From colonial history to the present, Americans have passionately, even violently, debated the nature and the character of money. They have painted it and sung songs about it, organized political parties around it, and imprinted it with the name of God—all the while wondering: is money a symbol of the value of human work and creativity, or a symbol of some natural, intrinsic value?
In Face Value, Michael O’Malley provides a deep history and a penetrating analysis of American thinking about money and the ways that this ambivalence unexpectedly intertwines with race. Like race, money is bound up in questions of identity and worth, each a kind of shorthand for the different values of two similar things. O’Malley illuminates how these two socially constructed hierarchies are deeply rooted in American anxieties about authenticity and difference.
In this compelling work of cultural history, O’Malley interprets a stunning array of historical sources to evaluate the comingling of ideas about monetary value and social distinctions. More than just a history, Face Value offers us a new way of thinking about the present culture of coded racism, gold fetishism, and economic uncertainty.
This book BLEW MY MIND. I must have highlighted 70% of the book. The claim that views on race were tied to views on money (or at least that they were interrelated) seems crazy. But O'Malley has receipts. Fantastic exploration of the history of money and race.
A shallow history of American monetary policy laid side by side with a small amount of racial history. Author uses his central thesis as the primary axiom to prove it. Still thought provoking to explore the relation between the two.
Required reading for anyone who thinks that the themes evoked by the "fiat" money debate are anything new. "Pure" money always has been a concept rooted in religion, bigotry and/or tribalistic self-identity.
An interesting attempt to link American values about money to their views on race. The book is an enjoyable enough read considering it panders polemic throughout and does not use grand theory to make its point; it uses case studies instead. While I found the claim to be a little dubious and the argument far too generalizing I have a lot of respect for the point that this kind of book is trying to make and the way it goes about making it.