The larger question the author should be addressing, however, is the delicate relationship between politics and history-writing in general. Politics are not confined to identity politics, and so the task of accurate, evidence-based scholarship does not meet its difficulties solely among racial minorities in the U.S.

And anyhow, can we expect straight white males to regularly write the histories of lesbian black females as capable of diversity and action? That is, if they even found such a perspective respectable and worth writing about. Where there is work, there are errors.

This is where I am lost with regard to the argument. If the accepted history is loaded with inaccuracies and omissions, then how does one go about producing this “true history” to either bind into the ‘mainstream’ history or to form an alternative history, etc.

The problem seems to be in regarding there being such a thing as a “true history”. To me, that’s like adding ‘true things’ to a fairytale, you will never make the fairytale true no matter what. All that can be added are more inaccuracies and omissions, as each history of suffering is sure to run into the vexed issue of who they in turn have made to suffer.

Also, surely suffering entails the destruction of history, culture, etc, so many times, what is being advocated is that the history of history being destroyed is acknowledged. That seems more plausible, and often research and investigation can bring lost things to light.

But I’m still going to buy your book.
:)