Andrew S. Curran, The Anatomy of Blackness: Science and Slavery in an Age of Enlightenment (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2011) ("The Anatomy of Blackness has three overlapping narratives The first relates how eighteenth-century naturalists and philosophes drew from travel literature to discuss the perceived problem of human blackness within the nascent human sciences. The second describes how a number of now-forgotten anatomists revolutionized the era's understanding of the black African by emphasizing both the supposed liabilities of this group and the corresponding 'advantages' of whiteness. The third charts the shift of the slavery debate itself, from the moral, mercantile, and theological realms toward that of the black body itself." "Not unexpectedly, such an approach reveals more about European (and secondary construction of themselves) than it does about real Africans. Readers should bear in mind that this is not a book about black African agency, or about how Africans grappled with the realities of European aggression and mercantile exploitation in Africa. Nor is it a book about how men and women of African descent undertook their own revolution at the end of the eighteenth century, appropriating and deploying a series of republican ideals that certainly had not been imagined with them in mind. In a word, this study focuses on the textualization of the black African." Id. at ix. "[B]y freeing Enlightenment-era thinkers from what is often portrayed as a monolithic thought system, I hope to recover the eighteenth-century individual's ability not only to be a passive participant in Africanist discourse, but to absorb, react, and contribute to the overall representation of the African. In my opinion, this method has several advantages over more rigid genealogies or single-legacy histories. By examining the representation of Africans on the level of individual thinkers or groups of thinkers, one can more effectively chart the ambiguous relationships among Enlightenment universalism, the equally strong constrains of the era's proto-ethnography, and the economic imperatives of slavery. In contrast, by envisioning the writings of the philosophes--not to mention the most offensive pro-slavery thinkers--as nothing more than a linear and overdetermined set of ideas, we not only underestimate the intellectual autonomy of these writers or philosophers but mitigate the responsibility of the so-called Enlightenment-era mind While it may seem paradoxical, moving away from full-scale indictments of the era and focusing on the 'exquisite sophistication of the eighteenth-century writing' may actually be the best way of illuminating the obscure aspects of an era whose primary metaphor was one of light." Id. at xi.).
Michael C. Dawson, Not In Our Lifetimes: The Future of Black Politics (Chicago & London: U. of Chicago Press, 2011) ("In one sense, the majority of whites are victims--victims of the same rapacious economic system that has ravaged particularly black and Latino communities for well over a decade. Instead, as would be rational, turning on an economic system that has abandoned them, many have taken the historic easy way out and have directed their anger at communities of color, including Muslim communities, and the state that is allegedly the ally of the colored undeserving. The economic crisis has produced feelings of fear, anger, displacement, and of no longer being in control, particularly among the white middle classes and the more advantages sectors of the white working class. These feelings when combined with Tea Party sentiments of xenophobia hysteria, a moral panic, that is the stuff out of which fascist movements have been built in the past, and out of which fascism could be built again." Id. at 183. My favor passage is the the first two sentences of the first paragraph of Dawson's "Prologue", as I could have written those lines to describe myself. "I am a barbarian, albeit an educated one. I have been aware of this status of mine for a very long time. But it was brought back to me with particular force during a class I was teaching when I came across a passage by the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington. 'Becoming 'white' and 'Anglo-conformity,' ' wrote Huntington approvingly, 'were the ways in which immigrants, blacks and others made themselves Americans.' " Id. at vii. (italics and color added) From the bookjacket: "In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, polls revealed that only 20 percent of African Americans believed that racial equality for blacks would be achieved in their lifetime. But following the election of Barack Obama, that number leaped to more than half. Did that dramatic shift in opinion really reflect a change in the vitality of black politics--and hope for improvement in the lives of African Americans? Or was it a onetime surge brought on by the euphoria of an extraordinary election?" "With Not in Our Lifetime, Michael C. Dawson shows definitely that it is the latter: for all the talk about a new post-racial America, the fundamental realities of American racism--and the difficulty of the problems facing black political movements--have not changed, He lays out a nuanced analysis of the persistence or racial inequality and structural disadvantages, and the ways that whites and black continue to see the same problems--the disastrous response to Katrina being a prime example--through completely different, race-inflected lenses. In fact, argues Dawson, the new era heralded by Obama;s election is in fact more racially complicated, as the widening class gap among African Americans and the hot-button issue of immigration have the potential to create a new fissures for conservatives and race-based exploitation. Bringing his account up to the present with a thoughtful account of the rise of the Tea Party movement and the largely successful 'blackening' of the president, Dawson ultimately argues that black politics remains weak--and that achieving the dream of racial and economic equality will require the sort of coalition-building and reaching across racial divides that have always marked successful political movements.").
Walter E. Williams, Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed On Discrimination (Sanford, CA: Hoover Institute Press, 2011) (From the bookjacket: "The black experience in America naturally [?] gives rise to thinking of today's black experience in terms of racism and oppression. But the most [?] difficult problems black Americans face, particularly those who are poor, cannot adequately ["not adequately" or 'not completely'?; there is a difference] be explained by current racial discrimination. In Race and Economics, Walter Williams argues that many problems are a result of policies, regulations, and restrictions emanating from federal, state, and local governments. It is not free markets and the profit motives that have reduced opportunities, the author asserts; instead, it is the power of vested groups, as a means of greater wealth, to use the coercive power of government to stifle market competition." "William debunks many common labor market myths and reveals how the minimum-wage law has imposed incalculable harm on the most disadvantaged members of our society. He explains that the real problem is people are not so much underpaid as underskilled and that the real task is to help unskilled people become skilled. [And, I suppose, do this while we at the same time defund public education?] The author also reveals how licensing and regulation reduce economic opportunity for people, especially those who might be described as discriminated against and having little political clout. Using the example of the trucking industry before and after deregulation he illustrates how government regulation closes entry and reinforces economic handicaps, whereas deregulation not only has helped minorities enter an industry in greater numbers by also has benefited the consumer." "People will not engage in activities, including racial discrimination, says Williams, if it cost is too high. [DAH!!!!!; but what is "too high"?] In markets, because transactions are mostly an individual affair, it is unnecessary to win the approval or permission of others; the costs and benefits are a private matter. But in the political arena, each citizen has only one vote, meaning that, unlike the free market, a minority cannot register the intensity of his preferences. Further, increased concentration of political power at the national level handicaps minorities in the sense that their votes become diluted. The author ultimately shows that free-market allocation, not political allocations, is what is truly in the best interest of minorities." [No he does not!!] At the end of reading this polemic, those who already agreed with Williams when they opened the book will agree with him when they finish reading and put it down. On the other hand, those who were disposed to disagree with him when they pick up the book will be not only unpersuaded, but, I think, even more entrenched in their prior convictions. Williams has preached to his choir, and missed the larger audience.).
