comes had personal and not societal benefits during the first half of the twentieth century. Since litigants had to show “weakness and inferiority,” they inadvertently reinforced the Lost Cause and white supremacist racial attitudes (p. 123). Despite this shift, the courts gave them an avenue in fraud and personal injury suits. Since fraud had clear ways to either prove or dismiss, these cases required coaching as well as “choreographed performances to strengthen their cases” (p. 136). “By representing themselves as lacking power,” Milewski concludes that African Americans’ legal rights “had not been completely wrested away” (p. 143). Litigants also found success with personal injury suits. Although emphasizing their vulnerability, success led to increased safety measures and made later cases difficult to pursue. In her last major chapter, Milewski shows howWorld War I, the Great Depression, the Great Migration and World War II influenced African Americans’ use of the courts to make broader societal claims in pursuing personal economic justice. Between 1921 and 1950, the types of cases expanded to include insurance, damages, contracts, education, and racial discrimination. Tactics also shifted. Litigants now challenged Jim Crow violence, intimidation, and even racial discrimination; in the Chaires v. City of Atlanta (1926) case, black barbers successfully demonstrated that a city ordinance limiting their white clientele violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights. Milewski contrasts these ordinary African American litigants with NAACP-endorsed litigants, who saw their cases as direct challenges to overturn the entire Jim Crow system. While these cases overshadow those of ordinary black litigants, she persuasively demonstrates that these cases over personal economic matters “were just as radical and significant as cases focused on civil rights that gained the nation’s attention” (p. 190). Throughout Litigating Across the Color Line, Melissa Milewski displays mastery over her sources. She brings both drama and weight to her claims with the unfolding of the specific cases introduced in the opening chapter vignettes. While it might seem that Milewski overstates the success of the litigants, her detailed tables and use of sources reveal otherwise. Though the legalese might prove inaccessible at times, this work is a worthy addition for both graduate students and scholars interested in African American legal history.

中文翻译：

---

亨利乔治与不平等危机：镀金时代的进步与贫困

在 20 世纪上半叶，它具有个人而非社会利益。由于诉讼当事人必须表现出“软弱和自卑”，他们在不经意间强化了“失落的原因”和白人至上主义的种族态度（第 123 页）。尽管发生了这种转变，法院还是为他们提供了提起欺诈和人身伤害诉讼的途径。由于欺诈有明确的证明或驳回方法，因此这些案件需要指导以及“精心设计的表演以加强他们的案件”（第 136 页）。“通过将自己表现为缺乏权力，”米莱夫斯基总结说，非裔美国人的合法权利“并没有被完全剥夺”（第 143 页）。诉讼当事人还通过人身伤害诉讼取得了成功。尽管强调了他们的脆弱性，但成功导致了安全措施的增加，并使以后的案件难以追查。在她的最后一个主要章节中，Milewski 展示了第一次世界大战、大萧条、大迁徙和第二次世界大战如何影响非裔美国人利用法院在追求个人经济正义方面提出更广泛的社会要求。从 1921 年到 1950 年，案件类型扩大到包括保险、损害赔偿、合同、教育和种族歧视。战术也发生了变化。诉讼当事人现在挑战 Jim Crow 的暴力、恐吓，甚至种族歧视；在 Chaires v. City of Atlanta (1926) 案中，黑人理发师成功证明限制其白人客户的城市法令侵犯了他们的第十四修正案权利。Milewski 将这些普通的非裔美国诉讼当事人与 NAACP 认可的诉讼当事人进行了对比，后者将他们的案件视为推翻整个 Jim Crow 系统的直接挑战。虽然这些案件掩盖了普通黑人诉讼人的案件，但她有说服力地证明，这些涉及个人经济事务的案件“与引起全国关注的公民权利案件一样激进和重要”（第 190 页）。在跨越色线的诉讼过程中，梅丽莎·米莱夫斯基 (Melissa Milewski) 展示了对她的来源的掌握。随着开篇小插曲中介绍的具体案例的展开，她为自己的主张带来了戏剧性和分量。虽然 Milewski 似乎夸大了诉讼当事人的成功，但她的详细表格和对资料来源的使用表明并非如此。尽管法律术语有时可能难以理解，但对于对非裔美国法律史感兴趣的研究生和学者来说，这项工作是值得的。她有说服力地证明，这些涉及个人经济事务的案件“与引起全国关注的公民权利案件一样激进和重要”（第 190 页）。在跨越色线的诉讼过程中，梅丽莎·米莱夫斯基 (Melissa Milewski) 展示了对她的来源的掌握。随着开篇小插曲中介绍的具体案例的展开，她为自己的主张带来了戏剧性和分量。虽然 Milewski 似乎夸大了诉讼当事人的成功，但她的详细表格和对资料来源的使用表明并非如此。尽管法律术语有时可能难以理解，但对于对非裔美国法律史感兴趣的研究生和学者来说，这项工作是值得的。她有说服力地证明，这些涉及个人经济事务的案件“与引起全国关注的公民权利案件一样激进和重要”（第 190 页）。在跨越色线的诉讼过程中，梅丽莎·米莱夫斯基 (Melissa Milewski) 展示了对她的来源的掌握。随着开篇小插曲中介绍的具体案例的展开，她为自己的主张带来了戏剧性和分量。虽然 Milewski 似乎夸大了诉讼当事人的成功，但她的详细表格和对资料来源的使用表明并非如此。尽管法律术语有时可能难以理解，但对于对非裔美国法律史感兴趣的研究生和学者来说，这项工作是值得的。