Well, frankly, a "proper" (however one would actually define this) narrative would take far too long, with far too many intricacies, and would be most difficult to explain to adolescents who still have a fairly binary (I thought using the words 'black and white' would have been groan-worthy pun, so...) concept of morality with History. Any professor would have difficulties doing this, so naturally, we have to select what we teach and how. We should move in the direction of showing many of the complexities of the time, as well as some of the "unknown"-known accomplishments of African Americans in the Americas, but I caution with some of the rhetoric sometimes involved. In reality, though, I do not know if the author really is making any groundbreaking work, as the 1960s and 1970s were the revolutionary eras for African American history during our lifetimes.
The problem I have with "eye-opening" history texts (especially ones marketed as such), is that it tends to move the debate disproportionately in one direction or another, seeking shock value rather than careful deliberation. Their importance might stem from somehow giving legitimacy towards making a more carefully deliberated argument that might in some small way agree with the more.....vocal of texts. In academia it is incredibly fashionable to wedge oneself in between one author or another in order to make your mark in the field. It gets incredibly worse when it comes to the competitiveness of the popular history realm...seeking to enlighten the layman with tactics that are meant to induce a level of excitement and drama not present in other texts (even though, I would argue that is to be had in professional historians' works if one simply allows the sophistication of the work to do that magic).
