I believe my views on this story are quite contingent on the context in which I read it. I'm a university undergraduate student, and I read this book for my political philosophy class. As a text for a wider, more general audience, I love how clearly written the book is. The word choice is accessible and it made its points clearly. I want to reemphasize how important that is, as I've read a lot of philosophers in my life who seem to forget their sentences are supposed to be understood by more people than just PhD candidates. However, I did rate this three stars because I feel somewhat lost by the call to action the argument hinges upon. So many of the demands involved, such as the call to world-building and matching the strength those who advantage from the global racial empire bring to tearing down justice reform, appear to directly appeal to the idea of revolution. Yet, the final two chapters seem to draw away from that idea. While the historical construction provided in the earlier part of the book makes it accessible, interesting, and provides important context to how the argument is framed, I found myself much more drawn to this later debate brought up by Táíwò's conception of reparations. Enacting meaningful climate change, to my knowledge from the sources I have read, do seem to lean heavily on an idea of revolution. Táíwò's defense against this scientific side of the argument, that the world will have irreparable damage within my lifetime, did not seem to hold up within the idea that reform can be slow moving. So much of this argument I agree with and is articulated in ways I could only ever dream of, but I do push back on the notion that we can merely act as an ancestor without significant structural change now. I'd love a further discussion of this side of Táíwò's argument, as I find it incredibly interesting and clearly, as I am an undergraduate student, he is going to have a much stronger expertise to draw on and guide me with.