Reviews of BTC

In The Boston Globe review from "Up From Slavery," Brookhiser did an excellent job of providing a summary as to what the book is about. Brookhiser was able to capture the main story lines within the book while offering his own critique. Brookhiser was able to mention the sequence of events on a more brief level, while incorporating the main figures that were influential to this movement. I liked that I could find out exactly what was going to happen in the book through his summary, but nothing extreme was given away.

It was interesting to find Brookhiser pointing out Hochschild’s obvious dislike of Christianity. This was something I noticed as well as I have been reading. Not only did Brookhiser point this out, but our classroom discussion in previous weeks pointed out the same flaw. Hochschild has made mention of Christianity in almost any place applicable thus far in the book. Whether Hochschild was intentionally trying to bash Christianity or trying to hide it behind his story line, his dislike of Christianity is apparent. In Hochchild’s book, he pays much more attention to details when describing certain main figures that were apart of the abolition movement. In these instances, he has been focusing on the Christianity of either Newton or Wilberforce. As I read, I am able to pick up on where Hochschild is incorporating the Christianity aspect. Going beyond offensive, it just seems so excessive when it comes to the descriptions of certain characters.

In The Nation, the review by Daniel Lazare included a well written summary of the events that occur in Bury the Chains. Lazare was able to give a summary while provoking questions at the same time in response to the summary. I do agree with the idea that this movement sparked a new type of politics. Lazare points out how Hochschild successfully makes a comparison between present day solidarity and the different movements going on during the time of slavery. I found this to be interesting because Hochschild is constantly comparing present day movements and/or issues to events occurring in the time period he focuses on in his book.

Lazare’s response to the modern changes in politics really made me reconsider my thoughts about the book thus far. He writes, “Yes, fliers, posters and such are now ubiquitous. But are individuals, or broad social forces, responsible for historical change? Are people like the twelve London activists whom Hochschild spotlights "causative," as the sociologists say, or are they bit actors who strut briefly upon the historical stage?"

After reading this, I realize that Hochschild does point out the twelve main men who started this movement. At the same time, these men would not have been successful had it not been for the support from others and society. So I am really now left wondering: did these individuals, or did society’s need for change in general provoke the start of the abolitionist movement? Were these twelve men as influential as Hochschild makes them out to be?