The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America

by Coleman Hughes

An exciting new voice makes the case for a colorblind approach to politics and culture, warning that the so-called ‘anti-racist’ movement is driving us—ironically—toward a new kind of racism.

As one of the few black students in his philosophy program at Columbia University years ago, Coleman Hughes wondered why his peers seemed more pessimistic about the state of American race relations than his own grandparents–who lived through segregation. The End of Race Politics is the culmination of his years-long search for an answer.

Contemplative yet audacious, The End of Race Politics is necessary reading for anyone who questions the race orthodoxies of our time. Hughes argues for a return to the ideals that inspired the American Civil Rights movement, showing how our departure from the colorblind ideal has ushered in a new era of fear, paranoia, and resentment marked by draconian interpersonal etiquette, failed corporate diversity and inclusion efforts, and poisonous race-based policies that hurt the very people they intend to help. Hughes exposes the harmful side effects of Kendi-DiAngelo style antiracism, from programs that distribute emergency aid on the basis of race to revisionist versions of American history that hide the truth from the public.

Through careful argument, Hughes dismantles harmful beliefs about race, proving that reverse racism will not atone for past wrongs and showing why race-based policies will lead only to the illusion of racial equity. By fixating on race, we lose sight of what it really means to be anti-racist. A racially just, colorblind society is possible. Hughes gives us the intellectual tools to make it happen.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Race, History, Sociology, Philosophy, Audiobook

256 pages, Hardcover

First published February 6, 2024

About the author

"My name is Coleman Hughes. I’m a writer, podcast host, and musician.

I’ve written for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Quillette, the Spectator, and the City Journal. Currently, I’m a contributing writer at the Free Press."

Reviews

[mark monday · Rating 4 out of 5]

Coleman Hughes makes the case for a colorblind, race-neutral approach: interpersonally, legally, systemically. He's not saying that we should avoid seeing color - an impossibility - but that people, systems, workplaces, and the government should not use skin color (or race and ancestry) as a way to determine how people will be treated. That seems pretty basic to me. I mean, people should certainly feel free to admire my delicious toffee-colored skin tone, I certainly do, but I'd be quite annoyed to learn that I'm being treated or engaged with in a particular kind of way due to that skin tone. Isn't this common sense? Apparently not.

The author is perhaps best known for calmly testifying before Congress against reparations, opposing Ta-Nehisi Coates' rather hysterical argument in favor. I really don't have much to say about that, and Hughes says little about that topic in his book. His goal in The End of Race Politics is to define and then speak out against an idea that he terms "neoracism," which per Hughes operates by using racial stereotypes, ignores racial progress made, and insists that the color of one's skin will determine how a person thinks, acts, is treated, and how well they will do in their life. Examples of people that Hughes considers to be neoracists are popular writers such as Coates, Ibram X. Kendi, Robin Diangelo, and Nikole Hannah-Jones

Hughes outlines neoracism's "comforting falsehoods [that] help no one, least of all people of color:"

The Disparity Fallacy: Racial disparities provide direct evidence of systemic racism.

The Myth of Undoing the Past: New acts of racial discrimination can undo the effects of past racial discrimination.

The Myth of No Progress: American society has made little or no progress combating racism against people of color since the civil rights movement.

The Myth of Inherited Trauma: Black people who are alive today inherit the trauma that was inflicted on their enslaved ancestors.

The Myth of Superior Knowledge: The knowledge that people of color have about racism is superior to any knowledge that a white person could have.

The Racial Ad Hominem: You can dismiss any claims about race and racism that white people make simply because they are white.

The Myth of Black Weakness: White people have power in society, but black people don't.

I thought he did an excellent job of defining and providing examples for each. Anyone who lives or works among race-centering identitarians, or who is active online, should be familiar with his list. I was least convinced by his critique of 'The Myth of Superior Knowledge' and I was particularly impressed by his comments on 'The Myth of Inherited Trauma' (an absurdity) and on 'The Myth of Black Weakness' (ironically, Kendi would agree with him on that).

✑

Some of the parts that stood out for me:

- an example of a neoracist policy: automated traffic cameras removed from Chicago because more black and Hispanic drivers were receiving tickets due to those cameras

- Brown vs. Board of Education won due to the claim that segregated schools were inherently unequal because they lowered black children's self-esteem. which is a strange and condescending rationale! a better reason would have been the one put forward by Thurgood Marshall, which deems the 14th Amendment as precluding a state from imposing distinctions based upon race and color.

-"Leaders of the civil rights movement aimed at abolishing racial categories in the nation's entire legal regime... The NAACP lawyers who argued the Brown case wanted to prohibit the state from making any distinctions based upon race. These historical facts have been downplayed in an effort to avoid the depressing conclusion that a significant portion of our society has betrayed the ideals of abolition and the civil rights movement"

- there is much in common between the ideas of white nationalists and modern antiracists, in particular around the rejection of an integrated multiracial society and the "embrace of racial tribalism." I'm reminded of this video .

- the checklist of 'white supremacy' traits (as developed by the ridiculous Tema Okun) are illogical and inherently racist e.g. traits such as 'individualism' and 'perfectionism' are neither inherently negative nor held solely by whites

- the idea that racism has increased can be connected to the rise of social media and smartphones: isolated incidences of racism are widely shared, leading to the false assumption that such incidences are widespread

- a quote from Morgan Freeman: "I don't want a Black History Month. Black history is American history." I'm reminded of similar sentiments from Albert Murray in his excellent The Omni-Americans: Some Alternatives to the Folklore of White Supremacy

- "We overcome divisions among people not by emphasizing differences but by emphasizing similarities, and race concepts, by their very nature, emphasize differences."

- geographic differences are being underrated when it comes to examining racial disparities. Hughes refers to these as 'benign disparities' i.e. systemic racism is not a factor

- surprisingly, Hughes is actually in favor of reparations paid to living victims of government abuses

- "The Myth of Inherited Trauma hurts black people by encouraging an attitude of perpetual victimhood. Victimhood is supposed to be an acute condition, not a chronic one... It treats victimhood as if it's a genetic disease - something permanent that cannot be overcome."

- race-based policies usually end up benefiting high-income, highly educated elites of color, rather than poor and disenfranchised communities

✒

Overall, I agreed with this book's points and I appreciated its reasonable tone. I liked that he didn't shy away from sharing his own experiences as a black man. (I enjoy the qualitative as much as the quantitative!) I'll admit that I came to The End of Race Politics biased in its favor: much like my recent readings of works written by Freddie deBoer, Nellie Bowles, Jonathan Rauch, and fiction writer Naomi Kanakia, I started The End of Race Politics with my admiration for the author and my familiarity with his opinions already in place. I am in complete alignment with his stance that in modern Western society, most inequities occur because of class and economics, rather than physical characteristics. Not all inequities, of course - racism and other isms have not and never will be fully eradicated, as they are an unfortunate part of the human condition - but most. And those inequities exist for all colors.

If I have any critique, it's that his disavowal of racial identity as a determining factor in how one is treated and in how one engages with the world overlooks how many people of color positively identify with their race. Often in a way that boosts self-esteem and encourages community. As well as how important race is when espousing a multicultural worldview. Perhaps that is intentional: Hughes is speaking about race as akin to skin color and as a social construct; he is not writing about culture or about ethnicity. I wish he had included a chapter differentiating "race" from both. It goes without saying that ethnicity and culture are of prime importance to a person's identity. As much as I love my toffee-colored skin, it has nothing to do with my identity, with who I am. But being half-Filipino certainly does.

[Matt Berkowitz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Coleman is a masterful, clear writer. His ability to come up with helpful analogies to drive home his point is truly impressive. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Coleman’s thesis, you have to applaud his ability to clearly articulate his thesis and support his claims with persuasive arguments and evidence.

His thesis: we should adopt colourblindness, defined as consciously disregarding race in how we treat individuals and in setting public policy. Colourblindness shouldn’t be understood literally (“not seeing colour”), since we all “see” race, i.e., we notice that people have different skin pigmentation and have different ancestral backgrounds.

Coleman’s basic argument is persuasive to me. Contrary to “anti-racists” who posit that talking more about race will reduce racism, Coleman thinks the opposite: getting people to fixate more on their racial identity will lead to being more cognizant of racial divides, amplify people’s racial pride, and thus endgender more racial animus and polarizaton.

Coleman begins the book by remarking on the arbitrariness of race. He is careful not to outright disregard a genetic basis for race (or “populations”), acknowledging that modern cluster analyses roughly confirm that the geographical separateness of different populations roughly corresponds to modern-day racial identification. But there is plenty of arbitrariness in our social conception of race. For example, the “one drop rule” means that if one has even a minority of black ancestry, society identifies them as “black”; legal categories for race often group together diverse populations into the same racial category; and public policies like affirmative action can shift the incentives in how individuals self-identify (to take advantage of the benefits or avoid the harms of certain programs).

Instead, Coleman suggests—and I agree—that to more effectively help people, we should use a more direct proxy for disadvantage: income/class/socioeconomic status. Rather than target race, which will identify many people who are not disadvantaged (due to racial discrimination or otherwise), targeting income means we will help those most in need regardless of their race. Yet, modern “anti-racists”—whom Coleman calls “neoracists”—insist on amplifying the salience of race to the extent that many mainstream institutions (media, schools, academia, etc.) have been captured by this type of identitarian thinking. This type of neoracism is directly anathema to MLK Jr.’s / the civil rights movement’s aims and ethos: treating people not according to the colour of their skin but by the content of their character, i.e., colourblindness. Modern “anti-racists” completely eschew this. For example, Ibram X. Kendi thinks that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination”; Robin DiAngelo thinks that “I strive to be ‘less white.’ To be less white is to be less racially oppressive. This requires me to be more racially aware…”

In a rather short chapter, Coleman then turns his attention to why neoracism is spreading, documenting the rise in usage of certain terms since 2010—terms like “systemic racism” and “whiteness”. Coleman suggests two reasons for the rise in neoracism:

(1) “The end of these conflicts [the Cold War and War on Terror] has created a situation in which the United States no longer has a scary foreign enemy to fight. The absence of a common enemy has magnified the importance of domestic conflicts” (p. 73).

(2) The decline of Christianity has created an ideological and spiritual void that’s been filled by neoracism.

I find (1) to be more convincing, and it’s consistent with Francis Fukuyama’s thesis of “the end of history”: that secular liberal democracy is the highest form of civilization yet discovered/proposed/tried. I don’t find (2) to be especially convincing, as the majority of citizens do not subscribe to neo-racist ideology, and many who do are themselves also religious in the traditional sense. However, it’s hard to know what sort of data could validate or refute such hypotheses—I just wouldn’t put much stake in them either way.

I do agree with Coleman’s suggestion that the smartphone era and social media in particular have aided the spread of these ideas, but I’m not sure how explanatory these can be on their own. I think political polarization had to have existed as a precondition, which may explain why social media hasn’t led to the same spread of neoracist memes in other countries. Regardless of the true causal explanation, Coleman demonstrates how the spread in neoracism is rather decoupled from actual anti-black racism, with majorities of both whites and blacks having reported in 2021 that race relations are somewhat bad or very bad, whereas as recently as 2013, strong majorities reported race relations to be somewhat good or very good.

It is hard to document all the fallacious reasoning among neoracists. But Coleman tries in the penultimate chapter. He enumerates a list of fallacies:
-The Disparity Fallacy: racial disparities are conclusive evidence of [systemic] racism.
-The Myth of Undoing the Past: re: Kendi’s claim above that, new acts of discrimination can somehow make up for past acts of discrimination. (Has this ever worked throughout history anywhere?)
-The Myth of No Progress: many neoracists assert that America has made no progress in combatting racism.
-The Myth of Inherited Trauma: black people alive today inherit trauma experienced by their ancestors.
-The Myth of Superior Knowledge: black people supposedly have knowledge about racism that a white person could not.
-The Racial Ad Hominem: claims about racism by white people can be dismissed by dint of them being white
-The Myth of Black Weakness: white people have societal power and black people don’t.

In the final chapter, Coleman tackles the question of how we can turn these trends around via colourblind approaches. He doesn’t have any easy answers. We need to: end affirmative action (racially discriminatory policies); acknowledge that racial disparities are likely to occur for all sorts of benign reasons and thus stop caring about “equity” (equality of outcome); recommit ourselves to the principles of the civil rights movement, particularly with respect to providing educational opportunities to the most disadvantaged but in a colourblind way.

A couple of minor critiques:

(1) It’s unclear how far Coleman actually thinks we should go with colourblindness. He says there may be some cases where it does make sense to hire based on race, e.g., in the police force, if there is a tension between race-neutral merit-based standards and racial diversity, in order to enhance the perceived legitimacy of the police.

(2) Furthermore, Coleman both says he’s all for acknowledging and discussing actual racism, yet a steadfast commitment to colourblindness would seem to entail disregarding race in how we treat individuals. There’s a tension here that’s worth acknowledging. Perhaps a better rephrasing of the colourblind principle would leave room for exceptional circumstances in which someone’s racial identity needs to be taken into consideration.

Notwithstanding these minor critiques, this is a fantastic book: clear, persuasive, morally sane, and much-needed in the current climate. Highly recommended.

[Stetson · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a just world, Coleman Hughes would be a recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship rather than Ibram X. Kendi. This injustice won't be redressed, but we should take solace in the existence and success of Hughes' book, The End of Race Politics. Not only is it published by a major publisher, Penguin Random House (something nigh unthinkable during the various peaks of woke sentiments), but as of Feb 21st 2024, it sits at #820 in Amazon books (#2&3 in Discrimination & Racism). I expect its sales to perform well and for Hughes' profile to grow. He is a star within the alternative media/podcast sphere and a top commentator on racial politics favored by many public intellectuals like Steven Pinker and Sam Harris.

The End of Race Politics is a straightforward defense of colorblind racial politics. It addresses itself to the various arguments that have been forwarded to destroy this once great idea, the idea that animated all civil rights progress in mid-20th century America.

Hughes begins the work by providing clarity on the concept of race. It is indeed a social construct but one that was inspired by a real biological phenomenon, the evolutionary and migratory history of humans. Hughes, obviously not a race realist, highlights that there is now distance between the biology of human populations and social understandings of race, but that it should nonetheless be understood as a natural category. This is a unique position that few commentators on race stakeout, especially those who are proponents of colorblind ideology. However, Hughes argument makes clear that the categorization that naturally follows the morphological differences among humans simply is and doesn't compel any particular moral or political stance. In fact, he points out that most racists, whether of the old or new school variety, tend to hold on to more essentialist understandings even when they argue its a social construct. Hughes third-way on race is a good perspective to make new progress on race politics.

The remainder of Hughes books is a methodological dissection of "neoractist" arguments. This package of ideas is associated with anti-racist activists and scholars like Kendi, Daniel Bell, and Angela Davis. Hughes masterfully illustrates the damage that these ideas do to progress on racial understanding. His basic point is that colorblindness was eminently better delivering reform on racial issues. It is the actual essence of America's legacy of civil rights progress. Further, Coleman debunk the myths on which neoracism is built, the many false origin stories about American history, historical disparities and race itself. He highlights that the contemporary arrangement of the narrative mostly benefit a small group of already well-off minorities or those whose background are not even connected to the history such policies are trying to redress.

Hughes also attempts to explain how race relations have ended up in their current configuration. He highlights the absence of a foreign threat in after the Cold War, the decline in religiosity, and the smartphone revolution. He essentially argue the skewed version of reality created by cell phone video of police encounters with black Americans drove racial division. They fostered racial consciousness and racial grievance without an actual substantive factual basis. I am not sure about this model of race relations. I think Hughes is perhaps overlooking the coordinated role of various intellectuals and activists on race in addition to the malign incentives created by some of the legal processes and regulatory practices birthed by civil rights legislation. The picture is complex and Hughes shouldn't be faulted for providing a perfect model for the decline of race relations in the 2010s.

The End of Race Politics is an ideal rejoinder to the racial memes that permeate mainstream and elite public discourse. It is one of the better modern defenses of colorblindness as racial politics that can deliver progress and reform. Hughes is a persuasive and sharp commentator on a painful and challenging issue. I hope that a great number of Americans will pick this book up with an open mind.

[LeastTorque · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read “How To Be An Antiracist” by Ibram X. Kendi alongside “The End Of Race Politics” by Coleman Hughes and, quite serendipitously, on the same day I finished both books, the long-form NYT article “The Colorblindness Trap” by Nikole Hannah-Jones. Needless to say, sparks flew. These three agree on much and disagree on much, some of it critical to any policy that would arise from their thinking. The discussions and arguments of each author were often brilliant, sometimes misleading, sometimes misguided, and sometimes hyperbolic. If this were a three-way debate it might be judged a three-way tie.

I’m a solutions gal. I wish for solutions that both work and are workable. In this I found Mr. Hughes to have the most to offer. Affirmative action, regardless of whether you support it or not, will be dead in this country for a very long time given the makeup of the Supreme Court and its recent ruling. Reparations have zero chance. That leaves voting, and policy changes especially related to education, health care, and the justice system. It leaves anonymizing resumes. Let the ideas flow.

I also found Mr. Hughes to be most hopeful. Mr. Kendi sounds like the orange monster in his characterization of where we’re at right now. Ms. Hannah-Jones is in the middle.

They all spin the words of Dr. King in different ways to bolster their arguments. It’s over half a century since his death and it seems to me that his words should inspire but not dictate. Figure out what to do now in the current conditions and stop worrying about what he really meant. If he was anything like Mr. Kendi he had a different epiphany every other Tuesday.

If I wanted to be flip, I’d say Mr. Hughes strives to be whiter, Mr. Kendi strives to be blacker, and Ms. Hannah-Jones strives to tell them both how wrong they are. Hey, guys, get a room like in One Night In Miami.

Everybody gets three stars from me as an average of the good, the bad, and the ugly. All of these works are worth reading and discussing because they are loaded with points to discuss.

I was tempted to ding Mr. Kendi a star for the frequent blatant bullshit but it’s surrounded with so much of value that I’m letting it slide. But dude, work out your issues.

If you feel that I’ve murdered this review, I’m not worried. After all, as Mr. Kendi says, “White women get away with murder”.

[Andy · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is obviously trash, it's my fault for picking it up but when I'm bored and restless I go straight for the redpill. He gets so weird and shitty especially in the second half. There's a point where he proposes that maybe the reason George Floyd was murdered is because the *neoracist* BLM activists won't talk about police killings of white men. So that sucks so much.

The actually ghoulish stuff aside I just want to note this weird tendency for Coleman Hughes to narrow his gaze, in a way that seems either very naive or incredibly cynical. Look at this bizarre passage (among many) about MLK:

It’s an ironic feature of our national discourse that the resonance of Dr. King’s message now depends entirely upon the identity of the messenger rather than the content of the message. In one study, behavioral scientist Michael Bernstein asked people to rate the following quote, squarely in the colorblind tradition, on a racism scale from 1 to 5 (“1” meaning not racist at all and “5” meaning extremely racist):
"Black supremacy is as dangerous as white supremacy, and God is not interested merely in the freedom of black men and brown men and yellow men. God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race."
The first group was told that the quote is by Dr. King (which is true) while the second group was told it was by President Trump (which is false). When participants believed it was a King quote, Republicans rated it a “1” and Democrats rated it a “1.3.” In other words, almost nobody saw the quote as racist. But when participants believed it was a Trump quote, Republicans rated it a “1.4” and Democrats rated it a “3.4.”

This fascinates me because he thinks it's a really good point. But yeah, I do think it's more racist when Trump talks about black supremacy and brown and yellow men than Martin Luther King Jr. actually. That doesn't seem hypocritical to me. I think this speaks to a consistent and very weird demand throughout the book for people to engage with texts while ignoring the context and the subtext. But MLK has a lot of ideas about white supremacy and we bring that understanding to the table when we unpack what he's saying here. Trump has a different set of ideas and those inform how we understand him as well. The idea that we couldn't possibly draw meaning from that context is so strange. But it's core to the logic of his book which is all about how "if a white person said this it would be super racist but a black person can say it??? whattt????"

Lightning round: this man makes the most cursed arguments and I don't even know why. Like I could make up better racist apologia easily, this is weak as hell. I'm not gonna bother debunking these I'll just leave them here.

● He says that racism can't explain wage gaps because Bengali and Indian Americans make different amounts of money, and Hmong and Chinese Americans make different amounts of money, but "most would-be employers could not tell the difference between a person of Hmong descent and a person of Chinese descent."
● At one point while talking about colleges he quotes the white supremacist Jared Taylor and I'm ready for him to quote some woke college administrator and go "these sound the same," but he just goes "many elite colleges and universities embrace reasoning similar to Taylor's" and moves on. He just quotes a Nazi and goes "they're the same, trust me"
● He says that "right now in American society calling a black person the N-word is highly stigmatized. This is a very good thing. But racial slurs directed at white people aren't. This neoracist double standard is toxic." (and no, he gives no examples of white slurs.)
● He argues that black people have much less economic power than white people but they have more cultural power. And I'm like okay, so he's going to argue that black aesthetics are influential or something? Like Ariana Grande wants to pass as a black R&B singer and that's super woke? But no he says this:

Consider the fact that in the past two decades the practice of blackface--which a significant portion of the black community finds offensive--went from something routinely seen on television and in movies to something that virtually no one would consider doing for any reason. In the 2000s and the early 2010s, Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, Fred Armisen, Ashton Kutcher, Robert Downey Jr., Sarah Silverman, and many other celebrities performed in blackface. As of 2023, my guess is that not a single one of them would dream of ever doing it again. That is an indication of the cultural power of the black American community.

Really incredible, the way this man's mind works.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Long lead in note: I am starting to ding a star off of my reviews for nonfiction books that do not directly imbed citation numbers for footnotes or endnotes in the body of the work. Maybe it’s a lazy editor/publisher’s fault but the lack of referenced data or studies or quotes or declarative statements in the body of the work allows a reader to draw assumptions that the work is merely the opinion of the author. Lately I have started to believe based on my own reading that bloggers, columnists, brand-conscious social media writers might be most guilty of this lazy approach to bookmaking. In an age of rampant plagiarism and increasing theft of authenticity and attribution brought on through AI, I feel it necessary to take a stand against sloppy research, analysis and presentation.

A reviewer has already commented on the author’s criticism and arguments repeatedly drawing from the work of two influential individuals in current discussions and policy discussions concerning American racism. I also see this as a short coming, as valid as Hughes’s arguments against neoracism may be.

Another reviewer has also already commented on the unevenness of some the sections. I agree here as well. For me it was particularly apparent in the critical discussion of what Hughes calls the myths of neoracism.

One phrase repeated throughout the book that I grew to find off putting was when Hughes would introduce a term or catch phrase for a topic he would write “what I call…”. Is he really coining all of these phrases? I haven’t read enough on the study of racism to know better. If he is, then the need would seem to me for much more evidence in support of the constructs than is provided in this thin, written-for-mass-consumption, title.

All of that aside, because the book is short, the writing accessible, and several points and quotes of his two nemeses are returned to more than once in the slim volume, a reader will be able to move quickly through the ideas presented in support for colorblind approaches to fighting discrimination and racism.

I would have given the book a four star review if the author, editor and publisher had given the provocative ideas more structural support and their audience greater respect for wanting the weight of evidence on important matters such as these.

End note: people writing reviews on this site often thank external sources for giving them pre-publication access to titles for free. I will do the same here. I thank my public library for allowing me to put a hold on this book prior to publication and getting it in my hands so quickly hot off the press in a tangible form (hard bound, not digital) that I can now return for later, free enjoyment by others — regardless of race or privilege, which I think the author of this particular book might appreciate.

[Bill Powers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Congratulations and thanks to Mr. Hughes for creating a passionate, intelligent, data-driven argument for a “colorblind America.” Whether one agrees with most or little of Mr. Hughes’ thesis, reading for most Americans and all black Americans should be required because it will encourage serious thought on a most serious issue facing our nation.

Mr. Hughes raises several key issues, among them:
• The 14th Amendment was an opportunity lost because it did not implement a colorblind America.
• That race based upon skin color is a meaningless construct and diversity is neither good nor bad.
• The age range of birth to 18 is the greatest area of opportunity to impact race-based societal differences, but affirmative action focuses on the ages 18+.
• An unintended consequence of affirmative action may be incentivizing people to choose professionals, e.g., physicians, lawyers, etc., based on skin color because it is unclear whether the professional is fully qualified or a product of affirmative action.

American race relations are a complex and emotional issue, but Mr. Hughes has done an excellent job of raising the level of discourse in this area.

I look forward to future books from this author.

[Anuradha Pandey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I devoured this book in two days. Hughes is erudite and passionate in laying out the logic of approaching individual and public life without the consideration of race. He is not preaching being blind to race, but rather showing how the current leftist understanding of race reinforces the very evils it seeks to undo in its insistence that people of different races cannot possibly understand each other. He also dismantles the tenets of what he calls neoracism and what the left calls critical race theory/social justice. He incisively argues that the prevailing attitudes entrench a sense of disempowerment among black people and treat them as children, which ultimately harms the people this framework is supposed to elevate. As much as identity of the speaker shouldn’t matter, Hughes being a black man makes this particularly crucial reading.

I used to believe in all the tenets of critical social justice that he shows are riddled with fallacies. Everyone, especially women, who think these theories explain the world need to read this book.

[Drick · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book advocates for eliminating the category of "race" and accepting the notion of colorblindness as a desire for white people to move past race. The book is severely limited in its understanding of the systemic nature of racism (which the author rejects) and therefore underestimates the deep work of change that must happen both on a personal level and a systemic level. The author is naive, and not well versed in the complex nature of racism. Sadly the author is a young African-American which means his book will be used by whites who want to argue racism is a thing of the past, even as they gut high school curriculums on the history of racism in this country. Not a book I would not recommend this book for anyone who seeks to full understand how we must work on many levels to combat racism in this country

[Amir Stein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall this is a very intriguing book, I enjoyed reading and listening to it. I do have a couple of points of criticism though.
Firstly, in my humble opinion, Hughes presented the concept of generational trauma in a very inaccurate, bordering on misleading, way.
Secondly, his urgency to promote charter schools came out of nowhere and wasn't factually based.
Thirdly, I live in a country in which affirmative action is used in the process of acceptance to University. I feel like the problem with affirmative action is not the affirmative action but how it's applied. It's just the normal case of Americans taking good social ideas and ruining them by performing them badly.
Still a book worth reading, in spite of those criticisms.

[Rain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Coleman has such a calm tone to his writing, there are no theatrics here. There are points to consider, data to support, and reasonably made arguments for his pov.

[Graeme Rodaughan]

Pending budget.

[Graham Parker · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book challenged all of my handed-down and societal-delivered guilt and perspective on race, and presented me with an equally challenging view on alternative perspectives of how to rethink the whole topic of race and colorblindness.

Coleman Hughes takes on the current academy of race equity and delivers blow after blow of tight retort and hard truths. He is a courageous man.

[Sherif Gerges · Rating 2 out of 5]

Coleman Hughes is a public intellectual, podcaster and one of the darlings of the center-right stratum of American body politic, which itself emerged as a dialectical counterargument to the progressive left. His book, The End of Race Politics, is roughly structured into two parts: the first being a critique of what he calls "neoracism" - with a particularly scathing rebuttals of Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. In the second section he pivots to promoting what he calls a "colorblind America", a concept deeply ingrained within the aspirations championed by the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

This was a difficult book for me to read. Namely because it seemed tailored to a distinct audience: those deeply immersed in contemporary discussions surrounding race.. Notably, he seems particularly aggrieved and critical of Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo - neither of whom I am intimately familiar with. So I feel as though I should have done some background reading before picking up The End of Race.

Then there is a second problem with this book, I felt Hughes didn't actually critique "neoracists", as much as he just selected quotes and hand-waved a few criticisms their way. While many intellectuals are meticulous about criticizing the works of others - The End of Race comes across as boiler plate anti-woke polemics straddling some paper thin arguments. What particularly concerned me was that Hughes seems to revel in constructing strawman mirages of a woke boogeyman Kendi and DiAngelo before enthusiastically knocking them over. Although perhaps he is correct in doing so, he appears to bypass the essential task of thoroughly representing opposing viewpoints and systematically refuting their arguments.

For example, he believes that "neoracists" are culpable for "rejecting our shared humanity" and that they believe little progress has been made on race relations in the US. I highly doubt this is true - who can argue that the past 100 years have not seen improvements in race relations? Quoting these authors at length would have rendered his criticisms more convincing.

Other positions also appear paper-thin. For example, his attribution of the popularity of woke-ism to the decline of Christianity and social media. Now, I don't immediately see the correlation between Christianity and woke-ism, and I'm very confused by this argument - but he doesn’t expound on this position. On the other hand, I agree that social media might well be a conduit of disinformation; but couldn't the same be said of the Right? I do think social media has "reduced" the quality of the news and created incorrigible echo chamber for anyone with an opinion, but this is doesn't explain woke-ism entirely. I think a more likely explanation is that postmodernism has thoroughly enveloped the educational system; where words like "colonialism", "class" and "white supremacy" are frequently taught and rarely appropriately contextualized.

Other times I was left like some points he made were silly. For example, he aptly observes the absence of collective introspection in the Arab world regarding the trans-Saharan slave trade. This is certainly true, but slavery in America hit black people with a double whammy via segregation and Jim Crow laws which to a large degree explain present-day disparities. While racism exists in the Arab world, it was never as insidious, legally preserved or as persevering as American racism. It’s an absurd comparison.

Altogether, I wouldn't say this book is completely poor – there are viewpoints articulated by Hughes that resonate with me. Furthermore, I do think that there is a clear bifurcation of opinions on race relations, and the worst of them tend to be parroted by imbeciles. However, I don't think a book should be written to focus on these. Rather, I was hoping for a little more substantive work, as opposed to a book that merely touched on many topics and anecdotal examples as its prime substrate.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

I find that books like this are legitimately the hardest ones to review. This is a book written by a Black man, and it’s a book arguing against some of the anti-racist movements we’ve seen in recent years. What makes it difficult is while there are some points that I think he argues strongly, there are many others that use cherry-picked data or avoid the larger context of the conversation. Had I not read An Inconvenient Cop, which discusses the systemic racism of policing, at the same time that I read this book, I may not have had some of the counterpoints top of mind.

I feel like it’d take a multi-page essay to thoroughly review this book, but I’ll try to keep it brief.

What I liked about this book is Coleman loves philosophy and knows how to argue his points extremely well. Even if I disagree with him on arts, he can typically get me to understand where he’s coming from. Unlike most anti-woke grifters, Coleman actually comes off pretty progressive at points throughout this book. He also doesn’t deny that racism exists. He does express quite a bit of empathy for white people and helps the reader understand why some white people are offended by social justice movements.

When you’re in poverty and told you’re privileged, it doesn’t go over well. Even though there’s nuance to that topic, the lower-class white people don’t care about that. So, this book may enlighten some social justice people into new ways of approaching these topics. I was also expecting to hate this book because he’s arguing for colorblindness. Fortunately, Coleman comes out and says that he knows colorblindness doesn’t exist. He’s arguing for the idea of it where we have a fair and just society regardless of a person’s color, but he believes social justice activists aren’t helping these issues.

Where I dislike the book is that Coleman cherry-picks data and doesn’t look at systemic issues. I know he’s smart enough to either know about these things or research them. So, he’s either ignorant to the topics or purposely not discussing them. The one part that really upset me was when he was talking about policing and how many unarmed white people are shot, but he refused to discuss police reform in depth. He also argues a lot for looking at individuals rather than groups but doesn’t acknowledge how other Black people have experience far more racism than he has.

Is this a book worth reading? Absolutely. It’s a great book, but regardless of “which side” you’re on, read it skeptically and give it an honest chance. While I think this book may piss both sides off, I think it has some strong points here and there.

[Keymonta Thomas · Rating 1 out of 5]

any argument for moving beyond racial politics that fails to acknowledge the verifiable facts of decades worth of systemic discrimination isn’t worth a damn!

There’s no “evolving” if you aren’t willing to address the damage that’s been inflicted on minorities in this country.

Jim Crow, Redlining, the denial of the GI Bill, Mass Incarceration

These are just a few examples of policies that have specifically damaged black communities and Coleman fails to address these issues in any meaningful sense.

[Kris · Rating 4 out of 5]

A level-headed discussion of what race policies in America should look like, based on a new definition of "color-blindness."

I would hold this up along with other books like:
--Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody
--Them: Why We Hate Each Other - and How to Heal
--Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed
--The Quest for Cosmic Justice
--Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics is Destroying American Democracy

[Charlene · Rating 4 out of 5]

Coleman Hughes makes great points in this book. A few I heard on his interviews when promoting the book and on his podcast. He’s highly intelligent and gives great arguments, yet the problem I have is with the word Colorblind. I understand it and what he means, however as I’m reading the book, I just wish it would be called something else. That wording doesn’t engage some people who believe colorblindness is simply acting as if one doesn’t see race.
If he could have chosen another way to present his thesis without using the word colorblind, I believe he would have a lot more support.

[kumareadsbooks · Rating 1 out of 5]

There is a lot to unpack here and the 1 star has been given with due thought. I made the decision to go research in depth racial justice as a subject in Western society. I am aware of my biases (black male, living in the UK) but actively seek out different perspectives. I try to test and disprove my assumptions and views to collect a more rounded view. I was genuinely intrigued and looked forward to reading this book as I have heard great things about the author and the book.

As a primer I watched his Ted Talk. The overall aim of moving away from racialised policy and moving towards colour blindness is a good destination. He also makes a good points about class, which I think is not discussed enough as a factor in discussions about inequality in the US.

You might be thinking now, why the 1 star? These are my “back of the fag packet” recollected critiques of this book.

I have deliberately avoided why I believe that positive action(affirmative action in US) is a necessary and just measure as this will take way to much time to unpack on Goodreads. For a more eloquent exposition, I would recommend reading the NYT article “The ‘Colorblindness’ Trap - How a civil rights ideal got hijacked” by Nikole Hannah-Jones. Worth a read. It’s free and has an audio link also.

Headlines:

- The destination offered (colour blindness) is the only solution for the kaleidescope of problems facing ethnic minorities. It is undeveloped thinking to assume this measure alone will elevate the socio-economic position of ethnic minorities in society. It completely ignoring the legacy of historic racist policy making and its continuing impact on neighbourhoods, access to good education, housing etc
- Misinterprets the necessity of positive action taken to redress these issues and in my reading, presents it as simple preferential treatment to ethnic minorities. Ignoring that positive action may be necessary to address the power networks within an industry
- Naive understanding and view of the world. What I mean by this is that he seems not to acknowledge that the exceptions are not the rule. Not everyone can “pull themselves up by the boot straps” and climb the social ladder or improve their circumstances. The environment and economic factors can restrict groups of people from assimilating/elevating themselves.
- Does not acknowledge the impact racism has had on the culture and mindset of ethnic minorities. Trauma sustained by ethnic minorities in America as a result of racist policies is unmeasurable and this trauma can be passed down through generations in the thinking and how people engage in society.
- Presentation of the opposing argument was not varied enough and appeared to centre on two authors Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. The quotations left me scratching my head at times as I am familiar with the work of these two individuals. For context, I do not agree with everything they said but his interpretation/representation was off at times to the point whether I actually did not read their work! He then proceeded to present his reading of these two individuals as what all anti racists would say which was…frustrating at times, from an intellectual stand point.

Another point and this is it, promise! Imagine this. You are working on a sprint for a project crucial for the company and your boss pairs you with “that” guy on the team who appears to have unique knowledge of the subject area due to their CV and they talk a good game. So you get to work, hopeful to get this over the line. But within one hour of working together, you realise they are an arrogant p***k, dismisses all your expertise in your area and says “Trust me bro-“ and then proceeds to jump straight to conclusions without giving space for nuance, considering risks or developing mitigation strategies Now this may be the British in me who hates this brashness but, the author comes across like this at times in the book which is really sad. I feel at times he could have really made a more compelling point if he reduced the sharpness, as it only drew more attention to the glaring gaps and inconsistencies which I have highlighted earlier.

Overall, would not recommend. At all. In fact, you’re better served just listening to the 13 minute Ted Talk on YouTube.

[Joshua Gray · Rating 5 out of 5]

A compelling case for a return to the race politics of the Civil Rights Movement emphasising the content of one's character rather than the colour of their skin. Colourblindness, as Hughes sees it, should not be confused with a deliberate and ingenuine pretence that people do not recognise that others have different skin colours. Rather, he advocates for public policy based on economic and social need rather than the seemingly more arbitrary metric of race. He points out that such policies would still disproportionately benefit minorities in America, thus achieving the goal that many race based policies are failing to adequately address.

[Antoine · Rating 4 out of 5]

a simple principle. an effective principle. MLK’s principle. yet, it’s become a controversial or conservative principle. what is the principle?

TO TREAT PEOPLE WITHOUT ANY REGARD TO THEIR RACE!!!!!

if folks are going to argue that gender is a construct that can be changed at one’s will then what is race? is it not just as frivolous and malleable? while culture is important (and ever shifting) race, as toni morrison once put it, is a social construct constructed for profit in this country early on and here we are in the 21st century perpetuating that lucrative narrative of ‘us’ versus ‘them.’

i’ve always found it frustrating that we treat race as the most precious commodity. IT AINT. while i would love to be a credit to my culture i cannot be reduced by it or judged on some cultural curve. merit, ethics, style and so on are what i see in people and how i wish to be seen. this doesn’t mean that there aren’t cultural differences that stand out, often times in hilarious ways as many a great comic have noted, but race has always been completely inconsequential to how i deal with other humans and how i want to be dealt with in return. i am more likely to measure my behavior toward someone based on their astrological sign!

coleman hughes, a left leaning ethnic man, leaves the heat at home and argues points plainly, straight from civil rights 60s. yet in 2024 he can only be taken seriously by conservative interviewers. what the hell is happening? this book should be required reading.

four stars.

[Miles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary:

Coleman Hughes’s The End of Race Politics is a double-barreled, sawed-off shotgun of a book. Its modest page-count shortens both barrels, but they still pack a punch at close range. The shell in the first barrel contains arguments in favor of Hughes’s “colorblind principle,” which impels us to “treat people without regard to race, both in our public policy and in our private lives” (19). In the second barrel resides a passionate polemic against what Hughes calls the contemporary movement of “neoracism,” the belief that “race matters for societal and historical reasons: that discrimination in favor of non-whites is justified on account of the hardships they endure––and hardships their ancestors endured––at the hands of whites” (17-8). Hughes calls neoracism “the latest form of socially approved bigotry” and rejects it roundly (44). Readers who decide to pull the trigger on this book should prepare themselves for its considerable kickback, and would do well to aim it carefully.

Key Concepts and Notes:

––I remember first discovering Hughes’s writing in the late 2010s, and then his podcast in 2020. Around that time, I had begun feeling like the most extreme versions of race-based identity politics in America were verging into bizarre and befuddling territory. This trend seemed especially concerning on the political left, which I had previously considered “my side” on most issues (I identify more as liberal/centrist these days). Just as I was becoming thirsty for balanced, non-hysterical perspectives on the topic of race, this young, brilliant new voice arrived on the scene. It’s not an overstatement to say that I felt––and still feel––that Hughes’s commentary restored sanity to the internal conversation I was having with myself about the problem of race in American life. There have been plenty of other writers and public intellectuals who have supported this process, but none of them has had as big an impact on me as Hughes.
––The End of Race Politics is Hughes’s first book. It was a pleasure to read and I found it intellectually satisfying in several ways. As mentioned above, the book is very short, which is both a strength and a weakness. To continue the shotgun analogy, Hughes has no problem inflicting mortal damage to “close range” targets––the silliest “neoracist” ideas and writers who have recently curried favor with elites and well-meaning citizens eager to assume the mantle of antiracism. He also makes a strong and sensible case for colorblindness, although it sometimes takes a backseat to his blasting of neoracist ideology. I think the book struggles, however, to successfully take down some of the more nuanced and sophisticated objections to Hughes’s perspective.
––Let’s start with what works well, which is a lot. Most of the book reads like an extended ELI5 (“explain like I’m 5″) post you might run into on reddit. He reinforces ideas that I thought were obvious to most people when I was growing up, such as “the way to move closer to achieving the goals we care about together is not by revitalizing race thinking but by extracting ourselves from its grip” and “race is not an essential part of our identities…race has nothing to do with who we are, deep down” and “we need to accept that no one’s lived experience is categorically superior to anyone else’s” (26, 62, 143). Such statements would feel patronizing except for the fact that the national conversation about race in America has become so warped compared to that of previous generations. We now need someone like Hughes to remind us that colorblindness was the original aspiration of the American abolitionist movement, the brave activists who fought against Jim Crow, and the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement such as Martin Luther King, Jr. “Race-conscious” approaches, now all the rage, were for generations considered to be the main drivers of racist thinking and policies. Hughes does a great job of arguing that we need to ditch these neoracist views and return to the colorblind principle––the core value that generated such incredible progress for people of color over just a few short centuries and can be expected to create more progress in the future. This is “common humanity” identity politics in its most noble and potent form.
––The term “neoracism” is useful and easy to integrate into how we think and speak about these issues. I hope it gains traction in the media more generally because it serves as an excellent shorthand for distinguishing between neoracist views and “true antiracism,” which Hughes rightly points out is more aligned with colorblindness.
––In general, Hughes’s analysis of how neoracism has gained ground is on point. I especially enjoyed his description of how neoracist views––many of which are inherently inflammatory and divisive––spread more effectively on social media and drive more engagement on traditional media platforms compared to sober and unifying calls for colorblindness. He skillfully shows that this dynamic has led to a perception of increased racism and racist violence in America, when in fact these factors have decreased significantly since the civil rights era.
––Hughes’s discussion of how cultural factors influence societal outcomes is also enlightening. He drives home the point that cultures––which are not the same as race but often correlate with it––do not all share the same norms and values. This means it is therefore unreasonable to expect members of all cultures to be represented in education, business, and politics in proportions that precisely correspond with their share of the general population. This is yet another position that feels like it should be common sense, but is necessary to refute the simplistic models of “racial equity” (i.e. racial quota systems) that are presently being pedaled in our elite institutions and beyond.
––This is a minor point, but as someone who cares about the subtleties of writing, I appreciate Hughes’s stylistic choice to use the terms “black” and “white” without capitalization. This bucks contemporary fads and appropriately deemphasizes the importance of these labels.
––Throughout the book, Hughes does a nice job of anticipating objections to his arguments, articulating those objections in a fair way, and then responding. This pattern is where his philosophical training tends to shine, demonstrating his commitment to reason and logical consistency over tribalist or historically-contingent views.
––There are several areas, however, where I think Hughes’s efforts to head off of his opposition fall short. Most of Hughes’s criticism of neoracism is leveled at Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. This is unsurprising since these two public figures have probably done more than anyone else in recent years to advance neoracist ideology. But they’re also easy targets. Both writers have committed to positions that non-neoracists find confusing and nonsensical, such as Kendi’s insistence that “There is no such thing as a not-racist idea, only racist ideas and antiracist ideas” and DiAngelo’s assertion that “Only whites can be racist.” Their books are replete with poorly-argued, non-evidence-based neoracist platitudes that are easy to dismiss (e.g. Kendi: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”). Although they certainly bear responsibility for being neoracism’s most ardent evangelists, I wouldn’t say they’re anywhere close to the movement’s most sophisticated thinkers. I think Hughes missed an opportunity to engage with other writers who present more nuanced and challenging views. Just a few from my recent reading list include Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, Heather McGhee, Ta-Nehisi Coates (who does get one mention), and Richard Rothstein. To be clear, I doubt any of these writers would self-identify as “neoracists,” but it would have been interesting to see if Hughes thought they fit the bill.
––I think Hughes is guilty of occasionally misrepresenting the views of neoracists. One good example is his claim that neoracists endorse “a type of de facto race supremacy” in which they “deny our common humanity…[and] deny that all races are created equal” (33). I can’t speak for DiAngelo because I didn’t read her book, but I have read Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist cover to cover and can say with confidence that this is not true of him. I’m critical of many of Kendi’s views, but nowhere in his work have I encountered denial of our common humanity or the idea that people of any race are superior to people of any other race. Surely there are some crazy neoracists out there who fit Hughes’s description, and “anti-white” rhetoric has become frustratingly acceptable on social media, but I have a hard time believing that these extreme examples represent the majority of folks who would self-identify as “antiracist.” I think Hughes goes too far trying to make neoracists look just as bad as actual race supremacists.
––There were also times when I felt Hughes was cherry-picking a small number of eye-popping examples and using them to make a broader point that didn’t hold. This was mostly in Chapter 3, where Hughes argues that neoracist ideology has captured elite institutions––government, medicine, education, and media. I think it’s obvious that neoracist attitudes and policies are present in all of these institutions to some degree, but I didn’t find his presented evidence convincing enough to conclude that neoracism is dominant in these massive organizations throughout our society. There’s no doubt that neoracism has transcended its status as “a fringe ideology believed by a few radical academics and activists,” but I’m not sure it has fully broken “into the mainstream” in the way Hughes describes (88).
––I found Hughes’s problematization of “systemic racism” largely convincing, especially his point that this label is used to inject unproven and vague claims of racism into causal narratives for various social outcomes when other explanations are more plausible. But he totally ignores some of the most powerful examples of systemic racism that continue to have negative impacts––notably our nation’s shameful history of housing discrimination (i.e. “redlining”) and trends of disinvestment in public goods during periods when people of color began demanding equal access. These issues have been thoroughly documented by Richard Rothstein and Heather McGhee, among others, and I would have loved the opportunity to learn what Hughes thinks about this research.
––Overall, I think The End of Race Politics makes a valuable contribution to America’s ongoing debate about the character of modern racism and possible ways of ameliorating it. I was already on board with colorblindness when I picked the book up, and found plenty of additional reasons to keep supporting it. Additionally, I just want to say how exciting it has been to watch Hughes’s career take off. He’s such an incredibly smart and talented man who has made a significant cultural impact at a very young age (he’s not even 30 years old!). I’m looking forward to seeing where his journey leads next.

Note: My review was too long to include my usual list of favorite quotes from this book, so if you want to check that out you can do so here.

This review was originally published on my blog, Words&Dirt.

[Aaron · Rating 3 out of 5]

At one point, the author is talking about how activists take “grains of truth” and warp them into “seductive” and “pernicious” narratives!? Coleman, isn’t that what you are doing with this book? Pot meet kettle! Too many anecdotes, not enough actual data to support his arguments! I also feel like colorblindness is such a luxury belief system! I am so grateful you are able to carry these beliefs daily while others are suffering from the results of racism!

[Nicole Simovski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid quick read on what colorblindness could do for our society as an alternative to the current ‘anti-racist’ approach, which he calls neoracism. Recommend.

[Mark McCormick · Rating 5 out of 5]

overwhelmingly convincing

[Rachel Mason · Rating 1 out of 5]

Coleman recognizes it is easier to make money as a Black person denying racism than trying to combat racism.

Pathetic.

[Alex Yauk · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars.

Dialogue on race in America has run hot for much of our countries' history. Recent years, especially in a post George Floyd era have obviously provided a new chapter. In this time I've been introduced to ideas, I'm sure familiar to many, like systemic racism, white privilege, or even "white women's tears" to borrow a phrase from Robin DiAngelo.

In The End of Race Politics, Coleman Hughes dusts off an older idea - colorblindness - and argues that this principle is the true legacy of men like Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Era. Hughes defines colorblindness as follows: Colorblindness is not pretending one doesn't notice race, instead it is the principle that we should treat people without regard to race, both in public policy and our private lives.

Hughes argues that we derive our identities from our experiences as individuals rather than as members of a race. That ideas such as inherited trauma are non-sensical and that the way to end discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating by race. Hughes was able to argue in a clear, straightforward manner, and articulate beautifully many of the thoughts I have had over the last few years.

Obviously, this is a drastically different perspective than many of the pre-imminent race voices of our day such as the aforementioned Robin DiAngelo, but also Ibram X Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates, who would surely (and maybe have?) condemned this work. However, until I am convinced by evidence and the logic of their arguments, I find myself sympathizing with Hughes in this debate. I listened on Spotify and would recommend the audiobook, read by the author himself, to anyone even tangentially interested in the subject to spend a few hours here. Well done Mr. Hughes, I look forward to more of your work!

[Gijs Limonard · Rating 5 out of 5]

4,5 stars; excellent, well thought through work on the pitfalls and downsides of the current ant-racist movement, advocating a more logical approach, one not coming from a point of resentment; on the subject be sure to also check out the works by Thomas Sowell; Discrimination and Disparities; in addition, on the myth of the concept of race: The Mismeasure of Man and The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea.

[Myres Allen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A beautiful and hopeful vision for what the world could look like without racism and race based cultural norms. I highly recommend anyone this to anyone interested in understanding race and its history in America which has lead to today’s culture.
I hope our world will move toward a world like what MLK dreamed of seeing. A world where a person is judged by the content of their character, not one which judges them based on the color of their skin.
Lord, make us more like you. Give us boldness to face adversity with grace, kindness, and resilience of character.

[Emmet Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoughtfully and concisely argued, but I feel like the readers who will pickup this book are not the ones who would benefit most from it.