Unlike most historians who consider slavery as an unfortunate sidebar to the ideological and political foundations of America, Finkelman boldy places slavery at the center of America's founding. Beginning with the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and continuing through to Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, his views on race and slavery, and his relationship to a woman enslaved to him (Sally Hemings), Finkelman makes a very valid argument that the "traditional" political leadership of the Jeffersonian era was perpetually - not occasionally - in debate about the issue of slavery, with most of those leaders falling on the pro-slavery side of the argument. The real value of the book is Finkelman's two chapters on Jefferson, whose political influence and opinion where nearly as revered by his peers as they are by contemporary early American historians. While noted historians such as Dumas Malone, Joseph Ellis, and Merrill Peterson have stretched the bounds of interpretation of the few seemingly anti-slavery comments Jefferson made or wrote in order to cast him as the unfortunate victim of an institution which he disliked, Finkelman is one of the first to put all of Jefferson's views on slavery and race - the few that seem anti-slavery, the majority that are anti-black, all of which are contradictory - together in one place, IN THEIR PROPER CONTEXT, up for public scrutiny. For anyone wanting an approach to understanding Jefferson's true views on slavery - based on the historical evidence - this is the book to start and, for now, end with. I didn't give it five stars because its focus is kind of narrow, but that could be because Finkelman has done such a great job of narrowing his focus and successfully arguing his understanding of "Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson."

Song in a Strange Land falls somewhat short of Sound the Trumpet, but it will entertain those interested in the Bradford family.

Jeanne's character was somewhat flat, but Clive and Dake made up for it with their persistent wooing. What I found even more interesting was the tie-in with the Winslow series when Jeanne and Clive meet Nathan and Julie. (from The Gentle Rebel)

Song in a Strange Land is a lightly entertaining read.

This book contains five biographies of famous American men from the time of the Revolutionary War: Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, and Joseph Warren.

Many black and white illustrations, which help tell the story of events leading up to the Revolutionary War against the British. For young readers, probably 4th grade and older.

Instinctively, most decent people don't like to see anyone singled out and denigrated unfairly. To most, it seems particularly distasteful if the denigration is on the basis of race, gender or (to many, at least) sexual orientation. Yet the authors of this book, all of whom are active in campaigns for equality as well as for civil liberties, see codes on US campuses which prohibit and punish such speech as a threat.... Why?

Their book examines the arguments for and against such codes and the issues that underlie them. Objections to these codes include that :

They are a threat to basic free speech principles. In particular the idea that speech should be protected regardless of its content or viewpoint -- a principle intended to prevent the law from favouring one interest over another.
 
They have a chilling effect on wider discourse. Nadine Strossen points out that : Regardless of how carefully these rules are drafted, they inevitably are vague and unavoidably invest officials with substantial discretion in the enforcement process; thus, such regulations exert a chilling effect on speech beyond their literal bands. (1)
 
They put us on a "slippery slope". Ideas not originally intended to be the subject of the codes will be penalised. Throughout the book examples are given of this happening. Strossen points out that in Britain the "No Platform for racists and fascists" was extended to cover Zionism (whereby its victims included the Israeli ambassador to the UK). (2) In Canada the victims of restrictions of free expression have included the black feminist scholar Bell Hooks, and a gay & lesbian bookshop in Toronto. (3)

Much the same issue was raised from the floor of an LM sponsored conference in London at which one of the authors (Nadine Strossen) spoke; it was pointed out that the UK Public Order Act of 1936, which was ostensibly introduced to control the followers of British Fascist leader Oswald Mosley, had been invoked time and time again to ban demonstrations by leftists and trade unionists. Similarly, police tactics used against the National Front in the 1980s to prevent their coaches from reaching demonstrations were later employed against striking miners.

The book's authors note that the codes give power to institutions and government. Can we trust them with these new powers? As David Coles, a law professor at Georgetown University, wrote :

...in a democratic society the only speech government is likely to succeed in regulating will be that of the politically marginalised. If an idea is sufficiently popular, a representative government will lack the political wherewithal to supress it, irrespective of the First Amendment. But if an idea is unpopular, the only thing that may protect it from the majority is a strong constitutional norm of content neutrality. (4)

Donald E. Lively questions how new powers will be exercised :

Reliance upon a community to enact and enforce protective regulation when the dominant culture itself has evidenced insensitivity toward the harm for which sanction is sought does not seem well placed. A mentality that trivialises incidents such as those Lawrence relates is likely to house the attitudes that historically have inspired the turning of racially significant legislation against minorities. (5)

But perhaps Ira Glasser puts it best in her introduction to the book :

First, the attempt by minorities of any kind -- racial, political, religious, sexual -- to pass legal restrictions on speech creates a self-constructed trap. It is a trap because politically once you have such restrictions in place the most important questions to ask are: Who is going to enforce them? Who is going to interpret what they mean? Who is going to decide whom to target?
The answer is : those in power. (6)

Another condemnation is that the codes are an exercise in self-indulgency, a trivialisation of real racial imperatives by the pursuit of relatively marginal and debatable concerns....
Donald E. Lively states :

As a method for progress, however, protocolism (1) seriously misreads history and disregards evolving social and economic conditions, (2) is an exercise in manipulating and avoiding racial reality; and (3) represents a serious misallocation of scarce reformist resources. (7)

Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex doesn't just put the arguments against speech codes -- it also deconstructs the arguments put in their favour. The three most interesting arguments in favour of such codes are, in my view, (1) that racist expression is not about truth or an attempt to persuade and so is not worthy of protection; (2) that racist declarations are in fact group libels; and (3) that racist expression is akin to an assault.

All three arguments are dismissed by the authors. In the first case, Justice Douglas is approvingly quoted :

(A) function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. This is why freedom of speech, though not absolute is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardisation of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups. (8)

The second argument -- that racist, sexist or homophobic statements are group libels -- is likewise dismissed. The authors point out that libel involves the publication of information about someone that is both damaging and false. Apart from the obvious fact that group libel doesn't refer to an individual does it fit the definition? Henry Louis Gates Jr. states that it does not. He points out that racist statements may be right or wrong but cannot in many forms be judged true or false. they are often statements of what the individual thinks should be or an expression of feeling. As Gates points out : You cannot libel someone by saying 'I despise you', which seems to be the essential message of most racial epithets. (9)

The last argument -- that such speech represents an assault or words that wound -- is examined, and also dismissed. The authors accept that words can cause harm. Their concern, however, is that no code can be drawn in such a way as to punish only words which stigmatise and dehumanise. They point out that the most harmful forms of racist language are precisely those that combine insult with advocacy -- those that are in short the most political. (10) Attempts to deny that racist speech has a political content also deny that they are part of a larger mechanism of political subordination.

So, can we combat hatred on grounds of race, gender or sexual preference whilst cherishing and nurturing civil liberties? Can we encourage a diversity of thought as well as of population and lifestyle? The answer given by the authors of this book is an emphatic 'yes'. They don't see equality of opportunity and freedom of expression as being at odds. As such, their ideas are refreshing in contrast to the many who seem to have quite unthinkingly accepted that we must sacrifice our freedom on an altar of (faked) equality...

I enjoyed SWEET LIBERTY even more than I thought I would. Each story carries its own weight - Freedom from Servitude in Colonial America, Freedom from slavery on a plantation, Freedom to choose a marriage partner, and freedom from life's decisions through prayer - each inspirational story is separate and done well.

This book is a compilation of articles by Dershowitz on legal and consitutional issues ranging from the exclusionary rule to the death penalty. The articles are indeed interesting and the opinion is sound. I have found Dershowitz to be a great author with his other works and his personal history is fascinating.

If there is a fault to this book, it is that the author tries to do too much. There are so many topics and articles that it is hard for Dershowitz to really explore any one issue or the intricate interconnections between facets of legal history.

If you find yourself with nothing to do on a Saturday afternoon, this book is worth a look. It is, indeed, a fun light read; just do not expect hard-core legal analyses.

This book raises a lot of interesting question. It is a short but consice book. He tackles the rule of law and the development of liberalism from a new perspective. I am not sure of the ramifications or even if he is right. Definitely worth a look of this is your type of stuff.

This is a rather odd novel, broken down into a series of stories, vignettes and (mis)adventures involving various members of the Browne family, 'mixedbloods' from an Indian reservation in northern Minnesota. As the title suggests, Vizenor is deeply interested in trickster themes, here borrowed from Native American and (to a lesser extent) Chinese oral traditions. Also, the concept of mixedbloods is the overriding leitmotiv of the entire book - often symobolized by mongrels. The style varies, and this is a very postmodern literary experience, but that shouldn't stop anyone from reading it. Generally this is a rewarding book: the narrative, if difficult to follow at times, is often humerous, yet behind this light-hearted veneer there is quite a bit of scathing commentary.

Donohue dissects the machinations of the pre-eminent civil liberties organization from many perspectives -- family, churches, the private sector, criminals, the homeless -- and does an excellent job backing up his points with numerous sources. His argument is quite credible that, far from being concerned about the Bill of Rights for individuals, the ACLU delves head first into egalitarianism, embracing the creed of equal *group* rights that frequently contradict many of the Union's stated liberty values.

If the Union is so concerned about the Bill of Rights -- especially the 1st Amendment -- why doesn't it respect the rest of the Constitution's goals? For example, since the Bill of Rights was written as a guarantee of protection for the individual *from* government, how does the ACLU advocate that the 2nd Amendment is a *collective* right? Why does it consistently advocate governmental interference into the private sector at almost every turn in order to promote nebulous ideals? Donohue's exposing of the many 180 degree turns the Union has taken on various issues is a jaw-dropper.

I would have liked, perhaps, to have seen more of a balance as to what the ACLU has done *positively* w/regards to Donohue's selected topics. He basically cites only glossed-over generalities as to what the Union has done, usually in the opening paragraph of a chapter -- before diving right into the thrashing of his target. Sure, it's obvious what Mr. Donohue wants to do, but it would have read better, in my opinion, with more anecdotes from the other view.

This short book examines the value of the popular saying, "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." It is specifically examined in light of the controversies within the United Methodist Church, although the insights found in this book would apply to any Christian. This book has given me a greater appreciation for this vital saying, while also expanding my understanding of how it is not as easily applied as one might think. What are essentials? What are non-essentials? How do we love those who do not hold to essentials? How do we decide? These are great questions to ponder in light of our Lord's call to unity. This book is a good start to the discussion.