LAUSR

lished in the Ruth Simms Hamilton African Diaspora Series (and Odamtten references Hamilton’s idea of “global Africa” [2] though this is seemingly at odds with his insistence that Blyden be labeled an African instead of diasporan), Odamtten’s book would have benefitted from more attention to the complexities of what it means to claim Africanity. Of particular interest to readers of Church History, Odamtten argues that diasporic Ethiopianism is one of the beliefs that Blyden reconsidered and ultimately abandoned in favor of a West African–inspired alternative. Odamtten explains that Ethiopianism is frequently understood “as the Afro-Christian belief or sentiment among African diasporans, especially blacks in the United States, that their enslavement in the Americas was God’s providential plan for Africa to experience a renaissance” because “African American returnees to Africa . . . having experienced Western culture, had been divinely ordained to civilize and Christianize their native kin” (43). Though Blyden went to Liberia believing that he was part of this prodigal civilizing and Christianizing movement, his research on Islam in West Africa—and particularly his observation that the “Africanization of Islam” made it more conducive to “the regeneration of the African Personality” (135)—led him to advocate for the development of an indigenous West African Christian church, which “reflected African idiosyncrasies in fashion, language, liturgy, music, and worship” (18). Odamtten, therefore, argues that Blyden “inspired” or “spearheaded” (44) “West African Ethiopianism,” though he fails to provide a definition of what this involved as a theory, only saying that it is “an anticolonialist critique of European Christian paternalism as well as European cultural hegemony” (166). Again, here Odamtten is trapped in the bind of focusing on what Blyden’s work is against (colonialism, European paternalism, and cultural hegemony) and not exploring what it was for. One of my primary criticisms of Odamtten’s book is that—as I have alluded to— Odamtten frequently makes claims without earning them. His writing lacks a clear scaffolding of the necessary evidence to support his arguments. He writes repetitively, returning to the same points without increasing the depth of analysis, and though he provides examples, they are often not explicated or analyzed. And, finally, I would be remiss if I did not call out that there are instances of problematic language in the book. For example, Odamtten says that Blyden “was comfortable in both advanced and modest societies and groups” (4) and he gives photographs the minimalist caption “Indigenous Liberians” without any date or context (50–51)—both of which reinforce colonial notions of a timeless, barbaric Africa in contrast to a modern, civilized West.