Popular Culture Review Vol. 17, No. 1, Winter 2006 | Page 98

94 Popular Culture Review Reese mentions several of the icons (in brief) in earlier chapters. Nevertheless, the reader is left with far too many unanswered questions and a desire for a more directed analysis of the “Black Icons” portion of Reese’s survey. Though Reese states that he found no “significant disparities in responses between regions,” one is left to wonder if that would be so if the survey were distributed in the Northeast corridor, or in the Midwest, or in the Plains. David Robinson and Mike Tyson could not be more different in their backgrounds and in their public personas, and yet they are separated by a paltry seven-tenths of a point in terms of their “fakeness,” with Tyson more often categorized as “fake.” Reese concludes that young black men far too frequently (and to negative ends) embrace the gangsta-thug image as representative of black manhood. Given this, one would expect that Mike Tyson would be categorized as “real.” In this case, B does not necessarily follow A. What conclusion, if any, can be drawn from this? The data’s perplexity leaves the reader wanting more. American Paradox focuses on black masculinity—how it is narrowly defined and the necessity to expand that definition. Reese’s critique is not limited to how others perceive that masculinity but rather places great importance on the black male’s embrace of that definition. Reese posits that black maleness is defined externally; he argues that manhood should be defined internally: according to the content of one’s character. He warns that “black men who enthusiastically embrace the narrowly constructed stereotypes of black masculinity will continue to be degraded, victimized, and oppressed” (58). American Paradox is an appeal to acknowledge the problems facing young black men; it is a claim that one cause of those problems derives internally from a skewed notion of black masculinity; it is a warning of continued marginalization in light of this negative self-definition; and lastly, it is a clarion call to “reconstruct and passionately embrace new concepts of black male authenticity” (207). As Reese discusses, black men have always had a prominent place in American society, good or bad. This centrality far too often was a reflection of fear and a desire for dominance. It is also the result of enormous talent, skill, and success (Thurgood Marshall, Colin Powell, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, and Ben Carson, to list a few). As Reese states, “because of his high profile and his systemic vilification, the black man remains the great American Paradox” (206). American Paradox is part of an important struggle: a struggle for the minds, bodies, and spirits of young black men. It is a fight that the nation cannot afford to lose. Sharon Moore, University of Nevada, Las Vegas