They are both textbook examples of a false premise. Extremely difficult to refute because by design it's created to immediately incriminate people opposed to it. So no one with any sense opposes, lest they become an anti-anti-racist, which somehow means "racist". It fails the freshman logic course test which tells you all you need to know.
They qualify as garbage. If not because the authors have a clear agenda other than (social) science, but because their cases are based on demonstrably false premises that lead to wild, racist, and absurd conclusions. There is very little difference between these books and the racist books of 100 years ago except the premise was altered and the colors changed. They might belong as a times best seller in today's social battlefield but there is no substance in them besides their inflammatory titles and racist conclusions.
Aren’t you “opposing” in your comment? Wasn’t the first person “opposing” in their comment? Is Fox News, American Thinker, NY Post, The Federalist, and the National Review “opposing” when they write countless articles about this idea and these people?
I think we found the real “false premise”.
https://www.nottinghilleditions.com
https://press.uchicago.edu
http://gaspereau.com (specialty titles, letterpress)
But one thing that annoys me across the board, and especially with bookshop.org, is the constant display of social justice reading lists. I was checking out recently and the whole page was plastered with Robin DiAngelo, X Kendi, Hannah Jones, and a bunch of other "celebrating blackness" titles. As if I am going to add these garbage books to my cart.
I wish bookstores would stop cramming the "reading guides for white people" down our throats. There are so many books out there, so many authors, so many topics you could promote! Let's talk about writers, not just "black writers." Show me some new literature, not just "black literature."
Point me to the book shop that doesn't constantly promote this nonsense and they'll have my money.