A Review of Reviews on The History of White People

Nell Irvin Painter, Edwards Professor of American History Emeritus at Princeton University, published her notorious work, The History of White People in March of 2010. Notably, while Painter was writing and completing her book, the United States was at the same time undergoing monumental change—both in political and social spheres. Just over a year prior to The History’s publication, the first black president of the United States, Barack Obama, was inaugurated and assumed the executive office. Given the nature of America’s marred racial past, this presidential election was a groundbreaking, culture-shaking achievement for the United States, and one which ostensibly provoked a heightened sense of racial distinction among the American people. Due to these contextual circumstances, Painter’s work has been considered by a vast number of the contemporaneous critics and reviewers as a timely piece, and a subject that “couldn’t be more relevant to American life in the year 2010.”^[1] This relevance is further supported by the observation that Painter’s target audience for her book appears to be primarily the American public. As “American whiteness” and American history occupy a large portion of her discussions, it is apparent that addressing the issue of American perceptions of race is a central aim of the book; and the problem of the general American perception of race, as Painter notes, is that “many Americans cling to [it] as the unschooled cling to superstition” (Painter xii). Ultimately, she underscores and seeks to prove throughout the text that race is a social construct, equatable to a myth or superstitious belief—not a biological fact as the general American public most often assumes. This essay assesses several reviews of Painter’s book that each address, in various manners, this central point. In analyzing these reviews, it becomes evident that while arguably the majority of critics stand by Painter’s central argument with equal conviction, there are also those who offer disputable nuances within the claim that ‘race’ is entirely disconnected from biology.

Within the reviews of critics who concede Painter’s argument, there are several varied interpretations which I believe will be helpful in gaining an overall perspective of the reception of Painter’s book. Anthony Pagden, a professor of History and Political Science at UCLA, published a review of The History which he titled, “Of Skulls and Buttocks.” The very first words that appear in his review serve to align readers’ attention with the aforementioned crux of Painter’s argument, which he claims could potentially be misplaced due to the title of her book. He says, “Nell Irvin Painter’s title is somewhat misleading. This is not a history of white people. It is a history, breezy and effective, of how certain white people came to invent the concept of ‘whiteness’” (Pagden 86, emphasis added). Here, Pagden situates the review within Painter’s central argument that ‘whiteness,’ as a weapon of racism, is a construct that was developed over time, not an ever-present, biological reality. Yet while he clearly agrees with Painter’s central premise—evident through his statement that “Painter has done an invaluable service in resurrecting [the forgotten history of the construct of racism] in a complex, lively manner”—the overall tone of his review comes across as unduly-critical and somewhat condescending (ibid. 86). Directly after he provides a list of historical errors in Painter’s text, he proceeds to offer his own ten-page presentation of the accurate history, evidently masking his rendition under a proposed ‘summary’ of Painter’s argument. While ultimately attempting to support Painter’s argument, the approach that Pagden takes in reviewing it ostensibly serves to weaken Painter’s authority on the subject, giving the review an overall negative aura.

A particularly interesting comparison arises when juxtaposing Pagden’s interpretation of Painter’s title and historical accuracy with that of Linda Gordon, a historian at Swarthmore College and writer for The New York Times, where she published a review of The History titled, “Who’s White?” In Gordon’s estimation, “the title is literally accurate, because the book traces characterizations of the lighter-skinned people we call white today, starting with the ancient Scythians” (Gordon 1, emphasis added). Her review also focuses heavily on the strength of Painter’s arguments, affirming her points by highlighting them in a more positive, admiring manner. The tone of Gordon’s review is overtly more uplifting, and as a result, more powerfully accords with Painter’s central notion that “sensory observation was not the basis of racial nomenclature” (ibid. 1). Given that both Pagden and Gordon are distinguished historians from notable universities, this difference in interpretation is intriguing; and it is perhaps indicative of the diverse platforms through which they chose to submit their reviews. Pagden’s review appeared on The National Interest, which according to Media Bias / Fact Check rating, tends to lean to the right of the political spectrum. Likewise, The New York Times, according to a similar measure leans slightly left.^[2] Regardless of the reason for their differing approaches to Painter’s argument, it is evident, and therefore respectfully noted, that both of these critics concede the main point that ‘race’ is a social construct without any ground in science and biology.

Another notable critique from sources within the academy centers, like Pagden, on questioning Painter’s historical accuracy; but this time they do so in terms of how the social construct of race emerged and developed over time. Matt Wray from Temple University published his review of The History in the Journal of American History; and one of the major elements of his criticism is that Painter neither acknowledges nor counters other leading arguments regarding the origin of the construction of race in America. He posits that in Painter’s book, “[due to] the limited extent that it is discussed, whiteness studies appears as a field with a consensus, when, in fact, historians […] have strongly disputed the analytical utility of the very concept of whiteness” (Wray 475). He expounds specifically on the arguments of Theodore Allen and Alexander Saxton which assert that “American whiteness was generated through the material exigencies of social control in the British colonies,” and through “the rise of white republicanism […] in clashes of class and politics on the western frontier,” respectively (ibid. 475).^[3] These, he observes, oppose Painter’s notions that the construct of ‘American whiteness’ derived from “European race science,” centralizing in the “New England and the industrial Northeast,” yet she does not mention them in her book (ibid. 475).

Similarly, Edward Blum from the San Diego State University, notes that Painter does not expound upon what he deems, highly influential religious factors that played a significant part in the construction of race. Evoking the protestant perspective of W.E.B. Du Bois, he posits that “In one arena, […] Painter’s account is too shallow. She never looks into the soul of whiteness—into its connections with religion or its links to the sacred […] The link between whiteness and morality is an important one. It may explain the tenacity with which whiteness has remained an arbiter of all that is good and right” (Blum 37). In this manner, Blum suggests, like Wray, that Painter’s book lacks a central facet in the historical development of racial constructions. It is particularly interesting to note that Blum’s review appeared in Christian Century, an online magazine proclaimed to be “an independent voice of progressive, ecumenical Christianity.”^[4] While this outlet suggests a religious bias that is central to Blum’s claims as well as his perception of Painter’s work as a whole, his argument regarding religion’s part in constructing race is accusatory, not sympathetic. And overall, he promote’s Painter’s work among a Christian audience, revealing perhaps the exigency of its message within religious communities. Despite their variance of opinions on the historical accuracy of this racial development, however, both Wray and Blum do vocally agree with the core of Painter’s key point: that race is a social construct (regardless of how it was constructed) and not a biological fact.

There is, more specifically, one aspect upon which all of the critics discussed within this essay agree—that the general American public has a very hard time understanding and accepting Painter’s central point, whether overtly or by subtle nuanced opinions. Referring again to Gordon’s review, she comments that “As recently as 10 years ago, some of my undergraduate students at the University of Wisconsin heard my explanations of critical race theory as a denial of observable physical differences” (Gordon 1, emphasis added). Similarly, Reihan Salam published (through the right-winged National Review) a ‘review of reviews’ on Painter’s book which he titled “Is Race an ‘Incoherent Fiction’?” Through this outlet, he concludes, “the intentions behind the notion that normal human variety is not a biological reality are clearly good. But I happen to think that the idea of human equality is fully compatible with normal human variety” (Salam 6). Here, it is clear that Salam concurs with Painter’s main argument, but his opinion diverges slightly by implying that the full extent of Painter’s logic disregards the natural and important presence of human variety. This is ostensibly a similar argument to that of the students in Gordon’s class, revealing the general sentiment on the subject to be, as Wray proposes, that “the world tends to view race as a biological fact, a natural category, such as male or female” (Wray 475). The nuance between Painter’s and Salam’s opinions lies in their emphases—with Painter, the idea of ‘race’ centers on the understanding that it is not real; it is just a social construction, and therefore emphasizes unity and similarity of the human race. With Salam, the idea of ‘race,’ while admittedly still a social construct, emphasizes rather the beauty of diversity and the potential for equality even with the differences.

However, another notable aspect of Salam’s piece is that he references and commends an informal Amazon review by an independent activist named A.D. Powell. The comments Powell provides about Painter’s book are not only inordinately harsh, but they come across in many areas as frankly immature. Acknowledging these facts, yet brushing them aside, Salam asserts “I learned more from A.D. Powell’s learned, if needlessly harsh, review on amazon.com” than he did from another review by a respected writer, Wesley Yang, that more tactfully assessed and supported Painter’s central point.

A.D. Powell is an activist for the Multiracial Movement and the author of “Passing” For Who You Really Are: Essays in Support of Multiracial Whiteness, which advocates for the recognition that multi-racial individuals who look ‘white’ are in fact ‘white,’ and as such, should claim their rightful, ‘prestigious’ heritage. In her works, she lays the blame for the ‘one-drop rule’ and its continual negative effects in the United States on the black communities, claiming that they were the ones who enforced the rule as a means of advancing their own socio-political position by being categorized with those of ‘lighter skin.’ Due to the nature of these arguments, she has become “infamous for her rants against blacks.”^[5] In Powell’s Amazon review of The History, she claims that Painter “gives a very distorted history of whiteness as a racial category,” emphasizing her aforementioned ‘one-drop rule’ opinion (Powell 1). In this manner, Powell overtly disagrees with Painter’s central premise that race is a social construct, revealing an opinion that not only acknowledges race as an inherent, biological fact, but that privileges ‘whiteness’ over other variations of pigmentation.

Given Powell’s reputation and the nature of her arguments, it is striking that Salam would not only reference, but condone her opinion in his review of Painter’s book and the subject of racial construction that it purports. While his conclusion validates the ‘goodness’ of “the notion that normal human variety is not a biological reality,” his overall position—that a cultural awareness of human variety is vital—rests upon an assertion that is supported by the opinions of a critic who exploits human variety in her works, elevating whiteness above everything else (Salam 6). It appears that the manner in which Salam emphasizes difference compared to the manner in which Painter emphasizes unity is a key factor in this problem for which the general American public is unable to accept and understand the social construction of race. Yet with these few vocal opinions that diverge from that of Painter’s book, it is remarkable to recognize the many voices which have risen through reviews of The History that are both inspired by and eager to relay her message. The majority of the reviews available on Painter’s The History offer praise and accordance with her crucial belief that ‘race’ is a superstitious, mythic construct, and nothing more. Critics in this community deem her work “amazing and unprecedented,” “a scholarly, non-polemical masterpiece,” “an excellent beginning of public discussion—a real benison,” and a “brilliant study” among many other laudatory expressions.^[6] Thus, it is clear that the message of The History and the subsequent conversation it has provoked are important and necessary in a world where the nature and implications of ‘race’ are still undetermined by the aggregate.

May 11, 2020

Works Cited

Blum, Edward J. “The History of White People.” Christian Century. 28 December 2010, Vol. 127 Issue 26, pp. 36-37.

Gordon, Linda. “Who’s White?” The New York Times, 25 March 2010.

Pagden, Anthony. “Of Skulls and Buttocks.” The National Interest. March/April 2010, Issue 106, pp. 86-96.

Painter, Nell Irvin. The History of White People. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 2010.

Powell, A.D. “Customer Review: A Distorted History of ‘Whiteness.’” Amazon.com, 13 April 2010.

Salam, Reihan. “Is Race an ‘Incoherent Fiction’?” National Review, 9 September 2010.

Wray, Matt. “Book Reviews.” Journal of American History. September 2010, Vol. 97 Issue 2, pp. 474-475.

References

Cravens, Hamilton. “Book Reviews.” Journal of Southern History. Nov 2011, Vol. 77 Issue 4, pp. 895-896.

Delvin, Paul. “The History of White People.” San Francisco Chronicle, 28 March 2010.

Eichler, Alex. “Review Overview: The History of White People.” The Atlantic, 11 April 2010.

Pilgrim, David. “A.D. Powell and the Multiracial Question – February 2009.” Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia, Ferris State University.

Poole, W. Scott. “The History of White People by Nell Irvin Painter.” PopMatters, 21 April 2010.

---

^[1] See Alex Eichler’s review from The Atlantic, cited at the end of this essay under “References.”

^[2] See https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-interest and https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times

^[3] See The Invention of White Race by Theadore Allen; and The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth Century America by Alexander Saxton.

^[4] See www.christiancentury.org

^[5] See David Pilgrim’s response, “A.D. Powell and the Multiracial Question – February 2009” listed under “References” at the end of this essay. Pilgrim is the curator for the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia in Big Rapids, MI.

^[6] See the book reviews of Edward Blum, Paul Delvin, Hamilton Cravens, and W. Scott Poole, listed under “References.”