A Land Of Our Own: What If Black Lives Matter Got What They Asked For?, by Blue Duck
[Note: This book was provided free of charge by Books Go Social. All thoughts and opinions are my own.]
Sometimes writers who (mistakenly) believe they are writing to friendly audiences will tip their hands in such a way to reveal their biases and perspectives early on. Here, the author reveals it in the very title, assuming that massive transfers of land to create various leftist bantustans within the United States and Canada would be a land of “our” own. Looking in the book, though, I see no such land for me. The author explicitly eschews giving land to religious minorities, thinking that such people have their own land, not realizing that, say, much-maligned Sabbatarian Christians have been persecuted throughout history  and have never had a land of their own, or that giving Amish or Mormon self-government over the areas they currently settle would be no big problem. Be that as it may, the author assumes (wrongly) that the demands of Black Lives Matter, or at least some aspects of that movement, are reasonable, and seeks to reframe the question from one of “racial justice” alone to one of “economic justice” that seeks all kinds of protection for various leftist subaltern groups.
Fortunately, this book is mercifully short at under 30 pages, or I would be in a far less charitable mood concerning this book’s material. After an introduction, the author provides some demands from various groups claiming to represent blacks in their search for reparations and a transfer of property and other forms of wealth from white folks and responds to them as if they were serious and worthwhile political proposals. After this the author gives a loony proposal of providing a city-state under minority self-government and gives some suggestions on how this could be done, closing the book with an almost rapturous utopian view of how life would be like with a left-wing paradise with alternative energy and a consensus-based government where people were reluctant to rule, none of which seems remotely realistic given the history of leftist regimes the world has seen. Presumably, the author intends to talk to an audience of friendly fellow unrealistic leftists who believe that manifestos count for realism and that the reappropriation (read: theft) of other people’s property is a legitimate way for them to overcome their own failures to acquire property and wealth through legitimate means.
That said, the author is not completely ridiculous in looking for a leftist land of their own. Would American society be better off if instead of having leftist enclaves intermixed with general society that they ruled themselves in areas that were hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world? No sane person would want to live in a world where extreme leftist rule was undertaken, and the areas would serve as a utopian social experiment that would show, like the similar experiments in the mid-1800’s, that leftist utopian visionary schemes were bound to fail spectacularly. Hopefully the colossal failures that would result from such efforts would be instructive in removing the threat of creeping socialism from our own republic, as chagrined leftists might adopt more productive means of living and might be permanently discredited as a voice in our republic. One can only hope that the failure of attempts to have a land of their own would discourage them in the future from trying to steal what others have created through productive means, but hoping for moral and mental reformation from leftists appears, sadly, to be as wildly utopian as the author’s own hare-brained schemes.
 See, for example: