Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by good_matty
Reconsidering Reparations by Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò
3.0
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.