While he does not deny that Europeans had racist attitudes toward people in other parts of the World, he would insist that this racism has to be seen in context. In a great deal of sociology, and in the general public as well, racism is seen as the foremost cause of the welfare of minority groups. Considerable research has demonstrated that this is often not the case. How a minority group fares, including how it is treated by other groups, can vary to a greater extent with more structural and conjunctural factors than with levels of racism. This is particularly true of the treatment of minorities by states, both domestically and internationally. Visions of Empire also differs in several ways from most comparative history. First, it contrasts with the tradition of Barrington Moore, in which we find states and social groups (bourgeoisie, landed elites, peasantry, and so on) acting collectively, dominating or clashing with one another, controlling or losing control of the state, and so on. In this book, social groups are replaced by people and states are represented by the actual state agents. For this and other reasons, he achieves the evidential standards of historians as well as those of sociologists. Second, he does not use correlation analysis to explain the evolution of his empires. He highlights similarities and differences among them, but he does not correlate these variables systematically in order to explain the different courses that empires took. Given the connections that he demonstrates among his empires, such an analysis would have been highly problematic. Instead, he traces causal processes and provides intelligent ad hoc explanations for what people did or what they were faced with. His knowledge of world history is impressive. He calls into question not only much of the broader literature on colonialism but also many assertions made about specific empires. He writes well and the discussion is always stimulating, especially when he sets up contrary positions in the literature and uses empirical evidence to evaluate them. And he skillfully pulls together a vast amount of history into a coherent and convincing account that challenges much conventional wisdom.

中文翻译：

---

书评：社会动员、全球资本主义和食物斗争：社会运动的比较研究 MottaRenata，社会动员、全球资本主义和食物斗争：社会运动的比较研究，Routledge：纽约；伦敦，2016 年；190 页。ISBN 9781472479082，160 美元平装本。

虽然他不否认欧洲人对世界其他地区的人持种族主义态度，但他坚持认为必须在上下文中看待这种种族主义。在许多社会学中，在普通大众中，种族主义被视为少数群体福利的首要原因。大量研究表明，情况往往并非如此。少数群体的情况如何，包括其他群体如何对待它，与种族主义程度相比，结构性和结合性因素可能会在更大程度上发生变化。国家在国内和国际上对待少数民族的方式尤其如此。帝国的愿景也与大多数比较历史在几个方面有所不同。首先，它与巴林顿摩尔的传统形成对比，在巴林顿摩尔的传统中，我们发现国家和社会团体（资产阶级、土地精英、农民等）集体行动，相互支配或冲突，控制或失去对国家的控制，等等。在这本书中，社会群体被人取代，国家由实际的国家代理人代表。由于这个原因和其他原因，他达到了历史学家和社会学家的证据标准。其次，他没有使用相关分析来解释他的帝国的演变。他强调了它们之间的异同，但他没有系统地关联这些变量来解释帝国采取的不同路线。考虑到他在他的帝国之间展示的联系，这样的分析会很有问题。反而，他追踪因果过程，并为人们的所作所为或他们所面临的问题提供明智的临时解释。他对世界历史的了解令人印象深刻。他不仅质疑了许多关于殖民主义的更广泛的文献，而且质疑了许多关于特定帝国的断言。他写得很好，讨论总是很刺激，特别是当他在文献中提出相反的立场并使用经验证据来评估它们时。他巧妙地将大量历史汇集到一个连贯而令人信服的叙述中，挑战了许多传统智慧。特别是当他在文献中提出相反的立场并使用经验证据来评估它们时。他巧妙地将大量历史汇集到一个连贯而令人信服的叙述中，挑战了许多传统智慧。尤其是当他在文献中提出相反的立场并使用经验证据来评估它们时。他巧妙地将大量历史汇集到一个连贯而令人信服的叙述中，挑战了许多传统智慧。