I read this to round out my reading challenge with some nonfiction or academic writing, but when I think about reading this book, I groan involuntarily. It was very challenging for me to finish it. I hesitate to criticize it out of the context and significance in which it was written. It is the kind of book that I would be interested in learning about from someone more informed than I am in revolutionary theory and historical social justice. It is clearly a significant piece, I just struggle to see how it could possibly be considered effectively written now or ever.
Here are my (uninformed) thoughts:
- Not one point that is made is backed up with evidence.
- Most of the proposed methods for reversing oppression are stated absolutely and then never outlined. The book stands almost exclusively on, “This is the way that it must be,” but rarely delves into, “and this is how it could/should be accomplished.”
- Sometimes in the small intersection of inflammatory writing and academic writing where this book falls, an authoritative tone becomes confused with intellectual authority. An emotional plea that is presented as a logical argument must still make sense. Was there a need to invent so many terms and then rely so heavily on the reader’s fluency in them? How could this have possible been written for a population with limited education’s comprehension?
Would I read more by this author?: Please not without it being a part of a curriculum in which someone helps me see the merits of it.