Angela Y. Davis

Davis eloquently pinpoints the historical connections between sexism, racism, and economic inequality throughout America's struggle for gender equality. Chapter by chapter she dissects how those dehumanizing efforts have been a part of society: from antebellum America to the early 1980's. She highlights people who historically pointed out those intersections and rightfully should be heroes: like Frederick Douglass or W. E. B. Du Bois. Likewise, she casts a critical light on people like Margaret Sanger, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton--three women whose feminist ideas often took them down paths advocating racism or eugenics. Davis is best when summarizing history (as at times her pullquotes aren't that compelling). And I wish more of her caustic wit and personality would shine. Still, this book will knock you on your ass. It's as relevant today as it was when written.… (lisätietoja)

A good summary history of the ways the 3 topics in the title have intersected in American history - their struggles and the conflicts between them (predominantly focusing on gender and race). Of course it doesn't cover everything or in deep detail but it's written in a very clear, easy to read style with minimal jargon that gives an excellent introduction to the problems faced by eg black women in the suffrage movement. It's definitely really interesting and has lots of new stuff even if you're very familiar with this area.… (lisätietoja)

really good as a short primer on the history of prisons, the horrors of prisons, the racism involved, the economy exploitation and the way it links together with capitalism. i could have small quibbles with it on this stuff and I'd love it to have been longer but oh well.

the one major flaw is that it doesn't really answer the question in the title - it says why prisons are bad yet doesn't really show alternatives for how to think about justice for things like murder. imo this is a pretty big disappointment and dulls the impact of the book because it makes the problem seem unsolvable. at the very end it gives a page to describe a case of a white woman murdered by black men in south Africa whose parents forgave them and helped them get jobs in their charity set up after her death. and this seems totally inadequate cause of how limited the applicability is - the power and wealth differential that allowed the parents to be magnanimous and help them out is unusual and hardly common. idk i can't explain it, it just seemed kind of a strange and inadequate example

the only other complaint i have is that it sometimes sounds "academic" in a bad way. it's never annoying or too big of a deal but like i wish she wouldn't describe people as "bodies" i know it has an academic pedigree but saying that "bodies" are imprisoned is dehumanising and dulls the emotional impact… (lisätietoja)