just leads to nothing. like maybe you could say that Táíwò is just a liberal academic if he was pushing the normie line of reparations (which from my experience has mostly been about a single cash payment?) but he spends most of the book arguing for a much broader vision than the one that exists in the mainstream.
--
i will say that this book is relatively short and does A Lot. in particular, the first couple of chapters lay out a reframing of world history that emphasizes the development of global racial empire. thus, reparations is not about a 1 time payment addressing a 1 time event, but instead, reparations is about remaking the world & building a future. that's a big intellectual lift, and i found these chapters important and also the most difficult to get through because it was so dense. i feel like i also already knew these things (as i expect most of the audience to?) so i felt like this was the chapter that could have been cut down a bit or had more commentary rather than straight up facts. my only other gripe is that there are a few really noticeable typos/errors in the printing which is a bummer.
other than that, i always appreciate the interventions that Táíwò makes in conversations that are happening at such a large scale that the details start to get muddled. i'm probably just not paying attention but Táíwò is the first person i've seen argue for the centrality of addressing climate change as a part of reparations. what's the point of closing the racial wealth gap if Black residents in a city have all of their homes/belongings destroyed in the natural disasters to come? the focus on climate change & the future was the most appealing to me. Táíwò makes an interesting call in the end for us to consider what kind of ancestors we will be. i thought it was refreshing to read an author still demand that we struggle to remake the world while also being realistic(?) that we will probably not achieve that in our lifetimes. however, we still have a moral responsibility to advance that future and create an inheritance for the people who come after us.
again, i think Táíwò provides such timely interventions to a lot of topics that become "mainstream" discourse especially amongst social justice circles and movements, so i appreciated this book! i just struggled to read it lol which could be more about me than the book itself tbh
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
slow-paced
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
reflective
medium-paced
I deeply appreciate the project he is doing in arguing for climate justice. The real stand out of this book was his first three chapters.