way, which is why as a concept it has been so destructive. Thanks for this interview, Paul and Rebecca. Looking forward to reading this--I'll be hassling the Emory librarians to buy it! Something in the interview jumped out at me. Rebecca said: "What I think now, in a nutshell: "race" is a adaptable category that has meant different thing to different people in different places at different times. The ways in which people choose to articulate race, and the ways in which they choose to resist it, are historically contingent. I think in general that Europeans reinvented race each generation to suit their needs for power and domination. That's why I don't think my explanation of an idea of race among Anglo-Virginians excludes the explanation of a scholar who sees the force of the Enlightenment behind late eighteenth-century articulations of race. "Race" is deeply, perversely fungible that way, which is why as a concept it has been so destructive." Now, re-read that paragraph with "religion" in place of "race." It works remarkably well. These terms share an elasticity and historicity that I find fascinating--not to get too religious studies around here. So, yea, really excited to dig into this book. Michael--I actually ended up saying something similar about slavery today (that it meant different things to different people at different times) in the context of a discussion of Orlando Patterson's Slavery and Social Death. Chris--thanks for getting it ordered! I'm surprised William and Mary hadn't already acquired it (I'm told