While I respect and appreciate Kam Williams for reviewing my book, the concepts and analyses of Sovereign Evolution are so voluminous, that I’m perplexed as to why he singled-out a few race-related factors and then categorized them as the sum of the book’s 301 pages. Never do I use the word “separation,” which is an antiquated term, steeped in a “segregated” past that no one wants to revisit. His inference of a “clarion call for separation” and a “divisive dream” is not only unfair to the breadth of my scholarship; it diminishes the value of the sovereign content that the book details in a universal context.
Sovereignty and separation are not politically synonymous or interchangeable. Separation does not equate to acclamations of sovereignty. The contemporary and factual beauty of the book cannot therefore be grasped if one reads it thinking that I’m promoting passe separation or a “Black Nationalist Agenda.” What distinguishes this work is that I uniquely apply the concept and consciousness of sovereignty as an academic lens to examine the African-American plight.
Yes, the book unavoidably encompasses racial issues. But people are racist, not the “concept of sovereignty.” If I removed all references to African Americans and then presented the exact same principles and concepts generically, the book would stand-alone as a laudable resource on sovereign ideals that would not be found cover-to-cover in any other single book.
I don’t expect anyone to agree with everything I write. Kam, however, did not carve (pro or con) into the thematic heart of the book to enable readers to benefit from a true sovereign appraisal. Based on the racist connotations he outlined, one would think the book is “outmoded” rather than “evolutionary” as the title, Sovereign Evolution, implies. But in defending the relevance and intellectual integrity of my work, I challenge and assert that the book sets a necessary 21st-century platform for discourse that leaves no place for racism to hide.