He contradicts himself beyond belief and he continually leaves his thesis to simply move towards activism and politics, which allows for a disjointed book to emerge. It is one thing to be argumentative within the confines of a historical analysis, it is another thing to vacillate between activism and history. If he wanted to write an activism book with a historical background to support his position, great -- do it! If he wants to write history, then do that. Going back and forth is annoying, plain and simple. His agenda was obvious, which would be fine if not for a history book. I started to question every cherry picked stat and survey and analysis because I knew what his motive was. This book just has a serious identity crisis.