Gift Guide

Redress for Historical Injustices in the United States: On Reparations for Slavery, Jim Crow, and Their Legacies [NOOK Book]


An exceptional resource, this comprehensive reader brings together primary and secondary documents related to efforts to redress historical wrongs against African Americans. These varied efforts are often grouped together under the rubric ?reparations movement,? and they are united in their goal of ?repairing? the injustices that have followed from the long history of slavery and Jim Crow. Yet, as this collection reveals, there is a broad range of opinions as to the form that repair might take. Some advocates of ...
See more details below
Redress for Historical Injustices in the United States: On Reparations for Slavery, Jim Crow, and Their Legacies

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 7.0
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 10.1
  • NOOK HD Tablet
  • NOOK HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK eReaders
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$22.99 price
(Save 34%)$34.95 List Price


An exceptional resource, this comprehensive reader brings together primary and secondary documents related to efforts to redress historical wrongs against African Americans. These varied efforts are often grouped together under the rubric “reparations movement,” and they are united in their goal of “repairing” the injustices that have followed from the long history of slavery and Jim Crow. Yet, as this collection reveals, there is a broad range of opinions as to the form that repair might take. Some advocates of redress call for apologies; others for official acknowledgment of wrongdoing; and still others for more tangible reparations: monetary compensation, government investment in disenfranchised communities, the restitution of lost property and rights, and repatriation.

Written by activists and scholars of law, political science, African American studies, philosophy, economics, and history, the twenty-six essays include both previously published articles and pieces written specifically for this volume. Essays theorize the historical and legal bases of claims for redress; examine the history, strengths, and limitations of the reparations movement; and explore its relation to human rights and social justice movements in the United States and abroad. Other essays evaluate the movement’s primary strategies: legislation, litigation, and mobilization. While all of the contributors support the campaign for redress in one way or another, some of them engage with arguments against reparations.

Among the fifty-three primary documents included in the volume are federal, state, and municipal acts and resolutions; declarations and statements from organizations including the Black Panther Party and the NAACP; legal briefs and opinions; and findings and directives related to the provision of redress, from the Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 to the mandate for the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Redress for Historical Injustices in the United States is a thorough assessment of the past, present, and future of the modern reparations movement.

Contributors. Richard F. America, Sam Anderson, Martha Biondi, Boris L. Bittker, James Bolner, Roy L. Brooks, Michael K. Brown, Robert S. Browne, Martin Carnoy, Chiquita Collins, J. Angelo Corlett, Elliott Currie, William A. Darity, Jr., Adrienne Davis, Michael C. Dawson, Troy Duster, Dania Frank, Robert Fullinwider, Charles P. Henry, Gerald C. Horne, Robert Johnson, Jr., Robin D. G. Kelley, Jeffrey R. Kerr-Ritchie, Theodore Kornweibel, Jr., David Lyons, Michael T. Martin, Douglas S. Massey , Muntu Matsimela , C. J. Munford, Yusuf Nuruddin, Charles J. Ogletree Jr., Melvin L. Oliver, David B. Oppenheimer, Rovana Popoff, Thomas M. Shapiro, Marjorie M. Shultz, Alan Singer, David Wellman, David R. Williams, Eric K. Yamamoto, Marilyn Yaquinto

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

From the Publisher

“A truly impressive achievement in its range of approaches, depth of analysis, and variety of sources, this book should immediately become the definitive text on the subject of reparations for black Americans.”— Charles W. Mills, John Evans Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy, Northwestern University

“It will be far harder to dismiss the deeply resonant and persistent demand for reparations in the wake of this remarkable collection of interdisciplinary research and historical documentation. This monumental work is ideal for teaching how history and policy intersect.”—David Roediger, Kendrick C. Babcock Professor of History, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780822389811
  • Publisher: Duke University Press
  • Publication date: 6/25/2007
  • Sold by: Barnes & Noble
  • Format: eBook
  • File size: 2 MB

Meet the Author

Michael T. Martin is Professor of African American and African Diaspora Studies and Director of the Black Film Center/Archive at Indiana University. He is the editor of New Latin American Cinema and Cinemas of the Black Diaspora and a coeditor of Studies of Development and Change in the Modern World.

Marilyn Yaquinto is Assistant Professor of Communication at Truman State University. She is the author of Pump ‘Em Full of Lead: A Look at Gangsters on Film and a former journalist with the Los Angeles Times.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

Redress for Historical Injustices in the United States

On Reparations for Slavery, Jim Crow, and Their Legacies

Duke University Press

Copyright © 2007 Duke University Press
All right reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-8223-4005-8

Chapter One

Racial Injustices in U.S. History and Their Legacy



This essay concerns the creation of racial hierarchy in the United States, its perpetuation, and its persisting consequences. The "racial junctures" are brief periods of U.S. history in which decisions were made that profoundly affected racial stratification.

When Africans first came to the colonies, they did not enter chattel slavery, for there was no such system; it was created by colonial legislatures. After the War for Independence, the slave system was protected by the new Constitution. After the Civil War, slavery was abolished, but the federal government permitted the reestablishment of racial subjugation.

Racial stratification in the United States was not inevitable, at least in any sense that negates moral responsibility. Alternatives were recognized by those who made the relevant decisions. Satisfactory alternatives would have been difficult to achieve, but that is another matter. Consider a recent case. By the time of the 1942 Wannsee Conference, the Nazi leadership had decided to exterminate Jews, Roma, and others. Alternatives were not seriously considered, but they were understood well enough by the conference participants. The Holocaust was not inevitable, at least in any sense that negates moral responsibility.

It is arguable that a fourth racial juncture occurred in the last third of the twentieth century, when America faced its most promising opportunity to eliminate the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow but left the racial hierarchy substantially undisturbed.

The Creation of Chattel Slavery

In 1619, "20 and odd Negroes" were bought from a Dutch ship in Jamestown. This suggests that the Africans were chattels-that they could be bought and sold, were destined for perpetual servitude, and that their children would suffer the same fate. The Virginia colonists had just learned how to survive and perhaps even prosper-by cultivating tobacco as a cash crop for export. That required laborers. Virginia planters initially relied on European indentured servants, who worked for a period of years in return for their passage to America. But the conditions of servitude were typically harsh and the mortality rate was high enough to discourage some potential servants who had a choice in the matter. Inducements were increased, and the costs of importing servants from Britain rose considerably.

When Britain became a major participant in the slave trade, in the last third of the seventeenth century, the purchase of an African slave began to seem economically more attractive to Virginia planters than the price of a temporary servant. Planters began to substitute slave for indentured labor. The same applies to Maryland, where tobacco could likewise be cultivated profitably. Before long, the Carolinas, where conditions favored rice and indigo plantations, likewise imported substantial numbers of African slaves.

But the reference to "slaves" is misleading. We know from case reports as late as the 1670s that some Africans worked as indentured servants and could use colonial courts to enforce their contracts and to secure compensation for service beyond the contractual period. That would not have been possible if the Africans had been chattel slaves.

Unlike Spain and Portugal, Britain had no laws regulating slavery. But the colonists had the power to enact such laws, for the British colonies began as private ventures chartered by the Crown. As royal domains, they were not subject to parliamentary control until the middle of the eighteenth century. They were free to create their own laws, subject only to a Crown veto. And neither the Crown nor, later, Parliament was motivated to interfere with slavery in the colonies, whose economies engaged the British in very profitable activities, including the slave trade itself.

The records of Virginia legislation imply even more clearly that the legal framework of chattel slavery did not exist for most of the colony's first few decades but was constructed during the last third of the seventeenth century. Here are some of the principal measures:

1. The Virginia legislature began the process with its 1662 enactment "that all children borne in this country shalbe held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother." This represents a deliberate departure from the common law. It had been decided that servitude for Africans would be inheritable.

2. As a result of prior contact with Europeans, some Africans had been baptized, and Christian doctrine made them ineligible for enslavement. There was uncertainty among the Protestant churches as to whether the baptism of someone who was already a slave had the same effect. That helps to explain a Virginia enactment of 1667 "that the conferring of baptisme doth not alter the condition of the person as to his bondage or freedome." This permitted both the continued enslavement of someone after baptism and the enslavement of Africans who became Christians before they arrived in America.

3. For masters, discipline of Africans who were held in servitude without indentures presented a problem. The extension of servitude was a punishment available against indentured servants but not against those who served for life. The Virginia legislature addressed the issue in a 1668 enactment by permitting the most severe corporal punishments for those whose servitude could not be extended: "If any slave resists his master ... and by the extremity of the correction should chance to die, ... his death shall not be accompted ffelony, but the master ... be acquit from molestation, since it cannot be presumed that prepensed malice (which alone makes murther ffelony) should induce any man to destroy his owne estate." This gave masters maximum control over those held in lifetime bondage and adds another constituent of chattel slavery.

4. In 1682, the Virginia legislature addressed the racial dimension of chattel slavery in America by declaring "that all servants ... imported into this country ... whether Negroes, Moores, Mollattoes or Indians, who and whose parentage and native country are not christian at the time of their first purchase of such servant by some christian ... shall be ... slaves to all intents and purposes, any law, usage or custome to the contrary notwithstanding." Lifetime, inheritable slavery was for people of color, and only them. The Virginia legislature was creating a racially differentiated, two-tier labor system.

Colonial records indicate that, prior to this legislation, economic and social stratification had not been tightly color-coded. Marriages with European Americans were not uncommon. Some African servants, including slaves, secured their own freedom, became independent farmers, and joined communities of free African Americans or were recognized as members of racially mixed communities.

Most of the early African immigrants came from the west coast of Africa, where for a century and a half there had been considerable contact with Europeans, and many had been in other European colonies prior to Virginia. They differed from most who came during the height of the slave trade to North America, who came mainly from the African interior and were unfamiliar with Europeans, their language, or their culture. Many of the early arrivals knew the ways of Europeans, and many had already been converted to Christianity.

There has been some dispute among historians concerning cause-and-effect relations between chattel slavery and white racist attitudes. My point here is that, despite notions of white superiority among some portion of the European American population, it was initially neither assumed nor ordained that people of color should become a rigidly subjugated caste. Those who shaped the direction of the colony decided to color-code the social system. I want now to suggest a factor that may have encouraged that decision.

In seventeenth-century Virginia, servants from Europe and Africa cooperated in many settings. They worked together, shared living conditions and grievances, and ran away from bondage together. In 1676, they joined together in Bacon's Rebellion. Many landless whites and blacks hoped to gain land by dispossessing Native Americans. Bacon promised freedom to black slaves, who were especially affected by developments in public policy. Colonial legislation was dampening their hopes for freedom and reducing their conditions generally. The rebels opposed the governing elite, who already possessed considerable land and wanted peaceful relations with the neighboring Indians. The rebels forced the governor to flee Jamestown, which they burned to the ground. British troops crossed the Atlantic to put down the rebellion, which faltered when Bacon fell ill and died.

Bacon's Rebellion was not the first uprising against the colonial elite, but it was undoubtedly the most threatening rebellion prior to the 1770s. The experience may well have contributed to the determination of those who shaped colonial policies to drive a wedge between whites and blacks. By forcing servants of color to the bottom of a race-based social system, they accorded relative privilege, dignity, and opportunity to those with white skins. In 1682, shortly after Bacon's Rebellion, as we have seen, the Virginia legislature consigned people of color to slavery.

5. To cement the system and decrease effective opposition to the colonial elite, it was deemed necessary to do more. In 1691, the Virginia legislature banned interracial marriages and procreation. This measure was not universally approved by the white community and was opposed by some of its propertied members. The same enactment sanctioned the killing of runaway slaves, restricted severely the freeing of slaves, and required that freed slaves be transported out of the colony at the owner's expense. Blacks were to occupy the bottom caste, identified with slavery.

These efforts achieved some measure of success. In subsequent years, as European Americans were acculturated in a system that consigned African Americans to the bottom and penalized fraternization, they were encouraged to believe that the social hierarchy had a valid foundation.

In sum, the system of chattel slavery that developed in Virginia was not inevitable. For several decades, social mobility was possible even for African servants, who might acquire economic independence and respected social status. Faced with this prospect and that of a unified laboring class, the ruling elite imposed a racial caste system.

The Legal Entrenchment of Slavery

Until it was abolished by ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, slavery was not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. But several provisions were understood by the framers and later by state and federal officials to refer to slavery. Following are the clearest examples.

The three-fifths clause provided that representation in Congress "shall be apportioned among the several States ... according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons." Indentured servants were expressly included in the category of "free persons" and Native Americans were excluded from the apportionment, so that only those in lifelong, hereditary slavery occupied the category "other persons." While suffrage was denied slaves, their numbers contributed to slave owners' influence within the federal government-not only in Congress but also in the executive branch (as the electoral college reflected congressional representation) and the federal judiciary (selected by the president).

The slave trade provisions prevented Congress for twenty years from banning "the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" and exempted this provision from amendment for the same period.

The fugitive slave clause provided for the return of "person[s] held to service or labour" to those "to whom such service or labour may be due"; it was understood to concern runaway slaves. After a fugitive slave act was enacted in 1793, persons accused of trying to escape from slavery or of aiding them were prosecuted in the courts.

The constitutional accommodation of chattel slavery seems to clash with the doctrine of universal human rights that a decade earlier was invoked to justify the colonial rebellion. The contradiction had frequently been noted, especially by friends of the American rebels when the latter complained of being reduced to "slaves" by Crown or Parliament.

In his Dred Scott opinion, Chief Justice Roger Taney denied there was any contradiction. According to Taney, the founders never dreamed of including people of African descent within the body politic. Africans "had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." Furthermore, "This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute."

Taney was mistaken. At the very time chattel slavery was being established, in the late seventeenth century, objections to it were being publicly expressed in America. In the eighteenth century, antislavery sentiment was disseminated in print and from the pulpits of various denominations, South as well as North. When the Constitutional Convention was meeting, three northern states had already abolished slavery, three more had enacted gradual emancipation statutes, and three others would follow, as would three of the states that would soon be carved out of the Northwest Territory. This helps to explain why some delegates to the convention from slave states expressed a fear of attacks upon slavery and demanded that slavery be protected.

The Constitution helped to solve that problem. Slavery could be protected by excluding its regulation from the list of enumerated federal powers and ensuring that no power directly implied such an authority. That was done.

The Lower South (Georgia and the Carolinas) had lost many slaves during the war and wanted the slave trade protected. It was worried not only about antislavery agitation but also about Virginia and Maryland, which had a surplus of slaves and opposed their importation. The demand for tobacco had declined, and Chesapeake planters could profit from the internal slave trade if the Constitution protected slavery but permitted the banning of traffic in slaves from abroad. Merely omitting regulation of the slave trade from the list of federal powers would not solve this problem, because northern states wanted the federal government to regulate external commerce, which could include the slave trade. As a compromise, northern delegates accepted the slave trade provision as well as a ban on the taxation of exports (such as the slave states' cash crops).

But no such compromise was involved in the other constitutional accommodations made to slavery. Consider the three-fifths clause. The slave states did not make it a condition for union in the way that delegates from South Carolina insisted upon protections for slavery and the slave trade. Furthermore, the idea of counting slaves for purposes of representation lacked any precedents in Confederation practice or in the slave states themselves, and the three-fifths formula lacked any rationale. The North agreed to it without seeking concessions in return.

The fugitive slave clause was even more readily accepted. It was proposed at the end of the Convention and was subjected to neither bargaining nor debate. Northern delegates would have appreciated that it would rankle both antislavery interests and those who feared federal encroachment upon state autonomy. It, too, was a gift to the South.


Excerpted from Redress for Historical Injustices in the United States Copyright © 2007 by Duke University Press. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Preface 000
Acknowledgments 000
On Redress for Racial Injustice 000
Michael T. Martin and Marilyn Yaquinto
Part 1. Racial Inequality and White Privilege
Racial Injustices in U.S. History and Their Legacy 000
David Lyons
Race Preferences and Race Privileges 000
Michael K. Brown, Martin Carnoy, Elliott Currie, Troy Duster,
David B. Oppenheimer, Marjorie M. Shultz, and David Wellman
A Sociology of Wealth and Racial Inequality 000
Melvin L. Oliver and Thomas M. Shapiro
Part 2. Law, Citizenship, and the State
The Case for Reparations 000
Robert Fullinwider
Toward a Theory of Racial Reparations 000
James Bolner
The Constitutionality of Black Reparations 000
Boris L. Bittker and Roy L. Brooks
The Theory of Restitution: The African American Case 000
Richard America
Reparations to African Americans? 000
J. Angelo Corlett
Part 3. Reparations: Formation and Modes of Redress
"A Day of Reckoning": Dreams of Reparations 000
Robin D. G. Kelley
Forty Acres, or, An Act of Bad Faith 000
Jeffrey R. Kerr-Ritchie
The Economic Basis for Reparations to Black America 000
Robert S. Browne
The Political Economy of Ending Racism and the World Conference against 000
Racism: The Economics of Reparations
William Darity Jr. and Dania Frank
The Rise of the Reparations Movement 000
Martha Biondi
Part 4. Case Studies of Injustice and Intervention
Nineteenth-Century New York City's Complicity with Slavery: Documenting 000
the Case for Reparations
Alan Singer
Railroads, Race, and Reparations 000
Theodore Kornweibel Jr.
Reparations: A Viable Strategy to Address the Enigma of African American 000
David R. Williams and Chiquita Collins
Residential Segregation and Persistent Urban Poverty 000
Douglas S. Massey
Part 5. Mobilizing Strategies
The Politics of Racial Reparations 000
Charles P. Henry
The Case for U.S. Reparations to African Americans 000
Adrienne D. Davis
The Promises and Pitfalls of Reparations 000
Yusuf Nuruddin
Repatriation as Reparations for Slavery and Jim Crow 000
Robert Johnson Jr.
What's Next? Japanese American Redress and African American Reparations 000
Eric K. Yamamoto
The Reparations Movement: An Assessment of Recent and Current Activism 000
Sam Anderson, Muntu Matsimela, and Yusuf Nuruddin
Reparations: Strategic Considerations for Black Americans 000
C. J. Munford
Tulsa Reparations: The Survivors' Story 000
Charles J. Ogletree Jr.
Race for Power: The Global Balance of Power and Reparations 000
Gerald Horne
Section 1. Federal Acts and Resolutions
The Second Confiscation Act (1862) 000
Special Field Orders, No. 15 (1865) 000
Freedmen's Bureau Act (1865) 000
Southern Homestead Act (1866) 000
House Resolution 29 (1867) 000
Civil Liberties Act (1988) 000
House Resolution 356 (2000) 000
House Resolution 40 (2005) 000
Senate Resolution 39 (2005) 000
Senate Resolution 44 (2005) 000
Section 2. State Legislation
Michigan House Bill No. 5562 (2000) 000
California Senate Bill 2199 (2000) 000
California Senate Joint Resolution 1 (2001) 000
Texas House Joint Resolution 25 (2003) 000
Maryland House Joint Resolution 4 (2004) 000
New Jersey African-American Reconciliation Study Commission Act (2003) 000
Section 3. Municipal Resolutions
City of Detroit (1989) 000
City of Chicago (2000) 000
City of San Francisco (2001) 000
City of New York Resolution 41 (2002) 000
City of New York Resolution 219 (2002) 000
District of Columbia (2003) 000
City of New York Resolution 57 (2004) 000
City of New York Resolution 195 (2004) 000
City of Philadelphia (2004) 000
Section 4. Advocacy and Activism
United Negro Improvement Association (1920) 000
"Declaration of the Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World"
Civil Rights Congress (1951) 000
"We Charge Genocide"
Malcolm X (1964) 000
Appeal to African Heads of State
Black Panther Party for Self Defense (1967) 000
What We Want; What We Believe
Republic of New Africa (1968) 000
Declaration of Independence
Black Panther Party (1969) 000
Reparations for Vietnam
National Black Economic Development Conference (1969) 000
The Black Manifesto
National Black Political Agenda (1972) 000
The Gary Declaration
Black Panther Party (1973) 000
Petition to the United Nations
Nation of Islam (1990) 000
A Case for Reparations
Black Radical Congress (1999) 000
The Freedom Agenda
Reparations Support Committee (1999/2000_ ) 000
"To the President of the United States of America"
Randall Robinson, TransAfrica Forum (2000) 000
Restatement of the Black Manifesto
National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (2000_ ) 000
The Reparations Campaign
The NDABA Movement (2004) 000
National Reparations Petition
NAACP (2005) 000
NAACP Supports Reintroduction of Reparations Study Legislation
American Bar Association Recommendation (2006) 000
Episcopal Church (2006) 000
Call for the Episcopal Church to Study Responsibility for Reparations
Section 5. Case Studies of Redress
The White House (1997) 000
Apology for Study Done in Tuskegee
Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 (2000) 000
Mandate for the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2004)
Rosewood Victims v. State of Florida (2004) 000
Special Master's Final Report
Florida Statute 1004.60 (2004) 000
Florida Statute 1009.55 (2004) 000
Section 6. Lawsuits
Timothy Pigford, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Dan Glickman, Secretary, United States
Department of Agriculture, Defendant (1998)
Civil Action Nos. 97_1978, 98_1693 (1999) 000
In re African-American Slave Descendents Litigation (2004) 000
Selected Bibliography 000
Contributors 000
Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

    If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
    Why is this product inappropriate?
    Comments (optional)