In this book, Scott considers the judgement of history-how we consistently say "never again" after horrific events and rely on history to condemn bad actors of the past. Scott is arguing that the "moral impeccability to the judgment of history" perhaps isn't as solid as many think it is. Using the case studies of the Nuremberg Trials, the Truth and Reconciliation Committee in South Africa, and the case for reparations in the United States, Scott details how history is invoked as a mechanism to absolve current actors for their actions. She writes: "The invocation of history's judgment suggests an external force at work. It is projection in two senses. One psychic: our own wishes attributed outward, in this case to a seemingly extrahuman, necessarily progressive force-History. The other temporal: assessing actions-our own and those of others-from the perspective of an imagined redemptive future that we will have had a hand in creating."

Scott is ultimately arguing that History cannot be the only force working for change. Real, tangible, lasting change can only come about through the present actions of citizens. History can, and should, be used to learn about past injustices, but it cannot carry the full moral weight of absolution.

I gave this book 3 stars because while I love the introduction and conclusion, and the main thesis put forth, the rest of the book read like a historiography to me. There was too little analysis and development of the main idea-judgment of history. But, I think it is a good introductory piece and a great reference for historians.

Thanks to NetGalley for an ARC of this book!