What do you think?
Rate this book
Don't Label Me: How to Do Diversity Without Inflaming the Culture Wars
" Don't Label Me should be labeled as genius. It's an amazing book." - Chris Rock
A unique conversation about diversity, bigotry, and our common humanity, by the New York Times bestselling author, Oprah “Chutzpah” award-winner, and founder of the Moral Courage Project
In these United States, discord has hit emergency levels. Civility isn't the reason to repair our caustic chasms. Diversity is.
Don't Label Me shows that America's founding genius is diversity of thought. Which is why social justice activists won't win by labeling those who disagree with them. At a time when minorities are fast becoming the majority, a truly new America requires a new way to tribe out.
Enter Irshad Manji and her dog, Lily. Raised to believe that dogs are evil, Manji overcame her fear of the "other" to adopt Lily. She got more than she bargained for. Defying her labels as an old, blind dog, Lily engages Manji in a taboo-busting conversation about identity, power, and politics. They're feisty. They're funny. And in working through their challenges to one another, they reveal how to open the hearts of opponents for the sake of enduring progress. Readers who crave concrete tips will be delighted.
Studded with insights from epigenetics and epistemology, layered with the lessons of Bruce Lee, Ben Franklin, and Audre Lorde, punctuated with stories about Manji's own experiences as a refugee from Africa, a Muslim immigrant to the U.S., and a professor of moral courage, Don't Label Me makes diversity great again.
A unique conversation about diversity, bigotry, and our common humanity, by the New York Times bestselling author, Oprah “Chutzpah” award-winner, and founder of the Moral Courage Project
In these United States, discord has hit emergency levels. Civility isn't the reason to repair our caustic chasms. Diversity is.
Don't Label Me shows that America's founding genius is diversity of thought. Which is why social justice activists won't win by labeling those who disagree with them. At a time when minorities are fast becoming the majority, a truly new America requires a new way to tribe out.
Enter Irshad Manji and her dog, Lily. Raised to believe that dogs are evil, Manji overcame her fear of the "other" to adopt Lily. She got more than she bargained for. Defying her labels as an old, blind dog, Lily engages Manji in a taboo-busting conversation about identity, power, and politics. They're feisty. They're funny. And in working through their challenges to one another, they reveal how to open the hearts of opponents for the sake of enduring progress. Readers who crave concrete tips will be delighted.
Studded with insights from epigenetics and epistemology, layered with the lessons of Bruce Lee, Ben Franklin, and Audre Lorde, punctuated with stories about Manji's own experiences as a refugee from Africa, a Muslim immigrant to the U.S., and a professor of moral courage, Don't Label Me makes diversity great again.
320 pages, Paperback
First published February 26, 2019
178 people are currently reading
2032 people want to read
About the author
Irshad Manji
17 books162 followersIrshad Manji is founder of the award-winning Moral Courage Project at the University of Southern California and the New York Times bestselling author of The Trouble With Islam Today, translated into more than thirty languages and later adapted into the Emmy-nominated PBS film Faith Without Fear. Oprah Winfrey selected her as the first winner of the "Chutzpah" prize for boldness. Manji has lived and taught in Toronto, Vancouver, New York, and Los Angeles. She and her wife reside in Hawaii with their rescue dogs.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews
March 31, 2019
This book would have been a "5" for me if it had not been written with the literary device employed of a conversation between Irshad's (talking) dog and herself, and if it had been written without all the cutesy puns. It was actually more distracting for me than anything, and a few times I thought--this is a 'spoonful of sugar' tactic to make the 'medicine' of the very strong, and also very controversial--points that Irshad is making go down easier.
But, this quibble aside, this is an important, timely book for especially educators and activists to read right now right now. There has been a lot written about how 'identity politics' is running amok (see "The Once and Future Liberal" by Mark Lilla), but Irshad doesn't only take on identity politics, she takes on ALL the hot button buzzwords/concepts that have come to define liberal/progressive discourse: privilege, white fragility, appropriation, safe spaces, trigger warnings, affinity groups, and so on. If I were to summarize her views on all of the above: she argues that progressive/liberals, just like any 'tribe,' are becoming increasingly obsessed with 'purity' of thought within the tribe, so much so that it feels good when they immediately band together in groupthink and ostracize and take down those opposed to their dogma. However, their vision of what they think they value is very limited. By "diversity," they mean an insincere version of it, in looks and labels only. Labels among progressives/liberals serves to dehumanize, at it treats people as a sum of these labels, incapable of their own thoughts/humanity, and as props in a political game. For example, she cites a (black) Black Lives Matter activist who proposes to a leader in the movement that they reach out to the police to have a conversation. He is immediately shot down by the leader for expressing such a thought, and he begins to feel that he is being used as a body, not as a person. As a Muslim, Queer Immigrant, she says that she goes beyond these labels, because they limit her, and yet this is exactly how progressives are dividing up people, assigning value to the labels. She urges "plurality," recognizing the difference within us, rather than a cheap version of diversity.
Accordingly, she sees that treating whites (especially white males) as nothing but a signifier for for racism, privilege, etc., as dehumanizing and humiliating, setting up exactly the same premises for division (e.g. divisions based on skin color), that actual racists have used for centuries. Reducing people to pigment, and dividing us accordingly, was a tactic of segregationists, but also now is being used by progressives oddly in the name of advancement. This, she says, can only lead us backwards, and toward radicalization. Not all disagreement from whites when discussing matters of race, she says, should be labelled 'white fragility,' because it polices divergent viewpoints.
What she argues for instead is not shying away from difficult issues, but rather approaching them within presuming to know someone on the basis of gender, skin, sexual orientation, and so forth. Why "should" a Muslim person feel a certain way, or a bi person, or a hispanic person--this is incredibly limiting to their humanity. She says she should genuinely be open to hearing a perspective, rather than shoving our own dogma and imposing purity tests and excluding all those who don't line up, lockstep (doesn't that led to authoritarianism, anyway?) She urges getting beyond the feel-good of our tribe-think, to reaching out, engaging with people, meeting them where they are and making them feel heard, feel seen, while at the same time not needing to agree. She emphasizes curiosity, concern, I-thou relationships. Yes, even toward the dog she directs the entire conversation towards:)
But, this quibble aside, this is an important, timely book for especially educators and activists to read right now right now. There has been a lot written about how 'identity politics' is running amok (see "The Once and Future Liberal" by Mark Lilla), but Irshad doesn't only take on identity politics, she takes on ALL the hot button buzzwords/concepts that have come to define liberal/progressive discourse: privilege, white fragility, appropriation, safe spaces, trigger warnings, affinity groups, and so on. If I were to summarize her views on all of the above: she argues that progressive/liberals, just like any 'tribe,' are becoming increasingly obsessed with 'purity' of thought within the tribe, so much so that it feels good when they immediately band together in groupthink and ostracize and take down those opposed to their dogma. However, their vision of what they think they value is very limited. By "diversity," they mean an insincere version of it, in looks and labels only. Labels among progressives/liberals serves to dehumanize, at it treats people as a sum of these labels, incapable of their own thoughts/humanity, and as props in a political game. For example, she cites a (black) Black Lives Matter activist who proposes to a leader in the movement that they reach out to the police to have a conversation. He is immediately shot down by the leader for expressing such a thought, and he begins to feel that he is being used as a body, not as a person. As a Muslim, Queer Immigrant, she says that she goes beyond these labels, because they limit her, and yet this is exactly how progressives are dividing up people, assigning value to the labels. She urges "plurality," recognizing the difference within us, rather than a cheap version of diversity.
Accordingly, she sees that treating whites (especially white males) as nothing but a signifier for for racism, privilege, etc., as dehumanizing and humiliating, setting up exactly the same premises for division (e.g. divisions based on skin color), that actual racists have used for centuries. Reducing people to pigment, and dividing us accordingly, was a tactic of segregationists, but also now is being used by progressives oddly in the name of advancement. This, she says, can only lead us backwards, and toward radicalization. Not all disagreement from whites when discussing matters of race, she says, should be labelled 'white fragility,' because it polices divergent viewpoints.
What she argues for instead is not shying away from difficult issues, but rather approaching them within presuming to know someone on the basis of gender, skin, sexual orientation, and so forth. Why "should" a Muslim person feel a certain way, or a bi person, or a hispanic person--this is incredibly limiting to their humanity. She says she should genuinely be open to hearing a perspective, rather than shoving our own dogma and imposing purity tests and excluding all those who don't line up, lockstep (doesn't that led to authoritarianism, anyway?) She urges getting beyond the feel-good of our tribe-think, to reaching out, engaging with people, meeting them where they are and making them feel heard, feel seen, while at the same time not needing to agree. She emphasizes curiosity, concern, I-thou relationships. Yes, even toward the dog she directs the entire conversation towards:)
July 26, 2019
This book is so highly problematic. I only finished it as it was a required reading for a course.
Where do I begin? Manji is making the argument that we all need to listen to each other to understand people with different perspectives of our own...yet, she continually seems to defend people in the story who haven't tried to listen to other people. I struggled with Manji asking for a lot of work from her reader, without expecting much work in return from those we are trying to learn from.
She frequently challenges minorities to think beyond their oppression, but never asks white people to consider how they have benefited simply from being white. At one point, she even argues that "oppression is a privilege" because minorities use the fact that they have been oppressed to exclude white people from the dialogue of their oppression. Excuse me. I'm a white person. I better go cry because I've been left out of a FEW conversations while my culture has literally excluded others from the conversation forever.....
She defends free speech to the point of transphobia. She totally misinterprets microaggressions and intersectionality. She takes on Black Lives Matter, poorly. She defends white men more than a dozen times because they feel "oppressed too". Oh sad face. Honestly, it feels like she's spent so much of her career making arguments that white conservatives like to hear that she bungles up her own argument for the sake of them. She made her early career on calling for radical changes in Islam to prevent the subjugation of women (rather than universal feminism across all cultures that oppress women...). She became a talking head for Islamophobia all over the US.
It's frankly lazy writing as well. She spends 100+ pages of this book using the literary device of a conversation with her dog. It adds nothing to her arguments and makes the book quite disjointed.
She writes like an expert, but continually botches her examples and misses the point. Not a citation to be found either, yet she continually calls herself an academic and educator....
Where do I begin? Manji is making the argument that we all need to listen to each other to understand people with different perspectives of our own...yet, she continually seems to defend people in the story who haven't tried to listen to other people. I struggled with Manji asking for a lot of work from her reader, without expecting much work in return from those we are trying to learn from.
She frequently challenges minorities to think beyond their oppression, but never asks white people to consider how they have benefited simply from being white. At one point, she even argues that "oppression is a privilege" because minorities use the fact that they have been oppressed to exclude white people from the dialogue of their oppression. Excuse me. I'm a white person. I better go cry because I've been left out of a FEW conversations while my culture has literally excluded others from the conversation forever.....
She defends free speech to the point of transphobia. She totally misinterprets microaggressions and intersectionality. She takes on Black Lives Matter, poorly. She defends white men more than a dozen times because they feel "oppressed too". Oh sad face. Honestly, it feels like she's spent so much of her career making arguments that white conservatives like to hear that she bungles up her own argument for the sake of them. She made her early career on calling for radical changes in Islam to prevent the subjugation of women (rather than universal feminism across all cultures that oppress women...). She became a talking head for Islamophobia all over the US.
It's frankly lazy writing as well. She spends 100+ pages of this book using the literary device of a conversation with her dog. It adds nothing to her arguments and makes the book quite disjointed.
She writes like an expert, but continually botches her examples and misses the point. Not a citation to be found either, yet she continually calls herself an academic and educator....
April 9, 2019
Although there were a few things I didn't like about this book, I am a huge Irshad Manji fan so I have to give it 5 stars. Irshad is an absolutely incredible thinker. I have been following her and the moral courage project on social media ever since I read her second book Allah Liberty and Love a few years ago. I recommend that book to Muslims and non-Muslims all the time. It's full of important and deeply thought provoking insights about communication, activism, advocacy, courage, and being open minded. The same goes for Don't Label Me. To me this is a similar book but doesn't deal specifically with Islam but rather is speaking directly to people of all kinds of different backgrounds.
As I first opened the table of contents I was already excited to read Irshad's thoughts. Just from the title of the chapters I knew she was going to have some controversial and interesting things to say about topics like intersectionality, black lives matter movement, white guilt, activism, Trump voters, labeling, and much more. As I began reading, I was once again struck by Irshad's ability to contextualize the point she was trying to make. She uses stories of individuals she knows, and their experiences, as well as her own, or draws from history quoting from historical figures to help illustrate her points. I wanted to quote some of the parts of this book to share online but there weren't so many one-liners or short sections to share as I thought there might be. I was often unable to share some of the insights because they you really would have to read the whole chapter or several pages to actually understand what is being said. There's a lot in here that will require re-reading and pondering and discussing with friends.
Aside from anecdotes and quotes from historical figures, Irshad contextualizes and strengthens her assertions with the use of her late dog Lily as a sort of rhetorical device. Irshad writes speaking as Lily throughout the book and Lily ends up acting as the person playing devil's advocate in many places. Irshad could have easily used another rhetorical device to do this and it may have worked better, but given their deeply close relationship and how much Lily changed her life, it's completely understandable that she chose to use Lily in this way. As readers however, we don't know Lily and also maybe don't care so much for dogs or human-pet relationships, or what have you. There were a few spots where it got wordy and cumbersome to hear from or about Lily but overall it didn't bother me too much. I imagine it will bother some readers immensely.
I recommend this book in particular to people like myself who are politically engaged and active in their communities and enjoy debating social justice and politics with friends and family. There is so much in this book to think about how to become better at advocacy, how to not pigeon hole or dehumanize human beings, how to assert your values without becoming supremacist, how to avoid dogma and over-certainty and arrogance. For people who take ideas like cultural appropriation, white fragility, and intersectionality as Truth, there is a great deal to consider, as Irshad has quite a few critiques of these ideas. This book is valuable particularly to progressives and liberals who sometimes feel at odds with the way a lot of fellow progressives and lefties advocate.
I'm looking forward to re-reading different parts I marked. Irshad is a huge role model for me and I hope I can be more like her.
As I first opened the table of contents I was already excited to read Irshad's thoughts. Just from the title of the chapters I knew she was going to have some controversial and interesting things to say about topics like intersectionality, black lives matter movement, white guilt, activism, Trump voters, labeling, and much more. As I began reading, I was once again struck by Irshad's ability to contextualize the point she was trying to make. She uses stories of individuals she knows, and their experiences, as well as her own, or draws from history quoting from historical figures to help illustrate her points. I wanted to quote some of the parts of this book to share online but there weren't so many one-liners or short sections to share as I thought there might be. I was often unable to share some of the insights because they you really would have to read the whole chapter or several pages to actually understand what is being said. There's a lot in here that will require re-reading and pondering and discussing with friends.
Aside from anecdotes and quotes from historical figures, Irshad contextualizes and strengthens her assertions with the use of her late dog Lily as a sort of rhetorical device. Irshad writes speaking as Lily throughout the book and Lily ends up acting as the person playing devil's advocate in many places. Irshad could have easily used another rhetorical device to do this and it may have worked better, but given their deeply close relationship and how much Lily changed her life, it's completely understandable that she chose to use Lily in this way. As readers however, we don't know Lily and also maybe don't care so much for dogs or human-pet relationships, or what have you. There were a few spots where it got wordy and cumbersome to hear from or about Lily but overall it didn't bother me too much. I imagine it will bother some readers immensely.
I recommend this book in particular to people like myself who are politically engaged and active in their communities and enjoy debating social justice and politics with friends and family. There is so much in this book to think about how to become better at advocacy, how to not pigeon hole or dehumanize human beings, how to assert your values without becoming supremacist, how to avoid dogma and over-certainty and arrogance. For people who take ideas like cultural appropriation, white fragility, and intersectionality as Truth, there is a great deal to consider, as Irshad has quite a few critiques of these ideas. This book is valuable particularly to progressives and liberals who sometimes feel at odds with the way a lot of fellow progressives and lefties advocate.
I'm looking forward to re-reading different parts I marked. Irshad is a huge role model for me and I hope I can be more like her.
October 14, 2019
5 stars despite the format - conversation with her beloved pooch - and because it managed to move and warm up my cold, cynical heart.
Most of us are bemoaning our political dysfunction and divisiveness, while insisting on seeing The Other in the most reductive and negative light, dehumanized and irredeemable. Naturally, their full and unconditional capitulation is the only way out.
These days, there is no lack of commentary documenting our slow descent into the madness. Irshad Manji offers the analysis and the prescriptions that are right on spot point after point, page after page. She repackaged the obvious into a fresh (how she manages that is beyond me), insightful, engaging and hopeful whole, and it works. It tells the readers, or reminds them, how to orient ourselves meaningfully and hopefully in our personal interpretations and interactions with those we disagree with. If this mess is to be fixed, it will have to be done from the ground up, and there aren't any easy shortcuts.
Most of us are bemoaning our political dysfunction and divisiveness, while insisting on seeing The Other in the most reductive and negative light, dehumanized and irredeemable. Naturally, their full and unconditional capitulation is the only way out.
These days, there is no lack of commentary documenting our slow descent into the madness. Irshad Manji offers the analysis and the prescriptions that are right on spot point after point, page after page. She repackaged the obvious into a fresh (how she manages that is beyond me), insightful, engaging and hopeful whole, and it works. It tells the readers, or reminds them, how to orient ourselves meaningfully and hopefully in our personal interpretations and interactions with those we disagree with. If this mess is to be fixed, it will have to be done from the ground up, and there aren't any easy shortcuts.
October 12, 2019
10.10.19 update - Skip this one and read “How to be Antiracist” instead!
This book is full of some really good, challenging ideas that made me think. Some I agree with, some I don’t. Overall I think it’s worth reading. But oh my gosh, the dog angle KILLED me. And I love dogs. I felt like my extreme annoyance at her use of the dog as a conversational partner and her puns made it harder for me to wrestle with her ideas - most of which are probably worthy of thinking through. I persevered and the better part of the book’s content has definitely left its mark on me, but I wish the author had made different choices in her delivery.
This book is full of some really good, challenging ideas that made me think. Some I agree with, some I don’t. Overall I think it’s worth reading. But oh my gosh, the dog angle KILLED me. And I love dogs. I felt like my extreme annoyance at her use of the dog as a conversational partner and her puns made it harder for me to wrestle with her ideas - most of which are probably worthy of thinking through. I persevered and the better part of the book’s content has definitely left its mark on me, but I wish the author had made different choices in her delivery.
March 9, 2019
The author covers important topics where Americans tend to speak without listening, often relying on stereotyping rather than seeing people as individuals. She references historical philosophers as well as modern political gurus and various notables, as well as sharing anecdotes from interactions she has had with people from different walks of life and various regions of the US. The proof I read did not include any source notes/footnotes, but they should be available online by publication time, and Manji invites respectful discussion through email.
The book is conversational in style and very accessible in tone. Manji offers advice and solutions that are attainable without being overly preachy. I really enjoyed the content and I feel that the material in this book is important and well-considered.
At the same time, I found the style of the book detracted from its usefulness. It was essentially a monologue, with little interruptions and and counterpoints couched as if they came from her beloved pet dog. That in itself feels a little silly to me for a topic that is important, although I'm sure that's just a matter of taste. I feel that it would have been possible to write essays in the same clear and conversational tone without relying on the dog theme. I can accept it as a stylistic choice, but for me that is a detractor. Another issue that makes the book harder to use as a learning tool is that the chapters (mini-essays?) are not really organized in any way that I could determine, and the chapter titles tend towards the cute and the clever rather than to exposition.
The book is conversational in style and very accessible in tone. Manji offers advice and solutions that are attainable without being overly preachy. I really enjoyed the content and I feel that the material in this book is important and well-considered.
At the same time, I found the style of the book detracted from its usefulness. It was essentially a monologue, with little interruptions and and counterpoints couched as if they came from her beloved pet dog. That in itself feels a little silly to me for a topic that is important, although I'm sure that's just a matter of taste. I feel that it would have been possible to write essays in the same clear and conversational tone without relying on the dog theme. I can accept it as a stylistic choice, but for me that is a detractor. Another issue that makes the book harder to use as a learning tool is that the chapters (mini-essays?) are not really organized in any way that I could determine, and the chapter titles tend towards the cute and the clever rather than to exposition.
April 5, 2019
I really struggled with this book. Saw the author on Bill Maher and was engaged by what she had to say but I found the way it was written really irritating as a conversation with her dog peppered with loads of awful puns.
Also found the substance of her arguments pretty lightweight when I read a book like this hoping for more structured arguments with some academic references not just pages and pages of someones opinion or conversation with their right wing mate Jim.
I think the author has interesting ideas and things to say in this book it is just executed frustratingly for me. Gave up after 100 pages.
Also found the substance of her arguments pretty lightweight when I read a book like this hoping for more structured arguments with some academic references not just pages and pages of someones opinion or conversation with their right wing mate Jim.
I think the author has interesting ideas and things to say in this book it is just executed frustratingly for me. Gave up after 100 pages.
April 17, 2019
Manji is a Muslim lesbian, but don’t judge her based on those labels. While she is a Muslim and a lesbian, she is much more than that. In fact, we are all more than how other people label us. Manji’s book is an eloquent, intelligent, and often humorous analysis on how labels are negatively impacting our society by enforcing tribalism and elevating individualism; elements that further the negative polarization of an Us versus Them society. Through case examples, some personal from her own life and some academic, Manji presents philosophies and communication tools in how to bridge ideological and political divides. By checking your own prejudices, recognizing that listening isn’t passivity, understanding that asking questions isn’t attacking, and that we have more to gain by listening to understand instead of listening to win, Manji theorizes we can connect with different people on an emotional level. Manji challenges current trends in liberal progressivism such as shaming, cultural appropriation, and the popular understanding of power and privilege, all of which widen the divide between Us and Them. She breaks down these concepts, exposes the flaws, and illustrates how these flawed principles give rise to dangerous extremism that manifests itself in detrimental ways such as Donald Trump being elected president. While funny and light at times, this book can be a bit difficult to process because of how it directly challenges ideals many in society hold dear and champion. I know it isn’t easy to think about how progressive ideals contributed to the election of Trump, but it isn’t the basis of those ideals. Instead, it is how those ideals are weaponized in ways that enforce personal biases and disrupt the development of honest diversity.
January 2, 2021
Race may not be biological, but it is real!
The two stars are awarded, not because the book isn't well written, inciteful, and thought-provoking. It's all of those and more. However, Manji is dangerously dismissive of critical race theory, the concept of white fragility, and the need for confrontation/discomfort/upset even among individuals and small groups in order to dismantle systemic racism. She ignores that those with power, consciously or otherwise, will thwart efforts to undo racism if it diminishes their own power absent forces stronger than moral persuasion. In fact, she argues that race is merely a fiction! You don't dismantle something simply by falsely claiming it doesn't exist. Social constructs are real. Social constructs rob children of education, compromise health, immorally distribute wealth, and kill. Imploring readers to be nicer to each other while having honest conversations may be helpful as one important step, but to suggest that that is all that's needed is nothing short of dangerous.
The two stars are awarded, not because the book isn't well written, inciteful, and thought-provoking. It's all of those and more. However, Manji is dangerously dismissive of critical race theory, the concept of white fragility, and the need for confrontation/discomfort/upset even among individuals and small groups in order to dismantle systemic racism. She ignores that those with power, consciously or otherwise, will thwart efforts to undo racism if it diminishes their own power absent forces stronger than moral persuasion. In fact, she argues that race is merely a fiction! You don't dismantle something simply by falsely claiming it doesn't exist. Social constructs are real. Social constructs rob children of education, compromise health, immorally distribute wealth, and kill. Imploring readers to be nicer to each other while having honest conversations may be helpful as one important step, but to suggest that that is all that's needed is nothing short of dangerous.
April 19, 2019
I'd much rather have been a fly on the wall of Manji's on-and-off campus discussions about moral courage than have had them elucidated on paper to her dog, but in any case my takeaway from this book was positive and heartening. Getting beyond my Cat Person's bias was the first step, haha, and while at times I felt like the hot & sensitive topics dealt with were, like Lily the dog's pills, hidden in creamy peanut butter to make them less freak-out-worthy/more palatable, I was quickly on board and even moved by the personal take on issues which have so often reduced humans to impersonal labels. This is required reading for anyone who feels as if they've lost themselves to exasperation and anger over the last few years, and I hope many find their way to it as they navigate the wacky, worrisome new Western world we've found ourselves in.
Read
August 19, 2019I really enjoyed this thought-provoking, clever, witty and 'punny' conversation between Irshad Manji and her dog Lily. At first I thought the conversation between woman and pet approach would be too corny/weird but it worked. Manji is calling for a revolution in the way we talk to each other and the way we disagree with each other. She uses personal narrative and stories of people she's known to teach how we can become better humans and better communities. We need to begin by not making assumptions about people and by engaging them. I love this line, "To engage and enlarge your Us: That's about as revolutionary as it gets." The last two chapters have practical guidance and real steps each of us can take to practice honest diversity. I'll be referring to this book over and over in the coming months.
September 25, 2019
I give the author a lot of credit for calling for true discussion and openness, looking for relationship versus the need to be right. She calls on "Our side" to deal with "Others," true listening in order to understand. Speak as if you were right, listen as if you are wrong. Listening doesn't mean you agree, but you won't be listening if you're thinking of how to change the other person's mind. Listen with the intent to understand, not to win. Labels put people into stereotypes, but people are "plurals." She admits "our side" often values diversity of every type except of opinion, and calls for that to change.
We should all listen more.
We should all listen more.
June 15, 2019
I found this book to be a really incredible, almost transformative look at diversity, identity, polarization, and moral courage in today’s hyper-partisan and label-obsessed culture. I’m tempted to summarize many of the points that Manji makes, because I found them so interesting and often inspiring, but I’m going to resist, because I don’t think one reading has actually allowed me to absorb all I found in the text enough to encapsulate it in a nutshell. In fact, I feel like I want to read it again with a highlighter in hand and a notebook at my side in order to take notes and keep things in mind for me to work on. There’s much that some may find inflammatory about what she writes, but in essence I think dismantling the "Us vs. Them" dichotomy and reforming broken or corrupt systems by reforming our broken and corrupt selves is an almost unarguable concept, and certainly gives me more hope for the future than silencing or defeating those who disagree with us. If you’re fighting that kind of battle to begin with, you’ve already lost before you’ve even begun. I didn’t love the literary device of this conversation being between Manji and her dog, Lil, but ultimately it got the job done, so I can’t complain. I wish everyone would read this and really take its core messages to heart. I will certainly try. I think it would make us all kinder, slower to outrage, and more humble, and once we are changed the world can be changed.
July 16, 2020
If you managed to get past the patronizing tone and the puns, congratulations. None of the ideas are new and some of the ideas of social movements that are refuted make it seem like they were poorly understood by the writer. The reality is that sitting down and having conversations (with dogs especially) has not changed the world, social movements combined with technological progress and changes to the law, have. Many of the tactics she criticizes won for us the right for women to vote, end to apartheid, labour laws, etc. This is very much in the vein of "i don't see color" but with a dog. Science proves that human being see shapes and colors and perceive the other people based on their age, gender, race and so on. Having conversations does not rewire that in the brain. The central thesis is that oppressed people in a system should sit down and have a nice chat with their oppressors without understanding how they benefit from a system as if no one throughout history tried that. It is not "labels" that is the problem and never has been so introducing a problem that does not really exist and then tackling that seems to be an odd way to write a book.
April 6, 2019
It took me a while to get over the dog conversation style, but I did. The book provokes, page, after page, after page. The use of Manji’s dog is the outlet to have such difficult and challenging conversations. Not, just with the readers, or names in the book, but with herself. I found myself saying yes! out loud on many a page. The final chapters offer me personal challenges, I gratefully and willingly accept. I will endeavour to be the gracious, and courageous plural Manji herself emulates.
February 14, 2020
The book should be a must read for so many, my main Hangul was the intense conversation with the dog. I have read another series that utilizes an animal to get the message of environmental issues across but they do it differently and was easier to overlook. I would encourage everyone to read this book nonetheless, I had to do it in short sessions especially toward the end because my mind started wandering toward her getting a new dog
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 28, 2019
Engagingly told and very good ideas and information about getting along with others. The audio narration was solid, print would allow for better capturing of quotes to remember. I didn’t love the audio voice of Lily the dog but agree with the editor, it adds to the flow of the book.
June 21, 2019
Even as a dog lover, I so wish this book weren’t written with the punny pet/human thread running throughout. Other than that, this book got me thinking about different perspectives and how to debate important issues with grace. A crucial read in today’s day and age.
January 19, 2022
It took me a while to read this book for a few reasons, a couple being that, yes, the talking dog and puns were fairly painful, but also because there was a lot of interesting ideas to chew on that I didn't want to rush through.
This book is written for "progressives" during the Trump administration, but it easily translates to the divide between "vaxxers" and "anti-vaxxers" we see today. I like her argument for "true diversity" and agree that as a society we need to find ways resist the convenience of labels and truly engage with one another in respectful ways in order to have a healthier and happier democracy.
I felt like some of her examples were problematic and sometimes even felt disingenuous. However I am confident that she would be the first to ask, "what did I miss?" and truly listen to the answer, and that is the point.
This would be a fantastic book for a book club!
This book is written for "progressives" during the Trump administration, but it easily translates to the divide between "vaxxers" and "anti-vaxxers" we see today. I like her argument for "true diversity" and agree that as a society we need to find ways resist the convenience of labels and truly engage with one another in respectful ways in order to have a healthier and happier democracy.
I felt like some of her examples were problematic and sometimes even felt disingenuous. However I am confident that she would be the first to ask, "what did I miss?" and truly listen to the answer, and that is the point.
This would be a fantastic book for a book club!
May 28, 2023
Okay my grad school class reminded me that I read this book a year or two before goodreads entered my life (i hope adding this counts to my yearly goal 😈) but this book is probably in my Top 5 most Thought Provoking Non Fiction Reads.
November 19, 2020
I picked this book up at the library when it caught my attention on the shelf. Hadn't heard of it, or the author, before. This instantly becomes one of my favorite books on navigating conflict; on humanizing "the other" (whoever that may be in terms beliefs regarding politics, religion, race, gender, or anything).
"...diversity of views can’t be attained by laws or secured by policies. Only relationships can guarantee real inclusion. Only people can stop gaming, blaming, and shaming each other with labels. Only then will diversity be honest. I’m advocating a simple switch: View labels as starting points, not as finish lines. Starting points, that is, to ask each other questions. in doing so, we learn how individuals construe themselves and their world, not what’s been decided about them without them.”
Building relationships to break down divisions? What a novel idea. We should try it...
"...diversity of views can’t be attained by laws or secured by policies. Only relationships can guarantee real inclusion. Only people can stop gaming, blaming, and shaming each other with labels. Only then will diversity be honest. I’m advocating a simple switch: View labels as starting points, not as finish lines. Starting points, that is, to ask each other questions. in doing so, we learn how individuals construe themselves and their world, not what’s been decided about them without them.”
Building relationships to break down divisions? What a novel idea. We should try it...
September 8, 2025
Irshad was a visiting author to my college campus my sophomore year of university, organized by one of my professors. It was extra credit to go to the event so I went, and also because I was interested in the discussion. I met Irshad in person, and I can testify that she is a very nice lady, a bubbly and spunky kind of personality. An empathic and warm person at heart who clearly wants everyone in the world of politics to get along. She and I had a heart to heart talk.
After purchasing her book, I was privileged to receive a personalized and signed message. I wish I could post a picture of it here. The text version will have to do. The author wrote, "Dear Leanne, thank you for thinking! Love Irshad. 02/27/2023" I'm so thankful to have met her, even if only once.
That being said, I do have critique for this book, even though I respect Irshad greatly. I don't share some of her political stances on certain issues. However, even if I disagree with some political stances, or points of a book, l still often read them. A balanced perspective, and a well-informed one, will give me advantage in sharing my perspective if I know how my opposition thinks, and they will feel more respected if I give them a listening ear. This in turn, will open their mind to hear my ideas as well; they will feel less antagonized. Plus, I'll learn more and my own beliefs and misconceptions will be challenged, which is good.
This is the premise of the book, one I agreed with and a sentiment I already held, although Irshad delivers it in a way that's not always clear, as she uses a lot of unclear wording and muddy metaphors at times.
This perspective from a Queer, Muslim Immigrant was intriguing, and I felt this book gave me a whole new perspective that was sorely needed. Irshad makes a lot of strong points in this book that I felt myself nodding along to, such as when discussing confirmation bias, echo chambers, reacting with rational empathy instead of tribal confrontation, how listening gets others to listen back, which is quite true and backed up by a lot of science. To discard the "I'm right, you're wrong," realm of thought, as it convinces no one. Irshad takes great strides to make sure she's got the facts. I learned a lot and I was grateful to see into her world and perspective. Irshad shares a lot of personal things and I applaud her vulnerability, and ability to admit when she's wrong. Moreover, I think she critiques well and sheds light on hatred and bias, citing her own life experiences as examples.
The bit about her experience through customs when trying to cross the border and her scary experience with being misjudged and unfairly treated revealed a lot. She was "darned if she did, darned if she didn't;" Irshad had no say on the matter. It was an informational, personal, and educational section; it's unfortunately a common experience that a lot of immigrants face. I'm glad it worked out for her, but she indeed makes it a point to say that others aren't so lucky. All good material to make her points.
However, moving onto critique: A lot of this book focuses on the author's dog, Lily. I understand, as a fellow pet owner, the love we have for our animals. The author feels Lily inspired her to sit and think a lot about these issues. By learning to overcome her fear of dogs, Lily opened Irshad's perspective to a new way of thought and how Lily defied her labels as an old blind dog. This is used as a political allegory, to some extent.
Furthermore, I understand that Irshad is using the device of having an imaginary conversation with her dog (as if Lily can speak English), so she isn't delivering a hard message to the reader, as having a warm fluffy animal in the mix can add feelings of comfort and safety, making the reader relax and be more open to receiving the hard-hitting points, because "cute doggie appeal, aww." It's a good psychological play, and some moments between them are sweet. I talk to my animals, too. I think Lily the dog should be here, but not as much as the author had included her in the book.
Some of the moments felt really strange, or even made me cringe a little. The last few chapters of the book are narrated by her dead dog, as if Lily is speaking from heaven. I skipped those chapters because they were basically the author inserting her thoughts and perspectives into Lily instead of just telling the reader directly. One part, the author put peanut butter on her lips so that Lily would come and lick her for a kiss; I'm not sure how to feel about that.
Additionally, Irshad says we need to be open to other perspectives. To see others who don't agree with us as human beings with their own individual stories. That we should try to understand, teach, negotiate, and even interact with those who might be hateful, to change their perspective in a non-confrontational way. Yes, I agree (and she clarifies, that this doesn't mean letting hate or bigotry go unchecked) but gives new ways to deal with certain scenarios that create real change.
Irshad begins to lean into this, but then withdraws and treats the other side like they are dumb and mean and if you just talk to them, they'll change. There isn't much positive representation in this book of "that other side" to contrast her own party and perspective. A lot of it serves to reinforce stereotypes, as much as I could tell the author was trying to be fair and neutral (a good and wholesome effort, which is appreciated). It still seemed slightly patronizing when she looks down on the "other team" and cites niche examples on why she is correct; this would have worked if she didn't only use examples where the other side needs you to "be nice to them when they are hateful, but remove yourself if it gets bad."
For example, she calls out the very real phenomenon of politicians' words, speeches, situations, or clips being cut and reframed to push a certain narrative. Or context is missing to influence the audience to think a certain way, all true. But she only shows how it affects her party? Irshad doesn't stop to consider that her "team" does the same to the other side?
Again, she had good experiences with people on the other political wing and puts an example or two of doing good, but these examples are often on small things, and where the good deed or thought is still on the lesser and less logical, less rational opinion of the matter. In this way, she backtracks, not quite reaching what she's trying to get at. It was like 85% negative and 15% good; instead of 50%/50%. I'm not saying don't tell things like they are. Nor can anyone truly rid themselves 100% of their subjective view, as her personal experiences are true and she calls the other side out on their crap, as she should. However, it was clear to me the author was repeating a lot of her party's talking points and biases towards the opposite political team, telling the reader "what they think and feel" from her perspective instead of learning in depth what they are actually thinking and feeling.
In reality, the left is set up to critique the right, and the right also critiques the left, each trying to convince their audience why you should side with them (and get your vote). Originally, this was supposed to bring a balanced perspective, with the thought that the audience decides after hearing each side give their argument. Each party makes their points and policies seem like a great solution, presenting you with a pitch, or an example of how they would make changes to the country (America).
But today, any critique from the opposing party means "the other team doesn't care about the pain of humans suffering and or, wants to obstruct us from making change." This is followed by attempts to cancel, shut down, or remove this "threat," leading to a lot of broken and fractured relationships. It's a black and white way of thinking, the US vs THEM idea that Irshad was critiquing, one I've frequently said, even before this. Those who do not fall for the toxic game, or tribalism sucking tornado are typically much more informed, happier, and have a more balanced perspective on life. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and it's recommended to watch, read, and listen to both sides and engage with opposite media equally to get the full picture. This is hard to do if all your life you've only been exposed to one party and have only surrounded yourself with those who share your same opinions and beliefs (and never questioned it, or bothered to check out what the opposition has to say). The idea behind this is "I already know what they are thinking and saying," filtering everything the other party does through their own political lens. This is dangerous, and unfortunately, all too common.
All in all, this book had some really enjoyable chapters and points, such as the fact that humans get a dopamine hit when someone agrees with us; how very interesting! Other parts I felt weren't as enjoyable. Do I recommend this book? That depends on what you're looking for. I think it's a solid and good effort by Irshad to bring unity, and that sentiment will always be applauded by me.
After purchasing her book, I was privileged to receive a personalized and signed message. I wish I could post a picture of it here. The text version will have to do. The author wrote, "Dear Leanne, thank you for thinking! Love Irshad. 02/27/2023" I'm so thankful to have met her, even if only once.
That being said, I do have critique for this book, even though I respect Irshad greatly. I don't share some of her political stances on certain issues. However, even if I disagree with some political stances, or points of a book, l still often read them. A balanced perspective, and a well-informed one, will give me advantage in sharing my perspective if I know how my opposition thinks, and they will feel more respected if I give them a listening ear. This in turn, will open their mind to hear my ideas as well; they will feel less antagonized. Plus, I'll learn more and my own beliefs and misconceptions will be challenged, which is good.
This is the premise of the book, one I agreed with and a sentiment I already held, although Irshad delivers it in a way that's not always clear, as she uses a lot of unclear wording and muddy metaphors at times.
This perspective from a Queer, Muslim Immigrant was intriguing, and I felt this book gave me a whole new perspective that was sorely needed. Irshad makes a lot of strong points in this book that I felt myself nodding along to, such as when discussing confirmation bias, echo chambers, reacting with rational empathy instead of tribal confrontation, how listening gets others to listen back, which is quite true and backed up by a lot of science. To discard the "I'm right, you're wrong," realm of thought, as it convinces no one. Irshad takes great strides to make sure she's got the facts. I learned a lot and I was grateful to see into her world and perspective. Irshad shares a lot of personal things and I applaud her vulnerability, and ability to admit when she's wrong. Moreover, I think she critiques well and sheds light on hatred and bias, citing her own life experiences as examples.
The bit about her experience through customs when trying to cross the border and her scary experience with being misjudged and unfairly treated revealed a lot. She was "darned if she did, darned if she didn't;" Irshad had no say on the matter. It was an informational, personal, and educational section; it's unfortunately a common experience that a lot of immigrants face. I'm glad it worked out for her, but she indeed makes it a point to say that others aren't so lucky. All good material to make her points.
However, moving onto critique: A lot of this book focuses on the author's dog, Lily. I understand, as a fellow pet owner, the love we have for our animals. The author feels Lily inspired her to sit and think a lot about these issues. By learning to overcome her fear of dogs, Lily opened Irshad's perspective to a new way of thought and how Lily defied her labels as an old blind dog. This is used as a political allegory, to some extent.
Furthermore, I understand that Irshad is using the device of having an imaginary conversation with her dog (as if Lily can speak English), so she isn't delivering a hard message to the reader, as having a warm fluffy animal in the mix can add feelings of comfort and safety, making the reader relax and be more open to receiving the hard-hitting points, because "cute doggie appeal, aww." It's a good psychological play, and some moments between them are sweet. I talk to my animals, too. I think Lily the dog should be here, but not as much as the author had included her in the book.
Some of the moments felt really strange, or even made me cringe a little. The last few chapters of the book are narrated by her dead dog, as if Lily is speaking from heaven. I skipped those chapters because they were basically the author inserting her thoughts and perspectives into Lily instead of just telling the reader directly. One part, the author put peanut butter on her lips so that Lily would come and lick her for a kiss; I'm not sure how to feel about that.
Additionally, Irshad says we need to be open to other perspectives. To see others who don't agree with us as human beings with their own individual stories. That we should try to understand, teach, negotiate, and even interact with those who might be hateful, to change their perspective in a non-confrontational way. Yes, I agree (and she clarifies, that this doesn't mean letting hate or bigotry go unchecked) but gives new ways to deal with certain scenarios that create real change.
Irshad begins to lean into this, but then withdraws and treats the other side like they are dumb and mean and if you just talk to them, they'll change. There isn't much positive representation in this book of "that other side" to contrast her own party and perspective. A lot of it serves to reinforce stereotypes, as much as I could tell the author was trying to be fair and neutral (a good and wholesome effort, which is appreciated). It still seemed slightly patronizing when she looks down on the "other team" and cites niche examples on why she is correct; this would have worked if she didn't only use examples where the other side needs you to "be nice to them when they are hateful, but remove yourself if it gets bad."
For example, she calls out the very real phenomenon of politicians' words, speeches, situations, or clips being cut and reframed to push a certain narrative. Or context is missing to influence the audience to think a certain way, all true. But she only shows how it affects her party? Irshad doesn't stop to consider that her "team" does the same to the other side?
Again, she had good experiences with people on the other political wing and puts an example or two of doing good, but these examples are often on small things, and where the good deed or thought is still on the lesser and less logical, less rational opinion of the matter. In this way, she backtracks, not quite reaching what she's trying to get at. It was like 85% negative and 15% good; instead of 50%/50%. I'm not saying don't tell things like they are. Nor can anyone truly rid themselves 100% of their subjective view, as her personal experiences are true and she calls the other side out on their crap, as she should. However, it was clear to me the author was repeating a lot of her party's talking points and biases towards the opposite political team, telling the reader "what they think and feel" from her perspective instead of learning in depth what they are actually thinking and feeling.
In reality, the left is set up to critique the right, and the right also critiques the left, each trying to convince their audience why you should side with them (and get your vote). Originally, this was supposed to bring a balanced perspective, with the thought that the audience decides after hearing each side give their argument. Each party makes their points and policies seem like a great solution, presenting you with a pitch, or an example of how they would make changes to the country (America).
But today, any critique from the opposing party means "the other team doesn't care about the pain of humans suffering and or, wants to obstruct us from making change." This is followed by attempts to cancel, shut down, or remove this "threat," leading to a lot of broken and fractured relationships. It's a black and white way of thinking, the US vs THEM idea that Irshad was critiquing, one I've frequently said, even before this. Those who do not fall for the toxic game, or tribalism sucking tornado are typically much more informed, happier, and have a more balanced perspective on life. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and it's recommended to watch, read, and listen to both sides and engage with opposite media equally to get the full picture. This is hard to do if all your life you've only been exposed to one party and have only surrounded yourself with those who share your same opinions and beliefs (and never questioned it, or bothered to check out what the opposition has to say). The idea behind this is "I already know what they are thinking and saying," filtering everything the other party does through their own political lens. This is dangerous, and unfortunately, all too common.
All in all, this book had some really enjoyable chapters and points, such as the fact that humans get a dopamine hit when someone agrees with us; how very interesting! Other parts I felt weren't as enjoyable. Do I recommend this book? That depends on what you're looking for. I think it's a solid and good effort by Irshad to bring unity, and that sentiment will always be applauded by me.
May 18, 2019
The premise for this book is interesting, to say the least. The author has a conversation with her dog, Lily, as a way to promote discussion about diversity of thought, tribes, and discord. As hokey as this sounds, it's a useful literary device because it allows the author to both acknowledge and deflect knee jerk criticism of her arguments.
The thesis of this book is that in order to bridge the current political divide that affects this country, we need to talk to each other sincerely and with an open mind. Humans like to put labels on people (privileged, racist, sexist, etc.). The author's point is that we fail to understand each other as human beings if we do that (the corollary being that you are far more willing to draw quick and unfortunate conclusions about people if you see them as labels and not people). Her goal is to encourage people to have the moral courage to seek to understand the other side's viewpoint, not for purposes of conversion but for greater understanding. In other words, acknowledging that, as I like to say, "Reasonable minds can disagree."
This is a thought-provoking and thoughtful book. If you like dogs, it's an especially entertaining read as well. Well worth the time to read!
The thesis of this book is that in order to bridge the current political divide that affects this country, we need to talk to each other sincerely and with an open mind. Humans like to put labels on people (privileged, racist, sexist, etc.). The author's point is that we fail to understand each other as human beings if we do that (the corollary being that you are far more willing to draw quick and unfortunate conclusions about people if you see them as labels and not people). Her goal is to encourage people to have the moral courage to seek to understand the other side's viewpoint, not for purposes of conversion but for greater understanding. In other words, acknowledging that, as I like to say, "Reasonable minds can disagree."
This is a thought-provoking and thoughtful book. If you like dogs, it's an especially entertaining read as well. Well worth the time to read!
November 24, 2019
Great read for engaging with people who disagree with you. I especially appreciated the practical steps as well. 4 stars because there are some problematic definitions of identity, critical theories, so I recommend not relying on those parts and doing your own research to get accurate info. It also focuses a lot on the individual and individualism. I don't know if the author considered and rejected or just doesn't know about ecological forces. I probably would have rated this with 5 stars if that had been part of the analysis. I say that because I found the book seems power evasive in that way - ignoring how social systems have constant interactions with individuals in different ways depending on their identity and experiences - I just don't see how they can be detangled. The author doesn't provide a convincing argument that they can. The author does mention power and privilege, but I was not impressed - it did not seem like a sophisticated understanding of how these concepts work in the U.S. Otherwise this book has pushed me to think twice before prejudicing people who have opposing viewpoints and encouraged me to be more humble and be encouraged to engage in hard conversations.
April 21, 2019
Good ideas, ruined by what may be the most annoying writing style I've ever encountered. I endured it but by the end I was literally questioning the wisdom offered. Really hard to take these ideas seriously when the author confuses dog ownership with parenting, complete with horrible puns and nonstop cutesy dog stuff (like pushing her dog around in a baby stroller), that, I'm guessing, some dog owners must really like? At first I thought the talking dog mechanism was a brilliant vehicle, but it was overused so much so that now I think the author was just making herself feel better at the reader's expense. Perhaps her other books are better - I'm not going to risk it - but if you're interested in this author, maybe try a different book.
July 15, 2020
This is a must read book that covers heavy topics by injecting puns and humor. While some reviews mentioned a dislike the choice to present everything via a conversation between the author and her dog, I found it to be different, enjoyable, and necessary. The story of the author growing to love her dog after not liking them is as important as the powerful stories about her mother and the many others.
The overarching goal is summed up in this quote: “To engage and enlarge our Us. That’s about as revolutionary as it gets.” We must break down Us vs. Them because we are all plurals. It’s time we embrace that and celebrate that. We grow through honest, open conversations.
I HIGHLY recommend this book!
The overarching goal is summed up in this quote: “To engage and enlarge our Us. That’s about as revolutionary as it gets.” We must break down Us vs. Them because we are all plurals. It’s time we embrace that and celebrate that. We grow through honest, open conversations.
I HIGHLY recommend this book!
May 1, 2019
This book is the second most important book to understanding what is going on in America these days. I think it is extremely insightful, interesting, and brave. People, especially those who are politically engaged, NEED to read this.
I did, however, feel that the conversational motif, puns, and even sound effects in the audiobook reduced the quality of the ideas. Perhaps for a more hostile audience they made it more approachable, but as someone who agrees with what Irshad had to say, I felt it dumbed down the presentation and weakened it.
I agree with the Areo review as well
https://areomagazine.com/2019/05/01/i...
I did, however, feel that the conversational motif, puns, and even sound effects in the audiobook reduced the quality of the ideas. Perhaps for a more hostile audience they made it more approachable, but as someone who agrees with what Irshad had to say, I felt it dumbed down the presentation and weakened it.
I agree with the Areo review as well
https://areomagazine.com/2019/05/01/i...
July 5, 2019
Don't Label Me is a insightful, compassionate and intelligent plea for the courage to treat one another as human beings. Irshad's vulnerability and honesty drew me in far deeper and more quickly than I anticipated it would. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
As for the storytelling device of the conversations with her dog, which other reviewers have taken issue with, I found it surprisingly helpful and effective. It demonstrated, throughout the book, exactly how to put into practice what she is advocating for.
Bravo.
As for the storytelling device of the conversations with her dog, which other reviewers have taken issue with, I found it surprisingly helpful and effective. It demonstrated, throughout the book, exactly how to put into practice what she is advocating for.
Bravo.
March 21, 2021
I gave this book one star based on the goodreads rating system. I didn’t finish it and don’t intend to. Problematic rhetoric and essentially is just trying to push “colorblindness” which I think is standardly known now as inappropriate. Sure, everyone has their own baggage, but this book completely minimizes the experience of being a person of color in the U.S. I tried to join a study group for this book, which was full of “well-meaning white people.” Frankly, I think this book did a lot more harm than good because it fed into the idea of “no labels” and “treating everyone the same.”
May 3, 2019
One may not always agree with her ideas, but the charming, self evaluation that Manji offers in this discussion of our current political climate with her equally charming dog, Lil, was a true winner for me. It was a refreshing take on the world and one that I absolutely understood and enjoyed. I feel that I will take much of what she offers and use it forward in my own discussions with people on all sides.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews